after bb: can musharraf be next? and then what?

the more i think about it, the more the operation against bb seems like the one designed against ahmed shah masood. reason: job against masood was very well executed like the one against bb. more importantly, masood was eliminated right before 9/11 so that americans would lose an effective ally in afghanistan. al qaeda had rightly guessed that americans would attack afghanistan after 9/11 and by removing masood, al qaeda removed a leader who could provide an alternative leadership when taliban were targetted by americans.

i believe bb would be the natural choice to lead pak once musharraf goes away from the scene. and among all the pakistani leaders, she certainly would be the toughest on jehadis. by dealing with bb, al qaeda has removed the biggest threat it faced in pak if musharraf was removed.

after bb, al qaeda might target musharraf again. and if al qaeda is successful in removing musharraf, i believe there is no political leader in pak that will have the balls, or the desire, or the ability to deal with jehadis. in my view, if musharraf is eliminated, then kayani should take over, lock the jehadi supporting civilians like lawyers and journalists in jail and go after jehadis with full force without worrying about collateral damage. otherwise, pak goes the way of iraq.

Re: after bb: can musharraf be next? and then what?

one little correction, benazir is also called "mother os taliban"
Before her U trun along with mush over taliban issue, she supported talbain like no other.

Re: after bb: can musharraf be next? and then what?

as bb herself pointed out, taliban and al qaeda were distinct entities at the start. obl in fact was invited to afghanistan by anti-taliban commander whose name i forget. (haqqani if i am not mistaken.) obl started supporting taliban after it became clear that taliban would win control of afghanistan. also imortant to remember that al qaeda was operating before taliban. remember the first wtc attack as well as the plot to target american planes out of the philippines?

Re: after bb: can musharraf be next? and then what?

For Musharraf, every person out there in the street right now is his potential assasin.

Re: after bb: can musharraf be next? and then what?

Pakistan itself is not safe

Re: after bb: can musharraf be next? and then what?

I'm thinking the same thing. We all know Nawaz and Imran aren't going to do any good for Pakistan, Kayani is the only other option.

Re: after bb: can musharraf be next? and then what?

Jehadi supporting lawyers and journalists? what are you even talking about?!?!

Musharaf being taken out means nothing as.. Some other aremy general will take over...
If they are smart, they will reinstate the Supremem court and stop the tyranical policies of Mush, then they can go after the terrorists with the support of everyone behind them.

Re: after bb: can musharraf be next? and then what?

I only hope that Nawaz, Imran, Altaf or any other known politicians do not become targets of these savages.

I may not agree with the policies of many political leaders in Pakistan, but I hope and pray, no one else will lose his/her life due to un-natural causes (read Mehsud/Taliban/Mullah-flu).

Re: after bb: can musharraf be next? and then what?

beysharam people feel no qualms about lying. hundreds of people died in sectarian violence under nawaz sharif's second government. and what did nawaz sharif do to tackle the problem? exactly nothing.

actually terrorist violence under nawaz got so bad that even a bozo like him realised that something had to be done. day after nawaz sharif announced that he would be cracking down jehadis, jehadis planted a bomb under a bridge on which nawaz was going to travel. that bomb missed killing nawaz by seconds. very next day nawaz made peace with jehadis.

to fight terrorist pak needs less democracy and a brave and fearless leader who puts his life on the line so that citizens can live in peace.

Re: after bb: can musharraf be next? and then what?

Did they now? Perhaps. I do blame my parents generation for many a failures and not protesting so forcefully such disorder. This is not the 1990s however where the world was recovering from the cold war and Pakistan from 80's rule. Those who died during sectarian riots died in a domestic violence. And yes there was concern, there were protests (perhaps not nearly enough) and there were efforts to curb it. There was effort to identify the extremist groups the sipah sahaba, the tehreek jafaria, the jaish etc.. also identified were foreign agencies who promoted terror to destabilize Pakistan. Agencies and establishments who now sit back and enjoy the the self effacing quagmire Pakistan is now in.

