Islam News @ NYTWould you like your own blog hosted at Talk Islam? Email the admin at "salaam at talk islam dot info" !
Talk Islam uses Wordpress MU and the Prologue theme by Automattic
DISCLAIMER: Please see the About Talk Islam page for fair use issues and our privacy policy.
DONATE: Talk Islam needs your support!
Death toll in Pakistani volleyball tournament massacre nears 90.
No word yet if the usual suspects have begun blaming it on the RAW/Rand/CIA/Mossad/Blackwater/Pakistani-Americans-traveling-on-visas axis.
Let me be the first to offer murmurs of disapproval…
johnpi 4:11 pm on January 1, 2010 Permalink |
All of the victims were civilian, reports the NY Times:
manas 8:31 pm on January 1, 2010 Permalink |
How did you come to the conclusion that CIA is not behind these?
I would also like to know what evidence those that say CIA is behind these have?
I have seen not a semblance of rational thought from either side.
It’s bad enough when we don’t know. It’s worse when we refuse to acknowledge that we don’t.
Either claim has to be backed up by verifiable evidence. Otherwise it’s nothing.
johnpi 9:10 pm on January 1, 2010 Permalink |
What is the motivation that the CIA uses to compel its employees to martyr themselves?
manas 9:29 pm on January 1, 2010 Permalink |
If CIA is at all involved, they have a little more imagination than that. The idea of covert operation is not to get your own folks commit suicide.
My point is not to argue that CIA is doing all this. My point is we can not dismiss their involvement. They certainly gain tactical benefits from the situation. That alone is not a proof that they are involved.
My point is that it is just as unreasonable to dismiss the charge without any reflection is as reasonable as accepting the charges without reflection.
However, we need to go beyond this mud throwing and try to get to the bottom of the problem. Which I think is lack of opportunities in the society.
More here
manas 9:30 pm on January 1, 2010 Permalink |
My point is that it is just as unreasonable to dismiss the charge without any reflection is as (un)reasonable as accepting the charges without reflection.
johnpi 9:37 pm on January 1, 2010 Permalink
Thabet wrote:
I think that’s what you’re getting at…
manas 9:49 pm on January 1, 2010 Permalink
I am not making any claims. I am asking any who do for proof. Therefore your insinuation that I am supporting the CIA involvement theory is not true.
thabet 9:50 pm on January 1, 2010 Permalink |
The situation is a complete mess, and I think it is hard for anyone to know what is going on. There seems to be a mix of motives, intentions and aims, with different side, including ‘allies’, trying to play off one and another. The desire of Pakistan to maintain control over its links with Afghan groups is an oft occurring theme in the news and not without substance.
However, the use of ‘gangs and counter-gangs’ in other ‘low intensity’ operations is fairly well documented. I am sure Conrad will have something to add.
johnpi 2:09 am on January 2, 2010 Permalink |
Yeah, you’re right. It’s a riddle wrapped in a mystery surrounded by an enigma. Here’s some of the opaque reports coming in from Pakistan.
Well, Al Jazeera’s Imran Khan says:
And the local police chief says:
And Dawn’s correspondent says:
And The International News reports:
CNN reporters Nasir Dawar and Nazar ul-Islam write:
Al Arabiya says:
Nothing to build a working theory on here…
thabet 5:53 am on January 2, 2010 Permalink
I was talking in general, not this specific incident.
And citing a dozen news reports doesn’t help when they all rely on one or two news wires.
pi.info 7:53 am on January 2, 2010 Permalink
Actually, if you go back and look at the sources you’ll see their from more than “one or two wire news wires.”
cbarwa 9:35 am on January 2, 2010 Permalink |
I would agree with thabet in exercising some caution in interpreting what is going on here, I am still trying exactly to work out what happened in Mus Quala, Helmand, regarding the ‘truce’ there and its subsequent breakdown. One thing I have learnt from researching rural areas in India and Afghanistan, is that it is frequently very difficult to determine exactly what has gone on in such situations, because almost all those interviewed will have an agenda that they consciously project towards outsiders, govt and state reporting is quite compromised and disconnected from on the ground events and the media – lets be fair anyone who has worked in South Asia, will tell you that the media has just no capacity and a poor record when it comes to covering events or incidents in the rural hinterlands. There are no reporters, of any quality, based in such areas and there are few that would be familiar with the politics and social dynamics of such areas; so often you get impressionistic and soundbite-type of analysis. This isn’t to say that such reporting is completely useless but just that it only conveys a partial interpretation of reality or what has happened.
