Havoc in Pakistan

[The Green Bean]

14th July - Suicide Attack in Miramshah - 24 soldiers killed.
15th July - Suicide Attack in Swat - 20 Security men killed.
15th July - Suicide Attack in D.I. Khan - 20+ Policemen killed.

more deaths table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...007%E2%80%93present%29

Now it's almost looking like a civil war Over 200 killed in 15 days ...The stock market crashed by 8% in 2 days, and it looks like Pakistan might turn into an Afghanistan in a matter of months.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
14th July - Suicide Attack in Miramshah - 24 soldiers killed.
15th July - Suicide Attack in Swat - 20 Security men killed.
15th July - Suicide Attack in D.I. Khan - 20+ Policemen killed.

Hard to tell what will happen next but I believe we should have never agreed to fight America's war. A long term insurgency maybe waiting to happen. We may have done more harm then good to ourselves. I really think Musharraf needs to make peace with all the different factions before a civil war breaks out. Either that, or he should declare a full scale war on the tribals who have decided to end the truce.

Do you really think this is about America v terrorists?

Don't be so simple. They don't want people of any country or any religion to do anything but kowtow to their beliefs. Do you want to end up in the same country as Afghanistan?

 

[ProfJohn]

How do you make peace with a group whose goal is to make everyone act and think like they do?

 

[1prophet]

I blame Bush for telling Musharraf to free those American massage parlor girls from the red mosque causing the havoc Pakistan is in today.

 

[jpeyton]

This is just retaliation for the Red Mosque incident. The violence is sad, expected, and it will be short-lived.

It has little to do with the US. Most Pakistanis actually supported Musharraf's actions against the radicals in the Red Mosque.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
This is just retaliation for the Red Mosque incident. The violence is sad, expected, and it will be short-lived.

It has little to do with the US. Most Pakistanis actually supported Musharraf's actions against the radicals in the Red Mosque.

I too supported Musharraf's raid on the red mosque. But if it leads to civil war people will say it was a blunder. They are already fighting a war in Balochistan. They don't need to fight two insurgencies together. It's bad for the economy.

 

[dahunan]

Fix the religion and the educational system that allows the nuts to grow so angry..

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
How do you make peace with a group whose goal is to make everyone act and think like they do?

And here I thought this thread was about Pakistan.

And suddenly non-Prof John wants to talk about the Bush administration and their penchant for trying to make their agenda of think and act as they do fly in Pakistan. After it clearly does not work in Afghanistan, Iraq, and is finally also flopping in the US.

But getting back to the topic at hand, Musharraf has alienated quite a few of his fellow Pakistanis in being too much of a GWB poodle. But Pakistan has a radical right that is rather angered at the recent mosque incident, but I believe that most Pakistanis support Musharraf
in cracking down on the radical right.

And since we too have a radical right that we have allowed to set the our agenda---maybe the lesson implied here is that we need to crack down on our radical right.

After all our radical right has access to nuclear weapons---and all of us should be very worried that GWB will be the catalyst that inspires Pakistan's radical right to get the same nuclear weapon access----call it the Tony Blair effect if you prefer a sugar coated version. But foreign leaders who too openly support GWB do have a habit of being replaced.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Fix the religion and the educational system that allows the nuts to grow so angry..

This could've have happened at any school, college or university. If it happens at one o the 16000 madrassahs in the country, it doesn't mean all have to be closed dow. Yes many do need a reform by bringing in modern subjects and better funding but Musharraf is too busy wasting 40% of the budget on the military. India is no longer Pakistan's biggest enemy. It is now the Taliban and Alqaeeda preying on young souls to use them for their terrorist acts. They will not be defeated by guns, but by education. The military budget needs to be shrunk and the meagre educational budget needs to be raised. The standard of government schools is hopeless and thus many people revert to smaller madrassahs where they only teach a limited array of subjects. They should add to the curriculum Arabic Language, Literature, Urdu Literature, English Language all to open up their minds. Half the time students don't even understand anything from the Quraan that they memorize. The result is flawed interpretations.

 

[CanOWorms]

Pakistan is fighting China's war, not America's. China said "jump", Pakistan asked "how high?"

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Pakistan is fighting China's war, not America's. China said "jump", Pakistan asked "how high?"

You mean the taliban are now China's problem?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Pakistan is fighting China's war, not America's. China said "jump", Pakistan asked "how high?"

You mean the taliban are now China's problem?

The Taliban that was created by Pakistan has always been a source of concern for China. However, this situation happening in Pakistan right now exploding since the Red Mosque incident is because of Pakistan's insistence of following its Chinese masters.

