Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 11, 2008

"At All Cost"

The U.S. is officially attacking Pakistani citizen within Pakistan's borders by military means:

President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government, according to senior American officials.

This is an open declaration of war against Pakistan.

The commander of Pakistan's armed forces understood that and promises to fight back:

"The sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country will be defended at all cost and no external force is allowed to conduct operations inside Pakistan," [Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani] said.

That grave sentence is the last one in the AP report.

Have the people of the United States understood what Bush is doing here?

He just started a war with a nuclear armed nation of some 170 million people.

Have the NATO/ISAF troops in Afghanistan and their civilian overlords understood what Bush is doing here?

U.S. troops outside of NATO/ISAF command attacked the country through which some 80% of all logistic that sustain those troops are shipped. There is no real alternative transport for these materials and last week the route was already shut down for day. That was clearly a warning.

The international media seem to be quiet about the issue.

There should be outrage. Attacks like the ground operation last week have zero military relevance for the outcome in Afghanistan. Kill one 'senior militant' and ten others will step up to take his job. But such operations endanger all 'western' troops and civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

There are clear alternatives to this. The U.S. commander in Afghanistan requested 10,000 more troops to fight the Taliban within Afghanistan. Those could seal the border to Pakistan. But Bush does not want to pull troops out of Iraq and will send only some 3,500 to Afghanistan and that only next spring. Instead he widens the war to include another country.

Some 90% of the  Pakistani public are already against any cooperation with the United States. Mr. Ten Percent Zardari lied and bribed himself into the Pakistani presidency with the help of the U.S. ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalizad. The U.S. seems to think Zardari is an asset. In reality his approval rating in Pakistan is 14%. He is irrelevant. The Pakistani army will do what it thinks is best for the country, no matter what Zardari says.

General Kayani just announced layed down a marker: "The sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country will be defended at all cost."

It is time for people to understand what "all cost" includes. People may be more familiar with the term "all options are on the table." That is, what I think, Kayani meant.

Posted by b on September 11, 2008 at 15:43 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Adding a thought:

The idea to attack Pakistan with special forces (Navy Seals) is somewhat weird. The Joint Chiefs of Staff seem to be against it. It doesn't look like Gates would applaud the idea of another war.

Bob Woodward reported recently how the line of command was circumvented in Iraq. Essentially the AEI made military proposals to Bush and retired general Keane than went to Petraeus and submitted the order. The Joint Chiefs and the Central Command were circumvented.

The same seems to happen here. This is some cookie idea, just the thing Bush would like. Bodycount and all. Militarily it is absolute nonsense. One can at least to a large part seal the border traffic from Pakistan to Afghanistan by checkpoints and aerial patrols and by using depth. It takes more troops to do that and it is less glamorous and less deadly.

Has anyone seen reporting/hints that AEI is behind this?

Posted by: b | Sep 11 2008 17:48 utc | 1

Screw Pakistan's government, they're playing us. Osama is in the FATA region, and if they're not going to help get them, then we're going to go in. You may have noticed that Obama's current national security strategy has been to go after Osama, where ever he is. There is absolutely zero chance of Pakistan declaring war on the United States or vice versa. Pakistan is counting on the failure of the Karzi government in Afghanistan, so that when it happens, they will have a friendly force in Afghanistan (Taliban) and in the FATA regions.

As long as Pakistan is getting hundreds of millions of dollars and tons of military equipment from the United States, it's not going to declare war. The nukes are for India, not NATO forces, we know that and they know that. Get past the security theater and stop making outrageous statements about what "the American people" understand.

Posted by: Jason | Sep 11 2008 18:02 utc | 2

And we all worried what the US would do to Iran...

It seems like being a friend of the US is no better than being the enemy, as long as you are in the way...

Posted by: No So Ana | Sep 11 2008 18:04 utc | 3

Jason: Well, one of Pakistan's nukes could "accidentally" go missing, you know. Like in smuggled through a security-free US harbour. They don't threaten total war, they're just gonna take what it takes.
In this case, this probably implies the military could stage a coup if Zardari is too obedient to DC. I mean, it's not the ISI that would object to that, they'd do it themselves if there were no risk of bakclash from the army.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Sep 11 2008 18:34 utc | 5

Hey Jason, Fuck the CIA and Obama's National Security Advisor to be, Zbignew Brzezinski. Afterall, they're the Fuckers who created this mess and continue to create similar messes all over the globe with different select groups. As citizens, we must demand the disbanding, and elimination, of the CIA, the NSA and The FBI. They are infinitely corrupt, amoral organizations that are utilized to wreak havoc and suffering both domestically and around the world, all, ostensibly, in our name.

