Was Al-Qaeda behind the latest attack on Musharraf?

[_Jumper_]

http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1072439352075&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

<ISLAMABAD - At least one of the three suicide bombers who tried to assassinate President Pervez Musharraf was a foreigner, raising the spectre that international terrorists had a hand in the attack, investigators said today. >

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Could be

but I trust it was more the local clerics who are still smarting over his lack of support for the Taliban after 9.11

So there can be a tie to AQ... but you can mostly explain it from PAK conditions

[kalian]

2. This is where I think "Al Qaeda" is really acting....

Imagine: they take out Musharraf, then muslim extremeists within the
military decide to take control. Guess what: Pakistan has nukes...
Catch my drift here?

[mmonk]

3. all the while

our best assets are in Iraq. The crux of what's wrong with bush policy.

[blondeatlast]

8. I believe you may be right.

Can't pin it to AQ directly, but their bloody hands are in there somewhere.

[AliceWonderland]

20. How

would you go about establishing/proving this theory, out of curiosity?

[PSR40004]

4. Yes?

Any question they're mad at this guy...

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[blondeatlast]

9. So right. I have been warning everyone I know about the

situation in southern Asia.

Soon we will have a new I/P forum on DU: India/Pakistan.

Not gloating, but this could be a real loser for the Bush Regime. I'd like to see our candidates address this issue.

[BiggJawn]

5. Pervez was an usurper, too, don't forget.

He calls himself "President" but he got his title via way of a military coup, just like most dictators.

I feel that his recent offer to give up control of the military at the end of next year (if he lives that long) is an attempt to cool-off those who want to see him out and dead now. Perhaps with him out of cammand, there may be an opportunity to hold elections and see if the people pf Pakistan want to keep him as president.

He's a tin-horn dictator, and he has no more control over the western part of his country than Karzai has over the eastern portion (along with the other regions) of HIS country.

[MysticMind]

11. don't get me wrong

Musharraf isn't the most benevolent leader but the problem is the alternative to him is likely a Taliban-like government.

[Yupster]

12. Alternative to Mushariff

Is an Indian occupation, because I don't believe India will permit a fundamentalist government next door to them with nukes.

[blondeatlast]

15. Indeed. They have the economic power to gain allies, too.

[MysticMind]

17. if India invaded Pakistan

It'd be a frightening scenario. The major up and coming political party in India is pretty fundamentalist too.

[whatelseisnew]

7. Hard to say given Pak. support for Tal Queda

?

[coda]

10. Gonna be a mad dash to Pakistan if he gets taken out.

Hardliners continue to make gains.

[maggrwaggr]

13. it's when we didn't deal with Pakistan that my hackles went up

about the whole Bush/AlQueda thing.

They are so obviously in Pakistan, any fool can see it.

But Bush let 'em all go, let 'em escape into Pakistan, then went gallivanting off to Iraq.

He's either an idiot or he's complicit in 9/11.

If Al Queda was really responsible for 9/11, we should have invaded both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Completely rebuilt those countries the way we're attempting to do with Iraq.

Hell, I would have even gone if they'd asked me. Back when I believed Al Queda was responsible. Now after much study it looks to me like a major case of LIHOP or MIHOP.

But I still think Al Queda is real and in Pakistan.

[blondeatlast]

16. I'm not a MIHOP or LIHOP, but I agree that we should have dealt with

Pakistan at the same time we were dealing with Afghanistan.

[MysticMind]

18. we couldn't go after Pakistan

For a few reasons:

1.their government was cooperating in the war on terror
2. taking out Pakistan's current government would allow fundamentalist alternatives to take over
3.Musharraf is no Saddam Hussein, Pakistan is a relatively well behaved nation
4. Bush may be unskilled at foreign policy but not dumb enough to attack Pakistan without a really good reason to do so

[varun]

19. duplicitous Musharraf...

"1.their government was cooperating in the war on terror"

mmm...not entirely true. Musharraf gave a pro-Western speech immediately after 9-11 (for the international audience), but an anti Western one in Urdu (official language in Pakistan) for the audince at home. He compared his copperation with the West to that of Prophet Mohammad's temporary cooperation with the Jews in this speech.


"2. taking out Pakistan's current government would allow fundamentalist alternatives to take over"

Musharraf is a fundamentalist, with a moderate face. He does drink a couple of glasses of wine, and keeps dogs as pets (frowned upom by most Muslims), but one only has to listen to his pre-911 speeches to find out his true ideology.

In my opinion, Pakistan would be better off with a representative democracy, rather than have a 2 faced dictator...

"3.Musharraf is no Saddam Hussein, Pakistan is a relatively well behaved nation"

about 2/3 of all terrorist incidents in thw world (other than in Israel) are linked directly or indirectly to Pakistan. Pakistan is in a crisis, and it is possible that after Musharraf, it may split along ethnic lines. I dont see how Bush can call Pakistan a "frontline ally"
:eyes:

"4. Bush may be unskilled at foreign policy but not dumb enough to attack Pakistan without a really good reason to do so"

One of the reasons Bush didnt attack Pakistan was its nuclear weapons. Pakistan has openly stated that it will lob these bombs towards India if US or Israel attacks it (because it doesnt have the missiles to send these bombs to US or Israel).

In other words, Pakistan has been blackmailing Bush.

[sujan]

21. agreed

US has a much better ally in India rather than Pakistan.

[Yupster]

24. Yes, I'm sure the government

is well aware of that fact. If India would have bordered Afghanistan, we would have much rather used it as a base instead of Pakistan, but it doesn't. We would also get more cooperation hunting terrorists in India than Pakistan, but again, unfortunatey the terroristst are in Pakistan.

[Yupster]

22. Reason 5

In July of 2002, Pakistan was estimated to have 147 million people. Are there really people on DU who think we should have invaded Pakistan?

[hellhathnofury]

14. Well...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=27473

Al Qaeda was probably not directly behind the attacks, I suspect homegrown.

[KG]

23. there's probably a waiting line of group that want to whack this guy.

shows the insanity and desparation on the RW looneys in the WH that a marked man musharraf is a lynchpin to carrying out thier policies in the ME.