Someone sent this to me…i dont know what to think of it since i have nothing againts musharaff…what do u think?
[video]152.0.8003961.advert.wmv[/video]
That's just propaganda by the Hizb-ut-Tahrir.
So, to cover the allegations they made in brief:
1) 44 FBI offices - The FBI is a policing organisation, not an intelligence agency. It's providing consultation to Pakistan and giving expertise lacking in Pakistani police to assist in the capture of individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism.
2) 4 US Air bases - where only logistics and transportation units are based, Pakistan does not allow armed aircraft to operate there. Pakistan maintains a small military presence at all 4 bases, which ensures they are not used for anti-Pakistan activities. In addition, by January 2002, due to rising Indian hostility, the PAF was operating from 2 of the airbases alongside the USAF.
3) Afganistan - Pakistan had strong reason to believe it would be attacked and unable to defend itself effectively if support for Afghanistan was not dropped.
4) Balochistan - Significant evidence suggest that at least some of the insurgency in Balochistan is provoked by India's RAW. Otherwise, long-term existing militant nationalism is simply re-emerging out of fear the Gwadar project will not benefit them
5) WANA - The Pakistan government had reason to believe people carrying out terrorism inside Pakistan were trained in WANA. When government forces tried to bring people there in for questioning, they were brutally murdered. The government is trying quell this rebellion so that it can proceed with identifying whether or not WANA is a location for internal terrorist training in Pakistan.
6) Kashmir - Far from abandoned, a lasting peace there is closer than ever with India signalling that it is willing to be more flexible on the outcome.
7) Pakistan's security compromised - An allegation with no evidence presented. The presence of a police force providing consultation and advice, and of 4 military facilities under watch by the Pakistani military, does not constitute a compromise of Pakistan
9) Pakistan's nuclear assets compromised - Again, zero evidence. In fact, the Musharraf regime has stood fast against compromising Pakistan's nuclear assets. They denied the US request to provide "assistance" with securing Pakistan's nukes against terrorists (Pakistan rightly feared the US would attach tracker devices), and still refuse representatives of any foreign organization access to Pakistani military nuclear facilities)
This whole video is nothing further than extremely misleading propaganda.
[QUOTE]
1) 44 FBI offices - The FBI is a policing organisation, not an intelligence agency. It's providing consultation to Pakistan and giving expertise lacking in Pakistani police to assist in the capture of individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism.
[/QUOTE]
so you admit it??
[QUOTE]
2) 4 US Air bases - where only logistics and transportation units are based, Pakistan does not allow armed aircraft to operate there. Pakistan maintains a small military presence at all 4 bases, which ensures they are not used for anti-Pakistan activities. In addition, by January 2002, due to rising Indian hostility, the PAF was operating from 2 of the airbases alongside the USAF.
[/QUOTE]
so you admit this too (although you are strange in believing the myth that US likes to waste its money)
[QUOTE]
3) Afganistan - Pakistan had strong reason to believe it would be attacked and unable to defend itself effectively if support for Afghanistan was not dropped.
[/QUOTE]
whats this... another admission i see
[QUOTE]
4) Balochistan - Significant evidence suggest that at least some of the insurgency in Balochistan is provoked by India's RAW. Otherwise, long-term existing militant nationalism is simply re-emerging out of fear the Gwadar project will not benefit them
[/QUOTE]
again... well done.. you admit ... (though you just can't help yourself adding some garbage to it)
[QUOTE]
5) WANA - The Pakistan government had reason to believe people carrying out terrorism inside Pakistan were trained in WANA. When government forces tried to bring people there in for questioning, they were brutally murdered. The government is trying quell this rebellion so that it can proceed with identifying whether or not WANA is a location for internal terrorist training in Pakistan.
[/QUOTE]
not only do you admit this one..but you invent a completely new reason for it...well done.. you have landed a job of Busharrafs' PR man,,, you know he needs one
[QUOTE]
6) Kashmir - Far from abandoned, a lasting peace there is closer than ever with India signalling that it is willing to be more flexible on the outcome.
[/QUOTE]
you know people like comicall ali,,,you sound awfully like him,, i think we should you over to americans...