About that scumbag Brzezinski and his creation, al Qaeda:

Washington's policy in Afghanistan was shaped by US President Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and was continued by his successors. His plan went far beyond simply forcing Soviet troops to withdraw; rather it aimed to foster an international movement to spread Islamic fanaticism into the Muslim Central Asian Soviet republics to destabilise the Soviet Union.

Brzezinski's grand plan coincided with Pakistan military dictator General Zia ul-Haq's own ambitions to dominate the region. US-run Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe beamed Islamic fundamentalist tirades across Central Asia (while paradoxically denouncing the “Islamic revolution” that toppled the pro-US Shah of Iran in 1979).

Washington's favoured mujaheddin faction was one of the most extreme, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The West's distaste for terrorism did not apply to this unsavoury “freedom fighter”. Hekmatyar was notorious in the 1970s for throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil.

After the mujaheddin took Kabul in 1992, Hekmatyar's forces rained US-supplied missiles and rockets on that city — killing at least 2000 civilians — until the new government agreed to give him the post of prime minister. Osama bin Laden was a close associate of Hekmatyar and his faction.

Hekmatyar was also infamous for his side trade in the cultivation and trafficking in opium. Backing of the mujaheddin from the CIA coincided with a boom in the drug business. Within two years, the Afghanistan-Pakistan border was the world's single largest source of heroin, supplying 60% of US drug users.

This line from Zbigold takes the cake, though:

“What was more important in the world view of history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? A few stirred up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”

I say "takes the cake," because if Obama wins, and that's a big if, Brzezinski can have his cake and eat it too. A War On Terrorism and a new Cold War with a resurgent Russia.


Posted by: Bic | Sep 11 2008 18:34 utc | 6

Jason,

Do "the American people" understand this?

Not very hard to understand, is it?

Posted by: Tantalus | Sep 11 2008 18:37 utc | 7

Osama is in the FATA region, and...

Is that where they buried him? Osama's been dead and gone for over seven years, they just dig him up to make another republican propaganda film every now and then. It's kind of like "Weekend At Bernie's", only not as funny.

Posted by: JimT | Sep 11 2008 19:13 utc | 8

Moon of Alabama and Sic Semper Tyrannis 2008 both have pointed out dangerous skirting of the military chain of command to implement the American Enterprise Institute Iraq battle plan.

However, it appears that Iranian bombing campaign by Israel has been stalemated by the Pentagon refusal to give IFF boxes and over flight clearance to Israel. Incursions into Pakistan to kill Bin Laden for the October Surprise have instead been substituted. George W Bush has stove piped a direct link to the Special Operation Forces who’d be more than willing to be heroes and open another front.

The most frightening reporting by the Washington Post is the confirmation that George W Bush is divorced from reality. He has no second thoughts or introspection. A third front is about to open. Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, can point that “Kill them all” is a dangerous and ultimately futile strategic plan but doesn’t matter if George W Bush or Sarah Palin, have been told by God to kill Muslims, and they bypass the Chain of Command.

Last night ABC News showed footage from Battle Company in Afghanistan. Vanity Fair’s companion article Return to the Valley of Death gives the grunt’s view of the war. My old battalion 40 years later is doing the exact same thing, all over again, except this time with fewer troops and less support. Just like Vietnam, years after the troops are pulled out because America is broke, a few old Vets will return to the valley and there will be no trace that Americans ever bled or died there.

Posted by: VietnamVet | Sep 11 2008 19:14 utc | 9

"Nearly" seven years, that is.

Posted by: JimT | Sep 11 2008 19:15 utc | 10

I agree with Jason partially, the non-dickish part anyway. It is amazing this site isn't run down with more love it or leave it stuff. It has 'alabama' in the name and everything. Rogue generals setting off WW3 will always be a concern, and perhaps it is inevitable that our post-thisways world will go thataway just that way. But, nuke war is suicide and pressing the button means nuking yourself, so it tends to not happen. But a dirty bomb, yeah, that would be easy for a rogue general to see delivered. So, war does not need to be declared, duh.

Anyway, these kind of statements could mean reprisal or they could be the only response made, more show for the domestic audience than communication with the white house. Obviously the supply lines are vulnerable and easy to close, but for the money to be made. Perhaps Bush would like to more thoroughly limit Obama's chances in the region - yathink?

