NationStates Jolt Archive

the Pakistani military has laid the Red Mosque in Pakistan under siege...
the mosque is the "hotbed" of a "Taliban-style movement" in Pakistan...

The Pakistani military says that the women and children in the compound are hostages
Hundreds of troops were surrounding the fortified compound housing the Lal Masjid, or Red Mosque, and a girls' madrasa (seminary) in the Pakistani capital, where clashes between armed students and security forces began on Tuesday after months of tension.

Security forces have not launched a full-scale assault because of fears for the safety of hundreds of women and children inside who the government says are being held as human shields.

Instead, troops have blown holes in the perimeter wall in the hope of letting those inside escape.

Gunfire broke out shortly after 1 a.m. (4:00 p.m. EST on Saturday) as paramilitary forces provided cover for commandos to move forward, said an intelligence official who declined to be identified.

Three big blasts sounded across the city about 20 minutes later, apparently as the commandos blew up more of the compound wall.

"Our strategy is to bring down the walls or make holes in them to make escape routes for the women and children being held hostage," said another security official. "We hope it works."

But some of the "hostages" "plead to die as martyrs (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2042156.ece)"....

The siege is apparently in it's 5th day, Musharraf has said that the people in the mosque must "Surrender or Die"........................

.............And all of my news channels are broadcasting Live Earth...


LINK1 (http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=uri:2007-07-07T221557Z_01_ISL188337_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-PAKISTAN-MOSQUE-COL.XML&pageNumber=1&summit=)

LINK2 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2042156.ece)

So, if the hostages *want* to die, it's pretty much a win/win situation, eh? Rescue them and you win, fail and you're doing them a favor! :D Gotta love radical islam. ;)

Good. I'm glad that the Pakistani government id cracking down upon extremist terrorism. The people in the masjid are حمقى (fools). البقاء للأصلح أمر طيب.(Survival of the fittest is a good thing)

Waco, radical Islam style.

This won't end well for anybody.

I'm just surprised this isn't getting any play on cable news. Oh wait, they have to cover Paris Hilton.:headbang:

Musharraf has said that the people in the mosque must "Surrender or Die"........................
its not the east or the west side //no its not//
its not the north or the south side //no its not//

I'm just surprised this isn't getting any play on cable news. Oh wait, they have to cover Paris Hilton.:headbang:

well I just saw it as one of those stories that crawl along the bottom of the screen...while Bon Jovi was performing on the screen in New York...

I'm just surprised this isn't getting any play on cable news. Oh wait, they have to cover Paris Hilton.:headbang:

Maybe if certain of the muslims quit claiming every mosque to be the super-holiest on Earth, we'd see more coverage. It seems like you can't scratch the paint on a mosque anymore without being told it was the Second Holiest in Baghdad or the Third Holiest in Detroit or something - how do they measure the holiness with that kind of accuracy, anyway? Confuses the hell out of me. ;)

Maybe if certain of the muslims quit claiming every mosque to be the super-holiest on Earth, we'd see more coverage. It seems like you can't scratch the paint on a mosque anymore without being told it was the Second Holiest in Baghdad or the Third Holiest in Detroit or something - how do they measure the holiness with that kind of accuracy, anyway? Confuses the hell out of me. ;)

How about another concert LIVE MOSQUE or MOSQUE AID...that's sure to get publicity...

http://img.search.com/9/99/Blue_star_akal_takht.jpg

The similarities are striking, aren't they...

How about another concert LIVE MOSQUE or MOSQUE AID...that's sure to get publicity...

That just might work! :p I've always been partial to the Fourteenth Holiest mosque in Pakistan, myself. Beautiful architecture. Someone should really get the ball rolling on that. :)

The similarities are striking, aren't they...

Like I said, I'm just hoping it doesn't turn into this:

http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=74170&rendTypeId=4

the Pakistani military has laid the Red Mosque in Pakistan under siege...
the mosque is the "hotbed" of a "Taliban-style movement" in Pakistan...

The Pakistani military says that the women and children in the compound are hostages


But some of the "hostages" "plead to die as martyrs (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2042156.ece)"....

The siege is apparently in it's 5th day, Musharraf has said that the people in the mosque must "Surrender or Die"........................

.............And all of my news channels are broadcasting Live Earth...


LINK1 (http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=uri:2007-07-07T221557Z_01_ISL188337_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-PAKISTAN-MOSQUE-COL.XML&pageNumber=1&summit=)

LINK2 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2042156.ece)

Fucking hell. Sometimes I wonder if humans can actually see other people as humans.

Waco, radical Islam style.

This won't end well for anybody.

Waco didn't involve a major religious edifice of the creed of the majority of the US being taken over by armed fanatics of that very creed. This is far worse than Waco.

But it won't end well, at least for the fanatics. Burn, baby, burn :D

But it won't end well, at least for the fanatics. Burn, baby, burn :D

Wow.

