Pakistan Moves Troops Amid Tension With India

Now this is scary as hell!

December 27, 2008

By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and SALMAN MASOOD

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan has begun moving some troops away from its western border with Afghanistan and has stopped soldiers from going on leave amid rising tensions with India, Pakistani officials said Friday.

Two of the officials said the troops were headed to the border with India in the east.

The move is likely to frustrate the United States, which has been pressing Pakistan to battle militants in its lawless northwest territories and working hard to cool tempers in the two nuclear-armed countries, following terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, last month. Indian officials have blamed a Pakistani militant group for the attacks.

By late Friday there was little to indicate that the troop movements constituted a major redeployment.

One senior Pakistani military official said the decision to move forces and restrict furloughs was made “in view of the prevailing environment,” namely deteriorating relations with India since the terrorist attacks. He added that the air force was “vigilant” and “alert” for the same reason.

With few details being presented, including how many soldiers were involved, it was unclear on Friday whether the troop movements reflected a serious fear of attack or were intended as a warning to India.

Several senior American officials said they had not seen evidence of major troop movements. Still, high-ranking Bush administration officials called Pakistani officials to urge restraint.

A White House spokesman, Gordon D. Johndroe, said, “We don’t want either side to take steps to raise tensions in an already tense situation.”

Since the terrorist attacks, India’s leaders have repeatedly said that they do not want war, but have also expressed frustration with what they have called Pakistan’s unwillingness to curtail militant groups. On Friday, Indian officials refused to comment on the reports of troop movements inside Pakistan.

The situation is complicated by deep divisions within Pakistan about how to deal with Islamic militants, including fighters from Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the northwest who cross into Afghanistan to attack American and NATO troops. Under intense pressure from the United States, the government has sent troops to battle the militants there in recent months, but many Pakistanis resent what they see as American interference.

United States officials have expressed fears over the last month that tensions between India and Pakistan would divert Pakistan’s focus from fighting the militants.

Some of the Pakistani officials who spoke of the redeployment said it was partly a response to new intelligence that suggested India could launch an attack inside Pakistan by early next week. All of them spoke on the condition of anonymity.

One senior Pakistani military official who said troops were being redeployed from the areas where government forces were engaging the Taliban, added that the soldiers who were leaving were “being pulled out of areas where no operations are being conducted,” or where winter weather had limited their ability to maneuver. He called the number of soldiers being moved “limited.”

He and another senior Pakistani military official interviewed Friday about the troop movements chose their words very carefully and offered few details. They said nothing harsh about India, even though they were speaking anonymously.

But two Pakistani intelligence officials — one from military intelligence and one from the country’s premier agency, Inter-Services Intelligence — described the situation in graver terms, and said troops along the border with India were on the highest state of alert.

Another Pakistani official said the air force had been in a “point defense” posture for one week, prepared to defend specific key defense installations and cities — including Islamabad, Rawalpindi and Lahore — as well as the Kahuta nuclear weapons laboratory. Pilots are sleeping in uniform with their boots on, the official said.

Pakistani news media reported troops were being sent near the boundary that separates Pakistani- and Indian-controlled Kashmir, as well to the area surrounding Lahore, Pakistan’s second-largest city, about 20 miles from the border with India.

In public, Pakistani leaders have vowed in recent days not to attack first or be the aggressor in any conflict, but have warned India that it should not believe it can get away with launching even a “surgical” strike inside Pakistan.

“We will be compelled to respond if it happens,” said the Pakistani foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, according to Pakistan’s state news agency. “If war is imposed, we will respond to it like a brave, self-respected and self-esteemed nation.”

If the redeployment was meant to warn India, it would stand in contrast to some efforts this month by leaders in each nation to tamp down emotions that some feared could lead to hostilities between the countries, which have fought three wars since 1947.

Two weeks ago, for example, Pakistani officials went out of their way to play down what they said were two incursions by Indian warplanes into Pakistani airspace, calling them inadvertent in public even though some officials privately said the moves were most likely a test or a provocation. Their response to the airspace violations — which the Indian military denied — won praise from American leaders.

Indian and American intelligence officials have attributed the Mumbai attacks, which killed 163 victims, to Lashkar-e-Taiba, a banned group based in Pakistan that has fought Indian forces in Indian-controlled Kashmir for years. But Pakistani leaders say that India has not provided convincing evidence of who carried out the attacks.

For its part, India on Friday accused its neighbor and rival of “diverting attention” from terrorism by making statements in recent days that it would go to war if necessary.

The redeployment came as Indian authorities warned their citizens not to travel to Pakistan, citing news media reports that Indian citizens had been arrested there in connection with a bombing this week in Lahore.

But they took pains not to blame the elected civilian government in Pakistan.

“It seems that this is the work of other agencies in Pakistan that operate outside the law and civilian control,” an Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman said.

The Indian foreign minister, Pranab Mukherjee, met with his counterpart from Saudi Arabia, among Pakistan’s staunchest allies, as part of India’s worldwide diplomatic campaign to put pressure on Pakistan to quash terrorist groups operating on its soil.

“Instead of diverting attention from the real issue, they should concentrate on how to fight against terrorism and bring to book the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack,” Mr. Mukherjee said.

