Jet Hijackers Backed by Pakistan -- U.S

[adbul]

January 25, 2000

Source: New York Times

Jet Hijackers Are Backed by Pakistan, U.S. Contends

WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 -- The United States now believes that a terrorist group supported by the Pakistani military was responsible for the hijacking of an Indian Airlines jet last month, a judgment that puts Pakistan at risk of being placed on Washington's list of nations that support terrorism, Clinton administration officials said.

[agni]

This is indeed bad news for Pakistan. I am not saying that a certain theory gains credibility as soon as US says so. But the fact of the matter is that US is the country which will decide whether or not Pakistan is to be placed on its list of terrorists. What Pakistan or anyone else thinks is of no consequence here.

[sabah]

If this is true then yep its bad for Pak, however the Nepalese have another theory. Just saw it in DAWN. By the way they are still assuming, this does not say, that they have proved it. So let’s see...

[mohabbat]

Check the New York Times article on Pakistan's role. Here is the BBC news item.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...000/618304.stm

A report in Tuesday's New York Times says that the United States believes that a group supported by Pakistan was responsible for the hijacking of an Indian Airlines jet last month.

The hijacking ended with the release of over 150 passengers in exchange for three militants held in Indian jails.
According to the New York Times, officials from the Clinton administration asked the Pakistani military leader, General Pervez Musharraf, to ban the Harkatul Mujahideen militant group, which they say was responsible for carrying out the hijacking.
The newspaper report comes after a visit to Islamabad by three senior officials, including Karl Inderfurth, the Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian affairs.

Ban rebuffed
But it says American efforts to persuade the Pakistani Government to ban the group were rebuffed.
The paper says this refusal could result in President Clinton not visiting Pakistan when he tours South Asia at the end of March.


General Musharraf: Asked to ban militant group

If that happens, the paper says, it will be one of the severest snubs the White House could make to Pakistan.
The New York Times says the financial ramifications will be serious for Pakistan if its designated as a terrorist state by America, because loans from the IMF and the World Bank would dry up.
It says some in the Clinton administration say this could push an already impoverished country into near collapse.

Divisions over policy

The New York Times goes on to say that there is substantial resistance within the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency to the idea of listing Pakistan as a terrorist state.
It says this because of help given by Pakistan to the United States during the Soviet Union occupation of Afganistan in the early 1980s.
The newspaper report is certain to be greeted warmly by India, which has been intensively lobbying Washington recently to take action against what is says are Pakistan's terrorist activities.
So far there has been no reaction to the report from Pakistan, but Islamabad has long maintained that relations with Washington are cordial and that President Clinton is still expected to go ahead with his visit .
Pakistan has constantly cautioned the US not to believe what it says is propaganda about its alleged support for terrorism

CNN Report: http://www.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/sout...eut/index.html


[This message has been edited by mohabbat (edited January 25, 2000).]

[Mr Xtreme]

US is in the process of building trade ties with India. US has also been keen to label Pakistan a terrorist nation for some time now. Why do we look to them to say what is right and what is wrong? If they have proof let them produce it. If not they should shut up and continue to sell arms to third world countries while sending their own troops all round the globe to protect their 'economic interests'. Maybe it suits US if Pakistan is a 'terrorist' country. It might need a new arena to test it's latest missiles.

[adbul]

Religious-political parties have rejected American's demand to ban the jihadi organisations in Pakistan.
Maulana Samiul Haq of his own faction of JUI said that:

"jihad was the only means to keep alive, without which the enemies of Islam would exterminate the Muslims. "This is the only way to survive," he asserted.

Source: Afghan-web.com in the News sectionL 1/24/00

[Mr Xtreme]

"jihad was the only means to keep alive, without which the enemies of Islam would exterminate the Muslims. "This is the only way to survive," he asserted.

Well the UN is too busy sitting on it's hands so there isn't any alternative. Afghanistan and Chechnya has proved him right.

[agni]

Hmmm, No voices of self-introspection here. Why do you folks assume that Pakistan couldn't have been involved at all. Sabah, I believe you are a rational thinker. Could Musharraf and co. have actually masterminded this? Or to a lesser extent, actively encouraged Harkat to carry out the hijacking? Do you rule out the possibility? Why or why not? Pakistanis should realize that this is a serious allegation. Too many voices out there making accusations of Pakistan's involvement in terrorism. Why doesn't your government hold an enquiry into the activities of Harkat to at least attempt to find out what happenned?

[Mr Xtreme]

Why don't all these 'voices' produce some hard evidence? Isn't that normal legal procedure?

