Musharraf ka ab kiya banay gaa?

[Awesome]

Everything goes in a cycle.

What we had in Pakistan since Zia's time was a Period of Chaos. We're now entering into a Period of Transition which would be followed by a Period of Stability.

 

[zpak]

One of the reasons I like Musharraf is that he managed to make the right decision at the right time. Some posters here would probably have liked the confrontational approach against America but the cost in terms of lives and territorial integrity would be too high. If Pakistan refused to side with the US, we would have been hammered back to the stone age. Comparing Pakistan with Iran would not be right. Iran still recieves trade and investment from Europe and the far east. Even Iran would suffer if there were complete sanctions put on it by the west (case: Iraq).

I'm going to have to agree with Asim. The number of journalists who can make fun of Pervez Musharraf and his government would never be allowed to do such under any of the "democratic" civilian governments we've previously had.
Also we must not forget Pakistan has began to diversify its sources support. Pakistan under Musharraf is also building better relations with China so if we lose American support we still have a source of backup on the international level. Even if Musharraf goes, the system is in place to continue.

 

[Neo]

As some new democracies have shopwn transition it van only be done by temp dictatorship that pushes away fundamentalistic and old-powe-people and gives the people the right to educate and develope. I think that Musharraf has said that clearly so do please look on google video where in the first part a "taleban" figure makes fun of Musharraf and in the second part Musharraf shows him the reality.

Nicely said Munir.
People opposing Musharraf often forget the 11 years of socalled democracy we 'enjoyed' and saw our country fall into the abyss of political corruption and monetary chaos.
Atleast Mush has already restored some of our pride and brought us back on track.

 

[lulldapull]

See I disagree on this whole issue of chamcha geeree that Pakistan's military is all about. The current set of issues and complications being faced by the military regime in Islamabad stem from a series of poor and toady decisions taken by Zia, and his cronies in the CIA. The so called "CIA jihad' that paksitan fought against the Soviets is what is at the crux of this problem. Who told these guys to fight that 'jihad'???...now who is telling them to undo that same jihad?

You know right now its all good, but what if they are asked to do something tomorrow which is even more unpopular? This essentially leads to a crediblity factor which is nonexistant for the Pakistani govt. no one takes them seriously.

Seems like foreign intervention in Pakistan's affairs is something that these guys are fairly used to. If swallowing your pride on many an occasion by these pakistani chamchay is by any means a guide, boy they have shattered all records.

Undo the Afghan "jihad'......Undo the Kashmiri 'jihad'....break your ranks with the 'terrorists and their set up that we helped you create throughout the 80's? Redirect and re-orient your policies to be in line with the flavour of the day (which happens to be that of these World Federalists)?..... or we'll bomb you to stone age? The carrot being we'll let you sell your towels, T-shirts and bedsheets in Walmart, besides chump change in aid. The usual peanuts that gets these chamchay excited.

I understand that for a defunct economy like pakistan, this is a big deal, as otherwise there is literally no hope to even get this meagre benefit that they are getting now, riding on the blood of innocent Afghans and Waziri's, who they blame for being ingrates. De-wahabbisation of the region in general of the militant apparatus, which they were directed by the same ppl to set up in the first place.

yaar its a joke! One phone call Generals, whose relationship with Afghanistan depends on a crack of the whip from Washington.

I think 9-11 brought to light a very interesting phenomena..........

What goes around comes around.

And with Washington's power getting severly diminished in the ME, due to the impending and massive debacle these Neo-thugs face in Iraq and Afghanistan, will affect the leverage they currently enjoy over Pakistani chamchay leaders, and specially this uninvited Pakistani military junta and for that matter over all these client regimes in the M.E. the traditional worthless and lackey regimes like Jordan, Saudi arabia and Egypt in Particular. Already these chamchay are trembling after Hezbollah's unexpected defiance and good showing against Israel. The bigger one being the huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge prize of Iraq that these Neocons have no other way of resolving except surrendering to Tehran.

So in the long run this bodes ill for these proxy regimes in Washingtons current setup. Its only a matter of time......

P.S. I haven't even delved into the national policy diasters that this guy musharraf has created.....its beyond the scope of this thread, and I will discuss later.

 

[lulldapull]

One of the reasons I like Musharraf is that he managed to make the right decision at the right time. Some posters here would probably have liked the confrontational approach against America but the cost in terms of lives and territorial integrity would be too high. If Pakistan refused to side with the US, we would have been hammered back to the stone age. Comparing Pakistan with Iran would not be right. Iran still recieves trade and investment from Europe and the far east. Even Iran would suffer if there were complete sanctions put on it by the west (case: Iraq).

I'm going to have to agree with Asim. The number of journalists who can make fun of Pervez Musharraf and his government would never be allowed to do such under any of the "democratic" civilian governments we've previously had.
Also we must not forget Pakistan has began to diversify its sources support. Pakistan under Musharraf is also building better relations with China so if we lose American support we still have a source of backup on the international level. Even if Musharraf goes, the system is in place to continue.

yaar Iran's case is not a misconception, they have played their cards right. They got rid of these imperialists back in 1979, after precisely discovering that (we still haven't figured it out yet)...they were being used by these guys. They aligned themselves with Russia and China, and now they cannot be isolated. There is strong support for the Tehran reime from both Russia and China. Obviously part of the reason is that Iran exports about $60-$75 billion per year in crude and refined products (and this is after unilateral U.S. sanctions).......We can never compete on that level.....But like someone also said that Iraq too had billions, and actually more oil than Iran...Right??? So that point is moot in a way. But needless to say pakistan should have looked on else where after the direct intervention of the U.S. in Pakistani politics when Bhutto was hanged.

