RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: Pakistan

Posted by: Mattinglyinthehall
- Leader [01629107] Fri, Mar 23, 2007, 22:22

Building on discussion started in this thread (posts 29 through 44 or so) and the questions there regarding just how volitile and dangerous that nation potentially is to the US.


Today this article at the right-wing Front Page Magazine was linked at Daily Dish and is well-worth a read. A few scary excerpts from the various contributers on the expert panel:
What we know is that there are elements of Musharraf's government (military and intelligence) that are sympathetic to al-Qaeda and/or the Taliban. We can reasonably surmise that his recent agreements with tribal leaders, such as the Miramshah Agreement in North Waziristan, are in response to his ineffectiveness in the tribal regions. More agreements are coming, for instance in Bajour and potentially the whole of the North-West Frontier Province. These agreements have and will cede control of significant swaths of territory to what I refer to as the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance, different groups with differing objectives and both aided in large part by at least a portion of the ISI, the Pakistani military intelligence service. Yet, even as Musharraf bends to their demands, they hate him no less and disregard agreed-to terms without fear of consequence.


There have been numerous assassination attempts against Musharraf, the last disturbingly included the participation of two the former General's own Air Force commanders. As a friend often reminds, however, Pervez Musharraf is without doubt a shrewd politician and a survivor. Yet, the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance is believed to have amassed combined-forces strength of about 200,000 fighters throughout the FATA and NWFP region.


In the end, one bullet or blast potentially separates the various Islamist groups from the 30 to 50 nuclear warheads in Pakistan's arsenal and the creation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.


The question, perhaps academic, is whether Musharraf can survive - whether he leans forward or continues to tolerate Islamist control of the border regions. And, if the US perceives he can survive the latter but not the former, is it willing to cede his relative inaction internally in exchange for his trustworthy stewardship of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal?


Numerous reports indicate that senior al Qaeda officials operate out of the mountainous border region separating Pakistan and Afghanistan. And plots around the world have been traced to their doorsteps.


The most well-known of the plots traced to Pakistani soil are those executed or attempted in England over the last few years, including the July 7, 2005 London bombings.


The Taliban, al Qaeda and their allies are once again resurgent. Their ability to attack coalition forces, who are trying to stabilize the broken nation, has steadily grown. There is no doubt that the safe haven our terrorist enemies enjoy on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan allows them to orchestrate these attacks with increasing efficacy.


Pakistan’s intelligence services have long supported Islamist terrorist operations inside India. It has been a prominent part of Pakistan’s ongoing proxy war. Recently, there has been some rapprochement between senior Indian and Pakistani government officials.


As al Qaeda and its allies continue to operate from northern Pakistan, however, there is a significant possibility that they will undermine any possibility of future progress by continuing to attack Indian civilians.


Potential scenerio presented by one of the panel members:
The Pakistan Muslim League (Qaide Azam) created by Musharraf and its allies, who are loyal to him, do badly in the elections due later this year or even lose them. A coalition consisting of Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party, Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League, and the religious political parties is voted to power. Musharraf will have only two options: Either prove his democratic credentials by handing over power to them or refuse to do so or avoid doing so. If he adopts the first option, the world may not have much to worry about. If he adopts the second option, there could be a mass uprising as happened in East Pakistan in 1971 when the Army refused to honour the election verdict. There would be considerable instability of which the beneficaries could be the fundamentalists and the jihadis. [just one reason for why it is terrible idea to trust a military dictator with containing major threats to American security -mith]

The danger at present is of Al Qaeda or other organisations getting hold of WMD-capable material from elsewhere and managing to convert them into usable weapons with the knowledge, expertise and experience of serving and retired Pakistani scientists.