Michale Semple has an excellent short monograph entitled “Reconciliation in Afghanistan” which also has some good material on Pakistan. He contrasts aspects of govt policy towards the Taliban and the political strategy on both sides of the Durand line, outlining differences and similarities. The biggest difference is that currently, while in broad terms the Afghan govt is pursuing a policy of selective co-option and force the Pakistani govt has moved to one of complete subjugation of the Taliban on the Pak side of the border. I can’t do justice to the five-point model he has developed but his broad point is that any successful model will incorporate a multi-facted approach and have an accomodation strategy as well where there is some political settlement between the two groups; a mix of both the carrot and the stick in the right proportions. The Afghan strategy is flawed, but only partially so, the main problem seems to be one of commitment to actually implementing it. The Pakistani strategy is much more problematic because the state has oscillated between completely given in to militant demands, as in the earlier accords with the Taliban in places such as Swat etc., and then pursuing a strategy of repression when that failed. Of course the problem is in Pakistan, that the Pakistani Taliban are a very different proposition to the Afghan Taliban and are much less amenable to negotiation. There is also the problem that the state has been massively compromised by having nurtured many of these groups or their forerunners as part of its external policy and now is not able to successfully switch its approach.
This doesn’t say much directly on this incident obviously, but it is unclear to me whether these local militias are directly sponsored by the govt or whether they are a purely local affair that actually seeks to forestall any incursion by the Taliban or govt forces. Given how this region was not directly governed by the central state and that the institutional presence of government is weak and local autonomy entrenched, it would not surprise me if being hostile towards the Taliban doesn’t necessarily translate into being ‘pro-govt’ as it were.
johnpi 11:51 am on January 2, 2010 Permalink |
All three of the other commenters on this thread are offering informed, reasonable generalizations as far as generalizations go, but they don’t overlay well onto this specific incident. As a result, you’re licensing irresponsible conjecture that serves right-wing demagoguery to say that ‘countergangs’, the CIA or the Mossad are – or should be considered as – equal suspects with the Taliban, and I think you need to be called on it and challenged.
It’s not a ‘rush to judgment’ to conclude that this was a Taliban attack, and you should look more closely at the history of local events and the analysis I excerpted from the Long War Journal.
• There’s a history of threats against the town coming from the Taliban.
• There’s a history of policy with the Taliban of engaging in these kinds of attacks all around the local area.
• There’s a ton of motive on the part of the Taliban to afflict the locals of this town to discourage them from forming a lashkar, whereas the other groups cited have every reason to want the locals to be successful in their effort to establish a lashkar that protects the town from violence.
• There’s a recent and active history of precisely these kinds of attacks coming from the Taliban.
A three member panel of inquiry has been assigned to investigate the attack and make an official ruling on who was responsible. I hope that settles it.
Before the inquiry is completed though a lot of ‘truth’ can be established, and it’s that political argument that I’m on one side of and Thabet, Conrad and Manas are on the other side of.
thabet 11:23 pm on January 2, 2010 Permalink |
John,
No one can deny the ‘Taliban’ (the various groups all put under the same umbrella) on both sides of the Durand Line have a record of engaging in vicious and brutal violence. The main problem those who want to explicitly pin everything on RAW or the CIA or Mossad or the Russians is that these sorts of views and acts of violence occurred long before 9/11 and the subsequent US invasion of the Afghanistan. For example, Sunni-Shia sectarianism has a long bloody history in Pakistan.
For the record, I don’t doubt that Pakistani Taliban groups carried out this attack, and numerous other, attacks. Nor that their apologists (including high ranking muftis) will rush to blame things on the US, India, Israel, etc.
It may be that this was the wrong thread to discuss the point I raised. I was looking at the politics of these groups and their campaigns, and how they operate (as elucidated by Conrad). I just used the exchange between you and Manas to veer in that direction. Apologies if you felt this was derailing the thread.
cbarwa 1:14 pm on January 2, 2010 Permalink |
John – just to be clear I am not saying that the CIA or Mossad are involved in this attack at all; my point relates to the developments on the ground and the cycle of events that led up to the attack as well as the political background – to which there is actually no single story, even from the sources you have cited.
pi.info 1:56 pm on January 2, 2010 Permalink |
Fair comments all. I’ve been following the right-wing politics in Pakistan closely and I may be responding to your analysis out of my own vicarious POV. I apologize if I misconstrued your comments…
Anthony 6:19 pm on January 3, 2010 Permalink |
There is a war going on in Pakistan. The people killed on the volleyball court supported the governments crackdown on Taliban forces, so it is only fair the Taliban responds to these acts of aggression. Pakistan has no one to blame but themselves for the violence going on in Pakistan. These are the same people who supported violence in Afghanistan, Kashmir, and other spots for decades, what’s happening in Pakistan now is called blowback.