Why Pakistan Produces Jihadists

[T-Faz]

Ok, first of all this man suffered a personal crisis and acted alone so all this Pakistan bashing has to be left aside. He is like the angry american guy who flew a plane into the IRS building.

David Petreus himself confirmed this man acted alone and is not linked to any militant groups.

Petraeus: Faisal Shahzad Acted Alone

 

[MilesTogo]

Ok, first of all this man suffered a personal crisis and acted alone so all this Pakistan bashing has to be left aside. He is like the angry american guy who flew a plane into the IRS building.

David Petreus himself confirmed this man acted alone and is not linked to any militant groups.

Petraeus: Faisal Shahzad Acted Alone

DAWN.COM | World | Pakistani Taliban behind failed New York attack: US

WASHINGTON: The United States has evidence that the Pakistani Taliban was behind the failed attempt to detonate a car bomb in the heart of New York City, US Attorney General Eric Holder said Sunday.

“We've now developed evidence that shows that the Pakistani Taliban was behind the attack,” Holder said on ABC television's Sunday current affairs talk show “This Week.”

"We know that they helped facilitate it. We know that they probably helped finance it, and that he was working at their direction,” he said.

Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani born US citizen, was pulled off a plane to Dubai and arrested Monday for allegedly leaving a sport utility vehicle rigged to explode in New York's Times Square just over a week ago.

Holder's comments came as the New York Times reported that the United States warned Pakistan it must crack down on Islamic extremists or face severe consequences.

General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, urged Pakistan's General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani in Islamabad on Friday to quickly begin a military offensive against the Pakistani Taliban and Al-Qaeda in North Waziristan.

John Brennan, the White House deputy national security adviser, echoed Holder's charges, pointing the finger at the Pakistani Taliban in an interview with CNN.

“It looks like he was working on behalf of the TTP, the Pakistani Taliban,” Brennan said. “This group is closely allied with Al Qaeda. This is something that we're taking very seriously.” -AFP

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

DAWN.COM | World | Pakistani Taliban behind failed New York attack: US

Petraeus: Faisal Shahzad Acted Alone

So who is correct?

Holder offering an opposite POV just a day after Petraeus might indicate that the US is lying to put pressure on Pakistan.

Should become clearer once the evidence Holder claims to have is made public.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Even General Patraeus says Faisal didn't necessarily have direct contact with Taleban (but someone trained him in Pakistan). Same difference.

Even general Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, said in a statement Friday to The Associated Press that alleged bomber Faisal Shahzad was inspired by militants in Pakistan but didn't necessarily have direct contact with them.

 

[Xeric]

Anatomy of a failed terror attack – The Express Tribune

Anatomy of a failed terror attack

By Syed Talat Hussain

May 09, 2010


The writer is executive director news and current affairs at Aaj TV (talat.hussain@tribune.com.pk)


The daggers are out again. Faisal Shahzad’s bizarre, mis-hitcouldn’t- run terror attack at New York’s Times Square has



The daggers are out again. Faisal Shahzad’s bizarre, mis-hitcouldn’t- run terror attack at New York’s Times Square has exposed Pakistan to extreme international propaganda as the centre of global terrorism. Mudslinging and ‘we-toldyou- so’ style of reporting has started which is overshadowing the country’s recent success in portraying success in Swat and Fata on international forums.

The event and the debate that followed are distressing for a nation grimacing under the cost of the whole counter-terrorism effort. But they serve a good purpose. The debate contains some critical lessons and timely reminders for Islamabad. Take the remarkably partisan commentary about Faisal Shahzad’s possible motivation and his links with groups operating out of Pakistani soil. As soon as the news came out, much of the American press and almost all of the Indian media seemed to be convinced that his nefarious plan was conceived and planned in the rugged mountains of Waziristan. That he could be a lone ranger like Nidal Malik Hasan or Umar Farooq Abdulmutallab was never regarded as a real possibility.