 

[Jaskalas]

Bin Laden?s deputy behind the Red Mosque bloodbath

PESHAWAR, Pakistan - Suicide attackers struck a police headquarters and a military convoy on Sunday in Pakistan's northwest, killing as many as 38 people in an intensifying anti-government campaign in an area long known as a haven for the Taliban and al-Qaida.

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
14th July - Suicide Attack in Miramshah - 24 soldiers killed.
15th July - Suicide Attack in Swat - 20 Security men killed.
15th July - Suicide Attack in D.I. Khan - 20+ Policemen killed.

Hard to tell what will happen next but I believe we should have never agreed to fight America's war.

America's war? Get a friggin grip, do you spout that propaganda FOR the murderers killing your people?

 

[yllus]

Hopefully this solidifies in Musharraf's mind the fact that no agreements are worth the ink they're written on with these militants. Giving them an inch for now to keep the country intact only leads them to take a mile while you're busy elsewhere. With this incident fresh in the people's minds, start a campaign to wipe the nation of the Talibanesque.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Pakistan is on the verge of a complete fall to the radicals. That's not a boost to his image.

What a grand overstatement.

One besieged Mosque does not make the country "on the verge". Neither does a lack of control in the mountainous northern provinces. Their government and military is well capable of keeping order.

From: Mosque raid boosts Musharraf image: update full assault on mosque

One besieged Mosque eh? Care to re-state that NOW, or after Musharraf falls?

 

[1prophet]

Looks like there is a replacement being prepared in case Musharraf falls.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/13/wpak413.xml">Speaking before the mosque was stormed, Ms Bhutto told the Telegraph that parts of Pakistan had already "fallen" to a brand of radicalism which she called "Talibanisation".

"I will re-establish the writ of the state and tackle extremism whereas elements of Gen Musharraf's government have actually supported militancy," she said.</a>

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Bin Laden?s deputy behind the Red Mosque bloodbath

PESHAWAR, Pakistan - Suicide attackers struck a police headquarters and a military convoy on Sunday in Pakistan's northwest, killing as many as 38 people in an intensifying anti-government campaign in an area long known as a haven for the Taliban and al-Qaida.

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
14th July - Suicide Attack in Miramshah - 24 soldiers killed.
15th July - Suicide Attack in Swat - 20 Security men killed.
15th July - Suicide Attack in D.I. Khan - 20+ Policemen killed.

Hard to tell what will happen next but I believe we should have never agreed to fight America's war.

America's war? Get a friggin grip, do you spout that propaganda FOR the murderers killing your people?

US renting Pak army for $ 100 million a month
14 Jul 2007, 0340 hrs IST,CHIDANAND RAJGHATTA,TNN
Link

WASHINGTON: The United States is paying around $ 100 million a month for the deployment of 80,000 Pakistani troops on its border with Afghanistan ostensibly for the war on terrorism, a key US official revealed on Thursday.

The money is meant to be "reimbursements" to Pakistan "for stationing troops and moving them around, and gasoline, and bullets, and training and other costs that they incur as part of the war on terror," US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, told a Congressional panel.

"That's a lot of money," Boucher admitted before the panel about what amounts to a $ 1.2 billion per year reimbursement. "I don't know if it comes to the whole amount of their expenses, but we support their expenses, yes."

In all, US aid to Pakistan is now close to $ 2 billion a year, according to figures provided by Boucher, the top U S diplomat for South Asia.

Besides, the $ 1.2 billion reimbursements, Washington also gave Pakistan an addition $ 738 million in 2006 in assistance programs, including $ 300 million in separate military aid.

The overall figure would put Pakistan on par with Israel and Egypt -- with a higher component ($ 1.5 billion) in overall military assistance -- as the top three recipients of US aid.

The Pakistan allocations are being met with deep misgivings and scepticism in Congress and strategic circles where there are growing demands on the Bush administration to tie aid for Islamabad's military to its performance and delivery in the war on terror.

"There are far more jihadists, extremist madrassas, Al Qaida operatives, Taliban safe havens and international terrorist training camps than Pakistani government officials are willing to admit. Is our current aid package, one in which we are providing at least 10 times more for military aid than for basic education assistance, in the best long-term interest of United States national security?" asked Congressman John Tierney, who chaired the hearing that for focused exclusively on the Pakistan question.

"And how do we in Congress justify to the American people writing checks for billions of dollars to a regime that may not be the partner against terrorism the United States needs it to be, but may actually be hurting national security interests of the United States and our allies?" added Congressman Christopher Shays, after some of his colleagues pointed out that Pakistan was host to the world's most wanted men like Osama bin Laden and A.Q.Khan.

