Search
 
Write
 
Forums
 
Login
"Let there arise out of you a band of people inviting to all that is good enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong; they are the ones to attain felicity".
(surah Al-Imran,ayat-104)
Image Not found for user
User Name: abdulruff
Full Name: Dr.Abdul Ruff Colachal
User since: 15/Mar/2008
No Of voices: 1602
 
 Views: 1012   
 Replies: 1   
 Share with Friend  
 Post Comment  

US Terrorism in Pakistan!

Of late, the US-Pakistan relations have entered a drifting posture with US strategists accusing Pakistan of not killing enough Muslims in the country on "terrorism" plank and US military killing innocent Pakistan Muslims as a lesson"“cum-punishment for an "uncooperative" Pakistan. With a possible Indian commitment to US-led terror force killing Msulims in Afghanistan and even Iraq under the anti-Islamic Indo-US nuclearism deal, the US agenda in Islamic world has become vivdly clear. But Pakistan seems to be still sleeping over the US intentions in Paksitan itself as part of its larger regional strategy .

ONE

Finally, USA has done what it is not supposed to do to Pakistan, its thick ally on "terrorism" in the region, send out a clear message to the world, Pakistan has been fighting Islam and kill only Muslims.  This month, U.S. commandos mounted a helicopter-borne ground assault on a Pakistani border village. Pakistan condemned it saying such attacks violate its sovereignty and the army has vowed to defend Pakistani territory. But Pakistan does not want to engage in a conflict with the U.S. But at the same time it's saying 'please respect our sovereignty' and it's giving some sort of clear signal, while trying to be as conciliatory as possible".

The USA has stepped up strikes on "militants" on the Pakistani side of the border by missile-firing drones. USA bombed Pakistan, a close ally, killing a few Muslims on the spot. The USA and its allies are waging a terror war in Afghanistan with an intensifying "Taliban insurgency" to thwart the imperialist move to control the country, which has raised doubts about the success of the West's seven-year involvement. U.S. officials say Taliban and al Qaeda-linked fighters use the ethnic Pashtun tribal regions along Pakistan's side of the border as an operating base to launch attacks inside Afghanistan, in Pakistan and to plot violence in the West. Targeting those safe havens has become a priority as frustration grows that Pakistan has not been doing "enough" to clamp down on fighters in the remote region. Since Sept 11 the US-ed terror forces have killed thousands of Afghans.

TWO

The U.S. attacks into Pakistan also put pressure on the Zardari government to stand up to what many see as U.S. aggression. If Pakistan let U.S. activity go unchecked they lose domestic credibility. So they have to do this kind of thing but not with the intention of destroying U.S. helicopters. Even during the occupation of Afghanistan by Soviet forces in the 1980s, Pakistan did not try to shoot down intruding Soviet aircraft but only to scare them away. A commentator said: "I don't think things will get worse but if they do, even then Pakistan will avoid shooting down American helicopters."

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari said his country's forces had only fired flares at the U.S. helicopters to tell them they had crossed the border. Like his predecessor Musharraf did, Zardari and his government also have pledged Pakistan's commitment to the U.S.-led terror campaign against the so-called "militancy" and the army has killed up to 1,000 "militants" in recent offensives in the northwest. But the alliance with the United States and the attacks on militants are unpopular with many Pakistanis, and cross-border strikes by U.S. forces erode the public support the government is trying to nurture. It's very bad as far as winning the people over, which is essential for the war on terror.

THREE

It appears it is only a "limited" war in Pakistan. Neither the United States nor its ally Pakistan will let a clash between their forces on the Afghan border escalate since both countries depend on each other for different reasons. US and Pakistani forces exchanged fire on the Afghan border on 25 Sept  after Pakistani forces shot at two U.S. helicopters from a Pakistani border post, the latest in a string of incidents that has ratcheted up diplomatic tension between the allies. The Pakistani military said its soldiers fired warning shots after the helicopters intruded over Pakistani territory, but a Pentagon spokesman insisted the helicopters had not entered Pakistan. No one was hurt. The word does not know the whole truth.  

 With long bi-lateral ties behind them, Pakistan needs the USA for economic reasons and the U.S. needs Pakistan for conducting its war against "terrorism" in Afghanistan. This arrangement would continue until most of the Afghans are killed. Both recognize the need for cooperation, but both are also trying to maximize their gain by building pressure on the other to an early withdrawal of hostilities. Alarming as the sight of the nuclear-armed allies shooting at each other might be, US-Pakistan hostilities, therefore, are unlikely to intensify although more such incidents were possible, with both sides driven by different compulsions. Apart from anti-Islamism, there is an element of economic aspect of US interests. Pakistan has to worry about Indian manipulations. 

