A Question about Pakistan's Musharraf "Terrorist or not?"

Ok now my understanding what that the Pakastani ISI created and 'controlled' the Taliban. The connections between ISI and AL Qaeda are not in doubt here.

This is where I get confused, the 911 report said that Musharraf was giving a ultimatum to either join the US in the war against terror or become a target of it. I thought he made the right choice.

Or did he? I ran across this page and I do not really know if it can be even considered possible. I mean fake assasinations on yourself? The Libya connection seems to have some merit though.



What are your thoughts on this article?

Who is planning the retaliatory attacks over Afghanistan and Iraq, using dirty or chem /bio weapons on continental US at this very time, who literally controls the terror groups behind it?

[edit on 13-11-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 14-11-2004 by edsinger]

Does anyone have any links or information that could colaborate this article or something that debunks the website?

These are pretty serious allegations against an ally in the war on Terror.

EDIT: Well I think it must be crap , becuase it says Pakistan has 25,000 tanks. That is BS for sure...

[edit on 14-11-2004 by edsinger]

I happened onto this before I even read your post. I had saved it to read more on it and hope that it helps you with what you are asking about. It is interesting and something I really had no idea about until I came across it.

www.newyorker.com...

Originally posted by grandmatia
I happened onto this before I even read your post. I had saved it to read more on it and hope that it helps you with what you are asking about. It is interesting and something I really had no idea about until I came across it.

www.newyorker.com...

Thanks I am reading it and so far I would say this is good stuff.

Spring offensive INSIDE Pakistan? Wow!

From that link that was absolutely a GREAT one:

Robert Gallucci, a former United Nations weapons inspector who is now dean of the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, calls A. Q. Khan �the Johnny Appleseed� of the nuclear-arms race. Gallucci, who is a consultant to the C.I.A. on proliferation issues, told me, �Bad as it is with Iran, North Korea, and Libya having nuclear-weapons material, the worst part is that they could transfer it to a non-state group. That�s the biggest concern, and the scariest thing about all this�that Pakistan could work with the worst terrorist groups on earth to build nuclear weapons. There�s nothing more important than stopping terrorist groups from getting nuclear weapons. The most dangerous country for the United States now is Pakistan, and second is Iran.� Gallucci went on, �We haven�t been this vulnerable since the British burned Washington in 1814.�


Wow it seems that we have a bit more of a problem than we thought in the middle east.

The date of Issue of 2004-03-08 makes me wonder what we havent been told since?

This article was disturbing to say the least.

Interesting now with him having a book that says we threatened his nation. I would really like to know what the answer is, personally I do not trust him.

Think about it, the US is covering its bases, notice the warming relations with India?


Case and point:

Pakistan's intelligence agency was behind the train blasts in Mumbai in July that killed 186 people, Indian police say.
The attacks were planned by the ISI and carried out by the Islamist militant group Lashkar-e-Toiba, based in Pakistan, Mumbai's police chief said.

Pakistan 'role in Mumbai attacks

[edit on 30-9-2006 by edsinger]

Unfortunately all govts who envision their countries to be regional players in the near future, have engaged in 'acts of terror' (like the Mumbai bomb blasts).
Musharraf isn't a psychotic fundamentalist hell bent on ridding the infidels etc. etc..
He is a military man, calculating and only doing things that he perceives will benefit Pakistan.
So one cannot view his actions vis-a-vis India in the same perception as one would view it vis-a-vis Afghanistan or the US.
Musharraf's anti-terror stand w.r.t. Afghanistan and Pakistan is purely pressure driven. His whole command structure is too deeply infested with more religious/fanatic factions for him to take the US stance purely on a moral basis. Also obviously he cannot oppose the American stance as it will put his country at a risk of being a trampling ground for any offensive against Al-Qaeda(read: "we will bomb you back to the stone age").
Now his views against India are completely disjoint and Musharraf strives that the west(mainly the US) see his actions against India(bomb blasts, insurgency ops etc. etc.)in a different context and not in line with the 'war on terror'.
Why is this? It is the core of every Pakistani military man's ethos: India must be made to suffer. India must be made to pay for the division of Pakistan (war of 1971). So Musharraf continues, HAS to continue carrying out all possible operations against India to try and destabilise that country. He sees it as his duty being a Pakistani military man.Indeed all Pakistani military men will!
It is upto the US to see this game Musharraf plays through-n-through.

