Pakistan Zeroes in on Zealots

"When the violent strand of Islam eventually collapses of its inherent contradiction, that day may have been foreseen in the siege at Pakistan's Red Mosque. If the military uses wise tactics to end the siege well, civilization will be the victor.

The standoff began after the mosque's radical jihadists began to escalate their terrorizing of citizens in the capital, Islamabad. For months, the Muslim militants had been sending self-appointed vice squads onto the streets to enforce their strict version of Islamic law. They accused women of being prostitutes, burned music discs, and abducted police. Pakistani society, which prefers democracy over sharia vigilantism, was fed up....

This crisis also represents, in a microcosm, an attempt by the world's 1 billion, mainly moderate Muslims to stand up to zealots. Al Qaeda and other such groups have lost their "war" to create a united Muslim state because of their violent, antidemocratic tactics. It only takes a civilized response to reveal their lack of appeal."

- rest at www.csmonitor.com/2007/0709/p08s01-comv.html

 

Thanks for the info, Ken.
This has the potential to be the next powder keg, along with Iran anyway. From everything I have read, many people in Pakistan sympathize with UBL and A-Q.

 

Yes, Pakistan is the real potential problem, not Iran that doesn't have nuclear weapons and has always complied with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

 

Those facts won't stop the invasion though....

 

Where did you get that idea. Iran is not even close to compliance with the NNPT. They constantly thumb their noses at the west over this issue.

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...t&cd=1&q=Iran+in+compliance+with+nuke&spell=1

Here's 185,000 hits over their non-compliance

 

Not complying with the U.N. Security Council does not equal not staying within the limits of the NPT.

 

I still have hope that most Americans won't allow themselves to be misled by the neo-"conservatives" a second time.

 

Oh, but Bolton is already talking about it......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/16/wbolton16.xml

 

Good article, and it's good to know some folks are not arbitrarily tossing the "military intervention" option out the window in favor of the State Dept. diplomacy doctrine.

 

This is a logistics question, not political. Where on earth would we get the manpower in invade another nation? The Army, Marine and reserve components are stretched beyond the limit.

 

We know from the Iraq debacle, saturneptune, that the neo-"conservatives" don't think that far ahead.

Plus, from what I have read the neo-"conservatives" are itching to commit genocide against the Iranians by using nuclear weapons due to our lack of manpower.

 

We also have ex-Condi fans who wanted to go to war with Canada to stop the baby seals from being killed.

 

Don't be making sensible statements, now.

You tryin' to spoil their fun? Bush has to invade Iran. They said so.:BangHead: