Pakistan flood crisis raises fears of country's collapse

[Turborama]

Source: McClatchy

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The humanitarian and economic disaster caused by the worst floods in Pakistan's history could spark political unrest that could destabilize the government, dealing a major blow to the Obama administration's efforts to fight violent Islamic extremism.

The government's shambling response to floods that have affected a third of the country has some analysts saying that President Asif Ali Zardari could be forced from office, possibly by the military, which has ruled Pakistan for more than half its 63-year history.

Other experts caution that the state itself could collapse, as hunger and destitution trigger explosions of popular anger that was already seething over massive unemployment, high fuel prices, widespread power outages, corruption, and a bloody insurgency by extremists allied with al Qaida.

"The powers that be, that is the military and bureaucratic establishment, are mulling the formation of a national government, with or without the PPP (Zardari's ruling Pakistan Peoples Party)," said Najam Sethi, the editor of the weekly Friday Times. "I know this is definitely being discussed. There is a perception in the army that you need good governance to get out of the economic crisis and there is no good governance," he said.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/08/13/99180/pakistan-flood-crisis-raises-fears.html

---

Source:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10961640

Collation of inks to the related articles posted in LBN here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8938574&mesg_id=8939040

Link to Sabrina's excellent thread that's well worth reading and K&R'ing: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8938574

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FirstLight]

3. that article reminds me of something...

the maps being re-drawn... it's like "RISK", isn't it...?

'cept it's real lives they are affecting and people they are relabeling and livelihoods they are destroying, and resources they are stealing, and children they are orhpaning...

all in the name of Liberty,

garnering for potition between Iran, India and China...

:puke:
all in the name of greed, really

[Turborama]

4. It's a 9/11 conspiracy theory website

That has speculated on "contingency plans" back in 2007.

[FirstLight]

5. well, it's pretty bad...

I guess I am clueless cuz i got sucked right ini.,..that actually looked pretty viable. Considering the roles we've had in Egypt, Iraq, Israel...not to mention Nicaragua, etc...
the us is pretty good at puppet govts and causing others to fall when it's convenient.

I hate that i actually can think that my own govt is that shady, but ya, they ARE.

[Turborama]

6. The US *has been* pretty good at puppet govts and causing others to fall when it's convenient

But I wouldn't accuse Obama's administration of being the same as the previous maladministration.

Again, that conspiracy theory article was posted in 2007, during the time of the Busch junta.

[OhioChick]

2. Rec n/t

[sabrina 1]

7. Aside from the immediate humanitarian

tragedy unfolding in Pakistan, the collapse of the state is another reason why this is such an important story.

Already, extremist groups have stepped up to help with rescue efforts making the government look bad since their early efforts were so ineffective. And people who are desperate are not going to say no to anyone who is willing to help them.

This truly is a potentially devastating catastrophe for more than just Pakistan. Which is why I do not understand why the rest of the world is not doing everything it can to provide the needed help and back the government before the military takes over once again.

[Turborama]

10. I really don't understand why so few people seem to understand what you have so succinctly explained

Maybe it's because it's so far away from where they live? Maybe it's because Anderson Cooper isn't there? Maybe it's a lack of lateral thinking? Maybe they simply just don't care?

[OhioChick]

11. I think it's all of the above...

However, I believe that many just don't care.

[sabrina 1]

19. If it's not being covered on TV here, then that is why people assume

it is not that important imo. If Anderson Cooper were to go there, interest would increase.

But thinking of the possible ramifications of a collapse of the government there and a military or worse, militant takeover, supplies to the NATO forces in Afghanistan could be cut off. The U.S. and its allies I'm sure are aware of this possibility. In my post below, I wondered if the NATO forces might move into Pakistan expanding the war to prevent a takeover and to protect their own interests there

I wonder if the U.S. has any plans or if they are just waiting to see how things develop. And while the situation remains this unstable, maybe they do not want too much news coverage here in the U.S.? Just speculating of course.

I think people probably care about the innocent victims, but a lot of people have no idea how important Pakistan is to the U.S. at this point.

And then there's India .. it is truly a mess and will take some brilliant strategy to keep things under control while at the same time, helping the people who are likely to be starving before very long.

[cosmicone]

12. Military is always in charge in Pakistan ....

the civilian government has never had any power after the demise of Jinnah.

The unfortunate apathy is because Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism ... just the other day ISI was caught red handed, using Dawood Ibrahim's gang to funnel money to maoists in India to create mayhem. They could use the money and infrastructure used in creating terror networks for humanitarian purposes. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/ISI-using-D-company-in-bid-to-tap-Naxalites/articleshow/6307929.cms

The other reason for the apathy is Pakistan has been known to divert foreign aid for strengthening military instead of helping people. Read Musharraf's memoirs and how the aid for the 2005 earthquake was used to buy military hardware.

People sometimes don't want to be fooled again and again.

However, help MUST reach the people by alternate means -- like NGOs and international charity organizations like Red Cross.

[OhioChick]

13. "Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism"

India has it's fair share....

India - Terrorist, insurgent and extremist groups

Assam

United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA)
National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB)
United People's Democratic Solidarity (UPDS)
Kamtapur Liberation Organisation (KLO)
Bodo Liberation Tiger Force (BLTF)
Dima Halim Daogah (DHD)
Karbi National Volunteers (KNV)
Rabha National Security Force (RNSF)
Koch-Rajbongshi Liberation Organisation (KRLO)
Hmar People's Convention- Democracy (HPC-D)
Karbi People's Front (KPF)
Tiwa National Revolutionary Force (TNRF)
Bircha Commando Force (BCF)
Bengali Tiger Force (BTF)
Adivasi Security Force (ASF)
All Assam Adivasi Suraksha Samiti (AAASS)
Gorkha Tiger Force (GTF)
Barak Valley Youth Liberation Front (BVYLF)
Muslim United Liberation Tigers of Assam (MULTA)
United Liberation Front of Barak Valley
Muslim United Liberation Front of Assam (MULFA)
Muslim Security Council of Assam (MSCA)
United Liberation Militia of Assam (ULMA)
Islamic Liberation Army of Assam (ILAA)
Muslim Volunteer Force (MVF)
Muslim Liberation Army (MLA)
Muslim Security Force (MSF)
Islamic Sevak Sangh (ISS)
Islamic United Reformation Protest of India (IURPI)
United Muslim Liberation Front of Assam (UMLFA)
Revolutionary Muslim Commandos (RMC)
Muslim Tiger Force (MTF)
People’s United Liberation Front (PULF)
Adam Sena (AS)
Harkat-ul-Mujahideen
Harkat-ul-Jehad

