Good article, well balanced, I hope people will read all of it before jumping in with both feet.

If you want effective democratic leadership then why did your country vote for a corrupt husband of a corrupt woman who have an absent teenage son who was crowned leader of the ruling party?

People get the leaders they deserve and this is why Pakistan is in a mess. Your calling for western meddling is bound to make things worse. Hows about Pakistanis trying to sort out their problems between themselves and their neighbours instead of relying on warmongering nations on the other side of the world bent on colonial schemes?

I am not a Muslim. My understanding of your faith is limited. As I understand it though there are three major branches of Islam territorially overlapping each other and various national boundaries. Within these branches there are loosely connected and fluid schools of thought, of varying sizes most very localised and specific to the economic and cultural traditions of the areas they have originated from. These lines of thinking are allied to each other and co-operate with each other as the circumstances they face change. The western construct of radical Islam is exactly that. A figment of simplistic reporting. What is in fact happening is that increasing numbers of Muslims are finding their traditions threatened by external cultural, financial and territorial encroachment to varying degrees.
This is causing the various and diverse schools of thought to temporarily ally themselves with the more fundamental schools in order to strengthen their theological, intellectual roots and tenets. This is done understandably to counter the territorial and cultural erosion and dissipation they face if they do nothing. Anti Moslem feeling and propaganda is also causing many Moslems to adopt a more defensive position, often misinterpreted.
This defensive reaction is nothing new, it has been in progress for the last fifty years or so. This reaction has been exacerbated and accelerated by the American / British territorial invasions. However it was accelerating before 2001 due to western financial and military support for outdated feudal regimes of varying antiquity and adherence to the beliefs of your religion. The support for these regimes and for Israel by America is the true root of the 2001 attacks, and for anti-western feeling amongst many followers of Islam.
The cultural dilution and encroachments are what has caused the rapid growth and emphasis of Sharia Law in recent years to strengthen adherence to The Faith. This is understandable, as internal opposition to some of the more reactionary regimes has grown, religious law being a replacement for civil law. The oppressive nature of some of the secular regimes is what has created the growth of theological politics within the Islamic faith.

Pakistan doesn't have very long to prove that it isn't a complete basket case. The number of terrorists collared in the UK with their roots in Pakistan don't exactly help encourage us to imagine that the country is under control.

MS Khan

Pakistan would be better of without west.

I agree with Imran khan ..So called war on terror has created more problems for pakistan which was not there.

Grow up and stand on your own legs...

It would seem that the tragic war is escalating, embroiling more innocent civilians in its path. It is further destabilising an already struggling and volatile nation, that has been forced by the wars of the last 30 years in Afghanistan to accommodate the refugees and fighters displaced. The militancy created by the presence of foreign coalition bases and action will spread, drawing more recruits into the fighting. The supply and training bases the coalition are trying to control will quickly be moved to the borders of the new conflict. This will draw yet more recruits to the cause of militant Islam. The totalitarian control the Taliban exercise will take root. Successful democratic government in Pakistan will then be even less likely, as the ideas of theocracy the war has accelerated cause yet more western supported military control.
The oppressive nature of some secular regimes is what has created the growth of theological politics within the Islamic faith. A theocracy will be a barrier to any progress towards freedom, modernisation and tolerance for all the people, as antiquated oppressive laws are imposed.
The conduct of this war is counter to its objectives. It is creating and spreading the ideology and hatred it seeks to challenge. The Islamic world is sliding backward dragging Muslims into self-created oppression.

There are a lot of peoples on the Indian sub-continent and the world recession will create tensions enough without a possible border war and inter ethnic civil violence. If an Islamic theocracy of some description takes power in Pakistan that scenario seems almost inevitable given the historical antagonism between some of the religions.
With the situation as it stands now, intensified terrorist incursions and further destabilisation of the northern border regions of India seems a strong possibility. Particularly where there are large Muslim minority populations.
The loyalties and focus of the Pakistani military will be divided. That will reduce current levels of control on both northern and southern borders, as attention is diverted to suppressing internal unrest. The Indian government is unlikely to have any sympathy for the situation faced by Pakistani government soldiers.
I think it almost inevitable that the Pakistani army will implode under such pressure. It looks as if Islamic theocracy in Pakistan is a strong possibility. We havent even begun to consider the nuclear weapons in the equation.
One word springs immediately to mind.
FASAD
Kicking a beehive that size is really goddam dangerous !

You won't get Western help, anyway. The USA has decided it wants to end oil dependency - so there's no longer a self-interested motive for them to intervene.

Lets not forget Pakistan's existence derives from Western interference - namely, partition.

But maybe the West's declining economic interest in the region could lead to a wider retreat from military interference in Pakistan's neigbouring territories - but don't count on it. We keep deluding ourselves that the Taliban is some 'mother superior' that Islamic fundamentalists can't do without, that aspiring terrorists are dependent on them. But I don't believe this is the case.

Destroy the Taliban and without a strong 'hearts and minds' campaign, the independent and autonomous nature of this terror threat will be more fully exposed.