The USA is the biggest donor of aid to Pakistan, desperately in need of foreign inflows as it struggles with a sharply deteriorating economy. Pakistani analysts also see the stepped-up U.S. strikes as an attempt by the U.S. administration to score points in the run-up to a November presidential election. As such, the U.S. attacks into Pakistan, particularly the drone missile strikes, are likely to continue and more minor clashes were possible. There is a perception that the possibility of such an incident in future cannot be ruled out but things will not spin out of control.

FOUR

By bombing Pakistan USA has appeased India and its Islamic blood thirsty media. It is of anybody's guess the US terrorist act in Islamabad is a part of the hidden provisions of the Indo-US nuclearism and India must have already the paid the sum in ready cash and if any balance is left over, Rice will collect it when she visit to solemnize the nuclear engagement.  In this context, Anti-Islamic Indian mindset is further exposed by Manmohan's recent statement that Iran cannot have nukes, but inversely meaning that only India should have monopolized  the tights to add more form all possible Westerns powers is ridiculous.

One thing becomes clear: Pervez Musharraf used his diplomatic skills to avert the imminent US terror attack on Pakistan as it right in the beginning of its anti-Islamic terror war in Afghanistan has threatened him of an attack on Pakistan. One does not, however, fail to infer that the US-Pakistan war is not quite serious enough and it has some other goals than the stated ones. In this era highly secretive manipulations and maneuverings, it is beyond the capacity of ordinary people to comprehend the real motive behind the current fiasco.

Interestingly, obviously, Islamabad's neighbor India has not yet made any "panicky" statement about the "explosive situation" prevailing in Pakistan with US fires. It is strange so because even when there is some little domestic disturbances in Pakistan, India would like to make a big hue and cry over the situation there speculating about their impact on "innocent" India. Media reports suggests that Pakistan got what it deserved from USA and as a US "strategic partner", India has no cause of panic.

FIVE

Pakistan has remained in a state of steady turmoil. Ramadan is a month the Muslims all over the world are expected to repent for their crimes and other atrocities committed against Muslims and rededicate themselves to the cause of Islamic way of life. As an Islamic Nation, Pakistan has an important duty to do for the regular killing of Muslims in Pakistan and nearby border in the company of the global terrorist USA. . 

Pakistani leadership is terribly mistaken if they think their own killing of Muslims, even on US payment basis, would be tolerated by the people of Pakistan. In the name of "terrorism" not only US-Pakistani forces have killed Afghan Muslims, but also a good number of Muslims in Pakistan as well. Pakistan leadership should realize that the global Muslims despise any horrendous acts of state terrorism against Muslims, especially by the so-called Islamic nations for what ever reasons. For the same reason Muslims across the globe got disillusioned over the Lal Mosque genocide perpetrated in Pakistan, killing Muslims entrapped in a mosque.

When it is understandable that the anti-Islamic states continue killing of Muslims around the world, it is atrocious and devastating, rather strange to see Pakistan, an Islamic nation, also doing the same job of killing Muslims mercilessly.  Anti-Muslim India kills Muslims in Kashmir and torture Muslims in India; USA and its terror allies kill Muslims in Islamic world, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq; Israel kills Palestinians in a sustained manner in order to make lands available for Jews new settlements. India wants to kill every Kashmir Muslim. But these counties are known as democracies and secular countries and hence they take liberty to do the ghastly genocide against Muslims. These anti-Islamic terror states can justify anything done to Muslims today.

But why should Islamic Pakistan? Do Pakistani leaders and media lords think that Pakistan was established in 1947 by its founder Mohammad Jinnah exactly for killing Muslims in their own land and nearby? Are they sure they have got the sanction and legitimacy and mandate for the current genocide of Muslims under "terrorism" category? If so, are they not repeating what the Christians in the then Muslim Spain did long ago killing almost every Muslim? Americans want to kill every Afghan and other Muslims in Afghanistan and nearby because that is their accepted mandate.                                         

The name Islamic Republic means welfare of Muslims and encouragement of Islamic way of life and does not denote any US or Indian culture. Arabs might not be interested in them either. If, however, Pakistani leadership is still not worried about Pakistan's place in Islam and would like kill Muslims in Pakistan and nearby, then why not Pakistan change its constitution also to read as "secular and democratic" Pakistan so that it could kill Muslims officially and more forcibly at par with other so-called democracies? With a "democratic and secular" label, Pakistan could do the job more convincingly than now!

 

One Word

 

USA, India and Israel know that too well! And they kill Msulims whereever it is possible as democracies. But Islamic Pakistan cannot be anti-Muslim also!!

Is Pakistan so sure India would not send troops to Afghnistan as parrt of the notorious Indo-US deal and kill Muslims there and in Pakistan?Will Pakistan's new leadership, people and media reflect upon some of these thoughts impartially and get back to this reader?

