Think Progress

24 Responses to “Attack on Sri Lankan cricket team in Pakistan rouses anger against militants.”

1. The Republic of Stupidity says:

   ---

   A new Center for American Progress report questions the now-frequent U.S.-led Predator strikes inside Pakistan. “While these strikes may bear some meaningful short- and medium-term successes, as a long-term strategy their value is less clear,” writes Colin Cookman.
   ____________

   I would certainly agree w/ that.

   March 5th, 2009 at 11:43 am

   ---

2. telestai2 says:

   ---

   Someone is daring to suggest that BushCo might be COMPLICIT? Perish and forbid. Such a suggestion implicates the Rabid [or is that "rabbit"?] Right and its quest for untruth, injustice, and the American slaying.

   March 5th, 2009 at 11:44 am

   ---

3. stateofthedivision says:

   ---

   And what was CAP’s position on summary execution before the election of President Barack Obama?

   Israel started the practice of execution without arrest or trial. The U.S. picked it up and President Obama increased the rate of bombings.

   Note the Pakistani bombings are done by a democratic U.S., within a democratic Pakistan.

   March 5th, 2009 at 11:53 am

   ---

4. spencers mom says:

   ---

   Then candidate-Obama was talking about the growing threat in Pakistan for well over a year. And all the Right did was mock him for his [correct] pronunciation of “Pakistan”.

   Lest we forget, Pakistan has nukes. Anyone remember where they came from? *ahem*

   PEACE

   March 5th, 2009 at 11:55 am

   ---

5. PatrioticLiberalChristian says:

   ---

   The dear Dr. is astute. I’d like to use his statement as a template:

   pressure needs to be applied upon the elected government to improve and empower the independence of Judiciary and general justice system in the United States. It is only when a society feels the security of a free and fair society will it have the will to define the unitary executive as dictatorship, shun it, and bring into accountability the perpetrators, for now the corrupt and ruthless have a far stronger hand as compared to the weak and downtrodden.

   March 5th, 2009 at 11:55 am

   ---

6. hussein toasterhead says:

   ---

   telestai2 Says:

   Someone is daring to suggest that BushCo might be COMPLICIT?

   March 5th, 2009 at 11:44 am
   _________

   Don’t forget – Ron Suskind came out and said it quite plainly. The U.S. has been meddling in Pakistan for quite a long time now, and our allegiances are quite fickle indeed:

   RON SUSKIND: Now, here’s an example, with Benazir Bhutto, who I spend the last six months of her life with. I’m seeing her all the time, talking to her sometimes every other night.

   AMY GOODMAN: Why?

   RON SUSKIND: Well, you know, the fact is, she ends up becoming, in a way, an agent of US values, a vessel of them. You know, and Bhutto, of course, is corrupt right down to her socks, has been for years. She is a South Asian political boss. That’s the way it works there.

   But what happens as it goes through these last six months of her life, she sort of inadvertently, as she says to me in her last days—we’re in Quetta together, just before she dies. We’re getting chased around town by suicide bombers. We end up in the house of a warlord, which is the only safe place in town. And, you know, after all of our discussions, she’s like, “You know, Ron? You know, I’ve been talking about these democratic values my whole life, but finally, just in the last month, I’m really starting to understand their power.”

   Part of it is Musharraf’s missteps, putting her under house arrest, the terrible explosion in Karachi that killed 500 people, many of them her supporters. You know, she’s seeing bigger crowds. She’s becoming again a kind of hero martyr in the country, something she never expected. Musharraf’s numbers are plummeting, Bhutto’s are rising. She says to me, “Frankly, my success and his failure are now the same things. There’s not going to be coexistence. It’s putting the United States in a choice position. They’ve got to choose. And clearly, they’ve chosen Musharraf over me.”

   AMY GOODMAN: But hadn’t they brought [Benazir Bhutto] back? Actually, the US pushed her back to shore up Musharraf.

   RON SUSKIND: That’s right, absolutely, but, you know, the fact is, what becomes clear is that democracy—not our kind, but maybe their kind in Pakistan—really took hold in Pakistan because of the missteps of force, both, you know, encouraged by the United States and carried forward by Musharraf, and Bhutto suddenly actually is becoming the thing she imagined, maybe even hoped for: a real vessel of democratic ideals, which might have, frankly, turned the tide in that whole region.

