Pakistan Faces Threat From Terrorism, Not India:US

[wtf]

DAWN.COM | Editorial | Do we know the enemy?

WAITING in line to drive through an army checkpoint on the leafy Shami Road of Lahore garrison, my driver hesitatingly utters: “Sir, can I ask you a question?” “Yes sure,” I tell him. “This is all a game isn’t it…. Ultimately they want to take away our nuclear weapons ... don’t they sir?”

With military operations under way in Dir, Buner and Swat and the question coming from a retired infantry soldier who is now employed as my driver I assume the “they” means the Taliban, the troublemakers, the Islamists, the militants, the rebels or some such. Still, to be sure I ask: who wants to take them away? “Why, the Americans, the Jews, the Indians of course. After all they are the ones funding the Taliban!” he exclaims.

......

On the other hand, there is no visible attempt from Pakistan’s Ministry of Information to develop a systematic campaign as a counter narrative to this ideology. ....

The first rule of negotiation is that you do not come to the table empty-handed. The second rule is that you have to be prepared to give away something.

During this drawn-out conflict, Al Qaeda will seek to precipitate another crisis with India. It is therefore important that this time the army should eliminate and net as many militants as operationally possible. This is best done by blocking their exit routes out of Swat and follow up by combing the area in a dragnet operation.

.............

---------------------------------------------------------
Snippets from the editorial on Dawn newspaper. A better answer to the question this thread poses than I can think of

 

[muse]

Time to come out of the closet

Sunday, May 10, 2009
Majid Abdulla

If a person detonates a bomb tied to his chest in a public space, killing scores of innocent people, it is a terrible act. You can of course argue whether such an act of terror is justifiable in the circumstances in which it is committed. Let us be absolutely clear, in principle there is nothing stopping anyone from taking a defensive position on such matters. It is not uncommon to hear people argue that a disenfranchised group's terror is a sovereign army's war. Moreover people do after all argue that IRA, Palestinian, Sri Lankan, or Red Brigade bombings which have claimed innocent lives in the last century could be understood because of their national liberation cause. One could even claim that an historical assessment of at least some such situations shows that violence has not always been associated with adverse long-term outcomes. It all depends on the cause

For example the defenders of some acts of terror by the ANC perhaps stand vindicated in South Africa today. Other acts, say of the Baader Minehof in the 1970s in Germany, stand a lesser chance of passing the test of time. The invocation of distinctions between military and non- military targets, intentional or unintentional killing of innocents; collateral versus principal damage is conceptual sophistry that does not determine but succeeds the ideological or political cause which is being supported in a conflict that has turned to war.

It is customary to justify an act of violence by labelling it as inevitable and then predicating it with the phrase "regrettable as such acts are". However when such utterances are made it should leave no ambiguity in the listeners head if the speaker is emphasising the inevitability of such acts over their property of being tragic. And it is left to the audience to decide whether it gives primacy to the tragedy or to the inevitability. In times of war a politician must first offer reasons to justify his chosen side in a conflict. Pakistan's right wing politicians have evolved a crude technique of deception. This entails a contradictory wish of having it both ways. They think that in order to popularise their closet view on jihad, they need to trick listeners by doing two things. First, to separate the jihadi from his violence; and second, by exploiting a well grounded and infinitely more justifiable anti-imperialist sentiment that exists in large parts of the globe today.

Imran Khan seems more of an apologist of the Taliban; just as Nawaz Sharif does. Of course they can and should change their mind on this matter. Even holy positions are not sacrosanct. For Sharif he seems to be doing so, perhaps because he is coming closer to office in Islamabad. His condemnation has recently become louder, and his apology for the killers somewhat softer. But strangely - now that we have a war situation in the Frontier - Sharif wants to focus on the disenfranchisement of the Baloch. Yes, as Ayaz Amir says- it is all connected; but the priority in a war situation ought to be the war, not regional inequality. The anti-imperialism of Imran Khan stems more directly from his orientalist soft corner for an imagined Taliban and perhaps because he is a Pashtun migrant settler in Punjab. He often asks, with a profoundly naïve expression, reminiscent of a child's discovery of arithmetic, the ahistorical question: Why were there no Taliban in Pakistan before 9/11? He should perhaps try to answer why was he not a brazen anti-imperialist before 9/11? I mean he was nearly 50 years old then, so he was definitely grown up. And presumably his vast scholarship on the Pashtuns with its astounding sweep from the times of Alexander, also existed then?

