Pakistan Surrenders To Taliban

[WildCat]

Story (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL72538.htm):
Pro-Taliban militants and the Pakistani government reached a peace deal on Tuesday under which the militants agreed to stop attacks in both Pakistan and across the border in Afghanistan, negotiators said.
Sure they will... except it's OK to lie to further the jihad.

And it gets worse:
President Pervez Musharraf, who is due to visit Afghanistan soon, has said no group could use Pakistan as a springboard to launch attacks on other countries. He has also vowed to clear foreign militants from the Pakistani side of the border.

But Tuesday's agreement said foreigners could stay in Waziristan, as long as they kept the peace.
The foreigners get to stay. I'm sure they're just tourists and have nothing to do w/ jihad, nosiree Bob...

And one more thing:
People arrested during military operations would be released and confiscated property, including weapons, would be returned, according to the agreement.
Now that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Can someone tell me why it is so important for Pakistan to claim this territory when they have no control over it whatsoever? Why don't they just set it free, and then we'd be free to conduct military operations in the new country of Waziristan? Bin Laden must be laughing his keister off.

[peptoabysmal]

"Except for trade, people will not be allowed to go to Afghanistan to launch attacks," said Nek Zaman, a member of the tribal council who is also a member of the Pakistani parliament.

Afghanistan and its allies have long complained the Taliban are able to benefit from safe havens on the Pakistani side of the long, rugged border.

Under the agreement, the government will stop air and ground operations in Waziristan, dismantle newly built checkposts and put paramilitary forces in old ones.

This should work really well. To give al-Queda time to build up to full scale before finally crossing the border, that is. :oldroll:

What a crock of ....

Does this officially make Pakistan a "state sponsor of terrorism" now?

[geni]

The foreigners get to stay. I'm sure they're just tourists and have nothing to do w/ jihad, nosiree Bob...

In a fair number of cases this is probably true.


Can someone tell me why it is so important for Pakistan to claim this territory when they have no control over it whatsoever?

For much the same reasons and the southen states were not allowed to leave the union (of course in the case of Pakistan the Western lot have already left).


Why don't they just set it free, and then we'd be free to conduct military operations in the new country of Waziristan? Bin Laden must be laughing his keister off.

Setting them lose would risk encourgeing the rqadicals within the rest of Pakistan.

[Jocko]

In a fair number of cases this is probably true.

Evidence?

For much the same reasons and the southen states were not allowed to leave the union (of course in the case of Pakistan the Western lot have already left).

And that reason is...?

Setting them lose would risk encourgeing the rqadicals within the rest of Pakistan.

Evidence?

[Beerina]

Story (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL72538.htm):

Sure they will... except it's OK to lie to further the jihad.

And it gets worse:

The foreigners get to stay. I'm sure they're just tourists and have nothing to do w/ jihad, nosiree Bob...

And one more thing:

Now that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Can someone tell me why it is so important for Pakistan to claim this territory when they have no control over it whatsoever? Why don't they just set it free, and then we'd be free to conduct military operations in the new country of Waziristan? Bin Laden must be laughing his keister off.

Aren't we free to do so now? Whatever happened to "turn them over or suffer their fate you will"? Granted a country with a hundred million people and nuclear weapons is different from a busted, smashed nation remnant, but Pakistan is hardly maintaining anything other than nominal control over the area.

[geni]

Evidence?

The number of britons who have relatives in that area


And that reason is...?


Pride, not wanting to lose power on the world stage, whatever. It was your civil war.


Evidence?

Not the first time an area has wanted to leave Pakistan

[WildCat]

Aren't we free to do so now? Whatever happened to "turn them over or suffer their fate you will"? Granted a country with a hundred million people and nuclear weapons is different from a busted, smashed nation remnant, but Pakistan is hardly maintaining anything other than nominal control over the area.
That's the whole problem w/ Pakistan - the gov't is teetering on the edge and somewhere along the line they decided it was a good idea to develop nukes. A single airstrike targeted at al Zawahiri caused mass rioting there, imagine what a full-out assault would do. If the fundys there get hold of the gov't they just might decide to send a few nukes flying as their final gesture. And some here think it's OK for Iran to follow suit...

