| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
That 2006 truce just keeps on paying dividends, but not to anyone interested in life without the Taliban minding their business. "Pakistani Taliban grows bolder, taking fight to doorstep of frontier city," by Tim Johnson and Jonathan S. Landay for McClatchy Newspapers:
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Islamic militants known as the Pakistani Taliban have extended their reach across all seven of Pakistan's frontier tribal regions and have infiltrated Peshawar, the provincial capital, heightening U.S. concerns that an insurrection may be broadening in the nuclear-armed nation.
Fighting over the weekend spilled into previously peaceful parts of the tribal belt that borders Afghanistan and intensified in South Waziristan, Bajour and Mohmand. In Bannu, southwest of Peshawar, gunmen fleeing police took dozens of schoolchildren hostage for several hours Monday before tribal elders brokered a deal offering them safe passage, state-run television reported.
And it bears repeating that they were reported to have fled with children and adult civilians as human shields.
"It's worsening day by day," said Safraz Khan, a political scientist at the University of Peshawar. "People feel vulnerable. People feel scared."
A disparate group of tribal armed militant groups, some of them linked to al Qaida, announced the formation of an alliance last month called The Taliban Movement of Pakistan. The 40-man leadership is from seven tribal agencies and eight bordering districts, underscoring the movement's reach. The group is thought to have 5,000 to 10,000 fighters and is growing steadily as it gains momentum.
U.S. officials are deeply concerned that the insurgency is becoming bolder and expanding faster than had been anticipated, a State Department official said.
"The feeling is that we are not dealing with a terrorist group here, but an insurrectionist movement," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. "That's an elevation without question from what we've been dealing with."
He noted the broad scale of fighting across the tribal agencies, which together form the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, and in settled parts to the east.
"These are not groups of Pashtun brigands popping potshots at army patrols," he said. "This looks like there is clearly coordination going on. This looks like an effort that appears to have been planned."
Some U.S. officials think that al Qaida is providing the coordination, but others say it's too early to reach that conclusion, he said.
[...]
The State Department official also said that there were indications of a flow into Pakistan of fighters from Afghanistan who apparently sensed that there was "an opportunity to achieve a significant victory in Pakistan."
[...]
Mahmood Shah, a retired brigadier general based in Peshawar, said government forces had been "sleeping" as the militants strengthened, gaining new adherents.
"As they become more successful, many criminals also join them," Shah said. "They grow beards and they become 'pure.' "
Shah said he hoped that Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the recently installed army chief, and the army's vigorous engagement of militants in South Waziristan, the most conflictive tribal agency, would signal more concerted action.
But senior army officers are clearly uneasy about fighting fellow Pakistanis.
"These people are not our enemies. ... These people have been misguided," army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said in an interview.
In many tribal areas, Taliban militants establish checkpoints, collect fees, shut down or blow up video stores with racy films, hector women to wear veils and order wives to ride only in the back seats of vehicles.
Such radical influence now is seeping into Peshawar, especially at the university.
"They say I should have a beard and my hair down to here," said Khan, the political scientist, putting his hand at shoulder level. "They want me to be praying five times a day. They want me not to watch television."
"I almost don't go anywhere now, just to my office and my home," he said.
A few weeks ago, Taliban sympathizers briefly set up a booth at the school to collect money. The group is illegal, but police didn't stop them.
"People are afraid to confront them," said Ijaz Khan, another scholar at the university.
[...]
"I don't think the Taliban, at this stage, have any plans to capture Peshawar," said Rahimullah Yusufzai, the editor of the Peshawar bureau of The News, a national daily newspaper.
He said the Taliban actions over a broader area were intended to take heat off South Waziristan, where soldiers have used helicopter-borne aerial bombardments and long-range artillery. Mountainous South Waziristan is the base of Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban.
"The militants are trying to put pressure on the Pakistani army so the military campaign in Waziristan is either called off or the attention is diverted," Yusufzai said.
Posted by Marisol at January 29, 2008 10:52 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
"These people are not our enemies. ... These people have been misguided," army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said in an interview.
So he shall repeat before his head hits the floor from his beheading after the fall of Islamabad?
What difference does it make if they are "misguided" or not-they need to be stopped.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 29, 2008 11:09 AM
Somebody somewhere should be preparing contingency plans to remove or destroy the nuclear arsenal and all associated material in the case of the government falling - of which i have no doubt, its only a matter of time with the mindset they have right now.
We are heading towards global warfare again, last time the Nazi's, this time the muslims. Have no doubt.
Posted by: Demvaril at January 29, 2008 11:40 AM
"These people are not our enemies. ... These people have been misguided," army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said in an interview.
If this is truly the point of view from "Paks" military- then they're doomed.
Posted by: livefreeordie! at January 29, 2008 11:43 AM
This story uses the word "tribal" several times.
Whether this particular event is motivated by the taliban yanking on the 'tribal' chains, it seems to me that ancient 'tribal' culture is at the root of all islamic-caused violence. Whether they are fighting each other over land, or other family or sectarian issues, isn't each faction really trying to have their way and exercise domination over their tribal enemies?
And aren't all other nations (you know, us other tribes) just more enemies to be subdued because of some grevious insult, past, present, or future?
Posted by: n.a. palm at January 29, 2008 11:43 AM
Demvaril,
I believe you are correct: There is indeed smoke on the horizon. Only a matter of time before everything breaks loose.
Pray, plan, and prepare for the worst.
at January 29, 2008 11:47 AM
I copied today's Jihad Watch headlines and pasted them here in hopes that having them in one place will highlight the world wide problem. Here's the question: How can we possibly reduce this threat without destroying Islam and, in the process, more than half of its followers? Because it is obvious to me that Islam cannot be reformed by all the talk, debates, discussions, and just plain wishful thinking.
Car bomb in Algeria kills 2; "Christianists" not suspected
New generation of jihadists "set to step up" in Australia
India: Misunderstanders of Islam planned serial bombings in Mumbai
Frankfurt cell part of pan-European jihadist plot
Pakistan Interior Ministry warns of attacks on foreigners, multinational corporations, in response to Wilders' film
Jihadists take up to 300 schoolchildren hostage in Pakistan
Posted by: Pelayo at January 29, 2008 12:12 PM
"Here's the question: How can we possibly reduce this threat without destroying Islam and, in the process, more than half of its followers? Because it is obvious to me that Islam cannot be reformed by all the talk, debates, discussions, and just plain wishful thinking."
We can't. It shouldnt be the burden of the West to accomodate Islam's needs and pray Islam reforms before it devours the West.
at January 29, 2008 12:16 PM
"I don't think the Taliban, at this stage, have any plans to capture Peshawar," said Rahimullah Yusufzai, the editor of the Peshawar bureau of The News, a national daily newspaper.
_________________________________________________
The Taliban have plans to capture all of Pakistan.
Why are officials so surprised at this. Bin Ladin, through the international media, caled for all true Muslims to rise up and overthrow the Pakistani government and establish Islamic law months ago with quotes from the Koran as evidence that this was the right thing to do. These kidnapping thugs are performing as "true Muslims"establishing the tyranny of Islam as they go along.
Bush and his puppet, Musharef, have aloud this disease to fester in the hills of Pakistan. Now they are worrying that it is spreading. Well, that's what a disease does when it isn't cured, it spreads in attempt to infect the whole body.
at January 29, 2008 12:32 PM
And when will the army simply cut the dupe-the-West farce and join their jihadi brethren?
Keep Special Ops teams ready to secure their nukes.
Posted by: profitsbeard at January 29, 2008 12:33 PM
It's odd how there are so many misunderstanders of Islam, while not one will admit to misunderstanding it.
Posted by: duh_swami at January 29, 2008 12:36 PM
It is the non-Muslim misunderstanders of Islam who are the real problem.
Posted by: Pelayo at January 29, 2008 12:42 PM
I think there's a decent chance the tribal leaders making an appeal to traditional Islam - per Robert's thesis - will eventually topple a major city in Pakistan and possibly the central government completely. The wavering commitment to defeating them - "misguided" - shows the military is not loyal to the central government, if their constant defeats with dozens 'captured' don't make it clear. If you understand the language of Islam it's obvious the military could turn any minute. Unfortunate about the nuclear weapons, eh?
Posted by: Beagle at January 29, 2008 12:45 PM
Islam. Tribalism. Each is primitive and combined they become exponentially worse. Both are inimical to democracy, true freedom, respect for one's fellow man and other good and wonderful things along these lines. And I don't believe either can be reformed, just muted from time to time. Some anachronisms are quaint. Islam and tribalism are not such anachronisms and they'll pull any society down to the extent that they exist in that society. For confirmation, just look at Pakistan. No one can examine that country and say that it is a country that works. Islam and tribalism are largely responsible for this.