This reflects the mindset of terrorism’s infrastructure inside Pakistan as of the country’s inability to put a lid on it. However, while the media has consistently regurgitated this theme, the official reaction from Washington has been notably measured. The White House, State Department, Pentagon and the Defence Department seem to be speaking from well-coordinated notes. Faisal’s actions — completely astounding in their intent, purpose and execution — have not been used as an excuse to declare open season on Pakistan’s failings and faults in the war against terrorism. This is encouraging and implies a better understanding between the two countries.

No administration in Washington will take a rational course of action if Americans are killed in their homeland by terrorists with links to other countries. For the Obama administration room for cautious conduct is further limited by its declared commitment to defeating national security threats emanating from Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is where management of public perception of Pakistan inside the US and media pressure becomes important. Together they can push the administration over the edge of reason in case of a more destructive terrorism attack. Islamabad needs to tighten its public diplomacy inside the US, which clearly, isn’t at the moment in the ablest of diplomatic hands.

The Indian response to the event too serves as an important policy input for Pakistan. Indian media correspondents in Washington have constantly peddled the line that Pakistan is a horror house of terrorism. In at least two instances these media persons, who generally toe Delhi’s official line, have had to be ticked off by the spokespersons for insinuating that all trouble emanates from one country, Pakistan. Inside Delhi the desire is still running strong that the odds against Islamabad should pile up every time something goes wrong in the world. This thinking, which is predominant and consistent, has to become the most important factor in deciding Pakistan’s level of peace engagement with India. Talk of peace doesn’t sound convincing or even meaningful when it rolls off a split tongue.

And finally our reaction to the news of Faisal Shahzad’s actions too has left a lot to be desired. From stunning silence to a barrage of contradictory claims, officialdom has created a great deal of confusion that we have become all too familiar with. Rehman Malik, whose desire for publicity must rank him above Paris Hilton, spoke to every news outlet in the world, without really conveying anything particular that would serve Pakistan’s interest. The foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, put in his two bits of wisdom by not ruling out the possibility of this being a retaliatory act by the Taliban in response to drone attacks while the director-general of ISPR, Major-General Athar Abbas seemed convinced that the Taliban did not have the capacity to reach the level of attempting global terrorism.

While all this has been said, we still don’t know the exact story of Faisal Shahzad’s connections with local militants. It is evident that there is no coherent thinking in official circles on this issue, nor there is much coordination among different segments of Pakistan’s power corridors. No wonder this country has become an obvious choice for anyone around the world looking for a scapegoat.

 

[Xeric]

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Even General Patraeus says Faisal didn't necessarily have direct contact with Taleban (but someone trained him in Pakistan). Same difference.

The 'someone trained him in Pakistan' is your addition, not Petraeus's comment.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Terrorism’s Supermarket

Why Pakistan keeps exporting jihad.
Published May 7, 2010

Faisal Shahzad, the would-be terrorist of Times Square, seems to have followed a familiar path. Like many earlier recruits to jihad, he was middle-class, educated, seemingly assimilated—and then something happened that radicalized him. We may never be sure what made him want to kill innocent men, women, and children. But his story shares another important detail with many of his predecessors: a connection to Pakistan.

The British government has estimated that 70 percent of the terror plots it has uncovered in the past decade can be traced back to Pakistan. Pakistan remains a terrorist hothouse even as jihadism is losing favor elsewhere in the Muslim world. From Egypt to Jordan to Malaysia to Indonesia, radical Islamic groups have been weakened militarily and have lost much of the support they had politically. Why not in Pakistan? The answer is simple: from its founding, the Pakistani government has supported and encouraged jihadi groups, creating an atmosphere that has allowed them to flourish. It appears to have partially reversed course in recent years, but the rot is deep.

For a wannabe terrorist shopping for help, Pakistan is a supermarket. There are dozens of jihadi organizations: Jaish-e-Muhammad, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Al Qaeda, Jalaluddin and Siraj Haqqani's network, Tehrik-e-Taliban, and the list goes on. Some of the major ones, like the Kashmiri separatist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, operate openly via front groups throughout the country. But none seem to have any difficulty getting money and weapons.

The Pakistani scholar-politician Husain Haqqani tells in his brilliant history, Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military, how the government's jihadist connections go back to the country's creation as an ideological, Islamic state and the decision by successive governments to use jihad both to gain domestic support and to hurt its perennial rival, India. Describing the military's distinction between terrorists and "freedom fighters," he notes that the problem is systemic. "This duality ... is a structural problem, rooted in history and a consistent policy of the state. It is not just the inadvertent outcome of decisions by some governments." That Haqqani is now Pakistan's ambassador to Washington adds an ironic twist to the story. (And a sad one, because the elected government he represents appears to have little power. The military has actually gained strength over the past year.)

In recent months Pakistan's government and military have taken tougher actions than ever before against terrorists on their soil—and Pakistani troops have suffered grievously. And yet the generals continue to make a dubious distinction among terrorists. Those that threaten and attack the people of Pakistan have suffered the wrath of the Pakistani Army. But then there are groups that threaten and attack only Afghans, Indians, and Westerners—and those groups have largely been left alone.

Consider the tribal area where Faisal Shahzad is said to have trained on his visits to Pakistan: North Waziristan, where the deadliest groups that attack Afghans, Indians, and Westerners hole up. Although last year the Pakistani military took the fight to South Waziristan, a haven for groups that have launched attacks inside Pakistan, the generals have refused to go into the North, despite repeated entreaties from the United States and NATO. As far as the Pakistani military is concerned, there's always a compelling reason why now isn't the right time to go there. And the respected Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, an expert on the Afghan insurgency, recently reported that Pakistan continues to have influence with the Afghan Taliban and is using that leverage to force the Kabul government do its bidding rather than to broker a peace between the Taliban and the Afghan government.

Until the Pakistani military truly takes on a more holistic view of the country's national interests—one that sees economic development, not strategic gamesmanship against Afghanistan and India, as the key to Pakistan's security—terrorists will continue to find Pakistan an ideal place to go shopping.

Over the past four decades, much Islamic terrorism has been traced back to two countries: Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Both countries were founded as ideological, Islamic states; over the years the governments sought legitimacy by reinforcing that religious ideology, and that made the countries hothouses of militancy, fundamentalism, and jihad. That trend is slowly being reversed in Saudi Arabia, perhaps because King Abdullah could make it happen as the enlightened ruler of an absolute monarchy. It may not be so easy for Pakistan to overcome its jihadist past.

Zakaria: Why Pakistan Keeps Exporting Jihad - Fareed Zakaria - Newsweek.com

 

[Kompromat]

Terrorism is the counter production of United State's doubble standards.

They used Taliban to Beat the crap out of USSR , they trained them , given them money and sophisticated weapons even Stingers which were the best available manpads at that time.

Once their Sh!t was cleared they left like a wolf leave the jungle & never bothered disarming Taliban , giving them jobs and creating a stable GOV.

They are fighting people they funded 20 years ago & there is not stopping in sight , by having said that i am not denying the fact that allowing over 40 million afghans in Pakistan is proving itself the greatest mistake in our history.

They brought their radical ideas with them , Ak's and RPG's , they brought drugs to our nation and now Terrorism.

we are just paying the price for a good faith for both Americans and Talibans.

 

[karan.1970]

^^^^ Thats a self serving victim mentality. On one side you take credit for beating a super power (USSR) in Afghanistan by using Mujahids funded by US money. On the other hand you want to blame US for funding the same Mujahids. These are your creation (remember.. you defeated a superpoower ), so you should have figured out what to do after USSR left. And you did.. You used these people to try and make Afghanistan your client state and you succeeded for a while and it was hunky dory.. Didnt see Pakistan complaining at that time about US not disarming these Mujahids turned Talibans..

9/11 changed the game though. Suddenly terrorism was not so acceptable.. And now that the shoe is on the other foot, you are complaining..

If you have to complain, complain about Zia and Mussharraf and repeated murders of democracy in Pakistan. IMHO Thats what has led to this mess

 

[toxic_pus]

I disagree (but this is not the thread for it) and the point is irrelevant in any case since the point being made is that support for these terrorist/rebel groups, in East Pakistan or kashmir, but Indians or Pakistanis, comes about because the side supporting them sees the groups as fighting a legitimate cause - once of 'freeing the occupied and oppressed'.