   You know, interestingly, at this moment, Bhutto says, you know, “Look at my situation. I’m now going to wash away the entire Musharraf power structure, because the fact is, is I’m rising, and he’s plummeting. That’s one opponent. Also, the jihadists are realizing that I might create a counterpoint in this whole region to bin Laden. So now I’ve got two enemies, of course, who have been in an unholy alliance—dictatorial power, messianic radicalism—for many years, and I have no protection. Why? Because Dick Cheney won’t make the phone call.” We go on and on about this. She says, “Why? Explain it to me, the idea that they assured me Cheney would make the call to Musharraf simply to say, ‘You’re the dictator, make sure she is protected. She has to make it to election day. If she doesn’t, we’re going to hold you responsible.’”

   Bhutto, at this point, realizes she’s essentially been abandoned because the US has chosen illegitimate power over spoken principle. It’s an extraordinary finish to her life of real clarity and also clarity about, oddly, the power, truly, of democratic ideals, if you actually believe in them. You know, it’s an extraordinary story.

   AMY GOODMAN: And what does President Musharraf say? What does the general say?

   RON SUSKIND: Well, there’s an amazing moment where Musharraf—I have this, you know, from our variety of sources, obviously, is that Musharraf says to Bhutto at a key moment, when she says, “Am I going to be protected?” he says to her, “Your safety is based on the state of our relationship. Make no mistake.” I mean, it’s all but a—like a Mafia threat. And this is something that the United States, frankly, deep down understands, too. They let this process unfold. And ultimately, folks around Bhutto now are saying that she was abandoned by America, and they’re using Musharraf’s comment, again, on the record in the book—I’ve talked to Bhutto about it many times before she died—as a cause to help impeach Musharraf now in Pakistan and maybe even take it further than that.

   http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/13/the_way_of_the_world_ron

   March 5th, 2009 at 11:56 am

   ---

7. raynman says:

   ---

   One of (if not THE) most fragile regions in the world, with nations ready to drop gloves at the slightest provication (and some of those nations having nukes), and Bush wandered in there like a two year old looking for candy.

   It’s going to take years, if not decades, to undo the mess that the previous administration created there.

   March 5th, 2009 at 12:13 pm

   ---

8. tombaker says:

   ---

   The attack has roused Pakistani anger against the militants. “Cricket is so popular here,” said Imran Khan, a former Pakistani cricket legend-turned-politician. “The militants want to gather public support for their campaign. By attacking cricket, they only lose support and isolate themselves.”

   Sounds like they’re taking cues from an organization we’re familiar with here in the States.

   March 5th, 2009 at 12:17 pm

   ---

9. lokidog says:

   ---

   I guess the Pakistani people are as lost as those in the USA in one respect:

   their heads are up their *sses when it comes to priorities. The world can be collapsing around them and they could not give a rat’s *ss, but f*** with their sports, and now they get upset.

   March 5th, 2009 at 12:19 pm

   ---

10. Buckie Boy says:

    ---

    Attacking Cricket Players is probably not going to win a lot of support.

    March 5th, 2009 at 12:20 pm

    ---

11. The Republic of Stupidity says:

    ---

    stateofthedivision Says:

    Note the Pakistani bombings are done by a democratic U.S., within a democratic Pakistan.
    _____________

    Whilst I personally think this policy isn’t working, one could also point out the tribal areas of Pakistan where these strikes typically take place are hardly under the control of the democratically elected govt of Pakistan. And I doubt seriously the militants that are the targets here consider themselves to be citizens of Pakistan, except when it suits their purposes. And it has also been repeatedly pointed out that these strikes are done w/ both the support and assistance of said govt.

    This is not to say, “Hey, it’s okay”. Rather, this is one hell of a farkin’ complicated mess. I’m not sure what a practical solution is. I don’t think these kinds of air strikes are the solution, that’s for sure.

    And I’ve been saying for quite a while now, Pakistan BY FAR is the biggest problem out there on the horizon… ’cause they DO HAVE nukes.

    March 5th, 2009 at 12:29 pm

    ---

12. krystalviews says:

    ---

    Anytime the general public turns against ANY lunatic fringe in any country, it brings hope to my heart.

    March 5th, 2009 at 12:32 pm

    ---

13. dargumedo says:

    ---

    A cheap shot on sports from comment #9. Sports, for all of its existing issues–which are many, still provides a powerful tool to unify people. In 2007, both sides in the Sri Lanka civil-war declared a day of truce when their country made the final. Last year, the Army of the Phillipines and miltants held a truce for a Manny Pacquiao fight.

    The attack on the Cricket team wasn’t merely an attack on sport–it was an attack on Pakistan itself. This attack will isolate the country as England, South Africa, Australia, India, etc. will now not play in the country. Pakistan was scheduled to be part of the Cricket World Cup in 2011, that will not happen now. The future scene of a stadium packed with people waving their national flag–will no longer appear. And in a vast country, wouldn’t that sense of a nation behind something, even as flippant as ’sport’, have been a sight of nation building worth more than a 1,000 words of a leader?

