And all I got was this lousy beheading video;
A top Taliban commander has issued a new threat to foreign aid workers, saying that under the insurgent group’s new “constitution” they will execute them as spies or hold them in exchange for the release of Taliban fighters.
In an exclusive telephone interview Friday night with CNN, Mohammed Ibrahim Hanafi said the Taliban intelligence wing was actively gathering information on foreign aid workers. “If we get someone, that is how we will deal with it under our new constitution,” he said.
He added that he was telling “Afghan brothers not to work with NGOs.”
Related: Now this is speaking their language.
Meanwhile… (link fixed)
…Recent “apocalyptic” intelligence on the situation in Pakistan has sent shockwaves through the upper echelons of the Obama administration and convinced Mr Riedel’s review team that radicals trained in Pakistan are the greatest threat to Western security.
One White House aide emerged from an intelligence briefing on Pakistan three days after Mr Obama’s inauguration to exclaim: “Holy s–t!”
Remember! Experience only matters if you’re Vice-President!
Wait. Why didn’t Joe warn him?
More on Pakistan from Richard Fernandez.
Things are getting so bad that even the journalists and media are starting to notice!
The Telegraph link comes up 404, Kate. I don’t know why, but here’s the page link I found through Googling a paragraph:
http://tinyurl.com/bzz4h6
anycancuck + kate:
Remove the <br%20/%rt; in the middle of the URL and you will get the page. The link needs to be fixed.
One more try, this is what needs removing: <br%20&rt;
We could send Taliban Jack over for a parlez, hope they capture him but then they would just accuse us of using germ warfare.
Will this include Bono and Angelina and Brad and all the other lefty, elites who like to become foreign aid workers between world tours or movie productions?
Do the lefty elites know that their messiah is kinda wanting to get down with the squishier elements of the Taliban?
Just asking.
Obama Lied – People Died
WRT throwing acid in the face of school girls.
Something doesn’t add up in my mind. Don’t these school girls have dads and brothers? Why aren’t they doling out justice? I obviously have a poor understanding of the situation but in my opinion the men and women that allow this s*&t to happen are cowards and p**sies!
Somebody please enlighten me. Explain to me why there are not thousands of fathers conducting their own Jihad against those that have murdered, raped and assaulted their daughters?
As you sow, so shall you reap.
Bush didn’t have the cojones to go after Pakistan. He tried to do everything he could to keep Musharraf in power. When it became apparent that Musharrafs domestic politics formula was to ally with the radicals, Bush decided to stand back and let Musharraf go. He’s been replaced by Zardari, a man who was deemed mentally unfit (by a New York psychiatrist) to stand trial in Switzerland. He is, quite literally, “clinically insane”.
Zardari hasn’t come to terms with what hes dealing with. He probably never will either. Lest it be forgotten, his father-in-law Bhutto introduced the ‘Islamic’ identity to Pakistan (and proclaimed his desire to build an Islamic Bomb). His father-in-law also gave the world the man who would allow Islamic terror to come of age – Zia ul Haq. Zia gave Pakistan the Nuclear Bomb too, the one that is now used as an excuse for not doing anything to Pakistan. Of course, Zia was lucky – he could count President Reagan amongst his close friends. Reagan had a don’t ask don’t tell policy about the nuclear program.
And so here we are. Zia and Reagan’s dream of an Islamic jihad dismantling the godless commies has come true. Unfortunatly, Islamic terror is still around, and doing a lot more than dismantling the Soviet Union these days. But we can’t do anything to Pakistan. They have nuclear weapons.
Truth be told, Obama was the only Presidential candidate willing to take the fight to Pakistan. McCain would probably have stuck to the Bush line of appeasment and buying cooperation by giving billions to build up the defence of a country that is as dangerous to the US as ever. I wouldn’t give Bush a clean card on his dealings with Pakistan – he’s turned it into an even more dangerous country by funneling billions into their military, a military long suspected of having ties with Islamic terrorists. Those Pakistani kids who carried out the Bombay attacks were a well trained lot who knew what they were doing. They weren’t your garden variety US school shooting types.
You know, if we had a responsible media they would be asking Obama two simple questions:
1) Define ‘moderate’
2) Can you give us an example of one Taliban leaders who a) fits your definition of moderate and b) who represent a large enough swath of this ‘organization’ that talking with him would be in any way meaningful?
Boudicae: The same questions could be asked of Harper.
Obama’s foreign affairs’ policies have failed miserably, he wanted to negotiate with the Taliban and they told him to piss off. He wanted to negotiate with Hezbollah and they said piss off we are busy planning for the destruction of Israel. Give the guy a white flag and be done with it, the Arab world admires strong men and he’s anything but strong.
Re the acid throwing….
By personal experience honour/loosing face is a much greater motivator than Islam to the primitive Afghan mentality. The Afghan NEVER forgets/forgives….
The lack of retaliation by family is only explained as evidence of the intensity of the grip of fear that the Taliban have instituted. But to the Taliban, educating females is as shocking as 911 was to the west (at least for a week or so…how swiftly we forget).
It is so easy to accept some armchair lefties version of public opinion in the Tribal Areas.
These folk resent the Taliban/Al Qaida as foreign occupiers…
But they do highly respect/honour the principle of my enemy’s enemy is my friend….
And they do not interfere with a vendetta….
They can readilly identify with that and it resembles a spectator sport…
sasq
So you’re saying their cowards?
trigger – your convoluted rewriting of facts, in your attempt to ‘blame Bush’ – and Reagan is pure fiction. Stick to reality rather than your bias.
Before deciding that a country is ‘beyond hope’ and must be destroyed from the outside, the correct first step is to try to build up the legitimate government of that country to enable it to deal with internal fascism (Al Qaeda). That was the policy of Reagan and Bush. You cannot, just because you are concerned about unsettled situations, invade a country. Canada’s FLQ bombings and violent cries for separation didn’t prompt the US to invade us.
With regard to Pakistan and Afghanistan, it seems that the Al Qaeda have refocused their intention of setting up a ‘Taliban’ or fundamentalist Islamic state – and intend to do it in Pakistan rather than Afghanistan. The country to worry about this is first, of course, India. Then, Iran, and then, China.
It is this area that will have to, itself, fight this battle. Not one of these other countries wants anything to do with Islamic fascism.
I love the comment by wretchard on the article by Fernandez – describes what even many Obama supporters are starting to think:
“Now sometimes I wonder whether we aren’t in one of those restaurants where the filet mignon advertised on the menu turns out to be shoe leather with package gravy.”
I share the deep concern regarding the “apocalyptic” crisis situation developing in Pakistan. The US and Allies must act now, and decisively, to aid and force the Paki Govt. to eliminate the Islamofascists.
However, let’s consider a worst-case scenario, a coup and an Islamofascist dictatorship -like in Iran or even worse- coming to power. A letter-writer to Mark Steyn’s website a few years back had this thought. I don’t remember his exact words but here’s the idea.
Suppose they were able to pull off what is Bin Laden or some other Islamofascist terror leader’s -working out of Pakistan or Iran or wherever- fondest dream, our worst nightmare: an Islamic terrorist nuclear bomb explosion in an American city, killing, say, 5 million Americans.
This leaves Bin Laden or whatever other Islamofascist leaders with a problem: the surviving other 295 million Americans. Their wrath would make the post-Pearl Harbor American wrath seem as nothing.
Traced back … and we WOULD trace it back to it’s source… there’s no doubt that any American Administration -even Obama would be forced to do it or be impeached- would then launch a full retaliatory nuclear counterstrike on Pakistan -or Iran or whichever country that did that. That nation would die.
http://yankcanuck.blogspot.com/
an interesting blog I just found.
interesting as I have been involved with Canadian Cadet movement for about a dozen years and proudly wear the green jacket.
sent him some traffic SDA !!
Winston Churchill once said that “God watches out for little children, fools, drunks and the United States of America”.
I totally see why Obama sent the bust back, this must have been inscribed on the base. Waaaaaay too apt in Obama’s case.
How dare Obama not be able to fix all of George Bush’s successes.
Anyways, didn’t Bill OH’Really say just last week that Bush defeat Al Quada, yup I’m sure he did, so this story is obviously fake.
Long live George Bush, The only President who never made a mistake. Praise Jesus!
Wasn’t it Dubya that said something to the effect of…if you are not with us you are against us? Perhaps they should stop mocking him. After 9-11 how many terrorist attacks have happened on American soil? How long into the great Owe’s term do you think that will last?