Indian officials have said privately in recent weeks that they are reluctant to strike Pakistan, and that even a limited attack on terrorist training camps would invite swift retaliation. Just as important, any military standoff would only make the Pakistani Army more influential in Islamabad — precisely what India least desires.

Somini Sengupta contributed reporting from New Delhi, and Steven Lee Myers and Thom Shanker from Washington.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Pakistan Invades America --

"Without Permission"

By M. Junaid Levesque-Alam

17/09/08 "MRZine" -- -- The U.S. State Department lodged a sharp protest over ongoing Pakistani missile strikes and ground raids today, saying the Islamic Republic was violating American sovereignty.

"We will try to convince Pakistan . . . to respect [the] sovereignty of the United States -- and God willing, we will convince," State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.¹

The controversy stems from the Pakistan Army's recent decision, leaked in a prominent Pakistani newspaper, to mount intensifying air attacks and new ground assaults against extremists hiding in American safe havens across the ocean.

American papers reported that under the new policy, the Pakistani military will no longer seek America's permission in killing Americans, but will inform American diplomats about these killings as a friendly gesture between close allies.²

Pakistan Army General Ashfaq Kayani told reporters outside Islamabad late last night that the new strategy was justified. "We are working to prevent more attacks on the Pakistani people," he said.³

The general's stance signified strong Pakistani dissatisfaction with America's reluctance to crack down on religious fundamentalists and neoconservatives, who, experts note, have deep ties to American intelligence services and military leaders. The largely unchecked extremists, experts observe, have used America to bolster the agenda of their ideological counterparts across the ocean in Israel, and to strike directly against Pakistan and other parts of the Muslim world.

"We have to strike them over there so that they cannot order strikes against us here at home," General Kayani said, referring to American firepower that has terrorized hundreds of thousands of civilians on either side of the Pak-Afghan border and in the Middle East.

As Kayani spoke, new precision attacks and commando raids were being conducted against ranches in Texas, small towns in Alaska, the offices of AIPAC and energy-related lobbying firms in Washington, D.C. Commandos were also dispatched to America's unruly federally-administered Bible Belt, where resentment of government authority runs high.

Several high-value targets were killed in the attacks. Local media outlets claimed 50 civilians were also killed, but these assertions could not be independently verified. Pakistani officials said they would send in their own team to investigate the claims, time permitting.

Seeking to assuage domestic concerns, American officials downplayed the actions of their staunch ally. "The nation should not be upset by the statement of Pakistani General Kayani," White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said in an official statement.⁴ "Pakistan respect U.S. sovereignty and looks at us as partners," she added.⁵

U.S. officials also insisted no secret deal had been reached beforehand allowing Pakistanis to strike inside American territory. "Media reports about authorization for Pakistani raids into the U.S. are incorrect," the American ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson, told Fox News last night. She added that the South Asian country had "no aggressive designs or postures" toward America.⁶

Regimes allied to Pakistan, including those in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Palestine, expressed support for the new Pakistani strategy, citing the need to "remove and destroy" strongholds where key militants have masterminded attacks against their countries.⁷

Informed of this, Ambassador Patterson appeared unfazed, saying, "Pakistan respects American sovereignty." She insisted that Pakistani officials provided her with assurances that "no such order had been given" for new rules of engagement.⁸ Finally, the ambassador explained, America had already carried out its own recent military offensive that left hundreds of rural Americans dead, relieving the need for further Pakistani intervention.

But in Islamabad, Pakistani corps commanders said their new strategy would see continued implementation in the coming weeks. Speaking on condition of anonymity, one commander said that as far as Pakistan was concerned, "most things have been settled in terms of how we're going to proceed."⁹

Notes

Except for note 2, all the above-quoted statements are real quotes; only the roles have been switched.

1 Quote actually taken from Pakistani PM Yousaf Gilani. Reuters, Sept. 12, 2008. (http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=343756)

2 It was actually the Pakistan daily, Dawn, which reported on the U.S. policy shift as follows: "Under this new policy, the US military will notify Pakistan's government when it conducts raids, but will not seek its permission." Sept. 12, 2008.

3 Quote actually taken from US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen. Dawn (Pakistan Daily), Sept. 12, 2008.

4 Quote actually taken from PM Gilani. (Source: note 3)

5 Quote actually taken from Pakistani Ambassador Husain Haqqani. (Source: note 3)

6 Quotes actually taken from Ambassador Haqqani. (Source: note 3)

7 Quote actually taken from U.S. ally and Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Washington Post, Sept. 12, 2008. ()

8 Quotes actually taken from Ambassador Haqqani. (Source: note 7)

9 Quote actually taken from anonymous U.S. official. (Source: note 7)

---

M. Junaid Levesque-Alam is a Pakistani-American who blogs about America and Islam at Crossing the Crescent (www.crossingthecrescent.com). He writes about American Muslim identity for WireTap magazine and has been published in CounterPunch, Dissident Voice, The Nation (online), and The American Muslim. He works as a communications coordinator for an anti-domestic violence agency in the NYC area and obtained his undergraduate degree in journalism from Northeastern University. He can be reached at: junaidalam1 AT gmail.com


