| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Regular readers of Jihad Watch have known for years that Musharraf and Co. were talking out of both sides of their mouths, pledging support for the war on terror on the one hand while aiding the jihadists on the other. Now direct and abundant confirmation of this comes from, of all places, The New York Times.
"Right at the Edge," by Dexter Filkins, September 7:
I: The Border IncidentLate in the afternoon of June 10, during a firefight with Taliban militants along the Afghan-Pakistani border, American soldiers called in airstrikes to beat back the attack. The firefight was taking place right on the border itself, known in military jargon as the “zero line.” Afghanistan was on one side, and the remote Pakistani region known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or FATA, was on the other. The stretch of border was guarded by three Pakistani military posts.
The American bombers did the job, and then some. By the time the fighting ended, the Taliban militants had slipped away, the American unit was safe and 11 Pakistani border guards lay dead. The airstrikes on the Pakistani positions sparked a diplomatic row between the two allies: Pakistan called the incident “unprovoked and cowardly”; American officials regretted what they called a tragic mistake. But even after a joint inquiry by the United States, Pakistan and Afghanistan, it remained unclear why American soldiers had reached the point of calling in airstrikes on soldiers from Pakistan, a critical ally in the war in Afghanistan and the campaign against terrorism.
The mystery, at least part of it, was solved in July by four residents of Suran Dara, a Pakistani village a few hundred yards from the site of the fight. According to two of these villagers, whom I interviewed together with a local reporter, the Americans started calling in airstrikes on the Pakistanis after the latter started shooting at the Americans.
“When the Americans started bombing the Taliban, the Frontier Corps started shooting at the Americans,” we were told by one of Suran Dara’s villagers, who, like the others, spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of being persecuted or killed by the Pakistani government or the Taliban. “They were trying to help the Taliban. And then the American planes bombed the Pakistani post.”
For years, the villagers said, Suran Dara served as a safe haven for jihadist fighters — whether from Afghanistan or Pakistan or other countries — giving them aid and shelter and a place to stash their weapons. With the firefight under way, one of Suran Dara’s villagers dashed across the border into Afghanistan carrying a field radio with a long antenna (the villager called it “a Motorola”) to deliver to the Taliban fighters. He never made it. The man with the Motorola was hit by an American bomb. After the fight, wounded Taliban members were carried into Suran Dara for treatment. “Everyone supports the Taliban on both sides of the border,” one of the villagers we spoke with said.
Later, an American analyst briefed by officials in Washington confirmed the villagers’ account. “There have been dozens of incidents where there have been exchanges of fire,” he said.
That American and Pakistani soldiers are fighting one another along what was meant to be a border between allies highlights the extraordinarily chaotic situation unfolding inside the Pakistani tribal areas, where hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Taliban, along with Al Qaeda and other foreign fighters, enjoy freedom from American attacks.
But the incident also raises one of the more fundamental questions of the long war against Islamic militancy, and one that looms larger as the American position inside Afghanistan deteriorates: Whose side is Pakistan really on?
PAKISTAN’S WILD, LARGELY ungoverned tribal areas have become an untouchable base for Islamic militants to attack Americans and Afghans across the border. Inside the tribal areas, Taliban warlords have taken near-total control, pushing aside the Pakistani government and imposing their draconian form of Islam. And for more than a year now, they have been sending suicide bombers against government and military targets in Pakistan, killing hundreds of people. American and Pakistani investigators say they believe it was Baitullah Mehsud, the strongest of FATA’s Taliban leaders, who dispatched assassins last December to kill Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister. With much of the North-West Frontier Province, which borders the tribal areas, also now under their control, the Taliban are increasingly in a position to threaten the integrity of the Pakistani state.
Then there is Al Qaeda. According to American officials and counterterrorism experts, the organization has rebuilt itself and is using its sanctuaries inside the tribal areas to plan attacks against the United States and Europe. Since 2004, six major terrorist plots against Europe or the United States — including the successful suicide attacks in London that killed 52 people in July 2005 — have been traced back to Pakistan’s tribal areas, according to Bruce Hoffman, a professor of security studies at Georgetown University. Hoffman says he fears that Al Qaeda could be preparing a major attack before the American presidential election. “I’m convinced they are planning something,” he told me.
