[ChotooMotoo]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

Hey bro, take it easy ... she's just saying what a lot of Pakistanies all over the world said.

That's exactly right. I posed the question, that's all. However, Abu Hind has an extreme dislike for me, and would rather be mean to me than take me at face value. I've heard lots of people make the arguments that I made, so I thought to pose the question here and get your guys' response. I didn't make up those arguments.

As for having no feeling for a loss of innocent life. That is slander right there.

Think about it, if you're the leader of a country faced with two choices (as you see it) capitulate and have only a few hundred people die, or not capitulate and have possibly millions of people die and be displaced from a war with the US and India (becuase you know India would leap at the opportunity) what would you do? From your perspective, people will die no matter what you do. Wouldn't you try and minimize that was much as possible?

People love to hate Musharaff, and I'm not exactly a fan, but from where I'm sitting he's doing the bare minimum to stave of US airstrikes or worse. The US isn't happy with him either, look at how they've teamed up with India in the last few years. They are doing everything they can to make Musharaff as uncomfortable as possible becusae they have an idea that, given his past history, he would just as soon not do the US bidding and stay happily in power forever. Doing the US bidding almost guarantees that he will lose power at some point, which point seems to be comming sooner rather than later. The US is playing with Pakistan like a cat plays with a mouse it's about to devour.

Believe me, I don't like that he cow tows to every US demand (no matter how grudgeingly he does it), but it's hard to see that he has much choice either.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by ChotooMotoo

Think about it, if you're the leader of a country faced with two choices (as you see it) capitulate and have only a few hundred people die, or not capitulate and have possibly millions of people die and be displaced from a war with the US and India (becuase you know India would leap at the opportunity) what would you do?

I'd take the third option ... as I described above ...

[Abu_Hind]

Chotoo Motoo: There's nothing to refute in your arguement, because you are a contentious idiot hell bent upon thinking that only your perspective is praiseworthy.

President Musharaf has done the utmost to appease America. Ranging from changing school curricula to slandering sisters who wear niqaab. So, your insistence that he's doing bare minimum to ward off an attack is utter B.S. Obviously American govt. is not happy because there are still 'terrorist' present in some remote areas.

But, you wouldn't understand would you? 100 people or a million people, it's probably more like a video game to you.

[rxrlm]

When Busharraf first came into power he said he won't be like one of those bananna republics who are willing to bend over backwards to appease other nations, and thats exactly what he's doing ever since he got power.

And its just not him. I don't think the situation would have been any different if Bhutto or Sharif were in power. The ultimate decision in any pak gov is made by the army. If the army is not happy, its not going to work and pak army is known to be secular (sort of like Turkey, just not as extreme thanfully).

Overall, pakistan won't head towards an islamic state unless the people change. There are still a significant number of pakistanis who do not want an islamic state, especially in the upper echelons of the society i.e. those in charge of the country. Nothing will change unless the people change and its useless to impose an islamic society on them IMO. Its just going to attract more attention from the champions of democracy aka US and will lead to better (read more pro-American) puppets if this puppet doesn't work.

Guess who might be the next stooge? or shall i say co-stooge. Hint

Thats how the developing world runs in a nutshell give or take a few nations.

[IbnAbdullah]

Originally Posted by rxrlm

When Busharraf first came into power he said he won't be like one of those bananna republics who are willing to bend over backwards to appease other nations, and thats exactly what he's doing ever since he got power.

And its just not him. I don't think the situation would have been any different if Bhutto or Sharif were in power. The ultimate decision in any pak gov is made by the army. If the army is not happy, its not going to work and pak army is known to be secular (sort of like Turkey, just not as extreme thanfully).

Overall, pakistan won't head towards an islamic state unless the people change. There are still a significant number of pakistanis who do not want an islamic state, especially in the upper echelons of the society i.e. those in charge of the country. Nothing will change unless the people change and its useless to impose an islamic society on them IMO. Its just going to attract more attention from the champions of democracy aka US and will lead to better (read more pro-American) puppets if this puppet doesn't work.

Guess who might be the next stooge? or shall i say co-stooge. Hint

Thats how the developing world runs in a nutshell give or take a few nations.