[WildCat]

Pride, not wanting to lose power on the world stage, whatever. It was your civil war.
Could it have anything to do w/ keeping the Mississippi River within US boundaries and continued access to domestic textiles?

I really don't see the upside for Pakistan to keeping the tribal areas.

[Darth Rotor]

Does this officially make Pakistan a "state sponsor of terrorism" now?
I guess so, time to cowboy up and bomb the crap out of them. *sigh* And it could have been such a beautiful relationship. :boggled:

DR

[Jocko]

The number of britons who have relatives in that area

Care to be a little more specific? You know, like actually citing a number, a statistic, anything more than argument by fiat?



Pride, not wanting to lose power on the world stage, whatever. It was your civil war.

Obviously you have no grasp of the reasons behind the American Civil War, let alone any relevance to the topic at hand, so why even try to offer it as an example? Did you think no one would notice that it had nothing to do with the subject?



Not the first time an area has wanted to leave Pakistan

That is not evidence that it is happening now.

[geni]

Care to be a little more specific? You know, like actually citing a number, a statistic, anything more than argument by fiat?


I'm not aware that the numbers are published. But we have quite a few people who have faily over there from the days of the empire and the like.


Obviously you have no grasp of the reasons behind the American Civil War, let alone any relevance to the topic at hand, so why even try to offer it as an example? Did you think no one would notice that it had nothing to do with the subject?

The south could have been allowed to leave the union. sure there would have been an economic impact along with the loss of some resources but that is fairly standard when bits of your country leave. It was not. Southern Ireland was only allowed to leave the UK after a rather bitter conflict. There are half a dozen African countries with similar problems. Why doesn't India let Kashmir go? Why does morocco hold on to the Southern Sahara? Why does Russia hold onto Ingushetia?



That is not evidence that it is happening now.

The tribal areas have run themselves for quite a while. They are pashtun pakistan isn't (ok paksitan is a mess of different ethnic groups but that is fairly normal for british constructs at least it sticks together better than say Iraq).

There is no reason to think they want to be run by the centeral goverment.

[Ziggurat]

I really don't see the upside for Pakistan to keeping the tribal areas.

Which tribal areas? There are multiple tribal groups with complaints against the central government. The Pashtuns aren't the only ones, and if they let them go, what happens to the Balochistan region? The Baloch are also a restive minority group, but they're sitting on oil, and the central government isn't going to let go of it. But if they let go of the Pashtun regions, what will that likely do to independence movements in Balochistan?

[Rob Lister]

The south could have been allowed to leave the union. sure there would have been an economic impact along with the loss of some resources but that is fairly standard when bits of your country leave.

There was a move by some I love, some years back, to grammatically eliminate all forms of passive voice from dialog. Of course, it got nowhere...all kinds of ways around it. :)

[WildCat]

Bump!

Having taken full control of the Swat Valley and imposing Sharia law in violation of the "peace agreement", the Taliban now are starting to take control of the neighboring Bruner district:
Taliban militants who implemented Islamic law in Pakistan's violence-plagued Swat Valley last week have now taken control of a neighboring province.

Control of the Buner district brings the Taliban closer to the capital, Islamabad, than they have been since they started their insurgency. Islamabad is 96 kilometers (60 miles) from the district.

"Our strength is in the hundreds," said Moulana Mohammad Khalil, as heavily armed men openly patrolled the roads in pickup trucks, singing Islamic anthems.

The militants had taken control of the area to ensure that Islamic law, or sharia, is properly imposed, Khalil said.

The government called the advance into Buner a breach of a recently-signed peace agreement.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/04/22/pakistan.taliban/index.html

Yet more evidence that "peace agreements" with militant Islamists only allows them room to consolidate their power and then expand.

How long before they take all of Pakistan, and what about the nukes?