At the center of all this stands the question of whether Pakistan really wants to control the Talibs and their Qaeda allies ensconced in the tribal areas — and whether it really can.
This was not supposed to be a major worry. After the attacks of Sept. 11, President Pervez Musharraf threw his lot in with the United States. Pakistan has helped track down Al Qaeda suspects, launched a series of attacks against militants inside the tribal areas — a new offensive got under way just weeks ago — and given many assurances of devotion to the antiterrorist cause. For such efforts, Musharraf and the Pakistani government have been paid handsomely, receiving more than $10 billion in American money since 2001.
But as the incident on the Afghan border suggests, little in Pakistan is what it appears. For years, the survival of Pakistan’s military and civilian leaders has depended on a double game: assuring the United States that they were vigorously repressing Islamic militants — and in some cases actually doing so — while simultaneously tolerating and assisting the same militants. From the anti-Soviet fighters of the 1980s and the Taliban of the 1990s to the homegrown militants of today, Pakistan’s leaders have been both public enemies and private friends.
When the game works, it reaps great rewards: billions in aid to boost the Pakistani economy and military and Islamist proxies to extend the government’s reach into Afghanistan and India.
Pakistan’s double game has rested on two premises: that the country’s leaders could keep the militants under control and that they could keep the United States sufficiently placated to keep the money and weapons flowing. But what happens when the game spins out of control? What happens when the militants you have been encouraging grow too strong and set their sights on Pakistan itself? What happens when the bluff no longer works?
[...]
It was a Friday afternoon, and our guides suggested we pull off the main road until prayers were over; local Taliban enforcers, they said, would not take kindly to anyone skipping prayers. For a couple of hours we waited inside the home of an uncle of one of our guides, listening to the muezzin call the locals to battle.
“What is the need of the day?” a man implored in Pashto over a loudspeaker. “Holy war — holy war is the need of the day!”
[...]
Why, I asked Namdar, aren’t the Pakistani forces coming after you?
“The government cannot do anything to us, because we are fighting the holy war,” he said. “We are fighting the foreigners — it is our obligation. They are killing innocent people.” Namdar’s aides, one of whom spoke fluent English, looked at him and shook their heads to make him speak more cautiously. Namdar carried on.
“When the Americans kill innocent people, we must take revenge,” he said.
Tell me about that, I asked Namdar, and his aides again shook their heads. Finally Namdar changed his line. “Well, we can’t stop anyone from going across” into Afghanistan, he said. “I’m not saying we send them ourselves.” And with that, Namdar raised his hand, declining to offer any more details.
By many accounts — on the streets, among Western analysts, even according to his own deputies — Namdar was regularly training and dispatching young men to fight and blow themselves up in Afghanistan. An aide, Munsif Khan, told me that his group had sent “hundreds of people” to fight the Americans. At one point, he described for me how the Vice and Virtue brigade had recently set a minimum-age requirement for suicide bombers. “We are opposed to children carrying out suicide bombings,” Khan said. “We get so many young people coming to us — 15, 16 years old — wanting to go on martyrdom operations. This is not the age to be a suicide bomber. Any man who wants to be a suicide bomber should be at least 20 or 25.”
[...]
Another of Namdar’s aides had spoken enthusiastically of his commander’s prowess in battle. “He is a great fighter!” the aide told me. “He goes to Afghanistan every month to fight the Americans.”
So here was Namdar — Taliban chieftain, enforcer of Islamic law, usurper of the Pakistani government and trainer and facilitator of suicide bombers in Afghanistan — sitting at home, not three miles from Peshawar, untouched by the Pakistani military operation that was supposedly unfolding around us.
What’s going on? I asked the warlord. Why aren’t they coming for you?
“I cannot lie to you,” Namdar said, smiling at last. “The army comes in, and they fire at empty buildings. It is a drama — it is just to entertain.”
Entertain whom? I asked.
“America,” he said.
There is much, much more. Read it all.
Posted by Robert at September 7, 2008 5:55 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
All aid should be cut off from these countries. No more tribute to the pashas, mullahs and sultans. Stop the Insanity.
Posted by: Jewel Atkins![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 7, 2008 6:39 PM
All aid should be cut off from these countries. No more tribute to the pashas, mullahs and sultans. Stop the Insanity.
Posted by: Jewel Atkins at September 7, 2008 6:39 PM
Ditto.
