• Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sajini W
    • Sid’s blog
    • Sonia Afroz
    • Sunny on CIF
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Aqoul
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Blairwatch
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Clive Davis
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr StrangeLove
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Humanist Editor
    • New Statesman blogs
    • open Democracy
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man’s fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown



  • Technorati: graph / links

    Pakistanis are angry? How dare they?


    by Sunny on 13th April, 2009 at 12:50 pm    

    So, Sadiq Khan MP goes on a fact-finding trip to Pakistan. To absolutely no surprise he finds that many Pakistanis are angry over the unmanned-drone raids by US forces that end up killing lots of civilians.

    Blogger ‘habibi’ on Harry’s Place is outraged! How dare Sadiq Khan express any sympathy for these people and suggest our foreign policy should care for the lives of innocent Pakistanis? Don’t these wogs realise we’re doing them a favour by bombing them to hell/heaven/72 virgins? This is how you get democracy kimosabi. Personally, I just get tears in my eyes when I think how courageously freedom-loving democrats here want to fight for a sense of peace and justice in South Asia.



      |   Trackback link   |   Add to del.icio.us   |   Share on Facebook   |   Filed in: Pakistan, South Asia, Terrorism




    26 Comments below   |   Add your own

    1. marvin — on 13th April, 2009 at 1:27 pm  

      These raids are authorised by Obama. Surprising there’s no mention of him. ‘Bush’ would have been invoked several times per paragraph in times gone…

    2. cjcjc — on 13th April, 2009 at 1:40 pm  

      Oh, I see marvin beat me to it.

      It’s Obama’s foreign policy not “ours”.

    3. Sunny — on 13th April, 2009 at 1:50 pm  

      I don’t agree with the policy, which was started by Bush and carried on by Obama. Happy?

      where do you stand on it, marvin, cjcjc?

    4. Anas — on 13th April, 2009 at 1:52 pm  

      Spot on Sunny. It’s the Iraqi, Afghani, Pakistani, etc, unwillingness to see the broader picture every time we accidentally wipe out a few dozen civilians that is ultimately to blame for the chaos in those countries.

    5. marvin — on 13th April, 2009 at 1:53 pm  

      As the liberal-left continue to attack to anyone who dissents from their complex islamist-apologia gymnastics, the Talibanisation of Pakistan continues; the secular forces are capitulating.

      We do not send drones in Pakistan Sunny.

      What are you talking about? Or perhaps we’re all the same eh? It’s like right wingers mindlessly blaming Iran for the scum bags who came here from Pakistan on student visas to kill people.

      Western foreign policy — one big contiguous block eh?

    6. marvin — on 13th April, 2009 at 1:56 pm  

      Is Anas a parody?

      Sunny yes I support Obama’s policy. The Pakistani government is weak weak weak. And they gots the nukes. Blink an eye and they turn part of the country over to the Taliban.

    7. Zak — on 13th April, 2009 at 2:10 pm  

      Sunny I don’t agree with the drone attacks in principle..however there is a disconnect between what the border areas population feels about them and those in the big cities. A survey of 550 people done by Farhat Taj (published march 5 09) came back with this result

      - Do you see drone attacks bringing about fear and terror in the common people? (Yes 45%, No 55%)

      - Do you think the drones are accurate in their strikes? (Yes 52%, No 48%)

      - Do you think anti-American feelings in the area increased due to drone attacks recently? (Yes 42%, No 58%)

      - Should Pakistan military carry out targeted strikes at the militant organisations? (Yes 70%, No 30%)

      - Do the militant organisations get damaged due to drone attacks? (Yes 60%, No 40%)

      While the attacks inflame Pakistani nationalists because they violate pakistans writ…it’s effectively an acceptence that the state has no writ anymore in that region..

      You can argue the attacks are wrong because of the collateral damage and because they actually disperse militants deeper into pakistan proper ..

    8. Zak — on 13th April, 2009 at 2:13 pm  

      sorry heres the link
      http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=165781

    9. damon — on 13th April, 2009 at 2:34 pm  

      It’s completely unacceptable. It wouldn’t be done here (or in Northen Ireland in the past) so why is it acceptable in Pakistan?

      According to this newspaper:

      ”Of the 60 cross-border predator strikes carried out by the Afghanistan-based American drones in Pakistan between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009, only 10 were able to hit their actual targets, killing 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders, besides perishing 687 innocent Pakistani civilians.”
      http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=21440

    10. Sunny — on 13th April, 2009 at 2:38 pm  

      Western foreign policy — one big contiguous block eh?