Eradicating terror and Al-Qaeda in Pakistan/Afghanistan? --> allowable for Musharraf
Peace with India?--> inconceivable for Musharraf!

After all, Musharraf was the mastermind of Kargil!

it all depends on the prospective to some he is a terrorist and a dicator others a great leader and so forth just like almost all other leaders example, your president
to a large number of people in the world bush is seen as a dim wited idiot that has only one thing on his agenda which is war and so forth.

Musharraf is walking a tightrope between the militants and the more secular elements in his country.

The ISI is full of militant Islamists that are sympathetic to the Taliban. Since they basically created them with help from Saudi intelligence, evolving from the anti-Soviet forces, we just bank rolled it basically and let the Pakistani ISI run with it and forge their own agenda.

Steve Coll's "Ghost Wars", tells all about it, from the Soviet invasion up till Sept 10th, 2001

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Now his views against India are completely disjoint and Musharraf strives that the west(mainly the US) see his actions against India(bomb blasts, insurgency ops etc. etc.)in a different context and not in line with the 'war on terror'.
Why is this? It is the core of every Pakistani military man's ethos: India must be made to suffer. India must be made to pay for the division of Pakistan (war of 1971). So Musharraf continues, HAS to continue carrying out all possible operations against India to try and destabilise that country. He sees it as his duty being a Pakistani military man.Indeed all Pakistani military men will!
It is upto the US to see this game Musharraf plays through-n-through.

Eradicating terror and Al-Qaeda in Pakistan/Afghanistan? --> allowable for Musharraf
Peace with India?--> inconceivable for Musharraf!

After all, Musharraf was the mastermind of Kargil!

I'm not to sure about this point of view. Nonwithstanding what he actually might be doing, Musharraf is trying his best to always be showing how he's looking for peace, discussion, etc., and it's always India that's holding that up, eg: Newspapers accross Pakistan today "Kashmir Talks Held Up Till Eid Due To Mumbai Bombing Accusations".

It's not only the militants and seculars he's walking a tightrope between. He has to appease the US (who believe he's aiding terrorists), but not too much, because he has to appease the Pakistani masses (who believe he's sucking up to the Americans). He has to appease the the progressive element in his country, as well as the Humanitarian effort worldwide, but he also has to appease the extremist element of Islam. It's no surprise that almost everyone in Pakistan (not to mention outside it) hates him. The publication of his book has only aggravated matters by making him appear like some money-hungry opportunist.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by babloyi]

Originally posted by babloyi

I'm not to sure about this point of view. Nonwithstanding what he actually might be doing, Musharraf is trying his best to always be showing how he's looking for peace, discussion, etc., and it's always India that's holding that up, eg: Newspapers accross Pakistan today "Kashmir Talks Held Up Till Eid Due To Mumbai Bombing Accusations".

Yes yes, and the US got into serious political discussions and diplomacy with the Afghani's after 9/11??

Why the double standards?? The US can unilaterally declare war on 2 countries (and 1 of them didnt even have anything to do with the terror network) and if India wants to delay secretary level talks then it is holding things up

It's not only the militants and seculars he's walking a tightrope between. He has to appease the US (who believe he's aiding terrorists), but not too much, because he has to appease the Pakistani masses (who believe he's sucking up to the Americans). He has to appease the the progressive element in his country, as well as the Humanitarian effort worldwide, but he also has to appease the extremist element of Islam. It's no surprise that almost everyone in Pakistan (not to mention outside it) hates him.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by babloyi]

You give him less credit than he deserves. Musharraf is a lot smarter than that. He pretends to help the americans while supplying information to the extremists about where the US is going to strike.

The Pakistani masses, contrary to popular belief, have absolutely no problem with the Americans. The Pakistani masses are made up of moderate muslims who believe in living a simple life in accordance with Allah's will. The only thing that riles them up is Kashmir & the Indian State, and that too because Pakistani politicians have over the years conditioned them so. If an Indian 'individual' goes to Pakistan, he/she receives more love and affection than he does at home from his family (or vice-versa)

Musharraf has not done ONE thing in his years as President to appease the 'progressive' element of his country. If anything, he seems to be quite backword in his world view.

He has to appease the extremist elements because he needs for them his proxy war against India

The publication of his book has only aggravated matters by making him appear like some money-hungry opportunist.

That is because he is one

Originally posted by babloyi

I'm not to sure about this point of view. Nonwithstanding what he actually might be doing.....

Ah.. But I am ONLY stressing on what is actually happening.
words are only for the consumption of the masses..
And the holding up of talks by India is purely because India feels it cannot talk to a governing body that is not interested in peace; i.e. allows its territory to be used for training terrorists and infact funds/assists and masterminds the terror attacks itself.
Cross border terrorism in India is of the early 90s vintage. Much older than any of the american experiences.
Also here's another thing I'd like to note:

There was a serious move towards peace just a few months before the Kargil War when the Indian PM travelled to Pakistan inaugarating a new bus service between the two nations. He and Nawaz Sharif (the Pak PM then) shook hands, hugged even..
but there was a odd anamoly that we all noticied:
None of th 3 Army chiefs were present and when meeting the PM later, they refused to even shake hands with the Indian PM. All this happened when Musharraf(then Chief of Army Staff) was in the final stages of setting up the Kargil operation.
Fast forward a few months and lo! :
India caught on the backfoot by loads of well supplied, well armed, well entrenched militants/Pak Army regulars(Northern Light Infantry) in Kashmir.
If you ask me that was a metaphorical slap on the Peace Process and on India.

India is holding up the peace process is only because there can be no credible peace process w/o cessation of hostilities.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by Daedalus3]

Having said all of the above, I just read the article linked in the pilot post of this thread, and I found it to be rather extreme..
But I can vouch for the Kashmiri terrorist groups mentioned in it.. 100% accurate

Originally posted by puneetsg
You give him less credit than he deserves. Musharraf is a lot smarter than that. He pretends to help the americans while supplying information to the extremists about where the US is going to strike.

But you prove my point. One thing I can say about Musharraf is that he is certainly against the extremists. That India would not wish to believe that, because he is a military man and his operation in Kargil is neither here nore there. Musharraf definitely does not support terrorism, either in Afghanistan or in India, although as Daedalus said, most Pakistanis consider this to be because of his sucking up to the American Govt, and not any ingrained sense of morality against the terrorists.

Originally posted by puneetsg
The Pakistani masses, contrary to popular belief, have absolutely no problem with the Americans. The Pakistani masses are made up of moderate muslims who believe in living a simple life in accordance with Allah's will. The only thing that riles them up is Kashmir & the Indian State, and that too because Pakistani politicians have over the years conditioned them so. If an Indian 'individual' goes to Pakistan, he/she receives more love and affection than he does at home from his family (or vice-versa)

No entire 'people' can hate an entire other people, be it Indians, or Americans or whatever. However, most Pakistanis probably do not have any feelings of love towards Bush. About the Indians, again, it's probably the government (or some parts of it), and not the people, that draw hatred. While it may be true what you say about Pakistani feeling towards Kashmir, the same could be said about Indian feeling towards Kashmir . That is probably why it's taken so many years, and still no solution in sight.

Originally posted by puneetsg
Musharraf has not done ONE thing in his years as President to appease the 'progressive' element of his country. If anything, he seems to be quite backword in his world view.

Again, most Pakistanis would disagree with you, and with Musharraf's thing for 'enlightened moderation', telling him to take it back to the American Govt. from whence it came. While most Pakistani's are moderate, they generally dislike having the American view of what is 'wrong' and 'right' pushed on them.