And not even a peep from New Mitanni and Kimchi about bringing the popcorn and watching those 3b1| /\/\05|3/\/\z slaughter each other. That's a genuine surprise.

Now for more serious editorials.

This is a case of Pervy's base coming back to bite him in the ass. Musharraf supported the Taliban and used these radicals as a dead man's switch against regime change courtesy of the West. And now they're gotten to the point where they think they can do whatever the hell they please.

I'm sorry, but I have trouble feeling sympathy for religious wackos.

Especially those who use females and children as human shields, then claims they want to be martyrs.

And not even a peep from New Mitanni and Kimchi about bringing the popcorn and watching those 3b1| /\/\05|3/\/\z slaughter each other. That's a genuine surprise.

The night is young.
This is a case of Pervy's base coming back to bite him in the ass. Musharraf supported the Taliban and used these radicals as a dead man's switch against regime change courtesy of the West. And now they're gotten to the point where they think they can do whatever the hell they please.
By support, do you mean, not slaughter them and everyone around them just to be safe, like the US wanted?

By support, do you mean, not slaughter them and everyone around them just to be safe, like the US wanted?

Musharraf recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, and he kept the radicals in Pakistan around as a convenient excuse for continued U.S. support and as a dead man's switch. If they didn't keep giving him money and tried to "liberate" the Pakistani people they'd possibly have another Taliban to deal with- with access to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal no less.

http://img.search.com/9/99/Blue_star_akal_takht.jpg

The similarities are striking, aren't they...

You're Sikh?

And yeah I thought of that too when first reading the article...

especially the whole...bombarding the mosque with artillery part...

Musharraf recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, and he kept the radicals in Pakistan around as a convenient excuse for continued U.S. support and as a dead man's switch. If they didn't keep giving him money and tried to "liberate" the Pakistani people they'd possibly have another Taliban to deal with- with access to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal no less.

Supporting Musharraf is one of the west's more stupid decisions. I would cut him loose, personally.

Supporting Musharraf is one of the west's more stupid decisions. I would cut him loose, personally.

Did you read the part where I mentioned Pervy is using the radicals as a Dead Man's Switch?

Musharraf gets overthrown, and you have the possibility of another Taliban style government taking charge of Pakistan.

And Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

The U.S. can't cut him loose.

Supporting Musharraf is one of the west's more stupid decisions. I would cut him loose, personally.

disarm him of nukes first

Did you read the part where I mentioned Pervy is using the radicals as a Dead Man's Switch?

Musharraf gets overthrown, and you have the possibility of another Taliban style government taking charge of Pakistan.

And Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

The U.S. can't cut him loose.

Yes, I read it. I'm more sangfroid about things than you are though, I imagine. What's the worst that could happen?

Yes, I read it. I'm more sangfroid about things than you are though, I imagine. What's the worst that could happen?

The possibility that spooky stories Busheviks have been spreading about Iran with nuclear capabilities is more likely to happen with a group a lot less pragmatic and sensible about preserving the regime than the Supreme Council?

The possibility that these neo-Talibans might give Bin Ladin his biggest Wet Dream Present since the Iraq Invasion and hand over nuclear weaponry and capable technicians?

The possibility that India might say "FUCK IT!!" and ramp up military actions in the wake of the overthrow?

Yes, I read it. I'm more sangfroid about things than you are though, I imagine. What's the worst that could happen?

Nuclear Suicide Bombers?

If Musharraf doesn't have to worry about the West he can easily uhh *misplace* some nuclear weapons....He already IIRC leaked nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and some other countries

Or maybe his regime will collapse after a while...

What's the worst that could happen?Men, women and children will be burned... Waco style.

but i guess you are talking about what could happen if we stop supporting the pro-US Dictator..

nothing really.. the People will try to overthrow the bloody dictator.. revolution, freedom-Fighting, etc.

Men, women and children will be burned... Waco style.

but i guess you are talking about what could happen if we stop supporting the pro-US Dictator..

nothing really.. the People will try to overthrow the bloody dictator.. revolution, freedom-Fighting, etc.

Did you read anything about a neo-Taliban getting access to Pakistani Nukes and possibly handing some to Al'Qaeda?

Or are you hoping that's what'll happen?

I am wondering, would Pakistan make a few discreet purchases of Russian KO gas used in the opera siege prior to their own assault, or will they just go in with guns?

I guess it depends on how much they're willing to fork out and whether Putin's ready to play ball or not.

The possibility that spooky stories Busheviks have been spreading about Iran with nuclear capabilities is more likely to happen with a group a lot less pragmatic and sensible about preserving the regime than the Supreme Council?

The possibility that these neo-Talibans might give Bin Ladin his biggest Wet Dream Present since the Iraq Invasion and hand over nuclear weaponry and capable technicians?

The possibility that India might say "FUCK IT!!" and ramp up military actions in the wake of the overthrow?