Past reports in the Pakistani media had referred to the participation of some unidentified Pakistani scientists in the annual conventions of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET).Documents reportedly recovered by the US troops in Afghanistan in 2001 exposed the contacts of two retired nuclear scientists---Sultan Bashiruddin Mohammad (Canada trained) and Abdul Majid-- even with Al Qaeda. Retired senior officers of the Army and the ISI... are among those actively assisting the Al Qaeda, the Neo Taliban and the jihadi organisations active in India. They share two qualities---a hatred of India and an equally strong hatred of the US. Musharraf is aware of their activities, but is keeping his eyes closed, because they have many supporters among the serving officers of the Army and the ISI. Similarly, there must be many retired scientists who must be in touch with the jihadis---either for money or out of ideological affinity. I am most worried about them. Bashiruddin and Majid were the tip of the iceberg. Neither India nor the US knows much about the jihadi influence on the Pakistani scientific community.


After the US-led coalition intervention in Afghanistan, the ground zero of terrorism has moved to the FATA in Pakistan. Pakistan needs all the support the international community can give to fight both terrorism - but more importantly - extremism.

Musharraf is avoiding confrontation with the likes of Hamid Gul, Javed Nasir, and Mahmood Ahmed because of their influence among army officers and the ISI. These gentlemen have influence not only with high-level officers, but also among the rank-and-file. If these men have enough support that Musharraf feels compelled to back down from a confrontation, we must take seriously their chance of seizing power. Pakistan’s history is replete with examples of swift change at the governmental level, either through assassinations or doctored elections. There’s no reason to believe that this penchant for instability has ended.

Also alarming is Musharraf’s increasing inability to effectively direct his own military. Adnkronos International recently reported that Musharraf was unable to order an air strike on a madrassa in his own capital city because his air force refused to carry out the attack.

The mention of Pakistani nuclear scientists Sultan Bashiruddin Mohammad and Abdul Majid and their jihadi contacts is timely, considering the reports that to two Pakistani nuclear scientists were recently kidnapped from a Pakistani nuclear facility in the North-West Frontier Province by the Taliban and are said to have done so at the behest of al-Qaeda. The veracity of this particular report notwithstanding, its plausibility demonstrates the multi-faceted WMD risk Pakistan presents. It's not just nuclear warheads, though clearly the most dangerous. Pakistan is a state with myriad WMD technological capability and human resources that exists within a spiralling nexus of terrorist activity.
Much of the discussion from there shift to the equally important and entirely contradictory necessities of getting Musharef to more aptly address the terrorist threat within his borders while also somehow keeping in power. More dangerous to the US than Iran? I'd sure say so.
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
90Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 14:08
Someone call the stupid post hall of fame committee.

Yeah, President Kerry would have...


I'm quite sure everyone else noticed that I didn't offer any suggestions on Kerry's ability to successfully execute foreign policy. If you're going to call my points stupid, at least do yourself the service of responding to them and not some nonsense you invented in your own head.

Again, how does it make you feel that regarding the issue I raised in post 86, Kerry and the Dems were exactly right.



Prediction: if B responds at all it will once again be to a point that is distinctly different from this.
91Baldwin
      ID: 125312919
      Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 18:53
Al Qeada has been plenty involved in Iraq so how Kerry was right and Bush was wrong about that flypaper strat is beyond me.

*I must be honest and admit that this whole terrorism thing has an orchestrated feel to it that makes me uncomfortable taking it at face value. Maybe the power elite really hate OBL and company as much as they hated Nazis back when they invited them over for tea and crumpets in operation paperclip. Maybe Bush and Musharif are only play acting. But if people are going to propose that Musharif is play-acting and really doesn't want to kill the people trying to kill him, I want them to admit that they have joined me in conspiracy theory land.
92Tree
      ID: 39732718
      Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 19:35
Al Qeada has been plenty involved in Iraq so how Kerry was right and Bush was wrong about that flypaper strat is beyond me.

only after we destabilized Iraq. Their presence there was minimal, at best, when Saddam was around.

But if people are going to propose that Musharif is play-acting and really doesn't want to kill the people trying to kill him,

well, he really doesn't want us going after them, that's for sure...

Musharraf rejects US strikes in Pakistan
93 Baldwin
      ID: 125312919
      Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 19:43
Name a world leader, especially in a putatively democratic country who could say otherwise?