Posted by: aumana | Sep 11 2008 19:25 utc | 11

Perhaps Bush would like to more thoroughly limit Obama's chances in the region - yathink?

Chances? At what? I'd say he's paving the way to pass the baton for perpetual war....you know, planting seeds, poppy and otherwise, for Obama to harvest. Military spending is the only thing that's growing our economy right now, so there can be no win in this global adventure, just the constant ebb and flow as the defense contractors and Big Oil rake it in.

Posted by: Bic | Sep 11 2008 20:08 utc | 12

VV @9,

Are you asserting that Bush is actually directing anything, or are you just using his name to refer to the cabal referred to as the NeoCons? If it's the former, no way, no how. Dubya couldn't even find his dick to piss, let alone direct a country. Cheney's pulling the chains, and he represents the NeoCons in the Whitehouse. Still, how can the Military Industrial Complex allow a rogue circumvention of their authority without some from of reprisal? I mean, they are the Military, afterall, right? Are they such pussies they can't make an example of a few rogues?

Posted by: Bic | Sep 11 2008 20:19 utc | 13

Pakistan premier backs army chief's rebuke to US

Pakistan's prime minister on Thursday backed a harsh rebuke of the U.S. by the Muslim nation's military chief, a sign of a strain in relations seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks forged the two countries' anti-terror alliance.
...
Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the powerful but media-shy army leader, said nearly a week after a deadly American-led ground assault in Pakistani territory that Pakistan would defend its sovereignty and that there was no deal to allow foreign forces to operate inside its borders.
...
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, in comments reported Thursday by state media and confirmed by his office, said Kayani's words reflected government opinion and policy.
Those are excerpts from a longer AP piece that tries to tune down the meaning of those statements.

Those statements are for real. Pakistan has the means to respond openly and by clandestine means.

Its time to take'em as serious partners.

Posted by: b | Sep 11 2008 20:43 utc | 14

Bic@13

We can argue till the end of days, but George W Bush thinks he makes the decisions. His decisions are implemented. It is just that Dick Cheney is the last human he hears before he decides. The one time when the VP wasn't the last person he heard was when he fired Donald Rumsfeld.

What is the totally scary about the McCain/Palin ticket is that John is a waking dead hot-head and Sarah is George W Bush on estrogen.

Posted by: VietnamVet | Sep 11 2008 21:00 utc | 15

"Perhaps Bush would like to more thoroughly limit Obama's chances in the region - yathink?"
May be bush would like to expand and escalate the war into pakistan because obama cant be trusted to ? Sow today, reap the profits tomorrow. And the great game for oil pipeline, don't forget that.


Posted by: fool | Sep 11 2008 21:26 utc | 16

May be bush would like to expand and escalate the war into pakistan because obama cant be trusted to

that obama w/his blathering absurdities about 'diplomacy!' hahahahah

This is some cookie idea

you mean kooky? ;) either way as long as it's edible.

I say "takes the cake," because if Obama wins, and that's a big if, Brzezinski can have his cake and eat it too. A War On Terrorism and a new Cold War with a resurgent Russia.

my guess is he's going to be eating his cake regardless of who wins.

Posted by: annie | Sep 11 2008 22:09 utc | 17

What else would Gen. Kayani say? He would not have a job if he did not issue a statement that he would defend Pakistan's borders.

The real test is if he will get into a firefight with the next special ops incursion. Most likely by the time he knows about it and sends a Pakistani army counter-attack force - the US special ops team would have left.

Just a bunch of empty words IMO. Special ops teams have been operating across the border in Pakistan for 2 months. The NY Times writes a story. Gen. Kayani has a statement for the Times.

Posted by: ab initio | Sep 12 2008 0:10 utc | 18

The current talking heads on MSNBC and a few other places are trying to tone down the harsh words Pakistan has had for the US violating its borders. They are now said to only be saying that to keep their more radical population assured that they are in control. Sorry folks. Doesn't pass the smell test. In fact, it stinks.

Posted by: Diogenes | Sep 12 2008 0:28 utc | 19

B-14: "Its time to take'em as serious partners."

Well, they don't take Russia seriously, and Russia has enough nukes to incinerate the whole world, you wouldn't expect them to take Pakistan seriously?

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Sep 12 2008 0:46 utc | 20

@ Bic 13

I mean, they are the Military, afterall, right? Are they such pussies they can't make an example of a few rogues?