Any way you get the idea....... I understand its easier said than done....but these guys are not trying. They are literally enmeshing us more in the cogs of this imperialistic machinery.

P.S. Besides I highly doubt that the U.S. would have atatcked Pakistan directly. they would have created trouble (from the East) tried a coup again! and Musharraf sahb would have been relegated to a pathetic corner of history. Pakistan had the capability back then to actually retaliate. Now even that is in question vis a vis the disposition of the meagre nuclear assets of Pakistan, and the delegation of the power structure most likely set up by the NSA regarding their future.

 

[Awesome]

See I disagree on this whole issue of chamcha geeree that Pakistan's military is all about. The current set of issues and complications being faced by the military regime in Islamabad stem from a series of poor and toady decisions taken by Zia, and his cronies in the CIA. The so called "CIA jihad' that paksitan fought against the Soviets is what is at the crux of this problem. Who told these guys to fight that 'jihad'???...now who is telling them to undo that same jihad?

Well even at that time we faced a soviet invasion. So it wasn't just about helping America. The Soviets needed warm waters and the only logical option was to go through Pakistan.

Probably shouldn't have done the whole madrassa bonanza, and changing Pakistani laws in the process. But we had to fight. Call it Jihad, call it balet.

And today we have an option of Agreeing to a few things (as difficult as it may be) or goto war with America. Till we aren't strong enough to say, No to about everything we have to agree to at least somethings.

And what are we agreeing to? Mostly we are killing terrorists, that too reluctantly.

You know right now its all good, but what if they are asked to do something tomorrow which is even more unpopular? This essentially leads to a crediblity factor which is nonexistant for the Pakistani govt. no one takes them seriously.

I don't know how you see but the things we're saying "yes" to is reducing not increasing. Especially America's open demand to send in thousands of troops to hunt OBL.

Seems like foreign intervention in Pakistan's affairs is something that these guys are fairly used to. If swallowing your pride on many an occasion by these pakistani chamchay is by any means a guide, boy they have shattered all records.

I'd have lesser pride when we'd be a bombed nation like Afghanistan or Lebanon. I like my nice streets, buildings and suburbs.

Undo the Afghan "jihad'......Undo the Kashmiri 'jihad'....break your ranks with the 'terrorists and their set up that we helped you create throughout the 80's? Redirect and re-orient your policies to be in line with the flavour of the day (which happens to be that of these World Federalists)?..... or we'll bomb you to stone age?

Which are also pretty much the things we should be doing. If we support terrorists that justify that the Quran says to kill infidels then we won't be much of a nation. It's a good and proud thing that Pakistan's finally this anti-terrorism.

The carrot being we'll let you sell your towels, T-shirts and bedsheets in Walmart, besides chump change in aid. The usual peanuts that gets these chamchay excited.

And not be bombed.

I understand that for a defunct economy like pakistan, this is a big deal, as otherwise there is literally no hope to even get this meagre benefit that they are getting now, riding on the blood of innocent Afghans and Waziri's, who they blame for being ingrates. De-wahabbisation of the region in general of the militant apparatus, which they were directed by the same ppl to set up in the first place.

They have more muscle than we do. You don't arm wrestle with someone knowing fully well about that fact.

yaar its a joke! One phone call Generals, whose relationship with Afghanistan depends on a crack of the whip from Washington.

I think 9-11 brought to light a very interesting phenomena..........

What goes around comes around.

Yaar for all these years our elected leaders didn't have the guts to stand up to the mullay or else they lose their vote banks. So now Mushy's finally giving it to the mullahs. It'd be ugly but someone's got to do it.

He's not going to do a pristine job of it, but I vote for the best man for the job available. Not prince charming.

And with Washington's power getting severly diminished in the ME, due to the impending and massive debacle these Neo-thugs face in Iraq and Afghanistan, will affect the leverage they currently enjoy over Pakistani chamchay leaders, and specially this uninvited Pakistani military junta and for that matter over all these client regimes in the M.E. the traditional worthless and lackey regimes like Jordan, Saudi arabia and Egypt in Particular. Already these chamchay are trembling after Hezbollah's unexpected defiance and good showing against Israel. The bigger one being the huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge prize of Iraq that these Neocons have no other way of resolving except surrendering to Tehran.

Our chamchay should be wise and follow suit. Not in Tehran's or Hezbollah's governance style but in aligning yourself politically.

 

[lulldapull]

Well even at that time we faced a soviet invasion. So it wasn't just about helping America. The Soviets needed warm waters and the only logical option was to go through Pakistan.

Probably shouldn't have done the whole madrassa bonanza, and changing Pakistani laws in the process. But we had to fight. Call it Jihad, call it balet.

And today we have an option of Agreeing to a few things (as difficult as it may be) or goto war with America. Till we aren't strong enough to say, No to about everything we have to agree to at least somethings.

And what are we agreeing to? Mostly we are killing terrorists, that too reluctantly.


I don't know how you see but the things we're saying "yes" to is reducing not increasing. Especially America's open demand to send in thousands of troops to hunt OBL.


I'd have lesser pride when we'd be a bombed nation like Afghanistan or Lebanon. I like my nice streets, buildings and suburbs.

