12 posts tagged “pakistan”
According to an article by Alamgir Hussain, Benazir was a fomenter of Jihadism in the days of her office as Prime Minister. Yet she came back to Pakistan to attempt a middle ground for Pakistanis by being the voice of democratic institutions which diametrically opposite of the Theo-Political ideology of Jihad-Islamism.
One could extrapolate her agenda was not as saintly as the image she tried to project to the West. I suspect the wily female politician saw an opportunity to play the military and the Islamists and form a position of power with an image of secularism. In other words her motive was not to seal democracy but to self-aggrandize power for the Bhutto family. I suspect her miscalculation was that Islamists have infiltrated the Pakistan military and Intelligence community with Islamist sympathizers.
I suspect her assassination was the result of Islamists not appreciating a woman leader and a divided military (Islamist sympathizers and traditional elitist secularists) not wanting to tolerate a Bhutto insertion into Pakistani politics.
Bhutto’s murder smacks of a good old fashioned conspiracy theory that I doubt the complete truth of who the murder conspirators were will be known for some time.
David Frum explains the reality, necessity and the danger America faces with an unstable Pakistan. An awesome insight!
JRH 1/1/08
By The Associated Press
December 28, 2007 3:38 PM ET
A transcript released by the Pakistani government Friday of a purported conversation between militant leader Baitullah Mehsud, who is referred to as Emir Sahib, and another man identified as a Maulvi Sahib, or Mr. Cleric. The government alleges the intercepted conversation proves al-Qaida was behind the assassination of Benazir Bhutto:
Maulvi Sahib: Peace be on you.
Mehsud: Peace be on you, too.
Maulvi Sahib: How are you Emir Sahib?
Mehsud: Fine.
Maulvi Sahib: Congratulations. I arrived now tonight.
Mehsud: Congratulations to you, too.
Maulvi Sahib: They were our men there.
Mehsud: Who were they?
Maulvi Sahib: There were Saeed, the second was Badarwala Bilal and Ikramullah was also there.
Mehsud: The three did it?
Maulvi Sahib: Ikramullah and Bilal did it.
Mehsud: Then congratulations to you again.
Maulvi: Where are you? I want to meet with you?
Mehsud: I am in Makin. Come I am at Anwar Shah's home.
Maulvi Sahib: OK I will come.
Mehsud: Do not inform their family presently.
Maulvi Sahib: Right.
Mehsud: It was a spectacular job. They were very brave boys who killed her.
Maulvi Sahib: Praise be to God. I will give you more details when I come.
Mehsud: I will wait for you. Congratulation once again.
Maulvi Sahib: Congratulations to you as well.
Mehsud: Any service?
Mauvliv: Thank you very much?
Mehsud: Peace be on you.
Maulvi: Same to you.
_____________________
Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
The Musharraf government says it has proof that al Qaeda assassinated Benazir Bhutto. Pakistan has released to the public an alleged communication interception of al Qaeda operatives speaking about the “who done its” and includes conversational back slapping of congratulations of a job well done. (I will post the transcript because of Yahoo’s rep of removing links or updating content with the same link)
Terrorist organizations are usually hot to claim the glory of a perceived victory. Here I am reading the government knows who did the assassination and is going after the surviving assassination cell. It may be true, but something just reads as to convenient and tidy of an explanation from a nation that has not controlled al Qaeda and the Taliban that have blatantly operated from the sovereign nation of Pakistan.
I still think there was collusion within the Pakistan military and their Intelligence modus operandi in the assassination of Bhutto.
Here is the Yahoo News account of the Musharraf government findings: as posted at SlantRight.
I just finished reading a Symposium on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto at the National Review Online. Those invited to write an analysis about the assassination were Jonathan Foreman, Sumit Ganguly, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Victor Davis Hanson, Mansoor Ijaz, Stanley Kurtz, James S. Robbins, Bill Roggio and Henry Sokolski.
As of this writing there is only guessing who is directly responsible for the assassination from the region of the world in which the Religion of Peace is the dominant religion.
The consensus of the Symposium was really mixed. The mentioned culprits: al Qaeda and allied Islamists, Taliban and allied Islamists, Infiltrating terrorist Islamists in the Pakistan Military, Infiltrating terrorist Islamist in the Pakistan version of a Secret Service, sympathizing Pakistan Secret Service of Islamists itself, Pervez Musharraf and a sympathetic element of the Pakistan military.
The only agreeing link is Islamism, the apparent dominant voice of Mohammedanism of the modern Mohammedan dominated lands.
My guess is that Bhutto caused a temporary alliance of all of the above to cause Bhutto’s death.
Despite a checkered past in past Pakistani politics, her current presence was rallying an opposition that rejected both Islamism and the pro-Western ruling oligarch dictatorship within the Pakistani military. A successful Bhutto would be a huge challenge to the death cult idealism of the Islamist terrorists and a huge challenge to ruling by semi-military fiat by the later.