 

-----------------------

Thank you

Yours Sincerely,

DR.ABDUL RUFF Colachal

Researcher in International Affairs,

South Asia

 Reply:   The War of Terror and American Double Game in Pakistan
Replied by(Noman) Replied on (21/Oct/2008)
The following may be the most vital piece of information about 9/11, the War of Terror and its relationship to Pakistan, that you would have come across in the last seven years. Links provid

From the Blog: State of Pakistan

The War of Terror and American Double Game in Pakistan

The following may be the most vital piece of information about 9/11, the War of Terror and its relationship to Pakistan, that you would have come across in the last seven years.  Links provide details of original sources.  This has been put together with the help of the material based on the official records of the 9/11 Commission, the reports including but not limited to that appeared in Time magazine, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, CBS News, Dawn, The News International, USA Today, Center for Research on Globalization, Canada, New Yorker,  and sources like Gen. Musharraf's book (In the Line of Fire) and Alan Greenspan's The Age of Turbulence.

Why is that so that the three principal characters linked with 9/11 including its alleged master mind have not been tried in an open court while we are told daily by the US officials that Al-Qaeda - allegedly based in Pakistan 's tribal areas - is the biggest threat to the US ? What are immediate strategic objectives of the US in Pakistan?

In a paper titled ' Al Qaeda strikes back" for the May/June 2007 issue of the Foreign Affairs, Bruce Reidel (a former CIA official and now a fellow of a think-tank, Brookings Institution)  wrote: 

"Al Qaeda is a more dangerous enemy today than it has ever been before. It has suffered some setbacks since September 11, 2001: losing its state within a state in Afghanistan, having several of its top operatives killed, failing in its attempts to overthrow the governments of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. But thanks largely to Washington's eagerness to go into Iraq rather than concentrate on hunting down al Qaeda's leaders, the organization now has a solid base of operations in the badlands of Pakistan and an effective franchise in western Iraq." 

 If everything Mr. Bruce Reidel wrote is true, then this is Pakistan's war. The trouble is, most Pakistanis, specially those with access to more information, do not believe him or Pakistan's military establishment or those in the media or political parties who tell them that this is their war. This is CIA's dirty war. Let's explain why?

Those who question whether Al Qaeda is a threat at all to the United States question why there has been no attack on the US soil since 9/11.

Alan Greenspan wrote in his book "The Age of Turbulence" (page 227):  

"There was no bigger question in Washington than, Why no second attack? If Al Qaeda's intent was to disrupt the US economy, as bin Laden declared, the attacks had to continue. Our society was open, our borders porous, and ability to detect weapons and bombs was weak. I asked this question of a lot of people at the highest levels of government, and no one seemed to have a convincing response."   

Some go a step further and doubt if Al Qaeda is even alive! They include former CIA officials.

On Sept. 17, 2008, Time magazine published a story "Risking War with Pakistan" written by an-CIA officer (for the Middle East) Robert Baer. He wrote: 

"As Wall Street collapsed with a bang, almost no one noticed that we're on the brink of war with Pakistan. And, unfortunately, that's not too much of an exaggeration. On Tuesday, the Pakistan's military ordered its forces along the Afghan border to repulse all future American military incursions into Pakistan. The story has been subsequently downplayed, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Mike Mullen, flew to Islamabad, Pakistan's capital, to try to ease tensions.   But the fact remains that American forces have and are violating Pakistani sovereignty.

You have to wonder whether the Bush administration understands what it is getting into. In case anyone has forgotten, Pakistan has a hundred plus nuclear weapons. It's a country on the edge of civil war. Its political leadership is bitterly divided. In other words, it's the perfect recipe for a catastrophe.  

All of which begs the question, is it worth the ghost hunt we've been on since September 11? There has not been a credible sighting of Osama bin Laden since he escaped from Tora Bora in October 2001. As for al-Qaeda, there are few signs it's even still alive, other than a dispersed leadership taking refuge with the Taliban. Al-Qaeda couldn't even manage to post a statement on the Internet marking September 11, let alone set off a bomb." 

Here are some concrete and well documented reasons why the US claims about Al Qaeda are not credible.  Read this FBI testimony to the 9/11 Commission/US Congress of July 31, 2003      http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress03/pistole073103.htm  carefully, long one though; part most relevant to Pakistan is:  

"The FBI conducted a detailed financial investigation/analysis of the 19 hijackers and their support network, following the September 11th attacks. This investigation initially identified the Al Qaida funding sources of the 19 hijackers in the UAE and Germany. The financial investigation also provided the first links between Ramzi Binalshibh and the 9/11 operation. A continuing investigation, in coordination with the PENTTBOMB Team, has traced the origin of the funding of 9/11 back to financial accounts in Pakistan, where high-ranking and well-known Al Qaida operatives played a major role in moving the money forward, eventually into the hands of the hijackers located in the U.S." 