Maybe we should be less paternalistic towards islamic regimes though. The current system obviously isn't working.

Is this the same showdown where one of the "Heroic Teachers" tried to escape by crossdressing?

Yep: Linky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6757713,00.html)
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Security forces besieging a radical mosque in the Pakistani capital captured its top cleric Wednesday as he tried to sneak out of the complex in a woman's burqa, and more than 1,000 of his followers surrendered.

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf deployed the army to subdue the remaining militants holed up in Islamabad's Lal Masjid, or Red Mosque, whose clerics have defied the government for months with a drive to impose a Taliban-style version of Islamic law in the city.

The tensions had exploded into a daylong battle Tuesday between security forces and students - some of whom were heavily armed and masked. Sixteen people were killed, officials said.

The government ordered the militants to lay down their arms and surrender by Wednesday morning, as it positioned armored vehicles and helicopters around the mosque in a show of strength.

A security official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media, said authorities captured the mosque's top cleric, Maulana Abdul Aziz, after a female police officer tried to search his body, which was concealed by a full-length black burqa.

The officer began shouting ``This is not a woman,'' the official said, prompting male officers to seize him. ``The suspect later turned out to be the mosque's chief cleric,'' the official said.

An AP Television News cameraman saw plainclothes police bundling the gray-bearded cleric into the back of a car, which sped away.

``They have no options but to surrender,'' said Javed Iqbal Cheema, a government spokesman. ``The government is not into dialogue with these clerics.''

The mosque's deputy leader, Abdul Rashid Ghazi, said earlier in the day that he was prepared to talk with the government, but added, ``We will continue to defend ourselves.''

As evening fell, sporadic gunfire erupted around the mosque and at an adjacent women's seminary while three helicopter gunships circled overhead. Scores of police and soldiers, some armed with sniper rifles, watched as students filed out of the compound. A number of the women were in tears.

The city's deputy administrator, Chaudhry Mohammed Ali, said more than 1,000 had surrendered. All women and children will be granted amnesty, but males involved in killings and other crimes as well as top mosque leaders will face legal action, said Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim.

Minister of Information Mohammed Ali Durrani said there could be ``a few hundred'' or more people remaining inside the mosque complex. It was unclear how many were hardened militants.

One who decided to give up, 15-year-old Maryam Qayyeum, said those who stayed in the seminary ``only want martyrdom.''

``They are happy,'' she said. ``They don't want to go home.''

Qayyeum said mosque leaders were not trying to stop students from giving up. But her mother, who had come to take her home said, ``They are making speeches. They want to incite them.''

Johar Ali, 20, who had come to the mosque to support the militants several days ago, said there were still hundreds inside. But Ali did not report seeing any suicide bombers, who the mosque leaders claimed were ready to launch attacks.

The violence started Tuesday when male and female student followers of the mosque - some of them masked and armed - rushed toward a police checkpoint. Gunfire broke out among the students and security forces, sparking a daylong series of clashes.

A senior government spokesman, Anwar Mahmood, said 16 people were killed Tuesday, though he declined to give a breakdown of the victims. Earlier, the government said they had included militants, innocent bystanders, a journalist and members of the security forces.

Ghazi told The Associated Press that 20 of his students had been killed by security forces, including two young men climbing to the top of the mosque for morning prayers Wednesday.

A young woman was also shot and wounded on the roof of the women's seminary, he said. ``She was shot by sniper fire. They are shooting directly at us,'' he said in a telephone interview.

After a meeting of top officials that included Musharraf, Deputy Interior Minister Zafar Warriach said the government imposed an immediate curfew on the area. He said authorities had run out of patience after a six-month standoff with the hard-line clerics at the mosque.

``The government has decided that those people from the madrassa who are defaming Pakistan and Islam will face an operation,'' Warriach said.

In the past six months, the clerics have challenged the government by sending students from the mosque to kidnap alleged prostitutes and police in an anti-vice campaign.

The bloodshed has added to a sense of crisis in Pakistan, where Musharraf - a major ally of President Bush - already faces emboldened militants near the Afghan border and a pro-democracy movement triggered by his botched attempt to fire the country's chief justice.

The mosque siege sparked street protests Tuesday in the cities of Lahore and Quetta organized by radical religious parties.

On Wednesday, officials said a suicide car bomber rammed a vehicle into a Pakistan army convoy near the Afghan border, killing five soldiers and five civilians. In northwestern Pakistan, unidentified assailants fired a rocket at a police station, killing one officer and wounding four, and an explosive killed four people and injured two district officials.

It was not known if the incidents were linked to the mosque crisis.



I think they should flood the place with a knockout gas. Then drag the kids out.



Otherwise I see one ending:
The Red Mosque is going to turn very very red.



The possibility that India might say "FUCK IT!!" and ramp up military actions in the wake of the overthrow? Or India will say "FUCK IT" and decide to press their shiny button before the Extremists find the controls for Pakistan

Maybe we should be less paternalistic towards islamic regimes though. The current system obviously isn't working.

Less paternalistic?

Musharraf is basically blackmailing the United States with his tenuous grip on power.

Iraq has proven to be a field day of corruption, incompetence and nepotism amidst the insurgency and terrorism that's World of Jihadcraft.

And Iran? Almost the whole world is sanctioned the hell out of them.

Less paternalistic?

Less paternalistic?

Musharraf is basically blackmailing the United States with his tenuous grip on power.

Iraq has proven to be a field day of corruption, incompetence and nepotism amidst the insurgency and terrorism that's World of Jihadcraft.

And Iran? Almost the whole world is sanctioned the hell out of them.

Less paternalistic?

I gotta play that...:D

Is this the same showdown where one of the "Heroic Teachers" tried to escape by crossdressing?

I think they should flood the place with a knockout gas. Then drag the kids out.


That's the one. :p Hopefully they'll surrender without any gassing necessary - that kind of move has some risk potential.

I gotta play that...:D

We're so overdue for some kind of jihad video game, it's unbelievable. I mean, outside tasteless amateur productions with 8-bit graphics. ;)

That's the one. :p Hopefully they'll surrender without any gassing necessary - that kind of move has some risk potential.

Yeah, sorta like how the Russians found out at the Chechen theatre.

Less paternalistic?

Musharraf is basically blackmailing the United States with his tenuous grip on power.

Iraq has proven to be a field day of corruption, incompetence and nepotism amidst the insurgency and terrorism that's World of Jihadcraft.

And Iran? Almost the whole world is sanctioned the hell out of them.

Less paternalistic?

Musharraf has nothing, and he knows it. We don't unfortunately.

Let them do what they want, but treat them like the old soviet union. The second the first nuclear weapon goes off. Blammo.

Otherwise, kill, maim, genocide, rape women, act like the pedophile troglodyte they admire, it's all good; as long as it stays inside their own borders.

It should be treated like stalinist communism.

Now, can you say fairer than that?

We're so overdue for some kind of jihad video game, it's unbelievable. I mean, outside tasteless amateur productions with 8-bit graphics. ;)

Counter Strike with a story line?

Command and Conquer Generals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_&_Conquer:_Generals) let you play as terrorists though

Yeah, sorta like how the Russians found out at the Chechen theatre.

Yep. Not too easy to get that kind of thing right, apparently.

I gotta play that...:D

Think about it. The insurgents and terrorists in Iraq are getting trainng, XP and skills going on raids against Coalition troops and blowing the shit out of them that they can then put to use later on else where in the world. And with Dear Leader's brilliant Stay the Course policy, all those troops are respawned with replacements that they can kill some more.

"Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here"? Pshah, more like "Train them over there so they can have easy pickings by the time they can be bothered to come over here."

The similarities are striking, aren't they...

Yeah, both Sikh militancy and the militancy you see in Lal Masjid, can be traced to Pak army's policies.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007/07/05/story_5-7-2007_pg7_16
ISLAMABAD: The Lal Masjid was described by security officials on Wednesday as a hub of militancy, with its clerics having covert links to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

But the two brothers who run the mosque also have known intelligence ties – spawning conspiracy theories that President Pervez Musharraf encouraged them to play up tensions and make himself look indispensable to his US allies.

The brothers, Abdul Aziz and Abdul Rashid Ghazi, embarked on an apparent collision course with the government six months ago when their burqa-clad students started a Taliban-style anti-vice campaign.

The mosque says it has around 5,000 male and 4,000 female students, ranging in ages from early teens to mid 20s. Most are from conservative northwestern Pakistan and the tribal regions bordering Afghanistan.

But security sources said Taliban militants were using the sprawling compound to hide in, as were sectarian “jihadis”, or holy warriors, belonging to banned militant groups.

“We had intelligence for some time now that militants were trained as suicide bombers at this complex, having a nexus with Taliban rebels hiding in our tribal areas”, a senior security official told AFP. Several Taliban commanders lodged at the mosque during trips to the capital, the official said on condition of anonymity.

Officials also said some lower-level Taliban commanders were inside the compound as it was besieged on Wednesday, although this could not be confirmed.

The clerics and their late father, who founded the mosque, were proteges of the intelligence during the 1979-89 anti-Soviet jihad and later in supporting the Taliban rise to power in Afghanistan, officials said.

After 9/11 the mosque became a focal point of anti-US and anti-Musharraf sentiment after the Pakistani military ruler abandoned the Taliban and aligned himself with Washington’s “war on terror”.

The changed scenario brought their relations with the intelligence services under stress.

The gulf widened in 2003 when the clerics issued an edict against Pakistani troop operations targeting Taliban and Al Qaeda figures in the tribal areas.

However some sections of the intelligence network continue to provide clandestine support to the clerics despite their hostility towards Musharraf, according to a security official and reports.