"Oh sure, attack my country if you feel like it, in fact let's just make that standard operating procedure."
94Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 21:35
91
Al Qeada has been plenty involved in Iraq so how Kerry was right and Bush was wrong about that flypaper strat is beyond me.

1. Al Qaeda's Pakistani headquarters has reconstituted. Thanks to President "I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned" Bush's calling off the chase just before the spot they now thrive in, they are stronger, better funded, better manned, better equipped, better networked and more dangerous today than they were in March 2003. Duh.

2. In Iraq we have instead created yet another operational extension of the al Qaeda network, seperate from the Pakistani base. This means that the military committment to Iraq essential, not only for Iraq's well being, but for the well being of the US, all our allies and anyone else who happens to be in al Qaeda's sights. If Musharraf fails in Waziristan or (worse) is overthrown by elements sympathetic to Islamist terrorists, the Iraq committment will be a terrible drain on our ability to react.

3. The whole point of the flypaper strategy is to fight the enemy in a place of our choosing (you know, the enemy that already existed, not a new extension of that enemy that our chosen battlefield created), in order to prevent coalition civilians from having to deal with terrorist attacks at home. Tell me, what do you think residents of Riyadh, Istanbul, Madrid, London, Sharm el-Sheikh, Amman and Algiers think about the effectiveness of America's flypaper strategy?


93
Pakistan is a putatively democratic country?

You have devolved into Jag.
95Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 23:14
they are stronger, better funded, better manned, better equipped, better networked and more dangerous today than they were in March 2003.

The word allegedly belongs after "they are." Think about it. The more funded, the more operatives, the more equipment and the more networking they obtain, the more they expose themselves to detection, given that our CIA has a $45 billion annual budget(along with other budgets to draw from), the most sophisticated surveillance equipment in the history of man, and
at least some level of cooperation from various other national intelligence services, primarily the Pakistani ISI.

So, who is telling us about this resurgence of Al Qaeda, and how dangerous it is?

From the July NIE report:

We assess that al-Qai'da's homeland plotting is likely to continue to focus on prominent political, economic, and infrastructure targets with the goal of producing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the U.S. population. The group is proficient with conventional small arms and improvised explosive devices, and is innovative in creating new capabilities and overcoming security obstacles.

We assess that al-Qai'da will continue to try to acquire and employ chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material in attacks and would not hesitate to use them if it develops what it deems is sufficient capability.


link

FBI Director Mueller talks to NewsMax in May:

Osama bin Laden and his terrorist group desperately want to obtain nuclear devices and explode them in American cities, especially New York and Washington, D.C., FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III tells NewsMax.


In an exclusive interview, Mueller also acknowledged that bin Laden is still active, though isolated. The director revealed that the Bureau believes the terrorist leader continues to communicate with al-Qaida cells, some of which remain in the U.S.


Mueller declined to say how often bin Laden communicates or to elaborate on the substance of his communications.

Other intelligence sources tell NewsMax that U.S. security efforts have forced bin Laden to return to "horse-and-buggy days" — avoiding electronic communications in favor of using trusted couriers.

But Mueller says though hemmed in, al-Qaida's paramount goal is clear: to detonate a nuclear device that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.


OK, stop. First, why is the FBI director giving an exclusive interview to NewsMax? Next, how does he have so much meticulous information about Al Qaeda(Osama bin Laden and his terrorist group desperately want ) , but not know where they are? Finally, why is he saying these things? Isn't it weird how the government will avoid releasing how many doughnuts are served at a miltary mess hall for reasons of national security, but is more than happy to spill the beans that Al Qaeda is likely to nuke our cities any day?

More from

NewsMax

Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey tells NewsMax in an exclusive interview that terrorists could strike the American homeland — possibly with a weapon of mass destruction — this summer or early fall.

He also warns that if Iran fails to comply with international efforts to stop its nuclear weapons program, the U.S. will have no other option than to bomb it.


"I think the threat of a serious attack in the next few months is very real," Woolsey said. A terrorist strike with a dirty bomb or with biological weapons was "a real possibility." [Editor's Note: Special: 6 Days of Hell - The Coming War With Iran. Click here for more.]

