The Marriott Bombing: ‘Pakistan’s 9/11’?

Re: # 97
With your ethnically biased rants and instinctive hatred of one of the provinces and complete lack of objectivity when it comes to Mr Nawaz Sharif (I mean the guy is the same as the rest, why single him out) posts, Mr M waqar, I am not sure whether you can your self be called a "liberal"...
I think ultra nationalist would be the right word...

And so the US plan for handing over Pakistan to the Taliban rolls forward after the US sponsored Marriott bombing:

---

Pakistan faces 'existential threat': US General Petraeus

AFP


PARIS (AFP) — Extremist forces threaten the very existence of Pakistan, the incoming US commander in the region warned Thursday, as tension mounted between NATO and Pakistani forces on the Afghan frontier.

General David Petraeus, who will take charge of US forces in southwest Asia and the Middle East next month, told reporters that Pakistani and US-led troops would have to work together to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

"Pakistan faces a threat that certainly seems to be an existential threat," he said, at a press conference at the US embassy in Paris.

Petraeus described the common enemy as a "syndicate" uniting "some true Al-Qaeda, some Taliban and in between different forms of extremist movements, which are very much contributing to the problem in Afghanistan."

The general was speaking shortly after it was confirmed that Pakistani forces had fired warning shots at US military helicopters operating under NATO command near Afghanistan's border with Pakistan.

Islamabad claims to be fighting the armed groups in its unruly borderlands, despite allegations of collusion between its security forces and Islamic militants launching cross border attacks on Afghan and NATO troops.

But Pakistan has also reacted angrily to US airstrikes -- and a reported commando raid -- on its side of the border and the army has vowed to defend its sovereignty, even if that means clashes with US forces.

Petraeus said he had yet to be briefed on the incident in which the helicopters were fired upon, and refused to be drawn on the circumstances in which he would order a cross-border operation.

Instead, he insisted that he would work in cooperation with the Pakistani military, which he said faced the same threat.

"I think the only real answer that I can give you at a forum like this is just to say that there has to be coordination, cooperation and very constructive dialogue as that effort goes forward," he said.

"As was shown tragically and horrifically in the Marriott Hotel bombing, these same extremist elements again represent a true existential threat to Pakistan itself," he said, referring to an attack on Saturday in Islamabad.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hf2azAfsrLUh5wFC093pfcdzf0uA

an interesting viewpoint:

http://www.ahmedquraishi.com/latest_col.php?id=68

#83 Posted by rabiawsti on September 24, 2008 8:03:57 pm
#80 khyber: do you have a link to what brezhnev said, exactly? I tried google but couldn't find it. thank you....
I was reading this book ''GHOST WARS'' by STEVE COLL,where it was mentioned,I dont remember which page number but if I find the page I will let you know,it is a very informative book.I also want to make one correction in my post# 97,I meant to say that Mush did not get any support from selfish politicians for his liberal views.Thanks all...
Mwaqar

#97 Posted by KHYBER on September 25, 2008 5:26:31 am

dude..that wasn't my argument..it was a blast from the past...you see the chowkie bulleya pontificating on this thread...his id used to be romair...he made all sorts of wild predictions and his analysis was laughable by any standards..

For example, in the days after 9/11, he told indians, sri lankans and arabs in the US to wear t-shirts with paki flags if they wanted to be safe..the premise was that americans would be so overwhelmed with gratitude towards pakis(for pakistan having joined the WoT), that wearing a t-shirt with a paki flag would save them from possible reprisals..