If you are talking about today's toady, butt kissing, ass covering, inexperienced generals and admirals, then you are pretty much right (with very few exceptions I could think of -- and General Dave is not one of them).

The story would be different if some of the grizzled combat leaders who served at the company and battalion level over the past seven years were in charge at the top of the chain of command. Those guys have buried too many of their fellow countrymen for absolutely nothing gained to date. And for absolutely no thanks and no sacrifice from their countrymen either.

SP

Posted by: ServingPatriot | Sep 12 2008 1:10 utc | 21

And b ...

Have the people of the United States understood what Bush is doing here?

Nope. They are too busy waiting for G-d's wrath to level Galveston/Houston (and the dozen refineries down there) or too distracted by the "pit bull with lipstick" (here words, not mine) to care.

Besides, even after seven years of fighting in the Pashtun tribal areas, I'd guess that less than 1 in 10 Americans could even point Pakistan out on the labeled map.

SP

Posted by: ServingPatriot | Sep 12 2008 1:15 utc | 22

All General Kayani has to do to make good on his pledge is kill 3 US soldiers per day for three years. The American people have no political will to pursue a costly war serving no national security interest.

Posted by: Pvt. Keepout | Sep 12 2008 3:48 utc | 23

All Kayani has to do is to simply shut down the Kybur pass supply line. That task can be outsourced to various tribal warlords. Pakistani army can stand back, uninvolved, and claim more military aid from US, who are the dumbest guys on the planet.

Posted by: Allen/Vancouver | Sep 12 2008 4:12 utc | 24

Will American "Rambo" thinking will lead to World War 3?

What many American people don't seem particularly worried about is that their leaders are commiting acts of armed aggression against another sovereign state, which the US criminal cabal declares to be our ally in the "War on Terror".

Not that many Americans challenge the general proposition that their Goliath of a country is absolutely entitled to commit criminal acts of aggression on Pakistan, or any damned country that may appear over the horizon. You can't can't reason with the hubris contained in that mindset; and Nemesis is the remedy.

Absolute cold destruction and plumes of radioactive death pushed up into the higher atmosphere will possibly hang over us as the cruel and outlandish end to this farce.

Poet, Martin Espada, was on the News Hour last evening talking about the corruption of language that has taken place in America as a consequence of 9/11. Even the word *war* has been undermined in the killing field that burns like a virus through the world. He evokes the "War on Drugs" for an example of corrupted meaning, in which war only seems to qualify as a war on drug addicts. He asks, "just whom are we fighting as we war on terror?" Answers will endlessly vary, it seems.

Posted by: Copeland | Sep 12 2008 6:43 utc | 25

Gilani, corps commanders endorse Kayani’s stand: Nation told not to get upset by US threats

Commenting on Chief of the Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s statement that the country’s borders would be defended at all cost and no external force would be allowed to conduct operations inside Pakistan, the prime minister said the statement of the army chief reflected the government policy. The government had the same views as expressed by the army chief on defending the country’s sovereignty and integrity, he added.

COMMANDERS ENDORSE stand: Top army commanders on Thursday discussed the national security situation with reference to threats of US incursions in the tribal areas and endorsed the army chief’s statement about defending the country’s sovereignty.

A meeting of corps commanders was held against the backdrop of a change in the US strategy in the region and US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen’s remarks indicating possibility of more air strikes inside Pakistan “to prevent more attacks on the American people”.

Although, no official statement was released by the ISPR after the first day of the conference, sources told Dawn that the corps commanders had fully endorsed the policy statement given by Army Chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani that no foreign country was allowed to conduct military operations inside Pakistan.

The meeting discussed the situation in areas bordering Afghanistan, the statement by the Nato spokesman that it would not become part of the new US strategy involving more raids inside Pakistan and matters pertaining to relations with the US in the context of war on terror.

This was the first meeting of corps commanders after the resignation of Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf.

Posted by: b | Sep 12 2008 7:27 utc | 26

12 killed in US drone attack in N Waziristan

MIRANSHAH: At least 12 people were killed and 10 others injured in yet an other US drone's attack at Miranshah in North Waziristan on Friday.

Attack was carried out despite US assurance not to conduct any further raid inside Paksitan's territory.

Sources told US drones launched an attack inside Pakistan's area at 4:00am early in the Friday morning.

Two missiles were fired at a house in Tol Khel area on the outskirts of Miranshah, the main town in North Waziristan district, killing dozen people and injuring 10 others.

There will ba a response ...

