Islam as a political weapon in Pakistan

#69 Kulharee {"As a young kid I sat on ZAB’s lap while he was visiting Multan in 1972. I felt something very powerful at that moment."}

Kulharee Sahib,
That is exactly why I am against the introduction of Santas in Muslim malls. :)

#67 masadi {"As usual more shallow BS from you. I am not talking about the "sainthood" of ZAB, merely trying to clarify the political context in which he was able to achieve what he did. You on the other hand have not been able to show in your post how I am making a "fool" of myself. Shallow nonsense colored by ethnic overtones is all we have come to expect of you, unfortunately... "}

Masadi Sahib,
Why is it that if one keeps tugging on a moola's religious beard, eventually all that's left is a provincial mooch?

Sir, on the one hand you portray yourself as an Islamist. On the other hand you deal the most vicious ethnic cards. If there is one single individual who can be blamed for the catastrophe of '71, that person has to be ZAB. If there is one Pakistani leader who has abused Islam to drive deep, long-lasting divisions among Muslims, that leader is ZAB. From the persecution of Ahmedis, to the alienation of Bengalis, to the oppression of Urdu-speaking Mohajirs, to the bombing of Baluchis, this megalomaniac only thought of himself - regardless of the damage done to Pakistan or Islam. Only Zina Owl Hag outdid this charlatan's betrayal of both.

Masadi Sahib,
You may insist that you Masadi, but you come across as a FASADI. :)

[...it is a sad shame that the two honest leaders couldn't be honest about what was best for India and her multitudes...]

On contrary the two honest leader[actually one honest,and other fascist,casteist,etc,etc] knew exactly what's good for the multitude and did exactly what was required... partition was the need of the hour... they should have prevented the bloodshed... they probably didn't anticipate that...

It's good fellas... time to move on,...

"We, the people, instinctively know the insidious and shadowy killers of Benazir Bhutto. We can sense them.
We know its not Taliban or their mutants. They are far more sinister. We have seen them attack us before,
by attacking those we have raised to pitch battles against them. But we don't know yet how to name them."

Nafisa Shah in The News at:
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=89612

Re: #159 Urstruly

Actually am in complete agreement with you in that MAJ did not want Partition and neither did the Punjabi Unionists. Pakistan was MAJ's bargaining chip to be used for maximum Muslim autonomy within a united India, as is shown by his acceptance of the Cabinet Mission Plan. Nehru and the Congress thought they were calling his bluff when they accepted Partition, thinking that Pakistan would come crawling back to India.

However, I believe Ayesha Jalal has shown that support for Pakistan was strongest in the Muslim minority provinces and that the UP Muslim leadership was strongest for it.

As far as the Khaksars go, it seems that the Lahore Massacre was an overreaction on the part of the Punjab government. Given Maulana Mashriqi's future career, it seems that he truly was a man of God and Peace and would have been the last man in the world to have led a revolt that would have killed thousands. Mashriqi was released from preventive custody in 1942, not something the British would have done if he thought he really posed a threat.

As far as the religious parties go, they had always opposed the British and Westoxification. Given that the British would have agreed to a large measure of effective Home Rule with eventual full Dominion status, how much trouble would the religious parties have been able to create? Would they have toppled the Unionists in the Punjab?

I don't know enough about Indian history in the decade or so before Partition to be able to answer this but my impression is that it is not until early 1946 that the self-inflicted weaknesses of the Raj became apparent. Perhaps Yasser or someone else may want to jump in here?

play with the islamic terrorism snake....get bit..

U.S. Considering New Covert Push Within Pakistan
By STEVEN LEE MYERS, DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT

This article is by Eric Schmitt, David E. Sanger and Steven Lee Myers.

WASHINGTON — President Bush’s senior national security advisers are debating whether to expand the authority of the Central Intelligence Agency and the military to conduct far more aggressive covert operations in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

The debate is in response to intelligence reports that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are intensifying efforts to destabilize the Pakistani government, according to several senior administration officials.

Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and a number of President Bush’s top national security advisers met at the White House on Friday to discuss the proposal, which is part of a broad reassessment of American strategy after the assassination 10 days ago of Pakistan’s opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto.

Several of the participants in the meeting argued that the threat to the government of President Pervez Musharraf is now so grave that both Mr. Musharraf and Pakistan’s new military leadership are likely to give the United States more latitude, officials said. But no decisions were made, said the officials, who declined to speak on the record because of the highly delicate nature of the discussions.

The specifics of the option under discussion are unclear, and may not have been decided. But they would involve the C.I.A. working with the military’s Special Operations forces.

The Bush administration has not formally presented any new options to Mr. Musharraf, who gave up his military role last month, or to his successor as the army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who the White House thinks will be more sympathetic to the American position than Mr. Musharraf. General Kayani was an aide to Ms. Bhutto early in his career, and later led the Pakistani intelligence service.

But from the White House to the Pentagon, officials see an opportunity in the changing power structure for the Americans to advocate for the expanded authority in the nuclear-armed country. “After years of focusing on Afghanistan, we think the extremists now see a chance for the big prize — creating chaos in Pakistan itself,” one senior official said.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who was on vacation last week and did not attend the White House meeting, said in late December that “Al Qaeda right now seems to have turned its face toward Pakistan and attacks on the Pakistani government and Pakistani people.”

In the past, the administration has largely stayed out of the tribal areas, in part for fear that exposure of any American-led operations there would so embarrass the Musharraf government that it could further empower his critics, who have declared that the Pakistani leader was too close to Washington.

Even now, according to officials, some in the State Department are arguing that American-led military operations on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan could result in a tremendous backlash, and could ultimately do more harm than good. That is particularly true, they said, if Americans were captured or killed in the territory.

In part, the White House discussions may be driven by a desire for another effort to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al- Zawahri. Currently, C.I.A. operatives and Special Operations forces have limited authorities to conduct counterterrorism missions in Pakistan based on specific intelligence about the whereabouts of those two men, who have eluded the Bush administration for more than six years, or of other members of the terrorist organization hiding in or near the tribal areas.

The C.I.A. has launched missiles from Predator aircraft in the tribal areas several times, with varying degrees of success. Intelligence officials said they believed that in January 2006, an airstrike narrowly missed killing Mr. Zawahri, who had attended a dinner in Damadola, a Pakistani village. But that, apparently, was the last real evidence American officials had about the whereabouts of their chief targets.

The new options for expanded covert operations include loosening the reins of the C.I.A. to strike selected targets in Pakistan, in some cases using intelligence provided by Pakistani sources, officials said. Under current law, most counterterrorism operations in Pakistan have to be conducted by the C.I.A.; in Afghanistan, where military operations are under way, including with NATO forces, the military can take the lead.

The legal status would not change if the administration decided to act more aggressively. However, if the C.I.A. were given broader authority, it could call for help from the military, or deputize some Special Operations forces to act under the authority of the agency.

The United States now has about 50 troops in Pakistan. Any expanded operations using C.I.A. operatives or Special Operations forces, like Navy Seals, would be small and tailored to specific missions, military officials said.

Critics said more direct American military action would be ineffective, anger the Pakistani Army and drive up support for the militants. “I’m not arguing that you leave Al Qaeda and the Taliban unmolested, but I’d be very, very cautious about approaches that could play into hands of enemies and be counterproductive,” said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University. Similar warnings have been issued by some American diplomats in South Asia, officials said.

Hasan Askari Rizvi, a leading Pakistani military and political analyst, said that raids by American troops would spark a powerful popular backlash against Mr. Musharraf and the United States.

In the wake of the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, many Pakistanis suspect that the United States is trying to dominate Pakistan as well, he said. Mr. Musharraf — who is already widely unpopular — would lose even more popular support.

“At the moment when Musharraf is extremely unpopular, he will face more crisis,” Mr. Rizvi said. “This will weaken Musharraf in a Pakistani context.” He said that such raids would be seen as vote of no confidence in the Pakistani military in general, including General Kayani.

The meeting on Friday, which was not publicly announced, included Stephen J. Hadley, Mr. Bush’s national security adviser; Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and top intelligence officials.

Spokesmen for the White House, the C.I.A., and the Pentagon declined to discuss the meeting, citing a policy against doing so, but the discussion reflected an urgent concern that a new Qaeda haven was solidifying in parts of Pakistan and needed to be countered, one official said. There was also discussion of how to handle the period between now and the Feb. 18 elections, and the aftermath of those elections.

Although some officials and experts have criticized Mr. Musharraf and questioned his ability to take on extremists, Mr. Bush himself has remained steadfast in his support, and it is unlikely any new measures, including direct American military action inside Pakistan, would be approved without Mr. Musharraf’s consent.

