Outlawed Sunni organizations? That's rather nasty journalism. Are Sunnites outlawed in Pakistan, or just certain organizations? If the latter, why the ambiguous wording?

TBox - Where is your tongue at? Firmly embedded in your cheek? More freakin' Islamospewage. Couldn't be happenin' in Pakistan! Couldn't be happenin' in Afghanistan! Couldn't be happenin' anywhere between 10 and 40degrees NLAT, could it? I remain curious. I think the World Political Stage is about set for the GONG Show. StupidAss Governments are lined up for the StupidAss Pet tricks. We need a Strategy here. Got any just layin' around?

If it wasn't so tragic it would make for good comedy.
The Islamic militants declare war on the infidels and we don't even have to try to split their forces, they do it for us, killing off their potential comrades- in- arms and often enough blowing themselves up in groups while making bombs.
Whatever war manuals they're reading must've been written as a practical joke by someone who really, really doesn't like Muslims.

No, Dave, honest inquiry. Pakistan is currently on America's "Bad but cooperating" list. That is, they're potential threats (Anyone else notice the alleged collaboration with North Korea?), but they're working hard to "play nice" with the US, so we have to ignore them in favor of more outspoken targets.

Either the BBC is trying to subtly expose Pakistani prejudices, or they're trying to cover them up. Which it is depends on actual Pakistani policy, which I am, of course, too lazy to look up.

Given that a journalist would have his tongue cut out if he badmouthed Pakistan while it's our pitbull, if Pakistan is a Shia-controlled government with a history of oppression of Sunnis, then this journalist is trying to "get the word out" by showing this oppression, while ostensibly supporting Pakistan in their personal war against terror.

If Pakistan is (relatively) fair in its adjudication, then this journalist is trying to poison our minds against Pakistan by suggesting that they are oppressing the Sunnites globally, instead of only radical Sunnite groups.

I think I'm succumbing to paranoia -- I'm starting to see "agenda" in everything.

--

Okay, back from research.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/06/pakistan062103.htm

An admittedly biased document, but it gives me a glimpse.

I still feel the BBC reporter is exaggerating Pakistan's complicity in a bout of liberal fervor, but certainly Pakistan has committed some indiscretions.

The question for me, were I in charge, would be if Pakistan wants to be "our friend" strongly enough that we can exert the diplomatic pressure needed to pull them out of the civil democratic crisis they're going through right now. If it is, I would have to turn a blind eye to their history and current status in favor of exploiting the potential to "reform" them from within.

Seth: "The Islamic militants declare war on the infidels and we don't even have to try to split their forces, they do it for us, killing off their potential comrades- in- arms and often enough blowing themselves up in groups while making bombs."

Yeah, I love that too. The biggest threat to the west is if these backward 7th centuary freaks got their act together and put aside their differences... its something that they too are aware of... and this BBC intercept "Iran, Saudi Arabia call for religious cooperation against "enemies of Islam"....
http://www.monitor.bbc.co.uk/nfnews.shtml#second
via Freep shows...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/941681/posts

TBox: "Outlawed Sunni organizations? That's rather nasty journalism. Are Sunnites outlawed in Pakistan, or just certain organizations?

The article said: "They say they are sure the attackers were Pakistani Sunni extremists from banned militant organisations."

Musharraf banned certain groups who were linked to AQ and the guys behind the attacks in India a year or so ago. Pakistan is a hotbead of Islamic terror, and yes, Musharraf gained power in a military coup. Since then he has allowed elections were a chunk of Islamists got in. Not good news.

Musharraf is not the ideal partner and anyone could write a book about all the things wrong with Pakistan and Musharraf, but hes stuck between the anti-western Islamists that want sharia to spread to the rest of the country and supporting the war on terror. Hes taken a lot of hits at home for supporting us, and has basically put his head on the line for US.

Those that want to overthrow him will kill democracy in that country, and will turn it into something like another Afghanistan under taliban rule, but with modern weapons and nukes for their Islamist agenda. This is something that we can not afford. Musharaff is the best friend we have there, and hes stood by us against huge political pressure at home.

Darn HTML. Whats up with the HTML is the GWOT threads?!?!?! The quotes etc were supposed to be in italics and links on this thread always die.

USF - I've 'mentioned' it more than once on this page, and it appears to be limited to the GWOT page only. Send a note to alan or michele@command-post.org It's better than leaving a message in an active thread.

Dave.. Thanks..

The Saudis have a long way to go before they can enjoin a war against the Enemies of Islam, though, as they're presently having to cope with a growing number of Enemies IN Islam.

I think what the Saudis are worried about is that if we have something like most favored nation status as a customer at the Iraqi gas pump once the new government's in place, we won't need Saudi oil as much anymore and there would go their only real bargaining chip with Uncle Sam.
Also, the prospect of having a democracy of any kind in the same hood as their kingdom probably scares the hell out of the Saudi Royal Family.

They're probably hoping to get Iran to do some dirty work for them in Iraq, to help get some "quagmire" action going, or planning some joint skulduggery to achieve the same effect.

Or at least exploring possibilities thereof.

Yup, Im in agreement there Seth. Not only have the Saudis lost the bargaining chip of their oil, but they have also lost the other important chip - military bases. Overnight, everything the US-Saudi relationship was based on has been changed. Now perhaps, is the time to get tough with those Wahabbi exporting freaks. It looks as if they are reaching out for allies as they too feel the winds of change and now try to desperately to grasp at straws...

USF: Thanks for the commentary. What do you think was the BBC motivation for calling them "outlawed Sunni organizations" in their opening line instead of "outlawed militant organizations"? Or better yet, "outlawed terrorist organizations." The choice of words is heavily significant.

I still think it's nasty journalism.

TBox.... nasty journalism from the BBC? LOL... wont be the first time!

I guess their motivation is from this being a sunni vs shite incident... letting the blame rest on the the sunnis, and pointing out (with sloppy journalism) that its not the mainstream that did it. But you are right, yes, it can be ambiguous and read the wrong way.

There was another example of either sloppiness at the BBC or down right bias when the BBC published a picture of some Palestinain waving the two fingered victory sign that the BBC reported was a "peace sign." I think they got it from the AP or some other source that correctly said it was a victory sign and not a peace sign....

Was that downright bias, or downleft?

ROTFLMFAO! I'll go with the latter :)