| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Friend and Ally Update: "Pakistan let al-Qaida front fund UK plot: Terror war 'ally' didn't outlaw 'charitable' group even after U.S. blacklisted it," from WND, with thanks to Robert:
WorldNetDaily has learned that ally Pakistan failed to outlaw an al-Qaida charitable front after it was tied to last year's London bombings, and the inaction allowed the charity to finance the new London-based plot to bomb U.S.-bound jetliners.On April 28, the U.S. Department of State added Pakistan-based Jamaat-Ud-Dawa to its blacklist of Specially Designated Global Terrorist Organizations. But the Pakistani government did not follow suit.
Islamabad neglected to blacklist Jamaat-Ud-Dawa (JUD) or freeze its assets, allowing the al-Qaida front to continue to operate legally inside Pakistan's borders.
Authorities have traced money for the British sky terror operation back to the JUD charity. Funds were funneled through three separate bank accounts in Pakistan. The money was to be used by the Pakistani-British suicide bombers to buy plane tickets for dry runs and the final targeted flights.
JUD is based in Lahore, where at least one of last year's London bombers received aid, and maintains branches in Karachi and Peshawar. Ringleader Mohammed Sidique Khan visited a madrassa (Islamic school) run by JUD in Lahore just before the July 2005 attacks.
Sources say Scotland Yard is furious that terror-war partner Islamabad failed to dismantle the Pakistan-based terror infrastructure that supported the London bombings. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf vowed to crack down on militant groups in Lahore and Karachi in the wake of last year's attacks....
Experts say Al-Qaida's inner circle has found sanctuary in Pakistan. Osama bin Laden is "hiding in Pakistan in the northern tribal areas above Peshawar," says recently retired CIA officer Gary Schoen.
Posted by Robert at August 17, 2006 4:39 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
"We must fight them over there [in Iraq] so we won't have to fight them over here."
A nest of ninnies.
Posted by: Hugh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 17, 2006 5:15 PM
A part of me is gleeful that the US - whose State Department has been pressuring India to go easy on Pakistan despite 7/11 - is now finding that Pakistan isn't just not acting against anti-India terrorists: they are not even acting against anti-Western terrorists. That said, I'm glad this plot was foiled.
And the Paki woman arrested in the tri-state area - these days, Pakis look like they want to eclipse the Arab empire as the #1 source of terror, and prove themselves more Islamic than Arabs themselves.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 17, 2006 5:25 PM
As is normal with Musharraf, he talks the talk ...
I believe Pakistan to be the worst of them. But I may just be biased because it's the Paks that are the main source of Islam here in the UK.
Brits are slow to rouse to anger, but when we are roused (I do my best with my countrymen, honest), we motor.
One day, when they become too much of an irritant, we'll swat them like you would swat a persistent fly. They mistake our tolerance and easy-going attitude for weakness. Americans and the rest of the Europeans are no different really. We're all Europeans, culturally.
I'm getting on a bit now, and not in the best of condition, but I hope I live long enough to see it start. I want to be around especially when the Germans get seriously pissed off. Every country in the world - where Islam goes, strife goes. It is the one common factor, and Psychology teaches to look for consistency when looking for responsibility. If I can't start my car every morning, but nobody else has difficulty with it, then it's a fair bet I'm at fault. If no one can start it, it's a fair bet it's the car. It's not the rest of the world: it's Islam.
Posted by: Sir Henry Morgan at August 17, 2006 5:32 PM
Again with the damn Pakis.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at August 17, 2006 5:41 PM
They lie.
So what? They're Muslims, so supposed to lie. Damned good at it too.
at August 18, 2006 12:49 AM
The Pakistani government is double faced and they still support terrorist organizations post 9/11. They say, In Pakistan you can rent an AK-47 rifle on the streets of Karachi on an hourly basis. It's like the Lebanese government and Hezbollah. like the Lebanese government, the Pak government is weak and fragile. Opposing Hezbollah will cause the Lebanese government to disintegrate instantaneously. Similiarly; Musharaff is just a wimp who has no control over his country; The extremists are targeting him. If they succeed, expect an Imam sitting in a madrasa with controls for launching the nukes. Terrorism is rising exponentially.
If America genuinely wants to get rid of all these terrorists; they have to support India.
at August 18, 2006 1:21 AM
Apparantly the US (or maybe Bush's weapons company) will benefit from the Pak F-16 fighter jets purchase, which is why Washington and the Bush Administration are so keen to sell those planes to Pakistan.
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=71529
'F-16s+N-reactor to Pak=disaster'
Washington, July 25: A prominent American lawmaker asked Bush administration to scrap the sale of F-16s to Pakistan, saying the acquisition of the US-made fighter jets plus the plutonium reactor reportedly being built by Islamabad equals a ‘catastrophe.’
In a ‘dear colleague’ letter written in the wake of reports about the plutonium reactor, Gary Ackerman, the co chair of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans said, ‘at any time this news would be unwelcome’.
Pointing to the Washington Post piece on Tuesday about the dramatic expansion in Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme, Ackerman said the import of the story is ‘truly alarming’ in the context of a pending sale by US of F-16 fighter-bombers.
“Despite assurances by the Bush administration that these aircraft will not be misused, or their technology transferred to other countries like China, once these planes have been delivered to Pakistan, there is, in fact, absolutely nothing we can do to prevent misuse,” the New York Democrat said in his letter.