“I’ve always been a supporter of President Musharraf,” Mr. Bush said in an interview with Reuters on Thursday. “I believe he is strong in the war on terror. He understands clearly the risks of dealing with extremists and terrorists. After all, they’ve tried to kill him.”

The Pakistan government has identified a militant leader with links to Al Qaeda, Baitullah Mehsud, who holds sway in tribal areas near the Afghanistan border, as the chief suspect behind the attack on Ms. Bhutto. American officials are not certain about Mr. Mehsud’s complicity but said the threat he and other militants posed was a new focus — even though he is not a member of al Qaeda, and is a Pashtun. He is considered, they said, an “Al Qaeda associate.”

In an interview with foreign journalists on Thursday, Mr. Musharraf warned of the risk any counterterrorism forces — American or Pakistani — faced in confronting Mr. Mehsud in his native tribal areas.

“He is in South Waziristan agency, and let me tell you, getting him in that place means battling against thousands of people, hundreds of people who are his followers, the Mehsud tribe, if you get to him, and it will mean collateral damage,” Mr. Musharraf said.

The next few weeks before parliamentary elections — which were originally scheduled for Tuesday — are seen as a critical period because of threats by extremists to disrupt the vote. But it seemed unlikely that any additional American effort would be approved and put in place in that time frame.

Administration aides said that Pakistani and American officials shared the concern about a resurgent Al Qaeda, and that American diplomats and senior military officers had been working closely with their Pakistani counterparts to help bolster Pakistan’s counterterrorism operations.

Shortly after Ms. Bhutto’s assassination, Adm. William J. Fallon, who oversees American military operations in Southwest Asia, telephoned his Pakistani counterparts to ensure that counterterrorism and logistics operations, like trucking in fuel and supplies for American operations in Afghanistan through Pakistan, remained on track.

In early December, Adm. Eric T. Olson, the new head of the Special Operations Command, paid his second visit to Pakistan in three months to meet with senior Pakistani officers, including Lt. Gen. Muhammad Masood Aslam, commander of the military and paramilitary troops in northwest Pakistan. Admiral Olson also visited the headquarters of the Frontier Corps, a paramilitary force of about 85,000 members recruited from border tribes that the United States is planning to help train and equip.

But the Pakistanis are still years away from fielding an effective counterinsurgency force, and some senior American officials have voiced concerns that the United States may have to take direct action against militants in the largely ungoverned tribal areas.

So far, American officials said the crisis surrounding Ms. Bhutto’s assassination had not diminished the Pakistani counterterrorism operations, and there were no signs that Mr. Musharraf had pulled out any of the 100,000 Pakistani forces deployed in the tribal areas to help police urban unrest.

Carlotta Gall contributed reporting from Islamabad, and David Rohde from New York.

Hey Manto,

Asadi is one of the the faithfuls who contextualizes the violent medina verses and does not consider that as justifying violent jehad against hindu idolators. For him the two nations do not exist in every gali and mohallah contrary to what MAJ had clearly stated. For him there are NO "irreconciable differences" between hindu idolators and the muslims in the sub-continent of India that makes them impossible to live together.
His Islam is an over-compassing but NOT a malefic ideology like that of official PAkistan and I do not think he supports wahabbis and mullahs who want to impose their Bedouin theocratic state on every one else including mushriqs like me. And in that sense his 'humanism' that does not have violent intents towards hindoo humans is far superior to all those Pakistani 'moderates' who support the entire institution of violent jehad against my country because of my 'impurity' and rejection of the Quranic message of hate.
Let me know if I am wrong.

#166 Fuzair {"..MAJ did not want Partition and neither did the Punjabi Unionists. ..However, I believe Ayesha Jalal has shown that support for Pakistan was strongest in the Muslim minority provinces and that the UP Muslim leadership was strongest for it...don't know enough about Indian history in the decade or so before Partition ..."}

Fuzair,
I agree with your last statement. You don't know enough about Indian history period. What you don't know you embellish with your ethnic bias. If many leaders of UP Muslims were in Congress, how could the UP Muslim leadership have been at the forefront of partition? There were at least three elements among UP's Muslims - Congressi, Religious, and ML. With two out of three against partition, it is safe to conclude that the majority of UP's Muslims were against partition - as is demonstrated by the fact that a very small part of UP's Muslims actually migrated to Pakistan.

