Source: http://www.tehelka.com/channels/news/news_main.asp
The Zardari Government is making peace with the Taliban which is hanging amputated bodies from electric poles. AMIR MATEEN analyses the dangers for Pakistan
THE ONE-TIME tourist heaven of Swat looks like a ghost valley today. The people have still not recovered from the gory nightmare that was unleashed by the local Taliban. The last one-and-a-half year has seen a population of 1.5 million people being held hostage by a ragtag force of some 2,500 Taliban. They are under the leadership of Maulvi Fazalullah, popularly known as Mullah Radio for his jihad-inflected sermons, aired through his illegal FM radio. Fazalullah’s men have fought bloody battles with the army over the past two years. They virtually took control of most of Swat last year. Over 1,200 civilians have died so far and around 350,000 hapless locals forced to leave through rough mountain terrain.
The rich have left for Peshawar — 70 miles away, and the richer for more posh Islamabad — 100 miles in the south. The poor, with no place to go, suffered the trauma that makes Hollywood horrors look like a picnic. Intelligence sources dubbed as ‘spies’ and government officials — particularly from law-enforcing agencies — were specifically targeted by the Taliban. They were abducted and maimed and their killing turned into a gruesome spectacle in order to send a message to others. None of it is making sense to me. The US Government in liaison with a Government in Pakistan who is supporting the Taliban. Taliban is recruiting terrorists in Pakistan to fight in Afghanistan, obviously the US soldiers must be targets as well. Crazy set-up! And of course the logical conclusion is that the Pakistan Government is making deals with terrorists, probably through the military.
But then just a decade ago the US armed the militant Afghan lords to fight the Soviets. They in turn have size-able clout in Afghanistan politics. And they are the ones who form the backbone of the Taliban.
It seems that all forms of liasons take place in the politics of power and warfare. The US, Israel and the terrorists are the big players in it.
I wonder how many business deals and pacts are made between these players.
I also wonder about many more things...... | atul2242 wrote: |
But then just a decade ago the US armed the militant Afghan lords to fight the Soviets. They in turn have size-able clout in Afghanistan politics. And they are the ones who form the backbone of the Taliban.
It seems that all forms of liasons take place in the politics of power and warfare. The US, Israel and the terrorists are the big players in it.
I wonder how many business deals and pacts are made between these players.
I also wonder about many more things...... |
Right! Let's go back to Iraq in the eighties before the Kuwait war, which was armed by the UK, France and the USA in its conflict with Iran. And then after Kuwait, this changed, in fact deteriorated so much that the USA actually invaded Iraq in order to search for those very same weapons of mass destruction! what peace? You cannot make peace twice!!
| deanhills wrote: |
Right! Let's go back to Iraq in the eighties before the Kuwait war, which was armed by the UK, France and the USA in its conflict with Iran. And then after Kuwait, this changed, in fact deteriorated so much that the USA actually invaded Iraq in order to search for those very same weapons of mass destruction! |
Dear Dean
History can be learnt from but the clock cannot move backwards.
And perhaps the search for "weapons of mass destruction" was just a ruse... otherwise it would look that the people in power in the USA are stupid, which they are not.
WAR
| atul2242 wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: |
Right! Let's go back to Iraq in the eighties before the Kuwait war, which was armed by the UK, France and the USA in its conflict with Iran. And then after Kuwait, this changed, in fact deteriorated so much that the USA actually invaded Iraq in order to search for those very same weapons of mass destruction! |
Dear Dean
History can be learnt from but the clock cannot move backwards.
And perhaps the search for "weapons of mass destruction" was just a ruse... otherwise it would look that the people in power in the USA are stupid, which they are not.
WAR
|
Well their leaders for sure are definitely not stupid and very gifted and thank goodness for that. I sometimes wonder about some of the people though. How could they for example allow the bail-out package to be passed so quickly without heavy scrutiny and asking a million questions? Perhaps the Government system has become too heavy, too cumbersome and too BIG for people to really have a voice that is heard in it? | deanhills wrote: |
| atul2242 wrote: | | deanhills wrote: |
Right! Let's go back to Iraq in the eighties before the Kuwait war, which was armed by the UK, France and the USA in its conflict with Iran. And then after Kuwait, this changed, in fact deteriorated so much that the USA actually invaded Iraq in order to search for those very same weapons of mass destruction! |
Dear Dean
History can be learnt from but the clock cannot move backwards.