Pull your shirt down, Zorpheus, your diaper’s showing…
George Bush only defeated some of the great dangers to America. (Some of which were allowed to fester and grow during the 8 years of Clinton Administration’s dereliction of duty. What was on those documents Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Burger stole from the National Archives and destroyed, eh??? Must have been pretty incriminating for Clinton & Co, don’t you think?)
As for the other dangers, the Democrats and other Lefty whiners fought Bush every step of the way, using lies and ignorance of the facts as their primary weapons.
America and the West are much safer today because of George Bush and despite the Democrats.
does anyone out there understand kill them all and if they beg for mercy show it with serious conditions.
ET,
Perhaps I am being biased in blaming Bush and Reagan. Clinton is equally culpable.
However, the rest of your argument betrays a lack of understanding of the region that I will attempt to clear up.
Pakistan’s decline did not begin on September 11th, 2001. It began in the early 1980s when Zia began Islamicizing Pakistan. It was in an advanced stage by 1996, when the Pakistani Prime Minister herself gave the green light for the Taliban to invade Afghanistan. By 1999, Pakistan was nearly at war with India. Riedel informed the Prime Minister of Pakistan that Pakistan was deploying Nuclear weapons. The Prime Minister himself did not know about it. In the late 1990s, it was not uncommon for Islamic terrorists to organize massive gatherings in Pakistani cities. And they had official patronage – the powerful ISI chief Hamid Gul often presided over these events.
Of course, North Americans didnt know about this till September 11th 2001.I suggest you take credit for your own ignorance.
“Not one of these other countries wants anything to do with Islamic fascism.”
To suggest that India and China havent been combatting Islamic terrorism is patently absurd. Hats off to you for even suggesting it. For the sake of your own dignity, I would suggest you avoid making baseless statements like that.
You will, presumably, point to India’s lack of military presence in Afghanistan. They are not there not because they don’t want to be there, but because Bush explicitly asked them not to help. The Pakistanis are wary of an Indian presence, and Bush obliged. Indian engineers and non-military personnel abound in Afghanistan. To top it off, India has a militray presence, in the form of a fully operational military base, in Tajikistan.
China is more opaque about its approach, but it has been very cautious in its approach to its Muslim population in the western regions. The area was practically quarantined for 3 years after September 11th. The Chinese are also founding members of the Shanghai Pact, which has been crucial in keeping most of Central Asia free of Islamic terrorism. That is quite an achievement, given the proximity to Afghanistan. Tajikistan is the most volatile area in the region and both India and China have a military presence there.
For what its wroth, India has been harping on about the dangers of Islamic terror since the first Arab terrorist showed up in Kashmir. That America, and people like yourself, havent been paying attention, is a separate issue. Your ignorance does not make India guilty of not doing enough. The debate has been on the public agenda for a while. The rise of Hindu nationalism parallels the rise of Islamic terror in the region. Hindu nationalists do not mince their words either.
As far as the contribution to Iraq goes, the Indian government has to consider several other factors. It is openly allied with Israel. There are also millions of Indians workng in Arab countries and their remittances are crucial to the well being of the Indian economy ( to the tune of $12 billion dollars, by some estimates). Going into Iraq would jeopardise these Indians safety, as well as the Indian economy, which, in addition to remittances, needs a hell of a lot of oil.
The Arabs care a lot more about fellow arabs than they do about Pakistanis, Afghans and toher Muslims. India can go to war with Pakistan without harming its relationship with Arab countries. Iraq is a whole different ballgame. That hasnt changed the fact that Indian intelligence shares unprecedent amounts of information with US agencies. And, of course, few countries have had to deal with Islamic terror the way India has had to.
As for your rebuilding comment, when a structure is on the verge of collapse, you have two options – you can superglue it together and hope for the best (Bush approach to Pakistan), or you can demolish it and build a new one (Bush-Iraq). The irony in it all is that India is the one that most fears a collapse of the Pakistani state. India is simply not prepared for the huge numbers of Pakistani refugees that will ensue.
But these are issues and facts that are quite obviously beyond your scope – things that you have likely never considered and don’t know much about. I do not mean that as a slight – there are plenty fo things I know nothing about, but I do take care to comment only on those things that I feel I am adequately informed about. I suggest you do the same.
trigger – I must say – your reaction is very strange; you don’t seem to have read what I wrote.
First -who said that Pakistan’s decline began on Sept 11/2001? Why do you even mention this? Pakistan has been in a mess for well over a generation. And – that’s hardly a novel opinion in N. America.
