| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
"... American commanders have been complaining publicly that Pakistan puts too little pressure on militant groups that are blamed for mounting violence in Afghanistan, stirring speculation that U.S. forces might lash out across the frontier."
It was only a matter of time. "Pakistan says foreign troops stage raid on village," by Paul Alexander for the Associated Press, September 3:
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Pakistan angrily condemned a raid on a village that killed at least 15 people Wednesday, claiming U.S.-led troops flew in from Afghanistan for the first known foreign ground assault against a suspected Taliban haven in this country's wild tribal belt.
The Foreign Ministry protested the attack, and an army spokesman warned that the apparent escalation from recent missile strikes on militant targets along the Afghan border would further anger Pakistanis and undercut cooperation in the war against terrorist groups.
The boldness of the thrust fed speculation about the intended target. But it was unclear whether any extremist leader was killed or captured in the operation, which occurred in one of the militant strongholds dotting a frontier region considered a likely hiding place for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahri.
U.S. military and civilian officials declined to respond to Pakistan's complaints or discuss the attack, but one official in Washington said any decision to launch a mission sure to anger Pakistan would require a very important target.
Suspected U.S. missile attacks killed at least two al-Qaida commanders this year in the same region, drawing protests from Pakistan's government that its sovereignty was under attack. U.S. officials did not acknowledge any involvement in those attacks.
But American commanders have been complaining publicly that Pakistan puts too little pressure on militant groups that are blamed for mounting violence in Afghanistan, stirring speculation that U.S. forces might lash out across the frontier.
In other signs of Pakistan's precarious stability three days before legislators elect a successor to Pervez Musharraf as president, snipers shot at the prime minister's limousine near Islamabad and government troops killed two dozen militants in another area of the restive northwest.
"Restive" seems to have become the stock media euphemism for "jihadist-stricken."
Pakistani officials said they were lodging strong protests with the U.S. government and its military representative in Islamabad about Wednesday's raid in the South Waziristan area, a notorious hot bed of militant activity.
The Foreign Ministry called the strike "a gross violation of Pakistan's territory," saying it could "undermine the very basis of cooperation and may fuel the fire of hatred and violence that we are trying to extinguish."
Perhaps, if by "cooperation," Pakistan means "you looking the other way from our looking the other way."
Posted by Marisol at September 3, 2008 7:29 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
HEY! You yankees have no right to attack the terrorist that we've taken under our wing! Now you better stop that before we let them attack your soldiers in Afghanistan...
Wait a minute...
Posted by: Callidus![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 3, 2008 7:46 PM
Hey, Obama said he would attack Pakistan...so what's the problem?
Didn't they know this was coming? Obama wants a war with Pakistan.....so, lets give it to him.
Posted by: alaskan1000 at September 3, 2008 7:50 PM
What cooperation! The Pakistanis have done nothing with the billions of dollars given by the US to fight terrorists. What kind of ally is this that protests attacks against Jihadis by the United States in the lawless areas of Fucistan. Yeah protest...I am glad the Unites States is going in and taking out Jihadis. What are the Pakistanis going to do.
Posted by: savsiv at September 3, 2008 7:54 PM
No, see, it was okay because Al Qaeda claimed that territory as their own, and Pakistan did not dispute it or try to regain control. So we really only attacked Al Qaeda territory.
It's so simple.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 3, 2008 7:57 PM
Paskistan's soverignity is only for USA. That Afghans, Taliban, Al-Qaeda and Arabs run amock in Pakistan, is fine. USA, specially Bush and Condi on the other hand, give billions of tax-dollars to Pakistan, so why should Pakistan not take em?
Posted by: Alert at September 3, 2008 8:02 PM
I'd like to see Senator McCain say that if elected President, he would eliminate all US money to other nations. Why my tax dollars are going to places like Pakistan is beyond me and is infuriating.
Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at September 3, 2008 8:42 PM
We should send Pakistan's "restive" region lots and lots of tax dollars. But first we should convert it all into munitions and fire it at them and save all those international exchange rate details.
Posted by: Theseus at September 3, 2008 8:47 PM
Oops! Sorry about that!
You know, if you didn't shelter terrorists......
We keep sending you money and you can't seem to get the job done. Guess we'll have to do it ourselves.
Posted by: tanstaafl at September 3, 2008 9:18 PM
*Side note*
Shocking news :)
Romney just said the J-word in his speech at the RNC.
I guess Jihad wasn't blacklisted tonight.
Posted by: SoteriA at September 3, 2008 9:20 PM
Marisol - you remarked - '"Restive" seems to have become the stock media euphemism for "jihadist-stricken."'