Woolsey's comments echo those of FBI Director Robert Mueller, who told NewsMax in May that al-Qaida's paramount goal is clear: to detonate a nuclear device that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Sense a pattern here?
Lots of speculation, lots of warnings, lots of fearful predictions, but where is the supporting evidence that Al Qaeda, from an unknown and apparently unknowable location in the mountains of Pakistan is growing its network and capabilities?

On one hand the intelligence services are made to look completely inept, yet they want us to trust them that they have all this information that will ultimately lead to bigger budgets to keep America safe.

96Building 7
      ID: 536342220
      Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 23:54
They have a secret informant....the boogeyman. If there is a terrorist attack in this country, I would suspect this administration before Al-CIA-da. What's the best thing that could happen to this administration? A terrorist attack. Not good for the country though. Think about it. "The war on terror is a bumper sticker." How would that statement look? It would be savaged by Cheney et al. Unless there is another terrorist attack (and I'm being generous in using the word another), the Republicans will be smoked in the next elections. In fact, it's scary that they are not worried. And what is the best way to insure a terrorist attack of happening. Do it yourself and blame it on terrorists, or find about it and allow it to happen. I'm sorry to be so cynical, but the federal government has lost all credibility with me. Do you really think Rove has no plan other than to hope Iraq improves. The other alternative is to blame something on Iran and attack them. They are passing continuity of governnment stuff, more Motherland Security bills. Executive Orders. Scary stuff IMO. And it all stems from the day the Pentagon blew up. Re: the war on terror. How do we know when we have won? How does the other side go about surrendering? How can a cease fire be arranged? Exactly where and who are the enemy? It's the boogeyman syndrome and it's getting old. I used to like Fox news. I find myself watching it less and less. Well that's my rant, I have to get ready for my fantasy football draft now.
97nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Sat, Nov 03, 2007, 16:42

Musharraf Declares Emergency Rule

NY Times article
98Jag
      ID: 14828255
      Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 04:21
I loved how the NY Times article turned this immediately to a trash job on the Bush administation. I can not believe the bias of that rag. How about reporting the how and why of calling for Emergency Rule and leave the BS editorials out.
99Perm Dude
      ID: 51101737
      Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 08:54
"Turning quicky to the truth, the Times pisses Jag off..."
100bibA
      Leader
      ID: 261028117
      Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 11:39
LOL Jag - In reading the fairly long article I only see a couple of references to the U.S. A couple times there are statements indicating that the U.S. is urging Musharraf to move toward democracy, and that the administration has been put into a position where it must publicly castigate a leader who it has backed with $10 billion.

Am I missing something here? This qualifies as editorializing and bias reporting?
101Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 16:07
I assume Jag is offended that the Times describes it as a setback for US policy in Pakistan.
102Perm Dude
      ID: 51101737
      Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 16:30
Their apparent refusal to kiss the ass of a military dictator who is rounding up lawyers, judges, and political activists has gotten Jag angry.

At least Bush is reviewing our relationship, in light of it all. Can Jag do the same?
103sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 17:22
At least Bush is reviewing our relationship, in light of it all. Can Jag do the same?

Objectively? No.
104Jag
      ID: 14828255
      Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 20:20
You can speak the truth and still propagandize, which is what the NY Times excels at. Just like with TASS, Liberals need propaganda to help prop a failing socialist agenda. Luckily, even with all their media domination, they have failed to turn America into Cuba.
105Perm Dude
      ID: 51101737
      Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 21:35
"failing socialist agenda" ROFL! Maybe the reason America is not Cuba is because, for the vast majority of people (incliging the Times) turning American into Cuba was never the goal.

pd
106Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 21:44
Jag you can lay out your gripe or not. What are the offending excerpts and why? I certainly don't know what your issue with the article is. Does anyone?