Posted by: Wellington at January 29, 2008 12:53 PM
Behead him like a pig
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,326229,00.html
at January 29, 2008 1:00 PM
My guess is that the problems in Pakistan are bigger than special ops can handle. Special ops involves small units gathering intelligence information - relying heavily upon stealth. Detection of a special ops unit by an enemy is usually disastrous. (cf: 'Lone Survivor' by Marcus Luttrell)
I believe that one of President Bush's greatest failings is his failure to substantially boost the size of conventional U.S. military forces since 911. But, then, President Bush believes that muslims are our friends.
Posted by: HotSpur at January 29, 2008 1:28 PM
"Pakistani general says "These people are not our enemies..."
....heh, heh, heh...we are both on the same side...bwahahahahahaha...silly infidels...
at January 29, 2008 1:29 PM
"These people are not our enemies. ... These people have been misguided," army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said in an interview.
If this is truly the point of view from "Paks" military- then they're doomed.
Posted by: livefreeordie!
--------
They're not doomed at all. They're just better at fooling the rest of the world.
Posted by: Allah Schmallah at January 29, 2008 2:08 PM
Where's Stephen Coughlin, now? Mr. England? Mr. Islam? Anyone?
I know this problem cannot be driven by jihad doctrine or by Islam, cuz W and Condi say so. Maybe if we build a McDonald's or two in Waziristan, or Peshawar, they'll be happy and go home.
Posted by: INFIDELATLARGE at January 29, 2008 2:50 PM
Pelayo
"Here's the question: How can we possibly reduce this threat without destroying Islam and, in the process, more than half of its followers? Because it is obvious to me that Islam cannot be reformed by all the talk, debates, discussions, and just plain wishful thinking."
Elric66
We can't. It shouldnt be the burden of the West to accomodate Islam's needs and pray Islam reforms before it devours the West.
Moderation cannot defeat extremism after it has grown past the capability of police and civil authorities to detain and punish the majority of individual 'extremists'. This is especially true when the "moderates" share many of the same views as the "extremists", even if they don't overtly act on them. Statements like: "These people are not our enemies. ... These people have been misguided" lend legitimacy to the movement and give the enemy room to grow.
And soon the snowball effect kicks in:
"As they become more successful, many criminals also join them," Shah said. "They grow beards and they become 'pure.'"
We see this happening around the world, this guy just happens to be more straightforward than most:
"People are afraid to confront them," said Ijaz Khan, another scholar at the university.
Did Roosevelt and Truman act as extremists? I think by any definition of the word they did. Was that a bad thing? We are here today thanks to their extremism. We need to accept that when dealing with mortal enemies, extremism is a not a choice or even an asset, it's a necessity.
The competitive aspect of life cannot be removed, but in the West it has largely morphed from chasing each other around with clubs to business competition. Now we have another player that cannot be convinced by reason, nor cajoled by moderation, to play by our rules… because they are extremist.
A population, whether in dense city centers or sparsely mountain areas, that provide the enemy cover, food, water, and anything else that makes their day to day life possible, enable this enemy and make him stronger. Western navel gazing and hand wringing will never change this. A clear explanation that we are prepared to destroy all capability for the population to aid the enemy might, on the other hand, give the population pause to consider their future. Especially since our history has demonstrated this resolve before.
The sooner we come to grips with this as individuals, as a country, and as a culture, the more likely we'll get to continue interacting with each other within our own civilization as moderates. Otherwise, "the other", that tiny phase which terrifies and disgusts the Left so much, could take on a fiery new life of its own, more horrible than capitalism which despite all its imperfections, "unfairness", and "injustice", has provided the freedom and leisure that allows the Left its existence.
at January 29, 2008 2:53 PM
"Naseem", with her off-brand of Islam, better start scronging around for a visa. Things might get difficult for the likes of her under the Taliban.
Posted by: MP at January 29, 2008 3:06 PM
...Taliban Recruitment Poster....
......The Taliban is looking for a few good women...
(you can run but you can't hide)....
Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 29, 2008 3:32 PM
The tinderbox of Pakistan is flaring up in front of our eyes.
Islamists flourish in failed states.
