Pakistan imposes Islamic law (sharia courts) in Taliban stronghold

Source: Guardian UK

Pakistan imposes Islamic law in Taliban stronghold
Government brings in sharia courts in Malakand in attempt to placate extremists
Saeed Shah in Islamabad
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 15 February 2009 18.39 GMT
Article history

Pakistan is to impose Islamic law in a vast region of the north-west called Malakand in an attempt to placate extremists, even as President Asif Zardari warns that they are "trying to take over the state".

Pakistani Taliban militants who are in control of the Swat valley in the region announced a ceasefire tonight, reacting to the government's agreement to bring in sharia courts.

Malakand is part of North West Frontier province, a regular part of Pakistan, not the wild tribal area, which runs along the Afghan border.

Critics warned that the new sharia regulations represented a capitulation to the extremists' demands, and that it would be difficult to stop hardliners elsewhere in the country from demanding that their areas also come under Islamic law.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/15/pakistan-islamic-law

I guess our fundies are going to want thier own, too.....

If that's how they're fighting the crazies, then the Pakistani government might as capitulate officially now.

Then they come up with a fresh set of demands.

I've spent 2 years in Saudi Arabia and will soon be leaving Egypt, where I lived for nearly 4 years. So I've seen some of this at first hand.

As far as I know, only one Middle Eastern leader ever found a way to deal effectively with Islamic radicals: Hafez Assad in Syria. The question is whether or not a society can stand the kind of "effectiveness" it takes to deal with them.

In 1980, IIRC, the Muslim Brotherhood tried to assassinate Assad. At the time, about 2000 M.B. members were in prison. Assad had his secret police go cell-to-cell, shooting each one in the head.

In 1982, the Muslim Brotherhood decided to kick off the Islamic revolution in Syria by seizing the ancient city of Hama, population 350,000. They started "cleansing" the city by slaughtering govt. officials, preparing to use it as a stronghold for taking the rest of the country.

Assad surrounded the city with the Syrian army and pounded Hama with air strikes, heavy artillery and tanks. The admitted death toll was about 20,000 people.

The M.B. finally broke and fled across the borders. Thomas Friedman likes to point out that Islamic extremists have left Syria alone ever since. Was it worth it? Good question. I don't know the answer.

onager

I doesn't about this, but what a way to say get the h*** hell out and don't play that game here in Syria.. Maybe Hafez Assad did the right, at least in Syria when it came to the Muslim Brotherhood?..

You are pretty coolheaded, if you decide to shoot down 2000 member of a cult, because some others tried their best to murder you, and I guess single one of them was pictured both before and after, and the pictures given circulation in the M.B areas, to scare of others who "might" have a idea of starting to murder the president...

And to pound a whole City with air strikes, heavy artillery and tanks, to once and for all stop this type of attack that Syria was plagued with, is telling a lot of the man too. You do not try to kill me, if you do you get a very clear answer for this. And that is, that I would hunt you down, and bomb you to the ground, and I will take no prisoners...

Was it wort it?. Have noe clue, but since Islamic extremist at least was leawing Syria alone, and do not want to play ball with the Syrian authority, then "maybe" in some prospect it was wort it?. At least from the side of the syrian government, who had no other options I guess at the time than to play hard ball and stop this before it was to late?..

When it came to Pakistan and the demands that was given in to Taliban. I would say this is a sad, sad day for every Pakistani, because this is more or less the end of what was democracy in Pakistan. The Taliban is a cancer, who Will grow bigger and bigger, and in the end eat up every area of Pakistan if not challenged and at least tried to be stooped.. To cave in to this type of religious extremes for some temporally peace is dangerous. Because the Taliban as I know it, Will never just be satisfied with this, They Will have more, far more than just the tribal areas in the border with Pakistan. They WANT the whole of Pakistan, ruled by their extreme version of Islam, founded by the same country the US is supporting in the middle east - Saudi-Arabia. Unknown billions of dollar have been fondled to Taliban by many small rivers. And this is just one step for the Taliban.. Today a "truce" tomorrow the world..