It is wholly invalid to suggest that since these men are politically popular, perhaps a large section of the population of Pakistan may shares their disguised views on jihadi violence. I think significant parts of the population that supports them would cease supporting them if they came out of the closet and actively stated a pro-jihad position. Sharif and Khan may well have a popular vote bank but their position on jihadi- terrorism seems to be deliberately ambiguous. There are deeper and more substantive historical reasons for this romance.

It would be curious, if after a bomb blast with civilian deaths, you either kept quiet or began to invoke the political conditions which led to the psychological state in which the killer acted. Such behaviour could be diagnosed as a deeply apologetic neurosis. In other words, you cannot bring yourself to condemn the murderers without qualification, precisely because you believe in the grand cause of the criminal. The mainstream right in Pakistan does not have the courage to embrace what the Taliban are doing in the Frontier and call it armed struggle for fear of losing public sympathy. They know that many amongst Pakistan's Muslim population may not vote for a person or party that consistently smokescreens jihadi killing by only talking about the reasons why Abdul became a suicide bomber.

It is like saying immediately after a US drone-attack that kills innocents in Pakistan's tribal areas: "reprehensible as it is, we must appreciate the pain that 9/11 has caused the US". The problem in public discussion in Pakistan is that as soon as one starts suggesting that there is a deep-seated problem of jihadist apologia embedded in the neuroses of sections of Pakistani political classes, you encounter hysteria and get labelled an agent of imperialism.

Let me illustrate. In a recent television talk show Pervez Hoodbhoy suggested to Imran Khan that he should perhaps be more forthright in his condemnations of jihadi violence. He also suggested that this was a distinct issue from condemning US wars and violence, on which many people would be in agreement with him. He raised a critical issue that goes right to the heart of the dithering that we observe in political parties in this time of war. And war time it is. Mr Khan, on being cornered tried to distract attention revealing precisely the logic that goes in to this apologetic makeup. He basically tried to accuse Mr Hoodbhoy of being in the pay of the Americans! The larger question put to Imran Khan is still a valid one and it is applicable to others too. And I repeat there is no shame in changing one's mind. Pride amongst the Pashtuns may well be proverbial but it is written nowhere that they are incapable of swallowing it in moments of truth.

The writer is a freelance contributor based in London. Email: drmohd. abdulla@googlemail.com


DO YOU UNDERSTAND "unequivocal" better now?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

DO YOU UNDERSTAND "unequivocal" better now?

I understood it quite well before, and the forum's stance on the issue has been, and is, appropriate.

 

[muse]

AM

Where in the piece did you see yourself? inside or outside the closet? and you do realize what Dr. Abdullah is hoping you can step up to, right?

And what do you make of the following:

It is wholly invalid to suggest that since these men are politically popular, perhaps a large section of the population of Pakistan may shares their disguised views on jihadi violence. I think significant parts of the population that supports them would cease supporting them if they came out of the closet and actively stated a pro-jihad position. Sharif and Khan may well have a popular vote bank but their position on jihadi- terrorism seems to be deliberately ambiguous.

.

What "lessons learned" would you say were important to recall -- because soon another equally important decision may have to be made.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM

Where in the piece did you see yourself? inside or outside the closet? and you do realize what Dr. Abdullah is hoping you can step up to, right?

Your comment of 'unequivocal stance' was an oft repeated one in our discussions in the recent past.

I took that to imply you were once more addressing me, hence my point about the forum's stance being appropriate.