Daedalus, what I meant about not being sure about that point of view was when you mentioned Musharrafs different point of view towards India. You said that he strives to show his actions against India to be seperate from the War On Terror. What I was trying to say is that Musharraf does not support any "bomb blasts, insurgency ops, etc, etc," against India, and infact, condemns them, just like he condemned the recent Mumbai blasts. He certainly doesn't take credit for them, or try to justify them in anyone's eyes (least of all America). Also, you mentioned "all military men making it their duty to make India pay for the division of Pakistan. The division of Pakistan, at least at this point in time, is a non-issue for most Pakistanis (military or not). While they may hold India responsible for that, it's more about Kashmir than about taking revenge for Bangladesh.

[edit on 5-10-2006 by babloyi]

Originally posted by babloyi
But you prove my point. One thing I can say about Musharraf is that he is certainly against the extremists. That India would not wish to believe that, because he is a military man and his operation in Kargil is neither here nore there. Musharraf definitely does not support terrorism, either in Afghanistan or in India, although as Daedalus said, most Pakistanis consider this to be because of his sucking up to the American Govt, and not any ingrained sense of morality against the terrorists.

Musharraf is against extremists that challenge his authority over the Pakistani State. He is against extremists that threaten to become power centres and hold the ability in the future to cause problems for him. He is all for extremism which works within the state mechanism (ISI etc). He definatly does provide passive support to terror (as have successive regimes in Pakistan) by enabling the organisations to function, in one guise or another. Many would even argue for his ACTIVE support to the terror network, but that is controversial and we shall not stray there

Originally posted by babloyi
No entire 'people' can hate an entire other people, be it Indians, or Americans or whatever. However, most Pakistanis probably do not have any feelings of love towards Bush. About the Indians, again, it's probably the government (or some parts of it), and not the people, that draw hatred. While it may be true what you say about Pakistani feeling towards Kashmir, the same could be said about Indian feeling towards Kashmir

. That is probably why it's taken so many years, and still no solution in sight.

Again you are missing the point here. Most Pakistani's are NOT extremists by any measure of the word. True they probably are not brimming with love for Bush but they do not have any feelings of hostility towards the american public.

And another point here is that the Indian feeling towards Kashmir is nowhere the same as Pakistan. A simple example of this is that Indian view of Pakistan is not 'kashmir-centric', while Pakistan hinges all movement and developments with regard to India on the Kashmir issue. A study of the content of Indian & Pakistani newspapers for a period of a month should show you what i mean.

Originally posted by babloyi
Again, most Pakistanis would disagree with you, and with Musharraf's thing for 'enlightened moderation', telling him to take it back to the American Govt. from whence it came. While most Pakistani's are moderate, they generally dislike having the American view of what is 'wrong' and 'right' pushed on them.

And i suppose his actions and words regarding the rape of the Pakistani tribal woman were forward. Although i must agree that no country would like anyone else's views thrust on them, the point here is that, till recently, the American and Pakistani view point was compatible on many an issue.

Originally posted by babloyi
Daedalus, what I meant about not being sure about that point of view was when you mentioned Musharrafs different point of view towards India. You said that he strives to show his actions against India to be seperate from the War On Terror. What I was trying to say is that Musharraf does not support any "bomb blasts, insurgency ops, etc, etc," against India, and infact, condemns them, just like he condemned the recent Mumbai blasts. He certainly doesn't take credit for them, or try to justify them in anyone's eyes (least of all America). Also, you mentioned "all military men making it their duty to make India pay for the division of Pakistan. The division of Pakistan, at least at this point in time, is a non-issue for most Pakistanis (military or not). While they may hold India responsible for that, it's more about Kashmir than about taking revenge for Bangladesh.

But he does try and justify it. And has done so several times. He makes regular statements in the press that "Unless the Kashmir issue is solved, the terror attacks cannot be stopped" or something to the like. What he is trying to do is put the spin of "Kashmiri freedom fighters" on terror attacks that occur in India. I think that is what DD was trying to say. He tries to de-link the attacks on India from the international terror network.