Isn’t this the point I was making in my very first post (post #66 ), that support for ‘terrorism’ depends on how you define the cause?

It is quixotic to point to a poll that tests opinions of mass about one situation, and declare that it stands true for all situations. Wasn’t that the point all along?

On that count Indian support for what many Pakistanis would call 'terrorists' in East Pakistan is hypocritical given their opposition to Pakistan's support for what I would call 'freedom fighters' in Kashmir.

While the idea of freedom was pretty clear in case of East Pakistan, the idea of ‘freedom’ in case of Kashmir is still foggy. Pakistan hasn’t been able to explain, what ‘freedom’ from Indian ‘occupation’ and joining Pakistan encompasses (Pakistan doesn’t officially support independent Kashmir). Does it mean better administration, better economy, better civil liberties? Because if it does, Pakistan is the last place on Earth one should be looking at. Then what does it mean, really? That’s why we find any reference to Kashmiri terrorism as ‘freedom fighting’, to be farcical.

Hogwash - Indian support for terrorists in East Pakistan arose because of an Indian desire to damage Pakistan, and not out of any 'humanitarian desires' though you can keeping living on such poppycock if it makes you feel better about openly supporting terrorism - that Indian gentleman I was talking to earlier arguing such support for terrorism by Indians was a waning view should take note.

The key word was ‘originated’. How it panned out later on is another matter.

Nevertheless, the point stands. That Indian support for Bengalis wasn’t fuelled by any misplaced sense of entitlement or that India didn’t use any religious extremism like Pakistan does, is for all to see.

Just revolution in another guise - it is always the other side's cause that is 'wrong'.

So now religious fundamentalism is also revolution?

The underlying argument is invalid, since, as you agreed, nations without any Islamic identity have experienced similar patterns of behavior in society - the US and Indian people and society both supporting terrorists and terrorism (as you define Pakistan's support for insurgent groups). In the case of the US there is however a lot of introspection and definite regret, amongst non-conservatives at least, over support for rebels and insurgents in Latin America, Iran and elsewhere, whereas in India that sort of support for rebels/terrorists in East Pakistan continues to be glorified and championed by most.

Actually, if you agree that collective response of a society to various stimuli depends on how the society is structured, it becomes self explanatory why Pakistan behaves the way it does. Again the accusation is not of the Islamic identity of Pakistan, a strawman that you are constantly trying to prop up, but how the Islamic identity has been used to produce an extremely convoluted Pakistani identity.

The Pakistani leadership has willingly, for its own agenda, allowed the jihadi mentality to foster. This gave birth to the ideology that makes a sizeable chunk of Pakistanis to believe that it is their sole duty to carry the burden of crescent on his shoulder. In a nutshell it is the Pakistani brand of ‘pan-Islamism’ that, as the author argues, makes Pakistanis fall prey to Islamic radicalization. Unfortunately, this ideology can very well be traced to the birth of Pakistan.

Besides, US, and India didn’t become a terrorist hot spot. Indonesia hasn’t become a terrorist hot spot. Pakistan has. And that is the point.

As with introspection and regret, we do both in case of our support to LTTE. In case of Bangladesh, there is no reason for us not to glorify our role.

The Russians and the CAR's are 'exporting' terrorists, to Pakistan in fact, given the large numbers of Chechens, Uzbeks and others who have flocked there to wage war against the Pakistani and Afghan States.

Hence the comment, ‘passage to jihadism passes through that country’ . Hence the epithet, ‘Jihad Capital’ or ‘epicenter of Islamic terrorism’. The argument that Pakistan has become the finishing school for the jihadis is still valid and you have only provided proof of that.

But you missed the point, that all the countries I mentioned have large homegrown terrorism problems, even the ones mentioned by S Dhume as not having them, which contradicts his canard that somehow Pakistan is unique in experiencing radicalization, and that the radicalization it does experience, is because of Pakistan's Islamic identity alone.

I didn’t miss the point. I just thought it is not a point at all, since Mr Dhume has never made any claim to the effect that no other country has terrorist problem. It is another of your strawman. His argument is that Pakistanis are more susceptible to Islamic radicalization than any other Islamic country, due to a strange brew of politics (using terrorists as tool of foreign policy) and culture (pan-Islamism).