 

[muse]

AM

So where did you see yourself in the piece by Dr. Abdullah? I'm genuinely curious and want to understand - Did you follow the argument between the "deliberately Ambiguous" and of course "unequivocal"?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM

So where did you see yourself in the piece by Dr. Abdullah? I'm genuinely curious and want to understand - Did you follow the argument between the "deliberately Ambiguous" and of course "unequivocal"?

I see myself in the 'unequivocal', always have. That should have been clear from my last couple of posts.

 

[muse]

I see myself in the 'unequivocal', always have

Interesting - why are you in the "unequivocal" column? I need to understand this, because it was my strong impression that you were more comfortable inside the closet, so to speak

That should have been clear from my last couple of posts

Last couple of posts? so this is a recent position? Or have I misunderstood that your real objection was to "islamist"? Tomorrow, when the talib of the Swat are pacified and the American is to be "bankers" of last resort so that FATA can be reclaimed will you then suggest that islamists are peaceful and democratic on one hand and on the other hand suggest that Pakistan army have a obligation to clear Pakistan of "terrorists"

Did you follow:

the priority in a war situation ought to be the war,

and :

In times of war a politician must first offer reasons to justify his chosen side in a conflict. Pakistan's right wing politicians have evolved a crude technique of deception. This entails a contradictory wish of having it both ways. They think that in order to popularise their closet view on jihad, they need to trick listeners by doing two things. First, to separate the jihadi from his violence; and second, by exploiting a well grounded and infinitely more justifiable anti-imperialist sentiment that exists in large parts of the globe today

By the way I'm sure you did not miss the use of the word, "sentiment" - would it be fair to describe your position with regard to "islamists" as rooted in sentiment or is it ideological? I need to understand this and would appreciate a broad full and honest response.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Interesting - why are you in the "unequivocal" column? I need to understand this, because it was my strong impression that you were more comfortable inside the closet, so to speak

Last couple of posts? so this is a recent position? Or have I misunderstood that your real objection was to "islamist"?

Actually it was my understanding that you were irrationally insistent upon expansive censorship and broad negative generalizations, issues on which I continue to maintain my previous position.

The 'last couple of posts' was meant to draw your attention to the point I stated of 'the forums position has been appropriate and is appropriate', which is in concert with the first few lines from me in this post.

Tomorrow, when the talib of the Swat are pacified and the American is to be "bankers" of last resort so that FATA can be reclaimed will you then suggest that islamists are peaceful and democratic on one hand and on the other hand suggest that Pakistan army have a obligation to clear Pakistan of "terrorists"

I continue to disagree with your use of 'Islamist' as the descriptive term for those that endorse or use violence in pursuit of goals.

By the way I'm sure you did not miss the use of the word, "sentiment" - would it be fair to describe your position with regard to "islamists" as rooted in sentiment or is it ideological? I need to understand this and would appreciate a broad full and honest response.

I think I (and Dark Star) have already explained my position to you quite clearly several times over - I do not see what else I can add to that.

 

[muse]

AM

I think I (and Dark Star) have already explained my position to you quite clearly several times over - I do not see what else I can add to that.

I regret you have not been able to rise to the occasion and offer a broad, open and honest exposition - but I'm sure this opportunity will not have been the last.

What you call censorship is also the exercise of editorial responsibility -- to some of us all ideas are not equal, we do discern good bad and right and wrong -- but I note that you see it as "censorship" when "islamist terrorists" are identified as what they are, these movements and individuals claim theyh are motivated by their understanding of Islam and they justfy terror similarly by pointing to their understanding of Islam - Is it really a suproise that pakistan's enemies are Maulana and Mullah and such and we still must not refer to them as islamists? -- which is of course why your suggestion that you have always been out of the closet, so to speak, was met with a measure of incredulity.

Pakistan is fighting a war for it's survival against Islamist terrorists, but I think you have moulded for yourself a position you share with Nawaz and Imran,

They think that in order to popularise their closet view on jihad, they need to trick listeners by doing two things. First, to separate the jihadi from his violence; and second, by exploiting a well grounded and infinitely more justifiable anti-imperialist sentiment that exists in large parts of the globe today

.

Dr. Abdullah points out that it's no crime or sin to change one's mind or be incapable of "swallowing it", sol to speak, in "moments of truth", I hope you keep this in mind - this war will sputter along, costing many more lives that it might have so long as those who hide their attempt at "deception" in ambiguity are not held accountable.
Dr. Abdullah says some i Pakistan have

evolved a crude technique of deception. This entails a contradictory wish of having it both ways. They think that in order to popularise their closet view on jihad, they need to trick listeners by doing two things. First, to separate the jihadi from his violence; and second, by exploiting a well grounded and infinitely more justifiable anti-imperialist sentiment

Dr. Abdullah goes on to add

significant parts of the population that supports them would cease supporting them if they came out of the closet and actively stated a pro-jihad position

One wonders if it is equally true on this forum, whether significant portion of the forum would cease support, a blow to our membership and media credibility, if our closeted decided to be outed and forthrightly, with courage of conviction, state their pro-jihad position, one wonders.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Muse:

I regret you have not been able to rise to the occasion and offer a broad, open and honest exposition - but I'm sure this opportunity will not have been the last.

Oh you were offered 'broad open expositions', you just chose to ignore everything and make snide comments such as these. And it appears you are essentially continuing on the same path, so I do not see any value in repeating the same arguments again to have them distorted and twisted to fit in with your allegations of being 'Taliban sympathizers' - such as this line below:

"Pakistan is fighting a war for it's survival against Islamist terrorists, but I think you have moulded for yourself a position you share with Nawaz and Imran,"

I see nothing in my position similar to Imran or Nawaz's, and the positions those two espouse also differ significantly, so it isn't really possible for me to share positions with both simultaneously. But this line of yours was typical of our discourse in the past, to ignore the arguments made in favor of a particular stance, say the disagreement over the use of the term Islamist, and conncet non-existent dots to accuse us of 'supporting the Taliban'.

I would ask you to show me where I have taken positions such as those espoused by IK, but going by past requests for you to validate your allegations, it will be futile.

What you call censorship is also the exercise of editorial responsibility

And as I explained to your elsewhere I find your position to go too far, and that the position of the forum on allowing a certain amount of freedom of expression is far more appropriate.

One wonders if it is equally true on this forum, whether significant portion of the forum would cease support, a blow to our membership and media credibility, if our closeted decided to be outed and forthrightly, with courage of conviction, state their pro-jihad position, one wonders.

Strawman - the forum and its Pakistani membership has always been strongly anti-Taliban, though it has also been relatively anti-US (over various US policies).

 

[wtf]

Muse:

Oh you were offered 'broad open expositions', you just chose to ignore everything and make snide comments such as these. And it appears you are essentially continuing on the same path, so I do not see any value in repeating the same arguments again to have them distorted and twisted to fit in with your allegations of being 'Taliban sympathizers' - such as this line below:

"Pakistan is fighting a war for it's survival against Islamist terrorists, but I think you have moulded for yourself a position you share with Nawaz and Imran,"

I see nothing in my position similar to Imran or Nawaz's, and the positions those two espouse also differ significantly, so it isn't really possible for me to share positions with both simultaneously. But this line of yours was typical of our discourse in the past, to ignore the arguments made in favor of a particular stance, say the disagreement over the use of the term Islamist, and conncet non-existent dots to accuse us of 'supporting the Taliban'.

I would ask you to show me where I have taken positions such as those espoused by IK, but going by past requests for you to validate your allegations, it will be futile.


And as I explained to your elsewhere I find your position to go too far, and that the position of the forum on allowing a certain amount of freedom of expression is far more appropriate.


Strawman - the forum and its Pakistani membership has always been strongly anti-Taliban, though it has also been relatively anti-US (over various US policies).