Way to go Pakistan, keep rattling the saber against India while the Taliban destroy you from within.

[dudalb]

That's the whole problem w/ Pakistan - the gov't is teetering on the edge and somewhere along the line they decided it was a good idea to develop nukes. A single airstrike targeted at al Zawahiri caused mass rioting there, imagine what a full-out assault would do. If the fundys there get hold of the gov't they just might decide to send a few nukes flying as their final gesture. And some here think it's OK for Iran to follow suit...


None is so blind as those who will not see.
The amount of apologitics by some..not all...progressives to excuse or out and out justification Islamic extremism never fails to astonish me. I guess it's cool to support any Anti Western Establishment movement.
The excuses for the Somali Pirates is another example of this.

[theprestige]

Don't worry: As soon as Obama completes his next World Apology tour, the Taliban will miraculously transform into one of the most socially liberal and tolerant democracies in the world. Right?

[MG1962]

Don't worry: As soon as Obama completes his next World Apology tour, the Taliban will miraculously transform into one of the most socially liberal and tolerant democracies in the world. Right?

Well given what a disaster the previous tactics have been, you may be right

[DC]

Don't worry: As soon as Obama completes his next World Apology tour, the Taliban will miraculously transform into one of the most socially liberal and tolerant democracies in the world. Right?

yea Commrade Barack Obama aka Brother Hussein Obama is known for his weak course against the taliban , to not call it surrendering to them. And his naive considerateness of Pakistans sovereignty will kill us all. :rolleyes:

[Policenaut]

The Swat move is a perfect example of what not to do: Give the Tailban what they want. Cause they want total control. And the Talibans word is as good as a Zimbabwe dollar.

[theprestige]

yea Commrade Barack Obama aka Brother Hussein Obama is known for his weak course against the taliban , to not call it surrendering to them. And his naive considerateness of Pakistans sovereignty will kill us all. :rolleyes:
I think my strawman is way more awsome than your strawman.

[a_unique_person]

None is so blind as those who will not see.
The amount of apologitics by some..not all...progressives to excuse or out and out justification Islamic extremism never fails to astonish me. I guess it's cool to support any Anti Western Establishment movement.
The excuses for the Somali Pirates is another example of this.

I can't recall anyone excusing Islamic extremism or justifying it. I try to understand why it is happening, but for some reason that is often conflated into excusing it. Afghanistan was a nightmare under the Taliban. There was a massive demonstration recently in Pakistan about the punishment given to a young woman by the Taliban. If you want to defeat the Taliban, however, the cynical and deceptive invasion of Iraq destroyed and any hope of being able to appear as a morally correct force in that area of the world.

[DC]

I think my strawman is way more awsome than your strawman.

mine is longer___________

[WildCat]

If you want to defeat the Taliban, however, the cynical and deceptive invasion of Iraq destroyed and any hope of being able to appear as a morally correct force in that area of the world.
So Pakistan is losing ground to the Taliban because the US invaded Iraq? :boggled:

[dudalb]

So Pakistan is losing ground to the Taliban because the US invaded Iraq? :boggled:

Iraq was a horrid mistake, but the argument that some people make that because of that the US should just turn over the Mideast to the Islamic fundies strike me as being pretty bizzare.

[Toke]

So Pakistan is losing ground to the Taliban because the US invaded Iraq? :boggled:

I read a lengty explanation involving large landowners and lack of land reform.
There were parts about the failure of the pakistani legal system, both to handle ordinary cases and to protect peasants from landowners.

The taliban succes could be an alternative to a socialist revolution or peasants rising against their feudal overlords.

It is not simply people getting religius, there are some very real social/economic grievances in pakistan.

Perhaps Friedman is more to blame than Bush:)

[a_unique_person]

So Pakistan is losing ground to the Taliban because the US invaded Iraq? :boggled:

The US invasion of Iraq destroyed any credibility it held in the area with a large part of the population. The West has been invading the general area for centuries now, the Taliban can portray the US as just one more tyrant that needs to be repelled.

