Why Pakistan Produces Jihadists

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Again self contradictory. First you write this:

So what is the genesis of LeT (there may be a hint in the name??) In whose name are the funds collected?? Following link can help.
Lashkar-e-Toiba

The LeT’s professed ideology goes beyond merely challenging India's sovereignty over the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Lashkar's ‘agenda’, as outlined in a pamphlet titled Why are we waging jihad includes the restoration of Islamic rule over all parts of India. Further, the outfit seeks to bring about a union of all Muslim majority regions in countries that surround Pakistan. Towards that end, it is active in J&K, Chechnya and other parts of Central Asia.

Hafiz Saeed, a scholar of Islam, has said that the purpose of Jihad is to carry out a sustained struggle for the dominance of Islam in the entire world and to eliminate the evil forces and the ignorant. He considers India, Israel and US to be his prime enemies and has threatened to launch Fidayeen (suicide squad) attacks on American interests too.

The Lashkar-e-Toiba does not believe in democracy and nationalism. According to its ideology, it is the duty of every 'Momin' to protect and defend the interests of Muslims all over the world where Muslims are under the rule of non-Muslim in the democratic system. It has, thus chosen the path of Jihad as the suited means to achieve its goal. Cadres are drawn from the Wahabi school of thought.

Jihad, Hafiz Saeed said during the All Pakistan Ulema Convention held on July 17, 2003, at Lahore, is the only way Pakistan can move towards dignity and prosperity.

The LeT has consistently advocated the use of force and vowed that it would plant the 'flag of Islam' in Washington, Tel Aviv and New Delhi.


Or the following could also be worth a look:

Lashkar-e-Taiba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Lashkar-e-Taiba group has repeatedly claimed through its journals and websites that its main aim is to destroy the Indian republic and to annihilate Hinduism and Judaism. LeT has declared Hindus and Jews to be the "enemies of Islam", as well as India and Israel to be the "enemies of Pakistan". In September and October 2009, Israeli and Indian intelligence agencies issued alerts warning that LeT is planning to attack Jewish religious places in Pune, India and other locations visited by Western and Israeli tourists in India. The gunmen who attacked the Mumbai headquarters of the Chabad Lubavitch movement during the November 2008 attacks were reportedly instructed that “Every person you kill where you are is worth 50 of the ones killed elsewhere.”

And then you follow up in the same post with the following:



What is it if not propagating Islamic identity that your government tolerates and publicly and visibly encourages these Islamic terrorist organizations to wage the Islamic Jehad on all and sundry who believe that earth is round and not flat like the desert that they live in??

Propagating false Islamic identity has had eveything to do with Pakistan's genesis, its evolution in to a military state, the seeding and encouragement of extremism and finally to now the introspecting question "Why Pakistan Produces Jihadists".

Yet you continue to not accept the reality by making statements that Indians in Kashmir are fair game or in the post U.S Afganistan, the fascist Taliban government in Kabul will be the only thing that is strategically deep!

Time and again your terror factories are duly highlighted due to new and new students making their alma mater proud in our world and you still do not want to understand that the theology that your government and Army propagates and supports openly, and to which you refer as a "canard" when some one else brings it up, is the exact reason that even normal Pakistani citizens get conjured in the same image of Pakistan in the world that is created by your most famous export to us.

Only by understanding the problem can you find a solution. This will not go away by pushing it beneath a rug. They are here to stay because the terrorists are a product of an ideology. You have to eliminate and moderate this ideology.

Accepting things ast they are will be a good first step in solving this long, bloody, dangerous and existential threat to Pakistan.

How did any of that contradict the point I made?

Do the people who donate to LeT or JuD research the group on Wikipedia, Jamestown or satp.org? You are pulling up articles that fit your definition of what the LeT is, and then insisting that any Pakistani who supports LeT does so while having full knowledge of articles such as those, and believing the conclusions made in those articles to be valid. That is a ludicrous proposition.

The point I am making is that just because people support XYZ group does not mean they support ABC actions. That is why I specifically pointed out that the impression about the LeT, and even more so the JuD, amongst a lot of people is not one of a terrorist organization, but of an insurgent group fighting against Indian security forces 'occupying' J&K. Furthermore, I pointed to polls in the past few years that have consistently shown that an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis reject terrorism and attacks on civilians.

All of that points to the fact that there is no ideological 'brainwashing', because of the identity of the Pakistani State, that predisposes Pakistanis towards extremism or terrorism.

Take a look at Faisal Shahzad's bio for example: brought up in a moderate, and perhaps even liberal family. Educated in Pakistan and the US, and according to friends and family did not start changing until about a year or so ago. At that point he asked his father about going to Afghanistan for Jihad, and was forbidden, with his father telling him that in Islam his duty was to his wife and children first and foremost - that is not the picture of man raised to hate, wage war or be an extremist.

Now reports in the US suggest that he is claiming he was motivated by a Yemeni cleric.

All of this once more points to the fact that Pakistan, its identity, its education system, had no role to play here, and FS's turn to extremism came at a much later date, due to a variety of factors that had nothing to do with Pakistan's identity.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It says that the Indians came to the aide of a bunch of people who were being slaughtered in ‘death camps’ (western media term, not Indian) for being sympathizers of a certain political entity and/or being of certain religious community (ICJ called it genocide in no uncertain terms). We however condemn the whole act propping up of LTTE. India had no business in Sri Lanka.

No, it says that the Indians supported a bunch of terrorists/rebels that committed atrocities and destabilized East Pakistan both before and after the military crackdown.

And even if your argument of 'rescuing East Pakistanis' was taken as legitimate, the tens thousands of Kashmiris massacred, tortured and raped provide a similar justification for Pakistanis to support groups perceived by them to be fighting against 'Indian tyranny and occupation'.

However, unlike Pakistan, Indian aide to the victims of East Pakistan didn’t originate from a false sense of entitlement arising out of a misplaced idea of religious righteousness.

Irrelevant - the fact is that Indians supported, and still support, violent insurgents/terrorists that destabilized another nation and committed atrocities.

A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another. – Mao Zedong

Ahhhh . Mao (and by extension yourself I assume, since you quote him in this particular context) would be proud of the Kashmiri and Afghan 'revolutions' then ...

The anti-communism in US was indeed a bizarre display of paranoia among the general populace and it arose from how their society was structured. It kinda proves the author’s assertion that roots of collective paranoia can be traced to a large extent to the social structure.

When you start agreeing that the issue here is not Pakistan's social structure, but certain social structures adopted by multiple other nations, even the US, then the authors point of Pakistan in some fashion being an isolated case specifically because of its Islamic identity is shown to be false.

The fact that the author does not even have his facts right about Indonesia, with its own religious terrorism, highlights his lack of expertise and anti-Pakistan bias. Forget Indonesia, the Philippines, Russia and CAR's have religious terrorism just as vile and barbaric. Many of the arrests being made in Europe are of Europeans born and bred there, and radicalized there, not in a Pakistani system. And I pointed out K Shahzad's bio above, another who was raised in a moderate and liberal family, and led a liberal life and did not radicalize till much later when settled in the US, and reportedly at the hands of a Yemeni Imam. Again nothing to do with Pakistan's identity.

Does an average Joe have the sophistication to make a distinction between a ‘combatant’ and a ‘non-combatant’. For example, the anti-Indian diatribes of Hafiz Saeed continue to attract the Pakistani mass. Those who throng to listen to him, do they think that what he is saying will invariably result in death of ‘non-combatants’. The wonder kid Zaid Hamid also enjoyed overwhelming support of educated Pakistani youth from urban middle/upper class. How many of them pondered over the fact that his perverted vision of Pakistan’s supremacy would invariably result in death of ‘non-combatants’.