[QUOTE]
7) Pakistan's security compromised - An allegation with no evidence presented. The presence of a police force providing consultation and advice, and of 4 military facilities under watch by the Pakistani military, does not constitute a compromise of Pakistan
9) Pakistan's nuclear assets compromised - Again, zero evidence. In fact, the Musharraf regime has stood fast against compromising Pakistan's nuclear assets. They denied the US request to provide "assistance" with securing Pakistan's nukes against terrorists (Pakistan rightly feared the US would attach tracker devices), and still refuse representatives of any foreign organization access to Pakistani military nuclear facilities)
[/QUOTE]
I didn't expect you to admit the last two... after all these are not the words of few anti-govt miltants... this taken from the western media.. the local media... and everybody else in betwee,,, so i didn't expect you to have read anything....(at all)
sarcasm don't you just love it..
Even after how openly he is destroying the only people that can help him in the end.
Busharraf, zindabad.
Example of my point on WANA.
Pakistani troops were raiding a house when they were attacked and murdered - this back in June 2002, it was one of the first conflicts in the WANA.
The whole thing could have ended peacefully if they just let the army arrest who they came for rather than resorting to murderous resistance. If they opposed the arrest, they could fight it in court like those who’ve been arrested in Pakistani cities.
the truth
((ÃÝÖá ÇáÌåÇÏ ßáãÉ ÍÞ ÚäÏ ÓáØÇä ÌÇÆÑ))
“The best jihad is the word of truth uttered against a tyrant ruler”.
Ãóáóãú ÊóÑó Åöáóì ÇáøóÐöíäó íóÒúÚõãõæäó Ãóäøóåõãú ÂãóäõæÇ ÈöãóÇ ÃõäúÒöáó Åöáóíúßó æóãóÇ ÃõäúÒöáó ãöäú ÞóÈúáößó íõÑöíÏõæäó Ãóäú íóÊóÍóÇßóãõæÇ Åöáóì ÇáØøóÇÛõæÊö æóÞóÏú ÃõãöÑõæÇ Ãóäú
íóßúÝõÑõæÇ Èöåö æóíõÑöíÏõ ÇáÔøóíúØóÇäõ Ãóäú íõÖöáøóåõãú ÖóáóÇáðÇ ÈóÚöíÏðÇ
“Have you seen those who claim to believe in the revelation revealed to you and the revelation revealed earlier. They seek the ruling of taghoot (non-Islam) although they have been ordered to disbelieve in it” [TMQ An-Nisa: 60].
æóÃóÍóáøó Çááøóåõ ÇáúÈóíúÚó æóÍóÑøóãó ÇáÑøöÈóÇ
“Allah has permitted trade but forbidden usury” [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 275].
Regardless of sincerity, the mistakes of scholars like yourself is one of the factors that can destroy Islam. How can it be that you can issue a statement that contradicts Qat’i (certain) evidences, which are decisive and not unclear. Abu Shamah had narrated, via the Sanad of Abi Ziyad bin Hudayr, saying;
((ËáÇË íåÏãä ÇáÏíä ÒáÉ ÇáÚÇáã ¡ æ ÌÏÇá ÇáãäÇÝÞ ÈÇáÞÑÂä ¡ æ ÃÆãÉ ãÖáæä))
“Omar said to me: Do you know what destroys Islam? I said, No! He said: A mistake made by a scholar, the argument of a hypocrite in writing and the ruling of leaders who wish for people to stray”.
^ :k:
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
**Afganistan* - Pakistan had strong reason to believe it would be attacked and unable to defend itself effectively if support for Afghanistan was not dropped.
[/QUOTE]
Attacked by whom...????????? US or India...India has been against the creation of Pakistan for over 50 strong years, & Kargil was almost a boiling point in 1999. The Indian government was coward enough to ask clinton's administration for help....! What would they have done to us now....? At the most destroyed us, but sincerely saying, just think for a minute & honestly answer who supported the real Afghanistan...before 9/11. It was Pakistan. We were almost under attack from Israel before 28 May 1998.
What harm has US done to North Korea & Iran, even though they are under severe sanctions & US opposes their regime completely???? NOTHING, the US cant do ****, they lost in vietnam, they almost lost to the japs in Pearl Harbor...what would they have done if we had supported Afghanistan...!
2day innocent Muslims are dying by the scores, a lot more than what died in 9/11...which I totally deplore. The people of 9/11 were also innocent, but that does not justify the killings of scores of muslims in Afghanistan & Iraq.
