Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The reality of the 4 points put forward by the Government to support America

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The reality of the 4 points put forward by the Government to support America

    The Spokesman of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Pakistan Mr. Naveed Butt has said that the evidences forwarded by the government in order to change public opinion include, security, isolation, economy, nuclear assets as well as Kashmir cause. He said that in reality the decision to support America have caused great harm to all of these interests.
    He said that demonstrations are taking place in Europe, Latin America, South East Asia, Japan and even in the USA against attacks on Afghanistan. China and Russia are opposed to these attacks. The neighboring Countries to Afghanistan, Iran and Turkmenistan have already refused all out support to America. So which international public opinion is the Government taking about? Are Iran, Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia isolated in the international community for not offering total support to America? Can the so-called international coalition attack these countries under the pretext that they are not co-operating against the “terrorism”? Absolutely Not! The reality is that the Musharraf Government has tried to befool the people to implement the American dictation by declaring the self-concocted notion of international and American pressure. Furthermore, America also used India as a pawn, with whom Pakistan had very “friendly” relationship just before September 11th. It was necessary to present India as a foreign threat to the Pakistani people so as to gain their support for cooperation with America. It shall come as no surprise that after the American operation that Pakistan and India may go back to the slogans of so called love and peace.
    The Spokesman said that Pervaiz Musharraf for the last two years has been dancing the tune of minimum deterrence to project that the national defense is invincible. The threat from India is not new and it already had the backing of Israel and the US long before Sept. 11th. Therefore when Mr. Musharraf says that Pakistan’s security would be at risk from American-Indian alliance it is infact contradicting his own statement about minimum deterrence and invincible defense. What is the use of Pakistan’s atomic and missile program when it is of no help at the time of need and we have to handover our air space and land to the biggest enemy of the Muslim Ummah?
    Naveed Butt started that when Mr. Musharraf without asking for any evidence gave his unstinted support on 17th Sept. even NATO at that time had not made a decision support American attacks on Afghanistan. NATO gave its permission on 4th October after seeing the “evidence”. In reality by 17th of September there was no existence of this so-called world coalition, which General Musharraf talked about joining.
    As far as the economic benefits, everyone knows that no country can progress economically by making its land as a war zone. This is the reason Pakistan has already lost 1.4 billion dollars. Also, everyone knew that this decision would generate anger and agitations. Hence the Government’s claim that, taking part in the war we will obtain benefits in the near future, was a complete blunder. As for the distant future, we have already seen how America placed sanctions on Pakistan after the Afghan Jihad was over. How can we trust a country that follows the dictum that there are no permanent friends but permanent interest?
    Naveed Butt also said that by cooperating with America to launch attack on a third country on the pretext of a military fighting terrorism sets a very dangerous precedence for the Kashmir cause, which India can use to attack Azad Kashmir. Furthermore, it is our “ally” America that after September 11th labelled Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Jaish-e-Muhammad and Al-Rasheed Trust as terrorist and put restrictions on them. On the other hand General Powell’s statement that America wants to remove all kinds of terrorism including the incidents in Kashmir, was also very damaging. So, how much benefit has the Kashmir cause gained from Mr. Musharraf’s decision?
    As far as nuclear assets are concerned we face a greater threat from CIA than Mossad and Raw. How is possible that an American fly freely in our air space and the Government claims that our atomic and strategic assets are fully protected? This has now reached the stage that on 25th of September Gen. Kevin Chiltern together with FBI and CIA officials on a three-day tour suggested on cooperation to protect Pakistan’s nuclear assets and had the audacity to suggest de-weaponising our nuclear facilities so they do not fall into the hands of the Islamic “extremists”.
    Hence it is clear that Pervaiz Musharraf did not decide to support America because of national interests but only to protect the American interests and his chair. This is the same step towards being an enemy of Islam, which he took at the start of his term in authority when he indicated that his ideal was Mustafa Kamala Ataturk.
    The Spokesperson of Hizb ut-Tahrir further stated that we want to inform the people that to give bases to the Americans is neither allowed according to Islam nor does it fully accord with wisdom. The judgment to allow American’s bases is equivalent to suicide for the Muslims of this region. Muslims by establishing the Khilafah should give an opportunity to such a leadership that will not sell the Muslims Ummah and its interests in the name of wisdom. Instead it will implement the rules of Allah (SWT) and present Muslims as dignified and brave nation not as a cowardly one nor one that is easily bribed.


    #2
    Isn't Naveed Butt a known terrorist?

