What's new

Partying with jihadis

Solomon2

BANNED
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
19,475
Reaction score
-37
Country
United States
Location
United States
Partying with jihadis

OWEN BENNETT-JONES — PUBLISHED ABOUT 18 HOURS AGO

57bde69e64510.jpg

The writer is a British journalist and author of Pakistan: Eye of the Storm.


FOR many years now, the Pakistani military has been criticised for supporting violent jihadi groups. And liberals can be forgiven for having strong feelings on the subject. During the 1990s, when the Kashmir insurgency was in full swing, the liberals repeatedly predicted a backlash. The number of people killed by jihadists since then — including many in the army — shows that the liberals’ warnings were well founded.

But the military has not been alone in indulging the men of violence. Civilian leaders too have cut deals with jihadis who, if circumstances permitted, would like to see those politicians not only out of power but dead and buried too. And this is not a point that favours one party over the others: all the mainstream parties have made compromises with the extremists.

The most obvious recent example concerns the decision of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provincial administration to grant $3 million to Samiul Haq’s Haqqani madressah. Lest anyone be in any doubt about where Samiul Haq stands on matters of contemporary politics, his recently published book claims that the Afghan Taliban provided good government; that Osama bin Laden was an “ideal man” and that Al Qaeda was a figment of the Western imagination.


It’s not only the military that has indulged men of violence.
Perhaps more importantly, some of those who assassinated Benazir Bhutto met in his madressah whilst planning the attack. And Imran Khan has form in this area. When, in 2013, he agreed to head up the Pakistan Taliban’s negotiating team he demonstrated not only that he thought peace could be achieved through dialogue but also that he was willing to represent and speak for the TTP.

But it is not fair to single out the PTI leader. After all, in 2010 the Punjab provincial administration gave $1m to institutions linked to Jamaatud Dawa. In the same year, files recovered from Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad reportedly revealed that as Punjab chief minister Shahbaz Sharif suggested the Pakistan government was ready to re-establish “normal relations” with the Pakistani Taliban as long as it did not conduct operations in Punjab. And there have been compromises within Punjab as well. In the run-up to the 2013 election there were widespread reports of a seat adjustment deal between the PML-N and ASWJ. Faced with criticism about these arrangements, some PML-N spokesmen did not issue a denial but argued instead that PPP exhibited a blatant double standard on the issue because it had done much the same thing in 2008.

Certainly, the PPP has on occasion helped hardliners. Given what happened in Islamabad in 2007, it is astonishing that, today, Abdul Aziz Ghazi is not only back in charge of the Lal Masjid but also drawing a state salary. As a recent independent documentary, Among the Believers, has recorded, it is not as if Abdul Aziz Ghazi has changed his view on the need to overthrow the government and impose Sharia: “if you think you can change us, forget it,” he said.

And yet while Asif Zardari was president the authorities not only oversaw the rehabilitation of Abdul Aziz Ghazi but went as far as offering him land for a new madressah on the edge of Islamabad. The idea, it seems, was that Lal Masjid needed to be compensated for the destruction it had brought upon itself.

These examples of civilian willingness to do business with violent jihadis suggest that they should not be taken too seriously when they criticise the army for doing much the same thing. Yet there is an important difference between the two. Ever since 1947-48, when the state connived in allowing Pakhtun tribesmen to go on jihad in Kashmir, the military has perceived the jihadis as a strategic asset that can help achieve various policy objectives. And some objectives have been achieved. The successful Mujahideen campaign against the Soviets in Afghanistan demonstrated that the violent jihadis can serve a purpose.

The politicians have different motives. Some are simply trying to protect themselves. After all, anyone extending favours to the jihadi leadership must calculate that there will be an improved chance that they won’t be the victim of an attack. But it’s not just a case of avoiding physical harm. There is also the grubby business of political advantage. Politicians on all sides have calculated that if securing power depends on reaching a deal with the religious hardliners then it’s a price well worth paying.