A separate homeland for India's Muslims was dreamed by a Punjabi Muslim, named as "Pakistan" by another Punjabi Muslim, and then negotiated and obtained by a Karachi born Gujarati Muslim. Mr. Fuzair has the amazing knowledge to blame UP Muslims for the partition. Please learn to do your research before you make ridiculous statements.

Re: # 144

"This is just one small way, in which, IMHO, Islam is the most natural religion (in some ways, they all are)."

As I said , it is the perfect mafiso code to terrorize, subdue and enslave those not part of the gang...........indeed it is 'perfect' .....muslims like you need to realize this true nature of it's perfection and come out of it......

Re: # 152 what i have always maintained and still maintain is that the indo pak muslims were a hopeless lot.first they depended on the brits and now on americans.if the americans are really serious they can deal with pakistan in 5 minutes.

the only inspiring part are the ranghars and some UP Muslims who led the rebellion of 1857 and the tribal pathans.the sikhs were much better than the hopeless punjabi muslims.they did have a glorious anti british record however.

this was realised by jinnah when immediately after partition he asked for US assistance.He knew that Pakistan without US assistance could not survive.

Re: # 166 the Unionist party was a result of Jinnahs Lucknow blunder of 1916 when he struck a deal without Punjab mandate to reduce Muslim majority in Punjab to 50 %.This deal was opposed by many Punjabis like Sir Mohammad Shafi.By 1944 however a significant number of Unionists had defected to the Muslim League.This process was further accelerated by 1946.The Punjabi Muslims wanted partition because that is how they could grab the properties of sikhs and hindus and also get rid of heir debts to hindu moneylenders.

#138 Posted by pavocavalry

Re: # 135 which remarks?

Reproduced below-#80:

"A quote for your comments from a recent NY Times article:

"Maulvi Noor Muhammad, Quetta’s former representative in the National Assembly and an outspoken supporter of the Taliban ... had told me in the fall of 2006 that the sole reason that the Taliban hadn’t defeated NATO forces in Afghanistan yet was because NATO had B-52’s, and when I reminded him of this, he smiled through a mouthful of missing teeth. “The Taliban have more than made up for that disadvantage now with suicide bombers,” he said."

Regards

Re: # 173 suicide bombing is an effective remedy adopted by Muslims against Christian invaders.Since USA and its Christian allies apart from the Turks who have refused to fight against Talibs are using bombers against civilians and non combatants it is perfectly legitimate to employ suicide bombers against US and its NATO allies.My idea is that someone may be China or Russia or Iran will soon supply SAM missiles to talibs against US/NATO aircraft.The Talibs are targetting combatants however while the americans kill everybody.

i had written an article in 2002 may published initially by my friend ravi rikhye an Indian on his website www.orbat.com.it enraged many americans.they branded me as leftist then as now some self proclaimed sages here on chowk are mistakenly branding me as jihadi.the following is the logic of these suicide bombings.

WHAT USA SEEKS TO DESTROY

A.H Amin

The three cardinal attributes of today's geopolitics are
"globalisation", "non ideological international themes" and "emphasis on
economics" rather than "ideological conflict" as the key theme in
international relations. It is another thing that below the surface
"ideology remains a key issue", "the desire to enslave smaller or weaker
states by larger or stronger states" remains the key issue and
"globalisation" is but another name of capitalism practiced at a global
scale.

The so called unipolar system also has limitations and is being
repeatedly challenged, if not conventionally, then unconventionally as
proved by events of 9/11. The famous philosopher Toffler may have
re-defined power but human nature remains the same as it was 2,500 years
ago. US Think Tanks and so called experts may advance subtle theses but
the underlying conflict is the same i.e. a West which adopted Eastern
Christianity and refashioned it as per Barbarian ideals versus an East
with a different mindset and a different set of values.

The international capitalist order was challenged by French Revolution
and the Communist Revolution in Russia but the power of the
imperialistic exploiters could not be broken. Nonetheless without USSR
military aid the Arabs could not have survived Israeli hegemonism. This
is an irrefutable historical reality.

Long ago the West's present dilemma was summed up by one of its greatest
historian Gibbon in the following words "Yet this apparent security
should not tempt us to forget that new enemies and unknown dangers may
possibly arise from some obscure people, scarcely visible in the map of
the world". In the same paragraph Gibbon cited the example of the Arabs
who had "languished in poverty and contempt" till the advent of Islam
when in Gibbon's words Islam" breathed into those same bodies the soul
of enthusiasm".