      My point isn’t about who’s foreign policy it is - because it’s obvious many Pakistanis are confused about it.

      My point is about the implication on that post by habibi that paying any attention to the grievances of the Pakistanis being bombed by those drones is about the same as bending over for the Taliban.

      As you know, I have no love for the Taliban - so please try and be more precise on what you’re complaining about.

    11. BenSix — on 13th April, 2009 at 3:15 pm  

      Habibi’s talking nonsense.

      “Sunny yes I support Obama’s policy. The Pakistani government is weak weak weak.”

      Quite right; much better to do something for the sake of looking strong than do nothing for fear of being wrong. As a wise man said…

      “Politician’s logic: something must be done. This is something, therefore we must do it.”

    12. marvin — on 13th April, 2009 at 5:32 pm  

      Thankyou #8 Zak thats an eye opener.

      I asked almost all those people if they see the US drone attacks on FATA as violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. More than two-third said they did not. Pakistan’s sovereignty, they argued, was insulted and annihilated by Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, whose territory FATA is after Pakistan lost it to them. The US is violating the sovereignty of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, not of Pakistan. Almost half the people said that the US drones attacking Islamabad or Lahore will be violation of the sovereignty of Pakistan, because these areas are not taken over by the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Many people laughed when I mentioned the word sovereignty with respect to Pakistan.

      Over two-thirds of the people viewed Al-Qaeda and the Taliban as enemy number one, and wanted the Pakistani army to clear the area of the militants. A little under two-thirds want the Americans to continue the drone attack because the Pakistani army is unable or unwilling to retake the territory from the Taliban.

      ..What is happening in FATA is destroying the lives and culture of the FATA people, threatening the integrity of Pakistan and world peace. Fantasies of the armchair analysts are helping no one but Al Qaeda and the Taliban-enemies of the land and culture I love, and our state. I will therefore continue to challenge the fantasies of the armchairs analysts, whenever possible.

      As I intuited, the people of the area - unlike the impression it’s easy to get by the left wing opposition to the US Taliban attacks -actually they know it’s Al-Qaeda and Taliban who are the enemy, and secondly that Pakistan have effectively abandoned them.

      Go Obama! Take out the Taliban & Qaeda — NOBODY else will. Fact. It cant be long before the Damon’s of this world openly turn against Obama. Just waiting quietly for that one…

    13. BenSix — on 13th April, 2009 at 5:43 pm  

      Any comment, Marvin, on the fact that the same reporter has written that…

      “Of the 60 cross-border predator strikes carried out by the Afghanistan-based American drones in Pakistan between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009, only 10 were able to hit their actual targets, killing 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders, besides perishing 687 innocent Pakistani civilians. The success percentage of the US predator strikes thus comes to not more than six per cent.”

    14. Sid — on 13th April, 2009 at 6:14 pm  

      There is a context to US drone attacks. And that context is terrorist attacks. Here is a report in Dawn:
      http://www.dawn.com/2007/01/07/top7.htm

      Terror attacks killed almost two people a day in 2006, with Balochistan and the country’s tribal areas becoming the worst trouble spots. These are the findings of a research study conducted by an independent think-tank, Pak Institute for Peace Studies, which found that the overall security situation remained extremely precarious in the outgoing year.

      The government blamed the terror attacks on insurgents in Balochistan, operatives of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and sectarian militants.

      According to the research study, 657 terrorist attacks, including 41 of a sectarian nature, took place in the outgoing year, leaving 907 people dead and 1,543 others injured.

      The attacks are said to have caused a loss of billions of rupees.

      The research study puts the number of people arrested by law-enforcement agencies at 1,552, including 1,094 Taliban and Afghans, 47 Al Qaeda operatives, 198 other militants and 213 nationalist insurgents.

      Giving a province-wise break-up, it says that the Balochistan Liberation Army, the Balochistan Liberation Front and the Bugti Militia were blamed by the government for carrying out 403 terror attacks in Balochistan during 2006 that killed 277 people and injured 676 others.

    15. marvin — on 13th April, 2009 at 6:33 pm  

      Poor bloody people I say. The Pakistan government has abandoned them. Al-Qaeda and Taliban are living amongst them. Their prospects are not looking good. They are forced to give haven to them, to give food and shelter to these blood thirsty psyhcopaths.