They barge in with their btutality and gangsterism and ordinary peaceful villagers have no choice but to submit or die - usually by the most barbaric and brutal methods.
The Mohmand tribal agency in Pakistan's federally administered tribal areas (FATA) region is a case to point here.
The Pakistani taliban are spreading and taking over this region at this very moment.
It is happening now, so what can we, in the free world do to stop this virus?
Why are we in Iraq?
at January 29, 2008 3:54 PM
I firmly believe that the empowerment of women in islam societies will be key in taking the steam out of this brutal mess.
Posted by: Ken CleanAirSystem at January 29, 2008 4:00 PM
I firmly believe that the empowerment of women in islamic societies will be key in taking the steam out of this brutal mess.
Posted by: Ken CleanAirSystem at January 29, 2008 4:01 PM
"Why are we in Iraq?"
-- from a posting above
Because Iraq, we are repeatedly told, is the "central battlefield" in the "war on terror." It's the place that counts. It's the place that Al Qaeda, which is the only group that anyone needs to worry about, is counting on as a refuge because, you see, Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups just have no other place to go. Why, without Iraq, where would those people who bombed the Madrid subway, the London underground and busses, seized hostages in the Moscow Theatre or at a school in Beslan, murdered Israeli schoolgirls in 1974 in Ma'alot, and been blowing up busses and restaurants and cafes and family gatherings ever since, where would those who slit the throats of Thai Buddhist monks and teachers, or attack Filipino peasants, or even Algerian peasants, go? They have only Iraq, obviously, and that is why we have learned --- haven't we? -- to keep calling Iraq "the central battlefield in the war on terror" and a place where, thanks to that "surge," we are "winning" and we all know what that means. "Winning" in Iraq, I mean.
But just to be sure, just to remind myself, would someone again put up here what the Bush Administration and its handful of loyalists believe would constitute "winning" in Iraq? I appear to have lost the threat, and would like to be reminded.
What is "winning in Iraq"?
Posted by: Hugh at January 29, 2008 4:06 PM
When the Army and police admire the insurgance you have no hope of putting down this rebelion. Pakistan has been the home for islamic groups for along time. Pakistan is a safe haven and training ground for along time. The pakistain military has feed them and made them grow. I think it is justice that Packistan suffer at the hands of these morons.
When thay tople the government India and the US will have to act. We could easly see a nuclear war 5-10 years out.
The below is a great line. True for 14 centuries.
"As they become more successful, many criminals also join them," Shah said. "They grow beards and they become 'pure.' "
Posted by: Ruebacca at January 29, 2008 4:52 PM
As always from you Hugh, a good point.
I did not agree then and I don't agree now.
Fair comment, Saddam was a monster and had to face justice.
9/11 - then attack the taliban and al qaeda in Afghanistan, no problem - but not Iraq.
A monumental mistake history will show it to be.
Perhaps a hawkish member of the senate had something to do with this decision?
I personally look forward in time and just cannot see British and American troops leaving Iraq with flowers in their gun barrels - leaving behind a fledgling peaceful democracy.
I cannot help thinking of the enormous blunder of Mr Bremmer in disbanding the Iraqi armed forces and the baath party - thus putting highly trained and therefore unemployed armed people on the streets to fight against us (*coughs*, the unforeseen insurgency).
And he still sticks to his guns maintaining he made the right decision!
As a Brit I would say, Gordon Bennett!
At the end of the day our guns should be pointed at Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (I have spent years working in both countries) - I have said this for years to my friends who at the time did not understand what I was saying.
Unfortunately it hasn't gone away, it is getting worse - so it it up to us to keep shouting out and making ourselves heard of this dangerous menace.
at January 29, 2008 4:54 PM
"The feeling is that we are not dealing with a terrorist group here, but an insurrectionist movement,"
Apparently these areas (NWFP and the tribal areas) never wanted to be part of Pakistan in the first place, and have had a long history of a separatist nationalist movement going back to before 1918. But since they were almost 100% Muslim, they were persuaded, much against their will, to join with the nascent movement to establish Pakistan because at that time (1948) Sindh and Punjab had significant Hindu and Sikh populations.
Pakistan divides west-east between peoples who are basically Persians and those to the east in Sindh and Punjab provinces (the developed areas) who are Indians.
I think there is a feeling that Pakistan's resources are not equally shared and that a political elite comprised of Sindhis and Punjabis dominates.