Pakistan survived even in those conditions when it was going ahead with its nuclear program. We didn't yet make nuclear weapons and there was a continuous threat from India and Israel that our nuclear assets would be bombed as Iraqi's were bombed. Then the leader was Zia-ul-Haq, he was not the Mir Jafar of Pakistan, like the American agent Musharraf is. Then I don't understand how come you guys think Pakistan was like 'Sri Lanka' that if Pakistan didn't offer its help to Americans in the post 9/11 scenario, Pakistan would be bombed as Afghanistan was bombed and 'millions of people would die'.
You guys are working on 'assumptions' that are absurd ones; these Americans didn't even destroy Cuba and Venezuela, not to talk about North Korea and Iran. There are 'living' examples of these nations but you guys are still working on 'Musharraf's deceptive theory'. We were a nuclear state after 9/11. We survived even when we were not a nuclear state while India was that. Americans and in the broader term, 'Kuffar' are cowards, they just bluff us, and the 'Secular Munafiqeen', the likes of Musharraf since don't have any Iman in their hearts, or they themselves are working for the 'Kuffar' they take those bluffs as the 'genuine threats'.

And let me tell you, we in Pakistan have 3 classes; (1) the most oppressed poor people who don't even have food and even water to live, they are not interested in the Politics or Democracy or Shari'ah, they only want food and juistice, (2) the Ruling elites, which consist of 'part' of Army, Feudals, some politicians who don't want shari'ah because they are criminals and shari'ah brings them to justice, (3) the Religious class which is in a good majority than the Ruling elites, they are in many millions, only presently there are around 3 million madrasah students; unfortunately the religious class is divided and infected with sectarianism.
Trust me, majority here wants shari'ah, even the recent polls say that.

Are Americans angry with Musharraf?

That is a 'stupid question'. Why would Americans be 'angry' with Musharraf when they know they may not have a 'better' man after him. Maybe another Zia-ul-Haq replaces him. They are only pressurising 'their good man' to get him 'do more'.

Musharraf believes in Money

Well, he is the 'worshipper' of money and power, if it comes from Americans, Musharraf is their friend, and as the things are changing, I guess Musharraf is soon to 'be friendly' with Talibans and 'extremists' as 'American vice' becomes tighter. In fact such shows we often see in Pakistan; when American politicians make anti-Pak statements, Musharraf makes his men say, 'we should get out of this war on terror' and the so called intellectuals say on tv, 'we should support Talibans'...and then Richard Bouchers comes to visit Pakistan, in order to tell Musharraf, 'Don't worry about such statements, our policy is what you hear from Bush and Kallo Pari (Rice).'

[IbnAbdullah]

Global conspiracies against Pakistan

GENERAL MIRZA ASLAM BEG

After the occupation of Afghanistan in October 2001, a large intelligence support base was created at Jabal-us-Seraj, north of Kabul. It provided the much needed intelligence to the occupation forces, who failed to consolidate their hold over the territories of Afghanistan, except the garrisoned cities of Kabul and Kandahar and the few air bases. The areas in the north from Herat to Mazar-e-Sharif to Badakhshan are virtually under the control of the warlords. In the south, areas bordering Pakistan are practically controlled by the Taliban. Afghanistan, as such presents a sad picture of a fractured society and ‘free for all’ smugglers, narcotic dealers, conspirators, intelligence agencies and NGOs, to operate with impunity.

US and India signed the Strategic Partnership Deal in 2003, with the declared objectives, “to contain and curb the rising military and economic power of China and the increasing threat of Islamic extremism in the region.” In this respect, both found harmony and commonality of interests in pursuit of these objectives. However, as the military situation worsened, attention got focused on the larger objective of the occupation forces, to establish the intelligence network in Afghanistan, to destabilise Pakistan and other neighbouring countries such as, China, Russia, Central Asian States and Iran. It was at the time, that the US state department declared that “Afghanistan, which has been part of Central Asia geo-politically, henceforth, will be considered as part of South Asia.” The implicit purpose was to bring Afghanistan, within easy reach of India, to use it as the base for intelligence network against the neighbouring countries. For this purpose, the intelligence network, which has since been established and is fully operational.