Hey Boxman, do you know exactly what parts of the article he takes issue with as 'propaganda'?
107Jag
      ID: 14828255
      Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 21:56
Washington has generously backed the general, sending him more than $10 billion in aid since 2001, mostly for the military. Now the administration finds itself in the bind of having to publicly castigate the man it has described as one of its closest allies in fighting terrorism.

This is the equivilent of every time Kim sword waved and tested missiles, a newspaper started the 3rd paragraph on how Clinton tempted to payoff a madman and how embarassed he should be about such a moronic policy.
108Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 22:01
So you think the Time's pointing out the money Bush has sent to Pakistan is unnecsessary propaganda in an item about this weekend's events there?
109Perm Dude
      ID: 51101737
      Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 22:10
Is that what happened, Jag? North Korea agreed to a treaty which George Bush specifically repudiated. North Korea then fired up its enrichment process.

The latest agreement, after years of Kim's "sword waving" gives North Korea huge amounts of fuel oil and other susidies before North Korea has to turn over anything.

And this is something the Times should point out as Clinton's fault?
110Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 22:33
For a comparison with a news source less biased than the Times, I checked foxnews.com for their coverege of the event. From the article on their front page:
The Bush administration said it was deeply disturbed by the emergency and urged a swift return to democracy. But the Pentagon said Musharraf's declaration does not affect U.S. military support of Pakistan, suggesting to many here it will be business as usual.

Washington has provided billions of dollars in military and economic assistance since it suspended sanctions on military aid to Islamabad after 9/11.
111Doug
      ID: 53937413
      Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 04:10
Come on MITH, it's been well established on these forums that Fox is secretly part of the left-wing MSM, stealthily operating under the guise of a conservative news outlet.

Kinda like how Obama's been serving as a sleeper cell agent for Muslim extremists for over 40 years now.
112Jag
      ID: 14828255
      Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 10:37
MITH, your link shows how news should be reported, 15 paragraphs on the subject and then how it affects the president.

I can give you example of every NY Times article for the last 7 years.

First paragraph on the the subject.
Second paragraph on why it is Bush's fault.
Third paragraph on why Bush sux.

Kinda like the majority of the posts on this forum.
113Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Nov 05, 2007, 11:06
I see. So the placing of relevant and accurate information in the beginning or near the end of an article make's the difference between responsible news reporting and a "trash job". Got it.
114nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Tue, Nov 06, 2007, 04:19

Kinda like the majority of the posts on this forum.

Coming from someone who has the reputation as the most erudite, lucid, intellectual poster on the forum, that one really hurts.

115walk
      ID: 7952415
      Tue, Nov 06, 2007, 10:44
Shakes his head...

Jag, one could argue that it's really YOU, not the NY Times, that has a biased and slanted view to propagandize everything...naaaaaaaa.

Socialists rule! (oy yoi yoi).
116Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Tue, Nov 06, 2007, 11:59
117Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Tue, Nov 06, 2007, 12:05


In a telephone address to lawyers in Pakistan’s capital, the ousted chief justice of the Supreme Court urged them today to continue to defy the state of emergency imposed by the president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
“The lawyers should convey my message to the people to rise up and restore the Constitution,” the chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, told dozens of lawyers on speakerphone at a meeting of the Islamabad Bar Association before his cellphone line was cut. “I am under arrest now, but soon I will also join you in your struggle.”

I, for one, am very proud that the attorneys in Pakistan are putting their lives on the line protesting Musharraf's trashing of the Constitution. I certainly know that I'd take to the streets if any US president pulled the same stunt.

If you want your child to become a hero, forget firefighting, send him or her to law school!
118Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Tue, Nov 06, 2007, 12:56
Too bad Venezuela doesn't have a similar Bar
119Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Tue, Nov 06, 2007, 12:56
Too bad Venezuela doesn't have a similar Bar
120Perm Dude
      ID: 501016612
      Tue, Nov 06, 2007, 13:16
Don't they have an exchange program with the State of Washington?

