It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pakistan caves to Al Qaida, US gives tacit approval

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   
A central idea behind the Bush-Cheney Doctrine in the War on Terror and the Globalist effort to restructure the World Order is that international terrorist organizations must be denied the support of rogue states and not be permitted safe haven. These safe haven's permit them to organize, recruit, amass wealth, and create the stable infrastructure to disseminate propaganda and run middle eastern politics that they require.

The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was supported by this logic, as is the acknowledgement of an "axis of evil", states that support terror acrosss the world.

The government of Pakistan (a quasi-dictatorship run by a generalissimo but administered by the previous democratic government), formerly something of an aide to the US in the effort in Afganistan, has signed a peace deal with elements of al-Qaida. The remnants of the Taliban and Al-Qaida that escaped the occupation of afghanistan and fled to the anarchic tribal zones of waziristan, within pakistan, find themselves releived of any local pressure.
Indeed, they also find themselves releived of any US pressure, as the US won't invade Waziristan, and has even gone so far as to disband the special unit charged with hunting bin Ladin in person.

So now, days before the anniversary of the 9-11 attack, the attack that drove us to invade afghanistan, occupy iraq, run head first into the wall of iranian obstinancy and watch helpless as the N. Koreans test longe range nukes, we're practically where we were a few days before the actual 9-11 attacks themselves!

Is this anything other than a complete failure of US foreign policy?

Should this infact be seen as a defeat of the forces of civlization that have been foisted upon the middle east, and a sign of the permanent ascendancy of non-statist players in middle eastern, and perhaps world, politics? A seat for the throne of the future caliphate, so to speak?



See Also: www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Apart from disasterous US foreign policy, I think this deal has more to do with internal pressures on Musharraf.

You have to remember that he took power when the Government looked like it was about to become an Islamic State. Himself and others in the Army opposed this and took power. There is still a strong and growing undercurrent of Islamic extremism in Pakistan and Musharraf keeps the lid on, barely. If he continued with the Operation to remove these militants, he would have faced a huge internal backlash which could see Pakistan go completely into an Islamic state and completely ruin the "war on terror" for the west.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I think that the reconstruction of the middle east specially the rich oil nations like Iraq and Iran is what the issue of foreign policies and wars are about.

Bringing down the evil regimes that happen to be oil rich nations make our argument against the fight on terror a hypocrisy.

How can terror be fight while our government support regimes in the middle east of totalitarian and feudal monarchies while targeting others.

Musharraf is not the target and when his regime falls US just will step back because is nothing that his country have of importance.

Now Pakistan is holding on string and for a country with nuclear weapons with radical groups I see it as more dangerous than Iran itself.

Musharraf can be called a friend of the US but the truth is that his country population wants his head.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Dude,
Pakistan IS one massive terrorist training camp.

They have all the madrasas (schools that indoctrinate children with nothing but allah) They have all the key players holed up in their tribal areas, and will not give them up - the man at the top is there only because of the fact he is a military dictator.

PAKI means clean. STAN means land. It is to show that they alone have a clean land for Muslims free from non muslims. Hence when it was created the Muslims wanted to show the world that islam was the way.

Hence the name PAKI - STAN.

Oh and Afghans (Real Afghans hate Pakistanis with a passion - They see the Taliban as a tool for the Pakistanis to rule over the drug trade within their beautiful country, and enforce Pakistans view of islam onto them) Oh and I really do hope Pakistan gets that smug terrorist supporting smile wiped right off their faces soon - Sick and tired of so called pakistani British forming terror cells in their country, come back to the UK and try to kill us as we live our lives.

Axis of Evil. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and North korea. Thats what it should of been, not Afghanistan and Iraq.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Apart from disasterous US foreign policy, I think this deal has more to do with internal pressures on Musharraf.

Absolutely. Musharraf can see that the waziri's (pashtuns) are more potent than the US government.