Diclotican

U.S. citizens should reign in their government's foreign policies of invasions, proxy wars and supporting dictatorships throughout the world, all of which breed extremism. It will take longer than murdering tens of thousands of men, women and children, but in the end, the effects will be much longer lasting.

Origin of the Taliban:

<http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/insights/insight20010901a.html>

Probably an Indo-US alliance.

When you're dealing with a bunch of fanatics who think God (or Pol Pot, or the Fuerher) wants them
to take over the world while killing those who disagree, you need military force to stop them.

Yes, the US should have done things differently back in the day. The Allies should have treated
Weimar Germany better. The point is, these guys are a bunch of fascists who thump the Koran
instead of Mein Kampf. They are *never* going to play well with others.

Pakistan from birth has been a collection of various tribes who have little in common
save religion. There never was a Pakistani equivalent to India's Congress Party to imbue
a sense of greater nationhood amongst disparate ethnic groups.

And now, there never will be.

We need to deal with what is going to be, not what "should have been"

What I mean is the Sunni are who the Muslim Brotherhood look for Support and in Syria they are at least 60% of the population. Now the majority of the Sunni do NOT support the Muslim Brotherhood but that is NOT the same as saying the Muslim Brotherhood do NOT look to the Sunnis for their support (And supports the rights of the Sunnis for the same reason).

For more on Hama see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre

We have to remember the ruling elite of Syria are NOT considered true Muslims by either the Sunnis or Shiites (Through the Shiites have shown more tolerance of them then the Sunni religious leadership). The leadership is Alawi, which is considered a derivative of Shiite Islam but with heavy Christian background (Often called "Little Christians" by other Muslims for the Alwai celebrate Christmas, Easter, and Epiphany). This gives the Alawi an advantage over people of other religions, but since the Alawi is only 15-20% of the population (barely outnumbering the Christians in Syria) religious tolerance is the norm, given that over 60% of the population is Sunni Muslim. Furthermore, like the Druze, the Alawi do NOT accept converts, so their religious minority status is permanent (And more to do with their tribal connection then any religious background).

Given this background, the ruling family of Assad have been very careful when it comes to religion. Under the rule of the Assad family (Father, Hafez 1974-2000, son, Bashar 2000 till present) religion has NOT been the ground for any conflict, unless it also affected the SECULAR STATE. This is where the Muslim Brotherhood came in, they were the main opposition to the rule of Assad. In 1980 the Muslim Brotherhood was viewed more a a secular opposition that had religious overtones then any religious opposition (That has since changed but was NOT the rule in 1980). Even today the Muslim Brotherhood is the main opposition in Egypt, tolerated do to the widespread support the Brotherhood has, but banned from even providing aid in disaster (Which it did several times prior to the ban, faster and more effectively then the Government in the case of several well known disasters in Egypt, including helping the survivors of a massive Train wreck).

Now the Muslim Brotherhood is a Sunni Religious radical group, and has existed since at least 1928, but officially prefers peaceful opposition. While violent acts have been traced back to the Muslim Brotherhood, the traces have been more in the nature looking for others involved in a particular act then in anything the Muslim Brotherhood did as a whole.

The reports on the Muslim Brotherhood reminds me of the reports on the "Molly Maguires" of the late 1800s in Pennsylvania. The Molly Maguires kept being traced back to the Hibernians, but was clearly independent of the Hibernians (if the Molly Maguires existed at all, the evidence was weak but people were hanged anyway). The opposing view (Supported by the fact that if someone was NOT associated with the Hibernians but tied in with some criminal act, charges were dropped in favor of prosecuting people who were tied in with the Hibernians) is that Irish Coal miners would join the Hibernians to be a member of that still existing social organization. The problem with the Hibernians from the Coal Mine owners point of view was that many Irish miners joined the Hibernians, and once members would meet other miners and discuss what they had in common, which was a lack of any rights and how to get those rights, which was a union. Thus the Hibernians were tied in with unionization efforts, done NOT by the Hibernians themselves but by people who joined it as a social organization and then talked about what they had in common, which was a lack of a union. Almost all unionization efforts were tied in with social organization in the late 1800s and as such such social organization were hated by mine owners and other people who opposed unions (Another example of this was the Homestead Strike, which was lead by the same people who joined and formed all of the Social Clubs in Homestead).

