pakistanwatch – youtube – blog

Posts Tagged ‘Jamaat

Musharraf on Rana Mubasher show

leave a comment »

Pervez Musharraf appears on Rana Mubasher to confirm plans to return to Pakistan.

Read the rest of this entry »


Lawyer’s movement splits on 18th amendment

leave a comment »

Lawyer’s movement splits on 18th amendment – between pro-PPP lawyers and others (pro-Nawaz Sharif, pro-Jamaat-e-Islami groups ?).

Read the rest of this entry »

Hafeez Pirzada explains 18th amendment

leave a comment »

Abdul Hafeez Pirzada (drafter of 1973 constitution) explains 18th amendment on Dawn TV.

Read the rest of this entry »

PML-N politicians follow Nawaz Sharif example

leave a comment »

PML-N politicians back in the fold after a long hiatus, go all out in their shenanigans.

First a PML-N MNA Haji Pervez sends someone else to take his educational exams.

Then PML-N Provincial Minister Chaudhry Abdul Ghafoor involved in a tussle with Customs officials at airport.

Then PML-N MPA Munawwar Gil accused of raping a lady. That “resolved” after she forgave him (shows video of him crying in a police van next to the woman). Report does not mention if he or his familiy used “pressure” to get the lady to “forgive” him.

Then a PML-N MPA (Member of Provincial Assembly) Shumaila Rana steals someone’s credit card (from a gymnasium) to buy jewelry worth Rs. 80,000. The PML-N MPA lady appears in CCTV footage obtained from the jewelry shop. Earlier the MPA had claimed that she was not involved.

Read the rest of this entry »

Advice to a Young Taliban – Part 2

with 7 comments

Made another long comment in response to a pro-taliban comment:
2/3 Swat refugee camps – TV One – May 7, 2009

Traitor mother fuckers….on behlaf of america killing its own people…!

I suppose you like it when these Takfiri/Wahhabi/Salafi groups kill civilians ? And consider the slightest variation as grounds for “Takfir” ?

Read the rest of this entry »

Advice to a Young Taliban

with 2 comments

Made a long comment in response to a pro-taliban comment (below) on:
3/5 Lucman Show – Lal Masjid, Swat Peace Deal, Sufi Mohammed – Apr 17, 2009

Moving it here to give it a home.

The response does not negate what is said (since much of the comments are true), but rather expands on the picture presented.

This comment was posted on the website in support of the conventional “Taliban” view:

it should be clear that the seeds of jihad the holy war are present in every muslim
and us is providing the fertile media for it
sleeping lions are awaking all over the world
what can obama do???

1. it should be clear that taliban have a pure and solid agenda for their war to liberate their homeland……. us is fighting for what?
2. taliban are fighting near their homes…. us soldires are thousands of miles away.
3. taliban have 10 years experience of russia war…. us has not.
4. taliban love to die ……and us soldiers are training local men to fight for them,
how funny! it is as if thinking to fuck their own wives as fatigue, they are “training” someone else for it.

5. taliban have experienced every tactics and every weapon of us in the last many years, yet they are increasing in power spirit, wealth and land occupied……now for what, poor us soldiers are being kept away from their families? tell obama
6. taliban are training their children who are adding to them……..and poor depressed us soldiers always thinking when to complete their scheduled time in afghan war and when to leave for their homeland.

. talibans are brave due to their strong connection to their sect. they are satisfied weather they live ar they die…… us forces are heavily mental and abnormal, always thinking of taliban attacks,firing on themselves….friendly fires.

10. 40,000 +40,000 local afghan army is being prepared by us………… all of them are muslims. all of them have seeds of jihad. all of them are sleeping lions. they have joined just for their finencial support.
us is telling them how to kill taliban….. their brothers…… how funny!!!!!!

7. taliban easily topple down the supply line vehicles. above 80 percent food, ammunition and other necessities are at the risk of taliban……. what a battlefield selected!!!!!!!
8. taliban live a simple life, a very cheap warfront……… us spends 100 million $ a day on this war. o the people of usa your leaders are surely going to ruin your coming generations.

My attempt at expanding the “picture” somewhat:

Taliban had a function in Afghanistan – where there was nothing better and the country was destroyed by warlords.

But now they are acting as an “agent provocateur” for the U.S.