You have to remember that he took power when the Government looked like it was about to become an Islamic State.
?
When musharraf took power, it was because the democratic government was horrible corrupted. Thats what I recall anyway.

If he continued with the Operation to remove these militants,

Indeed. For him, it makes a good deal of sense. Especially since hte worst of the militants are interested in attacking the US. Bin Ladin isn't going to worry about fighting Musharraf's government, he's not an internal threat to pakistan.
Thats the problem, Musharraf should've said, "well, if i fight in waziristan, they might march down here and cut my head off, but if I make a peace deal with them, the americans will kill us all.'.


PAKI means clean. STAN means land

the PAK part of pakistan is an acronym, for the different ethnic groups that make it up, such as the Pashtuns. I haven't heard that it also means 'clean'.


marg
Bringing down the evil regimes that happen to be oil rich nations make our argument against the fight on terror a hypocrisy.

Indeed, thats what its come down to. Fomerly, you could at least reason that, say, saudi arabia was a more amicable government than, say, iraq, or that musharaf, while a dictator, is a pretty benign one and is working with us. But now? It simply reveals the charade for what it is. Along with the apparent lack of any actual plan to invade iran! I mean, the country is run by religious zealots that actually beleive that the US is an agent on earth for the devil, and are building a god-damned nuclear bomb! But its not politically expedient to do anything about it now. So they sit on their hands.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
As stated earlier, IMO, if the U.S and it's allies really want to destroy Extremist Islamic Terrorism, the fight needs to be taken to Pakistan, not Iran.
Whatever token anti-terrorism actions are being taken, thay are walking the fine line of pleasing the pashtuns and keeping popular support for his military dictatorship which is already on knifes edge.

The U.S and Musharraf are playing a very dangerous game.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by kojac

The U.S and Musharraf are playing a very dangerous game.


I agree with you since the beginning of the war on terror I always said that Pakistan was a country no to be trust.

And either Saudi Arabia with their feudal monarchy.



[edit on 7-9-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Hey all, Im not sure on this but didnt bush say that any country hiding or supporting terrorist would also be punished. and if thats the case why wouldnt the special forces go into pakistan (sneak in) and hit him when they find him and his posse?



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 01:23 AM
link   
The peace deal is a disater it will allow the miltants to focus on regrouping and retraining when they are ready they will again be a threate to the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan. After 9-11 the US led coalition acted on emotion there wasnt enough level heads around as a result no thought was given to post Taliban Afghanistan.
After the intital defeat of the Taliban the coalition took there eye off Afghanistan and we still havnt woken up to that fact. Afghanistan would be more stable if resources hadnt been wasted on an expensive side show.

At some point in the future the US military will have to fight the militants in Pakistan the only thing that remains to be seen is if the government of Pakistan gives the US military permisson to operate in the country.

Its to soon to say if US foreign policy has failed but its not looking good not enough resources have been devouted to the task and those resources are spread to thin.

Related article


Nato chiefs are due to meet to consider committing more troops to Afghanistan, where a British general has warned combat is "more intense" than in Iraq.

Generals from Nato member states will meet in Poland to assess a request for more soldiers, planes and helicopters.

Nato head Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has said some members are not doing enough.

Facing fierce Taleban resistance and mounting casualties in southern Afghanistan, Nato has never confronted such bad news, our correspondent say


Link



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
Dude,
Pakistan IS one massive terrorist training camp.

They have all the madrasas (schools that indoctrinate children with nothing but allah) They have all the key players holed up in their tribal areas, and will not give them up - the man at the top is there only because of the fact he is a military dictator.


Firstly, nothing wrong with having Madrassas. The wrong is when the Madrassas teach those kids to kill others - Which is not happening in all Madrassas so stop linking Madrassas with 'terrorism'.

The man on the top is there because he is trying to play his cards to rid Pakistan of its 'Pariah State' status. Pakistan is a country of incredible diversity. The majority of Pakistanis are not 'extremist'. Fact. Don't even try to argue. There are pockets of extremism in every country in the world. Just because someone spins it to portray another country in prejudice should be not your reference. For example, America says Iraq had links with Al Qaeda, every idiot believed it, now where do we stand?