We have enough information to identify this intelligence network inside Afghanistan, fairly accurately, to determine the dimensions of this Great Game, of the civilised world. The nerve centre is at Jabal-us-Seraj, manned and operated by CIA, Raw, Mosad, MI-6 and BND (German intelligence). It’s a huge set-up with concrete buildings, antennas and all the modern electronic gadgetry one can conceive of. Its out-posts are Sarobi and Kandahar against Pakistan. Faizabad, against China; Mazar-e-Sharif, against Russia and Central Asian States and Herat against Iran, as indicated in the map.

INTELLIGENCE NETWORK OF OCCUPATION FORCES IN
AFGHANISTAN

Against Pakistan

• Sarobi is the nerve centre headed by an Indian General officer, who also commands the Border Road Organisation (BRO). Its forward bases are, Ghazni, Khowst, Gardeyz, Jalalabad, Asadabad, Wakhan and Faizabad. BRO has built an all weather road from Sarobi to Asadabad to Faizabad. Sarobi network, targets the province of NWFP, Pakistan. Dissidents from Pakistan, are trained at Sarobi for missions inside NWFP. Wakhan salient has been infested with dozens of electronic outposts, covering Pakistan, China, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

• Kandahar has its forward bases at Lashkargah and Nawah. Their target area is the province of Balochistan. The dissidents from Balochistan are trained at Lashkargah for undertaking missions in Balochistan as well as in support of the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA). One of their tasks is to target Chinese working in the province, particularly at Gwadar, Sandak and Hab. The American anchorages, on the Pakistani coast at Jiwani and Kalamat, jointly plan operations with BLA inside Balochistan. They also use the Pakistani out-posts at Mand, for operations inside Iran. The American warships in the Arabian Sea and their intelligence base in Muscat, provide the back-up support. The facilities at Jiwani and Kalamat were provided by Pakistan, as logistic support bases to the Americans for operation in Afghanistan, but the same are now being used, to destabilise Balochistan and Iran.

Against China.

The set-up at Faizabad (Badakhshan) holds over 350xpersonnel mainly Muslim soldiers, engineers and workers from India. It serves as the training camp for the Chinese dissidents from the Xinjiang province. Indian Ulemas impart motivational education, giving the impression that the entire out-fit at Faizabad was run by Pakistanis. The recently acquired facility for military deployment by India, across the border in Tajikistan at Kalai Kumli, adds a meaningful capability to India to operate inside Tajikistan, as well as Uzbekistan.

Against Russia.

The intelligence base at Mazar-e-Sharif is run jointly by CIA, RAW, Mossad and BND. Chechnyan dissidents and agents from Turkmenistan are trained for operations in these countries. Rasheed Dostam and Ahmad Zia Masood are very active supporters of such activities in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

Against Iran.

The forward base at Herat and Farah are manned by CIA, RAW and Mossad for subversive activities inside Iran. Jointly operating from these bases and the bases inside Pakistan, such as Kalamat, Jiwani and Mand, they have been able to undertake actions inside Iran, killing a number of security forces personnel in the last few years. The terrorist organisation named Jandullah has been used for conduct of such operations inside Iran.

Pakistan and Iran are being blamed for supporting terrorists in Afghanistan, whereas Afghan territory is being violated so blatantly to destabilise the neighbouring countries of Afghanistan, by nations, who claim to be the flag bearers of the ideals of international norms of justice and fairplay. This is the worst kind of ‘Terrorism Through Consensus’, by the so-called civilised nations, in occupation of Afghanistan. The brutal violation of Afghanistan’s sovereignty for the shameful purpose of destabilisation of Pakistan and the regional countries, is condemnable. Was this the purpose of the strategic partnership deal between India, United States and NATO”?