I've been noticing that, too. 'Troubled' and 'volatile' come in second.
Every time I see 'restive', now, in a story from within the Islamosphere or from somewhere where Muslims are attempting to expand their power and seize control of more territory, I mentally substitute "jihad-wracked". Your 'jihadist-stricken' is not bad, but may I respectfully suggest 'jihad-wracked' as another possible descriptor?
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 3, 2008 9:24 PM
That's what happens when you wait for Islamists to crack down on Islamists....nothing.
Then when the US hand is forced, our staunch ally greets us with scorn and disdain.
The surge worked, but the Iraqi war is still lost, ultimately. It succeeded in killing Islamists, but their ranks are near endlessly replenishable.
Posted by: awake at September 3, 2008 9:32 PM
if the pakis are not willing to take out the tribal areas they should not bitch when are forces do thier job for them
Posted by: ISLAMSNOTFORME at September 3, 2008 9:44 PM
dumbledore and Marisol
I quite like 'jihad-infested'too
Posted by: jewcat at September 3, 2008 10:17 PM
President Bush: WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG?
Posted by: PMK at September 3, 2008 10:31 PM
Hey, Pakistan is hardly a noble ally, but they have done something to help. Considering about a quarter of the country thinks the Taliban is a role model, we should be thankful for any help at all.
Posted by: MorrisMinor at September 3, 2008 11:20 PM
Speaking of euphemisms, don't forget the relentless insistence of media to always describe any group of young muslims behaving badly as simply "youths".
Posted by: Paleologus at September 3, 2008 11:38 PM
alaskan1000
You are right - which is why we shouldn't balk at an Obama presidency. Let him do the one sane thing he said he would.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at September 3, 2008 11:59 PM
Obama visited Pakistan on an Indonesian psssport that listed him by his patrilineage: Muslim. (FYI: He ain't bombing Pakistan)
What, you didn't visit Pakistan while you were in college, spending 3 weeks with a friend's family? What are you some kind of Islamophobe? I'm sure he was just visiting all of the scenic places you here about all the time from your travel agent when they are trying to sell you a trip to Pakistan. "Hey, look at me, I'm on Spring Break in Pakistan!" Relaxing in the evening, anticipating that adhan blaring through a twenty year old loudspeaker that will split his eardrum, which, of course, is "one of the prettiest sounds on earth as sunset".
Yeah, just a regular Joe American college guy, working on growing up to be president.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 4, 2008 1:09 AM
Apparently, according to the Obama campaign, In 1981 -- the year Obama transferred from Occidental College to Columbia University -- Obama visited his mother and sister Maya in Indonesia. After that visit, Obama traveled to Pakistan with a friend from college whose family was from there. The Obama campaign says Obama was in Pakistan for about three weeks, staying with his friend's family in Karachi and also visiting Hyderabad in Southern India.NOW, It all sounds very innocent, "a college trip to Pakistan".
Pakistan was in turmoil in 1981 and ruled of martial law. Millions of Afghan refugees were living in Pakistan, while the Afghan Mujahedeen operated from bases inside Pakistan in their war with the Soviets. One of the leaders that based his operation in Quetta, Pakistan was Usama Bin Laden (The Sheik).Pakistan was on the banned travel list for US Citizens at the time and all non-Muslim visitors were not welcome unless sponsored by their embassy for official business.
The would be only a few reasons a young Westerner of the Muslim faith would travel to Pakistan in 1981:
To Participate in Jihad, which is the duty of every "True Believer".
For religious education in a Wahabbi sect, Saudi funded, Madrassa.
In order to purchase drugs from the drug marketplace.
Pakistan was not a tourist stop nor the place to hang out with someone's family in 1981.http://dailymusings.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!EBAB74DA8F94C559!5351.entry
Or ... just enjoying being a homie with the ummah?
Where did he stay when he was "with the friend's family"? Was he welcome in the home? Did his friend have sisters and a living mother? Were they Muslim? Did they know that kafir were najis (unclean)? Did he get a traditional greeting? Did they think he was Muslim? What did he do when the prayers were observed? Did he attend the three Friday khutbas? Did he get to use his "perfect" Arabic at mosque?
Or was it all a big joke to him, and if so, why would that be funny?
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 4, 2008 1:30 AM
For me, this is a great and ominous day. I want to see continued strikes daily until we have all 9-11 personnel in our handcuffs. However, the true clash of civilizations may actually begin over this, leaving many dead in its wake, with a strike on -ran sealing the deal. Maybe then we can go after Saudi Wahabbis, Hamas, Hezbollah,Jaamat E Islamiyya, and all the rest in one continuous shock and awe, months long bombing and Predator/Reaper strikes.