If the U.S. wants to provoke a war in this area so it can JUSTIFY other actions, they just have to make sure some operatives of theirs do something.

Then they can say “look your state is unstable”, let us help.

THIS is why in Islam it is prohibited to work against the state. Because IF you allow that, then you open up the state to ALL type of intrigue.

For example if a state wants to (for the time being) keep quiet on the world stage, they CANNOT.

Because these groups will rise up to supposedly “speak for the state”.

And this is the DANGER. Because by opening up local groups to foreign influence it opens up the state to a whole NEW array of tools available to U.S.

The Taliban exhibited poor statesmanship, by allying themselves with “foreign fighters” who had NO interest if Afghanistan or Pakistan was destroyed. In this way they demonstrated a lack of care for their “Riaya”. And a lack of care for developing the area of territory they had acquired.

Would the Prophet have willingly gone to war on the advice of foreign advisors ? Especially ones of dubious background.

Many Pashtuns do not realize how easy it is for Israel to plant an “Arab” person with money for war against Pakistan. You need to look up some history of how Israel operates.

Is it any surprise that most Taliban are of low educational exposure – ones most easily duped, least knowledgeable of how Israel operates.

For the naive Pakistanis anyone – even an Israeli-sponsored Arab agent – is indistinguishable from an “Arab” brother.

Foreign groups are making use of this naivete.

To them there is no “cost” of war. Their home countries are safe from WHATEVER they do.

So their behavior is not MODERATED by caution.

Is it any wonder that the Taliban too also exhibit NO accounting of the “cost” of war (damage to development, education and improvement of “Riaya”).

Osama Bin Laden recently allowed his son to NOT fight the U.S. if he wants.

But this option is denied to Pakistan and it’s children.
Granny who married Osama bin Laden’s son
By Nick Britten and Martin Beckford
Last Updated: 2:10AM BST 12 Jul 2007
Briton marries bin Laden’s son
July 11, 2007
Mrs Felix-Browne insisted: “He last saw his father in 2000 when they were both in Afghanistan. He left his father because he did not feel it was right to fight or to be in an army. Omar was training to be a soldier and he was only 19.


Interview w/ Omar ( Son Of Osama Bin Laden ) & British Wife

Bin Laden Son Seeks Asylum
One of the Osama bin Laden’s 19 sons, is seeking political asylum in Spain after landing at Madrid’s Barajas airport

Al Qaeda Leader, Bin Laden’s son Omar & his British wife

Does it not surprise you that war and bombings of civilians is happening in Afghanistan/Iraq ?

With scarcely any attacks against the U.S. ?

U.S. and these groups have SIMILAR tactics – to weaken Pakistani hold on nuclear power.

I would not be surprised if Osama Bin Laden cared a damn if Pakistan lived or died.

If you are familiar with the behaviour of the Prophet you will realize that the Prophet chose his actions with care. He did not rush into war because it was “glorious”.

The Taliban is a mix of tribal (pagan) beliefs and Islam. There is an excess emphasis on ARROGANCE, and bravado. And less on analysis and care for “Riaya”.

Sometimes stepping away of war achieves greater victory. As the Prophet demonstrated.

However the Taliban have NOT chosen this route. Why ? Because they are always told by these “foreign fighters” and the people who fund them that they should NOT stop right now.

However, your “assessment” of U.S. vs. Taliban is generally CORRECT.

You are right about the “josh” aspect, as well as about the disadvantages that await the U.S. in Afghanistan.

However that does not mean that the U.S. will not leave Afghanistan damaged to a great extent. Or even Pakistan.

Do you know the U.S. attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan have left large portions of it exposed to toxins and material like Depleted Uranium.

These are “costs” which “jahil” fighters will not realize until their grandchildren start falling from genetic illnesses.

The question that needs to be asked is – is a short-term win against the U.S. “worth” the damage the U.S. is likely to do out of bloody-mindedness ?

After all Vietnam and Agent Orange is an example of how a short war only kills U.S. soldiers, but it can kill the CIVILIANS of nations forever on a continual basis.

It is not without reason that the U.S. fighters killed numerous shepherds in Afghanistan. Why ? Because many U.S. soldiers joined out of a need to “kill some Arabs”.

And their government gave them the green signal by placing great emphasis on immunity from Human Rights trials at the Hague (Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld fought tooth and nail for this).