That is true of any 'average Joe'. Does the 'average Joe' in the US or India realize that military operations or police action will likely result in the deaths of 'non-combatants'? What was that you said, or rather quoted Mao as saying, about 'revolutions' above? I would imagine it applies even more to war.

Those who donate to Kashmir groups donate to the cause of insurgents fighting to 'free Kashmir'. Fighting for freedom is a noble cause in any book, the UN endorses a peoples right to fight against occupation. Pointing to people's support for the LeT establishes nothing, because the people supporting the LeT are not supporting terrorism, and they are not parsing through LeT's message and actions to understand everything it entails. Being the 'average Joe' and all who has time for 'research'? And the polls on that specific question of 'terrorism and attacks on civilians' come back with an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis in opposition.

As I said, you lot are imbibing neither doodh nor pani, but guzzling from that eternal chalice of anti-Pakistan prejudice.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Please limit posts on this thread to a discussion of how an why radicalization in Pakistan may occur, and refrain from posting about the KS arrests and the Taliban. Posts not directly related have been moved to different threads.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

'All Pakistanis are terrorists'

Clearly it's a nonsensical headline.

But a quick glance across news headlines on Tuesday May 4 reveals the two top stories are both about young Pakistani men, one a resident of Lahore, the other with a background similar to mine, a Western citizen of Pakistani descent.

The first has been convicted with terrorism offences in India, the second arrested in connection with the Times Square foiled bomb attempt.

Now, I have no idea whether the chap arrested in connection with New York offence is a terrorist or not. But it almost does not matter.

Form of racism

Pakistanis and those of Pakistani descent are once again under the spotlight. It's a form of racism and anger is building because of it.

I travel a lot. In the last eight months I have visited the US a number of times.

Each time I have been pulled into secondary immigration, a sort of holding pen whilst your validity to enter the US is checked out.

It takes at least three hours and, after a 14-hour flight, is not a welcome proposition.

Same questions

The questions are always the same: Why are you here? Who are you visiting? My answers inevitably are always the same. No matter, each time I had to go through the process.

A visa application of mine to a country I won't name has been put through a much more stringent process because I am of Pakistani descent.

In 2005, I travelled to Israel, where yet again I was stopped and asked several questions about my family background. It was just after the 7/7 bombings in London. A crime committed by, as you probably recall, British men of Pakistani descent.

I arrived having travelled through Jordan. I was carrying a British passport, holding $10,000 in cash (for our bureaux, not personal funds, I might add).

My full name is Mohammed Imran Khan and I work for Al Jazeera.

Oh, and I was carrying a rucksack, the favoured delivery method of the 7/7 bombers. It took me five hours to clear customs. I was never told why.

How things are

Trifling, I know, when compared to the Palestinian experience, but indicative of how things are.

In the American Colony Hotel in East Jerusalem, I bumped into a fairly well known BBC reporter and former colleague of mine. I told him the story of my crossing.

"What do you expect," he said. "You are Pakistani."

Except I am not. I am British.

In the UK, where I was born and have lived the vast majority of my life, I was stopped and searched.

Once, when I was working for that most British of Institutions, the BBC, I was stopped filming when a nosey policeman ran my name through the system.

It was clearly red-flagged. His response was terse when I requested to get on with my job. "You are in our system," he said. The BBC to their credit took up the matter with the police, but I have no idea whether it made any difference.

It is frustrating. But I have got used to my status of being of Pakistani descent not being a plus point. For others, though, it breeds anger and resentment.

Subject of Pakistan

Three weeks ago I was staying in New York, just few blocks away from Times Square. I was sitting with a friend, just talking about everything and nothing as one does.

The subject of Pakistan came up and I shared my thoughts. The bartender overheard our conversation and said something startling to me: "Do you know where Bin Laden is?"

I was shocked, but not surprised. My American friend, however, carefully picked up his vodka and cranberry juice, took a small sip and then poured the rest of it on the floor.

He then opened his wallet, left a large tip and walked silently out of the bar. He later told me that he felt it was simple racism that he would not tolerate.

My Pakistani friends across the West often complain of racism.

Pakistan has become terror central and it's most public export is terrorism, it would seem.

Plurality of Pakistan

I have long given up trying to explain to people about the plurality of Pakistan and the Pakistani diaspora.

I have long given up on trying to talk about how Pakistan's biggest export into India is pop music, how Pakistani fashion designers produce beautiful collections that sell for thousands of dollars all over the world, of how Pakistani artists are producing some incredible and very modern work.

No, I listen as people rail against my background, accuse me of being a terrorist or the very least a terrorist sympathiser.

But here is the rub. Ancient cultures are littered with references to something called a "self-fulfilling prophecy'.

Call someone something and they eventually become that thing. Call Pakistanis terrorist and guess what? You will have Pakistani terrorists.

Anger builds

It's a simplistic argument, but when faced with visa delays, when asked personal questions about my background from Po-faced border guards, when stopped and searched by police officers, an anger does build.

My protestations about being British don't count. They see my skin colour and my name and they see one thing.

A threat. I smile and hope common sense prevails, and to be fair it often does.

But as Pakistani terror fills the headlines, I wonder how long it will be before this kind of racism becomes normal.


'All Pakistanis are terrorists' | Al Jazeera Blogs

When our GOV wags their talk like a puppy , of course the citizens will be abused over ... THE problem is not at airpor its with our PUPPY eyed GOV ... in Pakistan .. THAT WAGs the tail to commands

 

[Bang Galore]

Comment: The challenge ahead —Zafar Hilaly

To succeed today, it seems essential that first and foremost the power of the armed groups within Pakistan be broken. Without an all-out effort to do so, the terrorised population will not lend us support

The outside world does not see us as we see ourselves and that is understandably a cause of much anguish and hand wringing. And while often, all too often, our critics get us wrong, rather than dismiss their perspective of Pakistan out of hand, let us concede that, on occasion, they are right and that the image and the reality do not conflict, and that we do indeed seem to dream when we are awake and not only when we are asleep.

The fact is that nowhere else today have so many armed foreign outlaws been able to use the territory of a sovereign state to wage war for so long, and with such impunity, against other countries. And now, these foreigners who roam more or less unchallenged have become the junior partners of more powerful homegrown extremists in a war against the country itself.

Another reality is that nowhere else has a country been in denial for as long as we have been in the face of such open threats and attacks when our future, perhaps our very existence, depends on eliminating this self-created monster.

Half-baked measures and flaky concepts such as the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Taliban, ‘soft’ or ‘hard’ strategic depth, have failed time and time again and the country continues to spiral downwards, creating an anarchical situation which weakens the state further while strengthening the non-state elements. It is best, therefore, that this vicious cycle is broken, and now, through a decisive long-term strategy rather than hesitant, patchwork measures, which, because they have not been thought through, carry little conviction.

Strategic depth, for example, was never a sensible idea. National security must be built on national strength, buttressed, when necessary, by traditional alliances and not through an idea that encroaches on the sovereignty of another country, which can as easily be directed against Pakistan by others seeking similar strategic depths. Besides, how can one, from the practical standpoint, fight an adversary, in our case India, from beyond our borders, without becoming dangerously dependent on the goodwill of the other state? Would it not be far better to repair and rebuild our state-to-state relationship with Afghanistan? Not only would that make it considerably easier to offset the Indian influence in Afghanistan but, given Afghanistan’s geographical imperatives, Kabul too would be far better off politically and economically developing a cooperative relationship with Pakistan.