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Washington Is Risking War with Pakistan

By Robert Baer


17/09/08 "Time" - -- - As Wall Street collapsed with a bang, almost no one noticed that we're on the brink of war with Pakistan. And, unfortunately, that's not too much of an exaggeration. On Tuesday, the Pakistan's military ordered its forces along the Afghan border to repulse all future American military incursions into Pakistan. The story has been subsequently downplayed, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Mike Mullen, flew to Islamabad, Pakistan's capital, to try to ease tensions. But the fact remains that American forces have and are violating Pakistani sovereignty

You have to wonder whether the Bush administration understands what it is getting into. In case anyone has forgotten, Pakistan has a hundred plus nuclear weapons. It's a country on the edge of civil war. Its political leadership is bitterly divided. In other words, it's the perfect recipe for a catastrophe.

All of which begs the question, is it worth the ghost hunt we've been on since September 11? There has not been a credible sighting of Osama bin Laden since he escaped from Tora Bora in October 2001. As for al-Qaeda, there are few signs it's even still alive, other than a dispersed leadership taking refuge with the Taliban. Al-Qaeda couldn't even manage to post a statement on the Internet marking September 11, let alone set off a bomb.

U.S. forces have been entering Pakistan for the last six years. But it was always very quietly, usually no more than a hundred yards in, and usually to meet a friendly tribal chieftain. Pakistan knew about these crossings, but it turned a blind eye because it was never splashed across the front page of the country's newspapers. This has all changed in the last month, as the Administration stepped up Predator missile attacks. And then, after the New York Times ran an article that U.S. forces were officially given the go-ahead to enter Pakistan without prior Pakistani permission, Pakistan had no choice but to react.

On another level the Bush Administration's decision to step up attacks in Pakistan is fatally reckless, because the cross-border operations' chances of capturing or killing al Qaeda's leadership are slim. American intelligence isn't good enough for precision raids like this. Pakistan's tribal regions are a black hole that even Pakistani operatives can't enter and come back alive. Overhead surveillance and intercepts do little good in tracking down people in a backward, rural part of the world like this.

On top of it, is al-Qaeda worth the candle? Yes, some deadender in New York or London could blow himself up in the subway and leave behind a video claiming the attack in the name of al-Qaeda. But our going into Pakistan, risking a full-fledged war with a nuclear power, isn't going to stop him.

Finally, there is Pakistan itself, a country that truly is on the edge of civil war. Should we be adding to the force of chaos? By indiscriminately bombing the tribal areas along the Afghan border, we in effect are going to war with Pakistan's ethnic Pashtuns. They make up 15% of Pakistan's 167 million people. They are well armed and among the most fierce and xenophobic people in the world. It is not beyond their military capabilities to cross the Indus and take Islamabad.

Before it is too late, someone needs to sit the President down and give him the bad news that Pakistan is a bridge too far in the "war on terror."

Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Oh, Sweet Geebus. Pakistan......

If this had happened during .......let's say, an Obama administration, cries for impeachment would be heard 'round the globe!


Zalmay Khailzad is a Neocon or, at least, that is what we were led to believe. Seems he is keeping his eye on the presidency....not of the U.S., but of Afghanistan.


In the midst of all the convention hooplah, some important stories get missed. That seems to be the case with the tale of Bush ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, who has been engaged in some very irregular cozying up with Pakistani presidential hopeful Asif Zardari.

Mr. Khalilzad had spoken by telephone with Mr. Zardari, the leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party, several times a week for the past month until he was confronted about the unauthorized contacts, a senior United States official said. Other officials said Mr. Khalilzad had planned to meet with Mr. Zardari privately next Tuesday while on vacation in Dubai, in a session that was canceled only after Richard A. Boucher, the assistant secretary of state for South Asia, learned from Mr. Zardari himself that the ambassador was providing “advice and help.” “Can I ask what sort of ‘advice and help’ you are providing?” Mr. Boucher wrote in an angry e-mail message to Mr. Khalilzad. “What sort of channel is this? Governmental, private, personnel?” Copies of the message were sent to others at the highest levels of the State Department; the message was provided to The New York Times by an administration official who had received a copy.

A senior American official said that Mr. Khalilzad had been advised to “stop speaking freely” to Mr. Zardari, and that it was not clear whether he would face any disciplinary action.

State and White House officials from Negroponte on down are said to be furious with Khalilzhad for his planned vacation with Zardari and his unofficial contacts at a time when the US wants to be seen as neutral in the Pakistani presidential race. Zalmay is an old political hand who knows the rules and White House plans but decided to break them anyway. Why?

Well, maybe its just that, like other neocons, Khalilzhad doesn’t think the rules apply to him. The founding PNAC member certainly didn’t mind interfering in Afghan elections to get his old buddy Karzai elected (although that was probably on White House orders). Maybe he felt he could do the same for his new friend Zardari with impunity.

But the worrying element is that there have been rumors for a while that Khalilzhad, who is Afghan born, has his sights on the Afghani presidency himself. While Karzai has been confrontational with Pakistan about its ISI intelligence agency and their support for the Taliban (something Zardari has been helpless to do anything about). He’s also allied himself strongly with India in response to Pakistani treatment of Afghanistan -something that led to the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul recently, carried out by ISI proxies.