Boucher maintained that the money was well spent and there was some accountability involved.

"Some of our money that we give Pakistan is reimbursements and so there is, you know, conditions that we pay for things," he said, later elaborating that "Pentagon is in charge of getting receipts and making sure they know how that money is being spent in the right places."

"If they didn't have the 85,000 troops in the border area, God knows what would be going on out there -- not anything we could deal with ourselves, I'm sure," Boucher added.

Still, law-makers remained sceptical of the Bush administration's Pakistan policy, even as the White House reviewed the situation in a special meeting on Thursday. Tierney urged the administration to ensure that the military support money went towards supplying equipment to fight terrorism, as opposed to bombers and submarines aimed at India.

But Boucher bluntly told the committee "we do try to do both...help Pakistan with legitimate defensive needs, with its ability to patrol in the Arabian Sea," and finance equipment and reimburse expenses for the war on terror.

------------------------

The US is definitely involved in propping up the Musharraf dictatorship and using the Pakistani Army as a mercenary army for it's own ends.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Bin Laden?s deputy behind the Red Mosque bloodbath

PESHAWAR, Pakistan - Suicide attackers struck a police headquarters and a military convoy on Sunday in Pakistan's northwest, killing as many as 38 people in an intensifying anti-government campaign in an area long known as a haven for the Taliban and al-Qaida.

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
14th July - Suicide Attack in Miramshah - 24 soldiers killed.
15th July - Suicide Attack in Swat - 20 Security men killed.
15th July - Suicide Attack in D.I. Khan - 20+ Policemen killed.

Hard to tell what will happen next but I believe we should have never agreed to fight America's war.

America's war? Get a friggin grip, do you spout that propaganda FOR the murderers killing your people?

US renting Pak army for $ 100 million a month
14 Jul 2007, 0340 hrs IST,CHIDANAND RAJGHATTA,TNN
Link

WASHINGTON: The United States is paying around $ 100 million a month for the deployment of 80,000 Pakistani troops on its border with Afghanistan ostensibly for the war on terrorism, a key US official revealed on Thursday.

The money is meant to be "reimbursements" to Pakistan "for stationing troops and moving them around, and gasoline, and bullets, and training and other costs that they incur as part of the war on terror," US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, told a Congressional panel.

"That's a lot of money," Boucher admitted before the panel about what amounts to a $ 1.2 billion per year reimbursement. "I don't know if it comes to the whole amount of their expenses, but we support their expenses, yes."

In all, US aid to Pakistan is now close to $ 2 billion a year, according to figures provided by Boucher, the top U S diplomat for South Asia.

Besides, the $ 1.2 billion reimbursements, Washington also gave Pakistan an addition $ 738 million in 2006 in assistance programs, including $ 300 million in separate military aid.

The overall figure would put Pakistan on par with Israel and Egypt -- with a higher component ($ 1.5 billion) in overall military assistance -- as the top three recipients of US aid.

The Pakistan allocations are being met with deep misgivings and scepticism in Congress and strategic circles where there are growing demands on the Bush administration to tie aid for Islamabad's military to its performance and delivery in the war on terror.

"There are far more jihadists, extremist madrassas, Al Qaida operatives, Taliban safe havens and international terrorist training camps than Pakistani government officials are willing to admit. Is our current aid package, one in which we are providing at least 10 times more for military aid than for basic education assistance, in the best long-term interest of United States national security?" asked Congressman John Tierney, who chaired the hearing that for focused exclusively on the Pakistan question.

"And how do we in Congress justify to the American people writing checks for billions of dollars to a regime that may not be the partner against terrorism the United States needs it to be, but may actually be hurting national security interests of the United States and our allies?" added Congressman Christopher Shays, after some of his colleagues pointed out that Pakistan was host to the world's most wanted men like Osama bin Laden and A.Q.Khan.

Boucher maintained that the money was well spent and there was some accountability involved.

"Some of our money that we give Pakistan is reimbursements and so there is, you know, conditions that we pay for things," he said, later elaborating that "Pentagon is in charge of getting receipts and making sure they know how that money is being spent in the right places."

"If they didn't have the 85,000 troops in the border area, God knows what would be going on out there -- not anything we could deal with ourselves, I'm sure," Boucher added.

Still, law-makers remained sceptical of the Bush administration's Pakistan policy, even as the White House reviewed the situation in a special meeting on Thursday. Tierney urged the administration to ensure that the military support money went towards supplying equipment to fight terrorism, as opposed to bombers and submarines aimed at India.

