Tribal Pakistan: Complexity, fragility

Ray · 05-01-2007, 14:16 PM

Quote:

Tribal Pakistan: Complexity, fragility

An assassination attempt on the Pakistani interior minister illustrates the fragile security situation in Pakistan's tribal areas, as the government pursues controversial peace deals with local leaders.

By Shaun Waterman in Washington, DC for ISN Security Watch (30/04/07)

The attempted suicide-assassination of Pakistan's interior minister at the weekend is the latest sign that Islamic extremists there continue to target the government of President Pervez Musharraf.

The attack, in the volatile North West Frontier Province, comes as Pakistan continues to pursue its much-criticized strategy of peace deals with local leaders along the Afghan border.

Witnesses told the Associated Press that the suicide bomber got within 15 yards of Interior Minister Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao as he was heading to his car to leave the town of Charsadda. The blast left the minister with minor shrapnel wounds in his legs, but killed 28 other people, including his political secretary.

Although there was no immediate claim of responsibility, it showed similar characteristics to a recent series of attacks launched by Pakistani Islamic extremists against the government and military, reported the Times of India.

As in four previous blasts, "Russian-made explosives and [a] jacket packed with ball bearings were used in the attack," the paper reported, quoting unnamed officials from the Federal Investigation Agency.

Officials told other news outlets they had recovered the bomber's head and other remains and that they were seeking to identify him.

Leading Pakistani daily, The Dawn, reported Sunday that Sherpao had named the Islamic militant leader behind the attack.

"Preliminary investigations have revealed that the attack was committed by a suicide bomber of Abdullah Mehsud," the paper quoted him as saying.

If that turns out to be true, it will be embarrassing for the US, which released Mehsud, also known as Noor Alam, in March 2004, after he spent more than two years in Guantanamo Bay.

Fragile security

But whichever faction was behind the attack, it highlights the fragile security situation in the tribal areas on Pakistan's lawless border - and the continuing efforts by Islamic militants based there to target the Musharraf government.

Sherpao is a vocal defender of the Musharraf strategy of striking peace deals with local leaders on the border - something critics see as appeasement of the Taliban.

He told a recent symposium in London organized by the Royal United Services Institute that the use of military force alone could not transform the security situation in the tribal areas.

"Local population must not be alienated and their customs, culture and traditions be respected," he was quoted as saying by Pakistan's News Network International.

Defenders of the deals say that only pulling the military out of the tribal areas - which comprise some of the most inaccessible terrain on earth and have proved ungovernable for centuries - can create the space for a political settlement with their inhabitants.

US officials have said that the deals created a sanctuary for the Taliban and al-Qaida, and blamed them for a steep rise in cross-border attacks against NATO and US forces in Afghanistan last year.

Although reporters are banned from the tribal areas and accurate accounts of facts on the ground are hard to come by, most observers seem to concur that the peace deals have led to the "Talibanization" of the local power structures, with tribal elders or other leaders who oppose the al-Qaida-linked extremists being murdered or driven out of power.

Moreover, although one condition of the deal was that the tribal leaders would expel foreign militants who refused to adopt a "peaceable life" ("what does a 'peaceable life,' mean in Waziristan, anyway?" joked one US official), in practice there has been almost no action against the estimated thousands of foreign Islamic fighters there.

The fighters - mainly Arabs, Chechens, Uzbeks and Uighurs - came to the tribal areas after the fall of the Taliban regime in neighboring Afghanistan, where they had fought the US-backed Northern Alliance. Islamic customs, and the local tradition of Pashtunwali, require hospitality to those seeking shelter.
Missing the point

Pakistani officials have made much of recent clashes between tribal militias and Uzbek militants from a breakaway faction of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) in South Waziristan, one of the semi-autonomous tribal areas where the government inked a deal.

In a series of clashes beginning in mid-March, Pakistani officials said more than 200 Uzbeks and dozens of militiamen from local Pashtun tribes were killed.

Sherpao told reporters that the fighting was "the result of the agreements the government made with tribal people in which they pledged to expel foreigners and now they are doing it," according to Pakistani newspaper The Nation.

But in reality, the fighting appears to have been the product of a much more complex conjuncture of sub-tribal power struggles, criminal rivalries and thuggish over-reaching by one group of Uzbeks.