#94 Posted by _arjun24....Your argument makes alot of sense and you are right that Musharraf was one good guy in paki Army and West loves him but here what happen to Mush and how he messed up, when he took power from one of the most corrupt so called politician Nawaz,people welcomed him because Nawaz was not only corrupt person but he was also rammnent of zia regime, Musharraf came with great ideas of liberalism and secularism and making Pakistan a country like Turkey,thats what liberals in pakistan wanted to hear after so many years of relegious fanatcis and hypcrites in power like Nawaz and zia. He presided over one of the fastest media revolutions in any third world country. Within five years, Pakistan moved from one stateowned television channel to over 50 private-owned news and entertainment channels. The media revolution gave the urban middle class the confidence to challenge state authority.The role and representation of women in Pakistan’s public life received a boost from Musharraf’s policies, ranging from reversing the wrongs of the Zia era, to promoting one-third representation for women in Pakistan’s electoral system. But here what happens when he shakes hands with corrupt politicians of punjab the ''CHOUDRY BROTHERS '',These selfish politicians including zia son ijazul-haq had close ties with relegious fanatics and they had their own agenda to steal money when in govt,Mush did get any support for his liberal ideas from these narrow minded old fashioned corrupt politicians,But, like his military predecessors, Musharraf’s failure was fundamentally political, He failed to resolve political problems and used a hamhanded approach to such issues as autonomy for Balochistan and an independent judiciary,his luck ran out with the disastrous 2007 sacking of the Chief Justice and the imposition of emergency.My point is that he should not take these politicians of old school,his other mistake was when he took power he did not shoot Nawaz.I think liberal minded politicins and intellectuals in pakistan would love to help him if he was with them.Another thing Pakistan is a country of diversified culture and traditions. It is a nation of one hundred sixty million diverse people ranging from the uneducated and usually more backwards and conservative group to the well-educated, often tolerant and highly progressive thinking citizens. Pakistan is a melting pot of ideas and traditions. It is thus not surprising that when we talk of liberalism within the Pakistani perspective, various and mixed views are associated with it. One strange thing that we\'ve come across in Pakistan is that people do not want to be identified as liberals even if they subscribe to liberaI ideals. We have also found that a large number of people in Pakistan are actually liberals without their knowing that they are for liberalism. To be more exact, many Pakistanis are for democracy, they believe in transparency and progressive movements. Peace and tolerance are most cherished ideas in Pakistan; but still, people advocating for these values do not wish to be identified or called liberals.
Mwaqar

#95 by majumdar

But it is OK to make a mistake as long as you learn from it.

That Majumdar bhai is the problem. Captain Clueless refuses to learn, putting his foot in his mouth at every given opportunity. Worse still, he is so cocksure about his "predictions" that it would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic watching a grown up and apparently well traveled man making himself the laughing stock of Chowk. Not for nothing is he known as Captain Clueless.

Arjun mian,

Thanks, maybe you can post the T-shirt post also.

But it is OK to make a mistake as long as you learn from it.

Regards

majumdar dude..just cos I have the rest of the week off, I'll do the needful..

#37 Posted by Romair(aka bulleya aka capt clueless) on March 5, 2002 2:15:36 am


Indians have a very tough task on their hands in defending their indefensible Kashmir position. That is why they always turn on the heat. However, one report from Amnesty International is enough to expose the Ganguly`s of the world.


I feel these guys overdid the religious angles. There were talks of Pakistan turning into Talibanland etc., in a few years or so. I always stated, when push came to shove, the Taliban of Pakistan would crumble. Which is what happened.

I think there will be a shakeup of the thought processes of the Pakistani English speaking intellectuals now. They are begining to realize that there are good people in the Army also. They are begining to realize that Pakistan was never as close to Talibanization as they predicted. And they are starting to understand that maybe they don`t have all the answers either. And they should understand that Pakistan`s solutions should be according to the wishes of the common man, not according to the wishes of the intellectuals.

Now that they don`t have the extreme religious parties and the Army as their punching bags any longer, they will have to take on and discuss the real problems of Pakistan, i.e. feudalism, social lack of cohesion, etc. They will soon have to come to terms with the fact that they cannot run with the hares and hunt with the hounds.


Based on this, what Musharraf has been able to accomplish is incredible. He is now the symbol of Pakistan in the Western media. Just like when the West pictures Iraq, they think Saddam (= bad guy), when it pictures Pakistan, it thinks Musharraf (= good guy). This is now the image of Pakistan in the average American grandmother`s mind, and all the Ganguly`s of the world will not be able change it, provided we play our cards correctly.

majumdar: in the link below, romair = bulleya aka capt clueless

majumdar dude...I know you're just toying with capt clueless here....but in case you're not, read this

http://www.chowk.com/interacts/5254/1/0/a

FM Romair,

As regarding the original Afghan shyte (1979-90) I am pretty sure there was no Indian involvement in military affairs and very marginal even in economic terms- remember India was a broke fourth world nation then.

Since 2001, there certainly has been some involvement of Indians but this is largely benign- building roads, power grids etc (basically infrastructure that your folks destroyed in the first place). There has possibly been some intelligence involvement but this seems to be mainly on the B'stan frontier for needling Pakistan in B'stan, certainly not creating mayhem inside AFGHANISTAN. But Amin sahib can elaborate on the Indians' role there.

Regards

majumdar #: "was not as if India provided military or financial support to the occupiers or otherwise did anything which led to the tragedy...."

...i am not sure if this is accurate.....any country, which is playing a game beyond its own borders in afghanistan is participating in this tragedy.....

....if india is supporting someone, involved in violence in afghanistan, to gain advantage for itself, then it is to be blamed also......