    I’m just disgusted by this–An attack on a main source of just escape from the life’s troubles truly demonstrates the animals’ disregard for their own people.

    March 5th, 2009 at 12:35 pm

    ---

14. The Republic of Stupidity says:

    ---

    dargumedo Says:

    A cheap shot on sports from comment #9. Sports, for all of its existing issues–which are many, still provides a powerful tool to unify people.
    ___________

    I agree completely. Sports, along w/ music, was one of the forces in this country that helped promote desegregation. People’s priorities can be out of whack, but that’s doesn’t completely negate the value or impact sports has on society.

    BTW, that just wasn’t an attack on Pakistan, there. Don’t forget Sri Lankans were the target too.

    March 5th, 2009 at 12:44 pm

    ---

15. lokidog says:

    ---

    dargumedo Says:

    A cheap shot on sports from comment #9.

    Your comprehension skills are a little off today, my friend.

    It was a shot (and not cheap at all, btw) about what appears to be the sad priorities of the Pakistani people as to what it takes to anger them, or at least wake them up to the fact that extremist militants are destroying – and have been – their country rom within.

    I’m pleased they are finally getting angry about what has been transpiring in their country for years. Just find it tragic that the needless death and destruction that has been occuring within their borders for years has apparently not angered them enough – but disrupting their cricket schedule has.

    March 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pm

    ---

16. 5th Estate says:

    ---

    The local Afghans are caught in the middle of incursions from Pakistan-based Taliban and the military response from NATO forces.

    No ground is being held which could then be developed with the facilities the locals can really use and value—schools, health clinics, accessible markets.

    Because such development would be a target for the regressive repressive Taliban they would have to be defended—therefore such local centers should be garrisoned too.

    This process should emanate from Kabul and Kandahar. The more tangible beenfits the rural populations have access to, the more useful the government will be to them and the more useless the regressive extremists will become.

    Instead of being caught in the middle the rural locals will have something worth defending, the government will have something worth fighting for instead of just some patches of ‘peasant’land .
    The Afghan army will have something tangible to fight for.They need to be properly paid and properly equipped.

    Until the Kabul government can hold ground, establish and maintain communications and consistent support out to the rural areas and develop and maintain local benefits, the to and fro as the Taliban and NATO forces keep up their expeditionary tactics will never end until one side decides to quit out of boredom—and that would be the West, once again.

    As long as the rural areas are left isolated. to be visited only when Taliban activity is spotted and then abandoned until the next time, nothing is going to change for the locals or the Government and the international effort will be a waste of time and money—as it already has been for 7 years.

    That’s my opinion anyway.

    March 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pm

    ---

17. 5th Estate says:

    ---

    lokidog “but f*** with their sports, and now they get upset.”

    LOL, but that’s true anywhere! And the US is certainly no exception.
    It;s the one thing they can all enjoy regardless of tribal rivalries or murderous politics.
    This group of militants totally screwed the pooch by attacking the Sri Lankan team. What a stupid, stupid idea!

    March 5th, 2009 at 1:00 pm

    ---

18. cougar_gal06 says:

    ---

    I think the way to make Pakistan a free and fair country is to start by helping the people living in poverty. By helping those individuals it is creating helping to create a bigger work force, there would be more people coming into the consumer market and it would help make our countries image more positive. If we can accomplish this, it makes it easier for us to tell them to get the Taliban out of their country. The Borgen Project (www.borgenproject.org) has some great ideas to help educate struggling nations to become more agricultural. If the U.S. and the other leaders of the world help to solve the problems in developing countries it will bring us one step closer to completeing the Millennium Goals.

    March 5th, 2009 at 1:20 pm

    ---

19. Rich H says:

    ---

    Sucks to be Pakistani. You have an ongoing cold war and sponsor terrorist raids in India. You have no control of your border with Pakistan and have to cede authority to terrorists. You kill innnocent kricket players from Sri Lanka. You kill your only hope of moving into the 21st century, Benazir Bhutto.
    Actually, it worse to be your neighbor.

    March 5th, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    ---

20. hussein toasterhead says:

    ---

    lokidog Says:

    I’m pleased they are finally getting angry about what has been transpiring in their country for years. Just find it tragic that the needless death and destruction that has been occuring within their borders for years has apparently not angered them enough – but disrupting their cricket schedule has.

    March 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
    _________

    What are you basing this on? Do you honestly believe that Pakistanis were all fine and dandy with their people dying in carbombings and assassinations and other acts of militant violence until this one attack on the Sri Lankan cricketers? Just because this is the first criticism you’ve read doesn’t mean it’s the first one that existed. Take the blinders off, please.