Jammu & Kashmir

Terrorist Outfits
Lashkar-e-Omar (LeO)
Hizb-ul-Mujahideen (HM)
Harkat-ul-Ansar (HuA, presently known as Harkat-ul Mujahideen)
Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT)
Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM)
Harkat-ul Mujahideen (HuM, previously known as Harkat-ul-Ansar)
Al Badr
Jamait-ul-Mujahideen (JuM)
Lashkar-e-Jabbar (LeJ)
Harkat-ul-Jehad-i-Islami
Al Barq
Tehrik-ul-Mujahideen
Al Jehad
Jammu & Kashir National Liberation Army
People’s League
Muslim Janbaz Force
Kashmir Jehad Force
Al Jehad Force (combines Muslim Janbaz Force and Kashmir Jehad Force)
Al Umar Mujahideen
Mahaz-e-Azadi
Islami Jamaat-e-Tulba
Jammu & Kashmir Students Liberation Front
Ikhwan-ul-Mujahideen
Islamic Students League
Tehrik-e-Hurriat-e-Kashmir
Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Fiqar Jafaria
Al Mustafa Liberation Fighters
Tehrik-e-Jehad-e-Islami
Muslim Mujahideen
Al Mujahid Force
Tehrik-e-Jehad
Islami Inquilabi Mahaz

Other Extremist and Secessionist Groups

Mutahida Jehad Council (MJC) -- A Pakistan based coordination body of terrorist outfits active in Jammu and Kashmir
Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF)-- The dominant faction of this outfit declared a ceasefire in 1994 which still holds and the outfit restricts itself to a political struggle.
All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) -- an alliance engineered by Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) of 26 diverse political and socio-religious outfits amalgamated to provide a political face for the terrorists in the State.
Dukhtaran-e-Millat (DeM) -- an outfit run by women which uses community pressure to further the social norms dictated by Islamic fundamental groups.


Manipur

United National Liberation Front (UNLF)
People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK)
The above mentioned three groups now operate from a unified platform, the Manipur People’s Liberation Front (MPLF)
Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP)
Kanglei Yawol Kanna Lup (KYKL)
Manipur Liberation Tiger Army (MLTA)
Iripak Kanba Lup (IKL)
People’s Republican Army (PRA)
Kangleipak Kanba Kanglup (KKK)
Kangleipak Liberation Organisation (KLO)
Revolutionary Joint Committee (RJC)
National Socialist Council of Nagaland -- Isak-Muivah (NSCN-IM)
People’s United Liberation Front (PULF)
North East Minority Front (NEMF)
Islamic National Front (INF)
Islamic Revolutionary Front (IRF)
United Islamic Liberation Army (UILA)
United Islamic Revolutionary Army (UIRA)
Kuki National Front (KNF)
Kuki National Army (KNA)
Kuki Revolutionary Army (KRA)
Kuki National Organisation (KNO)
Kuki Independent Army (KIA)
Kuki Defence Force (KDF)
Kuki International Force (KIF)
Kuki National Volunteers (KNV)
Kuki Liberation Front (KLF)
Kuki Security Force (KSF)
Kuki Liberation Army (KLA)
Kuki Revolutionary Front (KRF)
United Kuki Liberation Front (UKLF)
Hmar People’s Convention (HPC)
Hmar People's Convention- Democracy (HPC-D)
Hmar Revolutionary Front (HRF)
Zomi Revolutionary Army (ZRA)
Zomi Revolutionary Volunteers (ZRV)
Indigenous People's Revolutionary Alliance(IRPA)
Kom Rem People's Convention (KRPC)
Chin Kuki Revolutionary Front (CKRF)

Meghalaya

Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council (HNLC)
Achik National Volunteer Council (ANVC)
People’s Liberation Front of Meghalaya (PLF-M)
Hajong United Liberation Army (HULA)

Nagaland

National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak-Muivah) – NSCN(IM)
National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Khaplang) – NSCN (K)
Naga National Council (Adino) – NNC (Adino)

Punjab

Babbar Khalsa International (BKI)
Khalistan Zindabad Force (KZF)
International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF)
Khalistan Commando Force (KCF)
All-India Sikh Students Federation (AISSF)
Bhindrawala Tigers Force of Khalistan (BTFK)
Khalistan Liberation Army (KLA)
Khalistan Liberation Front (KLF)
Khalistan Armed Force (KAF)
Dashmesh Regiment
Khalistan Liberation Organisation (KLO)
Khalistan National Army (KNA)

Tripura

National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT)
All Tripura Tiger Force (ATTF)
Tripura Liberation Organisation Front (TLOF)
United Bengali Liberation Front (UBLF)
Tripura Tribal Volunteer Force (TTVF)
Tripura Armed Tribal Commando Force (TATCF)
Tripura Tribal Democratic Force (TTDF)
Tripura Tribal Youth Force (TTYF)
Tripura Liberation Force (TLF)
Tripura Defence Force (TDF)
All Tripura Volunteer Force (ATVF)
Tribal Commando Force (TCF)
Tripura Tribal Youth Force (TTYF)
All Tripura Bharat Suraksha Force (ATBSF)
Tripura Tribal Action Committee Force (TTACF)
Socialist Democratic Front of Tripura (SDFT)
All Tripura National Force (ATNF)
Tripura Tribal Sengkrak Force (TTSF)
Tiger Commando Force (TCF)
Tripura Mukti Police (TMP)
Tripura Rajya Raksha Bahini (TRRB)
Tripura State Volunteers (TSV)
Tripura National Democratic Tribal Force (TNDTF)
National Militia of Tripura (NMT)
All Tripura Bengali Regiment (ATBR)
Bangla Mukti Sena (BMS)
All Tripura Liberation Organisation (ATLO)
Tripura National Army (TNA)
Tripura State Volunteers (TSV)
Borok National Council of Tripura (BNCT)

Mizoram
Bru National Liberation Front
Hmar People's Convention- Democracy (HPC-D)

Arunachal Pradesh
Arunachal Dragon Force (ADF)

Left-wing Extremist groups

Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist)
People's War Group
Maoist Communist Centre
People's Guerrilla Army
Communist Party of India-Marxist Leninist-Janashakti(CPI-ML-Janashakti)
Tritiya Prastuti Committee (TPC)

Other Extremist Groups

Tamil National Retrieval Troops (TNRT)
Akhil Bharat Nepali Ekta Samaj (ABNES)
Tamil Nadu Liberation Army (TNLA)
Deendar Anjuman
Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI)
Asif Reza Commando Force
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
Kamatapur Liberation Organisation (KLO)
Ranvir Sena


http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/terroristoutfits/index.html

[cosmicone]

15. They are not "state sponsored" and

they don't go and operate in other countries. So your list is irrelevant to the subject matter at hand which is ISI and its sponsorship of almost half the groups on your list to cause trouble in India.

[OhioChick]

16. Link? n/t

[cosmicone]

18. Google is your friend ... n/t

[OhioChick]

21. So....just your opinion without data to back it up. n/t

[cosmicone]

25. Why should I refute something you didn't prove?

Show me links that show India has ever sponsored terrorism. Until then, your list is just a list of extremist groups operating in India. Every country has them. India, with its size, secularism, diversity and poverty has more than its share. Most of them are local, almost none operate all over India and none operate outside India's borders except when they get aid from ISI.

It is a well-known fact that Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism -- even the State Department said that after the Mumbai attacks which were sponsored by the ISI. The agent recently captured in Chicago, Hadley, is singing like a canary. ISI also had designs on killing the Danish cartoonist.

[sabrina 1]

23. ISI is the equivalent of the CIA. And if they are sponsoring

terror, that doesn't mean the current government approves. Also, if ISI is a terrorist sponsor, why is the U.S. so friendly to them? I recall that the head of the ISI was quite friendly with Bush Sr. eg. And the U.S. doesn't list them as sponsors of terrorism, do they? I don't know, I just don't remember ever seeing them associated in U.S. news with terror, although maybe they should be.

