He said it.
"Musharraf duping West over war on terrorism," from Reuters (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):
LONDON - Exiled former Pakistani leader Nawaz Sharif vowed to fight terrorism ‘with conviction’ if re-elected prime minister and accused military ruler President Pervez Musharraf of deceiving the West over his commitment.Sharif, who was overthrown by Musharraf in a bloodless coup in 1999, plans to return to Islamabad next week to challenge the president, who is under pressure from the West to stand down as head of the army before seeking re-election in the coming weeks.
With Musharraf’s term as president and army chief coming to an end, Pakistan -- a nuclear-armed US ally on the front line of the West’s fight against Al Qaeda and the Taleban -- faces months of uncertainty.
‘When I was prime minister we extended full cooperation to everybody ... We condemn all kinds of terrorism ... and we’ll continue to fight terrorism,’ Sharif told Reuters in an interview.
‘If you fight this menace, you fight out of conviction. Musharraf needs the threat of terror for his own survival. He is doing something in Pakistan and he is telling something else to the outside world. I think he is hoodwinking the West,’ he said.
Is there anyone who throw someone under a bus any quicker than a middle easterner to further their own ambitions?
No, you can't use Jim Webb...
"‘When I was prime minister we extended full cooperation to everybody ... We condemn all kinds of terrorism ... and we’ll continue to fight terrorism,’ Sharif told Reuters in an interview."
Frankly, I wouldn't trust Sharif anymore than I trust Musharraf. Neither of them is going to risk his skin by cracking down on the Taliban. Both are going to make any accomodation necessary to retain their hold on power.
When I was prime minister we extended full cooperation to everybody ... We condemn all kinds of terrorism - JW ..
Talibans were in business big time when this guy was in power. I believe Talibans are terrorists. He had never condemn when Talibans were killing innocents by the mother lode. He was in power when Talibans blew up those magnificent giant statues of Budha. He didn't say a thing. He was in Power when Al-Quady was establishing base in Afghanstan. He didn't do a thing. Not sure what will he plan to eliminate terrorists in Pakiland? Like to read more about his plan than his words, which are in my view, hot wind. Then again who cares about hell hole country like Pakiland.
This guy is under the impression that the West is not clued up to know what Musshy’s game is.
Doesn’t he know that it is the US and the Western governments who are hoodwinking their people. By perpetuating a fictitious “war on terror”, they are keeping the military dictatorships in various Islamic republics and kingdoms propped up and fattened like a boar.
A sudden dose of democracy in these countries will soon see Taliban like bands of marauders, shouting the name of allah and crying “down with Amrika” spring up like wild mushrooms.
Nah, its easier for the US to deal with displaceable regimes and dictators then carry the inherent risk within the idea of democracy to come to fruition in these Islamic hellholes.
I guess he want the job of "hoodwinking" the west?
Sorry, but that's Bush JR's and PM Brown's job, We don't need more practitioners of Taqqiya, those jobs are already full. We need some new Winston Churchills and fast.
Sharif's bank account is empty.
He cant get into power fast enough so that he can start syphoning off the Pakistani money again.
My guess is that anything with an islamic tongue in its mouth is hoodwinking the west.
"War is deceit," said their role model, Mohammed.
Never trust a Mohammedan, ever.
"Taqiyya" and "kitman" - these are their game.
Frankly, I wouldn't trust Sharif anymore than I trust Musharraf. Neither of them is going to risk his skin by cracking down on the Taliban. Both are going to make any accomodation necessary to retain their hold on power.
Posted by: rational
I don't know that i would completely count out someone in the aim of gaining power to fight against "terrorists".There has to come a time when they start to see they are losing ground not to mention keep the jizya flowing.
A time will have to come where islam will have to decide to either survive or be wiped out.
Still nothing will change and all the orgs. and all the politicians will see to that.
Assalamau Laikum all,
So this lund Nawaz Sharif wants to come back...well I say no...the British gave him shade...so they can keep him.
If ever there was a corrupt lund...he's it. In my opinion he's had his chance...he's tried & tired blood...he doesn't have what it takes to run Pak.
With him it will be more of the same...he tried to push India...and when India pushed back...he ran like a scared little kid to hide behind Clinton (and Monica's) ass.
Political vulchers are circling around Mushi...they smell blood and the chance for power.
