Reforming Religious Fundamentalists

The US is at it again. Al Qaeda central is not shifting from Iraq to Afghanistan:

Meanwhile, U. S. intelligence reports the country is being flooded with foreign fighters. Chechens, Uzbeks, Saudis, Iraqis and Europeans are all rushing to fight in Afghanistan via Pakistan. According to intelligence estimates, there are more foreign fighters in Afghanistan now than in Iraq.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=859844

Dr. Sohail, it was a pathetic attempt at censorship. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Have a nice day, and ban me again for this comment,

Gracefully,

TNI Masadi

I differ from the under posted's point that "Traditionally, Pakistani generals like Kayani worry more about India than the Taliban..."

More so than India they worry about protecting their own turf, in other words they don't want to lose their hold on the country.

Pakistan: Will it be Bush's third war?
Once an ally and now a foreign policy blunder, nation is becoming area of operations
By ANDREW J. BACEVICH Los Angeles Times
Oct. 4, 2008, 10:37AM


President Bush will leave office without concluding either of the two wars he initiated after Sept. 11, 2001. Now, in the waning months of his administration, the president seems intent on expanding his "global war on terror" still farther. To the existing fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq, he is adding a third: Pakistan.

Eclipsed perhaps only by Iraq, Pakistan ranks in the very top tier of the Bush administration's foreign policy blunders. Even as it vowed after 9/11 never to compromise with evil, the administration wasted no time in forging an alliance with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, the army general who seized power in 1999 through a military coup. Although Musharraf was anything but a democrat, Bush proclaimed him a close friend and ally. Washington quickly began funneling military and economic aid toward Islamabad, the total since 2001 exceeding $13 billion.

Unfortunately, Musharraf was not only a dictator but was also incompetent. Two themes defined his presidency: a gradual erosion of domestic legitimacy that paralyzed and then doomed his regime, and a steady erosion of Pakistan's already shaky control over its frontier provinces bordering Afghanistan. For Taliban and al-Qaida fighters ousted from their Afghan sanctuaries, the Pakistani Northwest Frontier became a refuge in which to establish training camps and support areas. Although U.S. civilian and military officials pushed and prodded Musharraf to crack down on this Taliban and al-Qaida presence, little effective action resulted.

As measured by return on investment, Musharraf turned out to be a lousy bet. By the spring of this year, with Musharraf's days obviously numbered, the Bush administration abandoned its friend and ally. In doing so, it found itself without a policy as far as Pakistan was concerned.

To fill the void, Bush turned to the Pentagon. Nearly seven years into the Afghan war and five years into the Iraq war, Pakistan has become the next problem that the president intends to solve through the application of armed force. Without congressional authorization and almost entirely shielded from public view, a new war has begun.

Rather than a partner, Pakistan is becoming an area of operations. Even as Washington denounces Russia for violating Georgian sovereignty, U.S. violations of Pakistani sovereignty have become routine. The most commonly employed tactic relies on missile-firing drones to patrol Pakistani airspace and attack suspected al-Qaida or Taliban militants. Yet there is also evidence of a growing willingness to put boots on the ground. On Sept. 3, in a widely reported incident, U.S. special operations troops raided a village in South Waziristan, leaving a dozen or more Pakistanis dead.

The Bush administration seemingly has concluded that Pakistan poses the primary obstacle to success in Afghanistan. As long as jihadists can freely infiltrate across the border shared by those two countries, the thinking goes, victory in the Afghan war will remain elusive.

"We can hunt down and kill extremists as they cross over the border from Pakistan," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently remarked. "But until we ... eliminate the safe havens from which they operate, the enemy will only keep coming."

Will raids, however vigorously executed, clean out the Taliban and al-Qaida havens? Not a chance. At best, they will keep jihadists off-balance. In the meantime, as U.S. operations inevitably produce a stream of noncombatant casualties, they will exacerbate anti-Americanism in Pakistan. As the recent bombing of the Marriott hotel in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital, reminds us, one unintended consequence might be to jeopardize Pakistan's already precarious stability.

The real aim of these raids is to goad Pakistan's senior military leadership into action. Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, the chief of the Pakistani army, has declared categorically that "the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country will be defended at all cost." Kayani also insists that "no external force is allowed to conduct operations inside Pakistan." Each time an American aircraft enters Pakistani airspace and fires on some Pakistani village, Kayani is made to look a fool.

The problem with this strategy of goading is twofold.

First, U.S. expectations probably exceed Pakistani capabilities: Pakistan's army is large but not notably effective, especially as a counterinsurgent force.

Second, Pakistani national security priorities differ from our own. Traditionally, Pakistani generals like Kayani worry more about India than the Taliban. In short, when it comes to doing our bidding, Pakistan's army can't and won't.

Rather than prodding Pakistan to act, the Pentagon over the next several months could again find itself starting something that it cannot finish. In that event, Bush will bestow on his successor an exceedingly unwelcome surprise.

Bacevich is a professor of history and international relations at Boston University and the author of, most recently, "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism."

--

Testing, has the ban been removed?

one could go to the least inhabited place on earth but rest assured there'd be an Indian and a Chinese take away there! ... its almost as if when the colonials were leaving the Indians asked them where they were going and what they were going to eat back home .... and tagged along! ... sweet revenge!

Why do Indians go to "Indian" restaurants that are run by "Pakis???" Aqal baRi ke bhaiNs? Abey, if you hate "Pakis" so much then go to Indian restaurants run by your own kind. It's easy to find out within minutes of being there who runs the a restaurant.

There are worse things happening in this world, and you're going on about food. . . idiots!!!!

Re: # 82; Laddu bhai

... of course they know! .. in fact I always use goat meat; beef has always been upon their insistence!! ... maybe they are as much hindu as I am muslim!

Re: # 81

cheema ji,

If you have the courtesy please inform the hindus that haleem contains beef- a lot of hindus do not know that.

I am sure to inform my momeen friends that the kebabs cooked at my place do not contain halal meat.......

if it helps anyone's case here, today I am cooking haleem ... with lots of beef!! some of my hindoo friends are popping over, along with a few whities/pakies .. the lot! and as far I can tell (from past experiences of feeding these rascals) ... they rather like it! ... I'd like to take credit (for my cooking of course) but I am inclined to think it is the beef!

"rabb ka shuker adaa ker bhai;
jis nai hamaari gaye banaai" !!

laddu:

did ajeya say it was haleem?

I was the one who suggested it might be haleem. It could have been something else.

If you are going to take it to this level, you have got to be one of the most deluded people.

Ajeya,

You must press charges against that man who tried to feed you haleem.

Let it become an international issue so that these PAki restaurants can be exposed.

Ajeya ,

You know we Punjabi hindus know these rascals very well...that is why we prefer chicken because one cannot pass off beef for chicken......which can be easily done in kebabs or haleem........

yeah laddu, everything we do is a conspiracy against hindus even in "paki restaurants."

you are such a sick and sad prick.

Re: # 73

my suspicions are confirmed.......that Islami rascal was trying to feed you beef halim knowing very well that you were a hindu ordering for vegetarian.

You should send the food inspectors .

You must prosecute one of these rascals .

You must call the police and register a case.

ajeya,

never eat in a PAki restaunt......they mix beef with their keema and even vegetables on purpose so that they can defile hindus.

these are Islamically sick minds.......

#71 Posted by ana on October 4, 2008 7:08:25 pm

heck no..i don't believe in that BS..