Security sources say slain Afghan Taliban commander Mullah Dadullah also had links with the brothers. afp

Who is to say that this is not orchestrated by Musharraf to stay in power?

You cannot say anything with certainty when it comes to Pak politics.

I'm just surprised this isn't getting any play on cable news. Oh wait, they have to cover Paris Hilton.:headbang:

I don't have a huge problem with seeing Paris Hilton instead of this. Despite being an infidel harlot, she's easy on the eyes.

but i guess you are talking about what could happen if we stop supporting the pro-US Dictator.

Musharraf is hardly pro-US. Personally I like his idea of negotiating with and not trying to utterly annihilate terrorists and anyone else who happens to be nearby.

Ya'll can be cynical and call it a dead-man's switch all you want, but Musharraf really is the best real possibility for rule of Pakistan.

but Musharraf really is the best real possibility for rule of Pakistan.

Can you explain why he is the best ruler for Pakistan?

Should not Pakistanis make that choice?

Can you explain why he is the best ruler for Pakistan?

Should not Pakistanis make that choice?

See, you agree with me.

See, you agree with me.

The army is an entrenched power that is loathe to give it up. They really have got a great thing going. If you are interested, please read the latest book "Military Inc" (http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=290579). Military-Industry complex - is on a whole another level there.

Why should the Pakistani people put up with them, because it is "easy" for the US?

Can you explain why he is the best ruler for Pakistan?
I said he's the best real possibility.
Should not Pakistanis make that choice?

Pakistan is too full of religiosity and other forms of irrationality to be allowed to elect their rulers. They're like America that way.

In short, there is nothing anyone the Pakistanis would elect would do better, but there are certainly some things he could do much, much worse.

The army is an entrenched power that is loathe to give it up. They really have got a great thing going. If you are interested, please read the latest book "Military Inc" (http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=290579). Military-Industry complex - is on a whole another level there.

Why should the Pakistani people put up with them, because it is "easy" for the US?

Yah, I know.

Who was it who said: "Most countries have an army, the Pakistani army has a country"? (It was something along those lines at any rate).

Stupid british, hoist by their own petard &c.

Who was it who said: "Most countries have an army, the Pakistani army has a country"? (It was something along those lines at any rate).
I don't think they really know who the first person to say that was. It's actually a spin-off of a saying about Prussia.

I said he's the best real possibility.

So the Americans said when Ayub came to power.

So the Americans said when Yahya came to power.

So the Americans said when Zia came to power.

So the Americans said when Musharraf came to power.

So the.....

Where does this stop. We all know that the foreign policy of the US is "one dictator poodle better than 10 democratic monkeys"...but please don't complain when the people under the dicatators u prop up hate u.

Pakistan is too full of religiosity and other forms of irrationality to be allowed to elect their rulers. They're like America that way.

Oh the irony.

The Americans do elect their leaders don't they? Would you like if some other country says, "Hey dumbo, you don't know whom to elect...here let me make that choice for you"...


In short, there is nothing anyone the Pakistanis would elect would do better, but there are certainly some things he could do much, much worse.

We won't know that until the army is sent to its barracks and we have a free and fair elections, won't we?

Even, the few democratically elected leaders like Benazir and Nawaz Shariff, did not have full control. The army still dictated foreign policy and nuclear and other "national security" issues.

Seriously, what is the worst that an elected beard will do that Musharraf has not done?

Proliferate nukes. Done.

Covert war, infiltration, escalation, etc with India. Done.

Continued support to anti-Indian jihadi orgs. Done.

Blind-eye/tacit support to taliban. Done.

Suppression of minority voices like that of Balochi leader Akbar Khan Bugti. Done.

Sanctuary to Bin Laden. Done.



Seriously, what else?

So the Americans said when Ayub came to power.

So the Americans said when Yahya came to power.

So the Americans said when Zia came to power.

So the Americans said when Musharraf came to power.

So the.....

Where does this stop. We all know that the foreign policy of the US is "one dictator poodle better than 10 democratic monkeys"...but please don't complain when the people under the dicatators u prop up hate u.
I'm not complaining., and I certainly do not support every dictator that the US does.
Oh the irony.
I think you fail to understand the definition of irony.
The Americans do elect their leaders don't they? Would you like if some other country says, "Hey dumbo, you don't know whom to elect...here let me make that choice for you"...
I would very much like a Western European nation to do that to the US, yes. Until we're reformed enough to choose proper leaders and keep them accountable.
Seriously, what is the worst that an elected beard will do that Musharraf has not done?
I'm thinking widespread religiously based oppression.
Proliferate nukes. Done.
Allegedly, and really, I don't see much of a problem with that. North Korea should have nukes. They're surrounded by enemies with them.
Covert war, infiltration, escalation, etc with India. Done.
Continued support to anti-Indian jihadi orgs. Done.
Is any of that proven?
Blind-eye/tacit support to taliban. Done.
I prefer that to the way the West handles them.
Suppression of minority voices like that of Balochi leader Akbar Khan Bugti. Done.
I don't like it, but it beats some religious nut job telling people what they're allowed to ware.
Sanctuary to Bin Laden. Done
That's ridiculous.

