What's new

Terrorism spreading like a cancer: PM

Only words no action from this stupid gov! offcourse its spreading like cancer infact worse is it now that they just have waken up i mean seriously this gov needs to take major steps to safeguard the country and the people before talking about unity that will play hand to hand after the gov starts its clean up work of these bastards/cowards lets see wat the gov does!
 
.
Read me on this forum - when have I been a supporter of these ***** or what these scum say is democracy.

Refers to certain Pakistani political parties and politicians and their notion of "democracy"

on a side note : Mother Angel - Ronnie Earl and Riviera Paradise - Stevie Ray Vaughan
 
Last edited:
. .
Depends upon what you call a "refusal".

Are you willing to go after ALL parties involved in terrorism or just the ones that are easier to catch and are you unwilling to catch foreigners involved out of pressure? Today's government is bending over backwards to shield the Indian hand.

Sure 90% of the action has to be taken against the Pakistanis who are traitors and willing to sell off their mamas for a few handouts given to them by our eastern neighbors intelligence agency. But without removing the problem at the source, the Indian consulates, you're pretty much just raking leaves after they've fallen, not chopping off the bad tree from the roots.

U can always blame RAW for terrroism in pakistan.
And talk of an ubiquitous foreign hand may appear after every attack.

But as long as u cant control or change the ideology of young pakistani men who detonate his suicide bomber kit nearer an ex prime minister ,a shia musque, or make commando style terror raid on a cricket teams ,even on civilian centers on foreign soils all in the name of JIHAD ,this terror cancer will spread in to all parts of pakistan and become more dangerous with each passing day.
 
.
U can always blame RAW for terrroism in pakistan.
And talk of an ubiquitous foreign hand may appear after every attack.


and vice-versa!
 
.
U can always blame RAW for terrroism in pakistan.
And talk of an ubiquitous foreign hand may appear after every attack.


and vice-versa!

The day you decide to look beyond RAW and foreign hand. Maybe that day Pakistan can hope to thwart terrorism in their country.
 
.
"Refers to certain Pakistani political parties and politicians and their notion of "democracy"

My humble apology then, sir.:agree: You've been mis-cast and unfairly so by myself.

"on a side note : Mother Angel - Ronnie Earl and Riviera Paradise - Stevie Ray Vaughan"

Here's Ronnie with stevie's older brother-


and, you're correct, a simply stunningly gorgeous display of tone and precise fret control- Riviera Paradise. Doesn't get much prettier. Glad to know that Texas roadhouse blues is alive and well in your heart. Now a lil' barbeque and cold Lone Star or Pearl and you'd be set. Oh! And one good raw (opps!) jalapeno to set you back a bit-

 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
As for the jalapeno, Pakistanis are the original pepper bellies, at least I am. Yeah, That Riviera Paradise is just so pretty thanks again for posting it.:cheers:
 
.
The US is not the only one fed up with our politicians’ inability to deliver, so am I. And what should concern these politicians is that I am not a small minority on this issue. If they continue to fail, we will soon become the majority. [/COLOR][/I][/B]

Well, Well, Brigadier, and you despite knowing Musharraf personally and professionally, even put your signature on a open letter to the "dictator" who tolerated it and responded -- now, you sing a different song, Nawaz, this time?

On the other hand, no one's perfect and it's good to see you are beginning to realize the game of these "politiicans".


Fallout from Manawan
Shaukat Qadir



Within a span of four weeks, we witnessed a second terrorist attack in Lahore. This time, the Police Training School at Munawan was the target. Terrorists — some dressed in police uniforms, others in civilian clothes — stormed the school at 7:20 am on March 30, as the recruits were assembled in the yard for their morning drill. After throwing some grenades and indiscriminate AK-47 fire, they entered the school building, held eighty or so recruits hostage and fought an eight-hour battle before security forces retook the building.

Considering the duration and the weapons involved, casualties were surprisingly low. The dead: eight police recruits; a civilian; and four terrorists, three of whom blew themselves up — again, surprisingly, they did not do so at a time and place where they could have taken a number of hostages along with them. Ninety-three were injured; and one terrorist was captured. All we know about him is that he is an Afghan and claimed to be a Muslim speaking in Urdu before lapsing into (probably) Darri. Two suspects are in custody, being questioned. One wounded terrorist is said to have escaped.

As in the case of the Mumbai attacks last year, when I raised questions that a mere ten individuals could not possibly have attacked nine locations simultaneously, and that it was a matter of certainty that a large number had escaped, along with the hostages they released periodically, I am fairly certain that, even if the two suspects are found guilty, the total number of terrorists involved are likely to be not less than a dozen; implying that at least five escaped.