Which are also pretty much the things we should be doing. If we support terrorists that justify that the Quran says to kill infidels then we won't be much of a nation. It's a good and proud thing that Pakistan's finally this anti-terrorism.


And not be bombed.

They have more muscle than we do. You don't arm wrestle with someone knowing fully well about that fact.


Yaar for all these years our elected leaders didn't have the guts to stand up to the mullay or else they lose their vote banks. So now Mushy's finally giving it to the mullahs. It'd be ugly but someone's got to do it.

He's not going to do a pristine job of it, but I vote for the best man for the job available. Not prince charming.


Our chamchay should be wise and follow suit. Not in Tehran's or Hezbollah's governance style but in aligning yourself politically.

Yaar that whole 'warm water' ports thing was a myth. Perpetuated by the West to keep our chamchay in line. Soviets ka dimagh kharab naheen hua tha to actually go and invade a country full of 130 million ppl! No way! And like I said Paksitan would not have been attacked, and instead these World Federalsits would have targeted Musharraf and the ISI leadership as its a weak security apparatus with lots of these mosttanday within the ISI up for sale...Just like how easy it was for them to get rid of Zia..

As far as this 'facing the jahil mullah's' of paksitan, this guy Musharraf has done a 180 on them too! Not only after getting thrashed by the Waziri's with more than 500 dead, and thousands more injured pakistani Soldiers (unofficially its probaly twice that figure, not to mention hundreds who have died in Balochistan on both sides), which he agreed to on gun-point from Bush, or the 'Writ of the State' garbage that he sprouts from his dirty mouth for killing Baloch nationalists.

If you notice that we didn't have any problems with Waziri's in the last 50 years of our existence, and Balochistan was quiet for the last 30 years too. But this guy has managed to alienate both those regions and its ppl's. Not because he wanted to, but because he is a coward and has repeatedly succumbed to threats.

Who knows what else they might have him do now......personally I have no respect for the man, but indignation. He works for the White house, not for that country called Paksitan. playing both sides of the fence will land him in trouble, and only underscores this vital fact that his own 'rogue' elements within the military and ISI are beyond his control. He has even admitted to it that retired paindoo from the ISI might be helping the insurgency. Actually being handed the truth by NATO after capturing so many of these Taliban on covert and terrorist missions inside Afghanistan and after the usual interrogation revelaing where and who is training these goons must have been another embarrassment. Like I said yaar the situation is very bad, and Musharraf's been asked to literally reign in a situation that he can't really do anything about.

Anyway have a read of this.....Bush stradling two of his favourite chamchay at the White house dinner.....both unwuilling and both pissed off at one another, because of the disgrace of being chamchay :

10/7/2006
MUSHARRAF AND PAKISTAN SLIPPING TOWARD DISASTER
CATEGORY: General

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

All was peaches and cream late last month when President Bush sat down with President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan to discuss the situation in Afghanistan as well as efforts by Musharraf to help the United States fight the War on Terror. That is, if you believe the public pronouncements of the three heads of state.

In fact, there were several strained moments between Karzai and Musharraf that illustrate the rising tensions between the two countries. Karzai has complained bitterly about Musharraf’s lack of action in closing off the border to Taliban incursions into Afghanistan while Musharraf accuses Karzai of not doing enough to defeat the Taliban who have already established a toehold in the southern part of the country.

All three men have tried to put the best face on what is rapidly becoming a crisis situation. Indeed, President Bush had this to say about Presidents Musharraf and Karzai in his remarks at the dinner:

“These two men are personal friends of mine,” Bush said, with Karzai and Musharraf standing by his side, not looking at each other. “They are strong leaders who have a understanding of the world in which we live. They understand that the forces of moderation are being challenged by extremists and radicals.”

What was left unsaid is that regardless of how well Musharraf understands the situation, he is rapidly becoming powerless to do anything about it – a result of internal Pakistani politics, external pressure by the United States, and the perilous state of his own hold on power in a country sliding toward religious extremism and potential rebellion.

It is not possible to overstate the danger Musharraf and by extension, the United States is in as a result of several recent developments in Pakistan that have backed Musharraf into a corner where all he can really do is play for time. With his own life in constant danger from half a dozen different sources and with his need to satisfy both domestic factions as well as the United States, his chief economic benefactor, Musharraf has been attempting to juggle an anti-terrorist and pro-terrorist policy that has only served to please no one and make his own situation dicey indeed.

Simply put, Musharraf has promised too much to both the United States and the Taliban and is unable to satisfy either side. Throw in the growing power of religious political parties and the constant interference and independence exercised by the Pakistani intelligence service (ISI) as well as a brewing crisis in Baluchistan where separatists have resumed their 50 year old rebellion against the central government and one can see where Musharraf is being overwhelmed by events and circumstances.

On top of all this, his power base in the Army must be tended while fending off calls for him to step down next year in time for elections. Those elections (if they are held) could legitimize religious extremists in sympathy to both the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The people of Pakistan are extremely angry at Musharraf for his cozying up to Washington and they may, if given the opportunity, raise up anti-Western leaders who would make Pakistan a Taliban ally rather than a country on the front line in the War on Terror.