Pakistan is too full of religiosity and other forms of irrationality to be allowed to elect their rulers. They're like America that way.hey I have an idea..

Lets declare that all ME/Arab countries are too "muslim" to elect their Presidents.. so we undermine any small democracy moves.. and favor dictators..
If any of them somehow gets some democratic elections anyways.. we fuck them up economically and use a max of negative propaganda... "regime change" drills and later we install a Shah, a Sheik, or sumeting..

they want a Pan-Arab state? Not gonna happen.

Lets declare that all ME/Arab countries are too "muslim" to elect their Presidents.

As long as we declare the US too Christian and militaristic to elect their president.

In case you guys didn't know...

Women at the Red Mosque have been running rampant in Islamabad for a long time now. They've broken into video stores and trashed all the videos and dvds. They've gone into a children's library and prevented anyone from accessing the books, and so on and so on. So a confrontation was only inevitable, but on the plus side, perhaps the Taliban is finally starting to view women more equally.
:D


(Does anyone else find it hilarious that one of the chief mullahs at the Red Mosque tried to escape in a burkha?) (Also did you know that they built the Red Mosque on land that wasn't really theirs, and that (if i remember correctly) it actually belonged to the government of Pakistan)

I don't think things will end up badly either, as long as the military is careful. The people in Red Mosque don't seem to be the type that like dying(See my comment on the mullah above), so i think this can be resolved without too much damage to property or too many deaths.

Also, as far as people in power, i think that regardless of Musharraf being a dictator, he is the best option right now. Most of his opponents aren't going to do anything, just pocket money, and at least he's liberalizing the country and bringing it back on track. After all those years with Zia, Pakistan is going to need some Pervez to get back on its feet.

Remember, Bush managed to make Iraq even WORSE despite the removal of Saddam. Trust me, before January 20th, 2009 there's only one coutnry that'll be removed by forcibly removed their head of state, and that's the USA.

Aryavartha, i don't agree that Musharraf has been supportive to the Taliban types. He has done far more to destabilize them then any Pakistani leader for a while, and although he may be a mere puppet for the west, Pakistan is a lot better off with him, then with corrupt leaders like Nawaz Sharif, and Benazir Bhutto. The problem in Pakistan is that everyone is trying to be in control, no one cares about making a great country, they just care about being wealthy and powerful. Musharraf has been(in my opinion) Pakistan's best leader since Zulfikar Bhutto. I do hope though that in the next 3-4 years Musharraf step down, but we'll just have to see.

Remember, Bush managed to make Iraq even WORSE despite the removal of Saddam.

Well, obviously. Saddam might have been a jerk, but his government was at least more stable than that of the Maliki government.

Trust me, before January 20th, 2009 there's only one coutnry that'll be removed by forcibly removed their head of state, and that's the USA.

Er, what? America has actually had a good track record along the lines of Presidents stepping down without a fuss after their terms have expired. The only one who managed to break the rules was Franklin D. Roosevelt and that was because the rules weren't actually law back when he was elected but more like firm suggestions.

We're so overdue for some kind of jihad video game, it's unbelievable. I mean, outside tasteless amateur productions with 8-bit graphics. ;)
You talking about "Special Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Force)"? The Hezbollah version of "America's Army"?

Lol, it seems Musharaffs all-purpose bogeymen are performing all too well.

You're Sikh?
No, though sometimes I wish I were. It's probably the coolest cult out there. ;)

You talking about "Special Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Force)"? The Hezbollah version of "America's Army"?

Nah, I wasn't thinking of any one in particular - I just figured there'd be a dozen mediocre flash games out there. ;)

Urrg, Americas Army is pretty boring.

Urrg, Americas Army is pretty boring.

Yeah, that's what I heard. I really liked the Delta Force series back when I used to play games. That was some fun. :)

All this trouble could have been easily resolved except for a momumental error by Bush and co in late Sept 2001
What Bush should have done is used the window of opotunitiy to butter upto Iran, with the saying 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' since Iran already had a fairly high loathing of the taliban

Thus we would'nt have needed Pakistan onside and once the taliban fled to the tribal area of the northwest we could follow them and bomb the hell out of them, which is the one thing we cant do at the moment.

Thus we would'nt have to worry about who led Pakistan... just inform them if a pakisani nuke was used anywhere in the world, their country would be burned to a cinder by everyone else

I would very much like a Western European nation to do that to the US, yes. Until we're reformed enough to choose proper leaders and keep them accountable.

Please come back to reality and discuss things that are possible...not idealistic crap.

I'm thinking widespread religiously based oppression.

