| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
More embarrassment for Musharraf, if he is capable of embarrassment. Friend and Ally Update: "Pak signed deal with Mullah Omar's men to halt Wazir fighting," from Zeenews.com, with thanks to DFS:
Islamabad, Oct 14: The much-talked about deal between tribal elders in Waziristan and Pakistan Government which was defended by President Pervez Musharraf during his recent US visit was actually signed by pro-Taliban militants owing allegiance to Mullah Omar, a media report said today.The agreement, which aroused suspicion all around was signed with militants and not with tribal elders, as is being officially claimed, it said.
"As such the argument that the peace agreement is against the Taliban, and not with the Taliban, just does not hold water. One expert asks: How could the militants in North Waziristan, who owe their allegiance to Mullah Omar and his commander Jalaluddin Haqqani, who is responsible for southern Afghanistan, sign a deal against their brothers in arms", the Dawn quoted an official as saying.
The deal was signed between the administrator of North Waziristan and pro-Taliban militants and clerics who until September 5 were on the wanted list.
Among them are Hafiz Gul Bahadar, Maulana Sadiq Noor who were top militant clerics and the remaining six, Azad Khan, Maulvi Saifullah, Maulvi Ahmad Shah Jehan, Azmat Ali, Hafiz Amir Hamza and Mir Sharaf, were nominated by them to co-sign the agreement.
The agreement says that there will be no cross-border infiltration but NATO military officials stationed in Afghanistan have been quoted as saying there is a 300 per cent increase in militant activity in the Afghan border regions.
Posted by Robert at October 16, 2006 8:26 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Poor Mushy Raff;one day he will see how grateful the Taliban is for all his help. They'll be in Islamabad, running the place while he runs for his life.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 16, 2006 8:34 AM
l think a phone call from the US Pentagon telling to look out for some real nice missiles coming to a taliban and or supporter near them.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at October 16, 2006 8:40 AM
So with this agreement, aren't we making deals with the terrorists? Like, to NOT kill them?
Posted by: freewoman at October 16, 2006 8:44 AM
It should be clear to all that:
1) ISI has the upper hand in govt and won't protect Musharraf unless he is pliant
2) Musharraf has conlcuded he has far more to fear from the Taliban, ISI and Al Qaeda than George Bush, and should really be considered not only on the sidelines, but now aiding the other side in many significant ways. Unles we are determined to kill the killers in the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan ourselves, they will have a cambodian sanctury for their afghanistan's vietnam. PERIOD. They can't hate us any more.
3) Hassan Abassi is CORRECT about america
4) Condi's recent trip and the promises she made to the Al Saud mean the end of this era
at October 16, 2006 9:14 AM
Nothing would suprise me when it comes to bloody islamics.
Posted by: cobber at October 16, 2006 10:09 AM
and Paki has nukes, lovely
Posted by: TheRegulator at October 16, 2006 11:01 AM
Musharraf has turned to mush. Crapistan's nuclear arsenal is almost in terrorist's hands.
Year after year we carefully fawn over and prop up and 'say the right things' to the Musharrafs and the Mubaraks and all the rest of them. Then, when they are thrown on the dustbin of history along with all our 'strategies' we are left with - our words.
at October 16, 2006 11:09 AM
After:
- First WTC bombing.
- Attack on Indian parliament.
- Funding 9/11.
- On-camera murder of Daniel Pearl.
- and much more.........
.. is anyone surprised?
Posted by: Alert at October 16, 2006 11:47 AM
Since the agreement was made with the Taliban, and we are at war with the Taliban, does this mean that we can now chase them (and attack/kill them) in Pakistan territory?
Not that we ever would, after all, we have to respect sovreign state borders, but could we?
Condi for President (of the International knitting Society). No offense to knitters.
Posted by: walterc at October 16, 2006 12:30 PM
No offense taken.
Posted by: champ at October 16, 2006 1:02 PM
Why American officials LOVE PAKISTAN and keep a blind eye on them?
Pakistan's munificent leaders are the most generous visitors to Washington, lavishing expensive gifts on American government officials from President Bush down to unnamed CIA officers.