To deal with all of this, Musharraf has chosen to give in to pressures placed on him by external forces while trying to keep some of the internal factions from uniting against him. His policies – sometimes wildly contradictory – reflect the realities of a nation being buffeted by militant extremism and a desire among its intelligentsia for modernity. Pakistan has been an “on again, off again” democracy in its turbulent history with democratic forces usually thwarted by a strong military who seize power from time to time when the army feels itself threatened by civilian control.

Musharraf came to power in a coup in 1999 when then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif attempted to remove him from the position of Chief of Staff. Refusing to leave, the army backed Musharraf and he took over in a bloodless revolution, later making alliances with some of the larger religious parties in Parliament to push through a measure naming him President.

These alliances with the religious parties have proven to be problematic. When the United States requested that he close some of the more radical Islamic schools or Madrasses where anti-western hate is regularly preached, Musharraf tried to oblige but was ultimately blocked by those same religious parties who supported him in Parliament. Now those Madrasses are being used by the Taliban to radicalize their fighters before sending them off to fight in Afghanistan.

As with so many other promises he has made to the United States, Musharraf says he has already done what we have requested or is trying his best. The fact is, much of what Musharraf claims as cooperation with the US would be described otherwise by all except those with a stake in pretending things are going smoothly in our relations with Pakistan; namely, our own State Department and the Administration who seem to walk on eggshells when it comes to criticizing anything Musharraf has done.

And what he has done recently has been a shocking example of his weakness in the face of threats to Pakistan’s independence. His recent deal with what Washington and Musharraf describes as “northern tribal elders” but who are in actuality Taliban leaders and their al-Qaeda allies in North Waziristan virtually assures the Taliban and the terrorists a safe haven where they can live, train, and plan for attacks on Afghanistan which is just across the border

While Mushrraf points out that the Taliban promise in the agreement not to carry out any cross border raids into Afghanistan, there are plenty of indications that they have already violated that part of the agreement:

Taliban attacks along Afghanistan’s southeastern border have more than doubled in the three weeks since a controversial deal between Pakistan and pro-Taliban militants, the US military said yesterday.

Pakistan’s military ruler, Pervez Musharraf, had promised the agreement with militants in North Waziristan would help to bring peace to Afghanistan. But early indications suggest the pact is having the opposite effect, creating a safe haven for the Taliban to regroup and launch fresh cross-border offensives against western and Afghan troops.

A US military spokesman, Colonel John Paradis, said US soldiers had reported a “twofold, in some cases threefold” increase in attacks along the border since the deal was signed on September 5, “especially in the south-east areas across from North Waziristan”.

For Musharraf’s part, he has also reneged on the deal by not releasing several hundred captured al-Qaeda members as he agreed to do. This is in response to enormous pressure from the CIA who point out that several high level al-Qaeda leaders are among those that would have been released (and still may be). The Taliban responded in typical brutal fashion; they launched a rocket that landed within yards of the Presidential palace and were evidently planning on attacking the Pakistani Parliament before two missiles were discovered in the vicinity. Asia Times reports that the “incidents were a clear show of disapproval in Waziristan over Musharraf’s basking in ‘Washington’s charm’, and that he had not implemented a key aspect of the peace accord – the release of al-Qaeda suspects – despite numerous promises.”

Thus, a demonstration of the dangers – both personal and militarily – of trying to play both ends against the middle.

But it is in Baluchistan where the Taliban now threatens both the permanence of the Pakistani state and the government of Afghanistan. And part of the problem has been one of Musharraf’s own making when he had the army assassinate Nawab Akbar Bugti, a respected tribal elder and former governor of Baluchistan.

That assassination set off waves of violence directed against Pakistani infrastructure including a vital natural gas pipleine that supplies badly needed foreign currency for the government. And it is here that the confluence of an incipient rebellion, the Taliban, and rogue elements in the ISI have all combined to endanger the government’s hold on the province as well as cause huge problems for NATO troops in Afghanistan directly across the border.

The recently concluded “Operation Medusa” in the southern Panjwai district largely involving British and Canadian troops, caused the almost unprecedented call by NATO commanders for the alliance to deal with the political situation in Pakistan which allowed the Taliban to cross the border from Baluchistan with impunity:

The cushion Pakistan is providing the Taliban is undermining the operation in Afghanistan, where 31,000 Nato troops are now based. The Canadians were most involved in Operation Medusa, two weeks of heavy fighting in a lush vineyard region, defeating 1,500 well entrenched Taliban, who had planned to attack Kandahar city, the capital of the south.

Nato officials now say they killed 1,100 Taliban fighters, not the 500 originally claimed. Hundreds of Taliban reinforcements in pick-up trucks who crossed over from Quetta – waved on by Pakistani border guards – were destroyed by Nato air and artillery strikes.

Nato captured 160 Taliban, many of them Pakistanis who described in detail the ISI’s support to the Taliban.

Nato is now mapping the entire Taliban support structure in Balochistan, from ISI- run training camps near Quetta to huge ammunition dumps, arrival points for Taliban’s new weapons and meeting places of the shura, or leadership council, in Quetta, which is headed by Mullah Mohammed Omar, the group’s leader since its creation a dozen years ago.

Incredibly, NATO discovered two Taliban training camps over the border near Quetta while the terrorists are using hundreds of Madrasses to fire up their fighters before sending them over the border. Many of those Madrasses are run by Jamiat-e-Ullema Islam, the main Baluchi political party who helped organize the Taliban back in the 1990’s.