Pakistan should have been fenced off long time ago, when it was clear, terrorism and Pakistan go hand in hand.

A stronger measure should have been taken against Pakistan, when it became clear A.Q Khan was selling nuclear know how blue print to whoever had the $. He is now free from "a house arrest".

The rest of the world has fallen too cheaply for Pakistan double speak for far too long and paid top $ for all the lies. Pakistan should just be left alone to consume its main export, which no one wants - their well minted madrasas terror graduates.

Who said: what goes around, comes around! Pakistan should be left alone to enjoy the fruit of her labour. Only Pakistan can decide, how abundantly they want to reap the seed they had sowed.

You know Pakistan's troubles are caused by others - the Indians, Western nations and others who came to impose a violent extremist religion, forced marriages, backward culture, tribalism etc on Pakistan.

Politics does not work. Military dictatorship does not work. Uncovered Western educated ladies, writing on Pakistan are not taken seriously. They will be snubbed, abused, and humiliated, but they pontificate anyway, because they can express themselves on forums such as CIF, where they ARE taken seriously by other Western educated Pakistanis.
Too bad, when they visit Pakistan, they need the protection of the security forces, which are also part of the problem. There are layered levels of hypocrisy that appear when educated British Muslims offer their opinions on their homeland.
It is a paradox, as defending ones people, culture, religion and behaviour to a hostile West, and then experiencing the brutality, corruption, violence and bigotry inside the country itself. The casualty of this relationship is truth.

Pakistan is a nation of 173, million people it is pointless generalising, each person is an individual with a history, background and culture that has shaped their views. What we are seeing in the world today is the friction created by modern globalisation of ideas, finance, industry and sadly war. Superimpose the speed of current accelerating change on a feudal culture that has remained stable and set in archaic ways for centuries and tension is bound to erupt. I am not suggesting that Pakistan is in the main backward, it has obviously advanced and modernised greatly since independence. Many of its people have been left behind though. The tension we are seeing now is the inevitable result of that. Controlling the antagonism to prevent catastrophic loss of life is the challenge.
Jihadists are not generally understood. Most of them are in fact very nice indeed. Apparently in Arabic, Jihad means striving in the way of Allah. There are four types of Jihad it is a concept, comparable to the Christian resistance to sin. Our understanding and translation offends Muslims. A much less offensive and accurate term would, so I understand, be Fasad, which describes illegitimate violence.
The threat from Fasadists might be diminished if the Free Press had been a little more accurate with their terminology. Jihad you could say is an action that has been declared righteous. Sometimes such declarations are made by individual clerics. That does not mean all followers of the Muslim faith agree. The opinions on the interpretation of the Koran are as varied as the subtle nuances in Arabic. The life and actions of Mohammed are also consulted to clarify opinions. At its core Islam is about peace, love and fraternal compassion for ALL in the same manner that the other two Abrahamic religions are. Christians and Jews are referred to as People of the Book.
Because a self proclaimed, deluded, fundamentalist, Christian Reverend Minister with a few followers declares it righteous to hate homosexuals or American soldiers killed in action, does that mean all Christians believe it? Islam does not have a leader. Some clerics are more senior than others, their opinions might carry more weight but there is no overarching structure of leadership. How the Koran is interpreted depends on the leader who imparts his opinions.
Islam is the religion of about one third of the people on this planet. It is rapidly overtaking Christianity as the Worlds leading religion.
Our understanding of the Muslim faith is dismal particularly when you consider that Muslims in general are much more devout than their fellow Abrahamic Christians. To defeat the threat of The Taliban co-operation and understanding between Christian and Muslim is the only rational way forward, particularly in a nation with a population of 73 million. The vast majority of Muslims in Pakistan and India want nothing to do with archaic and totalitarian interpretations of their religion. Neither do they want the imposition of strict Sharia Law.

these ruthless and armed groups who are now terrorising populations in not just the tribal areas, but also settled parts of the northwest province.

I have no sympathy with The Taliban, who were fabricated and armed to kill people like me- secular, socialists opposed to imperialism.

But the current situation is that the Taliban saddle is fastened on to the horse of independence, self-rule and a refusal to submit to rule by the Empire and its agents.

Such times occur in the history of nations: liberals, reactionary nationalists and communists put aside the differences which define them to expel foreigners. They are united by the disgust that they feel at the random attacks on villages by bombers casually wiping out women, children and non-combatants to demonstrate their power.

They find the very phenomenon of the "predator" missiles and the "reaper" drones, guided to their targets by uniformed video game players in Reno, utterly obscene- slime spat in the face of mankind.

The corruption and the cynicism with which Pakistan's ruling elites have been manipulated, enriched, empowered and protected from the citizenry has given everything about the 'west' a bad name.

Time and again democrats, peasant land reformers, secular 'modernisers', socialists have been taught that their dreams of peaceful change, evolutionary development and a sensible national debate are empty. That there can be no politics which do not begin with the acceptance of the status quo and end with doing as they are told.