But Boucher bluntly told the committee "we do try to do both...help Pakistan with legitimate defensive needs, with its ability to patrol in the Arabian Sea," and finance equipment and reimburse expenses for the war on terror.

------------------------

The US is definitely involved in propping up the Musharraf dictatorship and using the Pakistani Army as a mercenary army for it's own ends.

They should ask for a refund, and it was because of Chinese pressure they moved on the mosque not anything the US did.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: GrGr
US renting Pak army for $ 100 million a month
14 Jul 2007, 0340 hrs IST,CHIDANAND RAJGHATTA,TNN
Link


------------------------

The US is definitely involved in propping up the Musharraf dictatorship and using the Pakistani Army as a mercenary army for it's own ends.

GrGr, are implying that this situation is like the Shaw in Iran?

 

[Lemon law]

to Jaskalas,

who asks----GrGr, are implying that this situation is like the Shaw in Iran?

It takes a certain arrogance to ask that question of GrGr, when he is merely asking the same thing. And when its totally up to GWB&co. on the extent to which it wants to show the world he can make Musharrif sit, roll over, and beg. But poodle is as poodle does. GWB&co. will not rest until they succeed in so discrediting Musharrf that they make handing Pakistani nukes to Al-Quida inevitable.

And later in failure---will have the audacity to say--see--we were right all along.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
to Jaskalas,

who asks----GrGr, are implying that this situation is like the Shaw in Iran?

It takes a certain arrogance to ask that question of GrGr, when he is merely asking the same thing.

Originally posted by: GrGr
The US is definitely involved

Yeah, I?m sure that sounds like a question to everybody.

And when its totally up to GWB&co. on the extent to which it wants to show the world he can make Musharrif sit, roll over, and beg. But poodle is as poodle does. GWB&co. will not rest until they succeed in so discrediting Musharrf that they make handing Pakistani nukes to Al-Quida inevitable.

And later in failure---will have the audacity to say--see--we were right all along.

Who are you rooting for exactly? It obviously doesn?t appear to be us, or Musharrf. The Taliban and AQ perhaps? I don?t put it past you to view them with the same loving support as you give the radicals who overthrew Iran. Same breed of militant Islam and Pakistan is the next nation to fall to their complete control.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Bin Laden?s deputy behind the Red Mosque bloodbath

PESHAWAR, Pakistan - Suicide attackers struck a police headquarters and a military convoy on Sunday in Pakistan's northwest, killing as many as 38 people in an intensifying anti-government campaign in an area long known as a haven for the Taliban and al-Qaida.

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
14th July - Suicide Attack in Miramshah - 24 soldiers killed.
15th July - Suicide Attack in Swat - 20 Security men killed.
15th July - Suicide Attack in D.I. Khan - 20+ Policemen killed.

Hard to tell what will happen next but I believe we should have never agreed to fight America's war.

America's war? Get a friggin grip, do you spout that propaganda FOR the murderers killing your people?

US renting Pak army for $ 100 million a month
14 Jul 2007, 0340 hrs IST,CHIDANAND RAJGHATTA,TNN
Link

WASHINGTON: The United States is paying around $ 100 million a month for the deployment of 80,000 Pakistani troops on its border with Afghanistan ostensibly for the war on terrorism, a key US official revealed on Thursday.

The money is meant to be "reimbursements" to Pakistan "for stationing troops and moving them around, and gasoline, and bullets, and training and other costs that they incur as part of the war on terror," US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, told a Congressional panel.

"That's a lot of money," Boucher admitted before the panel about what amounts to a $ 1.2 billion per year reimbursement. "I don't know if it comes to the whole amount of their expenses, but we support their expenses, yes."

In all, US aid to Pakistan is now close to $ 2 billion a year, according to figures provided by Boucher, the top U S diplomat for South Asia.

Besides, the $ 1.2 billion reimbursements, Washington also gave Pakistan an addition $ 738 million in 2006 in assistance programs, including $ 300 million in separate military aid.

The overall figure would put Pakistan on par with Israel and Egypt -- with a higher component ($ 1.5 billion) in overall military assistance -- as the top three recipients of US aid.

The Pakistan allocations are being met with deep misgivings and scepticism in Congress and strategic circles where there are growing demands on the Bush administration to tie aid for Islamabad's military to its performance and delivery in the war on terror.

"There are far more jihadists, extremist madrassas, Al Qaida operatives, Taliban safe havens and international terrorist training camps than Pakistani government officials are willing to admit. Is our current aid package, one in which we are providing at least 10 times more for military aid than for basic education assistance, in the best long-term interest of United States national security?" asked Congressman John Tierney, who chaired the hearing that for focused exclusively on the Pakistan question.