Still, whatever they are doing, it is entirely possible it is not with the permission of the government.

[cosmicone]

31. Pakistani ISI wired $100,000 to Mohammad Atta

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x39325

[sabrina 1]

36. Yes, I remember that. I also remember a story that

the head if ISI had met with Bush Sr. and I'm sure our intelligence agencies work with ISI and other such organizations, such as Britain's Secret Service, also found to have done some unsavory things. Imo, none of these agencies are particularly nice people if you are on the wrong side of them. Not excusing them, just saying that none of them are clean when it comes to how they operate.

[Turborama]

51. Got a better source than the September 11 forum?

http://www.911myths.com/html/mahmoud_ahmad_dismissed.html

[sabrina 1]

28. Just like the CIA sponsors groups in South and Central

America and elsewhere, many believe they are acting as sponsors to terrorists groups in Iran right now, eg.

Countries act in their own interests. What about India, how do you know any of those groups are not active in Pakistan sponsored by the Indian Government?

[cosmicone]

32. I don't know that.

However, there has never been any evidence that India supports any terror groups. India is a transparent democracy and most Indians would not condone killing innocent civilians, unlike the celebrations in many Islamic countries after 9/11 and like celebrations in Pakistan after terror attacks in Mumbai.

[sabrina 1]

37. I am not familiar enough with India's recent political history

to say whether they have sponsored terrorist groups outside their borders or not, but many states other than Pakistan, and including India, have been accused of doing so.

State-sponsored terrorism is an important instrument of foreign policy for many states.1 During the Cold War, both superpowers supported unconventional anti-state forces as a way of undermining their rival without direct military confrontation. Many other states have also been accused of sponsoring terrorist groups– including Sudan, Libya, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, and India.

As far as the stories and photos of people celebrating 9/11, those were a few people which the media here high-lighted for the purpose of getting support for the wars we were about to start. I'm sure we could have found a few people in any country in the world behaving that way. In fact, you could find people here celebrating this disaster and if you recorded them and replayed it over and over again, you could make it seem as if the U.S. in general shared those sentiments. I think it's been generally proven that that was propaganda and did not reflect the majority of people in those countries.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Turborama]

38. Why silence over Kashmir speaks volumes

Bloody protests against military rule get little coverage, while India maintains its reputation

The Guardian, Saturday 14 August 2010

Once known for its extraordinary beauty, the valley of Kashmir now hosts the biggest, bloodiest and also the most obscure military occupation in the world. With more than 80,000 people dead in an anti-India insurgency backed by Pakistan, the killings fields of Kashmir dwarf those of Palestine and Tibet. In addition to the everyday regime of arbitrary arrests, curfews, raids, and checkpoints enforced by nearly 700,000 Indian soldiers, the valley's 4 million Muslims are exposed to extra-judicial execution, rape and torture, with such barbaric variations as live electric wires inserted into penises.

Why then does the immense human suffering of Kashmir occupy such an imperceptible place in our moral imagination? After all, the Kashmiris demanding release from the degradations of military rule couldn't be louder and clearer. India has contained the insurgency provoked in 1989 by its rigged elections and massacres of protestors. The hundreds of thousands of demonstrators that fill the streets of Kashmir's cities today are overwhelmingly young, many in their teens, and armed with nothing more lethal than stones. Yet the Indian state seems determined to strangle their voices as it did of the old one. Already this summer, soldiers have shot dead more than 50 protestors, most of them teenagers.

The New York Times this week described the protests as a comprehensive"intifada-like popular revolt". They indeed have a broader mass base than the Green Movement does in Iran. But no colour-coded revolution is heralded in Kashmir by western commentators. The BBC and CNN don't endlessly loop clips of little children being shot in the head by Indian soldiers. Bloggers and tweeters in the west fail to keep a virtual vigil by the side of the dead and the wounded. No sooner than his office issued it last week, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, hastened to retract a feeble statement expressing concern over the situation in Kashmir.

Kashmiri Muslims are understandably bitter. As Parvaiz Bukhari, a journalist, said early this week the stones flung randomly by protestors have become "the voice of a neglected people" convinced that the world deliberately ignores their plight. The veteran Kashmiri journalist Masood Hussain confessed to the near-total futility of his painstaking auditing of atrocity over two decades. For Kashmir has turned out to be a "great suppression story".

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/aug/14/silence-over-kashmir-conflict

[cosmicone]

40. Indian held Kashmir has a democratically elected government.

Something Pakistani side of Kashmir has never had.

The elections in Kashmir which have been held regularly in India, typically have a 52-70% turnout.

What does this prove? A majority of Kashmiris on the Indian side of Kashmir are happy with the way things are.

The dissenters are usually paid ISI people. When Pakistan is balkanized, Kashmir issue will solve itself.

The Kashmir issue is fueled, funded and given a terrorist spin by Pakistan. Pakistan desperately wants to dismember India to relieve the deep psychological pain caused by the humiliating defeat in 1971 and the liberation of Bangladesh.

[Turborama]

42. So, this part of the Guardian article doesn't describe Indian state terrorism?

In addition to the everyday regime of arbitrary arrests, curfews, raids, and checkpoints enforced by nearly 700,000 Indian soldiers, the valley's 4 million Muslims are exposed to extra-judicial execution, rape and torture, with such barbaric variations as live electric wires inserted into penises.



Regarding the elections you tout, yes many turned out but election promises were not kept which has led to the current situation...



The insurgency of the 1990s has mostly dried up, and elections in 2008 drew the highest percentage of voters in a generation. High expectations met the new chief minister, Omar Abdullah, a scion of Kashmir’s leading political family, whose fresh face seemed well suited to bringing better government and prosperity to Kashmir.

But election promises, like repealing laws that largely shield security forces from scrutiny and demilitarizing the state, went unfulfilled. After two summers of protests on specific grievances, this summer’s unrest has taken on a new character, one more difficult to define and mollify.

From this NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/world/asia/13kashmir.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all


ETA If Pakistan is "still suffering deep psychological pain", it's most likely caused by the memory of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of men women and children that were brutally slaughtered during the time of the (terribly planned) partition in the middle of the last century.

[OhioChick]

44. " with such barbaric variations as live electric wires inserted into penises."

:wtf:

[cosmicone]

46. Pakistani propaganda. Faithful believe it. n/t

[Turborama]

49. Tell that to the Guardian. n/t

[cosmicone]

45. That is not state terrorism .. that is a police action to maintain

law and order WITHIN INDIA's BORDERS.

Let's note that there was no law and order problem in Kashmir until 1989 when Russians left Afghanistan and Pakistan shifted its terror activity to Kashmir thinking Indians would leave Kashmir just like Russians did. Instead, India kicked ass in Kashmir, thwarting all infiltration.

In fact, the diplomatic term accepted by the state department to what Pakistan is doing in Kashmir is called "cross border terrorism." Google that and you will see a plethora of links to Pakistan's proxy war in Kashmir.