And perhaps the search for "weapons of mass destruction" was just a ruse... otherwise it would look that the people in power in the USA are stupid, which they are not.
WAR
|
Well their leaders for sure are definitely not stupid and very gifted and thank goodness for that. I sometimes wonder about some of the people though. How could they for example allow the bail-out package to be passed so quickly without heavy scrutiny and asking a million questions? Perhaps the Government system has become too heavy, too cumbersome and too BIG for people to really have a voice that is heard in it? |
^The biggest problem of that kind, I think, is that in order to have a chance in an election, you have to be a part of one of the two major parties. Both parties have long been corrupted by their tireless search for campaign funds, so you won't be supported by either party if you call for an end to corruption. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| The biggest problem of that kind, I think, is that in order to have a chance in an election, you have to be a part of one of the two major parties. Both parties have long been corrupted by their tireless search for campaign funds, so you won't be supported by either party if you call for an end to corruption. |
That is so true. I have not thought about it before and it is so logical, you've really highlighted the crux of the problem. I was thinking earlier in the week that the US Government has become much too heavy, inflexible and difficult to move, and this is especially noticeable during times of crisis. And you are right, the two-party system has become stale and outdated, cramping US political potential. Perhaps the US needs to completely revamp how it governs itself, although possibly that would have to take a major leap of faith. The system that is has, has worked very well for a very long time, short of miraculous to keep 50 large states together in one Federal Government. But perhaps all the signs are there that people should sit together in Founding Father style, and re-invent Government along the lines you suggested before, light and lean.We don't really need a complete revamp. What I'd like to see is that when you vote, the party alignment is not shown next to the name of each candidate. Then, candidates (especially for more minor posts) have to campaign individually, and not rely on party alignment to win the election for them.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| The biggest problem of that kind, I think, is that in order to have a chance in an election, you have to be a part of one of the two major parties. Both parties have long been corrupted by their tireless search for campaign funds, so you won't be supported by either party if you call for an end to corruption. |
We have similar problems in India. Plus the judicial system has been co-opted by corrupt politicians, and the independents are bought by one or the other large party.
I am not sure whether just removing the party symbol is enough, the entire party based system needs to be reformatted otherwise the virus will continue to rule. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| We don't really need a complete revamp. What I'd like to see is that when you vote, the party alignment is not shown next to the name of each candidate. Then, candidates (especially for more minor posts) have to campaign individually, and not rely on party alignment to win the election for them. |
Hmmm .... I think this is a worldwide problem, also in Canada. How often have I had to vote for a party that I did not like, as the individual in the constituency in my opinion was the better candidate to vote for. Sort of presented a conflict of sorts. Do you think it would be possible to separate party from candidates? How would one do that, as that would be quite a major change? | deanhills wrote: |
| Do you think it would be possible to separate party from candidates? |
Some institutionalized system of like-minded politicians helping each other will always exist, but we need some way to make it easier for additional parties to come into play, and more difficult for a small group of party officials to control elections.
A main problem is that independent candidates for national posts can't even get on the ballot in many states unless they get huge petitions signed and all sorts of other requirements. They have to do that for every state individually. Once finished with that, they have to deal with more problems:
A public convinced (and rightly so) that an independent can't win.
Their lack of funds compared to the two with huge support from big parties and corrupting corporations.
My ideal vision would be that there would be so many candidates on the ballot that its hard to find the one you wanted to vote for, and that most of them would be viable choices who have a real chance of winning.
Going to the polls should be like going to a candy store: "Wow! Look at all these great choices! It's going to be hard to pick just one!"
It should not be like going to the doctor and getting a bad diagnosis: "Well, you only have two real options, and neither one is going to be very good for you..." | ocalhoun wrote: |
Going to the polls should be like going to a candy store: "Wow! Look at all these great choices! It's going to be hard to pick just one!"