My argument is based on the research and study, which may not be as
accurate as the information held by the government of Pakistan. Yet it is surprising that after so much of suffering at the hands of foreign saboteurs, the government of Pakistan has woken-up now, to say that “foreign hands are involved in the recent killing of the Chinese.” And on the floor of the assembly, the finger was pointed also to CIA. Why this announcement has come so late? Why such culpable lack of responsibility to protect our national interests, while our enemies have spun a web of espionage and conspiracies, which undermines our national security. Someone rightly said: “The peak of tolerance is most readily achieved by those who are not burdened with convictions.”
(Alexander Chase)

The writer is the Chairman FRIENDS
Email: fr786pak@isb.comsats.net.pk

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/aug-2007/14/columns3.php

[IbnAbdullah]

Have Americans decide who will replace Musharraf?

US confirm moves to bring Pakistani moderates together

SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
WASHINGTON - The United States has officially confirmed that it was encouraging political moderates in Pakistan to come together amid reports that Washington was making efforts to get President Pervez Musharraf to share power with PPP Chairperson Benazir Bhutto, officials said Thursday.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice discussed the power-sharing arrangement idea in a telephone call to Gen. Musharraf last week, the New York Times reported, quoting American and Pakistani officials.
On Thursday, both the White House and State Department spokesmen said in almost identical statements that the U.S. has been working on various political parties and the government -- they did not name any -- to ensure free and fair elections and a system that follows democratic norms.
The officials said the US encourages political moderates in Pakistan to come together to support a moderate center, but emphasized that any decisions about Pakistani politics and the future course of any political alliances or questions about the conduct of Pakistani elections or the course of political reform can be decided by the Pakistani people and their leadership.
"We support free and fair elections in Pakistan . We have met with various parties there. This is ultimately decisions for the people of Pakistan to make," Gordon Johndroe, White House Deputy Press Secretary said at a briefing while answering a question about US efforts to forge an alliance in Pakistan.
"What the United States wants to see is a peaceful, prosperous, secure, stable Pakistan -- that's in the interests of the Pakistanis, the interests of the region, and interests of the whole world. We want to see a moderate political center form there, following democratic processes," he added.
At the State Department, the spokesman told a briefing that the US encourages moderates in Pakistan to come together to support a moderate center as a way to support the conduct of free and fair elections, as a way to fight extremism and as a way to continue the process of political and economic reform.
"It's important for Pakistan 's future. It's certainly important to us because we believe a more free, more democratic Pakistan will ultimately be a more stable Pakistan and one that will continue to be a good ally in fighting the war on terror," Spokesman Sean McCormack said. Specifically asked if the administration was promoting an alliance between Gen. Musharraf and Ms. Bhutto, the spokesman stated: "I have to emphasize that any decisions about Pakistani politics and the future course of any political alliances or questions about the conduct of Pakistani elections or the course of political reform can be decided by the Pakistani people and their leadership."
To another question, the US does not choose the candidates and made it clear that its expression of opinion (on moderate political center) is intended to indicate that Washington has favourite candidates .
"We don't choose -- we don't choose favourites in political parties. We don't choose favourite candidates. That's for the Pakistanis to decide. We do have the opinion that there is -- that it is important for Pakistan 's future that there is this political center, political moderates. I don't think you'll find a difference of opinion among many Pakistanis about that.
"So inasmuch as we express that opinion, it is not intended to indicate that we have any particular favourites or favourite candidates or that we're picking and choosing candidates or that we're picking and choosing political parties. That's not the case."

The Nation

[bluey]

Assalam Alaykum

Originally Posted by ChotooMotoo

I just wanna know... what would you have done if you had been Musharaff, and had the US threaten you to do it or have your country bombed out of existance? Would you have done what they asked and sacrifice a few hundred lives for the greater good, or would you have stuck to your guns and had Pakistan turn into Iraq?

Sadly enough I've had this same argument with a family member over and over again until I stopped mentioning the subject. Lets just say, its as if culture and nationalism is more important then Islam. I've read cases about where the Pakistani government sold out Mujahideen who'd come to Afghanistan for Jihad and so on. And really the 'greater good' is arguable. What 'greater good'? Are we forgtting that victory comes from Allah subhanna wa ta'ala? In the end, one should ask, what was the better option, allying with the Kuffar or defending your Country and doing Jihad? If I had to die, I'd prefer to die honourably compared to being betrayed by other 'Muslims' and being given to the Kuffar.