Also, while India's PM was shaking hands with Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif on a peace deal, Musharraf was plotting a terrorist/army adventure in Kargil. Pakistan kept lying about the military involvement until Bill Clinton called on Pakistan and the forces were withdrawn by Pakistan in a humiliating defeat.

Pakistan is so obsessed with Kashmir that it will stop at nothing -- even murder of innocent civilians in Mumbai, Hydreabad, Banglore, Varanasi and markets in Delhi via remotely detonated bombs -- all traced back to Pakistan, the terrorist state.

The irony is that if Pakistan gave up its designs and focused on its economy and people, lives of millions would improve. Kashmir costs India nothing -- actually helps India to train its soldiers in free high altitude insurgency as it rotates its forces in and out. The Kashmir obsession bleeds Pakistan of resources far far more.

[Turborama]

48. No matter how hard you try to spin it, the atrocities described above ARE State Terrorism

State terrorism

Definition

Scholar Gus Martin describes state terrorism as terrorism "committed by governments and quasi-governmental agencies and personnel against perceived enemies", which can be directed against both domestic and external enemies.<2> The original general meaning of terrorism was of terrorism by the state, as reflected in the 1798 supplement of the Dictionnaire of the Académie française, which described terrorism as systeme, regime de la terreur.<3> Similarly, a terrorist in the late 18th century was considered any person "who attempted to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation."<3> The terms "establishment terrorism", "terrorism from above" (as opposed to "terrorism from below" (terrorism by non-state groups), and "structural terrorism" are sometimes used to denote state terrorism.

The Encyclopædia Britannica Online defines terrorism generally as "the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective", and adds that terrorism has been practiced by "state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police."<4> The encyclopedia adds that "stablishment terrorism, often called state or state-sponsored terrorism, is employed by governments -- or more often by factions within governments -- against that government's citizens, against factions within the government, or against foreign governments or groups."<5>

While the most common modern usage of the word terrorism refers to civilian-victimizing political violence by insurgents or conspirators,<6> scholars typically make a broader interpretation of the nature of terrorism that encompasses the concepts of state terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism.<7> In fact, terrorism scholar Michael Stohl argues, "The use of terror tactics is common in international relations and the state has been and remains a more likely employer of terrorism within the international system than insurgents.<8> Stohl clarifies, however, that "ot all acts of state violence are terrorism. It is important to understand that in terrorism the violence threatened or perpetrated, has purposes broader than simple physical harm to a victim. The audience of the act or threat of violence is more important than the immediate victim."<9>

References here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism#Definition

[cosmicone]

52. If Pakistanis didn't send insurgents into Indian Kashmir,

there would be no police action.

India has a right to protect its citizens from foreign invaders.

No one other than die hard Pakistanis have called it State Terrorism. India has free media and laws. Anyone can seek redress if victimized by the government. Despite all Pakistani propaganda, Kashmir has an ELECTED state government with a majority muslim rule. Indian army is there at the request of the state government to protect it from Pakistani invaders.

There have been only a handful of cases in the court of the army or police committing atrocities. Rest is pure fiction.

I have been there several times and have first hand knowledge. You? Probably not.

[Turborama]

54. So, the extra-judicial execution, rape and torture such as electric wires inserted into penises

(Full quote for context: "In addition to the everyday regime of arbitrary arrests, curfews, raids, and checkpoints enforced by nearly 700,000 Indian soldiers, the valley's 4 million Muslims are exposed to extra-judicial execution, rape and torture with such barbaric variations as live electric wires inserted into penises.")

Were lies written by an http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/pankajmishra">Indian reporter for The Guardian and are not acts of State Terrorism as defined above?

The article also states that insurgency from the 90s you keep going on about is mostly over.

As does this NYT piece:

For decades, India maintained hundreds of thousands of security forces in Kashmir to fight an insurgency sponsored by Pakistan, which claims this border region, too. The insurgency has been largely vanquished. But those Indian forces are still here, and today they face a threat potentially more dangerous to the world’s largest democracy: an intifada-like popular revolt against the Indian military presence that includes not just stone-throwing young men but their sisters, mothers, uncles and grandparents.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4502117

The problem in Kashmir is with the population of Kashmir (the people who live there) as explained in both articles, and spelt out for you above.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4503208&mesg_id=4503601">This = http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4503208&mesg_id=4503762">this

[cosmicone]

55. Hyperbole all.

If the 4 million people were so unhappy, they wouldn't have a higher turnout in elections than even in the US.

ISI also plants misinformation campaigns where people posing as Kashmiris make preposterous statements to foreign reporters.

In any police action there are some atrocities .. I know there have been a few but they were all dealt with by the courts.

India does have an independent judiciary.

However, if someone wants to continue perpetuating the propaganda only to make India look as bad as Pakistan and/or justify Pakistan's state sponsorship of terrorism, I can't stop it.

Perhaps you may want to review David Cameron's statement in India about Pakistan again. You may also take another look at Wikileaks documents which show Pakistani (government, not people) complicity in terror.

Or -- you could just ask Daniel Pearl's colleagues and family.

[Turborama]

56. Do I really have to keep spelling it out to you?

If the 4 million people were so unhappy, they wouldn't have a higher turnout in elections than even in the US.

For decades, India maintained hundreds of thousands of security forces in Kashmir to fight an insurgency sponsored by Pakistan, which claims this border region, too. The insurgency has been largely vanquished. But those Indian forces are still here, and today they face a threat potentially more dangerous to the world’s largest democracy: an intifada-like popular revolt against the Indian military presence that includes not just stone-throwing young men but their sisters, mothers, uncles and grandparents.

=snip=

The insurgency of the 1990s has mostly dried up, and elections in 2008 drew the highest percentage of voters in a generation. High expectations met the new chief minister, Omar Abdullah, a scion of Kashmir’s leading political family, whose fresh face seemed well suited to bringing better government and prosperity to Kashmir.

But election promises, like repealing laws that largely shield security forces from scrutiny and demilitarizing the state, went unfulfilled. After two summers of protests on specific grievances, this summer’s unrest has taken on a new character, one more difficult to define and mollify.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/world/asia/13kashmir.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all

Do you get it yet? The election did have a massive turnout but the promises that were made during the campaign "like repealing laws that largely shield security forces from scrutiny and demilitarizing the state, went unfulfilled"/ THAT is the cause of the unrest, even if you try and paint it as still a part of the Pakistan sponsored insurgency.

"However, if someone wants to continue perpetuating the propaganda only to make India look as bad as Pakistan and/or justify Pakistan's state sponsorship of terrorism, I can't stop it."

I'm just proving you wrong when you say India doesn't use State Terrorism, not trying to "make India look as bad as Pakistan", and who's justifying Pakistan's state sponsorship of terrorism?

"Perhaps you may want to review David Cameron's statement in India about Pakistan again. You may also take another look at Wikileaks documents which show Pakistani (government, not people) complicity in terror."

Why, what's that got to do with India's actions in Kashmir?

The discussion in this subthread isn't about Pakistan, it's about Kashmir. Conflating and deflecting, much?

"Or -- you could just ask Daniel Pearl's colleagues and family."

Ask them what? That was totally uncalled for and a really disgusting inappropriate diversion!

[OhioChick]

57. "Do I really have to keep spelling it out to you?"

Apparently, so.