Bay izzati ki zindagi se, izzat ki maut ziyada behtar hai
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mal1k: *
Attacked by whom...????????? US or India...India has been against the creation of Pakistan for over 50 strong years, & Kargil was almost a boiling point in 1999. The Indian government was coward enough to ask clinton's administration for help....! What would they have done to us now....? At the most destroyed us, but sincerely saying, just think for a minute & honestly answer who supported the real Afghanistan...before 9/11. It was Pakistan. We were almost under attack from Israel before 28 May 1998.
What harm has US done to North Korea & Iran, even though they are under severe sanctions & US opposes their regime completely???? NOTHING, the US cant do ****, they lost in vietnam, they almost lost to the japs in Pearl Harbor...what would they have done if we had supported Afghanistan...!
2day innocent Muslims are dying by the scores, a lot more than what died in 9/11...which I totally deplore. The people of 9/11 were also innocent, but that does not justify the killings of scores of muslims in Afghanistan & Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
1) More people die MONTHLY on highways (aprox 6,000!) in the US than on 9/11 PLUS pentagon PLus the rest COMBINED!
2) They did loose to the japs, where at the last minute, they pulled out their coward acts, and released the A bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki. Whoa...why was their crime forgiven so fast?!
3) they use, they dispose, they suck up and use again, and dispose.
4) remind the US its not their will anymore. Islam is coming back. It's almost here, just feel it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mal1k: *
Attacked by whom...????????? US or India...India has been against the creation of Pakistan for over 50 strong years, & Kargil was almost a boiling point in 1999. The Indian government was coward enough to ask clinton's administration for help....! What would they have done to us now....? ....
.....NOTHING, the US cant do ****, they lost in vietnam, they almost lost to the japs in Pearl Harbor...what would they have done if we had supported Afghanistan...!
2day innocent Muslims are dying by the scores, a lot more than what died in 9/11...which I totally deplore. The people of 9/11 were also innocent, but that does not justify the killings of scores of muslims in Afghanistan & Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
The problem is the the USA acted completely emotionally and irrationally following 9/11. While they would not have attacked Pakistan for the purpose of occupying it like Iraq, they would have attacked not only to take what they needed, logistics bases in Pakistan as transit points for shipping to Afghanistan, but also they would accuse the Kashmiri Mujahideen of being terrorists and go after areas where they are trained. And we've all seen how "accurate" their bombing is.
Pakistan's military leadership knows that our army is not designed to, and is not capable of, fighting a modern army. The first outcome of a US attack to take air bases and transport routes, and to attack Kashmiri mujahideen facilities, would be the complete decimation of Pakistan's military forces through air strikes.
The second outcome would not be something planned by the US, but what do you think India would do in Kashmir in 2001 if they saw a visibly weakend Pakistan? Straight away following 9/11 they were lobbying the USA to attack Pakistan, offering basically a military alliance. India's BJP government in 2001 was waiting for Pakistan to be weakened before unleashing their army on Azad Kashmir at least. The initial US attack, and the following Indian invasion. would have been a bloodbath that would make the thousands of martyred innocents in Afghanistan look like childplay.
Afghanistan is a sparsely populated country of just 25 million, about half of whom live in non-pashtoon areas that readily collaborated with the Americans and escaped bombing. Pakistan's population would be much more hostile to both America and India, Pakistan is much more densely populated with 144 million.
.....NOTHING, the US cant do **, they lost in vietnam, they almost lost to the japs in Pearl Harbor...what would they have done if we had supported Afghanistan...!
The USA lost in Vietnam, only after 13 years of slaughtering the Vietnamese people - at least 340,000 civilians died, with the Vietnamese government claiming that 4 million civilians died.
Losing to the Japs at Pearl harbour was just one defeat amongst many in a war they won. Pakistan has had military defeats too, that does not mean we're incapable of ever winning a war, because we've had victories too. If we'd supported Afghanistan, our armed forces would be destroyed by air strikes and crusise missiles that we have no ways of fighting back against, our cities would be bombed, our towns would be bombed, our villages would be bombed. And then, in the wake of it all, the Indians would come...
Oh, and I know everyone says "The USA would never attack Pakistan, we have the nuclear bomb". The issue is that we do not have a way to deliver the bomb to any US interest. Our missiles and planes don't go as far as the nearest military base, let alone anywhere where the US would feel threatened.