And one of the local leaders who moved against the Uzbeks, Mullah Mohammed Nazir, dispelled any illusions that he was part of an anti-terror alliance when he said last week that he would happily shelter al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

"I have never met bin Laden but if he comes to this area and seeks protection, we will help him according to the tribal laws and customs" as a Muslim in need of aid, Nazir told reporters in the town of Wana in South Waziristan, according to Deutsche Presse Agentur.

But critics of the peace deals may be missing the point, and the dire predictions of a huge spring offensive by the Taliban and their allies in Afghanistan have so far largely failed to materialize.

The general in charge of US coalition forces in Afghanistan, Joseph Votel, told reporters recently that the number of border incidents had declined since January.

"I really attribute that to the very close tactical cooperation and communication that we're able to achieve with the Pakistan military" there, he said.

"We see ebbs and flows of activity along the border, and literally every day [...] we have some level of contact, albeit relatively small in most cases, with some insurgents or other personnel along the border," he said.

With "thousands every day" crossing a border the tribes do not recognize, Votel said he had concentrated on working with the Pakistan military to try to identify infiltration routes most used by militants "and then position our forces so that we have control over those areas," to "minimize disruption" to daily life in the region.

"We have worked very hard over the last couple of months to ensure that our tactical headquarters on the Afghanistan side of the border and the Pakistan tactical headquarters on their side of the border can talk and communicate freely," he said, adding, "We have seen significant progress in that communication chain."

So successful was the cooperation, he said, that the feared spring offensive by the Taliban had fizzled.

"We have been more offensive than I think they have in our posturing and in our ability to dominate areas on the battlefield," he said.

"We continue to be probed on a regular basis. We continue to see attacks in the interior. But we have not seen what I would describe as a spring offensive by the Taliban."

Shaun Waterman is a senior writer and analyst for ISN Security Watch. He is a UK journalist based in Washington, DC, covering homeland and national security for United Press International.

ISN Security Watch - Tribal Pakistan: Complexity, fragility

There seems to be a total mismatch of intent and result.

However, the silver lining is that the "much feared" spring offensive has not yet got underway. Who knows? Lull before the storm or a genuine lull? Hopefully, the latter.

Ray · 05-01-2007, 14:18 PM

Connected is this from the other thread before it was hijacked by good old Achmet.

Quote:

Pakistan: The Taliban takeover

Ziauddin Sardar

Published 30 April 2007

Pakistan is reverberating with the call of jihad. Taliban-style militias are spreading rapidly out from provinces in the far north-west. The danger to the country and to the rest of the world is escalating.

"You must understand," says Maulana Sami ul-Haq, "that Pakistan and Islam are synonymous." The principal of Darul Uloom Haqqania, a seminary in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), is a tall and jovial man. He grabs my hand as he takes me round the seminary. Maulana ul-Haq laughs when I ask his views on jihad. "It is the duty of all Muslims to support those groups fighting against oppression," he says.

The Haqqania is one of the largest madrasas in Pakistan. It produces about 3,000 graduates, most from exceptionally poor backgrounds, every year. The walls of the student dormitory are decorated with tanks and Kalashnikovs. A group of students, all with black beards, white turbans and grey dresses, surrounds me. They are curious and extremely polite. We chat under the watchful eye of two officers from Pakistan's intelligence services. What would they do after they graduate, I ask. "Serve Islam," they reply in unison. "We will dedicate our lives to jihad."

Pakistan is reverberating with the call of jihad. For more than two months, the capital, Islamabad, has been held hostage by a group of burqa-clad women, armed with sticks and shouting: "Al-jihad, al-jihad." These female students belong to two madrasas attached to the Lal Masjid, a large mosque near one of the city's main supermarkets. I found the atmosphere around the masjid tense, with heavily armed police surrounding the building. Though the students were allowed to go in and out freely, no one else could enter the mosque. The women are demanding the imposition of sharia law and the instant abolition of all "dens of vice". Away from the masjid, Islamabad looked like a city under siege.