PAKI means clean. STAN means land. It is to show that they alone have a clean land for Muslims free from non muslims. Hence when it was created the Muslims wanted to show the world that islam was the way.

Hence the name PAKI - STAN.


Pakistan means the land of the pure. Not the land of the pure Muslims and no, that doesn't mean free from non-muslims. Infact, the Pakistani flag incorporates other faiths - The green representing the Muslim majority and the white the non-Muslim minority. So stop that misinformation.


Oh and Afghans (Real Afghans hate Pakistanis with a passion - They see the Taliban as a tool for the Pakistanis to rule over the drug trade within their beautiful country, and enforce Pakistans view of islam onto them) Oh and I really do hope Pakistan gets that smug terrorist supporting smile wiped right off their faces soon - Sick and tired of so called pakistani British forming terror cells in their country, come back to the UK and try to kill us as we live our lives.


Who are the 'real Afghans'? Hold on, you seriously believe that? The Northern Alliance was the main producer of drugs. The Taliban actually cracked down on the drug trade. Your sources are very ill-informed. I do believe the Taliban were crazies but then again, who were the Northern Alliance? The majority of the NA was made up by warring tribal leaders vying for power, not peace. Fact. After the attack on Afghanistan by the Coalition, the NA was let loose and if you ever read any respectable news, you would know that they started a campaign of pillaging, rape, torture and mass killings. Do you not remember the killing of 3000+ Taliban? Although not innocent, who gave the NA the right to plainly murder these POWs? The Americans stood by while watching these unarmed men die, their women get raped, their homes get destroyed. Afghans have no qualms with Pakistan. The NA has problems with Pakistan.


Axis of Evil. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and North korea. Thats what it should of been, not Afghanistan and Iraq.


Any intelligent person would not have even referred to the Axis of Evil. If the American theory goes, then the entire world is full of terrorists. I mean IMAGINE if the Indians decided to nuke US interests. The idea is preposterous right? But there is no need to make sense, just use your imagination. ANYTHING can be made into an enemy using the power of words. Its better for you to use your mind rather than trust others.

I do not condone terrorism, I condone misinformation and false pretences. Do your research mate. Seriously.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   
And again, today, the Pakistani dictator and American president stand side by side, with Bush calling Musharaf a friend against terror. Even though at the same time we are hearing that we had to threaten to destroy all of pakistan in order to get him to cooperate.




posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
from the news sources today (22 sept)
Musharaff said 'The deal is not at all with the Taliban. This deal is against the Taliban. This deal is with the Tribal Elders'

Musharaff look Bush in the eye, "The tribal deal is intended to reject the Talibanization of the people and that there won't be a Taliban and there won't be al-Aqaida (in Pakistan)"

[? wiggle room? as the above AQ has a unique spelling? resulting in plausable deniability?]

as far as the US threat....after 9-11 the then deputy Secretary of State- Richard Armitage was said to have told the Pakistan Intelligence Director...
[The U.S. would bomb his country if it didn't help fight terrorists] i.e. 'Be Prepared
to go back to the Stone Age' attributed to Armitage, as told by Musharaff.

hey, wasn't Armitage the guy who admitted to have leaked the Palme name as a CIA covert agent to the press??
~this guys digging himself a 6 foot hole~

In any case, the administrations relationship with Pakistan, if it was built on that threatened Stone-Age scenario, is a relationship of convience at best
pretty much like the US relationship with Saudi Arabia....
rife with suspicions, intrigues, & sleeping-with-one-eye-open!

eyes wide open and my duffelbag is always packed



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Nice post nygdan, well written.


But IMO, we should worry much more about the rise of the 'corporate state' and corporate funded agricultural bioterrorism.

They have way more money. And they've already done a LOT more damage.


.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join