Killing Musharraf for his apostasy

Daily Star ^ | 2004-01-02 | Ejaz Haider

[OldFriend]

Our media is hoping that Musharraf is assassinated. They are already blaming the attempts on his life as President Bush's fault for enlisting his help. (SICK SICK SICK, isn't it) and they will carry on that the Pakistan nukes are now in the hands of our enemies.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
5	Wisconsin	101.00	3	33.67	245	0.41	173.00	11

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[quantim]

Musharraf has good reason to be paranoid. Surely his greatest threats are indeed inside hardliners. What kind of loyalty he can continue to surround himself is the big question in what I believe to be the #1 terrorist state on the planet.

[Voice in your head]

Allow me to adjust my tinfoil hat for a moment... there, that's better.

I'll just throw this out there, to see what kind of feedback I get...

Would it be to our advantage if Pakistan went nuts for a few days? It would give us an excuse to destroy their nuclear weapons. We could ship a division of soldiers in there to assist in "stabilizing", which could serve as the logistical and security base for more active special forces operations in Pakistan, to find Usama Bin Laden. With the removal of nukes, there would be no more nuclear power play between India and Pakistan and India might then send some troops to Iraq. The unrest could also give India the opportunity to settle this Kashmir thing once and for all.

Just curious on any thoughts on anything above.

[Viking2002]

The thought of Musharraf being taken out is a scenario I don't want to think about. He already has a boatlaod of fundamentalist sympathizers in his military; without him controlling things, there'd be a helluva struggle for power. If the Al Queda faction got their hands on the switch, we may have no choice but to pre-emptively hit their nuke capabilities - otherwise, at the very least, they'd probably settle a few scores (like Kashmir) with India by smoking places like New Delhi. And you know several of the warheads would be exported to their sleeper cell comrades all over the world. Wholesale nuclear terrorism. It seems to me that I read an intelligence report online stating that we do, in fact, have a plan in place to neutralize their nuke capabilities if just such an event occurred.

[breakem]

It's just a matter of time. You know those polls where you predict who will die in the next year? He's at the top of my list.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

If India takes control, terrorists will be streaming into Pakistan to fight the Indians.

Isn't it better that the terrorists are flooding Iraq, only?

[AM2000]

there would be no more nuclear power play between India and Pakistan and India might then send some troops to Iraq.

I think you misunderstand why India's not sending troops to Iraq. It's got very little to do with Pakistan. There are no Indian troops in Iraq because the US liberation/invasion/occupation of Iraq is extremely unpopular in India... and general elections are comign up in October of 2004.

The unrest could also give India the opportunity to settle this Kashmir thing once and for all.

And why do you think a deviation from the status quo will necessarily be good for US national interests? If India could, they'd take over Pakistani Kashmir as well (again, same reason: elections in 2004) and that would only create an even bigger long-term mess.

[OldFriend]

It is one thing to destroy a plant in progress......there is NO safe way to destroy a nuclear facility with bombs at the ready.

[OldFriend]

It would be disastrous if Musharraf were to be killed.

[okie01]

We could ship a division of soldiers in there to assist in "stabilizing", which could serve as the logistical and security base for more active special forces operations in Pakistan...

One division in a nation of 150 million doesn't make for "stabilization" -- even if they're invited.

The US interests are far better served if Musharraf can stay alive and keep it in the road.

[breakem]

I didn't say or even mean to imply it would be a good thing. I meant he is in very imminent danger on a regular basis. Wanna underwrite his insurance policy?

[Concentrate]

It is one thing to destroy a plant in progress......there is NO safe way to destroy a nuclear facility with bombs at the ready.

Safer for whom?

[LouisianaLobster]

This is the most important Al-Qaeda threath of the moment, and in the meantime we're distracted cancelling plane flights.

[DannyTN]

With regard to the Muslim state.

Any Muslim dictator, with the exception of Arafat, who wants to stay in power and not be the target of Islamic extremists needs to radically eliminate Islam from his country.

It should be obvious by now that Islamic extremists are always going to assume that the leadership is evil and attempt to remove the evil leadership and put themselves in charge.

This seems to be true regardless of how evil the Muslim dictator. Musharraf is relatively peaceful, so he is a target. The Saudi's are relatively peaceful, so he is a target. Saddam was inherently evil, he too was a target.

Arafat seems to be the only Muslim dictator that isn't regularly targeted for assassination by extremist Muslim elements. I suspect this is either because they expect or want Israel to do it so they have a rallying cry. Or because he is so two faced, constantly saying one thing in English only to say the exact opposite in Arabic, that he has a sort of charisma among the Muslim extremists. Not only that, it's probably politically wiser to support Arafat than to challenge him if you are a Islamist.

[AmericanVictory]

It is difficult to overestimate the value of this man's leadership to the future of the world. He has been unblinkingly honest and right about issue after issue at an absolutely overwhelming risk to his life. And he is the perfect illustration why we need to stop prating about "democracy" without focusing on republicanism as its container, what he has called "sustainable democracy," which is the absolute requirement for the future of Pakistan and the entire Islamic world.

[Voice in your head]

"One division in a nation of 150 million doesn't make for "stabilization" -- even if they're invited."

I didn't mean stabilize the country. I quotation marks around "stabilizing" because it would not be our real purpose to being there. We would be wise to go in, under the guise of attempting to help China and India stabilize the situation, but with the real intent of conducting stepped-up operations against Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations and supporters in western Pakistan, where we suspect Bin Laden of hiding. Ship a rapid deployment force into Afghanistan, get organized, then move into western Pakistan.

"If India could, they'd take over Pakistani Kashmir as well (again, same reason: elections in 2004) and that would only create an even bigger long-term mess."

In the chaos that ensued, I think that Pakistan would be more worried about survival than stopping India from getting Kashmir. It would, in my opinion, be a fine opportunity for India to move in and settle the dispute once and for all - occupy it by force. That, to me, seems an improvement over the current standoff.

[okie01]

I appreciate your desire to make lemonade out of lemons. And, if the balloon goes up in Pakistan, I'm sure we have plans to act decisively in order to a.) neutralize the nukes and b.) take advantage of opportunities while exercising damage control.

But, to my mind, there is no question that we are better off with Pakistan on the back burner, set on "simmer", rather than find it on the front burner at "full boil".

[AM2000]

India to move in and settle the dispute once and for all - occupy it by force

As long as Azad Kashmir and the Northern Territories are overwhelmingly Muslim, the Indian occupation of those lands will be violent and costly. It would not settle the dispute once and for all.