NATO commanders are asking that Bush and Blair confront Musharraf over this blatant support for the Taliban by the ISI but to no avail. Besides, it is probable that Musharraf is powerless to do anything about it even if he wanted to. There are few Pakistani troops in that area by both agreement with the tribes and tradition. The fiercely independent Baluchis have never overtly acknowledged being part of Pakistan so it unclear what Pakistan could do to alter the situation.

So Musharraf is forced to let the situation work itself out. He is currently negotiating with the Baluchis so it is possible we may see some kind of a deal similar to the fig leaf agreement he signed with the tribes in North Waziristan – something that satisfies NATO with regard to atmospherics but falls short when it comes to implementation.

Beset as he is on all sides, is there anything to be done with Musharraf? Outside of supporting him as much as we can, there really is nothing to be done. Replacing him is out of the question because the chances of someone coming to power who would be much less friendly to the United States and more accommodating to the Taliban are too great. And the likelihood of elections throwing up even more radical extremists is very high.

In this way, Musharraf is almost like an American tar baby. We’re stuck with him for as long as he can survive.

How long that will be depends on Musharraf’s knack for avoiding the assassins blade and his complex political manoeuvrings. Because like it or not, Musharraf is still the best ally we have in the War on Terror. And he will remain so as long as he can continue to juggle the clashing interests and competing factions that threaten to bring him down at any time.

UPDATE

Bill Roggio covers much of the same ground I do above and adds the speculation (via the SAAG) that perhaps the attempts on Musharraf’s life were by Balochi rebels. Bill himself dismisses the speculation, pointing out that being able to get so close to Musharraf’s compound implicates the army or the ISI.

Of course, NATO was complaining about ISI assistance to the Taliban in Balochistan so perhaps the possibility of Balochi involvement should not be overlooked.
By: Rick Moran at 9:42 am

 

[Awesome]

Yaar that whole 'warm water' ports thing was a myth. Perpetuated by the West to keep our chamchay in line. Soviets ka dimagh kharab naheen hua tha to actually go and invade a country full of 130 million ppl! No way!

They didn't have to capture all of it. They just needed our coast line, even only a part of it would do. Thats why they were in Afghanistan. What other beautiful wonders did it have to offer for the Soviets? It was just the route to Pakistan. There would've been definite conflict and Pak didn't jump in only on a mere scare that the Americans give them. How hard would it have been? The Soviets attacking from the west and India on the east?

If you notice that we didn't have any problems with Waziri's in the last 50 years of our existence, and Balochistan was quiet for the last 30 years too. But this guy has managed to alienate both those regions and its ppl's. Not because he wanted to, but because he is a coward and has repeatedly succumbed to threats.

We tried being nice to both the sides before we showed them the barrel of a gun.

Taliban was asked to hand over OBL by Pakistan. Before the war broke out we had asked the Taliban to comply. Being our allies they should've put our wishes ahead of somebody worthless like OBL. They did a U-Turn on us. On our policy. On the people who helped them get 95% of Afghanistan in the first place. We were nice at first and the last people to switch off diplomatic ties after Saudi and the UAE.

With the Bugtis, it was greed for money in Balochistan. For three decades how has there been peace? If the government had to make a road costing 1Lakh rupees, The Sardars would be like please give us 60,000 Rps and we'd do the job. The Sardars would make a road for 25,000rps and keep the remaining amount for them. This is how it went l on for decades in all aspects wherever they had to spend money in Balochistan.

Traitors like Gunja were khush (happy) and traitors like Bugti were Khush. Poor public were told "Look Punjab only gives us 60,000 for a 100,000 job". Public would be pissed off but according to an understanding between Punjabi leaders and the Balochi Sardars, it was nothing more than a drama and it never lead to a fight.

Now Musharraf came and said, "Abey chal" (get lost) to the Sardars. And development has clearly been a lot more in Balochistan despite all the bombings and terrorism. Even if we not count Gwadar Port, we have housing complexes, Thar Canal, Mekran Coastal Highway, etc. This way the money gets spent on Balochistan and not to a Sardar. What do Sardars get? Thainga. But development goes on. So obviously they'd try to stop development by the Bombings. Why do you think the Bugtis primarily bombed Sui Gas pipelines? Or bombed Chinese Engineers?

And then they aligned with Pakistan's arch enemy. Made an Indian force on the west. They took orders from the 8 Indian consulates so mysteriously opened on the western border with Afghanistan.

A deal could've been brokered with the Waziris, but with the Sardars it had to be a fight till death. Thankfully it was a traitor like Bugti and not Mushy.

Who knows what else they might have him do now......personally I have no respect for the man, but indignation. He works for the White house, not for that country called Paksitan.

This level of you scratch my back and I scratch yours is very good for Pakistan. It's a connected world and you definitely need the world's strongest nation a lot more than it needs you. I would've called him a fool if he opposed the US.

 

[Indian Panga]

Musharraf does U-Turn on his own people. Are they even his people now? Perhaps Balochistan should become a state of India\'s, we would treat them good.

 

[lulldapull]

Musharraf does U-Turn on his own people. Are they even his people now? Perhaps Balochistan should become a state of India\'s, we would treat them good.

I don't think Baloch would like to be a part of any country. We have our own agenda which is independance for both 'Wings' on either side of the divide, just like our Afghan and Pukhtoon brothers who also want to be out of these fake countries with British colonial and divisive origins and fake borders. Away from India and Pakistan. I am sure you guys have a lot more in common linguistically/ racially/ culturally with the Sindhi's, punjabi's and our Mirpuri's.

P.S. We will deal with this musharraf and his army one of these days. By hook or by crook. And we thank India for helping the Baloch nation in these difficult times.

 

[Awesome]

Just noticed you added to your post. Will look it up later.

Thori derr chain kar

 

[lulldapull]

Just noticed you added to your post. Will look it up later.

Thori derr chain kar

Yaar Asim check this out..... Remember I was telling you that Musharraf sahb is in denial about the CIA (wahabbi) tendencies of his sold out army...let alone his population. .......What a joker yaar. Remember he was blaming the ...oH Geee BLA da Kaam hae gaa, and that 'Anti-State' elemunts..and the god-damn garbage he talk all day.....Turns out one of his 'own' military paindoo's son was involved. I told you guys from day one as getting this close to the inner security apparatus hum jaisay ghareeb aur 'outcast' baloch logon ka kaam naheen hae. This is typical of these ISI and these agencies, and the so called "retired" ISI and military ppl and their relatives/ sympathisers illegally helping the so called 'Extremists'...

Oh bhai meray....saara masla hee yae hae kay uss mulk kay rakhwaalay khod chor hain And pakistani army is full of wahabbi extremists....on the dole from Saudi Arabia. Musharraf begherat wont admit this fact of life....even if his life depended on it.

Mastermind of rocket plan traced



By Our Staff Reporter


RAWALPINDI, Oct 21: The security agencies, investigating into a foiled bid to fire rockets in the vicinity of the Parliament House and explosion in Pindi park, have traced the ‘mastermind’ of the episodes, who is son of a retired senior army officer, Dawn has learnt.

The security agencies had been hunting for the mastermind after eight people who the interrogators believe are involved in the rocket fire attempt were captured and a large quantity of weapons was recovered from their possession.

There were 19 rockets out of which eight were recovered unexploded by the security personnel from near the Parliament House and Zero Point. The remaining were later recovered from other places on the indication by the accused during interrogation, source said.

They said the joint investigation team comprising officials of security agencies and police had finalised their inquiry report which would be presented to President Gen Pervez Musharraf and the interior secretary in a couple of days.

The source said two of those arrested, Nadeem Yousuf and Asadullah, were experts in rocket/weapon manufacturing. The two including the ‘mastermind’ had close links with a banned Jihadi group and the others with a religious political party, they added.

Those arrested were remanded in police custody for seven days on Saturday by the judge of Rawalpindi anti-terrorism court. They will be produced before the court on October 28.

Those arrested were identified as Javaid Wain, Nadeem Yousuf, Asadullah, Abid Bashir, Khyzir Hayat, Sikandar Ali, Saadat Shahzad and Tariq Ali.

Two rockets were defused by police on Oct 6, the day after an explosion in a big park of Rawalpindi close to the president’s camp office. The explosion sent a wave of panic and fear across the country and sparked security alert.

The military authorities had said that the blast in Rawalpindi park was not related to President Musharraf or his residence, Army House.

 

[Awesome]

Note, son of retired senior officer. The officers of our past, like 3 decades ago were little different than the Mullahs. Not to forget the letter they sent to Musharraf a while ago. They basically want us to fight America and aid the Taliban.

Its a good thing they are all nikammay when compared to Musharraf and his folks. Maybe one more incident to add in his sequel book. The man has balls, these many close calls with death one would figure he'd be a little more cautious.

 

[Awesome]

I don't think Baloch would like to be a part of any country. We have our own agenda which is independance for both 'Wings' on either side of the divide, just like our Afghan and Pukhtoon brothers who also want to be out of these fake countries with British colonial and divisive origins and fake borders. Away from India and Pakistan. I am sure you guys have a lot more in common linguistically/ racially/ culturally with the Sindhi's, punjabi's and our Mirpuri's.

P.S. We will deal with this musharraf and his army one of these days. By hook or by crook. And we thank India for helping the Baloch nation in these difficult times.

Bachoo ji, common Pakistani is deeply concerned and cares for the Baloch people. Their social life, their economic life, their education and well being in all aspects. Just as we cared for Kashmiris when the Earthquake happened and all of us everywhere around the world gathered around their embassies conducting small campaigns and fund raising drives.

Jinke peeche chal paray ho unke peeche Bangladeshi bhi chalay thay. Balochistan ki haalat ka blame kisi ko dena hai toh Punjabi politicians k saath saath, ek nazar kabhi apne sardaron pe bhi daalo. Kab tak Balochi unki ji hazoori main zinda rahay ga?

 

[lulldapull]

Bachoo ji, common Pakistani is deeply concerned and cares for the Baloch people. Their social life, their economic life, their education and well being in all aspects. Just as we cared for Kashmiris when the Earthquake happened and all of us everywhere around the world gathered around their embassies conducting small campaigns and fund raising drives.

Jinke peeche chal paray ho unke peeche Bangladeshi bhi chalay thay. Balochistan ki haalat ka blame kisi ko dena hai toh Punjabi politicians k saath saath, ek nazar kabhi apne sardaron pe bhi daalo. Kab tak Balochi unki ji hazoori main zinda rahay ga?