As for the notion of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Taliban, the Taliban are now frankly an autonomous force beyond the control and manipulation of Pakistan or, for that matter, any other country or militant umbrella group.

As long ago as 1995-96, when the Taliban were almost wholly dependant on Pakistan’s goodwill for recruits, supplies and funding, they had balked at being ordered around. And on even a matter as strategically peripheral as blowing up the Buddhas of Bamiyan had scornfully rejected our counsel. Perhaps that was the time for us to draw the conclusion that the Taliban mindset could as easily be directed against our civilisational values and pose as great a threat to us as they did to our adversaries. And to be fair, Benazir Bhutto saw the danger. Her antipathy to the Taliban cause was no secret and nor was their animus towards her. And she did try and gather support, but to no avail. Her counsels were rejected and her orders flouted. The prospect of Afghanistan and subsequently Central Asia being drawn into an axis of Islamic fundamentalist states centred around Kandahar and dominated by Pakistan was a prospect that was simply too alluring. When nationalism and religion combine with the personal aggrandisement of some, nothing can stand in the way and certainly not a woman.

Of course, we can continue to blame it on others and there is so much blame to spread around that attention is easily deflected. But that is hardly the answer or the requirement of the moment. To succeed today, it seems essential that first and foremost the power of the armed groups within Pakistan be broken. Without an all-out effort to do so, the terrorised population will not lend us support. They will sit on the fence as spectators, rather than players. They will be coerced to provide the enemy shelter and supplies. They will be forcibly recruited and serve as foot soldiers and once in the service of the enemy, albeit reluctantly, they become the enemy.

But defeating the extremists can only be one dimension of the strategy. The other is to seek the reintegration of rank and file elements and this is a no less challenging task. Disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of former combatants are concepts that the UN has pursued in many civil conflicts around the world. The idea is to wean away former combatants, including non-state elements, with the assistance of donor countries in situations where such elements have agreed to lay down arms or have been captured. We see no signs of such a policy at present.

Since Pakistan is effectively at war, the country should be brought on a war footing. That will help the public realise that sacrifices are inevitable. It cannot be business as usual. Civil-military relations, that have never been good, must be repaired and rebuilt. A united front must be forged against terrorism. Moreover, since the armed power of the extremists can only be curbed by the army, and since the army will require broad political support, the initiative for putting the country on a war footing must come from the army. The mainstream political parties undoubtedly will provide the required support and also help galvanise civil society. In this regard, the role of Punjab, where extremism is entrenched, will be crucial, which means that Punjab will have to emerge from its current mood of denial.

Only such dramatic measures would ensure long-term stability and send a powerful message to friends and foes alike that Pakistan finally means business. The world has been waiting for such a message. It would encourage them to do more to help the country economically and in other ways. Under Obama, the US has certainly shown welcome signs of that and so may others if they see us manifestly willing and determined to measure up to the challenge.

The writer is a former ambassador. He can be reached at charles123it@hotmail.com

 

[deepak75]

How did any of that contradict the point I made?

Sir, I claimed that because while sharing your thoughts about Sadanand's thread opening article to the question "Why Pakistan Produces Jihadists", the following is what you were professing:

Dhume gets it right when he talks about the Afghan Jihad and the effects from it. The rest of his commentary about Pakistan's history and 'DNA' is typical Indian drivel.

I have read his articles before, commented on them at the WSJ, and know his background.

And SD's 'Pakistan's DNA' argument is just a rehashed regurgitation of a common diatribe by Indian commentators. Pakistan's Islamic identity, like that of many other nations, has nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism in Pakistan is directly related to the events arising out of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

The author's argument is but another attempt, albeit more oblique than others, though in line with the now Murdoch led WSJ neo-con school of thought, to paint Islam as the problem.

If the exact same thing were written by an American, I would call it 'Indian influenced drivel'.

Where the author has attempted to identify the problem, the dynamics and repercussions of the Afghan Jihad, I have agreed with him. Where his argument is flawed, I have disagreed.

The Islamic identity canard is just that, drivel propagated by Indians to denigrate Pakistan's existence and identity with. Delve into into the argument a little and there is little to hold it up.

Like discussed earlier, the very fact that for sourcing the funds and the resources (both internally and internationally), the term Jehad was used for the Afgan war. Now that is already bringing in the religion. Is it not?

Was it a war for a democratic Afganistan or a benevolent act? In fact to quote your own worlds, you shared your thoughts about Pakistan's reasons for the Afgan war earlier in this thread as the following:

The Afghan Jihad may have been 20 years ago, but the repercussions of the Afghan Jihad continued long after that. The warlords and criminals competing for power, the anarchy, crime and violence, the millions of refugees - all of that was impacting Pakistan, more than any other nation, and Pakistan chose to do something about it, a decision that at the time made perfect sense.

Pakistan's support for the Taliban did not come out of a desire to see 911 happen or the Bamiyan Buddha's blown up, it came about becasue Pakistan was tired of a hostile Kabul continuously trying to instigate rebellions in Pakistan and claiming its territory, and an Afghanistan that was exporting millions of refugees, drugs, weapons violence and crime to Pakistan. And it was not just Pakistan that saw the Taliban as a good option for stabilization - many other Pashtun notables, the current Afghan President Karzai and his family among them, supported the Taliban rise to power.

So this was not about keeping the 'jihad machinery running for 20 years' but about a series of policy choices to stabilize Afghanistan that at the time had support from many Afghans as well.

So to achieve its objectives the GoP resorted to creating an extremist version of Islam and enocouraged violence. In the process they created a huge pool of terror talent also in reserve from which it could draw a little bit later to also create a Jehad in Kashmir.

This investment in creating the valuable resource pool also helped bring in the Taliban (Students of Islam?) to power in Afganistan and begin their reign of terror in that country, and hence also achieving the objective of making Pakistan strategically deeper.

So you have to tell us what was it if not the Islamic Identity (canard?) that was used by the Pakistan Army and the GoP while advancing their goals internationally.

Now also internally in Pakistn during this period, a lot of international funds were used for creating "advance terror training schools" and (sadly) these were christened "madrasas".

Madrasas are Islamic institution for the study of the Quran and Islam and to suit the purpose of creating the extremism, the version of Islam being taught at these institutions was increasingly distorted towards creating the terrorist and extremist ideology.

Now tell me if this was not done in the garb of Islamic Identity?

Hence my comments that you are contradicting yourself when you say that the terror factories in Pakistan have nothing to do with the Islamic identity that your country has long espoused to the champion of.

Though the above situations were surely not the beginning of the use of Islamic Identity by the army and the government of Pakistan (did it not start with Ayub Khan if not by Jinnah when stated that Pakistan will be a state for Muslims?), but is was surely not the last.

And then we arrive at your following further contradiction.

When you suggest that some polls indicate support for the LeT, that ignores what the respondents to the poll believe the LeT to be. Do the respondents believe that the LeT is fighting Indian occupation forces in J&K and therefore support its struggle for Kashmiri freedom, or do they support the LeT because it attacks civilians?

Polls in Pakistan specifically on the question of terrorism and attacks on non-combatants over the past few years have come back showing strong opposition to the above, so my argument about 'Islamic Identity' not having anything to do with terrorism in Pakistan remains valid on that basis.

So what does LeT and JuD claim to represent in Pakistan? Do they not go to the "awaam" saying that they represent the fight for Islam and the Jehad against the Hindus, Zionists, and the Kafir Americans and the world in general? Is their immediate agenda in Kashmir not laced with the hatred that they preach for other religions and countries and claim that they will hoist the "Sabz Hilali Parcham" on the Red Fort and in Washington and Tel Aviv and whatever they claim otherwise?

The contents of their hate filled agenda is visible in their pamplets, their speeches. I put some references below for your perusal:

Global terror's Indian footprint - dnaindia.com

About a fortnight before two blasts rocked Hyderabad on August 25, 2007, Lashkar-e-Tayeba (LeT) chief Hafiz Saeed told a gathering at Lahore that he has started a movement to occupy Muslim populated regions in India.

He said Pakistan must reclaim Muslim areas like J&K, Hyderabad, Junagarh, Munabao and West Bengal which, he said, was forcibly occupied by India in 1947. Saeed even released a new map of Pakistan incorporating these areas. A week before Saeed spoke, an al Qaeda video footage warned India of renewed terrorist attacks.

Also:

LeT vowed to liberate Hyderabad - India - The Times of India

Kindly also peruse of the following:

One Mumbai not enough: Hafiz Saeed-Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times

The leader of the banned outfit, who clearly timed his rally ahead of the Indo-Pak talks, told a huge gathering of his supporters that jihad was the only option left as India would never let go of Kashmir. Threatening India with dire consequences he further said that India would suffer the same fate over Kashmir as the Soviet Union in
Afghanistan and the US reverses in Afghanistan.

Tapes of the rally, which have been accessed by a television channel, showed Saeed’s supporters waving Klashnikovs and shouting anti-India slogans. The rally was taken out by JuD and is seen as a clear instance of the Pakistani establishment’s reluctance to take steps against the group, which has been proscribed by the UNSC as a front for the Lashkar-e-Toiba.


And just in case you needed diverse media outlets:

MEMRI - Middle East Media Research Institute

In Speeches, Article, and Letter, Lashkar-e-Taiba Founder and Jamaatud Dawa Chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed Warns India: 'One Mumbai [is] Not Enough'; 'Jihad is the Only Option Left, As India Will Never Let Go of Kashmir'; 'Islam is a Religion of Peace and Security, Jihad in the Path of Allah is an Important Part Of It'

Some more:

Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan

Rethinking Islam with Sultan Shahin: Why Hafiz Saeed and his L-e-T’’s links with ISI are unbreakable

I did not pick and choose above. Just the first of the few that came up on the internet search.

So what is it that they are claiming to achieve and the means of it if not their own distorted version of Islam. Where do you see them not using the Islamic Identity.

Do the people who donate to LeT or JuD research the group on Wikipedia, Jamestown or satp.org? You are pulling up articles that fit your definition of what the LeT is, and then insisting that any Pakistani who supports LeT does so while having full knowledge of articles such as those, and believing the conclusions made in those articles to be valid. That is a ludicrous proposition.


The point I am making is that just because people support XYZ group does not mean they support ABC actions. That is why I specifically pointed out that the impression about the LeT, and even more so the JuD, amongst a lot of people is not one of a terrorist organization, but of an insurgent group fighting against Indian security forces 'occupying' J&K. Furthermore, I pointed to polls in the past few years that have consistently shown that an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis reject terrorism and attacks on civilians.

I am not creating a definition of the LeT in own "luldicrous" way Sir. These are a mere sampling of the informaiton available on the net from several sources alike that I quoted above for your kind perusal. And that will be the case because the above is what LeT and JuD profess in their pamplets and their ideology when they make the speeches to the masses in Pakistan.

All of that points to the fact that there is no ideological 'brainwashing', because of the identity of the Pakistani State, that predisposes Pakistanis towards extremism or terrorism.

In fact all of that points exactly opposite to the fact that in their quest to achieve their political and terrotarial objectives the army and government of Pakistan yielded space to such extremist ideology of Islam in the Pakistani society. Unfortunately they were very successful and we are asking the questions "Why Pakistani Produces Jehadists".

Take a look at Faisal Shahzad's bio for example: brought up in a moderate, and perhaps even liberal family. Educated in Pakistan and the US, and according to friends and family did not start changing until about a year or so ago. At that point he asked his father about going to Afghanistan for Jihad, and was forbidden, with his father telling him that in Islam his duty was to his wife and children first and foremost - that is not the picture of man raised to hate, wage war or be an extremist.

Now reports in the US suggest that he is claiming he was motivated by a Yemeni cleric.

I agree, let us look at the case of this unfortunate human being. Blessed with all the bounties that your god and my god can shower up on, he goes and tries to do something that has now made several law abiding Pakistani's question themselves as the topic of this thread.

An army child will always love his country at least the same if not more than others because they grow up in a very national security senstized environment. At least I did.

So how did his country choices work on his thinking. You mentiond that he wanted to go in to Afgan Jehad. Now why would he do that. Surely the objective of the Pakistani army and government at that time were being achieved very clearly because the informational and educational environment at that time would have clearly put such thoughts in the mind of a child coming from a very educated and open disposition thinking type of family.

And then you ask me if the Islamic identity (not a canard anymore please Sir), was not used in shaping the thoughts and perceptions of the people of Pakistan by their government and the army (sort of what would sound like "brainwashing" to us un-informed individuals?)

Our learning is cognitive and also reactive/responsive.

Poor fellow, got his family and so many of his innocent countrymen needlessly also under the scanner now.

All of this once more points to the fact that Pakistan, its identity, its education system, had no role to play here, and FS's turn to extremism came at a much later date, due to a variety of factors that had nothing to do with Pakistan's identity.

So all of the above points exactly to the fact that the biggest challenge at hand for the polity of Pakistan is that they thin and moderate this Islamic Identity and ideology that has now brought their nation and its mostly innocent citizens to this precipice and retreat before all is lost for their nation and also for this region.

By accepting the problem, I am sure that solutions and also diverse help from several quaters will be more than forthcoming. Using religion as a tool to gain politcal and territorial ambitions never worked.

Now before we get in to a bad religion good religion debate (which I suspect it could lead to), let me state clearly that no religion ecourages such violence and murder of innocent men and women irrespective of what their faith is. I also believe that Madrasas are a good social system of imparting good basic education to the poor and underpriviledged in our countries.

My only argument is that Pakistan's army and its government unbashedly corrupted the religion and its preachings and its systems thereby creating a twisted Islamic Identity (still a canard Sir?) to achieve their political, dictatorial, regional and territorial ambitions.

That is what Sadanand states in his article and that is what I second.

 

[T-Faz]

@ solomon , I am waiting for your comments on the last post I made regarding the issue of US approving Pak's plan to build nuclear weapons.

First you said USG did not have a hand in supporting Taliban and I proved otherwise, and then you said that if US were to approve pakistani leaders, they would have also cleared Pak's nuclears, which they also did.

Now do not write a vague answer that your indian chums will thank you for. USG has made and continues to make mistakes.

Overthrowing a secular leader in Iran subsequently leading to an Islamic state
Supporting islamist Zia and turning Pakistan into an Islamic state.
Supporting Saddam against Iran
Supporting Mujahideen
Supporting Taliban
Leaving Pak and Afghanistan after the mess of Soviet invasion
Wrongly attacking Iraq on false pretenses
Not taking Osama when he was up for auction in aghanistan
And letting 'Airlift of Evil' to occur.

We are not stupid, we know we made mistakes too but we are working on correcting them but the first step is to learn and correct your own past mistakes.

As they say, we learnt from the master himself. Two can play the game.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

Struggles within and beyond​

Friday, May 07, 2010
Shafqat Mahmood

The arrest of a Pakistani American in the failed Times Square bombing puts the country in the wrong spotlight again. This follows the conviction of Ajmal Kasab, another Pakistani, by an Indian court for the Mumbai attacks. Both events in succession will add to the perception that this country is a sanctuary for dangerous terrorists.