I don't want see Pinky back either...what an ugly bhutto she is.
I want someone new...someone who has the vision to make the mullahs see that they can have a big say ...tenents of sharia ...but also tenents of democracy...the best of both.
Whether Pak succeeds in joining the world properly or becomes a failed state will depend largely on who takes over from Mushi and what policies they want to follow...Only one entity knows the answer to this ...Allah T'allah SWT.
How can you tell a muslim is lying....his (or her)lips are moving. They are only saying what the west wants to hear, nothing more. Pakistan is only one head of the three headed muslim snake, the other two are Iran, and Saudi Arabia. I hope India nukes them first, that way we can use our nukes for the other snake heads.
I'd say, according to most here. How can this be a surprize that he would play both fields, Mushie's life is at stake. If the United States backs out at anytime, anywhere on this war on terror all s%#t is gonna hit the fan, that's why the hildabeast is saying wait until the election's are over to attack. Mushie's waiting and abiding his time. If America leaves Afganastan or Iraq he's toast.
I don't think our President, our Vice-President, our Secretaries of State and National Security Advisers, who for generations have put their trust in those terry-thomas-moustachioed Pakistani generals, are the foolable type. And you can't tell me that Bush, who must therefore have looked deeply into the eyes of ramrod-straight General Musharraf, and seen into his soul -- the eyes, let's not forget, are the "windows of the soul" -- saw something he liked, saw something he could trust, as with Putin, and knew that it would be right to bet his all, bet the farm, on Musharraf standing shoulder-to-shoulder-fired-ground-to-air-missile, next to, solidly beside, in the "war on terror," his American friends. And when you are thinking of asking aloud exactly why, since 9/11/2001, Pakistan has been the recipient of direct and indirect aid (including debt relief) of some $27.5 billion from the United States, you should not do so, for there is no need and you would merely look silly. For all the benefits are obvious. Just look at the Taliban in Afghanistan, just look at Al Qaeda in Waziristan and in the rest of Pakistan, and in the rest of the Muslim world, today.
If you have to ask about the brilliance of American policy toward Pakistan in the past half-dozen years, you can't afford it.
If Naseem doesn't want him back, perhaps this is the best reason to support him.
He probably doesn't do the jihad bogie fast enough for her.
...just look at Al Qaeda in Waziristan...
Slightly OT, but I have long been puzzled about why we allow Al Qaeda to have sanctuary in Waziristan.
I wonder if this is the reason: That by confining Al Qaeda leadership to a small region, with perhaps comparatively few friendly or even neutral civilians, we have a legitimate second strike target, if we are attacked with WMD.
Jihadists probably can't be deterred from a WMD strike on the US or allies by a threatened attack against Cairo, or Jeddah, or Mecca. Realistically these are near-impossibilites.
But a nuclear strike against Al Qaeda strongholds in Waziristan?
That is a very real possibility, given sufficient provocation.
There might be some wisdom after all in allowing the Waziristan sanctuary to continue. If we preemptively cleared it out, how then would we respond to a an Al Qaeda WMD attack?
Naseem comments: "Whether Pak succeeds in joining the world properly or becomes a failed state will depend largely on who takes over from Mushi..."
You mean Pakistan isn't a failed state? And hasn't been a failed state since its inception, with its rampant poverty and religious fanaticism, intolerance for all non-Muslims (and only marginal tolerance for Amadiyyah quasi-Muslims), and politically corrupt and unstable governments? Not a failed state, eh? How droll, indeed.
Don't be so quick to praise Sharif. One of the reasons why he was overthrown is the brutality of his reign. He is most assuredly NOT a nice guy.
Naseem states, "I want someone new...someone who has the vision to make the mullahs see that they can have a big say ...tenents of sharia ...but also tenents of democracy...the best of both".
Sharia and democracy together? Now there's an oxymoron.
Don't trust, just verify.
Is Islam Essentially Violent Theocratic Dictatorship?
Robert Spencer, on p.149 of Onward Muslim Soldiers, wrote:
(my bolding, Spencer's footnotes left out)Here are some locations for Muhammad's warlike words in Bukhari, Muslim and Dawud:
Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."
Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."
Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 483:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
When Allah's Apostle died and Abu Bakr became the caliph some Arabs renegade (reverted to disbelief) (Abu Bakr decided to declare war against them), 'Umar, said to Abu Bakr, "How can you fight with these people although Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people till they say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and whoever said it then he will save his life and property from me except on trespassing the law (rights and conditions for which he will be punished justly), and his accounts will be with Allah.' " Abu Bakr said, "By Allah! I will fight those who differentiate between the prayer and the Zakat as Zakat is the compulsory right to be taken from the property (according to Allah's orders) By Allah! If they refuse to pay me even a she-kid which they used to pay at the time of Allah's Apostle . I would fight with them for withholding it" Then 'Umar said, "By Allah, it was nothing, but Allah opened Abu Bakr's chest towards the decision (to fight) and I came to know that his decision was right."
Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)"
Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 59:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
When the Prophet died and Abu Bakr became his successor and some of the Arabs reverted to disbelief, 'Umar said, "O Abu Bakr! How can you fight these people although Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, 'and whoever said, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', Allah will save his property and his life from me, unless (he does something for which he receives legal punishment) justly, and his account will be with Allah?' "Abu Bakr said, "By Allah! I will fight whoever differentiates between prayers and Zakat as Zakat is the right to be taken from property (according to Allah's Orders). By Allah! If they refused to pay me even a kid they used to pay to Allah's Apostle, I would fight with them for withholding it." 'Umar said, "By Allah: It was nothing, but I noticed that Allah opened Abu Bakr's chest towards the decision to fight, therefore I realized that his decision was right."
Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 388:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
When Allah's Apostle died and Abu Bakr was elected as a Caliph after him, some of the Arabs reverted to disbelief, 'Umar said to Abu Bakr, "How dare you fight the people while Allah's Apostle said, I have been ordered to fight the people till they say 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah' And whoever says: None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' waves his wealth and his life from me unless he deserves a legal punishment lusty, and his account will be with Allah! Abu Bakr said, "By Allah, I will fight him who discriminates between Zakat and prayers, for Zakat is the Compulsory right to be taken from the wealth By Allah, if they refuse to give me even a tying rope which they use to give to Allah's Apostle, I would fight them for withholding it." 'Umar said, 'By Allah, It was nothing, except I saw that Allah had opened the chest of Abu Bakr to the fight, and I came to know for certain that was the truth."
Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0030:
It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah.
Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0031:
It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that he heard the Messenger of Allah say: I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.
Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0032:
It is narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded that I should fight against people till they declare that there is no god but Allah, and when they profess it that there is no god but Allah, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah, and then he (the Holy Prophet) recited (this verse of the Holy Qur'an):" Thou art not over them a warden" (lxxxviii, 22).
Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0033:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.
Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2635:
Narrated Anas ibn Malik:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: I am commanded to fight with men till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His servant and His Apostle, face our qiblah (direction of prayer), eat what we slaughter, and pray like us. When they do that, their life and property are unlawful for us except what is due to them. They will have the same rights as the Muslims have, and have the same responsibilities as the Muslims have.
Sorry the links above didn't work. Here they are:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/002.sbt.html#001.002.024
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/008.sbt.html#001.008.387
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/023.sbt.html#002.023.483
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.196
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/084.sbt.html#009.084.059
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/092.sbt.html#009.092.388
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/001.smt.html#001.0030
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/001.smt.html#001.0031
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/001.smt.html#001.0032
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/001.smt.html#001.0033
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/014.sat.html#014.2635
Nawaz Sharif is not being sincere.
Since Zia ul-Haq's time (way before Sharif), Pakistan has been the subject of a massive Sunni Islamization campaign promoted by its own state and unlimited Saudi finances.
Sharif, during his tenure, did nothing to stop or reverse the massive islamization. He will do nothing if he eventually comes to power.
The West is hoodwinking its own people by looking the other way while Saudi money is used to undermine Western civilization's influence in the world. The Saudis and Pakistanis and teh West are engaged in a large-scale game of deception.
How can one win te war against terrorism, militancy, pr whatever you call it, when the West is friendly with the Saudis who finance the relentless Islamic militancy-promotion campaign?
finally A man we can tr.........never mind.... .. .
I would not trust anyone who wanted the job...
What if Mush scores a Self Goal in this Paki Hotch-Potch , by ,Mush himself dropping the Nuke in Waziristan in the confussion he is in. Watch out please.
There is no art but Muhammedan art and that is plagiarized:
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/09/03/art-in-germany-maniacal-mannequins/
Assalamau Laikum commonsense,
So, in your opinion Pak is already a failed state...well in some ways I expect that you are right.
Jinnah was British educated...and he saw some merit in being a secular society...but still he wanted urdu only in all schools...and centralised control of East Pak.
The local populace did not have (or share) his visions. As a result Pak has been trying to find it's identity ...and has been going in circles for 60 years.
Three institutions have been vying for power:
1) Army....this has been the defacto ruler...they try to muscle in on all things. As an example the army produces washing powder, food, runs banks, supermarkets, estate agencies, owns hugh reserves of land and money....oh and a lot of arms too.
Their focus is much bigger than armies in the west and they motto is "we belong".
2) Mullahs...the MMA is a 6 part religion party in parliment and attracts about 20% of the vote...and it's been rising steadily. They have been working with the army successfully and have their malitias (although not officially) and rely on mujahadeen for backbone. They are now at loggerheads after 9/11 when Mushi has tried to use the army to kerb and pacify the Mullahs. They are now at an empasse ...and little hope of reconsiliation with Mushi in the middle (or muddle if prefer). Mushi has little time left...and is there while he has the support of the army.
3) Pretenders who want democracy and secular policy...power to the peoples...they say...but they have had a 3 week lookin in 60 years, they can forget it....it's not going to happen.
So, who is right...well in my opinion it is very simple. Pak was carved out painfully based on religious lines....and that's how it should be ruled.
This is why there are such divisions...by denying sharia (lite) we are not being to true to ourselves or Allah T'alah SWT. At the moment Pak's (pureness to Islam) is a lie...and this does not sit well with the locals and the border peoples....If we cannot be true to Islam....well we may as well join India again.
Pak must have sharia...we must be true to ourself, the corruption will reduce if adopt it, at the very least the peoples of Pak will KNOW if the utopian society that existed in the time of Muhd PBUH can be recreated or not....deep down this is what the peoples want to know.
Perfection can only be soiled, it cannot be bettered...
All but the brain dead and those deferential to
America's alcohol sotted President, knows that all we are doing in Afghanistan is propping up a drug mafia. Prior to Bush's nation-building folly in Taleban/al-Qaeda Afghanistan, that filthy country was a producer of opium. Now heroin factories dot the border with its neighbors. Air Force fliers report the high visibility of the factories, at night. Contrary to what you have been told, Taliban
al-Qaeda have always taken a 15% cut from the
opium market; now their share is even larger. Bush is a heroin dealers best pal.
See how local Afghan slime - especially in Pashto Karzai's beloved Helmand District - take Western aid money, while working directly for the terrorists. Pull out and napalm the poppy fields.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070903/taliban_fight_070903/20070903?hub=TopStories
Essential Download: Poppy cultivation survey of Afghanistan (see last page of report and note locations of heroin factories, right where NATO's remnants are fighting)
www.unodc.org/pdf/research/AFG07_ExSum_web.pdf
"I want someone new...someone who has the vision to make the mullahs see that they can have a big say ...tenents of sharia ...but also tenents of democracy...the best of both."
Whether Pak succeeds in joining the world properly or becomes a failed state will depend largely on who takes over from Mushi and what policies they want to follow...Only one entity knows the answer to this ...Allah T'allah SWT.
Naseem,
Perhaps you can explain what the best of Sharia is. The best of democracy is freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
Since Sharia stipulates death for anyone converting away from Islam, or speaking critically about Mohammad or Islam, how do you expect that these two concepts can exist in harmony in the same society.
A room can't be both in light and darkness at the same time. There is either light or there is darkness.
There is no such thing as a "best" -- or even "good" -- in Sharia. It represents oppression and darkness. Democracy repesents enlightment and freedom -- that's unless you've constructed some new concept of what Democracy and freedom are.
The "big say" you think the mullahs should have in a new Pakistani society would never be big enough -- that is, big enough to accomodate democracy and freedom. Democracy and freedom would have to be erased from any society where the Mullahs have a say about anything. Their evil concept of God's law would have to triumph in the end.
Sharia & Democracy:
1) Thistle among Roses
2) Oil & Water
3) Evil & Good
4) All of the Above
Dream on Naseem!