A new generation of militants is emerging in Pakistan. Although they are generally referred to as "Taliban", they are a recent phenomenon. The original Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan briefly during the 1990s, were Afghan fighters, a product of the Soviet invasion of their country. They were created and moulded by the Pakistani army, with the active support of the United States and Saudi money, and the deliberate use of madrasas to prop up religious leaders. Many Taliban leaders were educated at Haqqania by Maulana Sami ul-Haq. The new generation of militants are all Pakistani; they emerged after the US invasion of Afghanistan and represent a revolt against the government's support for the US. Mostly unemployed, not all of them are madrasa-educated. They are led by young mullahs who, unlike the original Taliban, are technology- and media-savvy, and are also influenced by various indigenous tribal nationalisms, honouring the tribal codes that govern social life in Pakistan's rural areas. "They are Taliban in the sense that they share the same ideology as the Taliban in Afghanistan," says Rahimullah Yusufzai, Peshawar-based columnist on the News. "But they are totally Pakistani, with a better understanding of how the world works." Their jihad is aimed not just at "infidels occupying Afghanistan", but also the "infidels" who are ruling and running Pakistan and maintaining the secular values of Pakistani society. "They aim at nothing less than to cleanse Pakistan and turn it into a pure Islamic state," says Rashed Rahman, executive editor of the Lahore-based Post newspaper.

The Pakistani Taliban now dominate the northern province of Waziristan, adjacent to Afghan istan. "They are de facto rulers of the province," says Yusufzai. Waziristan is a tribal area that has historically been ruled by the tribes themselves. Pakistan has followed the policy of British Raj in the region. The British allowed tribal leaders, known as maliks, semi-autonomous powers in exchange for loyalty to the crown. Pakistan gives them the same power but demands loyalty to the federal government. They have been sidelined by the Taliban, however. Pro-government maliks who resisted the onslaught of the Taliban have been brutally killed and had their bodies hung from poles as a lesson to others. The Taliban have declared Waziristan an "Islamic emirate" and are trying to establish a parallel administration, complete with sharia courts and tax system.

Taliban-type militias have also taken control of parts of the adjacent NWFP. In Peshawar, one of the most open and accessible areas of the province, one can feel the tension on the streets. There are hardly any women out in public. The city, which has suffered numerous suicide attacks, is crowded with intelligence officers. Within an hour of my arrival in Peshawar, I was approached by a secret service official who warned that I was being watched. It is practically impossible for outsiders to enter other NWFP towns such as Tank, Darra Adam Khel and Dera Ismail Khan. In Dera Ismail Khan, outsiders - that is, Pakistanis from other parts of the country - need police escorts to travel around. You are allowed in only if you can prove you have business or relatives there. Girls' schools have been closed, video and music shops bombed, and barbers forbidden from shaving beards. The religious parties have passed a public morality law that gives them powers to prosecute anyone who does not follow their strict moral code. Legislation to ban dance and music is being planned. Even administration of polio vaccination campaigns has been halted amid claims that it is a US plot to sterilise future generations.

Why is the ostensibly secular government of President Pervez Musharraf not taking any action against the Taliban militants and the parties that support them? Part of the answer lies in the militants and religious parties having served the military regime well. After coming to power in 1999, Musharraf used them to neutralise the mainstream political parties - Benazir Bhutto's People's Party and the Muslim League, led by Nawaz Sharif. "The military and mullahs have been traditional allies," says the Islamabad-based security analyst Dr Ayesha Siddiqa. "The alliance of religious parties that rules NWFP came into power through his support." Musharraf also used the religious militants to destabilise Indian-held Kashmir by proxy. He encouraged extremists preaching jihad to infiltrate India for acts of sabotage.

The same is true of the Taliban. The Afghan Taliban have been a useful ally against unfriendly governments in Kabul. Even though Musharraf has been forced to go against them under pressure from the Americans, his strategy has been to try to contain them, rather than defeat them. He tried to regulate the madrasas in NWFP and elsewhere in Pakistan that provide recruits for the Taliban, seized their funds and banned them from admitting foreign students. But that's about as far as he wanted to go. Constant US pressure has forced him to send in the army, with grave consequences. Every time the Pakistani army enters Waziristan, it takes heavy casualties. Since 2003, when Pakistani troops first entered the tribal regions, more than 700 soldiers have been killed. Not surprisingly, Musharraf signed a hasty peace agreement on 5 September 2006 allowing the Afghan Taliban to get on with their business. "The military regards the Taliban as an asset," says Siddiqa. "So why destroy an asset? Particularly when the asset could be useful in the future."