Posted by: No More Ham, Ed at September 4, 2008 2:30 AM
Suspected U.S. missile attacks killed at least two al-Qaida commanders this year in the same region, drawing protests from Pakistan's government that its sovereignty was under attack.
--
What about our sovereignty? What about the Southern border? what about the mosks being built right here in these United States of America?!
They have SOME NERVE talking about their "sovereignty".
Posted by: Ummah Gummah at September 4, 2008 3:01 AM
Whenever I think of Pakistan, Hamlet's line comes to mind:
".....one may smile, and smile, and be a villain....."
Hamlet Act 1, scene 5
Actually, that line applies to almost all muslims.
at September 4, 2008 6:58 AM
Bush better watch out and do what Pakistan wants, or Pakistan might quit taking the money that Bush keeps giving them.
Posted by: Spot on at September 4, 2008 8:02 AM
"ISLAMABAD"
Everytime I hear this name, the Freudian part of my brain produces this alternative:
IslamIsBad
Sorry, couldn't help it...
Posted by: Henrik at September 4, 2008 8:04 AM
As for the Pakistani government, I think it's acting solely on what it sees as own-interest. The sincerity in battling Islamic Jihad is something I doubt deeply, and I suspect they go only as far as the loyalty we purchase from them.
That's not unconditionally a healthy investment.
Posted by: Henrik at September 4, 2008 8:22 AM
Pump up the volume. Four Muslim states currently form the greatest threat to world peace: Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia and Turkey. The inevitable global conflagration to come may as well begin with Pakistan as with any of the others.
There will be inevitable parallels drawn between this and the US invasion of Cambodia. So be it. The Cambodian invasion should serve as a warning to them all that world opinion be damned, the United States will eventually push back when its citizens have decided enough is enough. In the wake of 911 two "sovereign" Muslim nations were summarily erased from the planet. So maybe now it is time for the mujaheddin to meditate on the possibility that Pakistan is next. It is their own fault for awakening the sleeping giant.
Posted by: SaracensAtTheGates at September 4, 2008 9:02 AM
All of Islam is 'restive'. Including Pakistan, who has a severe case of it, and nukes. Armed and unstable. In short, 'restive'.
Dar al-Islam has to stay 'restive' until the whole world is Islamic and we all worship Allah.
Muslims did not say that, Allah said it.
So those 'restive', Asian youths (muslims?) we read so much about, are just doing what Allah instructed.
Allah wrote the song, 'doin what comes naturally',
and passed it to muslims. They call that jihad, 'fighting in Allah's cause(s), the MSM is calling that 'restive'. It wont be long till the PC crowd decides you cant use the words 'restive', 'Asian', or 'youths', either. They all refer to people not necessarily involved with jihad. And we kufirs should never use the word jihad in connection to anything other than inner struggle. That is an insult to peace loving muslims. In other words never refer to jihad as jihad, preferably dont refer to it at all. Fog-et-aboud-it...
This is word magick, or word trickery. It won't work. There is no word, or combination of words, uttered from the mouths of filthy kufrs, that will deter a 'restive, Asian, youth',
Paradise bent on jihad.
O-Biden think they have this combination of words, magick evocations strong enough to overcome the word magick of Allah, as expressed in the Quran. 'Their cup runneth over', their ego cup. Allah does not debate...he only instructs and wills, and it is always in favor of 'restive Asian youth'...
Posted by: duh_swami at September 4, 2008 9:22 AM
You are either with us or against us...
I think they're against us.
Posted by: JeffS at September 4, 2008 11:11 AM
If our State Department, and the people leading it had any chutzpah, then they would tell Pakistan that once they actually become and behave like an ally then their borders will be respected. I know, I know, I can hear the eyes roll now. Cold day in Hell. But they just need to stop their bitchin' and realize that the playing of both sides ain't workin' all that well. Whomever is giving the "go" orders on this, isn't in Washington.
Posted by: Kevin at September 4, 2008 11:27 AM
Just like there were 'wepons of mass destruction in iraq' now there are 'terrorists in tribal area'
I see a total break down of Pak-US realtions in the near future
Posted by: PakRocks at September 4, 2008 3:03 PM
I see a total break down of Pak-US realtions in the near future
Posted by: PakRocks
Yes, why don't you talk to your people over there and try and fix that. Jizya is threatened.
What will Pakistan do without its welfare check?
Maybe the Russians will send you guys some money if the Saudi's wont do it...Islam already has one pact with the devil, another won't hurt...
Posted by: duh_swami at September 4, 2008 4:36 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.)