Why is the future the same as the past in my Zionist-controlled War Dailies, readers?
Today
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 19 — The wave of violence that has gripped Pakistan in recent days spread to new parts of the country and featured more ferocious tactics yesterday, with suicide bombers targeting a mosque, a police academy, and a convoy of Chinese engineers in attacks that killed more than 50 people.
Three suspected suicide bombings in far-flung corners of the country left at least 48 dead on Thursday, as the government sought to tame the disorder by resuscitating a widely criticized and now collapsed peace deal in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
Tribal elders were scheduled to go to the tribal area of North Waziristan on Thursday for another attempt at persuading militants affiliated with the Taliban to resurrect a truce signed last September.
The severity of the violence has stunned Pakistanis. It has also left the country groping for direction as the military, pro democracy moderates, and radical extremists vie for control in a struggle that is likely to intensify. The military has vowed a fresh offensive and is moving troops into position.
The peace deal was initially supported by the Bush administration, which has lately openly criticized it as a perilous mistake. On Thursday, the White House went further, saying it would not rule out its own military strikes against suspected terrorist targets inside Pakistan.
Sources within Pakistan's armed forces have said that they are planning a major operation against extremist fighters and that they are readying troops and supplies. For the second straight night, residents of North Waziristan reported hearing shelling yesterday , though it was unclear who or what had been hit."
Bibliography: "Bombings in Pakistan Leave at Least 48 Dead" by Somini Sengupta and Ismail Khan/New York Times July 20, 2007 and "Suicide bombings spread in Pakistan; More than 50 die as attacks intensify" by Griff Witte/Washington Post July 20, 2007
Tomorrow
"Pakistan's uncertain future" by Rajan Menon/Boston Globe July 20, 2007
Let's see how good he did, and what path was chosen, readers:
After the shootout at Islamabad's Red Mosque, the pro-democracy demonstrations against Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf in the months preceding it, and Islamists' rallies and suicide bombings following it, the United States finds itself in a familiar situation, aligned with a general who grabbed power in a coup but has become politically isolated, perhaps beyond repair. The difference is that Pakistan is now a more dangerous place than it was under the three prior military strongmen, Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, and Zia ul-Haq.
Please read: Memory Hole: Red Mosque Crisis
Although the upsurge of radical Islam began under Zia (a patron of the Red Mosque) the threat now posed by terrorist groups and seekers of a sharia-based society is unprecedented, even though they are a minority with thin public support.
[Really? During the Red Mosque "crisis," the MSM reported all week that the government refused to negotiate. On the seventh day, the MSM reported that the government had been pushing for negotiations!!!! At that point, I'd about had it with Amerika's MSM LIES!!!!]
On July 8: "The mullahs and their students have earned little public sympathy in their own neighborhood or around the country."; July 12: "It was still not clear yesterday how Pakistanis would react to the raid. There was a small demonstration in the western city of Peshawar, but otherwise public reaction was muted."
And yet, "The government crackdown at the mosque prompted protests in Pakistani cities including Lahore and Quetta.... it's funny because they don't web the picture:
Caption: "Pakistani religious students in Multan, Pakistan, reacted to yesterday's army operation against Islamic militants holding Islamabad's Red Mosque."
Description: There are HUNDREDS of THEM!!! They are clogging the street as far as the eye can see.
And yet, "The mullahs and their students have earned little public sympathy in their own neighborhood or around the country... public reaction was muted... but the government changed its tactics... reflect[ing] concern for the public backlash... and the danger of civilian casualties and damage to the holy site of a mosque.
And yet, "the cleric is an unpopular extremist."
And yet, "Anti-Musharraf protesters took to the streets of every major Pakistani city to blame the US-backed leader for the violence at the mosque... More than 1,200 people chanted slogans denouncing Musharraf after they emerged from mosques after afternoon prayers in Karachi, the country's largest city... Small rallies were also held in Rawalpindi, Lahore, Peshawar, and Islamabad."
So WHATEVER, SHIT MSM!!!]
And let us add this little gem as well:
"As Faryal Leghari, writing for the Daily Star of Lebanon explains, "the Red Mosque hosted many foreign militants, including Uzbeks as well as Taliban from the tribal areas. It is widely known that Maulana Masood Azhar, a founding member of the JeM [Jaish-e-Mohammed], had also visited the seminary in the past. It has also been brought to light, though inconclusively, that Al-Qaeda’s number-two leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had been in close contact with the seminary leaders."
Pakistani cleric Abdul Rashid Ghazi, killed in the Lal Masjid attack, was connected to the ISI, according to no shortage of Pakistani observers. "What a lot of people are saying and rightly so is that Abdul Rashid Ghazi and his brother were monsters created by the security agencies themselves who went out of control and then had to be eliminated. The connection between the agencies and the two brothers is possibly what explains the bunkers inside the mosque and the arsenal," writes Ayesha Siddiqa for Rediff News. "The operation against the Lal Masjid is significant in terms of the military’s decision to eliminate the terrorists it had created itself. It is another significant point in the nation’s history in which the army tried not only to establish the writ of the State but sent a firm message to all sorts of militants that any action against the will of the State will not be tolerated," especially when that state receives a large boondoggle from the United States, a pay-off in the "war on terrorism."