That future may not be too far off. Pakistan's foreign policy towards Afghanistan is based on the assumption that the Nato forces there will withdraw sooner rather than later, leaving Hamid Karzai's regime to fend for itself. The Karzai government is strongly anti-Pakistani. But the Pakistani army needs friendly rulers in Kabul who would be willing to run the oil and gas pipelines that will serve the newly established port at Gwadar through Afghanistan's provinces (see page 32). So Pakistan needs the Afghan Taliban to exist as a force strong enough to establish the next government in Afghanistan.

Moreover, a pro-Islamabad Taliban-type government in Afghanistan would help establish peace in the northern tribal regions of Pakistan. Although Karzai himself is a Pashtun, most of the people in power in Kabul are Tajiks, a minority tribe. A sizeable majority of Afghans belong to the Pashtun ethnic group, which ruled Afghanistan for centuries. The position of Pakistan's military is that this imbalance "against the political history and tribal culture of Afghan istan", as one army officer told me, is not going to last. Most of the Pakistani Taliban - that is, the vast majority of people in Waziristan - are also Pashtun. And they will not rest until their brothers across the border hold the reins of power. As such, peace in this part of Pakistan depends on who rules Afghanistan.

Musharraf's strategy is to contain the Taliban of Afghan and Pakistani varieties alike, while weeding out al-Qaeda jihadis, or "foreign elements", as they are known in Pakistani military circles. The foreigners are a legacy of the Soviet-Afghan war. When the war ended, many of the central Asians who came to fight the Soviets were not welcomed back in their countries. For want of an alternative, they settled in Pakistan. Most of these foreign jihadis are Uzbek. Musharraf has simply bribed the local tribes to attack and eradicate the Uzbek jihadis. The battle between Pashtun tribesmen and al-Qaeda in Wana, southern Waziristan, in which more than 200 al-Qaeda fighters and some 50 tribal fighters were killed a fortnight ago was a product of this policy.

Musharraf's problem is that the Taliban cannot be contained. The Pakistani Taliban have now acquired enough confidence to break out of Wazi ristan and NWFP into other parts of the country. "What's happening at the Lal Masjid in Islamabad is a trial run for the rest of the country," says Rahman. "If the Taliban succeed in Islamabad, they will turn Pakistan into Talibistan."

Lawyers in uproar

While Musharraf continues to placate the Taliban, the rest of Pakistan is standing up against Talibanisation. Huge demonstrations have been held in Lahore, Karachi and other cities throughout Pakistan. To begin with, the protests were held to support Chief Justice Iftikhar Moham med Chaudhry, who was sacked by Musharraf in March. Chaudhry, who has become a national hero, tried to prevent the army from selling the national steel mill for a song. The affair was the latest in a long list of scandals involving the military. The openly unconstitutional act caused uproar, leading to countrywide protests by lawyers. But the lawyers have now acquired a broader agenda. They have become a national resistance movement, supported by all sections of society, against military rule and the Taliban.

Musharraf's response to the demonstrations and the Taliban challenge is to try to entrench himself even more deeply. While the country buckles under the pressure of suicide bombings, kidnappings and acts of sabotage, his main concern is his own survival. Constitutionally, he must hold elections some time this year - something he has promised to do, but the whole exercise will be designed to ensure that he continues as president for another five years.

His plan to get "re-elected" has two strands. The simple option is to get the current hand-picked parliament to endorse him for a second term and try to manipulate this vote, which the present sham constitution dictates, to ensure a healthy two-thirds majority. The heads of intelligence, the security services and the police have already been primed to ensure "positive results".

Bhutto to the rescue?

The other option is a bit messy. It involves making a deal with the former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, head of the Pakistan People's Party. Bhutto, who has been ousted from power by the military twice, is desperate to get back into power. She has a great deal in common with the general. She runs the People's Party as her personal property, and her social and economic policies - rooted as they are in feudalism and opportunism - are not far removed from those of the army. Her foreign policy would be the same as that of Musharraf; indeed, she is even more pro-American than the general.

So Bhutto and Musharraf, who have been negotiating with each other for almost three years, are an ideal couple. "The problem," says Rahman, "is that Musharraf does not want to give up his military uniform. It is the source of his strength. And the idea of Musharraf remaining military chief is anathema to Bhutto."