A list of gifts accepted by US officials from foreign government sources in 2004 published in the Federal Register the other day shows that Pakistan outdid most countries in the world, gifting US officials carpets, rugs, shawls, jewellery and antique pieces.
Pakistan’s ‘gifting’ diplomacy starts right at the top with President Pervez Musharraf presenting Bush with a dark wood table inlaid with bone valued at $1,400 during his December 2004 visit to Washington DC. He also gave Bush an antique muzzle loader from the 1800s, a cream wool Pakistani coat and hat.
Mrs Sehba Musharraf gave First Lady Laura Bush a gold light and dark pink garnet and pink tourmaline chandelier earrings; and a 17" light and dark pink garnet and pink tourmaline beaded necklace.
So pakistani are shinless till the time they are gifting well to our american politicians. It shows "Honesty" of our politicans.
Posted by: Who are you at October 16, 2006 1:03 PM
President Pervez Musharraf presenting Bush with a dark wood table inlaid with bone valued at $1,400 during his December 2004 visit to Washington DC. He also gave Bush an antique muzzle loader from the 1800s, a cream wool Pakistani coat and hat.
Mrs Sehba Musharraf gave First Lady Laura Bush a gold light and dark pink garnet and pink tourmaline chandelier earrings; and a 17" light and dark pink garnet and pink tourmaline beaded necklace.
.. so much for the president/commander-in-chief of USA and "leader" of the free-world!
Posted by: Alert at October 16, 2006 1:34 PM
americaningermany said
There is a petition for the return of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers.
I agree with the sentiment, but I disagree that a petition is going to do any good. We need to send a message to Hamas measured in kilotons, not in number of signatures.
Posted by: special_guest at October 16, 2006 1:35 PM
Petitions only work with civilized people. The muslims only understand force.
Posted by: freewoman at October 16, 2006 1:48 PM
Well, I can certainly sympathize with Musharraf. He is getting pressure from both ends, and would do the United States no good if he were assassinated by the Jihazis in his country. Imagine the chaos that would ensue.
So, while I think Pakistan is one of those friends you don't let into your house unsupervised while you take a trip to the bathroom, I do think that President Musharraf is doing as much as he can, under the circumstances.
That being said, I do agree, petitions only work with civilized people. Did you know that it is acceptable for a Muslim to lie and sign treaties without any intention of honoring them? - As long as it benifits Islam, it is okay to be deceitful...
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at October 16, 2006 1:58 PM
Musharraf is with us, or against us. That simple. His choice looks to be against us, with us would mean him giving intel to the U.S. , meetings on enemy strongholds, giving the the strength of the foe, showing key leader positions, etc.
Possible he IS doing this, and the rest is for his own people. To stay alive.
It is clear we are not fighting a war, only battles for now.
at October 16, 2006 2:16 PM
Well, I can certainly sympathize with Musharraf. He is getting pressure from both ends..
Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at October 16, 2006 01:58 PM
This is like saying .. poor Arafat! He is getting pressure from HAMAS to wipe out Israel on one hand, to work with Israel for peace, on the other..... poor Arafat! Coming back to Musharraf, he would not be in this position had he not supported LeT, JeT terrorists against India and/or started Kargil war. You see, supporting terror has it's consequences and any sympathy for consequences is misplaced. By now it should be clear that only zero tolerance for terror gives civilized world, a chance for survival.
Posted by: Alert at October 16, 2006 2:47 PM
americaningermany said
Why are the EU and the U.S. sending hundreds of millions to rebuild "Palestine" [quotes added] and Lebanon when these soldiers have never been released?
Right on.
Posted by: special_guest at October 16, 2006 2:55 PM
When Pakies make a deal with Talibans, they figure they can milk the rich fat cow 'US'. I bet Musharifraf is hiding all known terrorists somewhere in RawalPindi. If Musharifraf hands over the terrorists, the game is more or less over. The US will become under pressure to return home. Musharifraf is scared shit..less that the Jihadies will go after him big time.
By making a 'friendly' deal with Talibananas (or banana benders) he is reducing his costs, meaning he will bring soldiers back home. However, the problem is going to multiply by many folds. NATO will have to clean the sh.. left behind by the greese ball slimy Musharifraf.
Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at October 16, 2006 5:00 PM
(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.)