The only place we'd be able to use our bomb in the event of a US attack would be inside Pakistan against their forces, and then our Pakistani citizens would have to deal with the radiation poisoning of their bodies that followed.
And I agree with your last point. In the name of avenging 9/11, the USA has murdered far more Muslims than were murdered on that day. QUite frankly, I look forward to and pray for the day when the USA falls!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Crescent_: *
2) They did loose to the japs, where at the last minute, they pulled out their coward acts, and released the A bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki. Whoa...why was their crime forgiven so fast?!
3) they use, they dispose, they suck up and use again, and dispose.
4) remind the US its not their will anymore. Islam is coming back. It's almost here, just feel it.
[/QUOTE]
2) Umm.. they didn't lose to the Japs. By the time they dropped the Bomb, they had taken back every island Japan had captured during the war, and they had invaded and occupied one of the 4 Japanese home islands, and they were building up their invasion force to capture the rest of Japan.
3) Of course that's what they do. No country has more experience of that than Pakistan - even Musharraf has first hand experience of this. He was an artillery officer during the 1965 war, when Pakistan could not get any more artillery shells for its American-made guns because of US sanctions.
The Pakistan government has not taken any course of action that would make it dependent on the USA in any way. Militarily, our recent arms purchases from the US have been small scale, while we are still sourcing the majority of our weapons from elsewhere, such as China and Europe.
In fact, the PAF is currently assessign what its next generation hi-tech fighter-bomber should be, and is favouring non-American planes because that source of supply has been proven to be unreliable.
Similarly, despite Pakistan's status as a "major non-NATO ally" of the US, Pakistan is not seeking to purchase advanced US weapons and is instead collaborating with China and South Africa on these.
4) Of course Islam is coming back, and there is a lot of evidence that far from being at its most powerful, the USA is actually weakening, and weakening fast. The world will inshallah be a very different place in 30 years. However, there is no point in wrecking it through allowing the only Muslim country with nuclear capability, with the most advanced missile capability, with the most advanced weapons production capability in the Muslim world, to be bombed out!
Now is not the time that a Muslim country can take on the USA in open battle and win. That will come later, inshallah.
I'm not saying that the USA is invincible, but as Vietnam showed, it takes a guerilla war to defeat the USA - which involves letting the USA occupy your country, letting it be in a position where the full force of its arms are unleashed against the civilians of your country. It involves there first being a total bloodbath of your population - which Pakistan prioritised avoiding.
While I agree with ur statement maddy, Im completely against some of musharraf's decision. Let me be clear, that I have nothing against u.
[quote]
*
The problem is the USA acted completely emotionally and irrationally following 9/11. While they would not have attacked Pakistan for the purpose of occupying it like Iraq, they would have attacked not only to take what they needed, logistics bases in Pakistan as transit points for shipping to Afghanistan, but also they would accuse the Kashmiri Mujahideen of being terrorists and go after areas where they are trained.** And we've all seen how "accurate" their bombing is.**
[/quote]
*
Innocent Pakistanis, specially Peshawar & FATA areas would have died. My entire family lives there, but they live in Karachi & Islamabad too, & chances are they would have been victims. I would have been emotionally destroyed. Their accuracy can be judged by the attack they carried out with 40 cruise missiles during nawaz sharif's tenure, & they managed to hit nobody but innocent civilians. We can see now that Pakistani army is a scapegoat & attacking Wana. If the US military was man enough, they would have done it on their own, but truth is that they have more brains & they are fully utilising that power, & using us
[quote]
*
Pakistan's military leadership knows that our army is not designed to, and is not capable of, fighting a modern army. The first outcome of a US attack to take air bases and transport routes, and to attack Kashmiri mujahideen facilities, would be the complete decimation of Pakistan's military forces through air strikes.
[/quote]
*
This would have been only possible if they were in the Gulf seas. I think Jung e Badr would be a good example of how powerful the Almighty's support is. It would have not been the size of the dog in this fight, but the fight in the dog. With severe sanctions on our military activities for a long time, our army does not have the facilities for a very long time, & they still lack the radars or the aircrafts that modern US has. But this does not mean that we cant fight them in the seas.