It should not be like going to the doctor and getting a bad diagnosis: "Well, you only have two real options, and neither one is going to be very good for you..." |
Well said. I already feel all the options fading when they have the primaries. Canada same thing. Although we do have more to choose from, there always seems to be two or at the most three dominant parties. | ocalhoun wrote: |
My ideal vision would be that there would be so many candidates on the ballot that its hard to find the one you wanted to vote for, and that most of them would be viable choices who have a real chance of winning.
Going to the polls should be like going to a candy store: "Wow! Look at all these great choices! It's going to be hard to pick just one!"
It should not be like going to the doctor and getting a bad diagnosis: "Well, you only have two real options, and neither one is going to be very good for you..." |
We have a lot of independents along with the Big party candidates, and at times the ballot paper runs into many sheets.
So many choices...
But what usually happens is that most of the independent candidates end up getting few votes and the Big Party candidates gets most of them.
The big parties in India are the:
Congress - Moderate Right Wing
BJP - Hindu Extremist Right wing
CPI & CPIM: Communist Party - Moderate Left wing
Apart from these there are regional parties who have made it big:
BSP- Bahujan Samaj Party - Low caste (dalit), big in Uttar Pradesh, the most populous state of India
Then there are others more popular in their respective regions.
Once I voted for the candidate whom I thought was the right choice and he got only 500 votes. That's when I decided to use my vote in the negetive fasion ie to vote against the person / party I did not want to win. | atul2242 wrote: |
We have a lot of independents along with the Big party candidates, and at times the ballot paper runs into many sheets.
So many choices...
But what usually happens is that most of the independent candidates end up getting few votes and the Big Party candidates gets most of them.
The big parties in India are the:
Congress - Moderate Right Wing
BJP - Hindu Extremist Right wing
CPI & CPIM: Communist Party - Moderate Left wing
Apart from these there are regional parties who have made it big:
BSP- Bahujan Samaj Party - Low caste (dalit), big in Uttar Pradesh, the most populous state of India
Then there are others more popular in their respective regions.
Once I voted for the candidate whom I thought was the right choice and he got only 500 votes. That's when I decided to use my vote in the negetive fasion ie to vote against the person / party I did not want to win. |
Interesting to learn about this as of course another negative could be splitting of votes when you have too many candidates, and you may end up with a "not so good one" this way either. And of course people may follow different voting strategies. I.e. decide to abstain from voting, or vote negative as you pointed out.But I wonder why don't voting systems evolve? 
| atul2242 wrote: |
| But I wonder why don't voting systems evolve? |
Because the political systems and campaigns evolve faster in order to take advantage of them, and then once those systems are getting a good deal out of the current system, they use their power and influence to keep the system the same, preventing change.And now Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani President is in the US, chatting with Obama and the Afghan President. This is a tenuous situation, as it is known that Pakistani and Afghan leaders are often overthrown while they are out of the country. And with the Taliban gaining ground and influence in Pakistan, this would be a time that is ripe for them to do such a thing.
As for the American political system... I don't think it needs a total overhaul, per se. But major or minor changes, I believe, will not do much good in the long run, as they will be opposed by the entire current system. A major overhaul may be the only thing that can effect enough change to rid our nation of such a corrupt and stagnant system. Unfortunately, a major overhaul of the US political system usually means a civil war, armed coup, or something along those lines, due to the fact that the government is set up to resist such big changes through a voting system.
This thread is supposed to be about the Pakistan Government making friends with the Taliban. atul2242 did a very good lead article on this. Would be great to hear from expert Frihosters who are in Pakistan or in close proximity? Exactly what is happening between the Pakistan Government and the Taliban? 
there is no option for Taliban except to die or left pak
Pakistan will not make any deal with taliban no or Onward
coz when army decided to do operation then it will be completed
you can all study pakistan ARM forces history regarding these cases or operation
| muzikeye wrote: |
there is no option for Taliban except to die or left pak
Pakistan will not make any deal with taliban no or Onward
coz when army decided to do operation then it will be completed
you can all study pakistan ARM forces history regarding these cases or operation |
Good to learn this. Saw a programme on CNN this weekend and that looked hopeful too. Hope it is true. | deanhills wrote: |
| muzikeye wrote: | there is no option for Taliban except to die or left pak
Pakistan will not make any deal with taliban no or Onward
coz when army decided to do operation then it will be completed
you can all study pakistan ARM forces history regarding these cases or operation |
Good to learn this. Saw a programme on CNN this weekend and that looked hopeful too. Hope it is true. |
Sorry to break your hope. But you should remember, as President Zardari once said himself, that FATA has always been an autonomous region even during British rule.