Religiously based oppression of whom? The minorities?

It is already done and completed. From ~30% before partition, Pakistan now has ~3% non-muslims.

The army does not interfere with what mullahs do, as long as mullahs don't challenge army power. Musharraf is no exception to this policy.

He has done very little towards countering that considering that he has been in power for 8 years and enjoyed a lot of support atleast in his initial years.

Allegedly, and really, I don't see much of a problem with that. North Korea should have nukes. They're surrounded by enemies with them.

Allegedly? lol.

Is any of that proven?

What? Lashkar-e-toiba's leader Hafiz Saeed is still running his jihad, isn't he?

I prefer that to the way the West handles them.

So you have no problem with Musharraf turning a blind eye to the taliban, but you would like Musharraf to be in power since he is better than somebody who would do "religiously based oppression" ?

How does that work? What is it that the taliban stands for again? :confused:

That's ridiculous.

Why? Is he not in Pakistan for more than 4 years now?


Here's something you don't know about Pakistan.

The three major parties of Pakistan are the Pakistan Muslim League (which gets the numbers in Punjab - the largest province in headcount), the Pakistan People's Party (which gets the numbers in Sindh - the next biggest province) and the Mohajir Quami Movement (a Karachi based Indian migrant party).

If you have free elections, the winner is more likely to be from these parties with probably a bit of horse-trading and coalition support from the religious parties.

The religious parties by themselves, cannot come to power in democratic elections.

Aryavartha, i don't agree that Musharraf has been supportive to the Taliban types. He has done far more to destabilize them then any Pakistani leader for a while,

Surely you jest.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EK19Df04.html

http://www.khaleejtimes.ae/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2006/August/subcontinent_August665.xml&section=subcontinent&col=

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\09\03\story_3-9-2006_pg7_15

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\09\09\story_9-9-2006_pg7_8

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/07/world/asia/07afghan.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th

Return of the Taliban”, FRONTLINE, Public Broadcasting System
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/view/

http://www.dawn.com/2006/10/07/top11.htm

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\10\23\story_23-10-2006_pg7_10

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/world/asia/21quetta.html?ref=todayspaper

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/world/asia/20pakistan.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/international/asia/04afgh.html?th

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_hersh.html

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\02\13\story_13-2-2007_pg7_2

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/20/international/asia/20cnd-afghan.html?

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\02\20\story_20-2-2007_pg7_26

I repeat. There is no way Musharraf is going to take on taliban. They have a doctrine called "strategic depth" by which they need to control Afg, because it will provide strategic depth against an all out war with India. If Afghanistan gets any stable and powerful, they will start demanding their lands back currently in Pakistan's hands - the Durrand Line issue. FYI, Afghanistan was the only country to oppose Pakistan's admission to UN, in 1947.

Simply put, Pakistan would like to have a vassal in its western border, so that it can concentrate in its easter border with India. So they are never going to give up taliban, because the taliban is what they have to control Afghanistan.

Plus, they cannot touch taliban, without getting into a conflict with anti-Indian and anti-shia jihadi orgs etc many of whom are still in bed with Pak intelligence. These people are the army's dogs of war. They need these people to run their policies with India. To put it simply, Musharraf cannot let go of taliban, because he cannot let go of anti-Indian jihadis.

He cannot tell his army to capture one jihadi for fighting in Afghanistan against infidels, but give covering fire for infiltrating another jihadi for fighting in Kashmir. And it might be the same org sending jihadis to both the places. Heck, it might even be the same jihadi.


and although he may be a mere puppet for the west, Pakistan is a lot better off with him, then with corrupt leaders like Nawaz Sharif, and Benazir Bhutto.

Musharraf is not corrupt?

To begin with, what do you call the army's appropriation of lands and giving plots to its loyal officers?


The problem in Pakistan is that everyone is trying to be in control, no one cares about making a great country, they just care about being wealthy and powerful.

The country was not formed for that. It was formed as a place where the feudal landlords, the miltiary and the educated beauracratic elites can run a system without being troubled by democracy and such crazy things that was proposed for independant undivided India.


Musharraf has been(in my opinion) Pakistan's best leader since Zulfikar Bhutto.

Ah yes, the Bhutto of the "Thousand year war with India" and the "We will eat grass, but we will build the nuclear bomb" fame. Hopefully Musharraf will follow Bhutto's fate.


I do hope though that in the next 3-4 years Musharraf step down, but we'll just have to see.

Not likely. The concept of bloodless transfer of power is alien to Pakistan. Ayub deposed Mirza. He was then forced to cede control to Yahya. Yahya was forced to cede control to Bhutto. Bhutto was hung by Zia. Zia was killed by his own airmen. Nawaz was jailed and exiled by Musharraf. The leaders of the three biggest parties in Pakistan are currently in exile.

The short political history of Pakistan is more eventful than many other countries of longer history.