For millions of Pakistanis who are not at the top of the various power structures, it might seem obvious enough that people who use violence to secure their objectives should be opposed. But most of those who have held power in Pakistan seem to have seen it differently. And while the military is often criticised for sponsoring jihadis, it’s only fair to point out that the politicians have themselves repeatedly appeased them.

The writer is a British journalist and author of Pakistan: Eye of the Storm.

Published in Dawn, August 25th, 2016
 
.
Forgot something ?

uns-jalaluddin-haqqani-with-US-President-Ronal-Regan-2016-2.png


or may be check some more, internet is full of info, just in case someone forgot
CIA Helped to Train and Support Bin Laden, Ramzi Yousef

And what UK is doing by keeping Iltaf Hussain there ? and what Indian agents are doing Afghanistan and Pakistani Balochistan ? Is only a man with beard falls under definition of terrorist ?

Open your both eyes, not just one that looks toward Pakistan army !

Partying with jihadis

OWEN BENNETT-JONES — PUBLISHED ABOUT 18 HOURS AGO

57bde69e64510.jpg

The writer is a British journalist and author of Pakistan: Eye of the Storm.


FOR many years now, the Pakistani military has been criticised for supporting violent jihadi groups. And liberals can be forgiven for having strong feelings on the subject. During the 1990s, when the Kashmir insurgency was in full swing, the liberals repeatedly predicted a backlash. The number of people killed by jihadists since then — including many in the army — shows that the liberals’ warnings were well founded.

But the military has not been alone in indulging the men of violence. Civilian leaders too have cut deals with jihadis who, if circumstances permitted, would like to see those politicians not only out of power but dead and buried too. And this is not a point that favours one party over the others: all the mainstream parties have made compromises with the extremists.

The most obvious recent example concerns the decision of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provincial administration to grant $3 million to Samiul Haq’s Haqqani madressah. Lest anyone be in any doubt about where Samiul Haq stands on matters of contemporary politics, his recently published book claims that the Afghan Taliban provided good government; that Osama bin Laden was an “ideal man” and that Al Qaeda was a figment of the Western imagination.


It’s not only the military that has indulged men of violence.
Perhaps more importantly, some of those who assassinated Benazir Bhutto met in his madressah whilst planning the attack. And Imran Khan has form in this area. When, in 2013, he agreed to head up the Pakistan Taliban’s negotiating team he demonstrated not only that he thought peace could be achieved through dialogue but also that he was willing to represent and speak for the TTP.

But it is not fair to single out the PTI leader. After all, in 2010 the Punjab provincial administration gave $1m to institutions linked to Jamaatud Dawa. In the same year, files recovered from Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad reportedly revealed that as Punjab chief minister Shahbaz Sharif suggested the Pakistan government was ready to re-establish “normal relations” with the Pakistani Taliban as long as it did not conduct operations in Punjab. And there have been compromises within Punjab as well. In the run-up to the 2013 election there were widespread reports of a seat adjustment deal between the PML-N and ASWJ. Faced with criticism about these arrangements, some PML-N spokesmen did not issue a denial but argued instead that PPP exhibited a blatant double standard on the issue because it had done much the same thing in 2008.

Certainly, the PPP has on occasion helped hardliners. Given what happened in Islamabad in 2007, it is astonishing that, today, Abdul Aziz Ghazi is not only back in charge of the Lal Masjid but also drawing a state salary. As a recent independent documentary, Among the Believers, has recorded, it is not as if Abdul Aziz Ghazi has changed his view on the need to overthrow the government and impose Sharia: “if you think you can change us, forget it,” he said.

And yet while Asif Zardari was president the authorities not only oversaw the rehabilitation of Abdul Aziz Ghazi but went as far as offering him land for a new madressah on the edge of Islamabad. The idea, it seems, was that Lal Masjid needed to be compensated for the destruction it had brought upon itself.

