How did this happen? Might it have something to do with the impossibility of distinguishing peaceful Muslims from jihadists? Is anyone in Washington bothering to explore the implications for the United States -- say, starting with our own spy services?
"Pakistan admits to Taleban spies," from the BBC, August 1 (thanks to Report on Arrakis)"
Pakistan's government has said it needs to purge Taleban sympathisers from within the ranks of the country's intelligence service - the ISI.The statement comes amid claims from the US and India of links between the ISI and Islamic extremists.
Analysts say it is the first time that the Pakistan government has made such an admission.
US officials have claimed that spies in the ISI helped plan the recent suicide attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul.
Pakistani government spokeswoman Sherry Rehman said "individuals" in the ISI were probably acting on their own and going against official policy.
She said Pakistan needed to "identify these people and weed them out"....
No kidding, really?
UPDATE: The BBC has replaced the story at the link above with one in which Pakistan denies involvement in the bombing. Here, however, is a CBS story in which the admission of Taliban infiltration is still there: "Pakistan Admits Taliban Ties In Spy Agency," from CBS News, August 1 (thanks to Marisol).
Stand by for news on possible Canadian case of Sudden Jihad Syndrome
/Leave the driving to us!
MP; what's the poop?
Beheading/Greyhound Bus/ Canada/Suspect possible/probable convert. No shiite.
As for the ISI; they all need to be forced out at gunpoint and replaced by Southern Babtists.
Sourced" CBC.CA, RCMP
Can you source the "probable convert" angle?
I would caution against speculating too heavily on the Canada/Greyhound case until more info comes out.
Yes. Seeking same here and elsewhere.
The only reason such an admission is forthcoming is that the government of Pakistan now realises that the Americans have the ability to monitor, and record, all sorts of communications -- including those that were the damning evidence, that the Pakistanis would dearly love to, but cannot deny. Read them the riot act. Do not allow any upgrade to any planes, and end, forever, any further deliveries of any equipment beyond the level of rifles and used Jeeps. And make them, or still better, their rich Saudi friends, pay back the $30 billion that has been spent in military and economic aid on "staunch ally" Pakistan.
They are not our allies. They never will be, never can be, never were, our allies. It's a Muslim country. Pakistan may, here and there, occasionally share some of the same interests, worry about some of the same enemies, and may mistakenly seem, therefore, to be "on our side." Don't be fooled, not for one minute.
Pocket whatever collaboration can be forced out of the government of Pakistan, but never forget, for one minute, the meretriciousness and deep essential enmity of the people, and the polity, of Pakistan, "land of the pure," a nation built --or jerrybuilt -- of, by, and for Islam.
And don't be fooled, and don't allow to be hired or to rise high in universities, in those departments of "international relations" or government, those smooth-talking Pakistani "moderates," the ones who, for example, offer all kinds of Taqiyya on Mosque Outreach nights, and then, all smiles and wiles, manage to be hired, and then promoted through the ranks, as "experts" on the subcontinent, their Western colleagues naively assuming that the standards of objectivity are universal, and that a friendly demeanor means...friendliness. Before he went off to become Pakistan's ambassador in Washington, Hussain Haqqani was an example that type, and he left behind at B.U., where he had actually been the head (!) of International Relations, a fellow Pakistani, even more of that typeI have described, someone who has re-packaged himself in order to get a job in International Relations at B.U., and who in the past did indeed put on the kind of performance at a Mosque Outreach meeting as described. And there are many such, all over the place, being hired, being promoted, by the naive.
Just checked with RCMP - no comment from them. Marisol is right - the lionk to religon of peace might be bogus. CBC.CA website does NOT confirm information from VAncouver posting purporting to be CBC.Ca with logo.
Yea, what Hugh said.
Thx, MP.
Hmm...bad link to BBC, or did they drop the article? Clicking the link of the post takes me to "Pakistan denies Kabul bomb link" article.
Cue Claude Rains!
"I am shocked! Shocked! To find spying going on!"
Hmmmm,
I bet the spy service of Pakistan is full of Muslims too. And they support the Taliban?
Oh my goodness.
Jonnyc--
Thanks for pointing that out -- trying to sort it out now. Even a Google news search turns up the right headline, but the older article.
Jonnyc--
In the meantime, there's this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/01/terror/main4313732.shtml
That's the only other source I've located at the moment on Pakistan's admitting it needs to "weed out" people in the ISI.
OT, but is good-old USA, in it's last days?: http://www.spp.gov/
Alert--
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70864
The government of Pakistan will have to do more than "purge" the ISI of Taliban sympathizers. It will have to purge the ISI of those who are convinced that Muslims and Infidels are permanent enemies, and that one's sole loyalty must always be to other Muslims, and that any loyalty offered to Infidels must perforce be either feigned, or fleeting, or both.
That means that the government of Pakistan would have to purge the ISI of those who want to conduct Jihad against India, of those who want to dominate Afghanistan in order to protect Pakistan's back in the war against Infidel India, who want to prevent the Americans from interrogating A. Q. Khan, who want the freedom to acquire the most advanced American weapons in order to be able, among other things, to deliver the weaponry for which A. Q. Khan stole the plans when he was allowed to study in a Dutch laboratory.
That means that the government of Pakistan would have to purge the ISI, and the Pakistani military, and the civilian government of Pakistan, of all those who take their Islam seriously.
Now what are the chances, what the likelihood, what the possibility, of that?
heard something about top alqauea, no.2 man might of been killed in bombing of pak safe house by US last week.. good news for sure!
Well, guess who worked hand-in glove with the ISI aiding jihad in Afghanistan and Pakistan throughout the '80s and well into the '90s? The CIA.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
MarisolJW, Thanks for the update. However, look at this: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62259
That Bush should inaugrate SPP shows, how much Bush respects United States, the country that housed his family and made him the POTUS/commander-in-chief. That he should inagurate SPP at at "Consulate De Mexico" de-means all patriotic Americans and America itself.
What a POTUS/commander-in-chief/sell-out!
Sorry to get off topic, but just to let everyone outside of Canada know, there are now two on-going cases with possible links to the jihad.
There was the stabbing/beheading of an 18 year old man in Manitoba on Wednesday night (mentioned above). All the authorities are saying right now is that that crime was committed by a "stranger". On a side note, the kid was stabbed over fifty times before he was finally beheaded.
Also on Wednesday night, here in Calgary, a young man was stabbed to death by a gang of "Middle-Eastern looking" men. This crime took place in the North-East end of the city. The North-East end of Calgary is a part of the city which is notorious for Pakistani/Middle-Eastern violence. I spend a lot of time up there (I live in the deep south of the city) because that's where my friends live. Many of my own friends are victims of such violence.
One friend of mine has had multiple encounters with Pakistani gangs over the years. On one occassion he barely managed to escape with his life when a gang of Pakistani's targeted a Chinese-owned 7/11. In a drive-by shooting they left two Chinese men dead. Here in town the Pakistani's are known for hating the Chinese and Lebanese, who are also here in Calgary, more than anyone else for some reason. Many of my other friends are lucky to have only been swarmed and beaten up by gangs of Pakistani youths. Of course, individually they'll be your best friends, if you lucky.
Someone should let the Pakistanis know that people in free societies will put up with a lot of bullshit. Up to a point. Once that point is crossed, you'd better watch out.
Diggler,
That's too bad what's happening in Calgary. Such a great city. I sure do hope that you won't be living in "Albertastan" anytime soon.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, Enraged Since1999.
Terpi:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMXhiTgSzIE
Diggler; do you have sources/links to the Calgary stabbing info?
So we're still playing pat-a-cake with all three main nations behind 9/11. Remember -- Saudi Arabia(Prez literally holds their hand, encourages more Muslims from Saudi Arabia come to visit, study in the US), the UAE (same ones who wanted to buy up all our ports, Prez said it was OK, same ones who had a member of their royal family partying with Bin Laden when we supposedly wanted to bomb him... ) and friend and ally Pakistan were the only nations to recognize the Taliban diplomatically -- and they paid for and supported those "students" of Islam in all their heinousness.
Why aren't we going all Hammurabi on this filth?
Well, guess who worked hand-in glove with the ISI aiding jihad in Afghanistan and Pakistan throughout the '80s and well into the '90s? The CIA.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
Those years (and most Cold War matchups in the Muslim world) were a case study in two areas:
1. Politics makes strange bedfellows
2. The enemy of my enemy is my friend
India, while claiming to be non-aligned, had Soviet sympathies. Pakistan should have been our enemy, or at least been given the cold shoulder, but balance of power was the name of the game.
Regarding Canada. Vancouver site still has purported CBC.ca info with logo this now appears to be a hoax posting. No confirmation at all. RCMP reports alleged killer arraigned made NO COMMENT, attended arraignment with no attorney.
This story functions as yet one more reason for America to move ever closer in relations with India. The importance of American/Indian relations cannot be overestimated as we move further into an already very troubled century, which is principally, though not exclusively, due to the existence of the Islamic religion.
Sorry to hear about more difficulties in Canada. Canada's easy immigration policy is beginning to bite that country in its rear. Ditto for a lot of other Western countries.
And so is our country!
Another report that Zawahiri was killed in Pakistan?
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71216
Waiting for the "we killed innocent Muslims in a madrassah" wrapup.
India, while claiming to be non-aligned, had Soviet sympathies. Pakistan should have been our enemy, or at least been given the cold shoulder, but balance of power was the name of the game.
Posted by: PMK at August 1, 2008 4:17 PM
PMK, think for a moment. What balance of power did USA need? USA needed Pakistan as much as Soviets needed Cuba. As we all know.. it all mounted to NOTHING! Besides, by facing the threats up-front and not falling for the 'balance of power' trap, USA would have emerged a super-power of integrity. Mahatma Gandhi believed, lived and demnonstrated that "Support of the masses, is the joy of the timid". A super-power like USA, seeking 'balance of power' is a distinct sign of spiritual weakness and moral timidity. Also, Afghanistan v/s Soviet Union has demonstrated that 'balance of power' approach proves to be harmful in the long run. To take a moral stand against injustice which, as Mahatma Gandhi demonstrated, is the path that brought glorious independence to India. No, Mahatma Gandhi was not a party to the partition of India. Gandhiji considered Muslims and Hindus the 'two eyes of India'. Had it been up to him, India would not have suffered the bloody partition it did. THe responsibility of India's partition lies primirily with the un-patriotic muslims who exploited the birth of Independent India to conduct a cesarean of it's own, were none was called for. Post-independence, India, while looking up to Soviet-union as a 'big brother', was never anti-USA. United States should recognize this subtle yet critical stand of integrity, India demonstrated. Coming back to the costly 'balance of power' deals USA has struck, Believe me, USA has come off much weaker than a small nation like India.
Bottom line, deals without moral / spiritual integrity, lucrative as they may seem, come at a horrendous price, as 9/11 has demonstrated (in deals with Al Sauds/Islam/Ummah).
The sooner US congress (since POTUS/commander-in-chief has sold his soul to Al-Sauds) realizes and acts on principles, the stronger USA will be.
Just 2 cents on 'balance of power' deals.
The word "infested" has a certain ring to it and fits well when talking about Islamic militants.
Alert: I respectfully disagree with some of what you wrote above. First of all, playing the balance-of-power game was one of several realpolitik maneuvers during the Cold War which was necessary. Not to have played this game many times would have sent all kinds of signals to allies that we didn't have any balls. To enemies too. It forms part of the reason we won the Cold War.
Second, it seems you have respect for Gandhi. I don't. He would be my choice for the single most overrated individual of the twentieth century. The man was a fool. He actually thought that the Hindu/Muslim antagonism was due to the British presence in the subcontinent. In actuality, it was precisely the British presence which had ordinarily kept Hindus and Muslims from tearing each apart. Immediately upon independence in 1947 this point was bitterly proven as Hindus and Muslims slaughtered each other in droves. Gandhi also had very weird ideas about what should constitute the Indian economy. As Paul Johnson noted in Modern Times, if Gandhi's ideas had been fully implemented, it would have led to mass starvation. And Gandhi was so naive that he encouraged Churchill (the Great Man had nothing but contempt for Gandhi) as late as 1941 to seek an "understanding" with Hitler. Gandhi was an appeaser where Nazis were concerned but a vigorous opponent of the British Empire. Talk about getting things ass-backwards. What Gandhi really proves is the basic decency of the Empire. If the Russians, the French, the Spanish or even the Belgians had been in India, instead of the British, they would have just shot the sacerdotal loon, something Ho Chi Minh mentioned with delight. Gandhi was Mickey Mouse as the Sorcerer's Apprentice come to life.
Alert,
Balance of power refers to our struggle against communism. It called for the US to maintain superior, or at least sufficient, capability to deter any attack. It required making sure we had the resources necessary to protect OUR interests. The advent of atomic weapons made war an option to avoid at all costs. When it came to the superpowers the best war was the one we didn't fight.
WE were in a fight for our survival. The outcome was by no means guaranteed. India was not a country to count on. Neutrality is integrity?
It didn't last very long. Nehru, the same leader who was not interested in an alliance with the US, had no problem coming to the US and UK after the 1962 war. India had turned down an alliance with the US and responded to our subsequent alliance with Pakistan by cozying up to the USSR, all the while claiming to be non-aligned. If India could protect its interests why couldn't we protect ours?
India was most definitely "anti-USA".
By early 1951 the United States was becoming keenly interested in an alliance with Pakistan, due to concerns about defending the Middle East amidst the Korean War. Pakistan helped the situation by condemning North Korean aggression and by supporting the US stance, whereas India further estranged the United States by remaining neutral in the conflict.
India was NOT our friend. We could not be sure of India's support when the chips were down. We still can't.
In the late 1940s the clear establishment of Cold War lines in Europe allowed the US to take keen interest in developing a South Asian policy, now centred on Pakistan. As early as 1948 the US military Attache to Karachi, Lt. Colonel Hoskot, had asked his administration to seriously consider military assistance to Pakistan. He said: ‘The strategic importance of Pakistan from an international point of view cannot be overlooked or treated lightly. In a period of emergency, Pakistan can form a base both for military and air operations.’ A Joint Chiefs of Staff study of US military interests in South Asia in March 1949 also stressed the need for a close relationship with Pakistan. It noted that the Karachi-Lahore area of Pakistan ‘might be required as a base for air operations against central USSR and as a staging area for forces engaged in the defence or recapture of Middle East oil areas.’ Pakistan’s suitability as a staging area for covert US operations against the Soviet Union further increased its importance in American foreign policy and security objectives.
Right or wrong, BOP was our national policy. It is reflected in the Middle East as well: Saudi Arabia and Iran (pre-1979) against Iraq, Syria and Egypt. It is reflected in agreements with Europe, such as NATO. We made it through the Cold War thanks to that "spiritual weakness". Victory was never assured.
The 1970s were a period of Communist ascendancy in many parts of the world, especially after Vietnam.
The Soviets made good use of Cuba. It was their ticket to central and South America. A lot of mischief was wrought in the 1970s and 1980s. Maybe you remember the many hijackings, which brought us our weapons screeners. People were going to Cuba, not to Puerto Rico. The metal detectors were useless on 9/11 but that's another matter. There were Communist groups in the US.