In essence all Pakistani factions opposing Bhutto’s rise stood to gain with her death.
America is in the uncomfortable Machiavellian position of being forced to choose between two repressive elements in Pakistan: The Pakistan military and Islamist terrorists. Of course it would be global suicide to choose America’s primary enemies thus America will be forced to put its strength behind Musharraf and the military.
I have the impression that Musharraf and the pro-Western elements of the military are becoming more and more unpopular with the Pakistani people. Thus the people that are not happy with Musharraf are being driven to the Islamists even though they may not be Islamists themselves.
This portends a Sunni version of the Shia inspired Iranian Revolution. If an Islamist revolution triumphs over a pro-Western Pakistani military, then Islamists would control Pakistan’s already established nuclear arsenal.
The Shah of Iran overthrown by Khomeini was extremely solid behind America. The Shah even tried to Westernize Iran with a bit of success even though the regime was repressive. The Shah was deserted by a deluded President Carter who felt the end of the Shah would bring democracy to Iran. Oops! Selling out the Shah brought Sharia Law and a repressive regime that made the Shah look like a Western Saint.
Bhutto’s death sets America up for the dreaded repetition of history. Oh yes, a Democratic Party Presidential victory will guarantee handing a nuclear arsenal over to Islamist terrorists just as Carter did in the ‘70’s.
Possible Outcomes of Pakistani Crisis Might Even Change a Democrat’s Mind
Pervez Musharraf has imposed martial law in Pakistan. The official reason is because radical murdering Islamist terrorists are trying to bring their Theo-Political ideology as the rule of law and depose Musharraf.
I am certain there is an element of truth to the official reason; however I am betting the actual reason is elements outside of the military within the regime are trying to depose Musharraf, specifically Pakistan’s version of the Supreme Court.
Pakistan’s Supreme Court was about to rule on the legality of Musharraf’s election as President while retaining his spot as the head of the Pakistani military. The talk was the Court ruling was not going to happen to Musharraf’s benefit.
Although I am certain Musharraf would have used the military to brush off such a judicial ruling it would have angered the people in such a way that rioting might lead to sympathy to the radical Islamists followed by a Khomeini style people’s revolution.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and eight other judges refused to support Musharraf’s “emergency order.” Musharraf’s response was to depose the Chief Justice and rename another to replace him – Abdul Hameed Dogar.
Then there is the position of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto who returned to Pakistan recently under a deal with Musharraf to bring back democracy to Pakistan while siding with her families old military enemies to draw the people away from radical Islamism. Bhutto is a secular Socialist Muslim.
Bhutto officially complained about the Martial Law order; however I sense she understands her future in Pakistan will only occur with the military’s support combined with a hoped for elective support from the Pakistani people. Bhutto would be executed summarily if the likes of al Qaeda or the Taliban got their hands on her.
What was America’s official reaction? This from BBC News:
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the declaration of emergency rule was "highly regrettable" and called upon Pakistan to have free and fair elections.
In essence the US response was the politically correct response; a deposed Musharraf would be a huge hit on America’s war effort in the Middle East. It would be tough for America to lose an ally in Pakistan which could happen if Musharraf was deposed. There is the possibility that the Pakistan military might simply replace Musharraf with another top dog general and continue the policy of Musharraf under a different military political Administration.
Again though, a deposed Musharraf would pour prestige and allegiance of the Pakistani people to the radical Islamists. This could lead to a similar scenario of a Khomeini style revolution in Pakistan that the military could not stop without outright butchery and genocide.
What is the worst that could happen? O not much, a nuclear armed Wahhabi-Sunni-Taliban-al-Qaeda Islamist nation that hates America. The only plus would be incredible Sunni power probably would end the friendship with Shi’ite Iran who has no doubt been aiding the Waziristan Sunni radicals. I also suspect the old socialists in India will change their minds in rejecting America’s proffered hand of friendship and join in with American against radical Islamists in Pakistan and Iran.
Muslim Pakistan and Hindi India are nearly blood enemies and I suspect India could not stand for Mohammedan nuclear proliferation in the Middle East than America or Europe (although for different reasons).
Thus what Musharraf has done may be reported with media calm of just another dictatorial move in Pakistan; however I suspect the American military and policy strategists are scrambling to develop multiple alternative measures to choose from depending on which way the Pakistani crisis swings.
For those of you who do not follow the news very much or possibly you follow only selective portions of the news because in this day and age local political and geopolitical news is so immense that Joe American must pick and choose the news to follow as one perceives the effect the information has on our interests or lives.
Thus here is a tidbit of news you may have heard or not heard of: old Usama bin Laden (UBL) from location unknown but probably the Waziristan region of Northern Pakistan created an audio message to Pakistanis proclaiming President Pervez Musharraf as an a fakir (infidel) and a shirk (polytheist). Due to this proclamation Pakistanis should rise up and depose and assassinate Musharraf.
Also the audio addressed the Pakistan military to stand down and do nothing as the people rise up to through out the American loving apostate Musharraf.
Since the thrill of hearing UBL for the first time in years is wearing off the news coverage of the implications of how this may affect Pakistan and vis-a-vie the United States has somewhat worn off.
Steve Schippert writing for ThreatsWatch.org offers a remarkable analysis of Pakistan’s potential future which would not be good for America. Schippert believes Al-Qaeda has been operating a patient campaign to win the allegiance of various tribal territories in Pakistan. The Musharraf signing away of government control of Waziristan is an example of Al-Qaeda/Taliban interests gaining autonomous victory over the Pakistan military.
Here is something to think about that Schippert may not have known when writing his Pakistan threat analysis: Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto intends to return to Pakistan after being in exile since 1999. Benazir is the daughter of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Ali Bhutto served both as President and Prime Minister of Pakistan. Ali Bhutto was quite popular with the Pakistani people, however the will to retain power led to a clash of wills with other ethnic elites in Pakistan led to Ali Bhutto’s demise. In a dubious trial that was considered rigged by Bhutto ethnic enemies found him guilty of corruption and murder. The military dictator of the time General Zia-ul-Hak made the execution was carried out.
Daughter Benazir Bhutto has also been popular, yet unproven accusations by the Bhutto family enemies had her deposed for charges of corruption. There is an underlying implication that Benazir’s exile is ending to counter the growing popularity of radical Islam in Pakistan. The Pakistan military and Musharraf have not publicly welcomed her back. Nawaz Sharif is another deposed Prime Minister who was sent back into exile to Saudi Arabia has Benazir not to trust Musharraf. Time will tell just how desperate Musharraf is.
Well have you heard the latest Islamofascist tiff? Usama bin Laden is calling President Musharraf of Pakistan an infidel thereby reasoning that Pakistan should rise up and revolt against him.
Now here is the thing. I can just imagine all the pro-Arab experts saying I told so, Musharraf’s regime as an ally to America is hanging by a thread and it may collapse placing nuclear arms into Islamofascist hands.
Maybe; however that is a worse case scenario. There is another extreme possibility. The other Arab Kingdoms and Dictatorships fearing a UBL led nuclear armed Wahhabi Pakistan and a nuclear arming radical Twelver Shia Iran might be the card played that may topple their autocratic gigs.
I can see the Saudi’s, Jordanians, the more capitalistic oil Saudi Peninsula Sheikdoms and Egypt (O yes Egypt) taking a cooperative stand against internal Wahhabis and Muslim Brotherhood factions and weighing in with support for Musharraf.
Again Iraq becomes the wild card. Why? The reason is because of its divided nature of Sunni, Kurd and Shia not piecing together as a hoped for uniform puzzle.
A not much talked about is a still powerful Turkey, the remnant of the last Muslim Empire to terrorize the globe with Mohammedanism.
Turkey figures in because Ataturk’s secular revolution that booted out its last Emperor and terminated the Caliphate will have to choose sides. You would think it would be a no-brainer that Turkey would line up with an American led Arab coalition against Islamofascists; however Turkey has two considerations:
1. The hated Kurds trying to establish an independent nation of the current Northern Iraq.
2. The modern electoral process has placed an Islamist head of government in secular Turkey. If he calls the shots on foreign relations, at best Turkey would stay out the conflict at worst Turkey would help the coalescing Sunni/Shia (i.e. a Wahhabi-Taliban ruled Pakistan if Musharraf cannot hold on and the Twelver Shias of Iran).
To complicate the reading of Turkey’s direction further, the Turkish generals have not hesitated in the past to boot out an elected leader if he did not comply to the beloved Ataturk secular revolution.
You might say a Wahhabi-Taliban terrorist will not get along with an Iranian radical Shia nation because the hatred between the two sects has existed since the assassination of Mohammed’s nephew (and I think son-in-law by marriage). The irony is Iran has been playing the enemy of my enemy is my friend game.
Iran has openly aided al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan (even protecting some al Qaeda elites and UBL’s family). Plus Iran has been training Sunni Hamas the official offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt.
Here is another chaotic scenario to add: Certainly the Saudi royals will line up with America because the West pays them the money for their oil to make the royals ridiculously wealthy. However a significant amount of the royals and wealthy Saudi elites only give lip service to the Wahhabi dominating school of the Saudi Peninsula by providing money for the Wahhabi leadership. BUT the Saudi government leadership is socially Western outside the borders of Saudi Arabia.
