News 4m Pakistan

[snakelegs]

I will restrict myself to replying to this part only, as I can't type more, really tired, so please accept my inability.


1. Did anyone declare jihad against Pakistan's Govt, prior to its joining in war against terror with US? If you analyse fairly, you would agree with me that jihadi elements were never so vocal and active as are today.

this is true - u.s. policies have greatly strengthened all these groups and of course the u.s. backed/used them to fight it's proxy war against the ussr. but formal jihaad wasn't declared until lal masjid. since then, there is hardly a day that passes without suicide bombings, without pakistani soldiers geting killed or captured. i do not deny the u.s. responsibility, my point was that not everything can be blamed on the u.s., no matter how tempting it is to do so.

2. I agree as far as internal front is concerned, but not sure about external front, if you could kindly explain to me?

there is india, but i think the biggest threat now is that the u.s. will intervene directly. i suspect that there are also forces that would like to see pakistan dismembered. so i see pakistan facing both external and internal enemies. i think the country is in serious danger on all fronts.

If you are mentioning about India, you should be relaxed on that account as those with some vision don't foresee any war between these two countries in near future atleast, since conventional superiority held by India for a long time has already been marginalised by Pakistan on becoming a nuclear power. Both countries are well familiar with MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) and can't afford to go into war against each other. Moreover they can't have big gains in any future war, so the possibility seems remote and if Kashmir issue is resolved, the chance of war between the two countries will be zero.

ok. let me ask you - if you could force president musharraf to do what you wanted, what would you demand from him? what do you think his options are at this point?
and if the answer is for him to step down - what/who would you install in his place? surely you don't support recycling corrupt past leaders, do you?

 

[snakelegs]

I agree with brother Ahsan that most, if not all of the turmoil that is now in Pakistan is a direct result of America's so called "War on Terror" and its blackmailing of the Pakistani government to do the brunt of the dirty work in this war. But the people of Pakistan are self-respecting people and they do not want to be slaves of America, this is why there is so much popular opposition against the tyranny of Musharraf, who is basically an American stool pigeon.

Musharraf answers to the government of America, not the people of Pakistan, which is why he had the nerve and confidence to commit such atrocities such as the Lal Masjid massacre, the ongoing massacre and supression of the people of Baluchistan and Wazirstan, and the harrassment of the madrassahs, which are the vanguard of Islam. Whoever does not realize the nature of Musharraf's satanic campaign to destroy Islam in Pakistan is truly blind. And whoever does not realize that America is behind it is even more so.

do you think president musharraf should have chosen the bombing in to the stone age by the u.s. option?
of course there is resentment and anger at the u.s. for impinging on pakistan's sovereignty and forcing it to support their war. do you think there was a choice?
also, i assume you think it is legitimate to enforce shariah at the point of a gun?

 

[Talha777]

Isn't that odd. He answers to the US as he declares Marshal Law which the US is condemning.

America's condemnation is natural, because it tries to project itself as the patron of freedom and democracy. Musharraf may be America's puppet, but America is more cunning and intelligent than to lay all their eggs in one basket. Musharraf is also desperate to stay in power, as are all Pakistani politicians by the way, but his imposition of emergency rule is hurting another puppet of America - Benazir Bhutto, which America is shifting their backing for Musharraf to benazir. the reason is America thinks its long term interests in Pakistan will be better guarded in a stable civilian and fanatically secular government of the Pakistan Peoples Party led by Benazir. So the US's so called condemnation of Musharraf is not surprising at all.

do you think president musharraf should have chosen the bombing in to the stone age by the u.s. option?

Musharraf did not comply with the US's wishes out of a threat to have his country bombed to the stone age. Musharraf has no problem with bombing and killing his own people, especially the most vulnerable people of Pakistan, the pastoral and tribal dwellers of the moutainous regions of Baluchistan and Wazirstan. The fact of the matter is going to war against Pakistan is suicide for America. America can barely handle Iraq, a country of 20 million, or tribal Afghanistan for that matter, a country of some 25 million. You think America would dare to go to war against a country of 160 million with a powerful army of 500 thousand, and with nuclear weapons on top of all that?

also, i assume you think it is legitimate to enforce shariah at the point of a gun?

I think that is the government's duty to enforce the shariat, and if the government fails to do so, that is NOT a legitimate reason to overthrow the government or to rebel against it. My position should be quite clear, the government will be answerable to Allah for failing to judge by His decrees, but the decree of Allah is also to obey the government, and the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) said to obey the ameer even if he has you flogged unjustly.

 

[snakelegs]

Musharraf did not comply with the US's wishes out of a threat to have his country bombed to the stone age. Musharraf has no problem with bombing and killing his own people, especially the most vulnerable people of Pakistan, the pastoral and tribal dwellers of the moutainous regions of Baluchistan and Wazirstan. The fact of the matter is going to war against Pakistan is suicide for America. America can barely handle Iraq, a country of 20 million, or tribal Afghanistan for that matter, a country of some 25 million. You think America would dare to go to war against a country of 160 million with a powerful army of 500 thousand, and with nuclear weapons on top of all that?

you have more confidence in the u.s. gov't than i do. you expect it to act rationally - i do not. now the madmen are contemplating iran. so in your opinion, why did/does pres. musharraf comply with u.s. demands? do you really believe he had a choice?
it is really impossible to evaluate the situation.
as far as baluchistan and FATA and NWFP, i agree - there has been injustice from the central gov't. it also predates musharraf, but it continues and that is also part of the problem.



I think that is the government's duty to enforce the shariat, and if the government fails to do so, that is NOT a legitimate reason to overthrow the government or to rebel against it. My position should be quite clear, the government will be answerable to Allah for failing to judge by His decrees, but the decree of Allah is also to obey the government, and the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) said to obey the ameer even if he has you flogged unjustly.

thanks for your explanation. so i assume that you do not support this jihaad that has been declared against pakistan.

 

[Talha777]

thanks for your explanation. so i assume that you do not support this jihaad that has been declared against pakistan.

I do not support 99% of the so called "jihads" which have been declared in this day and age. I only support the jihad of Maulvi Muhammad Omar, may Allah protect him if he is still alive, because he is the true ameer-ul-mumineen in afghanistan, and america invaded the country unjustly because it did not want to see a shariah compliant state exist on the face of the earth, lest the other muslim countries follow its example.

 

[snakelegs]

I do not support 99% of the so called "jihads" which have been declared in this day and age. I only support the jihad of Maulvi Muhammad Omar, may Allah protect him if he is still alive, because he is the true ameer-ul-mumineen in afghanistan, and america invaded the country unjustly because it did not want to see a shariah compliant state exist on the face of the earth, lest the other muslim countries follow its example.

i don't agree with the motive, but i respect your opinion. as far as mullah omar is concerned, i do not see him as my enemy and do not even know enough about him to have an opinion.
when i was speaking of the jihadis, i was thinking specifically of those who are fighting the "jihaad" that was declared against the gov't of pakistan after lal masjid. do you support them?

 

[Noddy]

May Allah help Pakistan in such hard times. As a Pakistani it hurts to see Pakistan in the state it's in.

I would want to share my full views but it will just attract some members to have a personal war against me.

 

[Talha777]

when i was speaking of the jihadis, i was thinking specifically of those who are fighting the "jihaad" that was declared against the gov't of pakistan after lal masjid. do you support them?

Absolutely not.

 

[snakelegs]

thanks for your answer.
peace.

 

[aamirsaab]

To all members: If you have an issue with a particular member, by all means pm a moderator. Our job is to help you. So please, quit derailing threads. I will now remove the argumentative posts in this section.

 

[KAding]

I will restrict myself to replying to this part only, as I can't type more, really tired, so please accept my inability.

1. Did anyone declare jihad against Pakistan's Govt, prior to its joining in war against terror with US? If you analyse fairly, you would agree with me that jihadi elements were never so vocal and active as are today.

Good point. So can we conclude, that while tensions within Pakistani society are nothing new, the close ties of Musharaf with the US made these tensions cross a tipping point, resulting in further escalation?

Yet, other Muslim countries that also have close ties with the US do not appear to so volatile as Pakistan. I'm thinking of Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Is that simply because of the historic ties between Pakistan and the Taliban?

 

[NoName55]

Talha and noname, please chill out. If you have an issue with a particular member, by all means pm a moderator. Our job is to help you. So please, quit derailing threads. I will now remove the argumentative posts in this section.

and may I ask why you did not remove or edit his takfiri libellous post against a Muslim ruler? http://www.islamicboard.com/world-affairs/47568-news-4m-pakistan-14.html#post854134

also why is he allowed picture of a grave in his sig?

why does it look like sabotage to me, when I ask for help, you people sanitize threads by removing content that no one can refer back to?

why cant you people leave it alone and just label it as unacceptable?:grumbling

 

[aamirsaab]

I'll pm you a response - no need to deraill the thread again.

 

[Talha777]

Yet, other Muslim countries that also have close ties with the US do not appear to so volatile as Pakistan. I'm thinking of Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Is that simply because of the historic ties between Pakistan and the Taliban?

It is important to remember the difference between Pakistan and the middle eastern countries you have mentioned. There were violent uprisings in the countries which you mentioned. For example in Jordan there was "Black September", in Egypt there was the crisis following Anwar Sadat's assassination, and in Saudi Arabia there was the seizure of the Holy Kaaba by violent extremists, following of Juhaiman Utaibi and his brother who claimed to be the Imam Mahdi in 1979. And in Syria there was the bloody Hama uprising as well. But the dictatorial governments of these countries brutally crushed these rebellions. Pakistan, however, has more experience with democracy, it has a free press and now an independent and flourishing private media. Therefore, when the "war on terror" began, which resulted in Pakistan backstabbing the Taliban, killing its own people in Lal Masjid and Baluchistan, and overturning what little Islamic laws already existed in the country, the people began to rise up.