The conspiracy theorists may go blue in the face arguing that Pakistan is deliberately being targeted. A part of this may be true. Elements in the Indian establishment and some groups in the US would indeed like Pakistan to be labelled a terrorist state. They may also want to defang its military capability by creating an enabling environment for an onslaught on its nuclear programme.

But it will be foolhardy, or deliberately ingenious, not to acknowledge that there are groups in Pakistan that are capable, and have been involved, in terrorist incidents abroad.

The essential question is not that there are dangerous militant groups in this country. We, who have been the victims of terrorism more than even Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years, know this. What should concern us is the allegation by our adversaries that the Pakistani state is complicit in these attacks outside the country.

The evidence is at best flimsy in this regard. There is little doubt that Pakistani security agencies, egged on by the US, created a band of militants to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. It is also true that some groups fighting in Indian-held Kashmir during the nineties received support from the Pakistani state. But this ended in 2003.

Since then there is no evidence of the Pakistan state's involvement in the troubles that the Indian state has in Kashmir. There is certainly no proof of any Pakistani connection to the attack on the Indian parliament or to the Mumbai tragedy. If there were, it would have been advertised to the world by now.

Having said that, it needs to be acknowledged that the intelligence agencies of the two countries have been in the past carrying out a separate war of sorts against each other. It is thus entirely possible that some stray incidents that happened in Pakistan or in India in the last sixty years may have been engineered by RAW or the ISI. But there has been no smoking gun, no direct evidence of each other's involvement.

If Pakistan-India hostility has generated mutual problems in the past, the involvement of the Pakistani state in terrorism in other parts of the world is nonexistent. Indeed, it is pointless even to defend this because no allegation of this kind was ever made after 9/11 or the train bombings in Britain and Spain.

This fact, however, does not absolve the Pakistani state from the other charge; that it has failed to eliminate militant groups based on its territory. The only answer is that never before has the state and its armed forces been more committed to fight against militant groups as it is today.

The military operations in Swat, Bajaur, Buner, South Waziristan and now Orakzai are testament to this commitment. As, indeed, is the heroism, dedication and spirit of sacrifice of its soldiers. More officers and men have embraced martyrdom in this battle against militancy than in the many wars against India.

This is a sad but poignant sign of Pakistan's appreciation that this is a battle for its survival. Army chief Gen Kayani has paid an appropriate tribute to the sacrifices made by declaring April 30 as Martyrs Day. The glorious ceremonies that day in all military installations were a testament that the nation recognises this to be a just war.

The way ahead is long and tortuous. It includes two different elements: taking control of the so-called ungoverned areas and identifying and eliminating militant groups in urban centres of the country. This has to be done with a proper analysis of the state's strengths and weaknesses and the abilities of its adversaries.

The international community needs to understand the difficult nature of this struggle and instead of blaming Pakistan or putting undue pressure on it, give it practical support. This mainly includes economic comfort and, to a degree, the wherewithal to wage a counterinsurgency war. Just continuing the mantra of "do more" is unhelpful.

This is particularly true with regard to the pressure being exerted for an outright assault on North Waziristan. The situation there is quite complicated. A number of militant groups have gathered in it, including the so-called Punjabi Taliban and foreign militants.

Among them, not all are hostile to the Pakistani state. In fact, the role of people like Hafiz Gul Bahadur is quite positive, although it seems that his ability to control the activities of outside elements has diminished. This has led to some ambushes on the security forces and the fact that the murder of Khalid Khawaja could not be prevented.

If the military were to launch a full-scale assault on North Waziristan, it would unite all the groups present there and make the task very difficult. Therefore, if it has to be done, the army leadership will, like in the past, have to work hard to create the right environment.

This means a number of things. First, the military will be assessing its own capabilities, given the fact that Swat and other "liberated" areas are being still being consolidated. It would not want to deploy itself too thin. Colin Powell said about the US military that it should only go to war with overwhelming force so that victory is assured.

The same applies to any operation by the Pakistani military. It went into Swat and South Waziristan with the appropriate strength and fully prepared. Not being able to take them was not an option. The same holds true for North Waziristan. Any operation there has to be assured of success.

Among other ungoverned areas, parts of Khyber agency, particularly Tirah Valley, are also becoming a refuge for different terror groups which have been pushed out of other agencies. The military leadership will also have to calculate how much force is required there to challenge them.

To sum up, the battle to reclaim ungoverned areas and give a final blow to militant groups settled there requires careful preparation and right timing. It is something that cannot be hurried because of US political compulsions. Any peremptory move will result in failure, and that will be catastrophic.

To add to other problems, the situation in Balochistan is becoming grimmer by the day. Targeted killings of non-Baloch have gone up and now law enforcement agencies are being openly attacked. The civil administration is helpless, and more a hollow front than a real government. The political leaders seem to be clueless.

These are tough times for Pakistan, but the state and the people are united to face the challenge of militancy. The victory may be late in coming, but it will not be denied

 

[DaRk WaVe]

Shahzad Case Shines Spotlight on Pakistan's Jihad Tourism​

The ease with which Times Square bomb-plot accused Faisal Shahzad was allegedly able to undergo bombmaking instruction during a visit to Pakistan has once again highlighted the country's enduring reputation as the destination of choice for jihadist tourism. The claim by Pakistani government sources that Shahzad trained at a camp in North Waziristan will ratchet up pressure on Islamabad to crack down on militant groups that operate in zones of lawlessness on its soil, and to dismantle the infrastructure that continues to attract aspiring terrorists seeking to attack the West.

Although details of Shahzad's ideological journey remain murky, Pakistanis who knew him say Shahzad came from a quietly religious family, and may only have become radicalized recently. "Last time when I met him," retired schoolteacher Nazirullah Khan told Reuters, "he didn't have a beard. I attended his wedding." Shahzad's possible links to Pakistani militant groups are under investigation, but some officials suspect that he may have had ties to Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM), a banned terror group that began its life as a proxy of Pakistan's intelligence services deployed to fight India in Kashmir. Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the group responsible for the 2008 Mumbai massacre, is also being investigated as a possibility, a senior Pakistani government source told TIME.

If suspicions of such links prove true, Shahzad's case would hardly be the first time a Western walk-in has turned up in the midst of Pakistani jihadist groups. Last October, David Headley, another U.S. citizen of Pakistani origin, was arrested and later charged with helping plan the November 2008 Mumbai massacre. According to a plea agreement issued by the Justice Department in March, Headley made contact with al-Qaeda operatives during two trips to North Waziristan — the tribal area under limited central government authority, where Shahzad is also said to have received his training. North Waziristan is the only tribal area untouched thus far by Pakistan's military offensives against its domestic Taliban insurgency, and the region is home to an assortment of jihadist groups that have working relationships with one another (including al-Qaeda). The Pakistani Army has deferred any offensive in the area, claiming limits on its capacity to take on such a mission right now, but the Times Square plot is likely to revive U.S. pressure for an offensive there.
See pictures of a jihadist's journey.

Shahzad and similar volunteers who arrive from the West are believed by Pakistani analysts to have begun their radicalization before making contact with local militant groups. "Somehow, in Canada, Britain and the U.S., people get self-radicalized, then they try and get in touch with radical organizations, depending on their background," says Amir Rana, director of the Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies. "If they are Pakistanis, they come here." And the Internet has proved to be a powerful tool for both radicalization and recruitment. "There's so much available in cyberspace, it would scare you to death," says Ayesha Siddiqa, an independent security analyst in Islamabad.