[quote]
*
The second outcome would not be something planned by the US, but what do you think India would do in Kashmir in 2001 if they saw a visibly weakend Pakistan? Straight away following 9/11 they were lobbying the USA to attack Pakistan, offering basically a military alliance. India's BJP government in 2001 was waiting for Pakistan to be weakened before unleashing their army on Azad Kashmir at least. The initial US attack, and the following Indian invasion. would have been a bloodbath that would make the thousands of martyred innocents in Afghanistan look like childplay.
[/quote]
*
I totally agree on this very strong view. We would have been attacked from the North, from the sea , from the East - all strategic areas. Afghanistan would have been only able to provide ground support. That wouldnt do much good at all. India was even waiting strategically to attack us with the help of Israel before May 1998, but it never happened. They tried to destroy us financially with all those economic sanctions & nawaz sharif regime transferring all the $ overseas with absolutely no check at all. But it never happened.
[quote]
*
Afghanistan is a sparsely populated country of just 25 million, about half of whom live in non-pashtoon areas that readily collaborated with the Americans and escaped bombing. Pakistan's population would be much more hostile to both America and India, Pakistan is much more densely populated with 144 million.
[/quote]
*
Like u said, with their "accurate" bombing, they would have definitely killed innocent Muslims, specially our families. This I would agree 100%, & this would have been emotionally distressing & devastating to all overseas Pakistanis.
[quote]
*
The USA lost in Vietnam, only after 13 years of slaughtering the Vietnamese people - at least 340,000 civilians died, with the Vietnamese government claiming that 4 million civilians died.
Losing to the Japs at Pearl harbour was just one defeat amongst many in a war they won. Pakistan has had military defeats too, that does not mean we're incapable of ever winning a war, because we've had victories too. If we'd supported Afghanistan, our armed forces would be destroyed by air strikes and crusise missiles that we have no ways of fighting back against, our cities would be bombed, our towns would be bombed, our villages would be bombed. And then, in the wake of it all, the Indians would come...
[/quote]
*
Maddy dear only military institutions would have been safe, cities would have been the main targets - Peshawar, Islamabad, Lahore, Karachi, Quetta, like u correctly mentioned. We would have been accused on international media of harboring terrorists in our cities hence the attacks. Since the arabs only support their brother arabs, we would have been left in the dark, but that does not mean, that Allah would have abandoned us. I know I know, u might be thinking that main wohi ek hi baat ko baar baar repeat kar raha hun, but reality is that Allah is our primal fear, not US or India.
[quote]
*
Oh, and I know everyone says "The USA would never attack Pakistan, we have the nuclear bomb". The issue is that we do not have a way to deliver the bomb to any US interest. Our missiles and planes don't go as far as the nearest military base, let alone anywhere where the US would feel threatened.
[/quote]
*
That is y I never mentioned nukes, our missiles are incapable of delivering them to the other end of this world...! It would have deterred India & kept them at bay while we dealt with US.
[quote]
*
The only place we'd be able to use our bomb in the event of a US attack would be inside Pakistan against their forces, and then our Pakistani citizens would have to deal with the radiation poisoning of their bodies that followed.
[/quote]
*
This would have been after all hopes would have been lost. After looking at the recent plots uncovered with a core commander involved in the assasination of musharraf, which went totally wrong, only Allah knows what would have happened with nervous happy fingers behind the nuke triggers...! Total annihilation
[quote]
*
And I agree with your last point. In the name of avenging 9/11, the USA has murdered far more Muslims than were murdered on that day. QUite frankly, I look forward to and pray for the day when the USA falls!
[/QUOTE]
*
With the humiliation Pakistanis have suffered & still are at the hands of INS, FBI, CIA, I would prefer to have fought a war & died in the name of Allah rather than being humiliated day after day. My friend has suffered & so are many innocent Pakistanis.
We have become vulnerable ducks to the US army, specially since they know the inside out of our operations & bases. So now they have an accurate info of each & every base to bomb, if our government is toppled by a mullah government. Every1 knows the US does not like mullahs...& all the mullahs are against musharraf.
We have become more vulnerable today compared 3 years back. I just hope Kashmir is not compromised - a territory which has been an issue for 50+ years...I am not against peace either, but I would love to see it settled, because this would cause a very bitter war. Ever heard - its always calm before the storm. Kashmir has been quite for a very long time.