[Turborama]

94. Kicking to give some context to what's going on Kashmir right now.

:kick:

[sabrina 1]

14. Those are all good points, and I don't know why anyone ever trusted

Musharaff especially since he had refused Clinton's request to go after Osama Bin Ladin which would probably have prevented 9/11.

But isn't there a way to get the money directly to the people, without having to funnel through the government?

I am certain Pakistan was never really an ally of the U.S. as the Wikileaks docs have now pretty much confirmed.

NGOs and international charity groups, yes, they could help. And if the U.S. and the rest of the International community get involved, I don't see why the money has to go through the Pakistani government at all.

It is a hopelessly complex situation. It could end up with the U.S. moving into Pakistan, which it would have an excuse to do if militant groups do try to take over the government. All of the supplies that go to the NATO forces go through Pakistan, Karachi I believe, where there was violent uprisings last week with over 80 people killed. That could seriously effect the War in Afghanistan, interfere with the new strategy there if supplies cannot get through.

And there is always the fear that radical groups could take over the country and get their hands on Pakistan's nuclear weapons. So I can foresee an expansion of the Afghanistan War unless the Pakistani Government can keep control of the situation, which under the circumstances, is going to be very difficult.

[cosmicone]

17. This is exactly why many countries including US, Britain and India

want to liberate Balochistan. A Yugoslavia like solution to Pakistan will lower the temperature in the subcontinent and shall inure to the benefit of Pakistan's people rather than the egos of assorted generals.

[sabrina 1]

26. So, do you think this disaster presents an opportunity

for that to happen? If the U.S. and its allies are considering something like that, then the fears of people in the region that the U.S. is not just there to provide aid, could be true?

I don't know what the answer is, but no one could have foreseen this disaster, at least not the magnitude of it, so I'm sure no one was prepared for this situation no matter what their longterm theories and/or plans were.

[cosmicone]

33. My heart goes out to the people who are suffering ...

they are being used to bolster the egos of Pakistani generals and the disaster is being seen an opportunity to buy new toys for the military.

[OhioChick]

50. Support UNICEF's disaster relief for the children of Pakistan

https://secure.unicefusa.org/site/Donation2?df_id=8320&8320.donation=form1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4498086&mesg_id=4502653

[cosmicone]

53. I sent to Red Cross .. and another NGO I know in Karachi n/t

[Turborama]

22. I don't see why the money has to go through the Pakistani government at all, either

In fact, it's governments, not individuals, who give money to other governments during times of crisis.

Seems like a vapid and even callous argument when trying to explain why private individuals are apathetic and reluctant to assist, to be honest.

There are some well respected international charity groups working on the ground there right now...


http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/allcontent.cfm?id=59


http://www.savethechildren.org/emergencies/asia/pakistan-floods-2010


http://www.ifrc.org/docs/news/10/10081101/index.asp

[sabrina 1]

24. Thanks I wondered about Doctors without Borders

I think I read that Save the Children was having some difficulty getting help to people last week. Maybe because of the violence. Or I might be mistaken. But now that the government has become more engaged, it's possible that things are a bit easier for these groups.

[Turborama]

27. Here's some news from Save the Children's site...

Our Emergency Response in Pakistan

With programs in Pakistan for 30 years and the capacity to mount large-scale relief, Save the Children quickly deployed staff and launched a humanitarian response. Work is taking place in regions where the agency provided relief to conflict-affected families in 2009 and after the country’s epic 2005 earthquake.

- Save the Children is working with national, district and local governments and is using all means of transportation available, including helicopters, mules and boats, to send health staff and supplies to communities that have been cut off.

- To date, we have provided relief to more than 37,800 children and adults through medical care and distributions of food, shelter materials and hygiene kits.

- Our team in Kalam distributed 29 tons of food to 316 families in the Swat District. We have also been asked by the World Food Program to distribute food in up to 10 other union councils in Swat. We will also be providing other non-food relief items in Swat.

- Save the Children’s mobile medical teams in Swat, Allai, Dera Ismail Khan and Buner continue to provide primary health services for thousands of children and adults, especially women. We also have stationary medical teams based in Swat. The common illnesses our teams are treating include pneumonia, diarrhea, skin infections and scabies. Over 60 percent of patients are women and children.

- Our assessment teams walked 9 hours to reach isolated villages and organize the distribution of hundreds of tents to families without shelter.

- Save the Children has identified six urgent needs of children and their families that we will address over the longer term: shelter, health and nutrition, education and protection. We will also help families regain incomes and help restore their ability to produce food.

(That's from the link above.)

The latest news story is here: http://www.savethechildren.org/newsroom/2010/pakistan-flood-zone-worsens.html

[sabrina 1]

30. Those people are wonderful. They walked 9 hours

to get to some people, that is incredible. It makes you feel bad to be doing nothing, even sending money seems like too little.

Thanks for the link. They seem to be very organized. Imagine of all the money spent on wars were to be spent on being prepared to go these disasters how much good would come of it? The goodwill it would generate?

I will read the rest of the link to catch up with the latest on what they are doing. They really are angels.

[cosmicone]

35. Great links, thank you. n/t

[Turborama]

39. You're welcome

I hope you find them of some use...

[ChromeFoundry]

20. Well, that link isn't biased.

"The Times of India." You've got to be kidding me. :rofl:

[cosmicone]

34. The Times of India is the world's largest English newspaper by

circulation and has the highest journalistic standards.

Just because something comes from a third world country doesn't mean it is inherently biased or inferior.

[ChromeFoundry]

43. That's like reading an article on a Dem Senator on a Fox News site....

"Fair and balanced."

[cosmicone]

47. Times of India is not Fox News.

Comparing the two is ridiculous.

[MadMaddie]

84. I agree with you

I think that the bungling of the Afghanastan and Iraq wars are impacting the worlds response. With the recent murders of the aid workers I think countries and aid groups are hesitant to risk the lives of their people.

Pakistan leadership was playing both sides of the fence and because they were allowing the Taliban and others to run free in the mountain regions the government neutered itself.

[Turborama]

87. Pakistan's government/military weren't "allowing the Taliban and others to run free"

They have been at war with the Taliban for a while now and have lost thousands of soldiers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_North-West_Pakistan

Please have a look at this post and if you have the time watch the vids I link to: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4503208&mesg_id=4507765

And have a look here: http://www.google.com/search?q=pakistan+war+taliban&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8

[lib2DaBone]

8. Grab their NUKES then get our troops the hell out of there...

[cosmicone]

9. +1000 n/t

[defendandprotect]

29. You mean we won't be sending DRONES in to attack them any longer -- ????

[Karenina]

60. Actually, I saw reports of drone strikes in the north 2 days ago. n/t

European press...

[Turborama]

61. I just had a look and can only find articles saying it's from the Indian press

Not sure if that has any significance or not, but as you said "European press" I thought I'd point it out...

13 Taliban militants killed in US drone strike in Pakistan - Pakistan - World - The Times of India

PTI, Aug 15, 2010, 12.36pm IST

PESHAWAR: At least 13 Taliban militants, including a key commander, were killed and six others injured when a US drone struck a compound in Pakistan's volatile North Waziristan tribal region, officials said on Monday.