One can draw some consolation from the fact that within half an hour of the terrorist occupation of the building, security forces had surrounded the place and begun to respond; also that it took them a mere eight hours to recapture the building without any further loss of life of their forces during the action.

Compared to the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team, when our security forces failed miserably and the terrorists escaped unscathed, this was a remarkable performance. As a matter of fact, it would not be surprising in the least that some of the individuals involved in the Manawan attack were also involved in the earlier one on the Sri Lankan team.

Even compared to the Mumbai attacks, when it took Indian security forces sixty-two hours to retake the buildings after suffering a large number of casualties (even making allowances for the larger size of some of the buildings that Indian forces had to retake), this performance of the Pakistani security forces was quite encouraging.

However, once again, as in the case of the March 3 attack, intelligence agencies and even the army corps HQ had issued a warning of the possibility of such attacks. Intelligence agencies had even predicted that police installations would be likely targets! What more does the political administration need to improve security; will anyone ever be held accountable for these lapses?


Interior ministry officials inform us that these buildings are not constructed to cater for terrorist attacks; neither is my house, and my boundary wall is lower than the six-foot wall surrounding the police training centre. Nor can every government building be a fortress. But if I am warned of the possibility of a terrorist attack on my house, I will have the four corners of the boundary wall and the rooftop manned by armed men, and then I would like to see anyone stage such an attack as easily as these terrorists did.

That this attack, like the one on the Sri Lankan team and Mumbai, was very well planned is obvious. It demonstrates that the planner had detailed information, was imaginative and attended to all details. We know that one of the attackers was an Afghan; and we are told that this attack was planned in the tribal areas. Assuming that to be the truth, it is equally obvious that the attackers themselves must also have carried out detailed reconnaissance of the target. If so, some people would have been loitering in the area with nothing to do for some days before the attack.

With a warning of an impending attack, should not these loiterers have aroused suspicion? That is what our security services lack: training in the logical progression of how a criminal mind works, what to be on the lookout for and how to deal with it
. And when warned of such a possibility, never let your guard down until the attack has occurred or the criminals apprehended before they could strike.

Baitullah Mehsud has claimed responsibility for this attack and has threatened two attacks per week from now onwards. Finally, our various political leaders can no longer remain in denial. We know the enemy within; and it is far more dangerous than any without. I have no idea why the US refused to recognise the threat from Baitullah Mehsud to Pakistan and refused to ‘take him out’ when credible information of his location was provided. I can only hope that US and Pakistani forces can learn to trust each other and work together to rid the region of these inhuman terrorists who kill in the belief that they are on the path to heaven.

One thing is certain: this is not the last terrorist attack that we are likely to witness. Such horrible, dastardly events are here to stay for the foreseeable future. That means our intelligence services will need to continue to deliver, at least as well as they have been so far, preferably much better. However, their performance will be useless unless the administration heeds their warnings and security forces measure up to the standards necessary to deal with this scourge.

No wonder Barack Obama links aid to Pakistan to the government’s ability to deliver. The US is not the only one fed up with our politicians’ inability to deliver, so am I. And what should concern these politicians is that I am not a small minority on this issue. If they continue to fail, we will soon become the majority.


This article is a modified version of one originally written for the daily National. The author is a retired brigadier. He is also former vice president and founder of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI)
 
.
Treating Pakistan’s ‘cancer’ —Saleem H Ali

The metaphor of “cancer” is particularly apt for our purposes: highly targeted radiotherapy, analogous to commando-style raids that have yielded important Al Qaeda targets, are essential to kill cancer cells. But excessive radiation (in the form of repeated drone attacks) itself spawns further cancer cells

President Obama’s recent statement on US policy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan had some rather stark superlatives, labelling the border region “the most dangerous place on earth for Americans”, and sharply referring to extremism in Pakistan as a “cancer that could destroy the state”.

If the administration’s diagnosis for an acute malignancy is to be followed, then the response clearly needs to be systemic as well as targeted. Any reputable oncologist will tell you that a symptomatic approach still does not deal with the systemic causes of “cancer clusters” in the first place; that requires far more introspection on behavioural patterns.

The administration appears to be following a path whereby systemic causes of extremism are still being given minor importance in comparison with the larger tough-talk of drone attacks and threats of “no blank cheques”. The cushioning of the tough talk with the incentive of conditional development aid of $1.5 billion per year is also facing greater resistance in Congress, even though this is a relatively small amount in the larger scheme of US investment in fighting terrorism.

Just to give Americans an idea of what this amount means in the larger scheme of US counterterrorism operations overseas, $1.5 billion is approximately twice the cost of building the new US embassy in Baghdad. For a country of 160 million people, providing such a “carrot” will hardly satiate many appetites, especially when the Pakistani government has announced that it needs $30 billion in foreign assistance to meet its development challenges that have been hindered by the “War on Terror”.