And for all those who say pehaly Pakistan - the question is if Pakistan means - La ila ha illallah, then what are we defending - Islam or Pakistan?
Musharraf is the first Pakistani leader to surrender Pakistan’s strategic economic assets to foreigners. The wholesale privatisation of the oil, gas and banking sectors has strengthened the control of foreigners over Pakistan’s economy :jhanda:
[video]152.0.5872461.mushfacts.ram[/video]
reply
I just ask one question to those who support the corrupt people, who do u fear ALLAH SWT or a kafir?
Malik,
I’ll come back and address your points another day, since it’s getting late here now.
Furqan,
All the videos, and both the sites you linked, are run by a group called the Hizb-ut-Tahrir than has some, shall we say, “questionable” views. For instance their adherents deny the punishment of the grave. Whilst admittedly they borrow extensively from orthodox Islamic thought, they also have many somewhat unorthodox beliefs too.
Quite frankly, I’d take anything they say with a pinch of salt 
Regarding the privatisation issue, in case national interests are seriously threatened the government can always re-nationalise them. Otherwise, there is significant economic evidence to indicate that most many sectors such as oil, gas and banking can in fact be more effectively run by private businesses than by the state, and thus free up state resources for reallocation to sectors such as defense, education, healthcare, and economic development initiatives.
maddy dear, no problemo. As far as my sources are concerned, I wont be following any hizb tehrir or hizb mujahideen, because statements should be based on facts, not emotions. This is my point of view
maddy: i am not following no groups which u named.... i just based my opinion on my beliefs. :p
Musharaff ki jai ho :D
While I agree with ur statement maddy, Im completely against some of musharraf’s decision. Let me be clear, that I have nothing against u.
I understand
Innocent Pakistanis, specially Peshawar & FATA areas would have died. My entire family lives there, but they live in Karachi & Islamabad too, & chances are they would have been victims. I would have been emotionally destroyed. Their accuracy can be judged by the attack they carried out with 40 cruise missiles during nawaz sharif’s tenure, & they managed to hit nobody but innocent civilians. We can see now that Pakistani army is a scapegoat & attacking Wana. If the US military was man enough, they would have done it on their own, but truth is that they have more brains & they are fully utilising that power, & using us
I’m failing to see the logical step to saying Pakistan army is being a scape in the Wana operation. The Pakistani government believed that elements hostile to Pakistan were present in Wana, and starting from mid-June 2002, paramilitary forces (ethnic Pashtuns from the regions) were deployed to attempt to arrest these elements for questioning. Instead, they were attacked with lethal force (essentially proving the presence of such elements). Surely it is in the interest of the Pakistan to take all measures required to ensure anti-Pakistan activity in the Wana sector is ended? Otherwise, a risk does exist of a kernel of armed opposition exploding into a wider revolt, such as those seen in the early 1950s.
This would have been only possible if they were in the Gulf seas. I think Jung e Badr would be a good example of how powerful the Almighty’s support is. It would have not been the size of the dog in this fight, but the fight in the dog. With severe sanctions on our military activities for a long time, our army does not have the facilities for a very long time, & they still lack the radars or the aircrafts that modern US has. But this does not mean that we cant fight them in the seas.
The sea is where we are even weaker. Our surface ships lack the defensive technology to deal with the US Navy’s currently deployed ship-to-ship weaponry, while our surface ship’s anti-aircraft technology is based on 1970s equipment. Our surface navy is no more effective today than it was in 1971 when it was decimated in port.
There were only 2 vessels in the Pakistan Navy in 2001 that were technologically up to facing the USA - the 2 french Agosta-90 class submarines. Even they would give away their position upon opening fire and have an expected lifespan of a few hours afterwards. Sonar and radar equipment can pinpoint a torpedo or missile launch, and a helicopter or aircraft rapidly deployed to the site within a few minutes to carry out the kill.
Like u said, with their “accurate” bombing, they would have definitely killed innocent Muslims, specially our families. This I would agree 100%, & this would have been emotionally distressing & devastating to all overseas Pakistanis.
It’s not the overseas Pakistanis I’m concerned about. I’m concerned about the ones who would die, and in number that I am convinced would make the number of Afghan shaheeds look tiny. Pakistani population centres are all much more densely populated than in Afghanistan.