[DC]

I read a lengty explanation involving large landowners and lack of land reform.
There were parts about the failure of the pakistani legal system, both to handle ordinary cases and to protect peasants from landowners.

The taliban succes could be an alternative to a socialist revolution or peasants rising against their feudal overlords.

It is not simply people getting religius, there are some very real social/economic grievances in pakistan.

Perhaps Friedman is more to blame than Bush:)

you are disturbing his simple world view. dont confuse him.

[a_unique_person]

Iraq was a horrid mistake, but the argument that some people make that because of that the US should just turn over the Mideast to the Islamic fundies strike me as being pretty bizzare.

I don't recall saying that at all. How you could get that idea from what I said is bizarre.

[Toke]

you are disturbing his simple world view. dont confuse him.

I think you underestimate Wildcat.

[DC]

I think you underestimate Wildcat.

no, sadly enough i dont :(

[Toke]

I wonder if Pakistan have any other options.

Have anyone heard good things about the pakistani army?
Except that they are a bargain to hire as UN troops?

I feel like writing a lengty rant about feudal lords, capitalist swine, and how it is a shame that the uprising takes religius form.
Gumboot had a complain that I tend to ignore the religius aspects and have a euro/atheist/socialist look at things.
That does not mean that social and economic factors are not important.

[INRM]

Pakistan or India could use tactical nuclear weapons against the Taliban, right?

[DC]

I wonder if Pakistan have any other options.

Have anyone heard good things about the pakistani army?
Except that they are a bargain to hire as UN troops?

I feel like writing a lengty rant about feudal lords, capitalist swine, and how it is a shame that the uprising takes religius form.
Gumboot had a complain that I tend to ignore the religius aspects and have a euro/atheist/socialist look at things.
That does not mean that social and economic factors are not important.

they seem to smoke even more than the swiss "army", sad they really need one not like we.

O2F80llZ5F4

[WildCat]

Perhaps Friedman is more to blame than Bush:)
Friedman advocated feudalism? :boggled:

[Toke]

Friedman advocated feudalism? :boggled:

No, but he seemed just fine with a huge incomegap in a society.
The kind that leads to revolutions and/or their violent suppression.

[WildCat]

The US invasion of Iraq destroyed any credibility it held in the area with a large part of the population. The West has been invading the general area for centuries now, the Taliban can portray the US as just one more tyrant that needs to be repelled.
The Taliban was supported by the ISI. Pakistan was the only friend the Taliban had, and now the Taliban are biting the hand that fed them. This has nothig to do with the US, and everything to do with Islamic fundamentalism and the countries who support it.

The only reason the West becomes a target is by the standards of the Islamists we are decadent, heretical, and just basically infidels wo need to be destroyed.

These beliefs were prevalent in the region before the US even existed.

What next, blame the 100 Year War on the US?

[WildCat]

No, but he seemed just fine with a huge incomegap in a society.
A huge income gap means nothing on its own. Bill Gates is thousands of times richer than even the highest paid sports stars, yet that doesn't mean they aren't well off.

Friedman never advocated anything that leaves a large part of the population in the kind of abject poverty Pakistan has. And Pakistan has nothing to do with Friedman and his ideas.

The kind that leads to revolutions and/or their violent suppression.
All the Taliban have to offer is the exact same abject poverty, only with an authoritarian, barbaric, and infinitely cruel government to go along with it. You can vote out the Pakistani government, you can't vote out the Taliban.

[fuelair]

I'm kind of on the wipe out the Taliban side of this. Thus my sig.

[Praktik]

I dont think the Taliban can be wiped out - and even if they could, something very like them would materialize to replace them - perhaps even more ruthless too.

The only solution is political - the countours of which I cannot pretend to know but I'm basing this on the history of attempts to "wipe out" select political/military groups and if you look around the world at decades-long conflicts like Sri Lanka, Israel, UK/IRA and Colombia - its just not something thats achievable.