So, its difficult to imagine a nearly bankrupt country with so many focii of powers,each going in different direction, to really tame that monster and esp. when people there are angry with American drone attacks.
I guess either American forces, perhaps with the help of neighbouring countries, go out themselves in FATA to weed out taliban or stop these drone attacks and let Pakistani Army do the job, no matter how much good or bad they are doing the job!! Because currnt policy is creating more terrorists than it is killing! | hunnyhiteshseth wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | muzikeye wrote: | there is no option for Taliban except to die or left pak
Pakistan will not make any deal with taliban no or Onward
coz when army decided to do operation then it will be completed
you can all study pakistan ARM forces history regarding these cases or operation |
Good to learn this. Saw a programme on CNN this weekend and that looked hopeful too. Hope it is true. |
Sorry to break your hope. But you should remember, as President Zardari once said himself, that FATA has always been an autonomous region even during British rule.
So, its difficult to imagine a nearly bankrupt country with so many focii of powers,each going in different direction, to really tame that monster and esp. when people there are angry with American drone attacks.
I guess either American forces, perhaps with the help of neighbouring countries, go out themselves in FATA to weed out taliban or stop these drone attacks and let Pakistani Army do the job, no matter how much good or bad they are doing the job!! Because currnt policy is creating more terrorists than it is killing! |
Do you envisage American troops landing in the Northern parts of Pakistan one of these days, or do you think they would do it from Afghanistan? | deanhills wrote: |
| hunnyhiteshseth wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | muzikeye wrote: | there is no option for Taliban except to die or left pak
Pakistan will not make any deal with taliban no or Onward
coz when army decided to do operation then it will be completed
you can all study pakistan ARM forces history regarding these cases or operation |
Good to learn this. Saw a programme on CNN this weekend and that looked hopeful too. Hope it is true. |
Sorry to break your hope. But you should remember, as President Zardari once said himself, that FATA has always been an autonomous region even during British rule.
So, its difficult to imagine a nearly bankrupt country with so many focii of powers,each going in different direction, to really tame that monster and esp. when people there are angry with American drone attacks.
I guess either American forces, perhaps with the help of neighbouring countries, go out themselves in FATA to weed out taliban or stop these drone attacks and let Pakistani Army do the job, no matter how much good or bad they are doing the job!! Because currnt policy is creating more terrorists than it is killing! |
Do you envisage American troops landing in the Northern parts of Pakistan one of these days, or do you think they would do it from Afghanistan? |
As I said, US should, and may be will, go all out against taliban by landing its troops in Northern parts of Pakistan or should stop done attacks in these areas and just restrict themselves to Afganistan.
I guess what will happen will be solely determined by how safe Pakistan's nuclear weapons remain. As I was reading in newspaper today, Pakistan is thinking of expanding its Plutonium nuclear weapon programme, if thats true then thats a truly tragic news because more nukes means more probability of their falling in extremist's hands. | hunnyhiteshseth wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | hunnyhiteshseth wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | muzikeye wrote: | there is no option for Taliban except to die or left pak
Pakistan will not make any deal with taliban no or Onward
coz when army decided to do operation then it will be completed
you can all study pakistan ARM forces history regarding these cases or operation |
Good to learn this. Saw a programme on CNN this weekend and that looked hopeful too. Hope it is true. |
Sorry to break your hope. But you should remember, as President Zardari once said himself, that FATA has always been an autonomous region even during British rule.
So, its difficult to imagine a nearly bankrupt country with so many focii of powers,each going in different direction, to really tame that monster and esp. when people there are angry with American drone attacks.