Maddy dear only military institutions would have been safe, cities would have been the main targets - Peshawar, Islamabad, Lahore, Karachi, Quetta, like u correctly mentioned. We would have been accused on international media of harboring terrorists in our cities hence the attacks. Since the arabs only support their brother arabs, we would have been left in the dark, but that does not mean, that Allah would have abandoned us. I know I know, u might be thinking that main wohi ek hi baat ko baar baar repeat kar raha hun, but reality is that Allah is our primal fear, not US or India.
Nothing would have been safe. Just like in their attack on Iraq, Pakistani military facilities would have been the first targets to be attacked, because US doctrine adopted after the 1991 attack prioritises destroying the enemy’s military CCI (command and control infrastructure). Taking out military sites would turn the Pakistani army from a single organised fighting force of 500,000 into isolated pockets of a few thousand men unable to coordinate with each other. With the Pakistani army neutralised, then they would turn on the so-called “terrorist” sites in Pakistan - and the real “surgical strikes” massacre begin.
This would have been after all hopes would have been lost.
Umm… so it would be better to condemn Pakistanis to a slow death by radiation poisoning than living under (God-forbid) Indian rule? All hope would never be lost, the last ditch option (which would destroy the country but give a hope of preserving freedom and faith) would be guerilla resistance.
With the humiliation Pakistanis have suffered & still are at the hands of INS, FBI, CIA, I would prefer to have fought a war & died in the name of Allah rather than being humiliated day after day. My friend has suffered & so are many innocent Pakistanis.
Granted Pakistanis get humiliated by the INS, but how by the FBI? Like I said, they are a police force present in Pakistan as advisors to Pakistani police, to fill skills gaps in Pakistan’s police force such as advanced forensic techniques, and to coordinate US and Pakistani police intelligence. Remember, the FBI is the only police force in the USA that can act outside individual states. If the New Jersey police, for instance, believe that a suspected thief is now in Pakistan, they have no jurisdiction to work with Pakistani police on the case. They must hand over the case to the FBI, which as the national police force then works with foreign police forces.
And as for the CIA, people can only speculate what its level of involvement or not is. It certainly has not been visible enough in Pakistan to suggest that it is carrying out any kind of humiliation.
We have become vulnerable ducks to the US army, specially since they know the inside out of our operations & bases. So now they have an accurate info of each & every base to bomb, if our government is toppled by a mullah government. Every1 knows the US does not like mullahs…& all the mullahs are against musharraf.
They knew the location and layout of every single Pakistani base, just as they know the location and layout of every single military base of every single country in the world. The USA did not spend so much money putting spy satellites in space just because they look good - they are constantly surveying military activity in most countries. Most of this information has even been published well before 9/11.
here are the locations of all Pakistan’s special weapons facilities
Since 9/11, the US military has only had access to 4 airbases, which were in fact simply reserve airbases used only for war rather than operational sites. Furthermore, they have had no additional access to Pakistani military facilities or operations, and in particular have been kept out of nuclear and missile related locations.
And for all those who say pehaly Pakistan - the question is if Pakistan means - La ila ha illallah, then what are we defending - Islam or Pakistan?
Pakistan’s actions after 9/11 may have led to the deaths of over 6,000 innocent Muslims in Afghanistan, but I completely believe that it saved the lives of many times that number of Muslims through avoiding a war in Pakistan. Whilst I do truly grieve for our dead brothers and sister in Afghanistan, I also believe that Pakistan had no effective means to prevent their deaths that would not cause the deaths of tens of thousands more Muslims (at the very least) in the process and been ineffective anyway.
In the years after the last of the Sahabah died, Muslim history is full of Muslim armies fighting in righteous causes, but unprepared for the wars they got involved in, suffering defeat after defeat.
From the fall of the Abbasid Khalifat (which was defeated when trying to save Islam’s heartland at the time, Iraq, from the Mongols) to the fall of the Uthmani Khalifat (which fell after losing a war it joined to try and liberate Muslims from horrifically brutal Russian oppression), Muslim armies when underarmed and undertrained for the task have suffered many crushing defeats that led to shocking consequences for the peoples of those lands. The slaughter of Muslims by the Mongols in one case; the complete annihilation of the Khalifat and the forcible imposition of secularism the other.
[/QUOTE]