Any aspiring jihadist arriving in Pakistan is spoiled for choice when it comes to finding a militant group with which to sign up. Banned organizations such as LeT operate openly under different names, and it's not very difficult for the determined volunteer militant to find his way to such groups. "It's like a drug addict arriving in a new town," adds Siddiqa. "They always figure out where to get their fix."

Recruits bearing Western citizenship are prized by terror groups, because their passports, education, facility with language and relative comfort with life in Western cities are largely absent among the young, impressionable madrasah students often chosen to carry out vicious bombings in Pakistan, Afghanistan or even India. The potential of these more cosmopolitan recruits to strike in the heart of the West further fuels jihadist fantasies. As Michael Chertoff, the former head of Homeland Security, told MSNBC on Wednesday, "Unfortunately this is the kind of perfect mole for the terrorists. And this is why they're recruiting people who ... have clean records, are American citizens, have lived in America, because they want to take advantage of that cleanliness as a way of evading our defenses."

Britain has had to deal with this problem since the July 2005 bombings of the London commuter system. Given the vast number of Britons of Pakistani origin who move back and forth between the two countries, policing the traffic has severely tested authorities. The U.S. is not immune: Headley was able to move undetected between America, India and Pakistan for nearly seven years. Clearly, a problem also exists with respect to the extent of coordination between Western intelligence agencies and their Pakistani counterparts.

Shahzad, had he been seeking to join up with militants in Pakistan, would have had two distinct advantages over other Western-based volunteers. Having spent the first 18 years of his life in Pakistan, he was at ease in the country. His family's background in the northwest meant that he likely spoke Pashto, a rare asset. And the status of his father, retired senior air-force officer Bahar ul-Haq, is the sort of connection known to avert a suspicious gaze from law-enforcement agencies in Pakistan. Siddiqa goes further: "If you are traveling in Waziristan, and you are stopped, the fact that you are an air-force vice marshal's son can offer you protection," she says.

But whatever training Shahzad may have received in Waziristan must have been mercifully poor, judging by the multiple mistakes in the botched bombing attempt to which U.S. officials say he has confessed. Yet he's unlikely to have been the only Western wannabe to have passed through these camps and then returned to the West to put his militant education to work.

 

[Skeptic]

The infrastructure of jihad
By Cyril Almeida

From the moment the world saw footage of the SUV belching smoke in Times Square, you just knew that it was going to be a Pakistani.

And Faisal Shahzad didn’t disappoint. Never mind that the plot seems to be have been ridiculously amateurish, that the ‘bomb’ seems to have been assembled by a third-grade chemistry student, that Shahzad was more bungling idiot than mass murderer.

But now the world has yet more proof. Pakistan. Muslim. Terrorist.

Conspiracy theorists here, though, are hard at work spinning the facts in the opposite direction. The 9/11-was-an-inside-job brigade has gone into overdrive. Isn’t it odd that Hakeemullah rose from the dead only a few days ago, they ask? How convenient that Shahzad names Waziristan, the place the Americans are fixated with, they thunder.

And on it will go. Over in America, Fox News and the like will trot out headlines like ‘The Pakistan connection’ and add redundant question marks in statements such as ‘Hub of terror?’ and ‘Global menace?’

And here in Pakistan you’ll have news reports about the ‘anti-Pakistan’ Indian-born prosecutor handling the Shahzad case, with not-so-veiled references to Preet Bharara’s ‘Jewish relatives’. (I wish I was making this up; a local TV channel, best left unnamed, carried a breathless report on Bharara’s alleged biases and ancestry earlier this week.)

But away from the cacophony and largely outside the media, hard, and meaningful, questions are already being asked.

That Shahzad is apparently an idiot proved to be a stroke of good luck. He could easily have been smarter, something you don’t want your wannabe mass murderers to be. But he epitomises a vulnerability, one that the militants have figured out and appear to be working feverishly to exploit and which the West still seems at a loss to understand.

What exactly is driving people like Shahzad to embrace this madness? Here’s a seemingly normal 30-year-old Pakistani man who has made it good, entering the West through the front door in search of educational and employment opportunities. He’s got two kids, a pretty, happy wife and has a vain streak (if his Orkut pictures are anything to go by). What set him off on the path of madness?

To ask this question isn’t to embrace the self-serving theories about ‘legitimate’ Muslim grievances and the oppression of Palestinians and the war in Iraq feeding a murderous rage among Muslim youth.

It’s to identify a potentially catastrophic security threat and deal with it adequately. Frankly, it is impossible to ensure that there will never be another Shahzad. No response to any threat can ever guarantee a zero failure rate.

But as the global jihadists have realised that penetrating the western defences from outside post-9/11 has become more difficult, they appear to be working on potential threats from within.

It took eight years between Ramzi Yousef’s bombing of the World Trade Centre and 9/11. That the jihadis have failed to launch a serious attack inside the US may only be a matter of time of finding a smarter Shahzad or a smarter bunch of five disaffected boys from Virigina.

Yet, that’s a problem for America, the UK and other western countries to figure out. Here in Pakistan, the Shahzad case ought to have the alarms bells ringing even more furiously.

Why is it so easy for all these wannabe jihadists form the West to travel to Pakistan and plug into the world of religious extremism here?

Fata may be a tribal backwater, an anachronism in the 21st century. But there are no direct flights to Mir Ali or Miranshah. The first port of call for the wannabe western jihadis is Karachi, Lahore or Islamabad.

It’s in the cities and towns that the wannabe jihadists begin their search, usually by looking for a local mosque or madressah or religious centre of some sort run by some guy with connections to the world of militancy.

If some idiot with a murderous agenda from Connecticut or Viriginia can find these linkages, then why can’t the state here? The short answer is, it can. Your local cop or crime reporter can identify the suspicious neighbourhoods, mosques and madressahs. It’s not exactly a great mystery.

Surely, 10 years since 9/11 and three since Lal Masjid, the state ought to have done more to dismantle the urban links to the hotbeds of militancy in Fata. Why are the CDs glorifying suicide bombers still so easily available outside certain mosques? Why is the sectarian hate literature disseminated so widely? Why are the audio tapes urging people to take up arms against ‘infidels’ so readily accessible? It would be naïve, certainly premature, to assume the infrastructure of jihad in urban Pakistan is the sole, or even main, reason Shahzad turned to radical Islam. But surely the fact that it is so easily accessible contributes to people like Shahzad, or future Shahzads, acting on their newly discovered hate.

Yes, just like American anti-gun control activists argue that it isn’t guns that kill people, it’s people who kill people, the jihad infrastructure here isn’t setting off bombs, it’s people who are setting off bombs. But why is Pakistan being an enabler of this stuff?

True, all of the hateful material is easily available online but you don’t become a would-be bomber by sitting behind a computer screen. That’s why these guys travel abroad. But why are they travelling to Pakistan and not, say, Egypt or Syria or even Sudan or Somalia?

It’s possible to read too much into the Pakistan connection, each case being unique and having its own set of circumstances. But it’s also possible to read too little into it. If you remove the conspiracy blinkers, the dots only connect in so many ways.

For sure, going in guns blazing isn’t the answer either, as the extraordinary blowback from the bungled Lal Masjid operation has proved. You don’t want to create another mess while trying to clean up an existing mess.

But so long as you or I or some idiot like Shahzad can all too easily find jihadi inspiration and worse in Pakistan proper, we aren’t really doing much to clean up the original mess, are we?

More Balanced Article pertaining to the subject matter. I guess message is approximately the same, but the language might be more palatable for my Pakistani friends.

 

[harish]

The really scary part of this whole thing is the sheer 'normalness' of the guy. His profile could be like that of any Pakistani American on this very forum for that matter. It may not even be stretching things too far to wrap our heads around the fact that he could very well have been part of this forum! Indulging in the daily verbal barrage that goes on here with us Indians. Could this forum be under American scrutiny now? Could the Pakistani expats here be on the newly widened 'watch lists' for that matter? What happens if some disaffected soul really takes a post or posts to heart and decides to do something a lot more effective about it than merely shooting back online? Scary stuff. I for one feel that Pakistan produces jihadists because the good Pakistanis are too scared to speak up and out against the dangerous minority, in Pakistan as well as abroad. Why rock the boat and attract terror to your own doorstep? This is why so many of the majority of educated Pakistanis choose to leave their country into the safer and faceless anonymity and obscurity of a life abroad in western lands. Just my two cents.

 

[T-Faz]

The Curious Timing of the Terrorist Attacks: It’s Almost Like They’re On Our Side

by Scott Creighton

“Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.” White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, Nov. 2008

As has always been the case since 2001, the bungling blasters who end up attacking our freedom rarely do so when it isn’t of the utmost convenience for the White House. This latest example, connected to the Waziristan area of Pakistan, holds true to that formula. One might start wondering if all these “terrorists” are actually on our side.

Now, I say “since 2001″ not because what they did wasn’t convenient for the previous White House. In fact, the Patriot Act was sitting waiting to go, the plans for invading Afghanistan were dropped on Bush’s desk on Sept. 9th 2001, Donald Rumsfeld had just announced 2.3 trillion dollars was “missing” from the Pentagon, and old ‘Lucky” Larry Silverstein had just secured his billion dollar insurance policy on the Twin Towers right before the event. Not to mention the fact that the Bush administration was already at a terribly low approval rating or the fact that Cheney and the other neocons had called for “a Pearl Harbor type event” to set in motion all of their foreign and domestic policies which they spelled out in a paper called “Rebuilding America’s Defences” in 2000.

The distinction I am making is that compared to the most recent Keystone Cops type terrorist acts (Umar Fizzlepants and the Times Square parker), the terrorist of the old Bush administration were actually able to carry out their attacks and at the same time, defy laws of physics and scientific research while doing it. The 9/11 terrorists were able to knock down 7 buildings with 2 planes and at the same time bring Building 7 down at free-fall acceleration after having been hit by no plane, from office fires alone (first time in history that happened. talk about your overachiever terrorists)…. and after doing all of that, they were able to hit the most heavily guarded building in history with a plane being flown by a terrorist who couldn’t fly a Cesna. Then the anthrax terrorist was able to create a weaponized anthrax strain in 3 hours or so when experts in the field say it would take a thousand hours to do it in their highly specialized lab. Amazing accomplishments for our terrorists back then…

Back in the old days, they defied the laws of physics… now they can’t even make a simple bomb.

Let me get back to the point… just before Umar Fizzlepants (also somehow allowed to get on a plane while the Feds knew he was dangerous, just like Faisal Shahzad) put on his “one show only Sparkler of Doom” production, President Obama had given authorization to attack targets in Yemen, a nation we had not been at war with. Varying reports surfaced about whether or not we aided the dictator in Yemen with intel or if we had actually used our weapons. The truth of this matter is still kind of hazy. But just as those stories were coming out, lo-and-behold, Umar Fizzlepants steps up to the plate and sparkles a validation of President Obama’s attack on Yemen. By the way, that U.S. attack in Yemen killed many civilians and children as well. But suddenly it was ok because Umar Fizzlepants showed up.

Now we have Faisal Shahzad’s attempted vending cart massacre… the story here is (I mean, AFTER the story that it wasn’t terrorism and AFTER the story it was just a car fire and AFTER the story that Pakistan had nothing to do with it) that Shahzad is a naturalized U.S. citizen from Pakistan. Specifically that he was trained in Waziristan. Well, that couldn’t be convenient for the Obama administration could it? Let’s take a look.

When the latest apparent U.S. drone strike was conducted this week against militants in Pakistan, the obvious question appeared to be: Did the United States get a “big fish” in the Taliban or al Qaeda organizations?

But a U.S. counterterrorism official says that’s now the wrong question to ask, and chances are those hit were not major players. He wouldn’t discuss the specifics of the latest strike, but with the official backing of his bosses, he sought to explain how U.S. strategy has changed in the crucial effort to attack targets inside Pakistan with missiles fired from drones.

The plan now is to attack a broader set of terrorist targets far beyond the original effort to strike and kill top al Qaeda leaders, the official said. CNN

You see, we are asking the wrong question. We have to stop thinking in terms of targeting known Taliban or al Qaeda fighters. Instead, we have to look at the bigger picture. Faisal Shahzad wasn’t a known terrorist or even a fighter in Pakistan. In fact, his family is known in the community as being “apolitical”… but see, you never know. Someone who LOOKS innocent, may in fact be the most dangerous terrorist since Umar Fizzlepants. And therefore we must rethink all those “innocent civilians” the drones have killed in the past. Are they REALLY innocent?

The vast majority of the deaths (from the 44 drone strikes of 2009), around 700 according to one estimate, have been innocent civilians. With such a massive civilian toll and so little to show for it, it is no wonder that Pakistani people have been up in arms over the continued strikes.

But US officials have rarely commented on the drone strikes, except on those rare occasions when they actually kill someone meaningful, and seem completely ambivalent to the hundreds of innocent people killed in the meantime. The ultimate example of this was June 22-23.

On June 22, the US struck at a house officials called a “suspected militant hideout,” burying a few locals inside. When others rushed to the scene to rescue them, they launched another missile, killing 13 apparently innocent Pakistanis. When they held a funeral procession on June 23, the US hit that too, ostensibly on the belief that Baitullah Mehsud might be among the mourners. He wasn’t, but the attack killed at least 80 more people. AntiWar

There were two separate drone attacks in Pakistan on April 23rd and April 25th. The combined death toll was over 13 with others wounded. No al Qaeda leaders were reportedly killed in the strike. These kinds of attacks are not being well received by the people of Pakistan nor the government.

The United States, struggling to stabilize Afghanistan, stepped up its missile strikes in Pakistan’s northwest after a Jordanian suicide bomber killed seven CIA employees at a U.S. base across the border in the eastern Afghan province of Khost in December.

Most of the attacks this year have been in North Waziristan.

U.S. ally Pakistan officially objects to the drone strikes, saying they are a violation of its sovereignty and fuel anti-U.S. feeling, which complicates Pakistan’s efforts against militancy. Reuters

Now consider this; a great number of dead civilians in Waziristan, in a country we are not at war with, starts to ferment and anger within the Pakistani people as well as the government, and along comes the SUV parker to confess that he in fact got his training…. in Waziristan…

U.S. officials quickly cast doubt on the claim, but the arrest of a Pakistani-American in New York who allegedly has admitted to being trained in the group’s heartland in Waziristan has given it new credence. AP

(Now remember… the only source we have as to what he “confessed” to is an Obama administration official)

I mean, you just don’t get better timing than that. Well, unless of course you just happen to have invasion plans drawn up for Afghanistan, you want to help UNICAL with their Trans Afghan Pipeline, you just happen to announce 2.3 trillion missing dollars the day before Sept. 11th (the biggest news story in history), you just killed some 23 kids in a different nation we aren’t at war with, or of course if you want to pass the Patriot Act and a few congressmen and reporters aren’t towing the line ….

But aside from THOSE examples, you just don’t get better timing than that, do you?