Don't forget the imams.
Posted by: darcy at September 7, 2008 6:43 PM
And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers. (3:54)
And when those who disbelieve plot against thee (O Muhammad) to wound thee fatally, or to kill thee or to drive thee forth; they plot, but Allah (also) plotteth; and Allah is the best of plotters. (8:30)
So, NTY says, it's not only Pallywood (google it up), but also Pakywood :-D
Posted by: johnsawyer at September 7, 2008 6:47 PM
I can't bear to think of the beautiful, brave and generous American soldiers being put in harm's way for this!!!! Get them out of there right now and stop paying jizya!
Posted by: jewcat at September 7, 2008 7:05 PM
we've been had....
Posted by: theygottago at September 7, 2008 7:11 PM
Not one drop of American blood should be shed for any islamic land.
Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 7, 2008 7:49 PM
Hey, watch this video of BHO's slip O the tongue.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31177_Obama-_My_Muslim_Faith/comments/#ctop
on September 7, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Here is a comment fro Hot Air, just shows me a lot of people still believe the "hijacked" religion crap.
Maxx, I think that you would do yourself and excellent service by learning about Islamic religions yourself rather than depend on the opinions expressed on a website entitled “Jihad Watch”.
Islamic extremism is a perversion of religious belief on par with the perversion of Christianity that resulted in the Crusades, Inquisition, etc.
The more quickly people learn to understand and accept this fact, the more quickly we will be able to communicate effectively enough with those of Islamic belief and encourage them to rout out the extremists among them and implement a true democracy.
With respect to your admirable intentions, by neglecting this critical understanding; you run the risk of adopting an ethnic and religious cleansing mentality. That, my friend, is against our Constitution, out laws and results in things like WWII and the Crusades.
Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 7, 2008 8:28 PM
First presidential candidate who promises to cut off the money gets my vote. McCain? Obama? Any thoughts, gentlemen?
Posted by: tanstaafl at September 7, 2008 8:55 PM
First presidential candidate who promises to cut off the money gets my vote. McCain? Obama? Any thoughts, gentlemen?
Posted by: tanstaafl at September 7, 2008 8:55 PM
If this isn't reason enough to start blowing stuff up all along the border than I don't know what is? From their own mouths for God's sake!!!!!
And yet people will see and read this whole article and just go, "Hmmmmm? That's crazy. Hey, honey, get all the fat kids together so we can go to McBigass's and stuff our faces.... Wonder how my stock's doing?...Man, I wish I had a beer, wonder what episode of Family Guy I've seen 4 times already is on again tonight while I sit here and do nothing productive and bitch about high gas prices."
(Sorry for my ranting, just disappointed in oh, about all of mankind right about now!)
(Sorry)
Posted by: AntiCaliphate at September 7, 2008 9:33 PM
First presidential candidate who promises to cut off the money gets my vote. McCain? Obama? Any thoughts, gentlemen?
Posted by: tanstaafl at September 7, 2008 8:55 PM
Double games? Hear BO in his own words ... YOU decide:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BobGQTMhxf8
So which is he Christian or muslim? God knows!
Mccain isn't much better!
Posted by: witness at September 7, 2008 9:37 PM
Good editorial from jpost.com on Pak's new president: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1220802278531&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Posted by: jewdog at September 7, 2008 9:51 PM
One more time, all together now, "Fanaticism plus Machiavellianism plus brutality equals Islamic Pakistan” - David McCutchion, Indophile and scholar, 1930-1972.
Pull out every last Pakistani Christian, Buddhist (in the far northeast), Hindu and Sikh. The Christians can come to the West; Buddhists Hindus and Sikhs can choose India or the West.
Then: pull out all western ambassadors, men and materiel.
Stop the jizya. No more money. No more weapons. Transfer weapons and money to India to help them stamp out the jihad.
Stop playing the game of lies. Let the Muslims know that we are, from this day forward, choosing to assume prima facie, for our own protection, that whatever they are telling us is...self-serving garbage, nonsense and lies.
With use of overwhelming force, judiciously applied, remove or neutralise Pakistan's nuclear stockpile.
Publicly endorse India's and Israel's right to have and if necessary deploy nuclear weapons, given the fact that each sits right next to dangerous and unstable Muslim neighbours who have publicly, and repeatedly, proclaimed genocidal intent toward them.