These people whom we today call terrorists would never have been fought, never would have been labelled as such and indeed were not the elements promoting sectarianism within Pakistan's heartland had our self declared saviour Washington's one-call-troll had not been prodded and elbowed and jabbed into adopting Washington's rhetoric. A rhetoric totally out of touch with reality, out of touch with regional interests, history and demographics. A bigoted shortsighted puss filled, idiotic rhetoric of war on terror in which only muslim countires and everything muslim has now become terrorist. Never mind if they are movements in progress decades before with righteous purposes or internal strife and disenchantment or a third world malaise: sectarian strife, nepotism, street power of some anarchists etc. Everything painted and sausaged into one.

And creation of efficient pigeon holing conceptual terms to sell war, to manufacture consent and to carry out arrogant policies of some elites in the US who hijacked the republican party.

We have heard and seen every hypocrisy, real hypocrisy from Bush's foremost minion who forsook everything in the interest of Pakistan: image, morale, Pakistan's regional interests, above all life and liberty of citizens and deal with those whom he decried as corrupt and traitors. All to keep himself in power. Pakistan under this rule has reached its lowest point. Lower than at any other point in history.

What you advocate as less democracy and more force has a name. It's called Fascism. No. Not in Jinnah's republic. Not in his day and age and certainly not with this Generation.

Re: after bb: can musharraf be next? and then what?

^^^ since i have absolutely no clue on what you are ranting about, i cannot even attempt to provide an answer. if you claiming terrorism not being an issue in the 90’s, then i am afraid you are simply incorrect. following are a couple of headlines from dawn from the weak before musharraf’s coup. those links clearly indicate that terrorism was a huge priority for army chief as well as the prime minister:

http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1999/09oct99.html


Law, order situation to improve: COAS

ISLAMABAD, Oct 4: Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and
Chief of Army Staff Gen Pervez Musharraf on Monday described the
law and order situation as, “bad,” but hoped it would improve.

“Law and order situation is bad. It should improve. It will
improve,” he told a group of reporters at a reception hosted by the
German Ambassador Hans-Joachim Daer to celebrate the day of
Germany’s unification.

To a query, whether the government has requested Army to assist it
in the maintenance of law and order, he replied in negative. There
are police and other law enforcement agencies to do the job, he
added…


Terrorists getting training in Afghanistan

Bureau Report

ISLAMABAD, Oct 7: The government has laid its hands on concrete
evidence that people are being trained in Afghanistan to undertake
sectarian killings and terrorism in Pakistan.

“We have with us a solid proof that there exist training camps in
Afghanistan, which are training terrorists and sending them into
Pakistan to kill our people,” Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said.

Re: after bb: can musharraf be next? and then what?

oh come on, the shia sunni violence in the 90s was nothing compared to what Pakistan is undergoing now under Musharraf. There is a reason why Pakistan is termed more dangerous than Iraq right now.

Re: after bb: can musharraf be next? and then what?

You want "a brave and fearless leader who puts his life on the line". Didn't BB do just that without being a military dictator?

Re: after bb: can musharraf be next? and then what?

Actually, sunni-shia violence of '90s was caused the same extremists and same ideology which has Pakistan on edge today.
In 90s prominent shia figures were being assassinated every day in similar fashion, but majority sunni Pakistanis were not as worried thinking that it is between THOSE guys. They never thought that someday these same maniacs can turn their attention to them as well.

Re: after bb: can musharraf be next? and then what?

I urge you to read my post again if you have not understood it. I replied to the nostalgic chips on your shoulder: if we did not do anything then why should we do now. What a remorseful or pitiful thing to say.

Are you now saying that sectarian strife was only a post Taliban phenomena in Pakistan? or do you claim that it was Alqaeda doing sectarian strifei n Pakistan or it was people from FATA or Afghans?