Posted by: devorgilla at January 29, 2008 4:56 PM
From the article:
Some U.S. officials think that al Qaida is providing the coordination, but others say it's too early to reach that conclusion, he said.
Still others believe that arguing about whether Al Qaeda or Jaish-e-Mohammed or Harakat ul-Mujahidin or Lashkar-e-Toiba or some other Islamic group is "the one" that is "providing the coordination" is a little like arguing about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.
Members of one Islamic group are members of several groups; groups coordinate actions with each other, since they all share the same ultimate goal. There is often no defined ceremony that signifies when someone has "joined" the group; there is no laminated Al Qaeda membership card.
These others believe that that pointless discussion is irrelevant to defining a rational foreign policy as regards Pakistan, which should be restricted to how best to destroy their weapons of mass destruction, and to removing their ability to otherwise harm U.S. citizens.
Unfortunately, these others are for the most part not part of the U.S. Administration, and their viewpoint is ignored and marginalized.
Posted by: special_guest at January 29, 2008 5:10 PM
devorgilla said
I think there is a feeling that Pakistan's resources are not equally shared and that a political elite comprised of Sindhis and Punjabis dominates.
Attention all "U.S. Officials": Opportunity calling.
Posted by: special_guest at January 29, 2008 5:17 PM
The only hope left for this world is for the major powers to carve it up into imperial possessions.
Give India Pakistan, Bangladesh, and surrounding territories.
Give China, Southeast Asia, including Indo- China, Korea and Taiwan.
Give Russia Iran, Mongolia, Afghanistan and parts of the middle east.
Give the European union the rest of the middle East and North Africa.
Give the U.S. and Canada everything South of the U.S. border.
Leave sub-saharian alone. The people can't operate a flush toilet, much less build a nuclear weapon.
The longer we wait, the more likely nuclear weapons will be developed or fall into the hands of primitive, third-rate nations like Pakistan or the Taliban.
Got a better solution?
at January 29, 2008 5:23 PM
What is "winning in Iraq"?
by Hugh
A panacea, if we go by last night's SOTU. See everything that will come from a "free" Iraq. So the US is supposed to stay there for the next century or more?
But it is in the vital interest of the United States that we succeed. A free Iraq will deny al Qaida a safe haven. A free Iraq will show millions across the Middle East that a future of liberty is possible. And a free Iraq will be a friend of America, a partner in fighting terror, and a source of stability in a dangerous part of the world.
Then again, there's what can come from a "failed" Iraq:
By contrast, a failed Iraq would embolden extremists, strengthen Iran, and give terrorists a base from which to launch new attacks on our friends, our allies, and our homeland.
No one's told Bush that terrorists ALREADY have many bases from which to launch new attacks: the countries of our allies and friends, along with our own homeland.
at January 29, 2008 6:14 PM
"A disparate group of tribal armed militant groups..... announced the formation of an alliance last month called The Taliban Movement of Pakistan. The 40-man leadership is from seven tribal agencies and eight bordering districts..."
from the article above
Wait for the meeting of the minds... couple of jdams should do the trick.
Posted by: Lt. Presley O'Bannon at January 29, 2008 6:15 PM
Bush and his puppet, Musharef, have aloud this disease to fester in the hills of Pakistan. Now they are worrying that it is spreading.
Excuse me? Was Bush supposed to go into Pakistan UNILATERALLY and ignore his "puppet" Musharraf? The people to blame are the ones at the epicenter: the Muslims of those regions who placate the violent and cheer them on and resist all attempts to remove them. That anyone in that region gave shelter to Osama bin Laden AFTER 9/11 removes all trace of innocence. They are no better than al Qaeda.
Posted by: PMK at January 29, 2008 6:20 PM
The Muslim League was in conflict with the early Muslim 'nationalists' of the Muslim-majority provinces and this became acute after the adoption of the ML's 'Pakistan Resolution' in 1940.
'While Muslims in every province of what later became Pakistan were ethnically distinct... and generally aspired to autonomy, the Muslim League sought to subordinate them to a more centralized control...' (Sayed Wiqar Ali Shah, Ethnicity, Islam and Nationalism: Muslim Politics in the NWFP 1937-1947, (1999), Oxford University Press, p.xvi).
I believe Musharaff's party is a successor to the Muslim League.