But the state of the nation, on the verge of political and religious collapse, may force Musharraf's hand. A deal between the general and the self-proclaimed "Daughter of the East" in which Musharraf retains most of his power as civilian president and Bhutto serves as prime minister may be acceptable to both. Rumours abound in Islamabad that a deal is imminent.

Bhutto's return from the cold would do little to stop Pakistan's slide into anarchy, however. The Taliban sense victory and will not be easily satisfied with anything less than a Pakistan under sharia law, or wide-ranging bloodshed. As Asma Jahangir, chairwoman of Pakistan's Human Rights Commission, makes clear, the country cannot survive its "deep-seated rot" unless the "unrepresentative organs of the state - the military, the mullahs and the all-consuming intelligence agencies - are brought under control". It is hard to disagree with her assessment. But it is even harder to see how these "unrepresen tative organs" can be stopped from dragging Pakistan further towards the abyss - with dire consequences for the rest of the world.

Pakistan: a short history

1947 Muslim state of Pakistan created by partition of India at the end of British rule

1948 First war with India over disputed territory of Kashmir

1965 Second war with India over Kashmir

1971 East Pakistan attempts to secede, triggering civil war. Third war between Pakistan and India. East Pakistan breaks away to become Bangladesh

1980 US pledges military assistance following Soviet intervention in Afghanistan

1988 Benazir Bhutto elected prime minister

1996 Bhutto dismissed, for the second time, on charges of corruption

1998 Country conducts nuclear tests

1999 General Pervez Musharraf seizes power in military coup

2001 Musharraf backs US in war on terror and supports invasion of Afghanistan

2002 Musharraf given another five years in office in criticised referendum

2003 Pakistan declares latest Kashmir ceasefire. India does likewise

2004 Musharraf stays head of army, having promised in 2003 to relinquish role

2005 Earthquake in Pakistan-administered Kashmir kills tens of thousands of people

2007 Musharraf suspends Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, triggering nationwide protests

New Statesman - Pakistan: The Taliban takeover

There is evidence that the Taliban and fundamentalists are slowly going for Pakistan's jugular.

Zia is responsible for ruining Pakistan for his own purpose and to legitimised his military regime by leaning on to the Islamic fundamentalists.
All said and done, Pakistan was created because of religion wherein the Indian Moslems wanted a separate identity as Moslems. Therefore, religion has been the fundamental pillar and raison d'etre on which Pakistan came into being. Therefore, if the name of Islam is taken, none can oppose! Zia, the wily fox, used it to the hilt and pushed Pakistan into such a mess that even right minded amongst the Pakistanis find themselves helpless!

It is also true that there are still a silent majority which is against the slow conversion of Pakistan into a Taleban like environment. A brief rebellion against the Islamic fundamentalist also took place wherein the self appointed Sharia Judge and Sharia court by a powerful Mullah was opposed thorough a medium of a rally.

It is time there is a surge, like that in Turkey, so that Pakistan can break the shackles of Talibanised institutions and politicians.

Ideally, Musharraf should have a civilian PM who is secular (as far as a Moslem PM can be) and freely elected to give the real democratic flavour to his military diktats as the President.

It is still not too late for Pakistan to salvage itself!
__________________

Pashtun · 05-02-2007, 12:43 PM

Shaun Waterman may be a great journalist but in this Pashtun's opinion he is clueless as to how complex the situation in Pukhtunkhwa - the Pashtun name for NWFP - really is; it boils down to ones paradigm. If you have never been to the place & don't know the language - I would posit that in fact what you have learned from reading books by other similarly clueless white men is of little use in a place as remote as Pukhtunkhwa.
Which is the reason I am spending my precious time raising people's awareness about the Pashtun people, in as much as all the existing prejudice can be overcome.
Since this is my first post on this forum, I am going to leave it there..

You take care now, you hear,

A Pashtun in Texas

PakAmbassador · 05-09-2007, 09:49 AM

Hi fellows
I am very sorry to say your reply was very pessimistic to Ahmed who did taunt and sneer to discussed article and said it "Pakistan is sand pit".
I want to ask when religious groups were establishing in Pakistan during Afghan war in 1980s, who were the countries financing those battle groups? Which capitalist countries were supporting and making those religious warriors as a hero? Those extremist groups were made for the resistance of communist threat.
I am a Pakistani, a liberal and educated person who has spent 30 years in Pakistan. As well as my perception is concern, although some extremists are in Pakistan but they are just 2 or 3 percent of whole population.
Most of Pakistanis are religious but it doesn’t mean religious person means an extremist. When US president says I cite the Bible everyday, nobody says he is an extremist. When whole the secular and liberal countries celebrate the Christmas (that is a religious custom), nobody says them extremist countries.
There are lots of religious groups in Pakistan, but only 2 or 3 percent of them are called to be extremists.
I wonder when I see that peoples, some media persons and others just show off these 2 or 3 percent of extremists. Nobody can deny that religious extremism is everywhere in the world. After partition of south Asia more or less a million Muslim migrants killed in Indian border on racial basis, In the beginning of 21st century more than 2000 Muslims killed in Ahmedabad India because they were Muslims, more than 1500 Muslims killed in east Timor but it doesn’t mean I claim that Hindus or India are extremists, or all Christians of east Timor are extremists.
Pakistani government and intellectual class of Pakistan are trying to remove all arrears of extremes that cultivated during cold war; I hope we will be successful but for God sake don’t blame on Pakistan or rest of Pakistani nation for it. I think 2 or 3 three percent extreme in Pakistan is the gift of cold war.

Ray · 05-09-2007, 10:22 AM

Quote:

After partition of south Asia more or less a million Muslim migrants killed in Indian border on racial basis,

Mr Ambassador,

South Asia was partitioned and the poor Moslems died?

When and where?

What constitutes South Asia?

Archer · 05-09-2007, 12:37 PM

Racial basis? Dear sir, Indians and pakistanis are of the same race. So where does race come into this?

But lets get to the other point. We have an American Pashtun and an American Pakistani telling us that a)its all a white conspiracy to write bad things about Pashtuns/Pak b) Only 2-3% of Pak is extremist

Sure, anything else?

Are you folks even aware of the ground realities? How long will you live in denial over the state of affairs AND try to pull the wool over others eyes?

Take a quick look at any Islamic terrorist caught anywhere in the world today...and he or his group will have ties to Pakistan. Donation boxes for jihad are kept in the open...but on;y 2-3% is extremist. Everyone points to Pak breeding terror...but its the fault of the US...when, in the 1980s? After that who turned Pakistan into a fortress of terrorism? The US or Pakistans leaders itself?

Face it, from the day Pakistan was founded, its leaders have propogated an insular, chauvinist and hatefilled creed of bringing war to those not of Islamic persuasion, and the result today is the sum total of all those years of propoganda, militant behaviour and indoctrination.

Ray · 05-09-2007, 13:19 PM

Pakistan organised the Afghan War for its own purpose. It wanted its own strategic backyard! And it was defecating green with the Soviets in the neighbourhood

If they were willing "lackeys and running dogs" (favourite Communist te.inology to describe such countries and was used), then why should the US baulk at the fawning help? Why blame the US? It has a strategic reason and if there is someone who wants to be a servant and comes cheap at that, why blame the US? Everyone loves a discount or something free!

Having removed the Soviets, was it the US who converted these wild ones into terrorists? I haven't seen any report of the US opening up any madrassas in Washington under the CIA patronage. I have, however, heard of madrassas in Pakistan under ISI patronage!

So,let us desist from the same Islamic gameplan of whining like a Jumbo Jet and blaming everyone else for its own misdeeds!

To these whinebags, it would be worth noting that for them it is Time to wake up and smell the Camel Dung!

05-02-2007, 12:43 PM	#3 (permalink)
Pashtun New Member Join Date: 05-02-07 Location: Texas Posts: 1 Country:	Re: Complexity in Tribal Affairs of Pakistan. Shaun Waterman may be a great journalist but in this Pashtun's opinion he is clueless as to how complex the situation in Pukhtunkhwa - the Pashtun name for NWFP - really is; it boils down to ones paradigm. If you have never been to the place & don't know the language - I would posit that in fact what you have learned from reading books by other similarly clueless white men is of little use in a place as remote as Pukhtunkhwa. Which is the reason I am spending my precious time raising people's awareness about the Pashtun people, in as much as all the existing prejudice can be overcome. Since this is my first post on this forum, I am going to leave it there.. You take care now, you hear, A Pashtun in Texas

05-09-2007, 12:37 PM	#6 (permalink)
Archer *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 10-13-03 Posts: 2,888	Racial basis? Dear sir, Indians and pakistanis are of the same race. So where does race come into this? But lets get to the other point. We have an American Pashtun and an American Pakistani telling us that a)its all a white conspiracy to write bad things about Pashtuns/Pak b) Only 2-3% of Pak is extremist Sure, anything else? Are you folks even aware of the ground realities? How long will you live in denial over the state of affairs AND try to pull the wool over others eyes? Take a quick look at any Islamic terrorist caught anywhere in the world today...and he or his group will have ties to Pakistan. Donation boxes for jihad are kept in the open...but on;y 2-3% is extremist. Everyone points to Pak breeding terror...but its the fault of the US...when, in the 1980s? After that who turned Pakistan into a fortress of terrorism? The US or Pakistans leaders itself? Face it, from the day Pakistan was founded, its leaders have propogated an insular, chauvinist and hatefilled creed of bringing war to those not of Islamic persuasion, and the result today is the sum total of all those years of propoganda, militant behaviour and indoctrination. __________________ Karmani Vyapurutham Dhanuhu My bow is stretched for its task

05-09-2007, 13:19 PM	#7 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 28,382 Country:	Pakistan organised the Afghan War for its own purpose. It wanted its own strategic backyard! And it was defecating green with the Soviets in the neighbourhood If they were willing "lackeys and running dogs" (favourite Communist te.inology to describe such countries and was used), then why should the US baulk at the fawning help? Why blame the US? It has a strategic reason and if there is someone who wants to be a servant and comes cheap at that, why blame the US? Everyone loves a discount or something free! Having removed the Soviets, was it the US who converted these wild ones into terrorists? I haven't seen any report of the US opening up any madrassas in Washington under the CIA patronage. I have, however, heard of madrassas in Pakistan under ISI patronage! So,let us desist from the same Islamic gameplan of whining like a Jumbo Jet and blaming everyone else for its own misdeeds! To these whinebags, it would be worth noting that for them it is Time to wake up and smell the Camel Dung! Last edited by Ray : 05-09-2007 at 13:21 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hindus in Pakistan	Aryan	Political Discussions	169	10-16-2005 17:03 PM
Pakistan opens door to foreign investors	Neo	Political Discussions	24	09-30-2005 15:22 PM
Pakistan: The State of Denial	Ray	South Asian Defense Topics	22	05-07-2005 08:47 AM

05-09-2007, 09:49 AM	#4 (permalink)
PakAmbassador New Member Join Date: 05-09-07 Posts: 1	Hi fellows I am very sorry to say your reply was very pessimistic to Ahmed who did taunt and sneer to discussed article and said it "Pakistan is sand pit". I want to ask when religious groups were establishing in Pakistan during Afghan war in 1980s, who were the countries financing those battle groups? Which capitalist countries were supporting and making those religious warriors as a hero? Those extremist groups were made for the resistance of communist threat. I am a Pakistani, a liberal and educated person who has spent 30 years in Pakistan. As well as my perception is concern, although some extremists are in Pakistan but they are just 2 or 3 percent of whole population. Most of Pakistanis are religious but it doesn’t mean religious person means an extremist. When US president says I cite the Bible everyday, nobody says he is an extremist. When whole the secular and liberal countries celebrate the Christmas (that is a religious custom), nobody says them extremist countries. There are lots of religious groups in Pakistan, but only 2 or 3 percent of them are called to be extremists. I wonder when I see that peoples, some media persons and others just show off these 2 or 3 percent of extremists. Nobody can deny that religious extremism is everywhere in the world. After partition of south Asia more or less a million Muslim migrants killed in Indian border on racial basis, In the beginning of 21st century more than 2000 Muslims killed in Ahmedabad India because they were Muslims, more than 1500 Muslims killed in east Timor but it doesn’t mean I claim that Hindus or India are extremists, or all Christians of east Timor are extremists. Pakistani government and intellectual class of Pakistan are trying to remove all arrears of extremes that cultivated during cold war; I hope we will be successful but for God sake don’t blame on Pakistan or rest of Pakistani nation for it. I think 2 or 3 three percent extreme in Pakistan is the gift of cold war.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)