This above is consistent with what the Wall Street Journal had published on Oct. 10, 2001. The WSJ never followed up or contradicted this story but other sources such as AFP confirmed it.

Quote:  

Our Friends the Pakistanis 

Yesterday we noted a report from a Pakistani newspaper that Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmad had been fired as head of Islamabad's Inter-Services Security agency after U.S. linked him to a militant allied with terrorists who hijacked an Indian Airlines plane in 1999. Now the Times of India says Ahmad is connected to the Sept. 11 attacks: Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday, that the general lost his job because of the "evidence" India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre. The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen Mahumd.  Senior government sources have confirmed that India contributed significantly to establishing the link between the money transfer and the role played by the dismissed ISI chief. While they did not provide details, they said that Indian inputs, including Sheikh's mobile phone number, helped the FBI in tracing and establishing the link. 

Unquote. 

The three characters alleged to have been part of the money transfers from Pakistan for 9/11 operation were : 

1. Omar Saeed Sheikh (sentenced to 'death' in 2002 but "appeal" pending). He kidnapped Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal.  Musharraf wrote in his book Omar was an MI6 agent. Pakistan's then chief of the Intelligence Bureau; Brig. (retired) Ijaz Shah was the handler of Omar Saeed Sheikh. Sheikh surrendered to him in Lahore although Daniel Pearl was kidnapped from Karachi. Brig. Ijaz Shah was also accused by Benazir Bhutto of plotting to assassinate her. 

2.The ISI chief Mahmud Ahmad from Oct. 1999 to Oct. 2001. He disappeared out of the public eye after being 'sacked' on Oct. 10, 2001. He lives happily in Pakistan. 

According to a prophetic article published in the NEWS International on September 10, 2001: 

"ISI Chief Lt-Gen. Mahmoud's week-long presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council. Officially, he is on a routine visit in return to CIA Director George Tenet's earlier visit to Islamabad. Official sources confirm that he met Tenet this week. He also held long parleys with unspecified officials at the White House and the Pentagon. But the most important meeting was with Marc Grossman, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. One can safely guess that the discussions must have centred around Afghanistan . . . and Osama bin Laden. What added interest to his visit is the history of such visits. Last time Ziauddin Butt, Mahmoud's predecessor, was here, during Nawaz Sharif's government, the domestic politics turned topsy-turvy within days."

3. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - was arrested in March 2003 and handed over to the US but never faced open trial. According to the 9/11 Commission Report he was "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks." On October 12, 2006, Time magazine reported that "KSM confessed under CIA interrogation that he personally committed the murder" of WSJ journalist Daniel Pearl.

Why is that so that these three characters have not been tried in an open court while we are told daily by the US officials that Al-Qaeda - based in Pakistan's tribal areas - is the biggest threat to the US.  Does anyone in the US think tanks or Pakistan's establishment or pro-US media have a logical and rational answer for the above? 

Finally who are Pakistani Taliban? The former Taliban Pakistan chief Abdullah Mahsud (and a cousin of Baitullah Mahsud) was arrested by Rashid Dostum in Afghanistan in December 2001 and handed over to the US. He was kept in Guantanamo Bay till March 2004 and then released. He headed straight to Waziristan. And then the Taliban insurgency gathered momentum in the northwest Pakistan. By the way, he also killed two Chinese engineers before he was killed by Pakistan's security forces in Baluchistan on July 24, 2007, just days after a peace deal between the Pakistani government and Waziristan militants collapsed. {Why do these militants target the Chinese?  Lal Masjid mullahs did that as well !!!!}

Now Baitullah Mahsud leads Taliban-e-Pakistan and was accused by Musharraf of having the secret support of the CIA. Recently there have been rumours that Baitullah Mahsud died but he is believed to be in coma. It is quite probable that the Taliban would nominate a new leader to replace him. Curiously, these developments have followed the publication of reports in Pakistani media that the Pakistani authorities protested to the US in July 2008 that the US agents have been helping Baitullah Mahsud.

What does it all mean? Where this is all leading to? What is the strategic objective of the US in Pakistan? According to Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, the director of the Center for Research on Globalization, Canada:

"The political impasse is deliberate. It is part of an evolving US foreign policy agenda, which favors disruption and disarray in the structures of the Pakistani State. Indirect rule by the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus is to be replaced by more direct forms of US interference, including an expanded US military presence inside Pakistan. This expanded military presence is also dictated by the Middle East-Central Asia geopolitical situation and Washington's ongoing plans to extend the Middle East war to a much broader area."


 
Please send your suggestion/submission to webmaster@makePakistanBetter.com
Long Live Islam and Pakistan
Site is best viewed at 1280*800 resolution