(Oops, sorry, Secretary of State Clinton has decided to not use that term anymore — “Overseas Contingency Operations” is the new name of the game. Congratulations to the new administration for moving from hyperbole a la Bush to euphemisms a la Obama!)

Adding to the administration’s equivocation, American journalists who are obsessed with the narrative of “failed states” continue to present story after story about Pakistan with some level of repulsive bemusement. The latest example is an Idiot’s Guide to Pakistan published by the Carnegie Endowment’s Foreign Policy magazine.

As if to add insult to injury, General David Petraeus and Admiral Michael Mullen also recently admonished Pakistan about “indications” that the country’s intelligence services may be involved in helping the Afghan Taliban. Such vilification will further infuriate the Pakistani public, which feels victimised by the Taliban far more than the West, with thousands of soldiers killed and its own society further fractured by dissent and suicide bombings.

Such rhetoric also demoralises the Pakistani intelligence services, which can be credited for helping in the arrest of some of the major Al Qaeda kingpins, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaidah.

There may indeed be some nefarious activities within the ISI just as much as there have been manipulative activities by the CIA in the past. However, the way to approach this issue is to look at the ultimate cause of such activity, rather than hurling vacuous accusations. In the context of the Afghan conflict, both Pakistan and India have been interfering at various levels in the country, as noted by eminent scholars such as Christine Fair.

To deescalate this perverse Indo-Pak competition for dominance over Afghanistan, a regional solution is needed to resolve conflicts between India and Pakistan, including Kashmir and Balochistan. However, the Obama administration succumbed to Indian pressure and decoupled the Kashmir conflict from the regional strategy, and has threatened drone attacks on Balochistan that can only further destabilise the situation.

India has spent over $1.1 billion in aid on Afghanistan in the last five years when more than 80 percent of its own population lives in abject poverty. The goal of such neighbourly munificence should be questioned internally by Indians as well during their upcoming election. If neighbourly kindness is India’s ultimate goal, I can assure you that Pakistan and Bangladesh, India’s closest contiguous neighbours, would be most appreciative of such aid as well!

As for the Obama administration, if they are truly interested in a reform strategy towards Pakistan, they must first recognise the importance of building peace through a sustained strategy of diplomacy and development. I voted for Mr Obama and his “audacity of hope”, but his current approach to South Asia has left me disenchanted.

So what can the Obama administration do to bring back the sparkle in my eyes and those of many other Pakistani-American constituents?

There are many alternative strategies that need to be explored within the development mandate. Development aid must be specifically targeted towards key projects that can highlight America’s direct commitment to the Pakistani people — for example, direct aid to build desperately needed power plants or dams rather than more “capacity-building” for NGOs that USAID adores. Such intangible programmes often end up providing inflated overhead for consultants and have little palpable impact in winning “hearts and minds”.

Wide-scale weapons buy-back programmes such as those carried out after the Yugoslav conflict need to be implemented as they have proved to be fairly effective. Within one year, the programme in Croatia recovered 10,000 rifles, 7,000 anti-tank rocket launchers, 15,000 grenades and almost 2 million rounds of ammunition. In impoverished parts of our region, a carefully conducted programme of this kind could yield very positive results. Some hardliners will still need to be fought, but any combat must follow such ostensibly “softer” strategies that will gain much wider and lasting results.

A primary reliance on armed tactics is based on the false premise that terrorism is somehow a static phenomenon. The metaphor of “cancer” is particularly apt for our purposes: highly targeted radiotherapy, analogous to commando-style raids that have yielded important Al Qaeda targets, are essential to kill cancer cells. But excessive radiation (in the form of repeated drone attacks) itself spawns further cancer cells.

That is just what Al Qaeda is hoping for — a propaganda victory with further examples of US military intervention to gain more recruits and create more “cells”. Even beyond Pakistan, the damage that a heavy-handed approach to conflict resolution has done to US relations with the Muslim world is evident. The protests against Mr Obama’s first official visit to Turkey, a Muslim country that recently hosted a Pak-Afghan summit, clearly show that artful oratory and some mild palliatives of development aid will not be enough to gain sympathy for America’s objectives in the region.

Dr Saleem H Ali is a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution’s research centre in Doha, Qatar and an associate professor of environmental planning and Asian Studies at the University of Vermont. His latest book is Islam and Education: Conflict and Conformity in Pakistan’s Madrassahs (Oxford University Press, 2009).

Daily Times : Saturday 11-04-2009
 
.
Back
Top Bottom