NEWS:Police Seeks Pakistanis in Egypt Bombings

Egyptian police are searching for six Pakistani nationals that they believe are connected to the deadly bombings in Sharm El-Sheik. They men are believed to be in the age range of 20-30 and their pictures were being shown at various checkpoints around the city. Pakistani involvement would be unprecedented in Egypt and suggest a larger terror network.



If it is not clear yet, Pakistan is a breeding ground for terrorists. Pervez Musharraf may wish to be our ally, but he cannot be when his own population is against him, and his entire government is full of Al-Qaeda sympathizers. If the war on terror was a true and legitimate war, countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia should be facing sanctions and we should be diplomatically hardballing them, however it seems that we prefer to make weapon deals to a country who cannot and will not have Pervez Musharraf as the leader forever.

Related News Links:
icwales.icnetwork.co.uk
news.bbc.co.uk

[edit on 7-25-2005 by worldwatcher]

Musharraf responds:

Musharraf: Al-Qaida Cannot Orchestrate Global Terrorism From Pakistan
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Al-Qaida could not have used Pakistan as a base to orchestrate recent terrorist attacks in London, Egypt or elsewhere because the group's command and communication system has been eliminated, President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said Monday.
His comments followed reports that Egyptian police are looking for six Pakistanis in connection with the deadly weekend bombings in the resort of Sharm el-Sheik.

Musharraf told journalists in the eastern city of Lahore that al-Qaida "sanctuaries" in Pakistan's rugged tribal regions have been overrun and security forces have captured 700 of its fighters.

I think Musharraf is in denial, basically he has to say this, but it's obvious that many of these terrorists have committed attacks following visits to Pakistan and many are Pakistani nationals.

I have always had the impression, that Musharaff has told the US what he thinks they want to hear, but isn't really as concerned as he pretends, about Al Qaeda. If Pakistan was as eager as they claim, to stamp out the terrorism that is rampant in that country, we would be seeing much more action and much less talk from them.

[edit on 7/25/2005 by lightseeker]

what worries me, is that Pervez Musharraf cannot be the leader of Pakistan forever, and when he is no longer leader, all the weapon deals we made, all the technology shared, etc with Pakistan will be under the control of someone perhaps a bit more radical than we would like.

Currently US forces cannot go into Pakistan and they refuse to allow us to be part of "their" hunt for terrorists. If Musharraf was really serious in keeping us as an ally, he would push the boundaries with his people now, before it is too late. Sure he might have an uprising, but if he did, he could then turn to us for support, by not addressing the issue in his country, he is only delaying the inevitable, which will be hostile relations between US and Pakistan.

Yeah Pakistan is a training ground for terrorists, and Pakistans outer colony of Great Britain.

I think you'll find Musharraf does have motivation for routing Al-Qaeda in Pakistan. They have repeatedly tried to assassinate him. I'd say getting rid of AQ is pretty high on his agenda.

Whether or not he is suceeding is another matter. When he says that AQ's command and control structure has been destroyed in Pakistan I do not believe him. First, how can you ever state with 100% accuracy you have destroyed an ideology? Its impossible. Second, AQ doesnt have a command and control structure! Al-Qaeda is a loosely affiliated banner organisation for attacking the West. There is no bunker where Bin Laden directs all the attacks carried out in Al-Qaeda's name. Disparate terrorist organisations attribute their attacks to Al-Qaeda, AQ does not orchestrate them.

Musharraf is merely trying to big-note himself and garner more support from the Americans. If he (a military dictator) can be shown to be a sucessful model for erradicating terrorism then what does that say to the democratic World? After all he criticised Britains adherence to human rights and civil rights as being soft on terrorists and allowing them safe haven. Should we install our very own military dictator and follow Pakistan's supposed victory against that ominipotent spectre, Al-Qaeda? Dont make me laugh.

[edit on 25/7/05 by subz]

heh, AQ only wants to get rid of him and vice versa because they're in competition for "top dawg". Personal power again the reality here.

subz:

rather than get nailed for "excessive quoting"..

sadly what you posit is what the terrorists strongly desire. It's not about Iraqi "liberation", or even a moral fight. It's about forcing a change that fits into the extremist point of view. A dictatorship is easily dealt since you only have to bribe or corrupt a single individual, and the whole nation is weakened by having one response. Perfect for winning the game played by certain old families that can trace their royal power and world-ruling ambitions back to the Persian Empire.

This is the problem with terrorism and why civilized nations severely curtail the activities of their intelligence arms. Terrorists exist by exploiting the freedoms of their target-the freer the people, the more damage to be done. The freedom of pres and speech are manipulated to become their most powerful weapons of control. Never for a second believe that a Media unfettered by Government is actually uncontrolled by other, more insidious interests.

Sad thing is, the Pakistani's are correct. Saddam only restrained the "insurgent" element by such horrible measures (contrary to the Partisanistas, increased Iraqi "insurgency" is only caused by America releasing the control, not by their occupation).

However, "correct" doesn't mean "right". Terrorists are like a cancer. They use the body's own tissues against it, while avoiding the defenses by disguising themselves. Surgery works when the cancer is contained and caught early. Terrorism must be caught early. Otherwise, radical treatments that permanently damage the patient are used.

Unfortunately, unlike cancer, terrorism kills the body and survives to move on to damage others. Almost more like AIDS.

The only solution I see, is anopposite approach. Instead of giving power to government agencies and police and such, why not enable the people themselves to protect themselves? Give them *more* freedoms, even ones that scare the self-absorbed, the elite, the comfortable,and the powerful. Something more on the "titor-ish" decentralized, well armed, even clan-ish society.

Sure it leads to an uncomfortable chaos, but it also makes it very tough for a terrorist to come in, make bombs, and kill some people. It makes it very hard for their support network" to get away with it. And doesn't require a massive Big Brother agency suppressing everyone's freedoms.

However, such a society also has "downfalls". Much harder to become uber-rich, hard to enforce monopolies, hard to control people when the Media is not homogenized. Much harder to become "in control of it all".

Which upsets many of those who claim to desire "freedom" but are actually just seeking to eliminate one power structure and install their own-with them and theirs at the top.

[edit on 26-7-2005 by Phugedaboudet]