I guess either American forces, perhaps with the help of neighbouring countries, go out themselves in FATA to weed out taliban or stop these drone attacks and let Pakistani Army do the job, no matter how much good or bad they are doing the job!! Because currnt policy is creating more terrorists than it is killing! |
Do you envisage American troops landing in the Northern parts of Pakistan one of these days, or do you think they would do it from Afghanistan? |
As I said, US should, and may be will, go all out against taliban by landing its troops in Northern parts of Pakistan or should stop done attacks in these areas and just restrict themselves to Afganistan.
I guess what will happen will be solely determined by how safe Pakistan's nuclear weapons remain. As I was reading in newspaper today, Pakistan is thinking of expanding its Plutonium nuclear weapon programme, if thats true then thats a truly tragic news because more nukes means more probability of their falling in extremist's hands. |
Scary to have a neighbour like that so close to India's borders. Sort of a sleeping giant ready to explode! | deanhills wrote: |
| Scary to have a neighbour like that so close to India's borders. Sort of a sleeping giant ready to explode! |
Yeah absolutely true!! And its like that bitter pill which you can neither swallow nor egest. | hunnyhiteshseth wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | hunnyhiteshseth wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | muzikeye wrote: | there is no option for Taliban except to die or left pak
Pakistan will not make any deal with taliban no or Onward
coz when army decided to do operation then it will be completed
you can all study pakistan ARM forces history regarding these cases or operation |
Good to learn this. Saw a programme on CNN this weekend and that looked hopeful too. Hope it is true. |
Sorry to break your hope. But you should remember, as President Zardari once said himself, that FATA has always been an autonomous region even during British rule.
So, its difficult to imagine a nearly bankrupt country with so many focii of powers,each going in different direction, to really tame that monster and esp. when people there are angry with American drone attacks.
I guess either American forces, perhaps with the help of neighbouring countries, go out themselves in FATA to weed out taliban or stop these drone attacks and let Pakistani Army do the job, no matter how much good or bad they are doing the job!! Because currnt policy is creating more terrorists than it is killing! |
Do you envisage American troops landing in the Northern parts of Pakistan one of these days, or do you think they would do it from Afghanistan? |
As I said, US should, and may be will, go all out against taliban by landing its troops in Northern parts of Pakistan or should stop done attacks in these areas and just restrict themselves to Afganistan.
I guess what will happen will be solely determined by how safe Pakistan's nuclear weapons remain. As I was reading in newspaper today, Pakistan is thinking of expanding its Plutonium nuclear weapon programme, if thats true then thats a truly tragic news because more nukes means more probability of their falling in extremist's hands. |
First of all... American created the Taliban. It is their monster. Not Pakistans or Afghanistans; and not even Irans.
Secondly, by listening to you, the US will kill yet more innocent people in the NWFP of Pakistan, just like we see the number of innocent dead in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment, which numbers in their millions.
They already have their poor men trapped in Iraq and Afghanistan, who don't even who the reason they are fighting for: why are the US in Iraq? Why are they in Afghanistan? ANd the question will continue to be: why the heck are they in Pakistan?
Finally, Pakistan has every right to nuclear weapons, just like any other nation of the world should have. The elite cannot keep a monopoly over who can and who cannot have nukes. The United States is the only country and remains so the only country to have used nukes against another nation.
The benefit of nukes (mind you I am against nuclear weapons), but if there is a benefit, then it acts as a deterrant to the UNited States invading these countries by force. The US cannot invade pakistan, like she can with Afghanistan. And I hope soon that the United States cannot invade Iran too. Iran is a peaceful country too: land of the aryans - the true aryans - not the one hitler promoted, but the one that abolished slavery and allowed Jews to live in her empire. Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran are the sons of Darius. Peace be to them all. | ThePolemistis wrote: |
First of all... American created the Taliban. It is their monster. Not Pakistans or Afghanistans; and not even Irans. |
This is getting a little bit old. We've been there and done that a loooong time ago. Some or other stage Taliban has to take responsibility for what they are. And NO the US did not create them. They may have given them support decades ago, but they did not create them. There is nothing good to say about them.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
Secondly, by listening to you, the US will kill yet more innocent people in the NWFP of Pakistan, just like we see the number of innocent dead in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment, which numbers in their millions. They already have their poor men trapped in Iraq and Afghanistan, who don't even who the reason they are fighting for: why are the US in Iraq? Why are they in Afghanistan? ANd the question will continue to be: why the heck are they in Pakistan?
|
So it is OK for Taliban to kill innocent and defenceless people, but not anybody else? How do you suggest the problem be solved?