:)
121Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Tue, Nov 06, 2007, 13:42
Yes please. Send Zen there to get his ass kicked.
122Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Tue, Nov 06, 2007, 16:37
Yeah, I'm not the slightest bit surprised that you side with the jackbooted thugs of a dictator. I'm sure you view attorneys with the same disdain as teachers and other individuals of intellect.
123walk
      ID: 7952415
      Wed, Nov 07, 2007, 10:42
Bhutto's Op-Ed in Nov. 7 NY Times
124nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Wed, Nov 07, 2007, 11:50


The buzz over here is that Musharraf is on very shaky ground and getting desperate.

125walk
      ID: 7952415
      Wed, Nov 07, 2007, 13:46
Dowd: Bush & Mush(y)
126Perm Dude
      ID: 3101888
      Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 00:34
The headline of this article is "Pakistan sets election under US pressure" but the bigger news, IMO, is:

But he showed no sign of ending a political crack down, sending police to surround the home of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto and detaining thousands ahead of a major protest.
127Perm Dude
      ID: 3101888
      Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 00:49
Of course, maybe keeping a crook under house arrest isn't altogether a bad thing.
128Perm Dude
      ID: 331041209
      Tue, Nov 20, 2007, 10:42
Pakistan frees more than 3000 political prisoners
129nerve proxy
      ID: 5510102015
      Tue, Nov 20, 2007, 16:10

I was in a cab a couple weeks ago. I asked the driver

ME: "Are you from Pakistan?"

TD: "yes and you?"

ME: USA...It's getting pretty crazy in Pakistan now isn't it?

TD: "Yes, Musharraf, Bushes friend, the USA dictator is causing lots of problems..."

true story...
130Perm Dude
      ID: 2138188
      Tue, Feb 19, 2008, 08:43
Musharref gets his ass handed to him in Pakistan elections
131nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Tue, Feb 19, 2008, 14:48

I look at the photo in post 117 and I was actually laughing out loud.

I'm around Pakis everyday, I've met many, had Paki drivers, most cab drivers are Paki etc. So I have really gotten to know them, their style, their personalities.

So I look at the photo in post 117 and I laugh out loud.

It's like they are trying to riot, but they haven't quite got the hang of it.

The guy in the middle left in white almost looks like he is laughing.

The police have "clubs" but they are more like thin sticks. It looks like a riot you could stand 5 feet away from and just do a little dodging here and there and come out no worse for wear.

The whole thing looks like a staged Bollywood move (Yeah I know wrong country but darn hard to tell them apart at first 8-} )

Probably not as funny if you haven't been immersed in the culture the last year and a half.

I don't mean the above in any insulting way, I've had very good experiences with Pakis here in Dubai.

132Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Wed, Mar 26, 2008, 10:05
New government making some very positive changes

Freeing the judges that were under house arrest is a great move.
133Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 17:26
Musharraf Announces His Resignation



Pakistan Looks Ahead Without Musharraf

I can't believe no one has mentioned this yet. See what Fantasy Football does to your brain!
134Boldwin
      ID: 176322815
      Mon, Aug 18, 2008, 17:40
Georgia on our minds.
135Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Fri, Jun 12, 2009, 15:02
From Pervez Musharraf's memoirs
136Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Sun, Jun 14, 2009, 05:59
Do you suppose the Western Frontier of Pakistan is a tourest destination for arabs?

Al Qeada means 'the base' and as far as I remember they consider that region of Pakistan as prophesied to be the base from which Islam will conquere the world in the end-times.

So don't be so sure these are 'random' arabs. There are stone age natives and al qeada migrants there. No practical reason anyone else would be there.
137Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Sun, Jun 14, 2009, 06:04
The presense of foreign arabs is not innocent in Afghanistan and Iraq either.

Iraq would have been lost if not for the fact that the natives hated foreign arabs lopping off their kids heads for minor moslem infractions even more than they hated americans.
138Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Jul 25, 2010, 20:47
Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert
139Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Thu, May 16, 2013, 20:32
Very old thread, but worth noting here that Pakistan has a new ruling party, in what appears to be a full and fair election.
 If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com 
RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message: Pakistan

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a block of hidden (spoiler) text
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours11
Last 7 days22
Last 30 days55
Since Mar 1, 200732901022