If Khalilzhad does have his sights on the presidency, then he could be a very different matter. Despite his neocon credentials he was an early and staunch supporter of the Taliban - chaperoning their officials to a Unocal Oil party in their honor and declaring in a 1996 WaPo op-ed that “The Taliban does not practice the anti-U.S. style of fundamentalism practiced by Iran.” He went on to say that the Taliban’s brand of Islam was more akin to that of Saudi Arabia…

Zardari is by some accounts quite unstable and paranoid - if an alliance with the ambassador would definitely appeal to the highly corrupt Pakistani politico. He might think that he would thereby get U.S. protection, just like Musharraf did, by default even if the Bush administration didn’t originally intend to extend it. Kalilzhad might be thinking that Zardari can leverage him into power. India, I’m sure, has thought of all this already and will have been burning up the phones to the White House since the story broke, demanding to know what the runaway ambassador thinks he was doing.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Senator "Bridge To Nowhere" Is Guilty As Hell.

This is a good argument for term limits! Seems that the longer people are in D.C. the more vulnerable they are to corruption. They even manage to convince themselves that they have done nothing wrong. It's sad really.

Ted Stevens bribed Pakistan.

Filed Under: Ethics

By Faiz at 9:50 am

In 1999, Pakistan was desperately trying to remove its U.S. military and economic sanctions. Rep. Ted Stevens (R-AK) “was the chairman of the conference committee that was considering allowing that change.” Stevens “made it clear that he wanted Pakistan to resolve a multimillion-dollar dispute with an Alaskan construction and engineering company, VECO, owned by his close friend Bill Allen”:

Stevens raised the issue of a contract dispute VECO was having with Pakistan over payment for VECO’s participation in construction of a pipeline. He wanted Pakistan to resolve it.

Some of the people involved maintain that Stevens said he would not pass the provision until VECO was taken care of, while others said his intervention was more benign.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

al-Qaida Safe Havens in Afghanistan

US Military 'Extremely' Concerned About Al-Qaida Safe Havens in Pakistan

By VOA News
11 January 2008

The top U.S. military officer says he is extremely concerned about the presence of al-Qaida safe havens in Pakistan.

During a news conference at the Pentagon Friday, U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen said al-Qaida militants are not only launching attacks in neighboring Afghanistan, but also inside Pakistan.

Admiral Mullen added the U.S. is mindful that Pakistan is a sovereign nation and that it is up to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and his military advisors to confront the problem directly.

President Musharraf has warned the U.S. against any unilateral move into Pakistan's tribal region to hunt down al-Qaida or Taliban militants. He told the Singapore newspaper The Strait Times that such move would be considered a breach of sovereignty.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said anything the U.S. has done or will do is in full cooperation with the Pakistani government.

Last week, the New York Times newspaper reported the Bush administration is considering expanding covert intelligence and military operations in Pakistan's tribal region, where al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri are believed to be hiding.

The region is also considered a base for Taliban militants planning attacks against coalition forces in Afghanistan.

Some information for this report provided by AP.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Pakistan Heading For Bloody Revolution

January 6, 2008

By Muhammad Khurshid

The rulers of Pakistan have still been enjoying their lives. There is no report that they have felt any pain, but the poor masses have been facing a very difficult situation. If the situation remains the same there is possibility that the country may face a bloody revolution. Actually this is the aim of terrorists to create bloody revolution on the pattern of Iran. Who are terrorists? I do not know who are these people. But they are in Pakistan and are busy round the clock preparing ground for a bloody revolution.

It is reported that President Pervez Musharraf has directed the caretaker government in Islamabad to ensure security in the country during the month of Muharram when Pakistan has traditionally gone on institutional alert. Sectarian violence, always a threat during Muharram, spiked towards the end of the 1990s and played havoc with the Musharraf interregnum.

Starting in 2003, Pakistan’s anti-Shia trend was internationalised and Iraq beat it on the number of deaths recorded. Today Pakistan is engulfed in what may be called anti-Musharraf violence. There is an offensive from the people against the state, which they no longer identify as their friend, and there is responsive violence from the state trying to curb civil society protest.

There is also the violence of Talibanisation and Al Qaeda. The first is attempting to transform society and prepare it for a universal Islamic caliphate, the second is attempting to eliminate what it believes are “servants” of America’s anti-Islamic imperialism. There was a time when Pakistan’s establishment was actively involved in supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan and thus being a partisan in the internal conflict there by pitting the Pushtun majority against the rest. Today, the state seems to have decided to change course and contain the spreading influence of Talibanisation, but most observers fear that important pockets within the establishment are still following the Taliban agenda. This thinking is not willing to separate the violence of Al Qaeda from that of the state under President Musharraf.

The ambivalence in the understanding of violence in Pakistan was best reflected in the attitude of the late PPP chairperson Ms Benazir Bhutto who warned the nation against the “leftovers” of the General Zia’s Islamisation period who were ensconced within the state institutions. There was a reason why she thought that there was “cooperation” between the state and Al Qaeda. She had been targeted by Al Qaeda during the 1980s and later on too, when Osama bin Laden is said to have spent money on politicians who would eliminate her politically from the national scene. So she had reason to believe that upon her entry into Pakistan these “embedded” elements would try to get rid of her.