You can belittle the Soviet alliance with Cuba but hindsight is meaningless. It assumes that everything would have turned out the same way without those alliances. You can't be sure of that. What would have happened had the Cuban missile crisis turned out differently? We'll never know.
Our relationship with Pakistan was an effort to counter the Soviets in Asia. We can look back now and say none of it mattered, but we'll never be sure if that's true. There are too many variables.
http://www.chowk.com/articles/9132
Welligton, ditto your remarks on Gandhi and the partition of British India. As one wag noted: "partition came, and 50 million people ran for their lives, in both directions."
Welligton, ditto your remarks on Gandhi and the partition of British India. As one wag noted: "partition came, and 50 million people ran for their lives, in both directions."
Even if the Greyhound Killer isn't a ROPer.. we can guess where he got the "inspiration".
As soon as someone gives any credit to Gandhi, detractors rise up, they always do.
So what did Gandhi do that was so great? Well, millions of people referred to him as 'Mahatma', or 'great soul'. Millions more attended his funeral.
Con man or Mahatma, either one, not one of his detractors will be called Mahatma, and millions will not show up at their funerals.
It's easy to discredit a dead guy...Gandhi was human, he made mistakes, but he was far from a fool...The millions did not call him Mahatma for nothing...
Alert,
I agree with Wellington. And I hold the sonofabloodybitch responsible for the massacre in West Punjab and East Bengal. He was in absolute denial about the bloodthirstiness of islam and muslims, and this was the reason why all those people died. Even after independence, his legacy of negation was carried by another sonofabloodybitch, nehru. The whitewashing of genocides in India continues to this day, and the mughal period glorified.
It is my dream to take my dog for a walk at gandhi's samadhi and ensure that he poops there. Ditto with nehru.
Finally, my apologies to all sonsofbloodybitches for calling gandhi and nehru sonsofbloodybitches.
As soon as someone gives any credit to Gandhi, detractors rise up, they always do.
duh_swami,
Gandhi was not part of the discussion. What he did was separate and apart from what happened in PAKISTAN during the Cold War. The man died in 1948. The Cold War was just getting started. India had a choice. It made the wrong one. They were too good to associate with us, so we went on without them. We found friends elsewhere. The West won the Cold War in spite of the largest democracy in Asia and with all of our "spiritual weakness". India is reaping the benefits of that weakness.
Alert's homages to Gandhi were totally beside the point.
Question: who in India thought non-alignment would make them any safer if Communism won the Cold War? Did they really think Russia and China would just leave them alone? It's why the non-aligned movement STILL makes no sense.
No, Mahatma Gandhi was not a party to the partition of India.
Alert,
Who said he was?
Sorry, was a victim of the "Operation Aborted" error, until now. Phew!