Sectarian violence in Pakistan is not a new thing and Pakistan didn’t need Taliban for that. It was a problem long before, just as it has been in India, Iraq and Syria and Lebanon. Very unfortunate. But it was an internal problem. Done by Pakistanis to each other. True they did find sanctuary in Afghanistan or among Kashmiri freedom fighters, maybe even by Iran and India at times with full knowledge of ISI. And KUDOS to the SHarif’s for identifying the menace. But it was a regional menace with regional juxtaposition and regional history and politics. Not much if anything to do with 9/11 or internatinal Jehadi or this mantra of Al-Qaeda the super duper esoteric cabal which this yenta of a dictator tries to harp to please his masters. Here:

THIS time the sectarian hydra struck in the Pakistani capital, well, almost. The target was a Shia mosque in Rawalpindi. At least nine Shia Muslims were killed in February when unidentified gunmen opened fire at worshippers offering their dusk-time prayers at the Al Najaf mosque, in a locality of the garrison town that borders Islamabad. While the police have started investigations, officials have not ruled out the involvement of foreign hands. What foreign hands? An honest answer can lead to information that might be officially unsavoury or, more plainly, harmful to Pakistan’s “brotherly” relations with other states. The foreign hands are India’s, therefore.

Their Pakistani counterparts also began to use the well-equipped facilities to train their cadres to fight in Kashmir. Pakistani groups with sectarian leanings, mainly from the majority Sunni sect, also groomed their die-hard elements there. For hot-headed Sunni activists, mainly from the southern regions of Pakistan’s central Punjab province, the training facilities in Afghanistan were a lure. The fact that Pakistanis suspected of involvement in sectarian killings were finding a welcome sanctuary in Afghanistan was in effect recognised when Islamabad made efforts to make the Taliban - which it helped create - expel its nationals. That it never happened is another story. That is the story of Afghanistan’s perceived share in the rise of sectarianism in Pakistan. The Sunni side of the problem, that is.

** The Shias are said to have got inspiration from the Islamic Revolution of 1979 in Iran, a country where the adherents of the sect constitute an overwhelming majority. The rise of Shia fundamentalist clerics to power in Iran is believed to have given a new consciousness to the followers of the sect in Pakistan. A sort of revivalism and a source to draw strength from, for the Pakistani Shias. The extremist Sunnis and their Shia counterparts - that small minority on either side said to be responsible for the deadly violence in Pakistan - are believed to thrive on the financial largesse from the Arab monarchies in the Gulf and Iran respectively.**

** Musharraf banned several Shia and Sunni groups, among them the Sipah-e-Sahaba and the Laskhar-e-Jhangvi of the Sunnis and the Sipah-e-Mohammad and Tehrik-e-Jafria Pakistan of the Shias**

** Dawn newspaper, with its headquarters in Karachi, which is a city that is most prone to sectarian slayings and which saw a renewed spurt of communal violence in recent weeks, writes in a scathing editorial.**

** They claimed to have killed three activists from the banned Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, a Sunni militant group, in a shootout in the southern part of the Punjab province. But, of late, the police are increasingly being accused of faking encounters to finish off suspects in “extra-judicial killings”,**

Re: after bb: can musharraf be next? and then what?

People made so much noise when Nawab Akbar Bugti and the Maulana Ghazi from Lal Masjid met Angel of Death. But after a week, things went back to normal.

First Prime Minister of Pakistan Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan was assassinated, third military President General of Pakistan Zia-ul-Haq was assassinated; what happened? Nothing. Things went back to normal after a week of stupid protests.

Now it was Benazir Bhuttos's turn... her circus will last for a week, after that things will be back to normal.

People worry too much in Pakistan: "Ab Yeh Ho Jaye Ga", "Us Nay Yeh Byan Diya Hai"... and other nonsense like that.

Re: after bb: can musharraf be next? and then what?

No circus here bro. I know you're not that apathetic.

Re: after bb: can musharraf be next? and then what?

People remembered ZAB for decades, the same for BB

Re: after bb: can musharraf be next? and then what?

Musharaf only needs to leave president house and become a normal citizen of Pakistan, then one will see what happens to him.. Its only Musharaf high profile security measures are which have saved him so far, else we have seen what happened to BB in her mediocre security.

Musharaf also know his wrath, thats why he is so reluctant in leaving the office.

Re: after bb: can musharraf be next? and then what?

^ its sad - really sad that the only way now everyone can think of to tackle bad politicians in Pak is by killing them. Really, there is no value of life left nowadays.