"And how do we in Congress justify to the American people writing checks for billions of dollars to a regime that may not be the partner against terrorism the United States needs it to be, but may actually be hurting national security interests of the United States and our allies?" added Congressman Christopher Shays, after some of his colleagues pointed out that Pakistan was host to the world's most wanted men like Osama bin Laden and A.Q.Khan.

Boucher maintained that the money was well spent and there was some accountability involved.

"Some of our money that we give Pakistan is reimbursements and so there is, you know, conditions that we pay for things," he said, later elaborating that "Pentagon is in charge of getting receipts and making sure they know how that money is being spent in the right places."

"If they didn't have the 85,000 troops in the border area, God knows what would be going on out there -- not anything we could deal with ourselves, I'm sure," Boucher added.

Still, law-makers remained sceptical of the Bush administration's Pakistan policy, even as the White House reviewed the situation in a special meeting on Thursday. Tierney urged the administration to ensure that the military support money went towards supplying equipment to fight terrorism, as opposed to bombers and submarines aimed at India.

But Boucher bluntly told the committee "we do try to do both...help Pakistan with legitimate defensive needs, with its ability to patrol in the Arabian Sea," and finance equipment and reimburse expenses for the war on terror.

------------------------

The US is definitely involved in propping up the Musharraf dictatorship and using the Pakistani Army as a mercenary army for it's own ends.

They should ask for a refund, and it was because of Chinese pressure they moved on the mosque not anything the US did.

What a shame to sell lives for money. These people are worse of than those fighting in Iraq for oil.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: GrGr
US renting Pak army for $ 100 million a month
14 Jul 2007, 0340 hrs IST,CHIDANAND RAJGHATTA,TNN
Link


------------------------

The US is definitely involved in propping up the Musharraf dictatorship and using the Pakistani Army as a mercenary army for it's own ends.

GrGr, are implying that this situation is like the Shaw in Iran?

I was actually thinking in the context of what the article described. But it is clear that if the US needs a dictator ally they are happy to support him no matter what.

As for the Shah angle I recently read this comment which I found very interesting:

" Let us turn next to Iran and its nuclear programs. Until 1979, Washington strongly supported these programs. During those years, of course, a brutal tyrant installed by the U.S.-U.K. military coup that overthrew the Iranian parliamentary government ruled Iran. Today, the standard claim is that Iran has no need for nuclear power, and therefore must be pursuing a secret weapons program. Henry Kissinger explained that ?For a major oil producer such as Iran, nuclear energy is a wasteful use of resources.? As secretary of state thirty years ago, Kissinger held that ?introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran?s economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals,? and the United States acted to assist the Shah?s efforts. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, the leading planners of the second Bush administration, worked hard to provide the Shah with a ?complete ?nuclear fuel cycle??reactors powered by and regenerating fissile materials on a self-sustaining basis. That is precisely the ability the current administration is trying to prevent Iran from acquiring today.? U.S. universities were arranging to train Iranian nuclear engineers, doubtless with Washington?s approval, if not initiative; including my own university, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for example, despite overwhelming student opposition. Kissinger was asked about his reversal, and he responded with his usual engaging frankness: ?They were an allied country.?15 So therefore they had a genuine need for nuclear energy, pre-1979, but have no such need today."


link

This is of course just the typical hypocrisy that is standard US foreign policy. Look at those familiar names involved in US policy making. Kissinger spells it out. If you kiss US ass you can get away with practically anything (like getting nukes - see India for a recent example). If you don't you get the "rogue state" treatment.

 

[The Green Bean]

On the verge of a civil war; hundreds killed The military will blame the Americans for letting Alqaeeda attack from Pakistan. No one can tell what will happen in the coming weeks.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: dahunan
Fix the religion and the educational system that allows the nuts to grow so angry..

This could've have happened at any school, college or university. If it happens at one o the 16000 madrassahs in the country, it doesn't mean all have to be closed dow. Yes many do need a reform by bringing in modern subjects and better funding but Musharraf is too busy wasting 40% of the budget on the military. India is no longer Pakistan's biggest enemy. It is now the Taliban and Alqaeeda preying on young souls to use them for their terrorist acts. They will not be defeated by guns, but by education. The military budget needs to be shrunk and the meagre educational budget needs to be raised. The standard of government schools is hopeless and thus many people revert to smaller madrassahs where they only teach a limited array of subjects. They should add to the curriculum Arabic Language, Literature, Urdu Literature, English Language all to open up their minds. Half the time students don't even understand anything from the Quraan that they memorize. The result is flawed interpretations.

I assume you mean just in Pakistan...right?