I have spent the past ten years of my life standing against anyone who spoke in favor of the terrorists that occupy my Pakistan. They have waged war on the innocent civilians, law enforcement officers and armed forces because our government chose to stand with the international community in the War on Terror. And they have proved themselves deserving of the title “terrorist,” with the use of suicide bombers, massive car bomb and devastating attacks on hotels, businesses and other establishments. This is what a terrorist does, they create terror to use against those who they wish to subjugate.
While the international community has developed into a strong chorus daily repeating the lack of seriousness of the Pakistani establishment to eliminate the disease that has plagued our country, Pakistanis struggle with their own traitors that sing in unison with the terrorists.
These traitors, and yes I am using that word correctly, chose to put blinders on to the large scale attacks that are carried out against the Pakistani establishment, saying that it is the US drone strikes that have led to these attacks, Pakistan’s involvement in the War on Terror has led to these attacks and the corruption/bad governance has led to these attacks. What I would like to do is address each point of the traitor’s manifesto, putting to rest the argument that Pakistan is not serious about eliminating the terrorist problem from Pakistan.
Let’s get started…
The terrorist attacks are a response to US drone strikes
The traitors would like to convince the Pakistani people that US attacks on other wanted terrorists in Pakistan is the reason that innocent Pakistanis must die horrifically each day. Here’s how the argument is framed in Pakistan, for those who don’t read the international news:
Pakistan’s government has given the US the authority to use Pakistani airspace to kill terrorists in Pakistan that are wanted by the US government or ISAF forces for crimes committed against there people. Since the Pakistani government has given permission, they are complicit and must be targeted.
Here’s where the argument fails to hold water:
No attacks have been carried out against the Prime Minister, President, Defence Minister, Chief of Army Staff or anyone else in the government decision-making machinery of Pakistan. If the government is complicit, they why are they spared the brunt of the terrorist attacks? Why are innocent Pakistanis targeted?
The problem with this argument is that it is as hollow as the people making it. For any thinking person to believe the contention, there must be three truths:
- There are no terrorists (al-Qaeda or Taliban) taking refuge in the tribal areas – False
- The government of Pakistan has a choice in whether to allow the strikes or not – False
- The people living in the tribal areas are willing and able to hand over the wanted terrorists living in their villages – False
When all three of the foundational points are false, then the argument holds no validity. Forget the fact that there have been no strikes on the government establishment in 6+ years.
The terrorist strikes are in response to Pakistan’s involvement in the international War on Terror
I’ll take you back to 2001, when the attack on the World Trade Center happened. There was no referendum in Pakistan to determine if the government should or should not support the international community in the fight against terrorism. There was no ballot box put forward to get the people’s opinion on whether it was the best decision for the country or not. There were no talking heads in the media saying that Pakistan had made a catastrophic mistake. No, quite the opposite.
Most people were saying what I am saying – if we had decided not to stand with the international community, we would have become a target for invasion as well.
Most terrorist attacks around the world find their roots in the tribal areas of Pakistan, where training camps and religious schools churn out zombies that know little about religion and a great deal about jihad. These schools and camps are remnants of the Afghan war against the Soviet occupation, where Pakistan played a center stage role at the behest of the CIA. Now, here’s where the argument gets tricky for the traitors…
During the Afghan war against the Soviets, the US was the bagman (the financier and chief weapons supplier) along with the Saudis. It was ok then to stand with the US in a war that was not our own because the mullahs (imams) were getting rich from the steady flow of dollars. But when the war was over and the dollars stopped, the imams couldn’t adjust their standard of living to the new conditions and sought the support (read money) of others that would be interested in using their services. Enter the Arabs and their petro-dollars.
The Saudi state has been responsible for the massive spread of Wahabism, the most extreme and fundamental form of Islam, around the world. As part of this spread, they have paid millions (if not billions) to support militant organizations around the Middle East, Central Asian states and Indian sub-continent to keep the fight going against any government that refused to bow to their teachings. Pakistan’s mullahs and militants have benefited the most from this flow of petro-dollars.
So, when the traitors say it’s not our war, they forget to add that the war they are fighting is not ours either. It is the Saudis that want Wahabism to spread across the world and eliminate the tolerant, accepting Islam that most Muslims practice.
The easiest thing to understand is that when the mullahs are making money, it is our war, no matter how detrimental it may be to the nation and its people.
These attacks are because of the corruption and bad governance of Pakistan
I refer you to point 1 for the answers to this argument, and I add this. Most of the terrorist acts are funded with kidnapping for ransom, murder for hire, drug and arms trafficking. Which one of those doesn’t fall into the corruption cadre? That’s like saying “I stole a loaf of bread because I wanted a Mercedes.”
Many of the people that read this post will argue that I am pro-military and pro-war. Yes, I am pro-military when it comes to this situation. Yes, I am pro-war when it comes to this situation.
I am not going to put on blinders and say that the criminal that broke into my house, raped and murdered my family did it because someone in Canada spat on his shoe. That’s stupidity and so are the arguments that the traitors make for their defense of terrorist attacks in Pakistan.
The floor is now yours for comments and discussion.