Yaar its obvious you are following the party line on this issue. The truth now is that with the killing of Nawab Bugti, this thing is now beyond recovery. He was the only Sardar willing to talk to these thugs in Islamabad. The other two big ones (marri/ Mengal) don't want anything to do with paksitan. Also by kiling an 80 year old man with 20 of his followers, these cowards have made a martyr of him in our eyes. Asim yaar in all honesty the way things have been going on in balochistan there is really no way out for us except to continue the struggle. Either we do it, or we get swamped. Here is a new article from our website; Baloch Voice and my website Balochunity:

A sophisticated armed fight for a province’s autonomy
Pakistan’s Baluch insurgency

Serious troubles have erupted in the Pakistan province of Baluchistan since the assassination of an opposition leader in August. Pressure for independence is growing in this region bordering Iran and Afghanistan, which challenges Pakistan’s authority.

By Selig S Harrison

THE slow-motion genocide being inflicted on Baluch tribesmen in the mountains and deserts of southwestern Pakistan does not yet qualify as a major humanitarian catastrophe compared with the slaughter in Darfur or Chechnya. “Only” 2,260 Baluch fled their villages in August to escape bombing and strafing by the US-supplied F-16 fighter jets and Cobra helicopter gunships of the Pakistan air force, but as casualty figures mount, it will be harder to ignore the human costs of the Baluch independence (1) struggle and its political repercussions in other restive minority regions of multi-ethnic Pakistan (2).

Already, in neighboring Sindh, separatists who share Baluch opposition to the Punjabi-dominated military regime of General Pervez Musharraf are reviving their long-simmering movement for a sovereign Sindhi state, or a Sindhi-Baluch federation, that would stretch along the Arabian Sea from Iran in the west to the Indian border. Many Sindhi leaders openly express their hope that instability in Pakistan will tempt India to help them, militarily and economically, to secede from Pakistan as Bangladesh did with Indian help in 1971.

Some 6 million Baluch were forcibly incorporated into Pakistan when it was created in 1947. This is the fourth insurgency they have fought to protest against economic and political discrimination. In the most bitter insurgency, from 1973 to 1977, some 80,000 Pakistani troops and 55,000 Baluch were involved in the fighting.

Iran, like Pakistan, was then an ally of the United States. Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who feared that the insurgency would spread across the border to 1.2 million Baluch living in eastern Iran, sent 30 Cobra gunships with Iranian pilots to help Islamabad. But this time Iran is not a US ally, and Iran and Pakistan are at odds. Tehran charges that US Special Forces units are using bases in Pakistan for undercover operations inside Iran designed to foment Baluch opposition to the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Much of the anger that now motivates the Baluch Liberation Army (BLA) is driven by memories of Pakistani scorched earth tactics in past battles. In a climactic battle in 1974, Pakistani forces, frustrated by their inability to find Baluch guerrilla units hiding in the mountains, bombed, strafed and burned the encampments of some 15,000 Baluch families who had taken their livestock to graze in the fertile Chamalang Valley, forcing the guerrillas to come out from their hideouts to defend their women and children.

‘Indiscrimate bombing’

In the current fighting, which started in January 2005, the independent Pakistan Human Rights Commission has reported that “indiscriminate bombing and strafing” by F-16s and Cobra gunships are again being used to draw the guerrillas into the open. Six Pakistani army brigades, plus paramilitary forces totalling some 25,000 men, are deployed in the Kohlu mountains and surrounding areas where the fighting is most intense.

Musharraf is using new methods, more repressive than those of his predecessors, to crush the insurgency. In the past Baluch activists were generally arrested on formal charges and sentenced to fixed terms in prisons known to their families. This time Baluch spokesmen have reported large-scale kidnappings and disappearances, charging that Pakistani forces have rounded up hundreds of Baluch youths on unspecified charges and taken them to unknown locations.

The big difference between earlier phases of the Baluch struggle and the present one is that Islamabad has so far not been able to play off feuding tribes against each other. Equally importantly, it faces a unified nationalist movement under younger leadership drawn not only from tribal leaders but also from an emergent, literate Baluch middle class that did not exist three decades ago. Another difference is that the Baluch have a better armed, more disciplined fighting force in the BLA. Baluch leaders say that rich compatriots and sympathisers in the Persian Gulf provide money needed to buy weapons in the flourishing black market along the Afghan frontier.

President Musharraf has repeatedly accused India of supplying weapons to the Baluch insurgents and funds to Sindhi separatist groups, but has provided no evidence to back up these charges. India denies the accusations. At the same time New Delhi has issued periodic statements expressing concern at the fighting and calling for political dialogue.

India brushes aside suggestions that it might be tempted to help Sindhi and Baluch insurgents if the situation in Pakistan continues to unravel. Indian leaders say that. on the contrary, India wants a stable Pakistan that will negotiate a peace settlement in Kashmir so that both sides can wind down their costly arms race. But many India media commentators appear happy to see Musharraf tied down in Baluchistan and hope that the crisis will force him to reduce Pakistani support for extremist Islamic insurgents in Kashmir.

Unlike India, Iran has its own Baluch minority and fears Baluch nationalism. The Baluchistan People’s party, one of the leading Baluch groups in Iran, said on 5 August that a radical Shia cleric, Hojatol Ibrahim Nekoonam, recently installed as the justice minister of Iran’s Baluchistan province, has launched a campaign of military and police repression spearheaded by the Mersad clerical secret police, in which hundreds of Baluch have been rounded up and, in many cases, executed on charges of collaborating with the US.