    March 5th, 2009 at 1:56 pm

    ---

21. lokidog says:

    ---

    hussein toasterhead says:

    What are you basing this on?

    The headline, “Attack on Sri Lankan cricket team in Pakistan rouses anger against militants”.

    Implicit in this is that Pakistani “anger against militants” was not present before, and it took an attack on a cricket team to make them angry.

    Do you honestly believe that Pakistanis were all fine and dandy with their people dying in carbombings and assassinations and other acts of militant violence until this one attack on the Sri Lankan cricketers?

    Of course not – and it’s interesting you would take my post to imply such – just like I did with the headline. Guess we both are guilty of jumping to conclusions, eh?

    Just because this is the first criticism you’ve read doesn’t mean it’s the first one that existed.

    I realize that, HT. But wouldn’t you admit that there is a paucity of stories, articles, etc. that would indicate the Pakistani anger is palpable across the country regarding Islamic militantism? Granted, the US press is for the most part worthless, but to an outsider – and in view of how long the militants have had basically free reign there – it would seem the populace in general doesn’t consider this a major problem. Especially when their government is signing peace treaties with those responsible (?) for much of this.

    I wear no blinders, but admit I’m not as intelligent on all these issues as most and you in particular. Anything (links, etc.) you can provide to help in my education (lol) would be appreciated. My mind is open.

    March 5th, 2009 at 2:36 pm

    ---

22. hussein toasterhead says:

    ---

    analysis: In our own interest
    Talat Masood – Daily Times, Pakistan
    Thursday, December 18, 2008

    Demobilisation of these groups is a huge challenge, and will require adroit handling. Merely banning these militant organisations will not make them disappear. In fact, they would simply go underground and pose an even greater threat. The Jama’at-ud Dawa ostensibly has an extensive social services network whose tasks the government and other benign NGOs will have to take up. Most importantly, the militants will have to be demotivated and rehabilitated by providing them alternate means of livelihood.

    We cannot afford to ignore world pressure and remain oblivious to our national interests any more. Strategies and policies have to change in accordance with current realities. It may have been expedient to pursue foreign and defence policy through the use of proxies in the 1980s and 1990s, but not any more. In case we fail to act, international powers in collusion with regional forces will continue to pressurise and destabilise us.

    http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C12%5C18%5Cstory_18-12-2008_pg3_2

    ———-

    Combating terrorism
    Huzaima Bukhari and Dr Ikramul Haq, The News, Pakistan
    Tuesday, September 23, 2008

    The blatant act of terrorism in Islamabad on Sept 20 targeting the Marriott Hotel jolted the entire nation and world at large. This raised some important questions about the future shape of “war on terrorism” and survival of modern day societies. Like fascism, terrorism is a self-destructive ideology. If we want to fight terrorism we will have to understand it. Wishful thinking about military might and invincible air strike power will not help to win the war against something that relates to human behaviour. Use of brutal and ill-directed force against a few groups, dubbed as terrorists by America and some of its allies, without eliminating the causes that lead to terrorism will be a self-defeating exercise.

    http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=137394

    ———–

    Poverty of policy-making on terrorism
    Nasim Zehra , The News, Pakistan
    Friday, September 12, 2008

    Pakistan’s role in the Washington-led “war on terrorism” promises to remain a matter of great internal acrimony until we do not formulate a policy that conceptually, politically and operationally locates it within the context of our own national interest and in keeping with our own Constitution and legal frameworks. So, is there a national interests dimension to our participation? Yes, there is. Pakistan does face an acute internal security crisis. This, and this alone, is the broad formulation of our national challenge. It is within this broad formulation that elements like suicide bombings, rising militancy, foreign militants, the Al Qaeda presence, rising sectarian killings, the receding write of the state, US pressures, Pakistan’s UN obligations, the external factor, the Pakistani-Afghan border situation, must be placed and then comprehensively examined for policy options available to Pakistan.

    http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=135284

    March 5th, 2009 at 3:07 pm

    ---

23. lokidog says:

    ---

    Thanks Hussein Toasterhead. Will read these on my train ride home – and keep the websites for future reference.

    March 5th, 2009 at 5:16 pm

    ---

24. sacopenapa says:

    ---

    This is called ‘blow back’! This is the end result of ‘Obama’s War’. Bombing Pakistan and killing civilians while still occupying Iraq and Afheganistan… It is amazing to hear the media say Terrorists did this or that, but never realy mention or question US’s drones bombing the north of Pakistan, from inside Pakistan via yet another US military base. This is what is crippling the US’s economy. Each of these melitary bases are costing the Us tax payers and will continue to cost for generations to come…

    March 5th, 2009 at 10:05 pm

    ---