Yet there was a second prong to her policy vis-à-vis security in Pakistan. She was the only mainstream Pakistani leader to speak against the threat of Al Qaeda. She spoke out in circumstances when most leaders were looking to getting votes from a population that refuses to focus on the Al Qaeda threat. No one wants to be heard commenting on Al Qaeda in public. The media too is more effectively concentrated on the revival of democratic institutions and President Musharraf’s increasingly unconvincing strategy to stay in power. Ironically, President Musharraf and Ms Bhutto became the only two leaders to “verbalise” against Al Qaeda.

It is not surprising that Ms Bhutto’s assassination has persuaded the public that the state, and not Al Qaeda, has actually committed the murder. We are therefore in a very tricky situation -- the state is supposed to provide security to a people who actually suspect it of killing its leaders. The accusations against the “agencies” began in the 1990s and are still flying thick in the country. The opposition government in the NWFP never tired of pointing the finger at the agencies when incidents of violence occurred within the state’s jurisdiction. That is why, in the run-up to the elections in 2008, the opposition parties are all crying foul about the interference of the agencies in the rigging of the polls. Violence emanating from this sense of grievance has unfolded in the country, during which the institutions charged with the preservation of security have actually fled the scene of violence.

It is in these circumstances of state-people confrontation that third parties are most willingly intervening to cause conflict. The month of Muharram is just the time when a well-planted bomb, or a Sunni suicide-bomber promised Paradise in return for a Shia death, can trigger an all-out war. This happened in 2003 and 2004 in Balochistan and Karachi; it has happened in the Northern Areas, and at the time of writing, it is going on in the Kurram Agency. Such is the past jurisprudence of the sectarian violence in Pakistan that both sides end up accusing the state and its “agencies” of killing them. In the decade of the 2000, the trend to accuse the United States for sectarian violence has gained strength, thus indirectly absolving Al Qaeda, and its subservient jihadi militias of yore, of any complicity.

This could be the most difficult season of public security in Pakistan. The grief over the death of Ms Bhutto has not died down, and any high-visibility presence of the state agencies could instigate violence instead of preventing it.

In the past, the common man came under a lot of pressure from the decline of minimal public utilities even as the government was able to achieve growth rates. Now there is a lack of hope commensurate with the government’s failure to effectively counter the threats it said it would eliminate. Thus, state security has been undermined by a lack of trust as never before.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Bhutto Assassinated

While this comes as no surprise, the assassination spells big trouble for the world.

Pakistan's Bhutto assassinated at rally
By SADAQAT JAN and ZARAR KHAN, Associated Press Writers 10 minutes ago

Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday in a suicide attack that also killed at least 20 others at the end of a campaign rally, aides said.

The death of the 54-year-old charismatic former prime minister threw the campaign for the Jan. 8 election into chaos and created fears of mass protests and an eruption of violence across the volatile south Asian nation.

The attacker struck just minutes after Bhutto addressed a rally of thousands of supporters in the garrison city of Rawalpindi, 8 miles south of Islamabad. She was shot in the neck and chest by the attacker, who then blew himself up, said, Rehman Malik, Bhutto's security adviser.

At least 20 others were killed in the attack.

Bhutto was rushed to the hospital and taken into emergency surgery.

"At 6:16 p.m. she expired," said Wasif Ali Khan, a member of Bhutto's party who was at Rawalpindi General Hospital.
"The surgeons confirmed that she has been martyred," Bhutto's lawyer Babar Awan said.

Bhutto's supporters at the hospital exploded in anger, smashing the glass door at the main entrance of the emergency unit. Others burst into tears. One man with a flag of Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party tied around his head was beating his chest.

Some at the hospital began chanting, "Killer, Killer, Musharraf," referring to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, Bhutto's main political opponent. A few began stoning cars outside.

"We repeatedly informed the government to provide her proper security and appropriate equipment including jammers, but they paid no heed to our requests," Malik said.

Nawaz Sharif, another former premier and opposition leader, arrived at the hospital and sat silently next to Bhutto's body. Earlier on Thursday, four people were killed at a rally for Sharif when his supporters clashed with backers of Musharraf near Rawalpindi.

In Washington, the State Department said it was seeking confirmation of Bhutto's condition.

"Certainly, we condemn the attack on this rally," deputy spokesman Tom Casey said. "It demonstrates that there are still those in Pakistan who want to subvert reconciliation and efforts to advance democracy."

The United States has for months been encouraging Musharraf to reach an accommodation with the opposition, particularly Bhutto, who was seen as having a wide base of support in Pakistan. Her party had been widely expected to do well in parliamentary elections set for next month.

Bhutto served twice as Pakistan's prime minister between 1988 and 1996. She had returned to Pakistan from an eight-year exile on Oct. 18. On the same day, her homecoming parade in Karachi was also targeted by a suicide attacker, killing more than 140 people. On that occasion she narrowly escaped injury.