    Comment


      #3
      Naveed Butt is not a terrorist. Nor is Hizb ut Tahrir.

      But we can see, from the actions, of the US, that it is a Terrorist. And a friend of terrorist is Musharraff.

      Inshallah, my duaa, is for the whole islamic Ummah, be united, and return to the Glory, which Allah sub hana watala has promised.

      your brother

      Comment


        #4
        Keep dreaming, the only thing that could happen is the breakup of Muslim countries into even smaller parts. Pakistan for example.

        Ethnicity is taking precedence over religion.

        ====

        Is Pashtunistan possible?

        By Inigo Thomas

        Source: Slate.com (Oct 24, 2001)

        In the United States, Britain, and Pakistan—as well as at the United
        Nations—the future of Afghanistan is as important as removing the Taliban
        regime and capturing the leaders of al-Qaida.

        Yet after 30 years of wars and coups, you might be wondering whether
        Afghanistan should exist at all. This mountainous nation shows indications
        of becoming a tribal battlefield. Perhaps Pakistan could rule the Pashtun
        area while other neighboring states—Iran, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and
        Turkmenistan, could share the rest.

        Yet there are practical and principled reasons why, after the Taliban have
        been removed, Afghanistan should exist and why dividing this nation would
        bring about far more serious problems—especially for Pakistan.

        First, Afghanistan is an established nation, despite its chaotic past.

        Second, by adopting Afghanistan's Pashtuns (about 50 percent of the
        country's population), Pakistan might subsequently find itself confronted by
        a serious problem of its own—namely, a Pashtun separatist movement demanding
        its own nation, Pashtunistan, which would include large areas of northern
        Pakistan.

        Ironically, immediately after the formation of Pakistan in 1947, the
        country's leaders demanded that the old border between what was once the
        British Empire and Afghanistan, the so-called Durand Line, be abolished, and
        that the Pashtuns of the Northwest Frontier and Afghanistan unite under the
        flag of Pakistan.

        Few then disagreed that Sir Mortimer Durand's 1893 border was drawn using
        anything other than cynicism—to provide a buffer between the British Empire
        and its imperial rival, Russia, as well as to divide the formidable
        Pashtuns.

        Today, Pashtunistan is certainly not an official Pakistani ambition: Human
        Rights Watch, for example, even claims that President Pervez Musharraf has
        thrown his support behind the Kashmiri independence movement in the hopes
        that this conflict will serve as a distraction from a potentially disastrous
        domestic Pashtun skirmish.

        Yet Pashtunistan has become an ambition among Pashtun-Afghans, including for
        a time the Taliban, and that eventuality is now—at least theoretically—more
        plausible than ever. Under the terms drawn up by Durand, the legality of the
        border that bears his name would last for 100 years. When the Taliban came
        to power in 1996, they, like their predecessors, refused to accept the
        border's legality, which may explain why Pakistan has until recently aided a
        regime it probably fears more than it sympathizes with.

        What does all this resemble? The former Yugoslavia, you might say. It's not
        an identical situation, of course, yet the break up of Pakistan is probably
        President Musharraf's greatest anxiety. To ensure that it doesn't happen
        will require an immense effort, since the first thing Afghanistan's new
        leaders and their counterparts in Islamabad will have to try to establish is
        where the border between these two countries lies. How they arrive at such
        an agreement will surely determine whether Pashtun nationalism (which, as
        practiced by the Taliban, has proved to be as vicious as Slobodan
        Milosevic's regime in Serbia) is thwarted or encouraged.

        Comment


          #5
          Salaam brother Taj,

          I wonder why it is that you have such a defeatist mentality even when Allah (swt) has called upon you to carry the haqq, to enjoin in the ma'ruf and forbid the munkar.

          What stops you from working for the Khilafah?

          Comment


            #6
            how is the khiafa supposed to come around if the ppl are not willing to have it?

            a few millions (exagerated at best) in a country of 140+ millions is not a big number.
            maybe we should first work towards attainable goals like education, poverty reduction and respect for all..

            Comment


              #7
              You are quite mistaken brother Nomaan,

              the people over here are wanting a system to replce the existing corrupted one. The people up and down the country, have had enough of the democratic politics and the politics of the military. They cannot be ruled by the system, which the Khilafah system.

              All it needs is the explanation of it's details, and that our sole motivation, is the pleasure of Allah

              [This message has been edited by Abu Shuayb (edited October 27, 2001).]

              Comment

              Working...
              X