Disagree, but don’t distort.

The only thing KS's journey to Pakistan, for now seemingly AFTER his radicalization, illustrates is that the lack of State control over regions in the country has allowed militant groups to provide all sorts of 'services'. The GoP is trying to combat that very issue, and has significantly reduced the space available to militants in the last year or two. This points to the need for military/law enforcement action against militant groups (which is being taken) and not some sort of causal effect because of Pakistan's 'identity and DNA'.

So the authors point is in fact invalidated by the fact that people the majority of the people attacking the West, even if they do travel to Pakistan for training, are radicalized in the West, and not in Pakistan.

Once again, Mr Dhume’s point is about the susceptibility of Pakistanis to be radicalized, irrespective of time and place of radicalization, and of the existence of terror infrastructure in Pakistan, which came about during the Afghanistan war, and which instead of being dismantled has been kept alive to counter their arch enemy, and which in turn is attracting the wannabe terrorists with a grudge against the world.

Pakistan is indeed going after the terror network, but only after that which they think is detrimental to them. Not after that which they think hasn’t yet outlived its utility.

The distinction is valid - what people perceive the cause they support to be cannot be ignored when evaluating their moral compass. has the LeT/JuD done an excellent job of 'packaging' their cause to Pakistanis? Yes, obviously so, not least because of the plethora of charitable services they offer and the lack of transparency, both in the UN and in Pakistan, in implicating them in terrorism.

Once you agree that an average Joe sympathizes with the ‘cause’, the distinction becomes invalid. He will support anyone and anything that pretends to champion that cause irrespective of the methodology. Somehow or the other he will find justification for the means to the end. The concept of ‘kaffir’ is one such justification.

I will end this debate from my side, by saying that current Pakistani syndrome is a direct result of a wrong foreign policy that Pakistan has consciously followed against India. Instead of trying to liquidate the terror network after the Afghanistan war, Pakistani leadership has continued to use their citizens as grist to the jihadi mill, just to pull an Afghanistan in Kashmir. Pakistan is facing that blowback and until and unless there is a complete dismantling of this network, it will continue to haunt Pakistan, notwithstanding occasional selective purges by PA.

 

[Kompromat]

Karan: That is a credit and it is true that we did defeat a super power but the problem started afterwards because all of those fighters Must have been disarmed and given education , training and jobs which never happened and lead to another civil war.

Mrs clinton also accepted that.

 

[MilesTogo]

Pakistan a breeding ground for Islamism | Salim Mansur | Columnists | Comment | Toronto Sun

Pakistan a breeding ground for Islamism
By SALIM MANSUR, QMI Agency

The portrait of the naturalized U.S. citizen of Pakistani origin arrested for last weekend’s failed car bombing in Times Square exposes once again the specious argument made by liberal-left ideologues that alone or in some combination, poverty, the sins of western colonialism-imperialism and the wickedness of Zionism are the cause of Islamist terrorism.

Instead, in Faisal Shahzad — a 30-year-old graduate of computer science with an MBA from the University of Bridgeport, Conn., and married with two young children — we have the profile of an alleged Islamist terrorist coming from a middle class, or even privileged, background.

The cause of Islamist terror is Islamism. It is an ideology like bolshevism devised to legitimize making war (jihad), seize power and establish a Shariah-based totalitarian rule. And as it was once with bolshevism in old Russia, Islamism attracts primarily young Muslim men of middle-class backgrounds with intellectual pretensions to become the vanguard “martyrs” of jihad against the West for being the enemy of Islam and Muslims.

Acute resentment

Islamism flourishes in an environment of acute resentment born from a sense of general failure of society compared to past greatness or glory nostalgically idealized. The greater the sense of present failure of Muslim societies, the more pressing the Islamist fervour to redeem an idealized past, and in this effort all means become justifiable for an end that is given religious sanction.

Islamism is the Muslim ideology of counter-revolution against the modern world and modernity. And while this ideology keeps the elders engaged through long idle hours of endless chatter, it is the opium readily inhaled by the young that sets so many of them on the path of jihad against infidels.