Apart from being smaller in number, the Baluch in Iran are not as politically conscious or as well organised as those in Pakistan, and their principal leaders dismiss the idea of secession or of union with the Baluch in Pakistan. The Baluchistan People’s party is part of a coalition with groups representing other disaffected minorities in Iran — the Kurds, Azeri Turks and Khuzestani Arabs — which is seeking a federal restructuring in which Iran would retain control over foreign affairs, defence, communications and foreign trade, but cede autonomy in other spheres to three minority autonomous regions.

Goal of the insurgency

In Pakistan, where the Baluch have been radicalised by their periodic military struggles with Islamabad, many Baluch leaders believe that the goal of the insurgency should be an independent Baluchistan, unless the military regime is willing to grant the provincial autonomy envisaged in the 1973 constitution, which successive military regimes, including the present one, have nullified. What the Baluch, Sindhis, and a third, more assimilated ethnic minority, the Pashtuns, want above all is an end to the blatant economic discrimination by the dominant Punjabis.

Most of Pakistan’s natural resources are in Baluchistan, including natural gas, uranium, copper and potentially rich oil reserves. Although 36% of the gas produced in Pakistan comes from the province, Baluchistan consumes only a fraction of production because it is the most impoverished area of the country. For decades, Punjabi-dominated central governments have denied Baluchistan a fair share of development funds and paid only 12% of the royalties due to it for its gas. Similarly, the Sindhi and Pashtun areas have consistently been denied fair access to the waters of the Indus River by dam projects that channel the lion’s share of the water to the Punjab.

In a television speech on 20 July, devoted mostly to Baluchistan, Musharraf dismissed Baluch charges of economic discrimination and announced a $49.8m development programme for the province, half for roads and other infrastructure projects. The “real exploiters” of the Baluch, he said, are the tribal chieftains, known as sardars, who “have stolen development funds for themselves”. He claimed that the armed forces have been sent into Baluchistan to protect the Baluch from their leaders while development proceeds. Musharraf blamed the insurgency on the sardars, principally Akbar Bugti, who was killed on 26 August when the army blew up a cave where he was hiding. But the current insurgency is not being led by the tribal elders but by a new generation of politically conscious Baluch nationalists.

What makes negotiations on autonomy difficult are the economic issues relating to taxation and to the terms for sharing the resulting revenues from the development of oil, gas and other natural resources. In most proposals for a devolution of power to the provinces, Baluch and Sindhi leaders have argued that taxes collected by the central government should not be allocated, as at present, solely on a population basis, which favours the Punjab; instead, it has been suggested, half should be allocated on a population basis, while the rest should be distributed in accordance with the amount collected in each province. Since the provinces have equal representation in the Senate, even under the 1973 constitution, the upper chamber should be given greater powers, with the Senate, rather than the president or prime minister, empowered to dissolve a provincial legislature or to declare an emergency.

A more extreme demand is that Baluch, Pashtuns, Sindhis and Punjabis should have complete parity in both chambers of the National Assembly as well as in civil service and military recruitment, irrespective of population disparities. All factions among the minorities give priority to radically upgraded representation in the civil service and the armed forces, and all want constitutional safeguards to prevent the central government from arbitrarily removing an elected provincial government, as Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto did in 1973. The issue of safeguards against arbitrary central intervention is likely to be a non-negotiable one for the minorities, since they are seeking not only the substance, but also the feeling, of autonomy.

A tiny minority

The Baluch are only 3.57% of Pakistan’s 165.8 million people, and the three minorities combined claim only 33%. Yet they identify themselves with ethnic homelands that cover 72% of Pakistan’s territory. To the Punjabis, it is galling that the minorities should advance proprietary claims over such large areas. For this reason, the prospects for a restoration of the 1973 constitution appear bleak.

In the final analysis, the possibility of a constitutional compromise is inseparably linked with the overall course of the struggle for democratisation. With continued military rule, the Baluch insurgency and the growing movement for Sindhi rights will be radicalised. But it is unlikely that the Baluch could prevail militarily over Pakistani forces and establish an independent state, even with Sindhi help, unless India intervenes as part of a broader confrontation with Islamabad. The prospect in late 2006 is for a continuing, inconclusive struggle by the Baluch and Sindhis against Islamabad, that will debilitate Pakistan.

In the eyes of the Baluch and Sindhis, the US has a major share of the blame for the present crisis because US military hardware is being used to repress the Baluch insurgency, and a cornucopia of US economic aid to Islamabad since 11 September 2001 has kept Musharraf afloat. Military aid to Musharraf since 9/11, including the sale of 36 F-16s, recently approved by Congress, has totalled $900m so far, and another $600m is promised by 2009. Economic aid has not only included $3.6bn in US and US-sponsored multilateral aid but also the US-orchestrated postponement of $13.5bn in overdue debt repayments to aid donors.

Instead of pressing Musharraf for a political settlement with the minorities, as some European Union officials have done, the Bush administration has said that its ethnic tensions are an “internal matter” for Pakistan itself to resolve. Human rights organisations have called for international pressure on Musharraf to pursue a settlement, and critics in the US argue that the diversion of US-equipped Pakistani forces from the Afghan frontier to Baluchistan undermines even the limited operations against al-Qaida and the Taliban that Musharraf is pursuing in response to US pressure. Until Bush’s departure, however, the US commitment to Musharraf is likely to remain firm, barring the outside possibility that he will step down in the face of growing domestic pressure and permit former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif to participate in the presidential elections scheduled for next year. October 2006