 

[NoName55]

It is important to remember the difference between Pakistan and the middle eastern countries you have mentioned. There were violent uprisings in the countries which you mentioned. For example in Jordan there was "Black September", in Egypt there was the crisis following Anwar Sadat's assassination, and in Saudi Arabia there was the seizure of the Holy Kaaba by violent extremists, following of Juhaiman Utaibi and his brother who claimed to be the Imam Mahdi in 1979. And in Syria there was the bloody Hama uprising as well. But the dictatorial governments of these countries brutally crushed these rebellions. Pakistan, however, has more experience with democracy, it has a free press and now an independent and flourishing private media. Therefore, when the "war on terror" began, which resulted in Pakistan backstabbing the Taliban, killing its own people in Lal Masjid and Baluchistan, and overturning what little Islamic laws already existed in the country, the people began to rise up.

deary me again!
where did you learn your history?

in Jordan there was "Black September"

Palestinians went berserk that time, Pakistani and Israeli armies sorted that one

in Saudi Arabia there was the seizure of the Holy Kaaba by violent extremists, following of Juhaiman Utaibi and his brother who claimed to be the Imam Mahdi in 1979

It was an attempt by real Muslims to liberate our holy places from clutches of foreign agents aka the clown princes of alsauds

your posts are not worth bothering with but some might believe your lies as apparently you seem to have believed the slander put out by saud family and their scholars for petro-dollars!

Pakistan backstabbing the Taliban, killing its own people in Lal Masjid and Baluchistan, and overturning what little Islamic laws already existed in the country, the people began to rise up

nosense and rubbish!

 

[Talha777]

It was an attempt by real Muslims to liberate our holy places from clutches of foreign agents aka the clown princes of alsauds

These so called real Muslims believed that their leader was Imam Mahdi...what do you think of that?

By the way I am not a supporter of Saudi government, they are the one who started this disease, now they are only reaping what they have sowed.

 

[Woodrow]

does anybody remember what the topic is? I would like to see it, if everybody can stick to topic and post verifiable facts.

 

[NoName55]

These so called real Muslims believed that their leader was Imam Mahdi...what do you think of that?

By the way I am not a supporter of Saudi government, they are the one who started this disease, now they are only reaping what they have sowed.

did you hear him say that? No, you are merely repeating the lie that was put out by the Saud family!

edit:

does anybody remember what the topic is? I would like to see it, if everybody can stick to topic and post verifiable facts.

oops! you will hear from me no more. though it would be nice if no one posted hearsay as fact to prove their "point" wa salam and apologies

 

[ahsan28]

Yet, other Muslim countries that also have close ties with the US do not appear to so volatile as Pakistan. I'm thinking of Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Is that simply because of the historic ties between Pakistan and the Taliban?

They didn't support the US for nearly a decade long war against Soviets. They didn't have to support any Taliban like Govt in their neighbouring countries for restoring peace in the region and none of the countries had to reverse their policies in the blink of an eye by joining other's wars. So Pakistan can't compared to any of the countries, mentioned in your post.

 

[ahsan28]

ok. let me ask you - if you could force president musharraf to do what you wanted, what would you demand from him? what do you think his options are at this point?
and if the answer is for him to step down - what/who would you install in his place? surely you don't support recycling corrupt past leaders, do you?

A tough choice perhaps and I don't consider myself worthy of deciding a country's policies. They themselves are the best judge. But at that time, he was more concerned with legitimizing himself in the eyes of the US leadership and that could have been done only, when he would have offered them unflinching loyalty, which he did, but prematurely, without assessing the repercussions and now the result is in front of us.

You have mentioned India as a threat and some others, desiring for dismemberment of Pakistan. Well anything could happen. I agree with you, the worst scenerio for Pakistan could be Indian offensive from the East and the existing Afghan Govt's jugglery along Western front. As they say everything is possible in love and war. But I would like to give you a relevant example of German legend Rommel, who also faced similar scenerio in North Africa, British to the East and Americans on the West, he contained British for a while and knocked hell out of Americans. Similarly Pakistan shouldn't be worried on its West The puppet Afghan Govt can't pose any real threat to Pakistan.

To be fair enough, why should India attack Pakistan at this stage, when things are moving the way, they want and if they are successful in attainment of their aims and objectives, why would they invite international community's criticism?

Its high time for the US to think as to how can they minimize their pressure on Pakistan by not demanding to that extent, which could put Pakistan's survival in jeopardy.