You know, sometimes I just wonder if all those “terrorists” aren’t doing the best they can to support the imperial agenda of whatever administration we get in the White House. It’s mighty nice of them to help us with the Global War on Terror ain’t it? I mean, without all those “terrorists” stepping up to the plate just when the White House needed them the most, where would the Global Free Market Wars be now?

Makes you think, don’t it?

 

[T-Faz]

Balochistan on the chopping block

There are three main pillars of the ‘Final Solution’: 1. Cut the western half of Balochistan from the rest of Pakistan and declare it ‘international strategic corridor’; 2. Topple the sitting government in Iran; and 3. Create an Ismaili state, joining the Gorno-Badakhshan oblast of Tajikistan, Badakhshan province of Afghanistan, and Gilgit-Baltistan province of Pakistan.

Balochistan, from Balochistan is the ultimate prize, by Pepe Escobar, May 2009

The Times Square bomb suspect has been arrested, a US citizen born in Pakistan. I think this Reuters headline gives it away:

New York bomb puts Pakistan in spotlight (HINT HINT HINT)

Any links between Pakistan's Taliban and a failed bombing in New York's Times Square could put the country under renewed U.S. pressure to open risky new fronts against Islamic militants.

ANY links. The bar is pretty low to apply pressure to open "risky new fronts against Islamic militants."

How convenient is that? I think it might be really exceedingly convenient.

According to the Final Solution report, part four, the US would like to create an "international corridor" from the far west coast of Balochistan, near the Iranian border, and running north to the border of Afghanistan, to Helmand and Kandahar provinces.


The DoD-CIA and their embedded journalists painstakingly spun a tale that Helmand was a stronghold of Taliban. That was their justification for Operation Moshtarak. In fact, half of Helmand was already in the hands of the US forces. The other half, sparingly populated, was not important for the ongoing operations in Afghanistan. As the operation Moshtarak unfolded, we were in touch with our sources in Helmand. We know from first-hand accounts that:

1. The operation was conducted mainly by the US forces although the reporting gave the impression that the NATO was equally in the forefront.
2. One of the main reasons given for the operation was that Taliban were benefiting from poppy crops and they must be denied this source of income. We know for sure that not a single poppy bulb was destroyed during the operation.
3. The village elders that were shown meeting the US force commanders were the middlemen for poppy, and the Americans fully knew it.
4. We are still in touch with our Helmand sources and we know that the Americans don’t dare go far beyond their camps.
5. Roughly five percent of the US forces were busy in keeping an eye on the newly trained Afghan police because the policemen had the tendency to desert and join the enemy whenever they found a chance.

After the mock operation in Helmand, the US forces are now planning a bigger offensive in Kandahar, an area that is billed ad nauseam as the spiritual capital of the Taliban. Based solely on the media hype and DoD-CIA statements, one gets the impression that not even a mosquito can fly in Kandahar without the consent of Taliban. The actual fact is that the Kandahar airport is the busiest single-runway airport in the world. More than 700 American and NATO flights land or take off every day at Kandahar airfield. Had Taliban been in control of the whole of Kandahar, it would not have been possible for so many American and NATO warplanes to land and take off in that province. Also, there are two American bases in Kandahar. Therefore, the impression that Helmand and Kandahar were, or are, out of bounds for Americans and NATO is based on manufactured ‘truth.’

And a bit further on:

“The pincer must have two jaws,” said Simon. He explained, “The US Navy would be in a position after July 2010 to station some landing ships, probably four, near the territorial waters of Pakistan. They would be able to land and support more than 30000 troops, complete with transport units and fighting gear, anywhere at the Pakistan coastline between Pasni and Gawadar. There would be aircraft carriers with more than enough warplanes to overwhelm the Pakistan Airforce. This is the other jaw of the pincer.”

And how would the US justify creating such a corridor from the sovereign nation of Pakistan? Well, they just need some links, ANY links, to justify applying increased pressure to open those risky new fronts.

Simon in Washington added, “An international incident can easily be linked to Pakistan and that would be a good enough reason for invasion. It can be as big as assassination of Obama and as small as bombing of a refinery in the UK. In fact, the latest amendment to the NATO charter seems designed to add this kind of hair trigger in the NATO mechanism. Justification, in any case, is no big deal when you don’t really need to justify it to anyone.”

Look at that Reuters headline again.

If we start to hear that our man from Times Square, Faisal Shahzad, has been in a training camp in Balochistan...

So far all the action seems to be in the northern areas of Pakistan. But that could change at any time.

Meanwhile, in those same northern areas, organization:


ISLAMABAD: Is Turkey the new poppy Helmand of Europe? Is the question worrying many key diplomats in Islamabad who are aware of the ongoing probe into the seizure of a 13-container load of poppy seeds (called Khaskhash in Urdu), which had been cleared by the Customs and had already been loaded onto a waiting cargo ship? What has set the alarm bells ringing is the realisation that only a highly organised network could have collected almost 224,000 kg of the commodity from small and medium traders, then packed it marked as rice, and bribed its way through Customs to ship the entire lot to Turkey, where a region is said to offer excellent soil and environment for growing poppy, which provides opium and which, in turn, is the raw material for producing heroin.

Sources told The News that the Anti Narcotics Force was probing the chain of dealers involved in building the necessary supply chain and arrests were expected in the next few days. The bulk of the poppy seed shipment, sources told, came from Helmand, Afghanistan, and from within Pakistan from areas of the Malakand Division, Bajaur and Momand belt of Fata.

The seized shipment had been gotten cleared from the Customs by a Karachi-based Pakistani export firm, M/s Spark Enterprises, whereas the recipient company in Turkey was identified as M/s European Spice, the Directorate of Customs Intelligence (DCI), Islamabad, confirmed to The News.

An intelligence official said details of this cache came with a lot of other material that indicated how the DCI had lately been pushing for physical checking of consignments at different Customs stations like the Model Collectorate, Karachi, Dry Port, Peshawar, and the Customs Station, Torkham, on the Pak-Afghan border.

UPDATE: Also see Arthur Zbygniew: Quetta: tensions rise after assassinations of Punjabis. More reasons to do something about Balochistan...

Heading to and from work, or nipping to the shops, fear grips professional men and women in the southwestern province of Baluchistan, where a sharp increase in assassinations is being blamed on separatist rebels.

...The surge in violence threatens to torpedo the prospects of political reconciliation, warns Ali Dayan Hasan of Human Rights Watch. Targeted killings and disappearances underscore "political breakdown" in Baluchistan with assassinations an "instrument of political warfare," he said. "It is placing large sections of the non-Baluch population in a state of anxiety and fear and will lead to greater instability and violence in the province," he told AFP.

"It is a rebellion against the Pakistani state but it has regional and international strategic and security implications, and there are many countries that stand to be affected or benefit from development in Baluchistan."

The Chinese have economic investments in the province. Baluchistan shares an extensive border with Iran, which is in turn keen that Pakistan does not become a staging ground for unrest among Iranian Baluch.

Militants crossing to and from Afghanistan also give Kabul and the United States a stake as they wage a nine-year war against the Afghan Taliban. The militia's one-eyed leader, Mullah Omar, is reported to have carved out a haven in Quetta and its leadership council has been dubbed the Quetta Shura.

The Pakistani military fears that intensifying US-led operations against the Taliban in southern Afghanistan this summer will see militants flee across the border into Baluchistan, posing further problems to law and order.

 

[T-Faz]

I see the great game is alive and well, lets see what happens.

 

[sanasahil]

@bc040400065 I agree with you. There are good and bad people in the world. Pakistan is the beautiful and great country but in these days this country is in problem.. Please dont criticize just find the solution..

Thanks