[BombayKid]

Whats the point. "Hard evidence" was produced in the form of the Musharraf tapes during the Kargil crisis. There was also other forms of evidence released. On top of that there was also an interview with a Pakistani soldier in "Time" magazine (note : not an Indian publication). So basically evidence produced will only meet with emphatic denials by your government, which is understandable. No one would like to be branded as a terrorist state.

But it's true that the US is trying to build trade ties with India and finally economic opportunities will alone decide how the US will deal with India and Pakistan in the future. China is a good example where they have gotten away with murder. They just can't seem to do anything wrong in American eyes. There's a lot to be learnt from China in this regard (both for India and Pakistan). I feel Pakistan really screwed up their economy over the past few years. Just about 8 years back, when India had just started their economic liberalisation process, Pakistan had a much higher per capita GDP than India which meant Pakistan was a richer country. But look at the picture now...India's per capita GDP is higher than Pakistan's and is growing at a healthier rate than China's. So why would the US support Pakistan if their "economic interests" are not fulfilled.

[Fata Morgana]

I believe that RAW & US CIA are behind the hijacking.

Fata Morgana

[agni]

TIME says :
>>
"Washington is now saying openly that Pakistan is an active sponsor of an organization that committed an act of terrorism against Americans — there was one U.S. citizen aboard the hijacked plane — and that suggests Pakistan should clearly be on the list," says TIME Washington correspondent Massimo Calabresi. "But it's not going to happen, because we can't afford to close the door on Pakistan — Pakistani cooperation is the only chance we have of capturing Osama Bin Laden.
<<

What a shame for Pakistan. Whether or not the US actually puts Pakistan on its list of terrorist nations, the mere fact that such a move is under consideration or that it is being avoided for political considerations itself is a huge embarassment for Pakistan. Pakistan's leaders have let their country down and the damage to its reputation is colossal.

[Mr Fraudia]

At the same time if concrete evidence is not presented the hue and cry of Indian leaders about Pakistani sponsorship of the hijack would make India look like a fool too.

Question is, besides us deis, does anyone have the attention span to follow up on any story?

How much do e hear about Saddam on an everyday basis, or qaddafi?

or even more recent.. that pharmaceuticals plant in Sudan that was bombed.

Governments hardly ever say what really is brewing inside as far as policies go.
general public is uninformed and has a short attention span..as long as th FA cup is going or the SuperBowl is on, who cares.

[mohabbat]

Confused arguments about Kashmir and hijacking

In his attempt to gain support for the cause of Kashmiri independence, Ghulam Nabi Fai only succeeds in making the same confused argument that already has been proffered by people of a less defined bias ("The Indian air hijacking and Kashmir's future," Forum, Jan. 16).
His rejection of the terrorist hijacking in the name of Kashmiri independence — calling it "criminal, brutal and sinful" — is commendable, but sadly, he and the rest of Kashmir's independence-minded leaders pay only lip service to this sentiment.
Mr. Fai is quick to point out that India has 700,000 troops stationed in Jammu and Kashmir (a gross overestimate), but he neglects to explain that their deployment comes as a direct result of the Islamic war being waged against India.
The most recent illustration of this was the hijacking of an Indian Airlines jet, which ended only after the Indian government chose not to answer violence with violence and released three known terrorists from incarceration.
Finally, Mr. Fai wrongly seeks to compare the incomparable in his condemnation of India's human rights record in the region.
India is subject to and complies with all international norms in human rights reporting, be they by independent human rights groups, the State Department or the free, international news media. Unfortunately, the illegitimate governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan, along with the amorphous terrorists based in these countries, by their very nature have immunized themselves from all norms of international conduct.
It is beyond dispute that today in Kashmir, more innocent civilians are killed in the onslaught of the Islamic militants supposedly fighting for their freedom than by Indian security forces. Just earlier this month, when a bomb exploded in a Srinagar market and killed two Indian soldiers, 14 Kashmiris perished as well.
Perhaps if Mr. Fai wishes to produce results instead of martyrs then he and the All-Parties Hurriyet Conference should systematically reject the hurtful actions of their terrorist brethren.
The only way dialogue can begin, and Mr. Fai can obtain a seat at the negotiating table, is if the violence abates. Until both sides understand this, no progress will be made and no third party will be willing to mediate a seemingly intractable debate.

MERVYN DYMALLY
Washington
Mervyn Dymally is a retired congressman.

[Rani]

Mohabbat,

I agree with Mervyn Dymally assesment of Kashmir situation and terriorist activities conducted by Pakistan and Afganistan in the name of God and religion. Thanks for the post.


[This message has been edited by Rani (edited January 25, 2000).]