...in the case of the original soviet invasion, if india did nothing but provide moral support to it, then your comments may be considered accurate.....if it went beyond that in supporting any govt. there, then not....

in the current situation, india is, obviously, in support of northern alliance.....while pakistan, traditionally supported taliban.....india has an interest in utilizing afghanistan is surrounding pakistan.......much as pakistan has had in using afghanistan as strategic depth, against india....

...so the blame on india is, significantly, less than that on pakistan......but it is there.....much like there is blame on saudi arabia, also.....

the three biggest outside culprits in afghanistan, in my opinion, are ussr, pakistan, usa (in that order)......

"But to be fair to Hamid mian, he isn't a hypocrite."

i think you are letting hamidm mian off far too easily....urstruly is a hypocrite....but he is not violent...i have never heard him calling for mass violence, against people he disagrees with......

hamidm mian, for a person who is so enamoured with the usa, spends a disproportionately high amount of a time, on a site, which has nothing to do with the usa....and much of that time is spent on pushing the massive violence carried out by the usa......

hypocrisy vs. violence......take your pick......now, if hamidm mian were on rush limbaugh's site, pushing for massive us voilence against pakistan and pakistanis, then i would agree there would be no hypocrisy.....

jesus christ capt clueless..aren't you being a bit revisionist?

do you want me to look up your posts where you

1. supported the war on terrorism right after 9/11 and were ready to join the invasion.
2. told us that with uncle sam's wind in her sails, pakiland was on it's way to economic salvation and could afford to breed the jihadis against india until kashmir fell in her laps..
3. told indians, arabs and sri lankans in the US they needed to wear t-shirts with paki flags to protect themselves from retaliation after 9/11?

seriously? am I the only one who remembers that shit? is everyone else new here?

Field Marshall Romair,

then the blame goes on countries like india also, which fully supported the soviet invasion and massacre.......

You have chosen to blame India for the same reason that mountaineers climb a mountain- "Becuase it is there"

India's support for the "invasion and massacre", while morally repugnant, was a non-issue. It was not as if India provided military or financial support to the occupiers or otherwise did anything which led to the tragedy. India's action or lack thereof in A'stan was of little consequence as let's say Burkina Faso's was.

similarly pakistanis line up to migrate to usa, and those who are there (like hamidm and urstruly etc.) don't want to come back to pakistan

Well, I guess you can't write a post without dissing your fave bugbears!!! But to be fair to Hamid mian, he isn't a hypocrite. He believes that USA is great and his decision is consistent with his ideology. Sadly, the same thing can't be said about Maulana Urstruly- he is a hypocrite and plate p***er.

Regards

Eklavya #: "Pakistani moderates basically accepted and supported and winked at the policy of destroying Afghanistan in order to bring it under Pakistani suzerainty?"

...this is a valid question......and the answer is obvious.....pakistan used afghanistan, much like the usa is using pakistan.....pakistan pushed the taliban upon afghanistan, to establish its strategic depth, with no concern of what they were doing to the afghan society.....i am sure there must be a quite a few afghans who are getting some sort of satisfaction, now that that the shoe is on the other foot......

...having said that, i don't think pakistan is the only country that used afghanistan......first and foremost the blame goes on the ussr......which started this whole thing, and killed around 1 million afghanis and turned another 5-6 million(?) or more into refugees......it destroyed the whole society.....

then the blame goes on countries like india also, which fully supported the soviet invasion and massacre.......interestingly, during that time, pakistan was the biggest supporter of afghans, and took in millions of them as refugess and risked its own people to kick the soviets out.......

.......the blame also goes on the usa, which used the soviet invasion as a revenge for vietnam, and created and funded this whole concept of non-state militant actors.....the blame goes on the usa again, in regard to this afghan war......where it bombed the place and installed the thugs of the northern alliance.....replacing one taliban problem with another......

......the blame also goes on obl, and various other entities........for using afghanistan as their command center......and on local afghan leaders, for the infighting.....

there is plenty of blame to go around...afghanistan has been and is being used by regional and int'l actors to play out their interests.......

pakistan has treated afghanistan much like usa has treated pakistan....it has supported anyone there who is allied with pakistan.....regardless of what they have done to the afghan society.....it wants to fight its battles in afghanistan......much like america wants to fight its battles in pakistan.......

......interestingly the view of afghans towards pakistan is similar to the views of pakistanis towards america.......afghans hate pakistan, much like pakistanis hate usa......however, afghans would love to migrate to pakistan and those who are there, probably, would not want to go back to afghanistan......similarly pakistanis line up to migrate to usa, and those who are there (like hamidm and urstruly etc.) don't want to come back to pakistan.......