The drone fired two missiles at the 'hujra' or guesthouse of a tribesman's compound in Eisori village near Mirali, a town in North Waziristan tribal agency, late last night, they said.

Taliban commander Amir Moaviya was among the 13 militants killed in the attack, sources told.

More: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/13-Taliban-militants-killed-in-US-drone-strike-in-Pakistan/articleshow/6314628.cms#ixzz0wwlzXY2C

U.S. drone kills 13 Taliban militants

PESHAWAR, Pakistan, Aug. 15 (UPI) -- A U.S. drone attack in Pakistan Sunday killed at least 13 Taliban militants and injured six others, officials said.

The drone hit a compound in the violence-plagued North Waziristan tribal region, Press Trust of India reported.

=snip=

It marked the first U.S. drone attack in August. PTI said earlier reports suggested the United States had halted drone strikes during severe flooding in Pakistan because they could intensify anti-American sentiments.

More: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/08/15/UPI-NewsTrack-TopNews/UPI-97621281888611/

[laylah]

58. I WANT these people to be okay!

I WANT there to be rescues, relief efforts, humanitarian actions; HOWEVER, I also want us to take care of "us". I am 59 yrs. old...I have been saying this as far back as a young woman. I am a human being, I CARE about the people of the world, because, without them, what would WE be? HOWEVER, what are we when we ignore our OWN hungry in OUR streets? OUR children with no food, shelter, medical care, SAFETY? No jobs, safety nets, health insurance, a place to SAFELY lay our heads?

Jesus/Buddah/Jehovah/Creator of ALL That Is/God/dess weeps. I am SO sick of the state of things! So very sick :cry:

[Turborama]

59. I share your concern and empathy.

I am very sick of the state of things, too. *Virtual Hug* :hug:

[Turborama]

62. Pakistani floods could further hurt unstable nation as military focuses on aid

Source: Washington Post

By Griff Witte -

Washington Post Foreign Service -

Wednesday, August 18, 2010 -

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN -- Staggered by the scale of destruction from this summer's catastrophic floods, Pakistani officials have begun to acknowledge that the country's security could be gravely affected if more international aid does not arrive soon. The floods have submerged an area roughly the size of Italy, displaced 12 percent of the population and destroyed billions of dollars worth of infrastructure and crops. But with the government admittedly overwhelmed and foreign aid trickling in, the worst may be still to come, as Pakistan struggles to deal with food shortages, disease outbreaks and a mass migration of homeless families. All those factors have the potential to further destabilize a nation undermined by weak governance and a vicious insurgency even before the crisis.

"There are already signs that people are restive," said Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, a Pakistani military spokesman. "If not addressed, it could balloon and will create a security situation in the areas where the government has not taken care of people's needs."

The army has had to reorient itself in recent weeks, shifting its focus from counterinsurgency toward relief and recovery missions. A potential offensive in the militant haven of North Waziristan has been placed on indefinite hold, as has the resettlement of hundreds of thousands of refugees from last fall's battle in South Waziristan. Meanwhile, efforts to rebuild the Swat Valley, the scene of intense fighting last year, are back to square one after flooding from monsoon rains knocked out every bridge and many schools, health clinics and communication towers.

"The so-called war on terror has to be on hold," said Ayaz Amir, a security analyst and a member of Pakistan's Parliament. "As long as the nation, the government and the army are dealing with this flood situation, the war takes a back seat." That is bad news for U.S. forces in Afghanistan, where commanders seeking to turn around a flagging war effort are relying heavily on Pakistani cooperation. It could particularly affect plans in eastern Afghanistan, where the United States had been contemplating a fall offensive in areas across the border from North and South Waziristan.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/17/AR2010081702660.html?wprss=rss_print

---

New photos here (it's a powerful slide show but I can't seem to grab any of them to post here as standalone pics): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2010/07/30/GA2010073002963.html



(Note for mods, I have posted this as a new OP because it has a lot of up to date info. and contains quotes from the army and government about how the situation is developing, which the McClatchy article didn't)

[dkf]

63. Is this another casualty of the Mosque controversy?

I have no idea other than the Mosque why we have so little visible support for the people of Pakistan. Nope just dont get it.

[cosmicone]

67. Wrong place, self deleted

[hyphenate]

64. Okay, so i have a few

questions that I hope someone can answer for me. Understand that this aspect of the war in Afghanistan is one I haven't dug into too much, what with so many other things on my mind.

I thought Pakistan was warring against Afghanistan. Or is it only that the Taliban in Afghanistan has now moved to Pakistan and is fighting back against the U.S. and Afghanistan in general?

I thought that Pakistan was a friend to the U.S. So now, they're not?

How the hell could the Taliban have that much clout in either Afghanistan or Pakistan, especially when our troops probably outmatch them significantly?



My point is, if Pakistan is now our "enemy," why should we help out with aid to them for flood victims? If they're not our enemies, that's a different story, but why should we help an enemy like that? Yes, goodwill and all that rubbish, I think the only way we should help them would be for them to hand over all the members of the Taliban before we came to their aid.

If I am hopelessly confused, that's okay. I realize that there are so many different things we need to be on top of, and I know I, for one, can't always know everything. Besides--I was born confused.

[Turborama]

65. A few quick answers

I'm sure someone will come along and answer more fully, I might too if someone hasn't already and I have more time later.

Pakistan has an internal problem with their own "Taliban".

Their "Taliban" are intermingled with Afghanistan's "Taliban" in the "tribal area" on the Durand Line (choose your map http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&prmdo=1&biw=1280&bih=707&tbs=isch:1&sa=1&q=Durand+Line&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=">here) which has been "ungovernable" for a very long time.

Pakistan is seen as the hammer and NATO/ISAF are seen as the anvil (or is it the other way round?) in their mutual wars against the Taliban.

Durand Line: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durand_Line

Pakistan's Taliban: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehrik-i-Taliban_Pakistan

Afghanistan's Taliban: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

NATO/ISAF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force

Edited to add, there was a really good series on Al Jazeera English about Pakistan's war with the Taliban. I posted links to it here early last year. Scroll down towards the bottom of this post where I listed 20 "Must See" documentaries with links to where you can watch them and you'll see "Pakistan's War: The Battle Within". Even though it's from last year, it's still well worth watching: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5143493&mesg_id=5149520

Or, you can just go here where all the parts have been added to one page: http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/general/2008/12/200812211123302404.html

[sabrina 1]

66. Lol, 'I was born confused'. Who wasn't?

First, Turborama has provided some excellent info in the post below yours to answer your questions.

But to answer one of your questions, Pakistan is not our enemy, they are an ally. Speaking of confused since I opposed the Afghanistan war from the beginning and still do, I have to point out that Pakistan is critical to the NATO Forces in Afghanistan as much of the supplies pass through there. So, for that reason alone, Pakistan is strategically very important to the U.S.

Before we invaded Afghanistan, Pakistan was the only country in the world that still dealt with Afghanistan under the Taleban. Having that relationship they tried to persuade the Taleban to hand over OBL which the Taleban agreed to do if they were shown proof of his guilt. Well, everyone knows what happened in the end.

The previous Pakistani government was ruled by Musheraff, well known to have ties to the Taleban and to other 'terrorist' groups. But the Bush administration called him a 'friend of the U.S.' and he cooperated in the 'War on Terror' at least as far as allowing the use of his country for the delivery of supplies for the War.