At the scene of the bombing, an Associated Press reporter saw body parts and flesh scattered at the back gate of the Liaqat Bagh park where Bhutto had spoken. He counted about 20 bodies, including police, and could see many other wounded people.

Party supporter Chaudry Mohammed Nazir said that two gunshots rang out when Bhutto's vehicle pulled into the main street and then there was a big blast next to her car.

Police cordoned off the street with white and red tape, and rescue workers rushed to put victims in ambulances as people
wailed nearby.

The clothing of some of the victims was shredded and people put party flags over their bodies. Police caps and shoes littered the asphalt.

Hundreds of riot police had manned security checkpoints to guard the venue. It was Bhutto's first public meeting in Rawalpindi since she came back to the country.

In November, Bhutto had also planned a rally in the city, but Musharraf forced her to cancel it, citing security fears.
In recent weeks, suicide bombers have repeatedly targeted security forces in Rawalpindi, a city near the capital where Musharraf stays and the Pakistan army has its headquarters.

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Starnge Stuff Going On All Over

Published on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 by The Independent/UK

Strange Goings-On Here In Lebanon

by Robert Fisk

Stories that just don’t seem to make it into print.

Did you know that the Hizbollah “Party of God” has installed its own private communications network in the south of Lebanon, stretching from the village of Zawter Sharqiya all the way to Beirut? And why, I wonder, would it be doing that? Well, to safeguard its phones in the event that the Israelis immobilise the public mobile system in the next war. Next war? Well, if there’s not going to be another war in Lebanon, why is Hizbollah building new roads north of the Litani river, new bunkers, new logistics far outside the area of operations of the Nato-led UN peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon?

Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, Hizbollah’s leader, boasts of new weapons. The Lebanese suspect that these include anti-aircraft missiles. If this is true - and many Lebanese who have spent their lives under Israel’s cruel air attacks, assaults which have often been war crimes, hope it is - then the next war will be anticipated with dark but keen anxiety. Since the Israeli army is incapable of fighting the Hizbollah on its own ground - its collapse when faced by Hizbollah guerrillas in southern Lebanon last year proved this - what happens if their awesome air power is also neutered?

Fouad Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister, ensconced in his little “green zone” in the old Turkish serail, can do little to alter the course of this coming battle. Supplied with bombs by the Americans so that the Lebanese army can continue to blast its way through the Palestinian Nahr el-Bared refugee camp - one of the most uncovered stories of the Middle East year - his government can do no more than wonder at the resistance of the ruthless non-Hizbollah Islamist insurgents who are still holding out there. The US ambassador watches approvingly as the Lebanese army continues to “advance” amid strongholds and bunkers at a cost of almost 140 soldiers’ lives although, after four months of “advancing” - as one western NGO remarked to me a few days ago - they might soon, at this rate, reach Cyprus.

One can only reflect on how the US ambassador to Tel Aviv reacts when the Americans supply bombs to the Israelis which are then used on the Palestinians of Gaza. Weapons are always available to blast away at the Palestinians.

This is Fouad Siniora’s predicament as Hizbollah tries to destroy his government and prevent the election of a non- partisan president next month. Locked into Washington’s embrace as the latest Arab country to prove the spread of George Bush’s fantastical version of democracy in the Middle East, powerless in a country where the only functioning institution is now the Lebanese army, the prime minister finds himself on America’s side in the “war on terror” against Hizbollah’s mentors in Iran. All Hizbollah needed now, poor old Fouad was quoted as saying the other day, was “a composer for a national anthem of their own”.

But there are other fears creating shadows in Lebanon. One of them is the sectarianism of Iraq. Lebanon’s Shias and Sunnis and Christians all have friends and family in Iraq. Many have visited their loved ones who have appeared amid the Iraqi refugee masses that have poured into neighbouring Damascus. For their care, of course, the Syrians have received not a scintilla of gratitude from the Americans who were responsible for creating the hell-disaster of Iraq in the first place. It’s worth comparing the vital statistics (though not on CNN or Fox News): Syria has accepted almost one and a half million Iraqi refugees - caring for them, providing them with welfare and free hospital services - while Washington, when it isn’t cursing Iraq’s prime minister, has accepted a measly 800 Iraqis.

And Lebanon? No one realises that this tiny Arab country has accepted 50,000 Iraqis since the great refugee exodus began. Of course, the Shia Iraqis have moved into the Shia southern suburbs (home of Hizbollah), the Sunni into Sunni areas of Beirut and Sidon, the Christians into Christian east Beirut and the Metn hills. And because the Lebanese have always called the Iraqis brothers and sisters, there has been no friction between the different Iraqi groups - and this is truly wondrous because only last January, Lebanon’s Shia and Sunni youths were stoning each other in their thousands in the streets of Beirut.

So what else do the Americans have up their sleeve for us out here? Well, an old chum of mine in the Deep South - a former US Vietnam veteran officer - has a habit of tramping through the hills to the north of his home and writes to me that “in my therapeutic and recreation trips … in the mountains of North Carolina over the last two weeks, I’ve noticed a lot of F-16 and C-130 activity. They are coming right through the passes, low to the ground. The last time I saw this kind of thing up there was before Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan”.