Also kashmir is nothing but pay-back. Plain and simple. Bangladesh is still a sore point within the military establishment. It is not about the fact that Bangladesh was split from Pakistan, but about the fact that India was responsible for it. I know it seems ridiculous but that is the way it is. Think of the 2 countries as siblings. "If I dont get it, he doesnt get to have it either!!" kinda mentality.

Originally posted by edsinger


What are your thoughts on this article?

Who is planning the retaliatory attacks over Afghanistan and Iraq, using dirty or chem /bio weapons on continental US at this very time, who literally controls the terror groups behind it?

i sense the article .....and perhaps the website....is a 'mouthpiece' for the C.I.A.


Musharraf is a military person, loyal to his Pakistan,
he seems to have a knack of learning quickly to be the politician & diplomat,
but he has a Pakistan-First ideology & strategic roadmap.
?is there such a thing as a Pakastani-zionist??
which might be the real cousin to the charge that he is a Nazi-influenced-Pakistani

Originally posted by babloyi
Daedalus, what I meant about not being sure about that point of view was when you mentioned Musharrafs different point of view towards India. You said that he strives to show his actions against India to be seperate from the War On Terror. What I was trying to say is that Musharraf does not support any "bomb blasts, insurgency ops, etc, etc," against India, and infact, condemns them, just like he condemned the recent Mumbai blasts. He certainly doesn't take credit for them, or try to justify them in anyone's eyes (least of all America). Also, you mentioned "all military men making it their duty to make India pay for the division of Pakistan. The division of Pakistan, at least at this point in time, is a non-issue for most Pakistanis (military or not). While they may hold India responsible for that, it's more about Kashmir than about taking revenge for Bangladesh.

[edit on 5-10-2006 by babloyi]

Well according to me it is very much linked and I could write pages of posts supporting the same, but that would be mostly a 'beating one's chest' type of feat.
Maybe we could approach this another way:
Instead of me vomiting loads of information which might seem quite boring and maybe terribly biased, maybe you could share information which supports your beliefs and then I could give my views on that(with supporting information of course).
Musharraf is a very interesting man and maybe this is the thread to unravel it all:
From all perspectives: western,Indian etc etc..
Hope we can make progress here.

P.S: What I meant to say by 'strives to differentiate', was that Musharraf wants the world to look at what happens in India(Mainly Kashmir) as more of a freedom struggle than a front on the war on terror.

[edit on 9-10-2006 by Daedalus3]

Me quoting myself from anohter thread:

And another source.

If your read it well enough, its easy to conclude that the assistance provided was not by a 'renegade' A Q Khan himself, but actually a eapons exchange f\program fully endorsed by the government, and the military most notably Musharraf himself.

Very interesting man indeed.

Originally posted by edsinger
Does anyone have any links or information that could colaborate this article or something that debunks the website?

These are pretty serious allegations against an ally in the war on Terror.

EDIT: Well I think it must be crap , becuase it says Pakistan has 25,000 tanks. That is BS for sure...

[edit on 14-11-2004 by edsinger]

NATO are angry with Pakistan for arming and helping Taliban / Jihadi elements in Afghanistan, the ISI admits to having helped Kashmiri "freedom fighters" in the past and India has made serious allegations about Pakistani involvement in both the attacks on the Indian parliament (which nearly led to war) and the Mumbai train bombings.

In addition a report here in UK made further allegations about Pakistan and in particular the ISI.

No claims about mega terror attacks over xmas tho.

Any of the above can be sourced from any MSM in the UK - try The Times

Just found this on another Site

www.timesonline.co.uk...

From the link

"The evidence compiled by American, Nato and Afghan intelligence includes satellite pictures and videos of training camps for Taliban soldiers and suicide bombers inside Pakistan".

And

"Captured Taliban fighters and failed suicide bombers have confirmed that they were trained by the Pakistani intelligence service, known as the ISI. The information includes an address in Quetta where Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, is said to live".