A new government was elected a few years ago, a non-military government which continued to cooperate with the U.S. in Afghanistan and is generally considered to be far more serious about rooting out terrorist groups in Pakistan.

So yes, they are an ally of the U.S. and the NATO forces. But for the government there it is difficult to balance their friendship with the U.S. which makes them very unpopular with the extremist groups in their own country.

If the current government falls as a result of this disaster, it would most likely be replaced by a far more radical government and that would seriously affect the War in AFghanistan, so it is in the interests of the U.S. to help Pakistan, if not for humanitarian reasons, for their own reasons. Not to menion that they are considered an ally of the U.S.

Anti Government factions in Pakistan (where, btw, the U.S. has killed many civilians by drone attacks) do not want the U.S. to help as they consider them the 'enemy'. The government has obviously ignored their opinions as the U.S. has sent in rescue helicopters and money and I believe this week, has increased the aid they are sending.

No one has an answer as to why the World's reaction to this tragedy has been so slow, but many are asking like you. Some think people are just worn out from all the disasters over the past few years.

But a large number of people believe that bigotry has played a role, and the fact that the British PM called Pakistan 'a terrorist supporting state' at the beginning of the disaster. He has been slapped down pretty hard by the rest of the British Government, but the propaganda against Muslims in general is thought to be playing a role.

Someone else may want to present better information, it is a complicated situation and hard to explain in a few paragraphs.

Meantime I hope that the world does respond before this becomes one of the worst ever disasters in terms of the huge numbers of people who are displaced and without food and water.

[OhioChick]

69. Terrific explanation, Sabrina. n/t

[cosmicone]

68. Here is some background and answers.....

Actually, there was no such thing as Taliban when the Russians left Afghanistan and Afghanistan was relatively peaceful for a period of time.

Ahmad Shah Masood became the leader of Afghanistan, an Oxford educated, articulate and charismatic leader, the "Lion of Panjsher Valley" had reunited Afghanistan. Ahmad Shah Masood was a friend of India, a situation that Pakistanis found unacceptable because they want to control Afghanistan as a "strategic depth policy" initiated by then army chief General Mirza Aslam Beg. http://bellum.stanfordreview.org/?p=2184

Pakistanis initially used a warlord, druglord and thug named Gulbuddin Hekmatyar to start trouble in Afghanistan for the government of Ahmad Shah Masood.

Flush with cash, weapons and training provided by the Reagan admin in the 80's Pakistani ISI started the taliban which has always consisted of active duty Pakistani military. Outmanned and outgunned, Ahmad Shah Masood was defeated and he sought exile in the Panjsher valley in the north of Afghanistan. Indian influence in Afghanistan disapppeared and Pakistanis claimed victory. After untold atrocities and massive oppression by the Taliban, Pakistan turned to its religious anti-West agenda. Al Q'aeda and Osama bin Laden (whom many in the intelligence circles believe to be an ISI asset (as obliquely eluded to by Hillary Clinton in a speech in Pakistan) and his cabal found a refuge in that lawless country.

Pakistanis continued to con the Americans into supporting the Taliban and as late as June 2001, Colin Powell authorized payments of some $130 million to the Taliban. Just a few days before 9/11, Ahmad Shah Masood was killed by the ISI with a suicide bomber posing as a Saudi reporter. This step was critical in the execution of 9/11 because Pakistan was fearful that Americans would support Ahmad Shah Masood and he will bring back a pro-India regime in Afghanistan.

The anti-West policy went haywire and culminated in 9/11 with all roads of investigation leading to Pakistan. After the Afghan war started, Pakistanis laid low for a while, fearful of the Americans. Hamid Karzai who has lived in New Delhi and is a friend of India was appointed President. There was an even more pro-India leader that the Bush admin wanted but he was assassinated by the ISI in southern Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the US security for him was lax and consisted of a single drone. Under Karzai's regime, India poured over a billion dollars into Afghanistan's reconstruction and established a big embassy and several consulates. The ISI blew up the Indian embassy with a truck bomb and the CIA, in an extremely rare manner, exposed the ISI's communications to blow the embassy up. Several dozen people died in that blast.

Pakistan and ISI want this to be a war of attrtion against the US with a duplicitous maneuvering. On one hand, they are getting billions of dollars in aid which they have diverted not to fight the war on terror, but to strengthen the military for a conflict with India. Al Q'aeda and Taliban have no navy and no air force, but Pakistanis used the aid money to buy F16s, P3 Orions, C130s, Scorpene submarines and Hatf-5 missiles. GAO audit of the aid confirmed this http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/csf_paki... and President Obama mentioned this prior to his election. General Musharraf also admitted to this in his memoirs. http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/20...
Pakistan was further exposed with its hands in the cookie jar when Wikileaks released classified documents showing ISI actively funding, arming, training and providing intelligence to the Taliban which the the second face of the duplicitousness of Pakistan.

Pakistan's goals are 1) to extract as much aid as possible out of the Americans, 2) to defeat Americans and NATO in Afghanistan so that they can get their hands on the left-over and abandoned assets, 3) Control Afghanistan once again so that the money from the sale of heroin starts flowing again and 4) use the newfound morale boost and military hardware to start another war with India.

A war against India is something Pakistan can never win but Pakistan can scare foreign investments and tourism in India away thus slowing India's economic growth so that they can justify the "Two Nation Policy" as a success. Currently, Pakistan is a basket case and the two nation policy is a dismal failure vis a vis India's meteoric progress in economic and technological development.

Thus, all in all, Pakistan is an enemy of the United States, no matter what lip service its leaders provide. Pakistan's and America's interests are not aligned and never will be aligned.

[sabrina 1]

70. You are really working hard to make sure those

unfortunate people are left to die, aren't you? I hope you are not a representative of India because you are making that country look very, very bad.

There is so much wrong in your post I am not going to waste much time correcting it all.

Just one example which should caution people to do their own research for accuracy.

The Taleban killed the drug trade in Afghanistan. So your contention that if they are back in power, Pakestan would benefit from the profits from drugs, is simply wrong. The drug trade is now booming since the Taleban were driven out.

No one in the U.S. government is unaware of the history of the region or the inter-relationships of the Musharaff Government with the Taleban and other 'terrorist' groups. And few Americans who have followed the story, are under any illusions that the U.S. policy wherever they go has always been to support the most corrupt governments. So the Wikileaks docs were no suprise to anyone here, just confirmation.

Pakistan has a new government now. The president has every reason to hate the Terror organizations as his own wife was assassinated by them.

Pakistan is an ally of the U.S. regardless of your attempts to prove otherwise.

And WHAT, if anything, does any of this have to do with helping millions of people who are in dire need of help?

And why would ANYONE work so hard to prevent them from getting it?

[Turborama]

71. Anyone who isn't moved by the enormous human catastrophe we're witnessing is just sick in the head!

A young Pakistani girl displaced with her family by flooding,
sleeps on the ground at a temporary camp Photo: AP


http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/pakistan-floods-ravage-area-the-size-of-england-20100818-128r9.html

[sabrina 1]

74. Yes, very sick. I don't care what political

background there is, this tragedy supercedes and changes the whole picture. Nature has created a new world over there, tossed aside our medieval war on terror, and even melted the hearts of many Indians enough that their government has offered help.