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
Finally, Pakistan has every right to nuclear weapons, just like any other nation of the world should have. The elite cannot keep a monopoly over who can and who cannot have nukes. The United States is the only country and remains so the only country to have used nukes against another nation.
The benefit of nukes (mind you I am against nuclear weapons), but if there is a benefit, then it acts as a deterrant to the UNited States invading these countries by force. The US cannot invade pakistan, like she can with Afghanistan. And I hope soon that the United States cannot invade Iran too. Iran is a peaceful country too: land of the aryans - the true aryans - not the one hitler promoted, but the one that abolished slavery and allowed Jews to live in her empire. Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran are the sons of Darius. Peace be to them all. |
Nuclear weapons in the hands of unstable countries is not a good idea. That is common sense. Pakistan is obviously not stable at the moment. And Taliban is a threat. All you have to do is talk to the Pakistan people living on its Northern border. | ThePolemistis wrote: |
First of all... American created the Taliban. It is their monster. Not Pakistans or Afghanistans; and not even Irans.
|
Yes, but logistic support to taliban was given by Pakistan and after USSR left & America lost interest in Taliban, it was Pakistan which actively supported and used Taliban. Remember in 1999 a flight hijacked from India was taken to Afganistan for the release of Pakistani nationals/terrorists who could later be seen roaming about freely in Pakistan, conducting rallies & giving press interviews. This clearly demonstrates links between Pakistan, Afganistan & Taliban.
| Quote: |
Secondly, by listening to you, the US will kill yet more innocent people in the NWFP of Pakistan, just like we see the number of innocent dead in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment, which numbers in their millions.
|
Absolutely true. But as deanhills said, aren't those who Taliban kill innocent people?
They already have their poor men trapped in Iraq and Afghanistan, who don't even who the reason they are fighting for: why are the US in Iraq? Why are they in Afghanistan? ANd the question will continue to be: why the heck are they in Pakistan?
| Quote: |
Finally, Pakistan has every right to nuclear weapons, just like any other nation of the world should have. The elite cannot keep a monopoly over who can and who cannot have nukes. The United States is the only country and remains so the only country to have used nukes against another nation.
|
Yes, every country has every right to nuclear weapons and US remains the only country to have used nuclear weapons. But, at the same time it is also important to realize that nukes in the hand of terrorists is quite dangerous and if other countries feel that possession of nuclear weapons by a particular country can be dangerous to their existence, they will surely try to destroy those weapons.
To give an analogy, having a scissor is everyone's right in the society but still we don't allow a mentally unstable person to have that scissor because we don't know what he might do with it. Similarly, we cant allow such an unstable state like Pakistan to have, leave alone increase, nukes.
| Quote: |
The benefit of nukes (mind you I am against nuclear weapons), but if there is a benefit, then it acts as a deterrant to the UNited States invading these countries by force.
|
Not only for US but its a detterent for any country.
| Quote: |
And I hope soon that the United States cannot invade Iran too. Iran is a peaceful country too
|
Even I hope so. But you see Iran is not helping itself by publicly making statements like "It would wipe out Israel from world map!".
| Quote: |
Iran: land of the aryans - the true aryans - not the one hitler promoted, but the one that abolished slavery and allowed Jews to live in her empire.
|
Origin of Aryans is still unknown and they are just said to originated near Caspian Sea, which can be any country.
| Quote: |
Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran are the sons of Darius.
|
But so are the other countries the sons of Darius. And by the way, Pakistan didn't even existed before British partitioned India in 1947, so even if it is son of Darius, it is a bastard child. 
| Quote: |
Peace be to them all.
|
Aameen.
I hope peace be to whole world.