A prince of a Saudi bloodline that has totally conformed to the Wahhabi way may be developed as a usurper of the throne by the typical Mohammedan way of securing power: killing all the rivals to power.
If that scenario was permitted to occur then a huge mess could begin that might last years or seconds depending if a button pushing Islamist finds a nuclear arsenal.
And that is just the intra-regional conflict.
Due to the entire world running on oil; I guarantee China and Russia will decide what benefits their respective national interests and may line up with the Islamists for a trade guarantee of oil for weaponry.
O did I mention that Hindu dominated India is a nuclear power as well. India has been cozy with Russia and contemptuous of China; however I strongly suspect Hindu India will align with the faction (i.e. Western coalition led Arabs) that prevents the hated Muslims from gaining a toe hold on India’s land. There is much bad blood between Hindus and Muslims that actually may make the Jewish/Muslim conflict look like a picnic.
Conquering Mohammedans would slaughter and torture Hindus until they realized it was more profitable to enslave them with humiliation (contrary to their Quran). Thus the Muslim Mughal Empire of Northern India humiliated Hindus until the British came along. That was a long time!
Jews and Christians humiliated for their faith under conquering Muslims; however in the Quran they were named as people of the book. That meant according to the Muslim Scriptures Jews and Christians had three choices of lifestyle after conquest: Conversion to Islam, substandard humiliating no rights as dhimmi paying a jizya tax, or death.
The Hindus are considered polytheists; therefore their only (initial) choices were conversion or death.
Now this has been a very simplistic run down of what the fuse lit by UBL could do calling for a revolution in Pakistan and naming U.S. ally Musharraf an apostate. I am certain someone with more expertise could add to the complexity of developing scenarios in the Middle East and the interconnectedness of a globalized economy; nonetheless I am also certain you get the picture of what is impending. And take note: As the Middle East conflagrates in conflict, who lines up with whom is far from etched in stone. The National Interests of the moment will form the puzzle of who sides with whom in the greater scheme of the clear mutual enemies.
The Red Mosque stand off has ended with the Pakistan military scoring a victory. Abdul Rashid Ghazi met his demise. Ghazi’s death did not spark an anti-Musharraf rebellion in Pakistan as many Islamists had hope; it merely ended the siege of hate-monger radicals at the Red Mosque.
JRH 7/11/07
*******************************
Red Mosque siege declared over
Declan Walsh in Islamabad
Wednesday July 11, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Pakistan's prime minister, Shaukat Aziz, declared the Red Mosque siege over today, saying that government forces had regained full control of the compound after a 36-hour assault. "The operation is over. Everybody who was inside is out," Mr Aziz said. There had been "pretty reliable and accurate intelligence" about the mosque compound prior to the assault, but the security forces were still surprised by the ferocity of the resistance.
"These were trained, hardcore militants," he said.
A senior government official added that a number of foreigners - Uzbeks, Chechens, Tajiks and Afghans - had been arrested and were undergoing interrogation. Mr Aziz also said that the number of casualties had been much lower than expected. "We have not found any body of a woman or child yet," he said. "The government's policy ... has been vindicated.
"Now we will do the mopping up." But with the security forces restricting access to local hospitals, the government's refusal to release an updated official death toll added to fears that the actual number of READ THE REST ...
It is said by the politically correct and by Mohammedans that the majority of the religion of peace is “moderate” as opposed to radical Islamist. I have read statistics that the overwhelming amounts of Mohammedans both in the West and in the Mohammedan lands are moderate in nature. I am not going to cite those statistics because I don’t feel like looking for them; however I need to point out that the so-called Islamist minority still numbers (guessing) in the tens of millions. That is a lot of crazy Mohammedans.
Now here is something for Westerners and so-called moderate Mohammedans to think about. The children of the moderates are schooled in their religion in Mosques or madrassas. Overwhelmingly the children are taught Islamist ideology and not the so-called moderate portion of Mohammedanism.
In the West and America most Mosques and separatist Mohammedan communities receive educational literature from Wahhabi-Sunni Saudi Arabia or Shi’ite Iran (disseminated via front organizations including terrorists like Hezbollah).
It takes a media outlet that has been branded as right wing and therefore not part of the Mainstream Media (MSM) to report how a radical Islamist has indoctrinated children to the point that they have vowed on the Quran to die as martyrs - WorldNetDaily. The incident is Abdul Rashid Ghazi of the Islamist “Red Mosque” in Islamabad is being sought due to an assassination attempt on ’s President Musharraf. Ghazi is willing to sacrifice 1800 children in a fight to death.
The “Red Mosque” operates two madrassas in which the children have been totally brainwashed in the tenets of the Theo-political death cult and are actually being armed and telling their parents they are prepared to die as martyrs for Allah. Ghazi is a Taliban sympathizer.
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.