And in the borderline support of torture and “what we will do to them when we catch them” which bordered on mental imagery of atrocities committed to sate the thirst for revenge and “ooh how satisfying that will be” (Rumsfeld used such language in press conferences).

As a result a lot of mental cases probably joined the Army – at a time when no sensible person would join the war, because any thinking person would know the “enemy” was actually a creation of the U.S. and of U.S./Saudi/Israeli (anti-Iran) when they waged a proxy war against Iran in Pakistan territory – creation of Sipah-e-Sahaba etc.

It is not without reason that the U.S. fighter jets bombed wedding ceremonies in Afghanistan. Why ? Because the U.S. military has placed a high priority for safety of military personnel EVEN greater than the civilians of the countries they occupy. This has arisen out of a compulsion of the U.S. Army. The Vietnam war which was the first “TV war” taught them that they could “lose” a war if public opinion turned against them at the sight of “body bags”.

It is for this reason that the Bush administration restricted media coverage of military dead.

It is this paranoia which makes the current U.S. military care MORE about military personnel safety than the civilians they oversee.

It is because of this behaviour that the U.S. will NEVER be considered friendly by any country they invade. Because the populace IMMEDIATELY senses the value this army places on the innocent civilians.

It will never feel that the U.S. Army places the life of the participants of a wedding party above that of a fighter pilot. This is because – to minimize risk of interception – the fighter pilot will never risk coming too close to the wedding party to visually check the situation. And it is not like there was only a handful of “mistakes” of this type – there were many.

In addition, the U.S. Army (which inducted many new members prior to this war) probably had an influx of a disproportionate number of people who were “motivated”. That is, basically wanting to go out and “kill some Arabs”. That is, they were killers to begin with.

There is probably a GREAT difference in psychology of people who join the U.S. Army in war and in peacetime.

In addition the variation in “principles” by the U.S. is also well known to the world. That is, in times of peace, to preach “human rights” and goodwill. And in times of war, to forget about all of that. Which means that those “principles” essentially NEVER get used at times when they are truly valuable.

This reduces the U.S. credibility in general.

Then it is the schizophrenic nature of their democratic system (Janus-faced) where one administration does one thing, the next one another, which absolutely demolishes any credibility for the U.S.

This however does not apply to some “core” relationships – for example the U.S. relationship with Britain (and Israel). The “special relationship” with Britain is peculiar because it is not supported HISTORICALLY, or DEMOGRAPHICALLY. And Americans have scant regard for the Queen or Britain.

Why then the “closeness” ? One needs to examine the role of international banking and perhaps the events of World War II to understand the forces which moved the U.S. into war even when domestically it was an unpopular war.

In any case, in summary, there are a LOT of ways in which the U.S. can ensure that their victims SUFFER. And anyone who fights them HAS to consider the FULL scope of damage that the U.S. can do to a nation and a people.

The point is people have to pick their fights with care – as China is doing with the U.S. It is not engaging in needless war. It is building itself up to be strong from within.

To have a movement in Pakistan which MOVES people to act BEFORE Pakistan ever reaches strength internally (which is happening slowly with media and awareness) is a puzzling phenomenon.

If the Pakistan state thinks it needs to wait a few years before asserting itself, is that that bad ?

Is the push by Taliban/Osama Bin Laden to do things NOW not a trap ?

Something similar was voiced by Musharraf in his early speech to Ulema where he admonished them to stop talking about planting the Pakistani flag on Red Fort, because they couldn’t do it now. And did not have the strength to do it now. So WAS IT WISE to telegraph that to the world ? Basically even if that was their intent, do they want to let India know about that in ADVANCE ? What is the purpose of such telegraphing ?

And herein lies the problem – it is a battle between BRAVADO and ARROGANCE versus SELF-ANALYSIS and SELF-CORRECTION and self-improvement.

To blindly do what Osama Bin Laden – someone whose family resides peacefully in Saudi Arabia and jet sets around the world – says and advises the Taliban is a GREAT strategic trap.

To have a combination of a village cleric (Mullah Omar) get funding and advice (religious justification) from a much more world-savvy person (Osama Bin Laden) for different things is a DANGEROUS combination.

Not as much for the U.S. (which will get a few thousand soldiers killed and then LEAVE), but for PAKISTAN and Afghanistan.