The best thing that the 'west' can do for Pakistan is to leave the place alone, stop arming the tyrants, stop using the country as a massive religio-social laboratory for Saudis, with guilty consciences and more money than they know what to do with, and let the people do what they would have done years ago if we had let them: govern themselves reasonably, for themselves.

Until we do there will be resistance and the Resistance will be called terrorists, fanatics, bigoted nationalists, tribalists , islamo-fascists. And so on.
They may be all or none of these things, but as long as they are protecting their communities from foreign tyranny and comprador corruption they will enjoy the support of those among whom they live.

ellis

Very true

Excuse me, but how on earth can Pakistan be a Nuclear State without Western support?

All terror activity is monitored and approved by the West before it happens...this attack on cricketers being the equal of the Mumbai attacks...hmm.

Either we allow Iran to become a Nuclear State and balance Israel...or we take away Pakistans Nuclear ability.

But why should this decision be a, secret and b, based on terror?

Peace is the word.

One small, unsuccessful and isolated attack (and I am talking about Mumbai) should not lead the Eastern world down the same garden path Bush allowed America and the West to follow after 9/11.

2 wrongs do not make a right,

Pakistan is fast descending to the depths that Algeria fell into in the 1990's when the West abandoned that country to relentless bloodletting.

That Pakistan consists of a corrupt ruling class and equally corrupt Generals are manner from heaven to the extremists and Taliban, who are exerting influences in much of rural Pakistan, add to that an Afghan War nowhere near to conclusion, you'll have to think that this will continue for much of the next decade or more.

Add to this the black hand of the Pakistan security services, the instability actually works for the Army, if there it was a truly democratic country like India the Army would take it's proper place in society.

Even Pakistan cannot be united under Islam, which was the raison d'etre for it's creation, it is tantamount to to questioning the rational for it's existence.

Save for it's nuclear weapons why shouldn't the West give up on Pakistan?

FathersJustice
04 Mar 09, 10:29pm (about 4 hours ago)

Pakistan would be better of without west.

The world would be better off without Pakistan.

Sad, but very true at the moment.

Live long...

If the majority of Pakistanis are really fed up of the barbaric acts of terror by extremists, and want effective, democratic leadership, then here are a couple of thing they can try. 1) Reduce the military spending by 70% and 2) Use the money to provide alternative schooling and services for the poor.

Pakistani military strength is about half that of of India, which is six times larger. This gives the Pakistani military far more influence over other civil institutions through control of vital resources. No democratic country has such a huge imbalance between it's military expenditure relative to it's GDP. Much western aid is wasted on weapons which are ultimately useless against India but which divert resources away from the needs of the population. The population therefore turns to Wahabi institutions financed by hard line Islamists from Saudi Arabia and other places.

As for defending Pakistan against India, you should know that India has offered to turn the line of control into the international border. The vast majority of Indians do not now want undo partition.

There is little doubt that American drone attacks in parts of Pakistan fuel sympathy for the extremists

So writes Ms.Khan. The fact is that this is nothing but conventional wisdom, repeat something on telly and print a thousand times and everyone starts to believe it.

I would direct you to this excellent Opinion Research piece on this exact subject by Farhat Taj (The News International, 030509) conducted by AIRRA, input sampling from over 2000 in NWFP and FATA in Pakistan. The results would surprise you. Far from being unhappy about the drone attacks, those living in NWFP and Fata are HAPPY and support the drone attacks.

And with regards to this glorifying of Justice Chaudhry, I would like to add this - It was Mr.Justice Chaudhry who acquiesced and took oath under PCO as Justice of Supreme Court (under Musharraf) even as seven of his co-justices resigned rather than accept the PCO. Not exactly a hero.

Excellent article, Ayesha and a great post from Ellis.

Itsintheeyesandsoul,

I hope those "Islam is innately a religion of violence" posters will read your posts carefully. Thank you.

Yet, overwhelmingly Pakistanis are fed up of the terror. Barbaric beheadings, burning of girls' schools, and a general feeling of insecurity has resulted in several Pakistani human rights groups and women activists protesting.

That may be so Ayesha but believe me that the same people are still heavily indoctrinated by Islam and all what it stands for. I was speaking to my highly educated niece who is far from religious and trying to emigrate to Canada with her family, regarding the death sentence for Salman rushdie called for by the head of previous Punjab assembly in 2007 and endorsed by most TV Mullahs. I was hoping to hear that being progressive, and aspiring to move to a progressive country she would condemn it, instead she said that she would like to kill Rushdie with her own hands!
Teacup

I hope those "Islam is innately a religion of violence" posters will read your posts carefully. Thank you.

It is not what Ayesha says which is important. It is what Islam teaches. In order to sound more convincing and make a changing impact people like Ayesha must disown the violent parts of Quran and Ahadiths.