If Allah helps you, none can overcome you, and if He forsakes you, who is there after Him that can help you? And in Allah (Alone) let believers put their trust. (V.3: 1 60).

But those who knew with certainty that they were to meet their Lord, said: "How often a small group overcame a mighty host by Allâh's Leave?" And Allâh is with As-Sâbirin (the patient ones, etc.).[2:249]

[ChotooMotoo]

Originally Posted by bluey

Assalam Alaykum



Sadly enough I've had this same argument with a family member over and over again until I stopped mentioning the subject. Lets just say, its as if culture and nationalism is more important then Islam. I've read cases about where the Pakistani government sold out Mujahideen who'd come to Afghanistan for Jihad and so on. And really the 'greater good' is arguable. What 'greater good'? Are we forgtting that victory comes from Allah subhanna wa ta'ala? In the end, one should ask, what was the better option, allying with the Kuffar or defending your Country and doing Jihad? If I had to die, I'd prefer to die honourably compared to being betrayed by other 'Muslims' and being given to the Kuffar.

If Allah helps you, none can overcome you, and if He forsakes you, who is there after Him that can help you? And in Allah (Alone) let believers put their trust. (V.3: 1 60).

But those who knew with certainty that they were to meet their Lord, said: "How often a small group overcame a mighty host by Allâh's Leave?" And Allâh is with As-Sâbirin (the patient ones, etc.).[2:249]

I tend to agree with you. Then again, it seems to me that Pakistani government people don't have that much faith in Islam to say things like this. They couldn't stick it out in Kargil either, they quit the second Clinton told them to stop (according to Bill Clinton and Nawaz Sharif in an interview I read). It's all hypothetical anyway, becuase the choice was made and the damage was done. Even though you may be prepared for the consequences of standing up to the US and India, who knows how many Pakistani's would have been willing to do the same. Of course it's not like anyone asked them anyway, the government just decided, end of discussion. There is always a consequence to whatever choice you make. Pakistan is feeling the consequences of this decision. Who's to say that the consequences of the other decision would have been any better, or worse.

[IbnAbdullah]

China, Russia, 4 other CARs display mily might to West

CHEBARKUL, Russia, (AFP) - The presidents of Russia, China and four other Central Asian Republics attended unprecedented joint military exercises on Friday, intended as a display of strength to the West.
The vast show of firepower at a training ground in the Russian province of Chelyabinsk near the Kazakh border was the culmination of nine-day exercises dubbed “Peace Mission 2007” that began in northwest China.
It involved some 6,000 personnel from China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan: the six members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.
A lone bugle player formally opened the exercises, and over a two-hour period helicopters, fighter jets and tanks went in hot pursuit and crushing some 1,000 heavily-armed “terrorists” who had taken over a village fabricated for the exercises.
While Russia footed most of the bill for its phase of the exercises, spending some 80 million dollars, they marked a new level of military cooperation with China after the two countries held their first-ever joint manoeuvres two years ago.
Beijing contributed 1,700 personnel and sent warplanes and helicopters to the Chebarkul training ground in the rolling Urals countryside.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese Hu Jintao stressed that the exercises were conceived to develop regional coordination in responding to terrorism threats, and the Russian president rejected suggestions that the SCO aimed to become a military bloc like the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
“Economic issues take first place” in the SCO, which “is not in essence a military but an anti-terrorist formation,” Putin said.
While Putin downplayed the SCO’s military vocation, he announced later that Russia was resuming Soviet-era practice of sending strategic bombers on long-distance flights well beyond its borders on a permanent basis after unilaterally suspending flights in 1992 shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
He said the flights would resume from Saturday from seven aerodromes across Russia and would normally be in the air for up to 20 hours with the help of refuelling aircraft.
The Chinese president echoed Putin’s insistence that the SCO had only limited military ambitions, saying “the exercises will be a new stimulus to the SCO playing an even greater role in combating terrorism in the region.” The six presidents watched as tanks, attack helicopters and aircraft bearing their national flags went into action in and around the mock village, from which surviving “insurgents” attempted to flee across a hypothetical national border.
Organisers stressed that in addition to full-scale air raids and tank assaults, efforts were also taken to prevent civilian casualties.
Putin at the time rallied to Uzbekistan’s side, likening US moves to foster democracy in Central Asia to “a bull in a china shop.”
However, Igor Konashinkov, an assistant to Russia’s Deputy Defence Minister Alexander Balousov, denied that Friday’s exercises were based on the Andijan events.
Meanwhile, the US on Friday shrugged off Russia’s decision to resume long-range strategic bomber flights, merely saying it was an “interesting” move.
“If Russia feels as though they want to take some of these old aircraft out of mothballs and get them flying again that’s their decision,” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
Meanwhile, the White House played down Russia’s move, saying it saw no threat to US security and that the decision was “not entirely surprising.”
“We have very good working relations with the Russians, with the Russian military,” said national security spokesman Gordon Johndroe in Crawford, Texas, adding that the move was “an internal decision” by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Asked whether the patrols posed a security threat to the United States, Johndroe replied: “I don’t think our military has those concerns about it.”

