Friday, 13 March 2009

Obama Privately backs Islamification of Pakistan Region

I subscribe to this particular gentleman's blog as it's really interesting to hear an Indians concerns about Islam. He is extremely worried for his people's freedom in India.

Today, his blog shocked me, not least because of the *implications for women in the area but also the nuclear intentions of the taleban. He suggests this has all been endorsed by Obama!

*
"For starters, it means that women are now not fully human. They have almost no rights, no freedoms, and are to behave entirely like the property of men. They may not leave home without male companion (just like in Saudi Arabia - that other bastion of pure Islam). They must remain covered in a shuttle-cock burkha (one where even the eyes are covered with a screen) at all times. They are not allowed to seek employment (which won't be much of a problem since even basic education is being denied to them) or even treatment for diseases. Here is the catch-22: Women are not allowed to be treated by male doctors, and women are not allowed to get an education, which means there are no women doctors"

Read it, it reflects the realities and dangers we face in the West from Islam. We really need to nip it in the bud before it becomes a real threat. Wilders knew what he was talking about.

Darkness Falls on Swat - Thoughts of an Nationalist Indian

The Author has kindly now left a link for us in The Telegraph

11 comments:

  1. Sue,

    Where is the evidence this is endorsed by the US?

    I posted on this on 20th February; part of that post:

    Here are a few reasons why the Swat agreement is a terrible idea:

    First, the agreement to impose sharia isn't limited to just Swat, but to the entire Malakand Division, a region made up districts of Malakand, Shangla, Buner, Dir, and Chitral. This is nearly 1/3 of the entire Northwest Frontier Province being ceded to the Taliban.

    Second, Mullah Fazlullah has been running Swat since the spring of 2007. Swat has been lost for almost two years. The agreement only codifies the harsh reality on the ground in Swat, where Fazlullah's Taliban thugs murder dancers, musicians, CD shop owners, and others who disgrace his warped view of Islam.

    Expanding this rule elsewhere will be devastating to the people of the northwest. The people of Swat know what Fazlullah's sharia looks like. Just read the Paksitani press and you'll see they don't like it much. Nearly 300,000 Swatis, more than 15 percent of the population, fled the region since 2007.

    Third, the government has negotiated two prior peace agreements with Fazlullah in 2007 and 2008. The agreement in 2008 was nearly identical in that it promised to impose sharia. The Taliban continued to attack government forces and consolidate power.

    Fazlullah never lived up to his end of the bargain and laid down weapons. He never intended to. Other peace deals in the tribal areas and in the northwest have clearly been violated. See North and South Waziristan, where the Taliban openly operate their emirates, with accompanying al Qaeda terror camps.

    Fourth, the government is admitting it has lost it's writ in a large swath of the country, and is encouraging the Taliban to continue to use force to achieve its ends.

    Fifth, the agreement proves that the Pakistani military is unable to defeat the Taliban, at least in the eyes of the Taliban. The Army and Frontier Corps launched three operations to clear the Taliban from Swat. Each time they made bold pronouncements. Each time they failed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Now this kind of darkness, this kind of pure evil, has happened with the sanction of two governments - Pakistan's, and America's."

    Iranian and militant Muslim despots have coveted nuclear armaments since the thirties, long before their reality. Whereas the West has used the atom bomb and nuclear capability for deterrent purposes, the Muslim code is for aggression and destruction. This is an issue ignored by Western Leaders' preoccupation with the economic shitstorm they've allowed to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, I read what he said, Oldrightie, I was wondering whether there was any evidence that his claim was true. Such a claim, if true, would be explosive, since Malakand is a staging post for Taliban attacks on our AND American troops in Afghanistan.

    Why would the Americans agree to, or endorse something that kills their own troops and destabilises Pakistan?

    ReplyDelete
  4. ex-apprentice, you'd have to ask the author. He's normally pretty accurate with his information and I don't see any reason to doubt his word. He is an awful lot closer to this than we are.

    Oldrightie, the West are ignoring this at their peril. I think it's "WW3" stuff!

    ReplyDelete
  5. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The special U.S. envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan said he called Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari Thursday and expressed U.S. concern over a deal with Islamists in the Swat valley region.
    "I am concerned, and I know that Secretary (of State Hillary) Clinton is and the president is, that this deal which is portrayed in the press as a truce does not turn into a surrender," said Holbrooke. "President Zardari has assured us this is not the case."

    ReplyDelete
  6. He hasn't outwardly decried it then, in effect, the Indians are seeing this as an endorsement or betrayal.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've changed the post but it does still pose some serious questions about western nations speaking out against this.

    ReplyDelete
  8. No need to change your post, Sue, and I agree entirely with the point you're making.

    What we are witnessing is the Islamification of a formerly democratic nation.

    But who are we to criticise? Consider our allowing of Sharia Courts, and Sharia Banking, and the imposition of incitement to hatred law - designed solely to prevent criticism of Islam, and the shabby, thoroughly disreputable banning of Geert Wilders, and the endless Muslim demands for special treatment acceded to every day, are these not examples of precisely the sort of appeasement shown by the Pakistani government, just not writ, yet, quite so large?
    Another comforting thought is that the war in Afghanistan has been going on now for EIGHT years. But haven't all we done is to drive the Taliban next door, into Pakistan? How long before the consequences of that mean that we face a new Islamic state, ruled by the Taliban, but this time armed with nuclear weapons? And what will we do about THAT?

    ReplyDelete
  9. We need to start by stopping it in the UK unfortunately and then be prepared for WW3 I guess.

    I don't like inaccuracies :) so would rather post speculatively than factually if in doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The blogger has other posts on Swat which talk of the treaty etc. I think he means that yesterday things became official (which they did - the courts became official yesterday). The treaty has been known now for a few weeks. As for the acquiescence of the Obama admin - this seems reasonable. After all, it is widely believed that the Pak army is doing the US bidding in neighboring NWFP and the US even carries out airstrikes there. If Pak were to sign a peace deal with those very people in neighboring Swat, surely the US would have to say "Ok, go ahead, try this out." I don't for a moment believe the US did not allow this. I don't read the Indian papers, but I am sure those guys would have commented upon this.

    ReplyDelete
  11. From what I have read today, it was widely agreed that if it would lead to a ceasefire that it would be tolerated..

    ReplyDelete