When modern US thinkers with links with US State decision making and
analytical bodies state with confidence that "ideology is no longer
fashionable" and that "international terrorism" is the key issue who are
they fooling. If this line of thinking is to be followed, whenever any
White Man or a Jewish man dies it is terrorism while whenever any non
White or Muslim dies this is casualty inflicted in sheer self defence in
the war against terrorism. A stooge is a man who was protected by USSR
and a King or Emir or a president protected by US Forces or US aid is a
perfect patriot.

Take the "Firebombing of Tokyo" on the fateful night of 9/10 March 1945.
On that night the US Airforce in the proud words of an American writer
"conducted the most destructive air raid in history". Sixteen square
miles of Tokyo were destroyed and some 83,793 Japanese civilian were
killed mostly by third degree burns while some 40,918 were injured. A US
General proudly exclaimed "It made a lot of sense to kill skilled
workers". Compare this with US position on 9/11. If for a moment we
accept that 9/11 was a great outrage in which some 3,000 were killed not
all of them skilled, what was Tokyo Raid of March 1945?

There is a subtle motivation here. An ulterior geopolitical agenda. The
West still fears ideology which it abandoned after 1945 in favour of
shameless materialism. It fears men who cannot be bought, who have no
fear for the tomorrow, who cannot be stopped by a NATO or the wide
Atlantic or wider Pacific. USSR may have been a more synthetic state but
the men motivated to die without motivated by the CIA pumped dollar via
Silent Soldiers is a more dangerous specie. Enters the Asian and African
Collaborator Regimes. Liberal Presidents, subtle Emirs, Egalitarian
Kings, all mustered like Sepoy Jahan Khan in the First World War to
fight the War against Terror. The Soviets were more naïve if less
morally defective than the American decision makers. The Americans seek
to accomplish enslavement through more sophisticated methods. Thus one
of their intellectuals states in an article that "unlike centuries past,
when war was the great arbiter, today the most interesting type of power
do not come out of the barrel of the gun".

Today this man says "there is a much bigger pay off in getting others to
want what you want". And there is no shortage of collaborators,
ambitious men who usurped power whether it was after the downfall of
Ottoman Empire with British or French money or in Egypt or Pakistan or
in Indonesia.

Somewhere deep inside the US decision makers are at a loss to admit as
to how with a 30 Billion USD intelligence budget, 13 Federal
Organisations dealing with Intelligence and some 30,000 eavesdroppers
employed by USA's National Security Agency was the Al Qaeda able to
strike. Compare 30 Billion USD per year spent since two decades with may
be 4 Billion USD lost in 9/11. If the East or the Islamic World has any
edge over the West it is in willingness to sacrifice rather than
materialism and selfishness.

What the West and particularly the USA fears is not nuclear weapons but
men motivated by ideology. Men who cannot be bought like the so many
Emirs, Kings and Military Presidents from Morocco till Pakistan.

The world has not changed from Gibbons' times. The New Barbarians as the
USA sees the Muslim radicals are more dangerous because they cannot be
bought. Because they have operational talent and strategic acumen.
Because they do not beg like Sadat for a Camp David but fight with their
limbs rather than Stingers. What the US seeks is destruction of ideology
which as per one theme presently floated in the so called prestigious
National Defence College at Islamabad is no longer fashionable.

This is the Clash of Civilisation and will continue till this world
exists or till the USA discovers a new planet where human beings can
survive and to which the Americans will migrate after all the mineral
resources of this world are exhausted and we are left to die without
water or fuel.

If this is so and if low intensity war is the only way in which the
conventionally weaker forces can defeat the conventionally stronger
forces then so be it. If extremism in thought or ideology is out of
fashion and out of favour with USA and its camp followers, so be it. If
we are in any case condemned to be sub humans in a world order dominated
by the G-7 and have no other recourse but to fight with bomb, dagger or
suicide explosive pack then so be it.

Jala kay Mashal-i-Jaan, Hum Junoon-Sifaat Chalay. Jo Ghar ko aag lagaay,
hamarey saath chalay.

some of my best friends are non muslims.i myself am not a practising muslim.but as i see the americans want to destroy the muslims politically.this is whats wrong with them.first they were after USSR , now against Islam , may be after 10 years against China and India.