That was in early August. Two weeks later, my friend wrote again. “There were a few (more) C-130 passes… I know that some 75th Rangers have just moved out of their home base and that manoeuvres have gone on in areas that have been used… in the past before assaults utilizing [sic] aircraft guided by small numbers of special operations people.”

And then comes the cruncher in my friend’s letter. “I think that the Bush administration is looking for something to distract Americans before the mid-September report on progress in Iraq. And I believe that the pressure is building to do something about the sanctuaries for the Taliban and foreign fighters along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border…”

A few days after my friend’s letter arrived in Beirut, the Pakistanis reported that the Americans were using pilotless drones to attack targets just inside Pakistan. But it seems much more ambitious military plans may now be in the works. An all-out strike inside the North West Frontier province before President Pervez Musharref steps down - or is overthrown? A last throw of the dice at Bin Laden before “democracy” returns to Pakistan?

Stand by for more disasters - from Pakistan to the shores of the Mediterranean. But don’t expect to hear about them in advance.

Robert Fisk is Middle East correspondent for The Independent.

© 2007 The Independent

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Bushites and the Ticking Bomb, Pakistan

Let us not forget that it was Poppy Bush who was only too glad to cover-up for Khan and the Pakistan nuke program to begin with.

What in hell are these people really up to?

Bush’s Pakistan Paradox

Posted on Jul 10, 2007

AP Photo / George Herbert

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf strolls into a 2006 news conference at the White House with President Bush.

By Robert Scheer

As Iraq continues to disintegrate, and our top generals and in-country ambassador predict that U.S. troops will need to die there for decades in order to prevent a full-scale regional blood bath, it is important to recall the reasons why we got into this mess. The marker of what will go down in history as “Bush’s folly” is that this idiot of a president invaded a country that had absolutely nothing to do with terrorist attacks on the United States or WMD threats to America while coddling the military junta in Pakistan, which was guilty on both counts.

(For newspaper editors inclined to strike my reference in this syndicated column to our “idiot president” as excessively pejorative, I refer them to one definition of idiot in Webster’s New Riverside University Dictionary: “being unable to guard against common dangers and being incapable of learning connected speech.")

Two news stories this week underscore the extreme irrationality and utter moral depravity of the Bush administration in exploiting the 9/11 attack to justify the invasion of Iraq. They both concern Pakistan, the close ally of the Taliban government when Afghanistan hosted Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist network. And, as opposed to Iraq, Pakistan did have weapons of mass destruction and facilitated their proliferation to “rogue nations.” Both examples provide damning evidence that Bush cared not a whit about WMD or about preventing another 9/11-style attack, because the danger of both existed in Pakistan, which he befriended, rather than in Iraq, which he invaded.

The first report details that Pakistan has effectively lifted the minimal house arrest restraints imposed on A.Q. Khan, the father of the “Islamic bomb,” who presided over the transfer of nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran. The second is a devastating New York Times report that the United States failed to attack an important al-Qaida gathering in Afghanistan at which top terrorist leaders were present, out of fear of alienating Pakistan’s dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

Recall that Bush boasted in his 2004 presidential debate with Democratic candidate John Kerry that “we busted the A.Q. Khan network,” when, in fact, neither Khan nor any of the top ringleaders of his nukes-for-sale operation have ever been brought to trial. Some had to hold high positions in the Pakistani government in order for the shipment of Pakistan’s most highly valued nuclear technology to go unimpeded. Perhaps it is for that reason U.S. agents have never been allowed to interview Khan, let alone subject him to the waterboarding torture reserved for those who wouldn’t know a nuke if it hit them upside the head.

While American agents still aren’t allowed to talk to Khan, an AP reporter had no difficulty interviewing him this week, reporting that the minimal restraints of his house arrest have been lifted. Thus, he is now, echoing that Southwest Airlines commercial, free to move about the country—if not the world. So, Bush did not bust Khan’s network, but on the contrary he allowed it to function for years out of fear of embarrassing Musharraf at a time when Bush was cozying up to the dictator who had quickly pardoned Khan of all possible crimes.

Not offending Musharraf also led the Bush administration in 2005 to jettison a planned attack on a high-level al-Qaida gathering in Pakistan that U.S. intelligence had learned of. Bin Laden’s No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was in attendance, and the capture of the man thought to be actually running al-Qaida would have allowed Bush to begin making good on his promise to get the perpetrators of 9/11 “dead or alive.”

Instead, as The New York Times reported, the mission was abandoned in the final moments, as Navy SEALs in parachute gear sat on C-130 cargo planes, because “it could jeopardize relations with Pakistan.” The Times quoted Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, as saying, “The reluctance to take risk or jeopardize our political relationship with Musharraf may well account for the fact that five-and-a-half years after 9/11, we are still trying to run bin Laden and Zawahiri to ground.”

No wonder that top U.S. officials charged with defeating al-Qaida feel frustrated. As the Times reported, “Their frustration has only grown over the past two years, they said, as Al Qaeda has improved its ability to plan global attacks and build new training compounds in Pakistan’s tribal areas, which have become virtual havens for the terrorist network.”