So, point of discussion is India's support for Soviet v/s Pakistan's support for USA. Well, doesn't this subject line ring any bells? PMK pointed to the 'balance of power' to which, I had to point that 'balance of power', if practiced with moral reasons, turns out to be a sweet deal that turns sour with time, as supporting Taleban and Saddam have clearly demonstrate. Further, how can Pakistan and India be discussed without remembering India (there was no Pakistan) in 1947? Who was the architect of India's Independence? Or are readers going to deny Mahatma Gandhi's role in India's independence? What India is proud of is not only gaining independence after a long struggle, but that struggle was based on moral/spiritual reasons, thanks to Mahatma Gandhi. Now, Gandhiji has admitted to some of his mistakes. Heck, Gandhi never would have been in national struggle, had he not been whipped on his way to Pretoria in 1892. His resistance to 2nd class treatment was impulsively. Gandhi's resistance continued to grow, with a sound moral base of Satya (Truth), Ahimsa (non-violence) and Prem (love). Looking back today specially with colored glass of "One man's terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter" and related justifications, Gandhi did not believe in those rationalizations. Heck, even after having idological differences with Subhash Chandra Bose, who promised freedom for blood, ("You give me blood, I'll give you freedom"... Subhash Chandra Bose was no less a patriot and Gandhiji recognized that) Gandhiji after loosing the Haripura Congress presidency to Subhash Chandra Bose, called him "Bengal Tiger" (that Subhash Chandra Bose himself withdrew his candidacy, is another story). In the face of insurmountable odds, Gandhiji, both in private or public life, never opted for 'Balance of Power' deals. Sure, it took longer and harder struggles yet, 'Quit India Movement', not the 'Jalianwala Baug' was Gandhiji's approach. Indians should be proud not only of the Independence they achieved in 1947, but also the sound moral/spiritual manner in which it was achieved. For more on this, please refer to "Freedom at Midnight": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_at_Midnight
Because Gandhi's faith in India's cultural practices of Satya, Ahinsa and Prem were so deep rooted, he considered Hindus and Muslims the "two eyes of India". Partition was Muslim treason, supported by British. Nehru made the mistake of approving the partition, for an accelerated independence, at an untold cost. However, should Gandhi not be credited for his undying attempts to prevent the partition? When it comes to Muslims/Islam, all moral bets are off but to duh_swami and arjun.sevak, is there no difference between 'Jalianwala Baug' and 'Quit India Movement'?
The point of the story is that 'balance of power', without moral justifications, comes at a heavy and unforseen price.
Again, was just my 2 cents worth.......
So what did Gandhi do that was so great?
Answer lies in the following suggested readings:
- Freedom at Midnight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_at_Midnight
.. and Gandhiji's own inspirational writings in:
- Satyagrah in South Africa: http://www.amazon.com/Satyagraha-South-Africa-Mahatma-Gandhi/dp/0934676038
- The story of my experiments with truth (Satya na Prayogo): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_My_Experiments_with_Truth
- Young India: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_India
- Other writings published by Navjeevan trust:
http://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/encyclopedia.htm
"The point of the story is that 'balance of power', without moral justifications, comes at a heavy and unforseen price."
Survival isn't a moral justification? That was what we were looking for: our own survival as a free people.
Indians looked down their nose at us until they needed us.
"Question: who in India thought non-alignment would make them any safer if Communism won the Cold War? Did they really think Russia and China would just leave them alone? It's why the non-aligned movement STILL makes no sense."
The second sonofabloodybitch, i.e., nehru.
Alert,
Bringing up the "greatness" of megalomaniac gandhi is completely o.t. and it is obvious that you have not read anything other than propaganda, which you are encouraging us to also consume. It is also clear that your family was not one of the victims of partition and you have not read about what exactly happened in W. Punjab and E. Bengal. I would reply to your posts about "the great gandhi" (spit), if I was not having the same "operation aborted" problems. I downloaded another browser to get past it, and am still getting used to it.
Please will the management look into the matter ? At the time of my last post explorer was loading the page, but aborting it (message was "operation aborted"), and now it is not opening the page AT ALL).
She said Pakistan needed to "identify these people and weed them out"....
No, identify these people and wipe them out. Do it now.
I'm with PMK, arjun.sevak and ebonystone on Gandhi, the Cold War, etc. For me, the continued adulation of Gandhi tends to confirm Napoleon's assessment of history, that it is a pack of lies agreed upon. I'm not that cynical ordinarily, but when I hear someone like Gandhi praised (Dag Hammarskjold is another example here) it makes me think the Emperor had a point.
Hugh, buddy:
Thanks for another Soviet Golden Oldie. With the kinds of news streaming in from all over the world, I can use some relaxation.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, Temporarily Not Enraged.
Darn guys. Looks like we're gonna have to cancel that sleepover.
This is bad policy. We should either support one side, the US side, or get out of Afghanistan. As it is we are supporting both sides of the war. We are supporting our troupes and we are supporting the Taliban/Al Qaeda through Pakistan. This is a recipe for a disaster