AM , I am sure you have thought out the issue very well and you understand the depth of all issues. But, I have to second muse - from your posts it is impossible to figure out what you are arguing for or against. I'll summarize what I think is your opinion (Sorry, this might sound comic and often wrong, but this is what I remember from your posts).

Take with a pinch of salt and lots of spices

1) Islamic people can do no wrong.
2) Anybody who takes Islam as a reason for fighting is wrong and is not Islamic/Islamist
3) Statement 2 does not apply to Kashmir.
4) Musharraf was right on most things
5) But he caused terrorism in Pakistan by actions in Lal Masjid.
6) But the current action in Swat is justified. (though a couple of months earlier may be it was not).
7) US should not be in Afghanistan.
8) But US should get Al Qaeda and they are the only ones who can get him.
9) It is Pakistan's war.
10) But US should pay Pakistan for the war.
11) Taliban is bad.
12) But Pak Taliban and Afghan Taliban are different. Sometimes one of them is good, won't tell you which one.


etc. etc.

This nuanced view is even more complicated when you wear two shoes, one as a poster and one as a moderator. When you speak as a moderator, I have no clue what your views are.

 

[wtf]

India is not a threat to Pakistan, says Zardari

Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari has said that India is not a threat to Pakistan and it is facing danger from the terrorists inside the country.

"Well, I am already on record. I have never considered India a threat," Zardari said in an interview to a TV channel.

This is the first time a top Pakistani leader has publicly said that India is not a threat to his country; a fact which the Barack Obama [Images] administration has been trying to convince Zardari and the Pakistan army [Images] for quite some time now.

"I have always considered India as a neighbour, which we want to improve our relationship with. We have had some cold times and we have had some hard times with them. We have gone to war thrice, but democracies are always trying to improve relationships," Zardari said.

Last month, at a White House press conference held on the occasion of completing 100 days in office, Obama had said that Pakistan's perception about India being a 'threat' was 'misguided'.

It is believed that both Obama and United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [Images], in their meetings with Zardari this week, impressed upon him that Pakistan should no longer consider India as a primary threat and rather concentrate its energies on fighting terrorism inside the country. However, there has been no official word from the Obama administration in this regard.

While responding to the question about moving troops from Indian border to the tribal areas of Pakistan to fight the war against terrorism, Zardari said, "Pakistan has already done so."

In an interview to CNN on Friday, Zardari had said Pakistan has already moved troops from the Indian border and would do more based on the requirement.

"The fact is that we have moved more troops today and yesterday and the day before. We moved them according to the requirement," he said.

"We already have 125,000 personnel there. So when we need to replace them, we need to improve upon their strength, we do that," Zardari said in response to a question.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM , I am sure you have thought out the issue very well and you understand the depth of all issues. But, I have to second muse - from your posts it is impossible to figure out what you are arguing for or against. I'll summarize what I think is your opinion (Sorry, this might sound comic and often wrong, but this is what I remember from your posts).

Take with a pinch of salt and lots of spices

1) Islamic people can do no wrong.
2) Anybody who takes Islam as a reason for fighting is wrong and is not Islamic/Islamist
3) Statement 2 does not apply to Kashmir.
4) Musharraf was right on most things
5) But he caused terrorism in Pakistan by actions in Lal Masjid.
6) But the current action in Swat is justified. (though a couple of months earlier may be it was not).
7) US should not be in Afghanistan.
8) But US should get Al Qaeda and they are the only ones who can get him.
9) It is Pakistan's war.
10) But US should pay Pakistan for the war.
11) Taliban is bad.
12) But Pak Taliban and Afghan Taliban are different. Sometimes one of them is good, won't tell you which one.


etc. etc.

This nuanced view is even more complicated when you wear two shoes, one as a poster and one as a moderator. When you speak as a moderator, I have no clue what your views are.

Hogwash.

I don't have enough salt to go with this.

 

[deepakclaw]