I asked a Pakistani friend what I could do to help and her reply was to let Pakistanis arrive at their own solution without foreign interference. I was surprised at first but I'm beginning to understand her point of view because in solving the mess themselves perhaps they will find the strength and wisdom to overcome these seemingly insurmountable difficulties and lay a foundation for the future.

Pakistan's army supported and continues to support terrorism and Wahabbi Islam. In every region it has touched- Kashmir, Afghanistan, Pakistan itself- other view points have been driven out and replaced by Wahabbi Islam and intolerance using violence and money.

When crocodile tears are shed for other Islamic peoples by these same defenders of the faith, let us not forget the reign of terror that has been unleashed on muslims of every other persuasion than Wahabbi by these same people. Bombs and bullets speak louder about their true nature than any amount of pious platitudes OR protest marches.

Right now- the dog has turned on its nominal masters- the people of Pakistan. The reason why Pakistan is unable to defeat the Taliban is because the army and the Taliban/Lashkar e Toiba are all hand in glove.

No civilian government is going to be able to take on the army and unless the people are ready to overthrow the army, things look set to get worse.

The Pakistan population has pretty well tripled in the fifty years since its inception. In any country even with huge resources a growth like this would surely produce some degree of instability. Pakistan unfortunately has very little.

Throw in a backward-looking (rurally at least imo despite Teacup's rosy urban view) and strong religion plus class/tribal differences (yes even within Pakistan) plus widespread poverty and you have a recipe for unrest.

(Emigrating to Britain, and elsewhere, to escape may be coming to an end - the problems of Pakistani colonies in Britain is another question but not less real)

Muradfar,

That comment in my post was addressed to the poster itsintheeyesandsoul, not to the author. As a matter of fact, though I am not Muslim myself, I am quite plugged into the Muslim society of SmallTeaTown and am taken as "one of us" by them*. Not one that I know of speaks approvingly of violence.

*At the 40th day ceremonies remembering the dead, the custom is to have two sets or rites, one for "Hindu maanu" (basically those who would be offended by having beef served at the function) and quite another for "amaar maanu" (our folk) which includes a milaad. I am always invited to the function for "amaar maanu".

Nice article Ayesha, well done.
-
You say that the western powers should: look instead to partner with the Pakistani nation, civil society activists and professionals, who have a far greater stake in the system and want their country to progress and function democratically.
-
Very true, but sadly it won't happen. The US is not interested in such things as people and democracy, whatever their pronouncements. They are only interested in geopolitics and resources.
-
In the past it has done all to support those aligned with US corporate interests at the expense of people and democracy, Saddam, Indonesia, Apartheid, Pinochet, Saudi Arabia, Haiti being only a few examples. Millions have been killed and dictators propped up.
-
The policy continues to the present, Egypt, Uzbegistan, Iraq, Afghanistan being only a few examples where dictators are supported at the expense of the people. Unfortunately, Pakistan is also an example.
-
Only the excuses change. Previously we were told to look for reds under the bed, now its Islamists, WMDs, drugs, whatever.

Anyone and everyone should realize this with open eyes that
'there is a grave proble'
'every problem has a solution'
'USSR was defeated with the help of the west but will foot soldiers on the ground'
'these foot soldiers are going to be again pakistan army and it's bacckers and helpers'

Hence,
the US must curtail;
'india from it's obsessions'
'karzai with his ill intentions'

and ask India to close down all it's consulates in afghanistan... unless that happens, we will see more of such things happening

Pakistan / ISI must give an equivalent reply to India in near future to balance the equation...

Why was Saqibmunirkhan's article removed it was written with true the feeling of a Pakistani National. He was making a valuable contribution to the debate ?? He obviously had deeply held beliefs and knowledge of his subject. Nowhere did he condone violence or use offensive language.
Why has he been unjustly censored?
That is appalling curtailment of free speech.
Particularly considering the Guardian's reputation.

amerk,

and ask India to close down all it's consulates in afghanistan... unless that happens, we will see more of such things happening

Pakistan / ISI must give an equivalent reply to India in near future to balance the equation...

So

1. India supports Islamic terror ?
2. You support terrorism.

You exemplify the kind of person who creates problems for Pakistan and the world. I am reporting your post for abuse- support of terrorism.

If posts like that of Saqibmunirkhan are removed it is easy to see why the debates are so sterile and narrow. The very tactics of the dictators complained of. I was just about to google the ethnic groups he mentioned to learn more. The man has a right to his opinions.

please do report... i am not worried, let the moderator decide !!!

1. terrorism does not have a religion so lets not talk about 'islamic terrorism' or 'hindu terrorism' or 'christian terrorism' - terrorism is all that we are seeing in today's world and there are only sponsors and activits in there and what i am saying is that india is a big time sponsor of regional terrorism and it is frankly very natural too as india wants to be a regional power and does not give heed to any one in the region - activits on the otherhand are interest groups who undertake these actions...

2. i do not support terrorism at all, but i am a pragmatic person and i know what the 'ceter right' and 'extreme center right' in a country will be thinking, they will be thinking that pakistan after this incident is defamed by india and they must and will react to what has happend, it's but natural....

We will keep on seeing such acts in the world till we all start respecting each other on equal basis which i frankly dont see happening in forseeable future...

good luck to all of us !!!

It's a bloody awful fix. Pakistan has been under military dictators for some 35 out of 60 years. It is almost impossible to build a civil society under such conditions. This is exacerbated by a seemingly endless war in a neighbouring country, in which not only parts of the Pakistan military have been involved but also two super powers.
What Pakistan needs is a long period of being left alone to solve its problems. Like many people here I don't find my experience of Pakistan or Pakistanis reflected in either religious extremism or military dictatorship. The new government is trying to re-establish the rule of law at a time when the economy is collapsing and the savage frontier war escalating. I admire those here who seem to think that they could do better or know what should be done. Speking for myself I have to admit that I don't have a clue. My only feelings are sympathy for the people, and some sense of understanding of the awful problems facing the government.

what i am saying is that india is a big time sponsor of regional terrorism and it is frankly very natural too as india wants to be a regional power

So what do you think about China ? It is 3 times the size of India and shares a border with Pakistan and Afghanistan ? Isn't it "very natural" that China sponsors terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan to secure its regional power status ?

In fact, China has vetoed several times in the UN security council against recognizing myriad terror outifts of Pakistan for what they are. It has toned down its veto these days due to blatant acts of terrorism. Look at how many countries in the neighborhood that China is friends with,are run by military dictators. Why is China supporting military dictators against democratic governments ?

Oops.

PAkistan has many things going against it
1. Pakistan was created in the name of Islam. It is natural that when political groups compete whichever can shout out the loudest faith in fundamentalist islam gets stronger.
2. Since its creation and due to the nature of its reation 'anti Indianism' has been pakistan's main foreign policy. Consequently pakistan became a subservient partner of american imperialism because India was seen to be pro soviet union. This led to pakistani involvement in Afghanistan ( in partenrship with CIA) during the eighties. The ony tool the west had in fighting the progressive policies of the pro soviet government was islamic fundamentalism. The result was the rdicalisation of not only Afghanistan but Pakistan as well. Rest is history, the results are there for us to see.

Pakistani civil society has a big problem if they have to survive. The mind set of every thing defined by Islam has to be shed and adopt a secular modern thinking. Otherwise even Allah cannot help them

We have to stay out of this and leave it to Pakistan to resolve.

Obviously we should offer humanitarian aid if there is some kind of repeat of what happened when Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan and we have to make sure what happens stays in Pakistan and does not affect India, Afghanistan etc.

But surely we have learned our lesson from Afghanistan by now. You can not build a state from the outside. Only the people who live there can do that.

@ShamelessHussy

Pakistan did not elect Zadari as President, well not exactly. The President of Pakistan is elected by the two houses of Parliament and the assemblies of the 4 provinces. The PPP and its allies had huge majorities in most of these elected assemblies. During the general election Zadari assured everyone he did not seek elected office but then manourvered himself into the President's seat, once the PPP did well in the elections.

Most Pakistanis are quite embarrassed that Zadari has made it to the presidency.

The seculars in Pakistan must show some courage. Dismantle the terrorist camps and jail all those who preach hate in madrasas.

As some people have already commented one of the biggest problems is the Pakistani mindset. Everything is India's fault. Its someone else's fault.

Even now people are saying that this attack was orchestrated by India. Even the driver of the team's coach (after his official de-briefing by the security forces) is saying that the attackers did not look like Pakistani's, they looked very 'Indian'. Oh for goodness sake, get me 5 north Indians men and 5 Pakistani Punjabi's and stand them next to each other without any religious symbols on them and tell me who can pick out the Pakistani or the Indian. Its usually said that 80% of the sub-continent Muslims are descendants of Hindus anyway.

When will Pakistanis realise India wants a stable Pakistan. Quite simply no one wants a mess or a failed state at its doorstep. An unstable Pakistan would be a disaster for India economically, as it would have to spend more money on defence to keep out the extremist groups.

Pakistanis need to accept that the attackers come from within and not from outside.

Finally to those Pakistanis that say that the attack in Lahore was carried out by India in revenge for the Mumbai attacks, does that therefore mean that Pakistan was indeed involved in the Mumbai attacks?

amerk,
Pakistan is defamed by its own shameless acts of terror and violence. All that India has to do is to watch as your own war dogs bite you in the arse.

As for your claims of not inciting violence, we all know what ISI is famous for- the Taliban is after all the creation of the ISI.

I have a lot of sympathy for the common people of Pakistan- very little for the likes of you- who are too paranoid and brainwashed to accept the truth.

Khan74

When will Pakistanis realise India wants a stable Pakistan

I think the Pakistani elite realizes that nobody wants anything from Pakistan except for them to retreat to their borders and stop stirring trouble among their neighbours. However they are too embarrassed to tell their population that they have run down the country to such a state that nobody else thinks they have anything worth fighting over except the religious nuts. I don't even think even most of the Pakistani politicians firmly believe that there is anything salvageable from the country in the immediate future - they seem to be hedging their bets and preparing a cushion for when they flee abroad - which doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their commitment to decisive leadership.

Khan74

When will Pakistanis realise India wants a stable Pakistan

That should read India wants a stable and supine Pakistan, and lets not forget there are still many in India that consider Pakistan as illegitimate and still part of India.

Ellis: I have no sympathy with The Taliban, who were fabricated and armed to kill people like me- secular, socialists opposed to imperialism

Good to hear, but just one thing.

The Taliban will kill anbody, including their fellow Muslims. Nothing to with secularism, socialists, pro-Russians Imperialists...

You see, the Taliban are a bunch of fascist thugs, so they don't tend to be that selective in who they kill and oppress.

Live long

'In his inaugural address, President Obama, in addressing the Muslim world, said, "we will extend a hand if you are willing to un-clench your fist"'.

That's just obscene. Consider the U.S.'s record in the 'Muslim world' over the last six decades or so. Millions dead in Iraq from sanctions and war. Overthrowing democratically elected governments (Iran '53). Materially supporting and propping up dictators (Hussein in the eighties, the House of Saud, Suharto in his genocidal assault on the East Timorese). Arming and funding the most extreme Islamist fundamentalist groups in Afghanistan in the eighties (Hekmatyar, Haqqani et al), so that they came to dominate the society. Deeply unpopular airstrikes that kill innocent men, women and children in Afghanistan to this day. But according to Obama, it's the 'Muslim world' that has to 'unclench it's fist'.

As this recent World Public Opinion poll shows, what the people of Pakistan apparently want is for the U.S. to just leave them the f*ck alone.

PaulLambert

That's just obscene

No, Islamofascism and their defenders are the obscene.

Millions dead in Iraq from sanctions and war.

Most of the dead of through the fault of Islamic terrorists and Saddam. Just like the 100,000 dead in Iran since 1979. People with agendas are quite happy to turn a blind eye... They have blood on their hands.

so that they came to dominate the society

I think you will find that Islamic terrorist groups have sprung in countries where the U.S. did not "train them" or "support them". You can keep defending Islamofascists and the millions of people they have oppressed and murdered over the years, Paul. You have blood on your hands.

But according to Obama, it's the 'Muslim world' that has to 'unclench it's fist'.

He is 100% correct. The vast majority of violence and murder inflicted on Muslims is committed by fellow "Muslims". Fact. Now, Paul, do you still think Muslims should keep that "fist clenched".

As this recent World Public Opinion poll shows, what the people of Pakistan apparently want is for the U.S. to just leave them the f*ck alone

If they stop sponsoring terrorism, they should. However, as long as a country with nuclear weapons is in danger of collapsing, the U.S. and every other developed country in the world will be keeping a very close eye (and hand) on Pakistan. You develop nuclear weapons, you are dealing with the big boys. Sorry, Paul.

The mess in Pakistan, as it is with many "Islamic" countries, is down to the rigid Islamic culture, economic and societal practice evident in that country.

Get of that "trendy bandwagon" and open your eyes, Paul.

Live long...and keep exposing the truth.

paullambert- you must have run out of characters, so i'll finish your sentence:

what the people of Pakistan apparently want is for the U.S. to just leave them the f*ck alone...

...but to keep sending the cheques to prop the country up.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/27/pakistan.usa

@perpetualperplexion:

That should read India wants a stable and supine Pakistan, and
lets not forget there are still many in India that consider Pakistan as
illegitimate and still part of India.

Yep thats what the Pakistani military has brainwashed the Pakistani people to believe, thats how they can justify their huge budget and existence. This was probably true for the first 20-30 years after partition but I think after that mainstream India probably lost interest and moved on.

There is still however a small group, isolated to a extreme right-wing Hindu minority who consider Afghanistan, Burma, Bangladesh and Pakistan to be part of Greater India. This group don't even like the Hindu nationalist BJP party.

Most Indians are now moving to the view that perhaps partition was a blessing in disguise. Without partition India would have had a long border with Afghanistan and a huge Muslim minority. The first PM of India Nehru when he finally relunctantly agreed to partition in 1947 said that it was:

'cutting of the head to cure the headache'

DrJohnZoidberg
05 Mar 09, 2:21pm (about 1 hour ago)

...but to keep sending the cheques to prop the country up.

The usual case of we given them a hand, they knife us in the back.

Was it ever thus?

Live long...

PeterParker:

'No, Islamofascism and their defenders are the obscene'.

That's a total non-sequiter. Just because reactionary Islamism is bad, it doesn't mean that all the things I referenced that the U.S./U.K. have done in the 'Muslim world' over the years are good. Overthrowing democratically elected governments and installing dictators in their place to protect oil interests is bad. Arming and supporting genocidal tyrants is bad. Bombing innocent men, women and children is bad. I

You disagree?

PeterParker:

'Most of the dead of through the fault of Islamic terrorists and Saddam'.

'Islamic terrorists' and 'Saddam' weren't responsible for the sanctions that starved and killed several hundreds of thousands of children. Nor were they responsible for the illegal 2003 invasion and everything it's lead to. They had absolutely no control over either of those things. It wasn't 'Islamic terrorists' collectively punishing Fallujah, committing massacres in Haditha, torturing in Abu Ghraib, shooting civilians like they were nothing in Basra, and dropping cluster bombs on housing estates. It was the U.S. and U.K.. Iraqis are aware of that, even if you aren't. And as Robert Jackson, a chief justice at the Nuremberg tribunals, pointed out:

'To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

PeterParker:

'I think you will find that Islamic terrorist groups have sprung in countries where the U.S. did not "train them" or "support them". You can keep defending Islamofascists and the millions of people they have oppressed and murdered over the years, Paul. You have blood on your hands'.

Another absolute non-sequiter. Who's 'defending Islamofascists'? I just pointed out that the very people you dismiss as 'Islamofascists' in Afghanistan - Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Jalaluddin Haqqani, Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, etc - were armed and funded by the U.S. in the eighties. To the tune of about $3bn. The U.S. also gave them the green light to carry out terrorist attacks in various central asian states. True fact. They had no real base in Afghanistan until that time, but they were so strenghtened by American (and Saudi, British and Pakistani) aid that they were able to pretty much take over the country. Indeed, the current Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates, was deputy director of the CIA at the time, and was co-responsible for the policy. He's open about it. See Ahmed Rashid's 'Taliban' and Peter Bergan's 'Holy War, Inc.' for the supporting evidence.

In light of these facts, it's simply obscene of Obama to say that the 'Muslim world' has to 'unclench it's fist'.

PeterParker:

'He is 100% correct. The vast majority of violence and murder inflicted on Muslims is committed by fellow "Muslims". Fact. Now, Paul, do you still think Muslims should keep that "fist clenched"'.

*Another* non-sequiter. Just because 'Muslims are killing other Muslims' in some countries, it doesn't make it okay for the U.S./U.K. to bomb, invade and subjugate Muslims and countries with largely Muslim populations, nor does it make it okay for them to support genocidal tyrants and overthrow democratically governments. Which is what they've been doing in the 'Muslim world' for decades. Mainly in the middle east, because that's where most of the world's oil is, and they've favoured 'stability' (read: dictatorship) over democracy to keep it flowing. Ask Condaleeza Rice.

PeterParker:

'Get of that "trendy bandwagon" and open your eyes, Paul'.

You call it trendy, I call it having a clue, not being a raving Islamophobe, and recognising U.S./U.K. crimes when I see them.

PaulLambert:

Just because reactionary Islamism is bad, it doesn't mean that all the things I referenced that the U.S./U.K. have done in the 'Muslim world' over the years are good

I never said it did. BTW, Islamic terorism is not just "reactionary". Stop defending the fascist terrorists.

Overthrowing democratically elected governments and installing dictators in their place to protect oil interests is bad.

Yeah, never said it wasn't Paul. Nice propaganda line, though. Straight from the pamphlet.

'Islamic terrorists' and 'Saddam' weren't responsible for the sanctions that starved and killed several hundreds of thousands of children

Saddam was wholly responsible. Of course, if they hat got rid of Saddam after Gulf War 1, it might have been different.

Nor were they responsible for the illegal 2003 invasion and everything it's lead to.

Islamic terrorists were responsible for this as well.

It wasn't 'Islamic terrorists' collectively punishing Fallujah, committing massacres in Haditha

No, no, no Paul. The Islamic fasicts were killing and oppressing people elsewhere. 100,000 in Iran alone since 1979, and that is just one country. Still if you want to focus on the massacres that serve your own agenda, fair enough.

Another absolute non-sequiter

Concentrate on your own arguments, rather than my grammar, thanks. Stick to the topic.

I just pointed out that the very people you dismiss as 'Islamofascists' in Afghanistan - Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Jalaluddin Haqqani, Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, etc - were armed and funded by the U.S. in the eighties.

But the U.S. didn't make them into what they are. You think islamofacists only become effiecient killers once they have had U.S. backing. Come off it.

The U.S. also gave them the green light to carry out terrorist attacks in various central asian states.

What "green light"? What "central Asian states"? What "terrorist attacks"?

They had no real base in Afghanistan until that time, but they were so strenghtened by American (and Saudi, British and Pakistani) aid that they were able to pretty much take over the country.

So I guess it is up to the U.S. and others to "sort Afghanistan out" and return it to how it was? That won't go down well with the CiF brigade.

He's open about it. See Ahmed Rashid's 'Taliban' and Peter Bergan's 'Holy War, Inc.

Anyone can pick and choose sources to fit their own agendas. Sorry, I don't do agendas.

In light of these facts, it's simply obscene of Obama to say that the 'Muslim world' has to 'unclench it's fist'.

It is not. Islamic terrorism was spreading before any of the "facts" you mention.

You call it trendy, I call it having a clue, not being a raving Islamophobe, and recognising U.S./U.K. crimes when I see them.

And ignoring the deaths of millions killed by Islamic fascists and then using UK/US crimes as "justification" for those deaths.

Sickening.

Live long...and keep exposing these bigots.

Parker:

'Saddam was wholly responsible. Of course, if they hat got rid of Saddam after Gulf War 1, it might have been different'.

No, the people who instigated and upheld the sanctions, despite knowing the effect they were having on the civilian population of Iraq, were the ones responsible. As Hans Von Sponeck, who was the U.N.s Humanitarian Co-ordinator in Iraq at the time, said of them:

'As a UN official, I should not be expected to be silent to that which I recognise as a true human tragedy that needs to be ended . . . How long should the civilian population, which is totally innocent on all this, be exposed to such punishment for something that they have never done?'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/635784.stm

I'll take his word over yours.

You can say 'Saddam should have disarmed, and they would've been stopped'. But he *did* disarm, and they weren't. Because the sanctions had nothing to do with WMD. They were about 'making life so uncomfortable for the Iraqi people it will eventually encourage them to remove President Saddam Hussein from power'. It was a disgraceful policy.

Parker:

'The Islamic fasicts were killing and oppressing people elsewhere. 100,000 in Iran alone since 1979, and that is just one country'.

Yeah, but again, i'm talking about U.S/U.K. actions in the 'Muslim world', how they've often been brutal, murderous and aggressive, and how, in that case, it's extremely rich for Obama to say that it's the 'Muslim world' that has to 'unclench it's fist'. It's been the U.S. and U.K. attacking, occupying and subjugating various 'Muslim countries' for decades, not vice versa.

Parker:

'But the U.S. didn't make them into what they are. You think islamofacists only become effiecient killers once they have had U.S. backing. Come off it'.

As I pointed out, it was U.S./U.K./Pakistani/Saudi monetry and military aid that made them the strongest groups in Afghanistan and allowed them to start dominating the society. To quote Ahmed Rashid's book:

'On the other hand Gulbuddin Hikmetyar's Hizb-e-Islami built a secretive, highly centralized, political organization whose cadres were drawn from educated urban Pashtuns. Prior to the war the Islamicists barely had a base in Afghan society, but with money and arms from the CIA pipeline and support from Pakistan, they built one and wielded tremendous clout. The traditionalists and the Islamicists fought each other mercilessly so that by 1994, the traditional leadership in Kandahar had virtually been eliminated, leaving the field free for the new wave of even more extreme Islamicists - the Taliban'.

Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil And Fundamentalism In Central Asia, p.19

Parker:

What "green light"? What "central Asian states"? What "terrorist attacks"?

I'll quote Rashid again here:

Three years earlier in 1986, CIA chief William Casey had stepped up the war against the Soviet Union by taking three significant, but at that time highly secret, measures. He had persuaded the US Congress to provide the Mujaheddin with American-made Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down Soviet planes and provide US advisers to train the guerrillas. Until then no US-made weapons or personnel had been used directly in the war effort. The CIA, Britain's MI6 and the ISI also agreed on a provocative plan to launch guerrilla attacks into the Soviet Socialist Republics of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, the soft Muslim underbelly of the Soviet state from where Soviet troops in Afghanistan received their supplies. The task was given to the ISI's favourite Mujaheddin leader Gulbuddin Hikmetyar. In March 1987, small units crossed the Amu Darya river from bases in northern Afghanistan and launched their first rocket attacks against villages in Tajikistan. Casey was delighted with the news and on his next secret trip to Pakistan he crossed the border into Afghanistan with President Zia to review the Mujaheddin groups'.

p.129

And Rashid isn't just come crank. He's a highly regarded authority on Afghanistan and Pakistan, and his book is seen about the best there is on Taliban era Afghanistan.

Parker:

'Anyone can pick and choose sources to fit their own agendas. Sorry, I don't do agendas'.

Haha. No, of course you don't. :) And my sources are impeccable.

PeterParker:

'And ignoring the deaths of millions killed by Islamic fascists and then using UK/US crimes as "justification" for those deaths.

Sickening'.

Except I haven't done that. I've just been pointing out how A) The U.S. and U.K. have committed more crimes and atrocities in the 'Muslim world' than any Islamist group has in the U.S. and U.K.. And B) How they've often supported reactionary Islamist groups, including those now allied with the Taliban. Hence, the 'unclench your fist' quote is sickening in it's hypocrisy.

Mz Khan
non of the players you mentioned are heroes.
Iftikar Chaudry, as someone already mentioned became Chief Justice under Musharraf and under PCO. Something he is now rallying against!
Nawaz Sharif and his brother lead an assault against the Judiciary in their time in office. Nawaz Sharif introduced a Bill which would run Pakistan on "Islamic Sharia" with him being the defacto head of state....thank God he was dismissed before the Bill came into effect.
We must accept Zardari because he came into power through the democratic process.