      The Pakistan government cannot be trusted, patently, but we do know large numbers of civilians are getting killed. How do we avoid it? Good question.

      To complicate things it’s widely accepted Pakistan is privately giving the US intelligence for drone attacks yet, the ISI is widely seen as colluding with Taliban and AQ.

      It’s a disaster. But leaving it as a safe haven for Al-Qaeda is NOT an option. Pakistan is fast becoming a failed state. With Nukes.

    16. Sunny — on 13th April, 2009 at 6:35 pm  

      Here’s more nasty behaviour from the Obama administration for you Marvin:

      The reassertion by civilian leaders is being led by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has promised to restore the State Department’s centrality in the making of foreign policy. In the first six years of the Bush presidency, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld dominated the administration’s interactions with the world, pushing aside Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. Likewise, in places like the Balkans and Iraq, the military began undertaking activities once reserved for diplomats, like overseeing reconstruction and development projects. Mrs. Clinton says she not only wants to take back those former responsibilities, but to restore diplomacy’s primary role in resolving crises. One of the centerpieces of that effort would be Iran, which the West fears is rapidly developing the capacity to build nuclear weapons.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/weekinreview/12filkins.html

      diplomacy? How dare these people use something so silly.

      I much prefer bringing democracy to people by bombing them to kingdom come, and then declaring they’re Islamists if they complain.

    17. Niels C — on 13th April, 2009 at 7:46 pm  

      Sunny : My point isn’t about who’s foreign policy it is - because it’s obvious many Pakistanis are confused about it.
      Guess you are right, Pakistanis in general seems confused.They live in a incredible corrupt society, millions lives like slaves, in many areas women are treated as cattle, and now Islamist has taken over part of the country.
      What young pakistanis should be confused about should instead be how to develop and enrich the country.
      And if Pakistan didn’t recieve any money from expats living in the same countries which fight in Afganistan
      (USA, England, Canada, Denmark, Norway) then they would be really confused.

    18. Raja Sahib — on 13th April, 2009 at 7:46 pm  

      “So, Sadiq Kahn MP”

      LOL Tzadek Kahn. Isn’t that a Jewish name?

    19. saeed — on 13th April, 2009 at 8:33 pm  

      Hp Sauce is a hateful website populated by morons…cos Sadiq Khan was critical of US policy in Pakistan they then tried to slur him as an Islamist…this is politics of the gutter…and to tbhink they had a blog up criticising labour spin doctors…

    20. saeed — on 13th April, 2009 at 8:41 pm  

      @ Niels C sunnys post is not about the rights or wrongs of US policy in Pakistan…its about HP sauces attempt to slur anyone who doesn’t toe the party line…Khan voted very strongly for introducing national ID cards, strongly for labours anti-terrorism laws and very strongly against investigating the Iraq war…so hes not really a far left islamist sympathiseris he

    21. saeed — on 13th April, 2009 at 8:44 pm  

      @ Niels C sunnys post is not about the rights or wrongs of US policy in Pakistan…its about HP sauces attempt to slur anyone who doesn’t toe the party line…Khan voted very strongly for introducing national ID cards, strongly for labours anti-terrorism laws and very strongly against investigating the Iraq war…so hes not really a far left islamist sympathiser is he

    22. saeed — on 13th April, 2009 at 8:49 pm  

      Also look at most of the comments over at HP sauces blog…the most vile anti-muslim bigotry gets a carte-blanche on that site and they have the temerity to criticise others for rascism..some comments from HP Sauce are below:

      The British government should invite large numbers of these Pakistani Islamo-fascists to come and live in the UK, at taxpayers expense, so that they can learn how a democratic society operates.

      Oh, they already have.

      Mr Khan is a muslim first, second & third, like all sincere muslims.

      Khan has been promoted by Labour in order to secure muslim votes - guaranteed by the sack load due to postal voting & its innate lack of security.

      Mr Khan, like all true muslims is here as a colonist, & his perfectly logical position towards the UK is the same as that of the British colonialists/missionaries in the 19th century Empire. I want him & his sort out, because, like Ghandi, I think colonialism stinks.

      Particularly when the colonists represent a measurably inferior culture.

      Martin.

    23. marvin — on 13th April, 2009 at 9:45 pm  

      Saeed, I think you should challenge him directly. Often people will ignore or pass over ignorant comments, hell knows I’ve done it here often enough. And also engaged with some most unsavoury comments here too. If you alert the HP admins I’m sure they’ll delete it.