These examples of civilian willingness to do business with violent jihadis suggest that they should not be taken too seriously when they criticise the army for doing much the same thing. Yet there is an important difference between the two. Ever since 1947-48, when the state connived in allowing Pakhtun tribesmen to go on jihad in Kashmir, the military has perceived the jihadis as a strategic asset that can help achieve various policy objectives. And some objectives have been achieved. The successful Mujahideen campaign against the Soviets in Afghanistan demonstrated that the violent jihadis can serve a purpose.

The politicians have different motives. Some are simply trying to protect themselves. After all, anyone extending favours to the jihadi leadership must calculate that there will be an improved chance that they won’t be the victim of an attack. But it’s not just a case of avoiding physical harm. There is also the grubby business of political advantage. Politicians on all sides have calculated that if securing power depends on reaching a deal with the religious hardliners then it’s a price well worth paying.

For millions of Pakistanis who are not at the top of the various power structures, it might seem obvious enough that people who use violence to secure their objectives should be opposed. But most of those who have held power in Pakistan seem to have seen it differently. And while the military is often criticised for sponsoring jihadis, it’s only fair to point out that the politicians have themselves repeatedly appeased them.

The writer is a British journalist and author of Pakistan: Eye of the Storm.

Published in Dawn, August 25th, 2016
 
.
Forgot something ?

uns-jalaluddin-haqqani-with-US-President-Ronal-Regan-2016-2.png


or may be check some more, internet is full of info, just in case someone forgot
CIA Helped to Train and Support Bin Laden, Ramzi Yousef

And what UK is doing by keeping Iltaf Hussain there ? and what Indian agents are doing Afghanistan and Pakistani Balochistan ? Is only a man with beard falls under definition of terrorist ?

Open your both eyes, not just one that looks toward Pakistan army !
wish i could give out a positive rating
 
.
Forgot something ?

uns-jalaluddin-haqqani-with-US-President-Ronal-Regan-2016-2.png


or may be check some more, internet is full of info, just in case someone forgot
CIA Helped to Train and Support Bin Laden, Ramzi Yousef

And what UK is doing by keeping Iltaf Hussain there ? and what Indian agents are doing Afghanistan and Pakistani Balochistan ? Is only a man with beard falls under definition of terrorist ?

Open your both eyes, not just one that looks toward Pakistan army !
You do realize that you're talking to a robot who's only job is to spread anti-Pak and anti-Islam propaganda right? he will never talk about US who actually created terrorist organizations funded them trained them provided them weapons etc and let's not even talk about Israel because for him when it comes to israel everything is a propaganda.
 
.
...he will never talk about US who actually created terrorist organizations funded them trained them provided them weapons etc...
The Chinese say, "Give a man a fish and you've fed him for a day; teach him to fish and you've fed him for the rest of his life."

The Chinese do NOT say, "Teach a man to fish, and you're to blame for whatever he chooses to do with his life from then on."
 
.
Forgot something ?

uns-jalaluddin-haqqani-with-US-President-Ronal-Regan-2016-2.png


or may be check some more, internet is full of info, just in case someone forgot
CIA Helped to Train and Support Bin Laden, Ramzi Yousef

And what UK is doing by keeping Iltaf Hussain there ? and what Indian agents are doing Afghanistan and Pakistani Balochistan ? Is only a man with beard falls under definition of terrorist ?

Open your both eyes, not just one that looks toward Pakistan army !
you waiting for your own 9/11 ?
 
. .
Oh so you're saying that what happened in Libya, Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan US shouldn't be blamed for it?
It's worthy of a separate thread but in this thread it's just a distraction. As the author notes, it was Pakistan that took it upon itself to start employing jihadis in the subcontinent, not the U.S. This includes, by the way, the Afghan insurgency, which began in the 1970s as Z.A.B.'s brainchild to destabilize the Daoud government: link
 
.
It's worthy of a separate thread but in this thread it's just a distraction. As the author notes, it was Pakistan that took it upon itself to start employing jihadis in the subcontinent, not the U.S. This includes, by the way, the Afghan insurgency, which began in the 1970s as Z.A.B.'s brainchild to destabilize the Daoud government: link
Exactly, there was plan to destabilize afghanistan even before soviet invasion. Soviet invasion was god sent opportunity to implement the plan. Americans moved on but who is still stuck with it? Seems weed is too strong to get de-addicted from.
 