The whole drive of the Molly Mcquires seems to have been an effort to drive the Hibernians out of the Mining areas, leaving just the church as a point of unionization (And the Church had to walk a very fine line do to this opposition by mine owners to any support for any effort at unionization AND the people going to that church demand for a Union, a good bit of the Anti-Catholic Movement of the late 1800s had more to do with making sure Catholic Priest and Churches were NOT used as bases for unionization efforts). At least 20 men were hanged for being members of the Molly Maguires in 1877.

I point out the Molly Maguires for their were "Religious Radicals" (Catholic Miners, associated with a Catholic organization, the Hibernians, which often used Catholic Churches as meeting places to form a Union) of their day and the treatment of the Molly Maguires echos in Hama in that the same accusations were made in BOTH CASES. I.e. a series of bombings, an attempt at killing of a high ranking official (Assad himself when it came to Hama) and finally a harsh clamp of the opposition as a bunch of Radical Religious radicals.

Now there are differences, Assad was probably attacked by a group within his ruling circle in some sort of coup attempt (Some of the Murders alleged to have been done by the Molly Maguires benefited NOT the miners by the person who would buy most of the Anthracite mines in a years AFTER the Molly Maguires were executed). Thus there were inside acts going on in both cases, ts independent of the Muslim Brotherhood when it came to Assad and Independent of the Molly Maguires when it came to the mine owners.

Furthermore in both cases there was a reported increase in bombings in the years just before the HAMA was destroyed and the Molly Maguires were executed. In both cases you had increase activities of security personnel in those areas, in the exact areas of the increase bombings (and both the Syrian Security Services AND the Pinkertons were known to use bombs). Afterward in both places there was a complete security clampdown, so if anyone wanted to do anything they were told in Pennsylvania that they could also be railroaded for murder and in Syria their town could be destroyed. Opposition in both cases was suppressed, but Union still tried to unionize the coal fields (And did so successfully in the 1930s) but waited till it was safe for them to do so, do to the weakness of the people who opposed them. In the case of Mine Workers that took a switch in Government (The passage of the Wagner Act in the mid 1930s). In the case of Syria only time will tell, but the son is NOT the father but the Son has the support of Iran and right now Iran is viewed as the main opposition to Israel and the US, thus I do NOT see the Muslim Brotherhood opposing Syria (and that will last as long as the Muslim Brotherhood see Syria as a Ally against the US and Israel NOT as an opposition as the Muslim Brotherhood views the present Egyptian government).

Thus the situation in Syria since 1980 is a lot more complex then Pennsylvania in 1877. The Egyptian opposition (the Muslim Brotherhood) see Syria as an Ally against an common enemy, Israel and the US, NOT as an enemy. As long as Syria stays as the major opposition on the border of Israel, the Muslim Brotherhood will support them, thus opposition is positional NOT confrontational. The Muslim Brotherhood would like more rights to the Sunni Majority, but not at the cost of Civil War in Syria. Thus peaceful opposition is in the best interest of the Muslim Brotherhood. Thus as long as Syria opposes Israel, the Muslim Brotherhood MUST support Assad, but any peace deal will undo that need and the Muslim Brotherhood will turn to opposition. Furthermore any peace deal may have people inside the Brotherhood feel that they MUST do something. Thus it man NOT be in the best interest of Assad and his family to have peace with Israel and as long as Syria is opposing Israel, no one in the Muslim Brotherhood feels a need to overthrow him and his family.

