We are at the point where we wonder who is the "worse" enemy.
I am a bit more concerned with the enemies who want global Islamic rule,
and How they "negotiate" with non-muslims...
The question at hand is complex. Was Atta sent by the New Caliphate?
How did his 'negotiation' work out? Did the New Caliphate gain or
lose ground? Personally I don't buy the magnitude of the threat but
that's bordering on a place I didn't want to send this thread.
Instead, I want to focus on the good of the Pakistani people. The
idea that democracy and self-determination is better for them than
dictatorship. The general concept that democracy is the best form of
government for all peoples.
It's particularly on my mind during the Veteran's Day memorial period.
So many died during WWII specifically to defeat dictatorships and
bring democracy to oppressed peoples, including oppressed Muslims in
the Balkans, oppressed Christians in Germany, oppressed Jews in France
and paradoxically, not the oppressed peoples of the Soviet Union. We
made a pact with Stalin because we needed him to sacrifice his people
to help the West.
This bears directly on the question of why we are dealing with
Musharraf. We dealt with Stalin because it was a Hobson's choice, but
Musharraf has been getting our support despite other options being
available. What did we (the West) get out of our bargain? Our
support of Stalin allowed him to suppress his own enemies harshly and
likewise, the people of Pakistan have seen similar treatment through
our support of Musharraf.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Should we as a country decide that it
is in the best interests of the world to install our own
non-democratic puppet government in Pakistan? And permanently support
it by force of arms? Why is democracy good for us but not for
We will not "permanently support" Musharraf. Aren't we prepared to give
a big thumbs up if he relinquishes control of the military?
Will Musharraf somehow become accountable to the people of Pakistan
once he 'steps down' as Commander in Chief? Or will he still be in
charge of the whole thing? I mean, since suspending the Constitution
it doesn't really matter all that much what official title he puts on
(or takes off) his business card, does it?