Sounds like old hostilities are reviving to me, fanned on by Islamism, no doubt.
Posted by: devorgilla at January 29, 2008 6:41 PM
"...and order wives to ride only in the back seats of vehicles."
Okay, Condi, this is like the Old South, right? It's not just the Palestinians now, is it? Time for Pakistani Women's Lib!
Judging from the popularity of Talibanesque thinking in Pakistan, coupled with the nuclear arsenal, I'd say that Pakistan blends the worst of the old and new.
at January 29, 2008 9:00 PM
PMK:
Excuse me? Was it not Bush who said: "We will not distinguish between the enemy and those who harbor the enemy"? Bin Ladin and his vipers regrouped in the hills of Pakistan and Musharaff sat on his ass for how many years while the hub of Islamic supremacy and ideology was shuffled around the world through Pakistan. Generals have stated it would be easy to hit large groups of these Taliban scum by swooping down on one border city. However, we wait for the gangster, Musharaff to act but he only thinks about maintaining his throne. Now the demons are fired up, the head of the snake encourages them, and the seek to have all hell break loose in Pakistan.
Yes, I believe we should have it them while they were on the run and gave Musharaff a short timetable to get it done or we were going after the enemy who attacked our country.
at January 29, 2008 10:47 PM
I believe we should have hit them while they were on the run...(should have typed it that way)
Posted by: Briars at January 29, 2008 10:49 PM
"Pakistani general says "These people are not our enemies. ... These people have been misguided" as jihadists edge toward Peshawar"
I am sure those Jihadists will say the same of the general...I suppose the general is a "moderate" muslim just like most of pakistani ruling elite: drink alcohol and are active with "illegal" women.
What will happen if the jihadists take over the nuclear-armed pakistan: I am sure they will first lob it towards Tel-aviv before they are toppled.
India will to be to Pakistan what ethiopia did to the somali jihadists: Invade and take over.
"A disparate group of tribal armed militant groups, some of them linked to al Qaida, announced the formation of an alliance last month called The Taliban Movement of Pakistan. The 40-man leadership is from seven tribal agencies and eight bordering districts, underscoring the movement's reach. The group is thought to have 5,000 to 10,000 fighters and is growing steadily as it gains momentum"
Has Musharraf lost the will to fight: but many of his generls sympathize with the islamists anyway. I am sre they might just topple him some day: the guy is weak and has little legitimacy.
"The feeling is that we are not dealing with a terrorist group here, but an insurrectionist movement," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. "That's an elevation without question from what we've been dealing with."
insurrection vs terrorist fighters: where is the difference; it is ttoo nuanced for me: are they not islamists all the same?
Posted by: Truthsoldier at January 30, 2008 12:54 AM
" Was it not Bush who said: "We will not distinguish between the enemy and those who harbor the enemy"? Bin Ladin and his vipers regrouped in the hills of Pakistan and Musharaff sat on his ass for how many years while the hub of Islamic supremacy and ideology was shuffled around the world through Pakistan"
Are Bush and Musharraf not working together?
" Generals have stated it would be easy to hit large groups of these Taliban scum by swooping down on one border city. However, we wait for the gangster, Musharaff to act but he only thinks about maintaining his throne. Now the demons are fired up, the head of the snake encourages them, and the seek to have all hell break loose in Pakistan"
use F-I5? musharaff can not afford to attack the jihadists because he has no support of the country. the whole country is behind the jihadists.
Posted by: Truthsoldier at January 30, 2008 1:08 AM
Briars,
You got that right. Bush changed his tune after the war started and then he let others off the hook. He started off on the right foot, saying we wouldn't distinguish between the terrorists and those who harbor them but he was put in line. I'd say it was Musharraf who pulled the strings of the Bush puppet. That doesn't excuse the villagers who hosted bin Laden and cheered him on and protected him in Tora Bora. No Muslim anywhere in the world should have supported bin Laden anytime after 1998. They did and I hold every one of them in utter contempt.
Bush (not just him - America) was in a difficult situation that hasn't changed. We're supposed to recognize borders and respect the sovereignty of other countries. We're supposed to "find allies" instead of "acting like cowboys". I don't know the answer. I don't know what he could have done that wouldn't have resulted in sniping and in countries like Russia and China attempting to undermine his efforts. I just don't know.
Posted by: PMK at January 30, 2008 10:39 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)