"Based on history and strategic analysis, there is every reason to believe the contrary that these F-16s will be drafted for use as nuclear weapons delivery vehicles, and that they will be picked apart by potential adversaries to answer questions about our aviation capabilities," he said. "Help stop a catastrophe before it happens. And stop the sale of F-16s to Pakistan," the lawmaker, also a senior member in the House International Relations Committee said.
While Islamabad has certainly provided critical assistance in the war on terror, this recognition should not entail the transfer of aircraft that is capable of delivering nuclear weapons, Ackerman said. “The sale of F-16s has nothing whatsoever to do with the requirements of the war on terror and everything to do with the plutonium-producing heavy-water reactor Islamabad has found the resources to procure,” he added.
Posted by: pissbeuponmo at August 18, 2006 6:58 AM
Perhaps Pakistan didn't outlaw the "charity" on purpose: after all it brought in much needed currency into a barely functioning economy and gave some employment to a few scum.
Posted by: dgene at August 18, 2006 7:50 AM
Pakistan is not to be trusted. Write your Congessman and Senator. Urge them not to deliver F16s or other weapons.
I suspect Pakistan is sheltering Osama and the mad Egyptian Al-Zawahri.
Since they insist on playing games they should not be getting assistance in any form.
I agree India has been a better ally than Pakistan.
A few years ago India had Pakistan on the ropes. India should have been allowed to finish the job.
Sometimes it is better to stay out of other peoples affairs.
Posted by: exsgtbrown at August 18, 2006 8:22 AM
Wait a minute.
I am confused about all the anti-Pakistani comments here. Wasn't the U.K. airline terror plot foiled as a result of information from Pakistani officials, who apparently tortured a Muslim conspirator?
It seems to me that the situation with the Pakistanis is for too complex for the anti-Pakistani comments I am reading here. There seems to be quite a mix of pro versus anti al-Qaeda types in the government there.
As a Muslim country, Pakistan needs to be viewed with caution, but the cooperation in foiling the U.K. plot certainly has to be put in the plus column.
Posted by: Conservatarian at August 18, 2006 9:18 AM
Wait a minute.
I am confused about all the anti-Pakistani comments here. Wasn't the U.K. airline terror plot foiled as a result of information from Pakistani officials, who apparently tortured a Muslim conspirator?
It seems to me that the situation with the Pakistanis is for too complex for the anti-Pakistani comments I am reading here. There seems to be quite a mix of pro versus anti al-Qaeda types in the government there.
As a Muslim country, Pakistan needs to be viewed with caution, but the cooperation in foiling the U.K. plot certainly has to be put in the plus column.
Posted by: Conservatarian at August 18, 2006 9:21 AM
Wait a minute.
I am confused about all the anti-Pakistani comments here. Wasn't the U.K. airline terror plot foiled as a result of information from Pakistani officials, who apparently tortured a Muslim conspirator?
It seems to me that the situation with the Pakistanis is for too complex for the anti-Pakistani comments I am reading here. There seems to be quite a mix of pro versus anti al-Qaeda types in the government there.
As a Muslim country, Pakistan needs to be viewed with caution, but the cooperation in foiling the U.K. plot certainly has to be put in the plus column.
Posted by: Conservatarian at August 18, 2006 9:22 AM
Conservatarian,
I believe I am not the only one who would like to discuss 'friend and ally' pakistan here. Any questions you have, are welcome. :)
at August 18, 2006 12:06 PM
Conservatarian,
I believe there are others besides self who can state facts about 'friend and ally' pakistan. Any question are welcome. :)
at August 18, 2006 12:07 PM
I hit the "post" once, nothing happened. So posted again. What's wrong ?
Posted by: arjun.sevak at August 18, 2006 12:10 PM
Arjun, the system looks like it is loading slowly. So if it appears nothing is happening and you hit post a second or third time, it will post the same message again, that's all.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at August 18, 2006 1:32 PM
A lot of people seem to be having this problem. Some tips to avoid multiple postings:
Seems a lot of trouble, but it does avoid the embarrasment of 2, 3, 5 posts that some posters have been unintentionally ended up doing.
- After you've posted once, and your post doesn't seem to appear, hit the 'Back' button on your browser in the scroll mode to go back to the originals J/W or D/W home page;
- Hit 'Refresh' or F5;
- Hit the 'Forward' button (or ALT→) to get back to the page;
- Hit 'Refresh' or F5 again;
- See if your post appears;
- If it doesn't, hit the 'Forward' button (or ALT→) again until you get to your last edits, and post from there
at August 18, 2006 1:39 PM
I am betting that in the next few months, Pakistan shall precipitate into such a situation that Israel and USA would need to take it out by areal bombing. The objective would be to take out the nuke plants first. Then, the parts of Waziristan (where the Al-Qaeda and Taliban tribals located), need to be bombed. What would left of Pakistan, then ? Only, Allah mian knows.
My assessment is based on the following NYT report, which indicates that the fascination with Pervez Musharraf maybe ending. Musharraf is walking a tightrope, caught between the devil and the deep sea. Reforms are to go if Uncle Sam wishes which in turn mandates that radical Muslims be checked. The latter, if checked, is raising havoc because of several problems.
But, the bottomline is that if Mush goes he would be killed, or may have to seek asylum like Nawaz Sharif or Benazir Bhutto. USA and Israel would be gravely concerned if Mush has to go. Because they are afraid that the nukes would fall in wrong hands and only thru' Mush can USA have some checks on the nukes.
Read here the NYT Report on Pakistan and Musharraf
Mohammed bin Kafir Abu Jahal
Posted by: Mohammed bin Kafir Abu Jahal at August 18, 2006 6:18 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)