Pakistan is the fertile breeding ground of Islamism for reasons that are intrinsic to its history and politics. It is the only country forcefully established with Islam as a nationalist ideology that a majority of Muslims in undivided India — including Muslims of what constitutes present-day Pakistan — rejected.

Since Britain conceded to the demand for Pakistan in the face of religious frenzy pushed by middle- and lower-class Muslim activists, the country’s history has been a series of failures of its own making. These failures have deeply embittered the thinking of that class of Pakistanis from whose rank the ruling elite comes, and whose regular pastime is to parcel blame to others for their part in making Pakistan a terrorist-exporting rogue and failed state.

I have traveled in Pakistan. I have visited the homes of the privileged in society and there among the wealthy and the powerful, I have often heard the case made that if Pakistan is faced with destruction it will destroy the other as it goes down. In Urdu this sounds terribly ominous.

Young Pakistani men like Faisal Shahzad, whose father is a retired air force general, hear such discussions and are invariably influenced by them.

The list of Pakistani terrorists is long and getting longer. It has long been urgent for the West to respond effectively to Islamist terrorism.

One response might well be to consider a moratorium on migration to the West from Pakistan and adjoining areas producing hordes of men such as Faisal Shahzad.

salim.mansur@sunmedia.ca

 

[toxic_pus]

Karan: That is a credit and it is true that we did defeat a super power but the problem started afterwards because all of those fighters Must have been disarmed and given education , training and jobs which never happened and lead to another civil war.

Mrs clinton also accepted that.

USG's abandonment of Afghanistan doesn't absolve Pakistan from the guilt of keeping the terrorist infrastructure alive.

 

[deepak75]

Terrorism is the counter production of United State's doubble standards.

They used Taliban to Beat the crap out of USSR , they trained them , given them money and sophisticated weapons even Stingers which were the best available manpads at that time.

Once their Sh!t was cleared they left like a wolf leave the jungle & never bothered disarming Taliban , giving them jobs and creating a stable GOV.

Actually not Sir. You had U.S exactly in the spot where you wanted them all the time and you allowed them only a role that you wanted for them = Provide the money and the weapons. You did the spending of the money and it is common knowledge that a lot of weapons from the Afghan was were stacked away by Pakistan army which surfaced later with the Taliban and also with the terrorists that your army sent to foment insurgency and violence in India.

I enclose for your perusal the following link for a more wider perspective & I also quote from it:

Afghan War Costs and Benefits to Pakistan :: Khyber.ORG


On 17 January 1981, President Zia ul-Haq spoke of a relationship 'not of outright hostility, not of a camp follower, but as partners with equal rights', and peremptorily rejected Carter's offer as insufficient, calling it 'peanuts' and 'not even a drop in the ocean'.[3] He warned: 'You take Pakistan out of the region, and you will find that you have not one inch of soil where America can have influence - right from Turkey down to Vietnam'.[4] However, the situation changed when President Ronald Reagan came to power. Reagan's military and economic offer satisfied Zia's government, and its policy-makers believed in the US administration's determination to give strong support to Pakistan's independence. Subsequently, Pakistan played a key role by providing a haven for Afghan refugees and a channel for aid to the Afghan resistance.

They are fighting people they funded 20 years ago & there is not stopping in sight , by having said that i am not denying the fact that allowing over 40 million afghans in Pakistan is proving itself the greatest mistake in our history.

They brought their radical ideas with them , Ak's and RPG's , they brought drugs to our nation and now Terrorism.

we are just paying the price for a good faith for both Americans and Talibans.

The link provided also details the benefits that Pakistan siphoned off from the funding available for the Afghan war from US and the various countries.

Further, we have had a nice discussion over here with Pakistani and Indian friends highlighting the profits that Pakistan achieved from Afghan war and beyond.

So blaming US as the cause of all ills plaguing Pakistan today will be tantamount to an Ostrich like approach and will not make the problem go away. The self pity and "victimised" arguments will only delay the true comprehension of the scale of difficulties facing Pakistan and by an extension, the region.