More on the Druze:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druze

More on the Alawi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawism
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/islam-alawi.htm

More on Assad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafez_al-Assad

The son:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashar_al-Assad

The Muslim Brotherhood:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood

Syria:

The Ayyat Egypt Train Disaster:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Ayyat_train_disaster

More on the Molly Maguires:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Maguires
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmolly.htm
http://www.visitjimthorpe.com/new/history.htm#handprint

Pinkertons and his bombing of the home of Jesse James's Mother:
http://www.whitsett-wall.com/Westfall/Westfall_Old_West_III.htm

Look up the definition of Taliban in any dictionary and you would see the word 'FRANKENSTEIN' right next to it. Pak govt in the 1980s created this monster to tackle the soviets in the Afghanistan and the Indians in Kashmir. Look where it has led them. Taliban is the acid that will eat Pak's social fabric.

Pak Govt will go down the path of Afghanistan in 5 years - Islamabad and some parts of Punjab will remain under civilian govt control and remain moderate. The rest of the country and non-Kabul Afghanistan will form the Taliban union across the 2 countries. Unlike earlier, they don't have to deal with administrative hassles, politics, diplomacy and other civilized means of dialog. Just plain killings and harassing folks in the country side.

Thanks Bush - for the dumb-founded move of focusing away from Afghanistan/Taliban and going to Iraq. Never has anyone weakened civilization and strengthened barbaric forces more.

That will be their version of events.

when 10th Mountain and 82d Airborne climbed up the valley at Tora Bora.

What a tragic joke!

Big oil profits were more important to Bush than destroying our enemies.

CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: indeed, it was July 3, 1979, that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.... We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would....

That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap.... The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War."

The Carter administration was well aware that in backing the mujahideen it was supporting forces with reactionary social goals, but this was outweighed by its own geopolitical interests. In August 1979, a classified State Department report bluntly asserted that "the United States' larger interest...would be served by the demise of the Taraki-Amin regime, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan." That same month, in a stunning display of hypocrisy, State Department spokesperson Hodding Carter piously announced that the U.S. "expect the principle of nonintervention to be respected by all parties in the area, including the Soviet Union."

The Russian invasion in December was the signal for U.S. support to the Afghan rebels to increase dramatically.

<http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html>

:puke:

:mad:

That is Pakistan's situation. For decades they have nurtured these dangerous barbarians for dumb 'national interest' reasons like strategic depth and proxy wars. And now they are about to be consumed by their own creations.

The trouble for the rest of us is, if Pakistan falls, so do it's nukes.

reacts to this.

Dastagir was not a man of his word....why should Pakistan government trust the Taliban on their side of the border?

oh wait,
Pakistan traded land for peace this weekend


INTERVIEW: Pakistani cleric who signed peace deal hates democracy

Islamabad - Hard-line Muslim cleric Maulana Sufi Mohammad, who signed a controversial peace deal with the provincial government in Pakistan's North West Frontier Province (NWFP) on Monday, said he hated democracy and wanted supremacy of Islam over the entire world.


snip
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/southasia/news/article_1459814.php/INTERVIEW_Pakistani_cleric_who_signed_peace_deal_hates_democracy_


I'm sure he doesn't mean....ALL the world as in "ALL" the world

:sarcasm:

understand if people in that part of the world hate democracy. It's been killing millions of them for decades.

He has no good response. It's question of whether he wants to leave it bad, make it worse, or make it much worse.

His trip to Pakistan will give him no insight, his law lectureship will give him no insight, and his poli-sci degree will give him no insight. The only thing that might is any knowledge of his father's family and the kinds of tribal politics that afflicted Kenya combined with the ideology that as overlain on the morass.

Until Zardari has the guts to do what needs to be done--to repeat Pakistan's approach to the militants that it took in the '60s--it will be bad and get worse in FATA and the NWFP. Of course, at some point Zardari will not be able to take that route. Since the Taliban and likeminded organizations have set up shop in Zardari's front yard, the Punjab, it will be significantly harder--dear old Ajmal came from the Punjab, after all. That Baluchistan has its nappy in a knot certainly complicates matters.

....in that region will be fought the first nuclear war...