Who said that China and India haven’t been fighting terrorism? I certainly didn’t; I said that they don’t want anything to do with Islamic fascism. That doesn’t mean that they don’t want to fight it; it means that they don’t want it in their countries! It means that they don’t support it (as does Iran and SA or Pakistan or Syria). You seem to have a ‘comprehension problem’.
I had no intention of pointing to India’s lack of a military presence in Afghanistan. Your comments about China reflect my own opinion – China doesn’t want Islamic fascism in its borders. Or even near them.
How on earth can you conclude that I was saying that India was ignorant of, and/or indifferent to the dangers of Islamic fascism – it’s beyond me. I clearly used the word ‘worry’ when I referred to India, Iran, China – when confronting an Islamic fascist presence in Pakistan. You have a reading comprehension problem.
And the ‘two options’ is exactly what I was talking about. First, you try to build up the govt that is already in existence. You don’t immediately move in and set up a different structure. You only do that when the country has moved itself outside of any possibility of reform and development..as was the case in Iraq.
Again, it would be constructive if you would actually read what I wrote rather than, as you did in your original post, create a fictional account.
This is not for kid Obama, The One.
This situation needs a warrior’s instinct. Pakistan doesn’t need supporting; that government, and/or its agents, are supporting our mortal enemies.
Forget the weak Pak government. Go in and kill the Talibs and destroy thye Pak nuke capability.
Dave in Pa. at March 16, 2009 1:57 PM
Problem is, Dave, that segments of teh Pak governmdent are actually assisting the Islamofascists as they are of the same persuasion.
“One White House aide emerged from an intelligence briefing on Pakistan three days after Mr Obama’s inauguration to exclaim ‘Holy s–t!'”
Good to see that this administration is calm, and discrete with information pertaining to national security.
ET,
Its my turn to be surprised at your response. Confronted with your own apparent ignorance of a region, you turn around and accuse me of deliberately misinterpreting you.
Lets see what you actually said:
“With regard to Pakistan and Afghanistan, it seems that the Al Qaeda have refocused their intention of setting up a ‘Taliban’ or fundamentalist Islamic state – and intend to do it in Pakistan rather than Afghanistan. The country to worry about this is first, of course, India. Then, Iran, and then, China.
It is this area that will have to, itself, fight this battle. Not one of these other countries wants anything to do with Islamic fascism.”
When you say that “not one of these other countries wants anything to do with Islamic Fascism”, what you ACTUALLY mean that they are actively anti-Islamic Fascism. Okay. But then why would they “have to fight this battle”, when they are already actively fighting it? Do you mean that they would have to CONTINUE to fight this battle? (In which case why didn’t you just use the word “CONTINUE “before? Too much effort?)
Furthermore, Iran is now actively against Islamic Fascism?
And what do you mean by “not wanting to have anything to do with” something/anything? Typically means that you ignore the person/thing. In your case it seems to mean actively fighting/opposing said person or thing. Its a very interesting way to use the phrase. Not conventional at all, suggesting that my comprehension problem may not be the only contributing factor here. Your command of the language is suddenly equally quesitonable.
Unless, of course, you’ve been caught and you’re trying to clear your tracks.
What concerns me the most about Obama and the Pakistan-Afghan file is that he might send a lot of high-quality troops in there at a time when he is quickly ramping up the power of his developing home guard, with a hidden agenda being to tie down the military in a difficult situation overseas. If they do well it looks good on him, if they do poorly he can blame Bush again and write off potential adversaries at some later stage of his plan to impose a one-party state.
With his Mugabe style home guard.
Don’t think it’s only me, I am pretty sure Rush Limbaugh is on to this as well.
The problems of Afghanistan are these: Our soldier keep getting attacked by people who have a sanctuary across the border in Pakistan and We can’t attack Pakistan because they are an ally (and a nuclear power with 170 million people).
The solution is largely a diplomatic one (Obama’s forte, no?). Obama should find a way to justify open warfare on waziristan. I can think of two scenarios: (1) Obama could offer American “assistance” to the government of Pakistan in pacifying its tribal areas. Zardari or Gillani could pretend to be “surprised at the extent of the American violence”. (2) Obama could declare that he will only recognize Pakistani sovereignty in areas where the army can march openly (ie Waziristan is no-man’s land). Therefore, and attack on Waziristan is no attack on Pakistan.
Either way it is a win/win situation for the US and Pakistan government.