Heckuva job, Bushie.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Is Pakistan Falling Apart or Just Away From Bush?

Whatever, Bush is blaming the Democrats for any funding cuts that Pakistan may see.

Isn't that lovely?

Now, he's hiding behind Pelosi's skirts.

February 26, 2007

Bush to Warn Pakistan to Act on Terror

By DAVID E. SANGER and MARK MAZZETTI


WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 — President Bush has decided to send an unusually tough message to one of his most important allies, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the president of Pakistan, warning him that the newly Democratic Congress could cut aid to his country unless his forces become far more aggressive in hunting down operatives with Al Qaeda, senior administration officials say.

The decision came after the White House concluded that General Musharraf is failing to live up to commitments he made to Mr. Bush during a visit here in September. General Musharraf insisted then, both in private and public, that a peace deal he struck with tribal leaders in one of the country’s most lawless border areas would not diminish the hunt for the leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban or their training camps.

Now, American intelligence officials have concluded that the terrorist infrastructure is being rebuilt, and that while Pakistan has attacked some camps, its overall effort has flagged.

“He’s made a number of assurances over the past few months, but the bottom line is that what they are doing now is not working,” one senior administration official who deals often with South Asian issues said late last week. “The message we’re sending to him now is that the only thing that matters is results.”

Democrats, who took control of Congress last month, have urged the White House to put greater pressure on Pakistan because of statements from American commanders that units based in Pakistan that are linked to the Taliban, Afghanistan’s ousted rulers, are increasing their attacks into Afghanistan.

For the time being, officials say, the White House has ruled out unilateral strikes against the training camps that American spy satellites are monitoring in North Waziristan, in Pakistan’s tribal areas on the border. The fear is that such strikes would result in what one administration official referred to as a “shock to the stability” of General Musharraf’s government.

General Musharraf, a savvy survivor in the brutal world of Pakistani politics, knows that the administration is hesitant to push him too far. If his government collapses, it is not clear who would succeed him or who would gain control over Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear weapons.

But the spread of Al Qaeda in the tribal areas threatens to undermine a central element of Mr. Bush’s argument that he is succeeding in the administration’s effort to curb terrorism. The bomb plot disrupted in Britain last summer, involving plans to hijack airplanes, has been linked by British and American intelligence agencies to camps in the Pakistan-Afghan border areas.
General Musharraf has told American officials that Pakistani military operations in the tribal areas in recent years so alienated local residents that they no longer provide the central government with quality intelligence about the movements of senior Islamic militants.
Congressional Democrats have threatened to review military assistance and other aid to Pakistan unless they see evidence of aggressive attacks on Al Qaeda. The House last month passed a measure linking future military aid to White House certification that Pakistan “is making all possible efforts to prevent the Taliban from operating in areas under its sovereign control.”

Pakistan is now the fifth-largest recipient of American aid. Mr. Bush has proposed $785 million in aid to Pakistan in his new budget, including $300 million in military aid to help Pakistan combat Islamic radicalism in the country.

The rumblings from Congress give Mr. Bush and his top advisers a way of conveying the seriousness of the problem, officials said, without appearing to issue a direct threat to the proud Pakistani leader themselves.

“We think the Pakistani aid is at risk in Congress,” said the senior official, who declined to speak on the record because the subject involved intelligence matters.

The administration has sent a series of emissaries to see the Pakistani leader in recent weeks, including the new secretary of defense, Robert M. Gates. Mr. Gates was charged with prompting more action in a region in which American forces operate with great constraints, if they are allowed in at all.

“This is not the type of relationship where we can order action,” said an administration official involved in discussions over Pakistan policy. “We can strongly encourage.”

Relations between General Musharraf and Mr. Bush have always been tense, as the Pakistani leader veers between his need for American support and protection and his awareness that many Pakistani people — and the intelligence service — have strong sympathies for Al Qaeda and the resurgent Taliban. Officials involved with the issue describe the current moment between the leaders as especially fraught.

Mr. Bush was deeply skeptical of the deal General Musharraf struck with the tribal leaders last year, fearing that it would limit the government’s powers to intercede in what Mr. Bush has called the “wild west” of Waziristan, administration officials said at the time.

During his visit to Washington last fall, General Musharraf said the agreement he signed with tribal leaders, giving them greater sovereignty in the region, had “three bottom lines.” He said one was “no Al Qaeda activities in our tribal agencies or across the border in Afghanistan.” The second was “no Taliban activity” in the same areas. And the third was “no Talibanization,” which he described as “obscurantist thoughts or way of life.”

American intelligence officials have made an assessment that senior Qaeda leaders in Pakistan have re-established significant control over their global network and are training operatives in some of the camps for strikes on Western targets.

One American official familiar with intelligence reports about Pakistan said intelligence agencies had established “clear linkages” between the Qaeda camps and the plot to blow up trans-Atlantic flights that was thwarted last August. American analysts said the recent trials of terrorism suspects in Britain showed that some defendants had been trained in Pakistan.
American officials say one reason General Musharraf agreed to pull government troops back to their barracks in North Waziristan and allow tribal leaders greater control over security was to give him time to rebuild his intelligence network in the border region gradually.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.