Of course, the United States cannot be trusted, as it invariably turns on its friends of convenience. Musharraf will be sacrificed for the larger plan—the clash of civilizations, the neocon agenda to agitate the CIA spawned and nurtured "Militant Islamic Base" in P2OG fashion, essentially a GWOT psyop designed to get the ball rolling for the next few generations, as promised."
O.K., back to yesteryears piece.
In their eyes, secularism and democracy are apostasy, the United States the prime enemy of both Pakistan and Islam, and Musharraf its lapdog. The new political landscape is particularly perilous now that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is a haven for Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
I'm so tired of the "Al-CIA-Duh" fall lies, I mean, fall guys. Not fooled anymore.
Musharraf's victory at the Red Mosque will prove no more than tactical. The radical Islamists, who have already tried to kill him twice -- three times if the recent firing of a missile at his plane was their handiwork -- will now gun for him with greater determination, using the "martyrs" of the Red Mosque to mobilize their supporters and to gain more as witness the call to arms by Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda's deputy chief, and Pakistani fundamentalists. And while the parties and organizations demanding a return to civilian rule and democracy by and large supported his storming of the mosque, they will continue their campaigns.
Why haven't those 'Al-CIA-Duh's gotten him anyway?
They "got" Bhutto instead, right?
What lies ahead? Four scenarios seem probable.
O.K., let's see how he did.
One is the continuation of the status quo, with Musharraf retaining power but becoming weaker as his political standing continues to erode. The radical Islamists will remain as much , if not more of a problem. While the Bush administration will continue to proclaim (in public) that Musharraf is a stalwart ally against terrorism, Al Qaeda will continue building its bastion in Pakistan's northwestern tribal areas and the Taliban will keep crisscrossing the border with Afghanistan. The rift between Musharraf and the democratic will widen. Musharraf might attempt to reassert control by instituting martial law, but that would not solve the underlying political problems.
Strike!
Mounting upheaval could lead to Musharraf's ouster by another general who amasses support from the institutions that have been Pakistan's true power brokers, the army and Inter Service Intelligence, but this second scenario won't be a better one, and it could be worse. The jihadists won't quit, the democratic political parties won't be satisfied, and the new ruler, busy consolidating power, may prove less effective against hard line Islamists and their foreign partners.
Stee-rike two!!!
A drift toward a civil war between the jihadists against the government is a third possible outcome. Pakistan would suffer more violence and terrorism, and its high economic growth rate would slow. Al Qaeda and the Taliban would be strengthened, and the danger of war in South Asia would increase because groups that have masterminded terrorist operations in Kashmir, and indeed elsewhere in India, operate with considerably greater freedom.
[Well, I see this happening anyway, which is hard to grasp seeing that the government, via ISI, IS the TERRORISTS!!
On BOTH SIDES! Hmmmmmmm!!!!!]A fourth possibility is a compact between Musharraf and the opposition political parties. The result would be an interim national unity government that schedules elections that would be held under terms acceptable to all sides and monitored by international observers to verify their fairness.
[That means Bhutto's back -- but not for long it turned out!
And this option was used; Mushy won't be impeached by the elected government.
That's just fooleys.
Regrettably, Musharraf has spurned the moderate opposition parties rather than reaching out to them. For all their faults -- which include running inept and corrupt governments -- Pakistan's democrats, whether secularists or moderate Muslims, regard the extremists as a dire threat (as does the majority of the public, despite its opposition to Musharraf's participation in the White House's "war on terror").
[See above comments about that, please, reader. On July 8... liar! ]
They urged action against the Red Mosque militants for months while Musharraf temporized, allowing the radicals to become ever more brazen, and applauded him when he finally moved.
Well, we know what that was now.
This scenario is hardly perfect. Apart from the record of Pakistan's elected governments, Islamist parties could do well in the elections (though they have not in the past and are not all of one mind; some even support Musharraf), and the extremists will surely persist.
But the only plausible outcomes for Pakistan in its present state are bad, terrible, and uncertain ones. If anyone has a plan for a better result, it's a good time to present it.
Rajan Menon is a professor of international relations at Lehigh University and a fellow at the New America Foundation. His latest book is "The End of Alliances."
[Awww right!
How about LAYING DOWN the GUNS and BOMBS and START TALKING to PEOPLE?!
How about NOT KILLING THEM?
I mean, these guys up in the hills are FASCINATING!!!
Why do we want to KILL THEM? 9/11?
Puh-Leeze!!!
Let's TALK to THEM, HELP THEM (and maybe they could help us) and FIND OUT WHAT THEIR BEEFS ARE?
How about that, huh?
How about NO KILLING, how'd that be?
I said that last year and it goes double one year later.