.
The Chinese say, "Give a man a fish and you've fed him for a day; teach him to fish and you've fed him for the rest of his life."

The Chinese do NOT say, "Teach a man to fish, and you're to blame for whatever he chooses to do with his life from then on."
so why are you blaming then? :)

It's worthy of a separate thread but in this thread it's just a distraction. As the author notes, it was Pakistan that took it upon itself to start employing jihadis in the subcontinent, not the U.S. This includes, by the way, the Afghan insurgency, which began in the 1970s as Z.A.B.'s brainchild to destabilize the Daoud government: link
the author then needs a serious lesson in history for overlooking the geo political alliances of that time!

Exactly, there was plan to destabilize afghanistan even before soviet invasion. Soviet invasion was god sent opportunity to implement the plan. Americans moved on but who is still stuck with it? Seems weed is too strong to get de-addicted from.
conspiracy?
 
.
Exactly, there was plan to destabilize afghanistan even before soviet invasion. Soviet invasion was god sent opportunity to implement the plan. Americans moved on but who is still stuck with it? Seems weed is too strong to get de-addicted from.
Kindly educate us with the plan to destabilize afghanistan even before soviet ?
 
.
so why are you blaming then? :)


the author then needs a serious lesson in history for overlooking the geo political alliances of that time!


conspiracy?
No dear its a fact.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar enrolled in 1970 to Kabul University department of engineering. Although he did not graduate Gulbuddin Hekmatyar got the nickname ‘Hekmatyar Engineer’. As a student he was known in his extreme approach toward Islam and for throwing acid on female students who didn’t wear the veil. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was also a member in the illegal Muslim Youth group. In 1972 Gulbuddin Hekmatyar murdered a Maoist student and was sentenced to jail. In 1974 he got amnesty by the new PM Daoud Khan and fled Afghanistan to Pakistan, where he established contact with the Pakistani intelligence – ISI. Daoud Khan advocated the formation of a Pashtu based state, which would include also North-West Pakistan and cause tension with the Pakistani Regime.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was authorized by the Pakistani General Naseerullah Babar, then governor of the NWFP – North West Frontier provinces, and with the blessing of President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, to set up camps to train Hekmatyar’s followers and other anti-Daoud Islamists in order to fight Daoud Khan in Afghanistan. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar also founded in 1975, with ISI in the background, the Hezb-i islami (Islamic Party) which was basically a small neglected group, one of many in the conglomerate of Islamic groups created by the notorious Pakistani Intelligence – ISI.

When the Russians invaded Afghanistan in 1979, radical Gulbuddin Hekmatyar found himself supported by the American CIA with money and weapons in order to use his Militia against the Russians. Indeed Gulbuddin Hekmatyar became one of the most prominent anti-Russians guerilla commanders in the Afghan war, which lasted up to 1989. He was notorious for constantly quarreling with other guerilla leaders and for his large scale drug business.
 
.
It's worthy of a separate thread but in this thread it's just a distraction. As the author notes, it was Pakistan that took it upon itself to start employing jihadis in the subcontinent, not the U.S. This includes, by the way, the Afghan insurgency, which began in the 1970s as Z.A.B.'s brainchild to destabilize the Daoud government: link
What about US has US stopped arming "REBELS" after Afghanistan? did you guys stopped your experiments?
as for the 2nd part who started and backed Pashtunistan movement first?
 
.
What about US has US stopped arming "REBELS" after Afghanistan? did you guys stopped your experiments?
Not good English here.

...as for the 2nd part who started and backed Pashtunistan movement first?


220px-KazimKarabekirPasha.jpg

"His Majesty the Khalifa, in agreement with allied States, will acquire guarantee for independence of the united state of Pathanistan and will provide every kind of assistance to it. Thereafter, I will not allow any interference in the country of Pathanistan."
- Kazim Bey, 1916 link, link
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom