"The attacks showed the wide reach of militant attacks in the Pakistani heartland, far from the troubled and lawless border region with Afghanistan." Now, how is it that they're able to have such a wide reach? Could it be because their ideology resonates with that of large numbers of Pakistanis, so that their activities are broadly tolerated? Naah, that couldn't be it...
"Twin Attacks in Eastern Pakistan Kill Dozens," by Waqar Gillani in the New York Times, December 9 (thanks to James):
LAHORE, Pakistan -- Continuing a string of attacks against civilians and government offices, militants set off two bombs in one of the busiest markets of this eastern Pakistani city, killing at least 54 people and wounding at least 150 others, Pakistani authorities said on Tuesday.A second attack targeted the offices of the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, Pakistan's main security service, in the central city of Multan on Tuesday morning. At least 9 people were killed and 40 injured, rescue authorities said. The attacks showed the wide reach of militant attacks in the Pakistani heartland, far from the troubled and lawless border region with Afghanistan.
Authorities in Multan said militants in a car tried to attack the intelligence agency offices with automatic rifle fire and hand grenades lobbed at a guard post. But when forces from the security agency returned fire, the militants blew up the car. Many buildings were damaged....
The attack in Lahore was the third on Monday. In Peshawar, 11 people died when militants struck near a courthouse. Four others were killed in an attack in Quetta.
So troublesome, these "troubled" regions.
The jihadists are becoming more proficient in being able to conduct suicide operations in a systematic and ongoing manner. With today's blasts in both Pakistan and Iraq they seem to be starting to pour on the heat, and we can probably expect more of the same in the future. So, how will our brilliant president handle the heat? What will happen when nothing he tries, no amount of sweet talk or cajoling the Islamists, has an appreciable effect? Will he suck it up and do what needs to be done, or will he go the appeasement route?
OT: Today a caller on Michael Savage suggested that the real reason the extra troops are being sent to Afghanistan is to create supporting logistics for a strike into Pakistan to "secure" (meaning take) their nuclear weapons and keep them from falling into the hands of the Taliban. This would explain the extraordinarily long time taken for Obama to announce his Afghan strategy - detailed planning for something as complex as this would take a long time - and the very muted way in which he announced it. If the nukes were secured, then there would be little reason to stay in Afghanistan. The troops could come home in 2011 and finally leave these people, in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, to revert to the third world status that is their natural state.
I'm not sure I buy this theory, but it does seem attractive from many different angles. Neither am I quite ready to credit Obama with taking this kind of bold and game changing initiative, if for no other reason than it would make him very unpopular with his base, not to mention the entire OIC. And there's also the concern that it could turn into another fiasco like Carter/Desert One. I could see Rumsfeld talking Bush into doing this, but not Clinton and Obama.
I know that most of you disagree with me, but this terrorist violence we're seeing almost everyday now from Pakistan is not just gratuitous blood-lust. It is a vivid display of a very real power struggle occurring between the Pakistani government and the Taliban.
We have many commentators here advocating for the Western exploitation of sectarian and ethnic fissures in the Muslim world, but who seem largely uninterested in exploiting ideological and other divisions. Pakistan's government has been duplicitous for decades, and there is no doubt the Taliban was a creature of the ISI, but that being said, the fight in Pakistan is very real, and - just as we in the West should naturally (though not necessarily always) gravitate towards helping non-Arab Muslims free themselves from the Arab imperial yoke, so should we typically sympathize with and assist to the best of our ability the less fanatical in a fight between Muslim entities, particularly if the differences are extensive. I've always believed in the realpolitik of "the lessor of two evils".
A Taliban conquest of Pakistan would be a strategic nightmare for India and the West. Among other things, it would become a proliferation smorgasbord, quite possibly empowering every radical Muslim group in the world and rendering Iran's nuclear program incidental.
Free speech under attack in the UK
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/christians-face-trial-for-criticising-islam/
"...militants set off two bombs in one of the busiest markets of this eastern Pakistani city,..."
shopping jihad continues....
"Now, how is it that they're able to have such a wide reach? Could it be because their ideology resonates with that of large numbers of Pakistanis, so that their activities are broadly tolerated?"
Robert, how is it that the "ideology" is able to resonate in the first place with the large numbers of Pakistanis? How is it that religious convictions come to play such an important role in the first place? And how is it that you never seem to allow for any other factors, instead implying that its ideology or nothing? The notion that social networks play a role in the spread of "radical" ideas - advocated by Sageman for example - does not have to be an alternative theory to yours, does it?
From post above... Robert, how is it that the "ideology" is able to resonate in the first place with the large numbers of Pakistanis? How is it that religious convictions come to play such an important role in the first place?
Are you kidding? You really should educate yourself...
"Social networks"???
Come on, man! Numbers! Hundreds of thousands of Jihadis worldwide, plying their bloody trade on a daily basis. This isn't about a facebook subculture...this is about a common religious identity and specific and unequivocal theological calls to violence.
Well, thank goodness people like Charles Johnson and CAIR are out there identifying and denouncing "real" fascists, and not the ones who kill nearly 200 and wound nearly 400 more in one_single_day.
I cannot fathom, nor can I possibly imagine, from whence their ideas sprung. It must be the Tea Party, no? How about Pamela Geller passing them sneaky notes with orders to kill? Or maybe it's that crazy Sarah Palin urging them on with a wink and a nod?
As bad and as looney as opponents of America's Right perceive them to be, they clearly pale in comparison with Islamic jihadists and their abettors worldwide. I cannot understand the constant underplaying of the patently obvious and evil ideology of Shari'ah law and its enforcers. There needs to be unity on our part, not disharmony. A house divided cannot stand, and we need to value our common beliefs more than we embrace our differences if we plan on maintaining our way of life.
Peace and harmony are Un-Islamic...
dlp, do I detect that there may be an entire world of pre-"social network" thinking is just waiting to be discovered by you? The term "social networking" is a recent construct invented with the advent of widespread Internet communications to refer to the increased connectivity between groups that previously had no way easily to communicate. It's a good concept within its own realm of applicability, and I get your suggestion that it may represent a "new" social force to some degree that was previously absent in the world. But I think there are older, and far more powerful, forces at work than are captured by this Madison Avenue-esque advertising term. Did the invention of the steam engine or the airplane or flying to the moon change in any significant way the nature of the conflict that exists at the cultural interface between the East and the West? They may have changed the details, but at the fundamental level nothing has changed. The techies who invented the Internet and all the products that it enabled are like the gnomes in the basement labs of the wizards who employ them. It's the wizards, on both sides of the cultural divide, who call the strategic shots; the gnomes who work for them might supply the gizmos for individual battles that provide temporary advantage, but they don't provide the overall direction. This isn't to demean gnomes, since their combined contributions to the world are considerable, but rather to recognize that we (I'm one of them) don't make the policies, although sometimes we like to imagine that we should.
OT: Does anyone out there remember the cartoon series "Pinky and The Brain" from several decades ago? The main story was about two lab rats who had been genetically engineered for intelligence. They spend their days in their cages plotting to take over the world, each episode being about one or another grand scheme they hatch only to have it result in disaster. The cartoon was brilliant social satire, but more and more I see life imitating this cartoon art, with social and political scientists playing the role of Pinky and The Brain.
From the article:
"The attacks showed the wide reach of militant attacks in the Pakistani heartland, far from the troubled and lawless border region with Afghanistan".
"Troubled" = jihad-wracked.
"Lawless" = sharia-crazed. It's not that there is *no* law, but that the 'law' which prevails there is the inhuman or antihuman Unlaw that is sharia.
Now let's rewrite that paragraph: "The attacks showed the wide range of the sharia-pushing jihad gangsters in the Pakistani heartland, far from the jihad-wracked and sharia-crazed border region with Afghanistan".
Well, let's see. Could it be immersion in the Islamic religion from birth, Sharia imposed to the extent possible in that society, tolerance for radical imams, madrassas and what passes for public schools pushing rote memorization of the Koran to the detriment of other subjects, and prayer five times a day? Could those things possibly influence the Pakistani public's world view? I do not think social networks, such as cricket leagues or business associations would inculcates Islamist supremacy as being right and good.
Pinky and the Brain?....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncWtJAGOKo0&feature=related
Yea, that's the one :-) Nice, and very a propos, clip you found. The Brain had decided that his previous, direct methods for taking over the world weren't effective so he decided to put on a suit and try smooth talk. Kinda reminds me of someone else we know.