You know what? I used to be against nukes. But if India can muster the strength to say no to the Muslims in her midst - if she can summon up a government that will defy and crush jihad both within and without, and say NO to sharia - I'd be happy for my country to sell Mother India, at a reasonable price, as much of the hot stuff as she needs, both for peaceful purposes (reducing oil dependence) and to boost her DARURA.
at September 7, 2008 9:58 PM
theres one problem if the taliban ever took over packy land they would have access to the nukes and i fear they ould use them
Posted by: ISLAMSNOTFORME at September 7, 2008 10:16 PM
From Frontpage Magazine:
A desperate India and frustrated America will be increasingly pulled toward each other to counter Pakistan-Saudi axis in the region...
The conundrum of Pakistan is understandable; any limited offensive military measure directed at punishing it will most likely destabilize it and persuade Pakistani military leadership to retaliate with nuclear strikes. However, under the current western policy of "engaging" Pakistan, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have only grown stronger due to internal support.
India could be the missing link in neutralizing the threat Pakistan poses in Afghanistan and through its procession of "Islamic" nuclear bombs.
If Indians feel that they have to hit back at Pakistan due to extensive internal terror attacks attributable as genocide or crimes against humanity, an option worth backing by the western powers is a full-scale Indian offensive that may involve massive pre-emptive strategic nuclear strikes to first soften up Pakistan, followed by over running Pakistan's territory with Indian troops and liberate its population to Hindu way of life (which culturally Pakistanis belong to), by comprehensively neutralizing its Islamic roots. The West can follow it up by aiding nation-building to be utilized wisely for the first time in Pakistan (until now, the well-meaning western aid has gone into jihad-building there, much to the discomfort of the givers). Such a Pakistan will not only have a negative memory of its Islamic past, but importantly, will be a much less likely terror sponsor.
http://frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=5C2AF0F9-9FDD-4595-89BA-308CC5C8549A
Posted by: MoorthyM at September 7, 2008 10:25 PM
Well, I could jump off a doll's house.
Who'd have thought it?
It will be interesting to see what happens now the new guy is in charge.They've already stopped the fuel supply to our forces.
at September 7, 2008 11:13 PM
Off topic, but :
Holy Dawa Batman it seems the Alawi are on Jihad in weeworld! Some posts by a 40 year old Muslim woman on a chat site meant for children.
End The WaR iN IrAq
Last Post by Afghanistan , 4 Sep 2008 18:16 ET
27
animal testing
Last Post by Afghanistan , 7 Sep 2008 22:46 ET
66
The bible should not be a valid reference point.
Last Post by Afghanistan , 7 Sep 2008 22:29 ET
40
Anorexia---Girls under too much presure?
Last Post by Afghanistan , 7 Sep 2008 22:00 ET
26
I had to let her have it with this forum thread
Muslim Brotherhood- a real threat---are we ready?
Last Post by LittleGymnast13 , 7 Sep 2008 23:28 ET
33
Anyways thought some would like to know that the Islamists have taken to haunting chat rooms for children.
at September 8, 2008 12:17 AM
The Taliban is merely the armed wing of the ISI. The talibs who do get taken out now and then by the Pak army are those who got out of line - indiscipline you know.
Warlordism, after all, is the least common denominator of Islam. When the central authority (the Big Warlord) becomes weak, local warlords come up. This is the rule in every muslim state. It cannot be otherwise. Ol' pbuh was a warlord himself. It is also inevitable that warlords sooner or later start battling each other.
It is also inevitable that the Paki nukes are most certainly going to fall into the hands of some such maniac - maybe today, maybe next year...
Posted by: Hedgehog at September 8, 2008 1:07 AM
The Americans, for all their technical progress, have lacked commonsense in dealing with South Asia. They should have known what it would be, while befriending Muslims. Treachery is a well known Muslim trait, practiced after mad Mo (piss be upon him). In fact, treachery between Muslims is also rampant.
The Americans supplied money, arms and amunition to Pakistan, which Pakistan happily used against democratic India. All the while America kept championing democracy. What is happening now to America is in fact the result of America's once hypocritic foreign policy. While they championed democracy, they supplied military expertise to autocratic Pakistan, for use against democratic India. It is not a surprise that hypocrisy has yielded a bitter result, and that all too soon.
Even now, not much is lost. America has to gang up with the non-islamic countries in the region if it wants peace for itself from the islamic thugs. Among the prominent non-islamic countries having the muslim menace are - India, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Nepal and China.
Future events, in my opinion, will definitely include the Hindus fighting at the forefront of the islamic - non islamic armageddon.
Posted by: proud-hindu at September 8, 2008 3:58 AM
Double game and back-stabbing is a trait of mohammedans. Most of the money given in aid to paki surely has gone to their plans against India and Afganistan. With the treason mentality of followers of islam, and founder father MO (piss be upon him) throughout history how can anybody believe them. America is breeding poisonous snakes from decades, which will bite them one day.
I feel bad for any soldier of NATO who is killed due to these double game bastards. The moors will support their brothers come what may and will never be on the side of kaffirs (unbelievers). Why doesnt the Americans understand this? It would be wise to support a non-muslim country than pay the jizya, which will be put to use against non-believers.
It is not very long before hard line elements /taliban take over power in pakistan, then the world would have to come to terms with neuclear edged islam. As has always been India will be in forefront of islamic agression, as has happened from the times of islamic expansion. Its been a long journey of 1400 years of treason which is still being tolerated.
at September 8, 2008 4:56 AM
the only thing Nobama said right was to bomb the pak. we all need to keep at our gov't officials and demand no more money to the pak. or any islamic gov't, let their rich arab shieks brothers pay for them!
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at September 8, 2008 7:45 AM
Pakistanis talking out of both sides of their mouth. I can believe this.
Posted by: Spot on at September 8, 2008 8:12 AM
proud-hindu,
What about India? Why are HINDUS beating up and murdering Christians and destroying their homes and churches? India cozied up to the USSR during the Cold War and it turned its back on the West when it founded NAM. India didn't want to be involved in our struggle.
Now all we hear is: you should have known?
at September 8, 2008 8:36 AM
The article by Dexter Filkins is the keenest, and most useful, article on Pakistan ever to have appeared in the Times.
Posted by: Hugh at September 8, 2008 8:56 AM
The article came out on the same day that Mr. Hassan Abbas, a former member of the Pakistani government, says that Pakistan needs development aid (surprise!) to build its economy. He touted the "Biden Plan" and wants the US to implement it.
Obama became a cosponsor in mid-July. $7.5 BILLION in domestic aid over five years. You know that's just a drop in the bucket.
How much does Pakistan spend maintaining its nuclear weapons?
July 15, 2008
Obama Joins Sens. Biden, Lugar on Bill to Triple Pakistan Aid
@ 11:07 am by Chris Good
Barack Obama will announce today that he is co-sponsoring legislation with Sens. Joe Biden (D-Del.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) that would triple non-military U.S. aid to Pakistan.
Obama will highlight his support for the bill, which will be unveiled this morning, in a speech today on national security.
"We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people," Obama states in excerpts pre-released by the campaign. "It’s time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That’s why I’m cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people."
Biden and Lugar will unveil their bill at a news conference this morning. It would authorize $7.5 billion to Pakistan over five years to be used for development purposes such as building schools, roads, and medical clinics. It also calls for "greater accountability on security assistance," according to Biden's office, pushing Pakistan to step up its counterterrorism efforts against al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Biden has called for a new approach to U.S.-Pakistani relations, one that seeks to build a relationship with the Pakistan people rather than Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. Tripling non-military aid unconditionally, he says, is the first step.
Biden was a leading critic of Obama's Pakistan policy in the early stages of the Democratic primary. The Delaware senator and then-presidential candidate blasted Obama for saying, in an August 2007 speech, that he would attack terrorists in Pakistan with or without its government's consent, if Musharraf failed to act on intelligence.
"It’s not something you talk about," Biden said. "The last thing you want to do is telegraph to the folks in Pakistan plans that threaten their sovereignty."
Biden has since taken on the role of surrogate for Obama's campaign, stumping for Obama in media appearances and promoting Obama's Iraq policy in a conference call with reporters yesterday.
at September 8, 2008 9:06 AM
“I cannot lie to you,” Namdar said, smiling at last. “The army comes in, and they fire at empty buildings. It is a drama — it is just to entertain.”
Entertain whom? I asked.
“America,” he said.
.....................................
It's the old Potempkin village--this time with live ammunition. What lunacy. And the United States, in many ways the most sophisticated country in the world, is falling for this cheap theatre.
The problem is, we are, at heart, an honest people--we just don't think like this. We tend to take others at their word. After seven years of Pakistan as our "staunchest ally in the war on terror", we need to wake up.
Tanstaafl wrote:
First presidential candidate who promises to cut off the money gets my vote. McCain? Obama? Any thoughts, gentlemen?
......................................
Well, John McCain did say "we need to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that
don't like us very much".
He was saying this in regard, specifically, to our purchase of foreign oil, but it could as easily refer to the huge amount of Jizya we pay to Muslim countries in the form of foreign aid.
I am under no illusions that McCain would cut off all such aid--it is so entrenched, at this point, that I'm not sure that any president could do so. He also has a troubling confidence in the results of "the surge".
That being said, I think he is much less a believer than Obama that it is not only up to the West to "rescue" third world Muslim countries with huge aid packages, but that we somehow owe it to them out of--what? Guilt over some vague colonial past? Guilt over our own successes?
McCain also said at a townhall meeting in Michigan that aid to Pakistan was "wasted". Maybe he is beginning to understand.
Obama also did say that he thought Pakistan was misusing US aid meant for the the fight against Al-Qaeda to prepare for war with India. To my knowledge, though, he has never suggested actually ending or even curtailing aid. He said, "I have supported aid to Pakistan in the Senate and ... I would continue substantial military aid (if the money was targetted)".
How he would ensure this is unclear, as are what steps he would take if these was continued "misuse".
Posted by: gravenimage at September 8, 2008 9:35 AM
Some postings above bewail US indifference to democratic India in the past. Actually, there's another angle to this. India's first prime minister Nehru was close pals with the likes of Sukarno, Tito, Nasser, Kwame Nkrumah, Chou En Lai (they now spell it Zhou En Lai), not to speak of his right hand man Krishna Menon, a card holding communist. Besides this Nehru tried to suck up to Stalin, and later Khruschev. Krishna Menon loved to use his considerable talents for sarcasm to rile the west on every occasion. Not exactly a democratic, pro-west bunch.
But to be fair to the Indians (the educated ones at least) they have always been largely pro-west and anti commie. I used to know a north Indian agricultural scientist who had studied in a US university in the 1960s. He says that there were enough Indian students in that place for the possibility of meeting a stranger from India every now and then. On the other hand, there's another guy I used to know who also, coincidentally, is an agricultural scientist, who studied farm science in the USSR. He used to say that as far as he knew, he was the only Indian within a hundred kilometer radius. Granted that agricultural universities are bound to be out in the farming heartlands, but it does seem a fair indication of where their sympathies lay. The only pro-East bloc Indians I knew were salaried government servants, commies (no surprise there), ruling Congress party hacks or the uneducated persons who happily lapped up the Nehru brand of propaganda.
Posted by: Hedgehog at September 8, 2008 10:13 AM
It's well known that Musharraf has been playing a double game for over a decade now, coming as he does from the same security establishment as Zia al-Huq.
But another thing to note:
Within a week of Musharraf's resignation, the main political wing of the Taliban was banished from politics. Within a month, the political party behind the ban won a resounding victory in elections.
Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at September 8, 2008 6:40 PM
"proud-hindu,
What about India? Why are HINDUS beating up and murdering Christians and destroying their homes and churches? India cozied up to the USSR during the Cold War and it turned its back on the West when it founded NAM. India didn't want to be involved in our struggle.
Now all we hear is: you should have known?"
Posted by PMK.
PMK, Hindus are beating up - not all the Christians but only those missionaries and those Christians who are outrageously converting the Hindus to Christianity by fraudulent means and coercion. The ultimate goal of these fraudulent conversions is to marginalise the Hindu population, which the Hindus cannot take kindly to. In the recent outburst of violence in the state of Orissa, the Christians were the first to incite violence by murdering a 84 year old Hindu monk.
As for India coZying to USSR, now there is no USSR and after 1991, geopolitical equations have changed, which the USA has not realised.
Of course, the USA should have known.
Posted by: proud-hindu at September 9, 2008 3:35 AM
(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.)