[Policenaut]

No I don't think the Taliban can be wiped out either. But they can't be reasoned with at present time. There needs to be a mass uprising but it's not going to happen. The Taliban already have gained too much ground in Pakistan I believe. Remember this: The Iraqis just need to rise up and get rid of Saddam! When the general population is so weak compared to the brutal thugs in power nothing is going to change internally unless possibly the leaders go into some foolhardy operation/war that gets most of their henchmen killed. There are no modern day Ghandi's and if there were the Taliban (or affiliates) would make quick work of them. Bhutto seemed to be their best chance and look at what happened to her.

[Toke]

A huge income gap means nothing on its own. Bill Gates is thousands of times richer than even the highest paid sports stars, yet that doesn't mean they aren't well off.

Friedman never advocated anything that leaves a large part of the population in the kind of abject poverty Pakistan has. And Pakistan has nothing to do with Friedman and his ideas.

We will not reach agreement here, it may not directly be friedmans influence in pakistan but the economic oppresion of a population does leed to unrest.

And yes his ideas lead to a huge difference in income.
I may have mentioned it before, but I will never forget the sight of a Brazilian marina with yarths half the size of my ship, and right next to it was a mangrove swamp with small metal plate huts.


All the Taliban have to offer is the exact same abject poverty, only with an authoritarian, barbaric, and infinitely cruel government to go along with it. You can vote out the Pakistani government, you can't vote out the Taliban

Musharaf did get there by coup.
Anyway, the taliban can give the impression of an alternative.
I have no idea if they will/can follow up on the economic part of it.

You neclected to point out any alternatives to the pakistani surrender.
Guess the OP just regret the fact, but have no alternative either.

[a_unique_person]

I'm kind of on the wipe out the Taliban side of this. Thus my sig.

It's that kind of thinking that got us into the problem.

[a_unique_person]

The Taliban was supported by the ISI. Pakistan was the only friend the Taliban had, and now the Taliban are biting the hand that fed them. This has nothig to do with the US, and everything to do with Islamic fundamentalism and the countries who support it.

The only reason the West becomes a target is by the standards of the Islamists we are decadent, heretical, and just basically infidels wo need to be destroyed.

These beliefs were prevalent in the region before the US even existed.

What next, blame the 100 Year War on the US?

You have forgotten the history of invasions of the Afghanistan. They see their county as a place that has been invaded again and again, and those invasions have had to be repelled. How do you think the US fits into that context?

[WildCat]

You have forgotten the history of invasions of the Afghanistan. They see their county as a place that has been invaded again and again, and those invasions have had to be repelled. How do you think the US fits into that context?
We're talking about Pakistanis.

The Taliban originated in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. It only spread into Afghanistan because it was funded and supported by the ISI.

[Euromutt]

We're talking about Pakistanis.

The Taliban originated in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. It only spread into Afghanistan because it was funded and supported by the ISI.And if the Taliban were ever to secure a sufficiently large power base to create a unified and stable Afghanistan, the ISI would switch its funding and support to a new rival group. Pakistani policy toward Afghanistan has long been to keep Afghanistan divided, off-balance and weak, in order to prevent Afghanistan laying a credible claim to the part of Pushtunistan that happens to be on the Pakistani side of the Durand Line. It's why the ISI has consistently supported the most unreasonable bunch of militant Afghans they could find over the part 30 years. First, Hekmatyar's Hezb e-Islami, then the Taliban, who knows what kind of loonies are next?

[a_unique_person]

We're talking about Pakistanis.

The Taliban originated in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. It only spread into Afghanistan because it was funded and supported by the ISI.

They are neighbouring countries, with strong ties between ethnic groups that span borders. I had hoped when the US invaded Afghanistan that at least a regime as loathsome as the Taliban was gone, and, who knows, maybe even something good would come of it. As soon as the talk started of invading Iraq, I knew it would come to no good. Any proclamations of altruism by the US would have been regarded quite cynically by a lot of people in that area. One more imperialist invader, no better than the Russians.