All this trouble could have been easily resolved except for a momumental error by Bush and co in late Sept 2001
What Bush should have done is used the window of opotunitiy to butter upto Iran, with the saying 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' since Iran already had a fairly high loathing of the taliban

Thus we would'nt have needed Pakistan onside and once the taliban fled to the tribal area of the northwest we could follow them and bomb the hell out of them, which is the one thing we cant do at the moment.

Thus we would'nt have to worry about who led Pakistan... just inform them if a pakisani nuke was used anywhere in the world, their country would be burned to a cinder by everyone elseyes, that would have been the best move.
had we opened to Iran..
It would've been good for the Region.
It would've been good for India and other allies.
It would've helped US in Iraq..
It would allow US to forcefully try to stop any Pakistani nuclear proliferation.
It would ultimately bring down the bloody dictator.. and allowed for Democracy in Pakistan.

>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>

I dont see any US president (Dem or Rep) standing-up and doing it.. they simply do not have the balls to stand-up to the AIPAC.

Surely you jest.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EK19Df04.html

http://www.khaleejtimes.ae/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2006/August/subcontinent_August665.xml&section=subcontinent&col=

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\09\03\story_3-9-2006_pg7_15

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\09\09\story_9-9-2006_pg7_8

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/07/world/asia/07afghan.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th

Return of the Taliban”, FRONTLINE, Public Broadcasting System
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/view/

http://www.dawn.com/2006/10/07/top11.htm

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\10\23\story_23-10-2006_pg7_10

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/world/asia/21quetta.html?ref=todayspaper

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/world/asia/20pakistan.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/international/asia/04afgh.html?th

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_hersh.html

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\02\13\story_13-2-2007_pg7_2

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/20/international/asia/20cnd-afghan.html?

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\02\20\story_20-2-2007_pg7_26

I repeat. There is no way Musharraf is going to take on taliban. They have a doctrine called "strategic depth" by which they need to control Afg, because it will provide strategic depth against an all out war with India. If Afghanistan gets any stable and powerful, they will start demanding their lands back currently in Pakistan's hands - the Durrand Line issue. FYI, Afghanistan was the only country to oppose Pakistan's admission to UN, in 1947.

Simply put, Pakistan would like to have a vassal in its western border, so that it can concentrate in its easter border with India. So they are never going to give up taliban, because the taliban is what they have to control Afghanistan.

Plus, they cannot touch taliban, without getting into a conflict with anti-Indian and anti-shia jihadi orgs etc many of whom are still in bed with Pak intelligence. These people are the army's dogs of war. They need these people to run their policies with India. To put it simply, Musharraf cannot let go of taliban, because he cannot let go of anti-Indian jihadis.

He cannot tell his army to capture one jihadi for fighting in Afghanistan against infidels, but give covering fire for infiltrating another jihadi for fighting in Kashmir. And it might be the same org sending jihadis to both the places. Heck, it might even be the same jihadi.



Musharraf is not corrupt?

To begin with, what do you call the army's appropriation of lands and giving plots to its loyal officers?




The country was not formed for that. It was formed as a place where the feudal landlords, the miltiary and the educated beauracratic elites can run a system without being troubled by democracy and such crazy things that was proposed for independant undivided India.



Ah yes, the Bhutto of the "Thousand year war with India" and the "We will eat grass, but we will build the nuclear bomb" fame. Hopefully Musharraf will follow Bhutto's fate.




Not likely. The concept of bloodless transfer of power is alien to Pakistan. Ayub deposed Mirza. He was then forced to cede control to Yahya. Yahya was forced to cede control to Bhutto. Bhutto was hung by Zia. Zia was killed by his own airmen. Nawaz was jailed and exiled by Musharraf. The leaders of the three biggest parties in Pakistan are currently in exile.

The short political history of Pakistan is more eventful than many other countries of longer history.

So rather then have Musharraf, who do you want in control? Do you want to exchange one bad leader for a shittier one? I guarantee you that almost any elected president will be just as bad as Musharraf if not worse.

Also, i never said their wasn't corruption in Musharraf's regime, but there is less then there was in previous regimes. And as far as best leaders go, if it wasn't Zufikar, who was it?

yes, that would have been the best move.
had we opened to Iran..
It would've been good for the Region.
It would've been good for India and other allies.
It would've helped US in Iraq..
It would allow US to forcefully try to stop any Pakistani nuclear proliferation.
It would ultimately bring down the bloody dictator.. and allowed for Democracy in Pakistan.

>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>

I dont see any US president (Dem or Rep) standing-up and doing it.. they simply do not have the balls to stand-up to the AIPAC.

Boy, it's all the Jew's fault:rolleyes:

You really are a waste of space and an anti-semitic moron.

Blotting: True, but some offenses (such as treason) cause a president to leave office nearly.
Ocean: Declare war on Iran? I regret to inform you that we only have three soildiers that Bush hasn't already deployed.