      I wouldn’t judge all the bloggers and commenters by a small cabal who thinks all Muslims are here too take over! As I wouldn’t judge all at PP with regards to outlandish and offensive comments about all Jews (which were aplenty a couple of months ago).

      When news of islamist terrorist plots or of military action by Jews reaches the news the angry and offensive will come out to play, sure as night follows day.

    24. platinum786 — on 14th April, 2009 at 9:30 am  

      The US missile strikes are obviously not helping, the figures speak for themselves, 15 Al Queda leaders Vs 6 hundred and something civillians. Would anyone feel sinking a cruise ship full of guests to kill a bnad of hijackers would be acceptable?

      The government of Pakistan is equally to blame for this as the American government. They refuse to act against the Americans to stop them carrying out these attacks. Not suprising considering the previous government needed US backing to stay in power and the current one came into power when they offered more services than Musharraf could provide.

      In order for the US to target these people, they have satellite images tracking them, they have drones which can fly around for hours on end watching them, they have the intelligence which the Pakistani military does not have on the ground. If all this intel can be routed to Qatar and strikes coordinated from there, why can’t it also be routed to Islamabad at a joint intelligence centre, we have one in Yorkshire in the UK don’t we?

      if the Pakistani military had access to helicopters, a few attack helicopters, spares for the ones they have right now, maybe the team of 400 cracka anti terrorist commando’s the US has helped train and arm might be able to deploy and arrest these 14 Al Queda leaders rather than just kill them, and 6 hundred and something civillians.

      The fact of the matter is that human life in that part of the world is so worthless, neither the American nor the Pakistani governments care.

      Take the operation against the Lal Masjid in Islamabad, for years they knew something dodgy was going on in there, they ignored it, they didn’t want to make a fuss, didn’t want to make a scene, didn’t want to upset political friends of the head honcho inside the Mosque.

      In the end they decided they were going to take over Islambad and got too bold. The state acted by crushing them and those inside.

      But what happened after that? Where did the students go? Did they get any councilling? Did anyone send them to another school? Did anyone figure out what they were taught, did anyone “reprogramme them”. No. That all costs money, they’d rather shoot them dead in a few years time rather than feed them and educate them now.

      Some of the same students are in the same Mosque under some of the same teachers, they’re just not armed anymore, they’re incapable of making a scene, everything is okay as far as the state is concerned.

    25. saeed — on 14th April, 2009 at 9:37 am  

      @ Marvin

      you wrote:

      I wouldn’t judge all the bloggers and commenters by a small cabal who thinks all Muslims are here too take over! As I wouldn’t judge all at PP with regards to outlandish and offensive comments about all Jews (which were aplenty a couple of months ago).

      Its not a small minority though is it…just check the actual HP thread…

      also the main line of argument I have with habibs thread is the afct that he is trying to slur sadiq khan as an islamkist sympthasiser…do you actually believe this?

    26. platinum786 — on 14th April, 2009 at 11:17 am  

      This should help you get an interesting insight into the Pakistani government and it’s mentality;

      ISLAMABAD, April 13: Federal Minister for Religious Affairs Hamid Saeed Kazmi, on Monday, accused the media of humiliating Pakistan by its reporting on the continuing drone attacks by the United States inside the country’s territory.

      Talking to reporters after a “Common word conference” organised by the Universal Interfaith Peace Mission here, he said the media must not ignore ground realities. “The government has never supported the drone attacks and keeps on raising voice against them. It is true that we are discriminated against, but we cannot declare Jihad against the United States,” he added.

      http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/national/irresponsible-reporting-on-drone-attacks-humiliating-country

      So the 600+ innocent people killed by these attacks don’t matter, but the political damage caused by the reporting of these attacks, does matter.

      Can you imagine anyone in any normal country in the world making such a statement and keeping thier position in government?

      What tommorow, the 8000 Pakistani’s killed by terrorists since 2001 don’t matter, but the damage caused to investor confidence by reporting the terrorist attacks does matter?

      The next statement is brilliant too “we can’t declare a jihad on America”. Why the **** not? I’m not saying it’s the sensible thing to do, but why do pay the salaries of nearly a million soldiers, spend billions a year on defence, when there are hundreds of places it could be spent, if we are unwilling to defend our territory against attack? Would the situation be the same of it was an Indian surgical strike?



    • Post a comment using the form below

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2009. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.