The Nation

[IbnAbdullah]

US, UK brokering deal?

By Tariq Butt

ISLAMABAD: Former prime minister Benazir Bhutto’s Friday meeting with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband in the middle of the decisive secret talks between her and President Pervez Musharraf’s aides was meant to encourage Britain to intensify the use of its good offices for the conclusion of a deal.

Bhutto is adopting the “traditional” route – the road to Islamabad lies via Washington and London – adopted by different Pakistani politicians in the past. She will continue to exert pressure through her foreign friends (read the United States and Britain) on Musharraf till the achievement of her objectives. Whether or not she will be able to get all she wants the president to concede is a different story.

“No foreign country is compelling us to finalise the deal with Bhutto,” a senior official told this correspondent. “But there have been suggestions that moderate forces should join hands to defeat the extremists.”

A deal between Musharraf and Bhutto is being covertly brokered by Britain and the United States since June 2004 when she had a clandestine conversation with former British foreign secretary Jack Straw. During his posting in Pakistan, the former British high commissioner Mark Lyall Grant, too, had been quite active on this count.

Miliband, who assumed his present office a couple of months back, recently paid a visit to Pakistan where he also talked about prospective talks between the president and Bhutto and expressed Britain’s keenness to see their success.

Apart from the British factor, the Americans’ eagerness for an early understanding between Musharraf and Bhutto for speedy realization of their agenda has been repeatedly emphasised in different sessions of senior American officials with Pakistani leaders, including the president and the prime minister.

Diplomatic sources say senior US official John Negroponte, who is arriving in Pakistan on September 10, will certainly discuss the ongoing dialogue between Musharraf’s emissaries and Bhutto and stress that an agreement should be worked out without any delay. This will be his second visit to Islamabad in a matter of a few months after assumption of his office.

Some sections of the influential American media, which apparently reflect the White House thinking, have rather freakishly aired reservations and concern over exiled former prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s plan to fly back to Pakistan at a time when they want to set the stage for Bhutto to come to power as a result of the coming general elections. They have seen Nawaz’s return as a development upsetting the game plan.

Cynicism apart, some discerning circles are very confident that the presidential aides and Bhutto would ultimately work out an understanding because it is their compulsion given the forceful prodding by Washington and London to join hands. However, on the face of it, an agreement seems well neigh impossible because of several big demands, publicly listed by the former prime minister, and the president’s reluctance to accept them for different reasons.

Persuasions and friendly requests of his political ally, the ruling coalition, notwithstanding, Musharraf knows that the acceptance of all of Bhutto’s demands would reduce him to a nonentity. To avoid such a fate, he is likely to resist the mounting pressure to clinch the accord with Bhutto to the extent where he could get a good deal out of it.

But if he agrees to make a public announcement to leave the Army office, to undo Article 58(2)(b) of the Constitution, abolishing his authority to dismiss the government and dissolve the National Assembly, to suspend the local governments, to scrap the ban on becoming the prime minister for the third time and to withdraw all cases against Ms Bhutto, Musharraf’s re-election as president still remains uncertain while he will be doing all this just for this reason.

US, UK brokering deal?

[Kumo]

my village smells