To be able to deny help to anyone in this situation for political purposes, puts those politics into serious question. I will not judge India by the individual going from thread to thread here attempting to prevent people from helping right now, but IF I were to do so, I would conclude that India is a heartless country and not any more worthy of respect than the previous, corrupt governments of Pakistan. Fortunately I doubt this commenter represents India.

[cosmicone]

78. This tragedy pales in comparison to the Asian tsunami,

the Haitian earthquake, the Myanmar floods or the African famine. Only 1800 people dead. Haiti had 230,000+ deaths.

As tragic is any loss of life and while my heart bleeds for the average victims, Pakistan has always had floods in those plains and people have acclimatized to them.

The repetitiveness and fervor with which this story is being pushed world-wide makes one wonder if the ISI is actively using this tragedy to bring in far more funds than actually needed so they can buy even more armaments and vacations for generals on the Aegean sea.

As far as I can tell, there are only 4 people pushing this story while the rest of the DU is probably wondering.

Amazingly, there is a lot of overlap with the postings of anti-India threads.

Inquiring minds abound.

[sabrina 1]

79. What are you suggesting? I think it is against DU

rules to put forward insane conspiracy theories about members of this board, particularly to accuse anyone here of being associated with a terrorist organization. Is that what you are suggesting about respected members of this board?

I have never alerted on a single person on this board, no matter how I disagreed with them or how they made their point, but I am sorely tempted to alert on this outrageous post. I think it is the worst I have seen. I hope you will explain your post before I alert. Hopefully I am just reading it wrong.

[cosmicone]

80. I am sorry if I offended you, I apologize ...

that was not the intent at all and I have no reason to question your sincerity. I certainly didn't say that you are a member of a terrorist organization.

Unfortunately, I should have put a spacer between two lines which were entirely unrelated .. unfortunately, my time to edit has passed.

I think you are a great debater and a part of my heart is where yours is, to help the victims.

Peace

[sabrina 1]

81. Okay, thank you. I accept that.

I will say this, if this topic had been about the politics of Afghanistan/Pakistan/India and the U.S. policies there, it is more than likely that we would have agreed on many things.

I have opposed the war in Afghanistan from the beginning. The alliance of this country with the Musharaff government I, we many of Americans, knew we were being lied to and this country was funding some of the same groups we were told were terrorists, directly or indirectly. The Wikileaks documents provided confirmation of those suspicions.

But this thread and others we have debated in were about people, ordinary people who have no control for the most part, just we here have none, over what their government does. And while we probably disagree on this, I believe that if the world, including former enemies and friends, helped them now, that would be a far better way to prevent young people there from becoming desperate and signing up with militant groups.

War and brutality doesn't work, but sometimes extending a hand when it is needed can work miracles. Extremists thrive on conflict, why give it to them?

Anyhow, I am of the belief that when people are suffering, even if they were former enemies, it is the right thing to do to help them. I am glad you feel for them also.

[cosmicone]

82. I am all for aid to the flood victims provided

the estimates are made by an independent body and not by the Pakistani government which throws wild numbers like $15 billion and that there is accountability to the last penny that the aid actually went for people's food, shelter, medical care and rebuilding their lives.

[sabrina 1]

83. That should be the case for every government.

Which is why I said early on that the money for these disasters should never go through governments, and personally I would rather find a family in need and give the money directly to them as so often it never gets to the people it was intended for, just like NOLA and the Tsunami and every other disaster. The only organization I trust totally are Doctors without Borders, who never take more than they need and stop taking donations once they have enough.

[cosmicone]

77. Tragic as it may be, Pakistan's diversion of aid funds for

military is RELEVANT.

If you borrowed money from the bank to fix your roof and used it on a vacation or a cruise, shouldn't the bank ask the next time your roof leaks or should they just pay up again because your family and belongings are getting wet?

[Turborama]

93. Hey, Ignored. Check this out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4511008&mesg_id=4511061#

BTW "Ignored" means I can't read your replies so you're talking to yourself.

[cosmicone]

76. The new president's ill-gotten net worth is over $5 billion

How much money is Zardari putting up to help the people of Pakistan?

How much of its budget to buy weapons is the Pakistani military sacrificing to help the flood victims?

Why is it ONLY the responsibility of other countries every time Pakistan circulates the collection plate with a new sob story while it continues to arm itself to the teeth with billion dollar toys for the military?

The world knows this and the aid response is lukewarm at best.

Let Zardari set an example and sell his French chateau to help his people. If he does, I'll donate even more money than what I have.

[ljm2002]

72. Or we could divert 50% of our massive military presence...

...in neighboring Afghanistan to help in Pakistan.

Not only would it be the morally right thing to do, it could help prevent another failed state -- this time one with nuclear weapons. And it would certainly make a statement to the people in those beleaguered lands.

What to do, what to do.

[Turborama]

73. Have you seen this thread yet?

Judging by your suggestion, I think you might find it very interesting: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8968567

[OhioChick]

75. Pakistan floods: Saudi Arabia pledges $100m

Oil-rich country overtakes US as main aid donor as second wave of flooding hits new areas in southern provinces

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/18/pakistan-floods-saudi-arabia-pledges

[Kringle]

85. Pakistan flood survivors from Ahmadiyya community denied shelter

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4509380

[sabrina 1]

86. Which makes it all the more imperative that

the International community gets involved and the distribution of aid is not left in the hands of such people.

Shame on the world for allowing bigotry and politics to prevent it from doing what is right.

[Kringle]

88. why should we help the bigots?

the money goes to,

spending on,
nuclear weapons, fighter jets, submarines

[sabrina 1]

89. And shame on you for participating in the bigotry

that will cause the deaths of untold numbers of human beings if the world does not intervene.

20 million people, children, elderly, mothers and fathers who are innocent have nothing to do with the politics of their leaders. And humanity demands that we do not stand by and watch people die. You do as you please, I will do as I believe is the right thing to do.

There are bigots everywhere, that did not stop the world from intervening in other disasters.

If we were to worry about the presence of bigots in every country we help, we would help no country and for sure, no one would ever come to our aid as we have our very large share of bigots right here. Many are running this country and spending money on weapons to kill people in other countries, because they do not view them as 'equal' human beings.

So don't talk to me about bigots in Pakistan, they are everywhere.

[Turborama]

91. BTW, the article he's trying to hijack the thread with is an opinionated editorial, not LBN material

The title that OP uses is taken from something written within the original article, and used as a blog's title.

Do a google search for the title of that OP and you'll see what I mean.

[sabrina 1]

92. Thanks, I wasn't impressed anyhow. These things

happen in disasters when there is no one in control.

Remember what happened in Katrina when black people were not allowed to escape and some were shot by our own police for trying to get out of danger. That happened too because the Bush administration did not take control of the situation until almost a week too late.

I hope people will ignore these clear and blatant attempts to prevent the people of Pakistan from getting the help they need. It is unbelievable to me, and whoever they are and whoever they represent cannot be people who deserve any kind of respect.

[Turborama]

90. Oh, no. Not again!

Re: Post #85