Posted by: b | Sep 12 2008 7:34 utc | 27

The News (Pakistan) editorial: Enough, Uncle Sam

There is an escalating sense of furious impotence among the ordinary people of Pakistan. Many -- perhaps most -- of them are strongly opposed to the spread of Talibanisation and extremist influence across the country; people who may be described as 'moderates'. Many of them have no sympathy for the mullahs and their burning of girls' schools and their medieval mindset. But if you bomb a moderate sensibility often enough it has a tendency to lose its sense of objectivity and to feel driven in the direction of extremism. If America bombs moderate sensibilities often enough you may find that its actions are the best recruiting sergeant that the extremists ever had -- and the extremists will be quietly delighted at the civilian deaths as they know that more feet will turn to the path that leads to their door.

There seems little that we can do to stop the Buzzers killing non-combatants; and by the same token it is difficult to construct a rhetoric that would dissuade those new recruits from joining the extremist camp. America is daily deepening the well of resentment against itself that no amount of aid input or pious diplomatic platitudes will ever fill; and Uncle Sam should not be surprised if his interests and assets within Pakistan become the target of extremists -- because at least some of those extremists will be the product of his own actions, his very own recruits. General Kayani's men will have to fight these new recruits as well, and fighting one's own people never sits easily in the mind of any fighting force. Be careful what you bomb Uncle Sam, be very careful.

Posted by: b | Sep 12 2008 7:38 utc | 28

Pak army ordered to hit back US forces

The Pakistani Army has been given orders to retaliate against any unilateral strike by the Afghanistan-based US troops inside the country.

Army Spokesman Maj Gen Athar Abbas confirmed the orders in a brief interview with Geo News on late Thursday night.

Posted by: Andrey Subbotin | Sep 12 2008 14:14 utc | 29

After all this water being poured out of outraged ears that Russia violated Georgian sovereignity, it's rather odd that Pakistan's sovereignity is blatanly violated in this fashion at the (supposedly) direct orders of the Codpiece himself -- and it just goes by without a wimper let alone a scream from the mass media.

Sometimes I wonder if I fell asleep and this is all a (terribly bad) dream...

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Sep 12 2008 14:20 utc | 30

it's rather odd

Once upon a time it may have been considered odd. Now, it's par for the course.

Posted by: Bic | Sep 12 2008 17:35 utc | 31

What many American people don't seem particularly worried about is that their leaders are commiting acts of armed aggression against another sovereign state, which the US criminal cabal declares to be our ally in the "War on Terror".

i'm not picking up any radar of alarm over this here on the street. it seems incredibly bizarre. it occurred to me it could be because obama has been talkign about moving the fight to afghanistan and biden's big on pakistan and nobody wants to foul up his chance because of the prospect of a mcCain candidacy.

but still, were bombing civilians in pakistan now WTF???

not to come down to any defense of obamas position here (since he did say he wanted more troops there and everybody knows troops kill the don't deal w/diplomacy) but i think there has been some 'hope' he was going to have some plan or something other than just bomb the fuck out of people.

the rhetoric coming out of his campaign is enough to strike fear in any civilians in the area regardless of hopes he's better than cheney but still, this escalation of bombings lately really seem like a supreme provocation, like bush wants it so fucked up any alternative but all out war will paint obama as a wussy.

b 26 link

A meeting of corps commanders was held against the backdrop of a change in the US strategy in the region and US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen’s remarks indicating possibility of more air strikes inside Pakistan “to prevent more attacks on the American people”.

9/11? i guess we can just fuck over anyone anytime “to prevent more attacks on the American people”,

if the objective here is to parcel pakistan into 3 regions, control baluchistan, make new boundaries?? "This post is too long" she say's, well i don't think it's long enough. they are using the press oogling over the election and palin and whatever other bullshit is going on to get away w/MURDER. if all hell breaks out in pakistan this will boost the 'war party'. is this our october surprise, to be 'defending ourselves' from pakistan attacking our troops?

sorry for the rant. no i'm not. yes i am. no i'm not. massively fucked.

Posted by: annie | Sep 12 2008 18:13 utc | 32

about 2-3 years ago when the discussion started about Iraqs civilian war i.e. Sunnis v Shia, some Politico in Iraq stated:

this is not a civil war, it is a war against civilians.

any war fought from now on is a war against civilians, it is so much easier to bomb the life out of people at nighttime in their beds, than to actually front up soldiers and have them fighting against each other.

people like you and me are the target, not the other goverment or the other army. You and me, as we might not agree.

Wollt ihr den totalen krieg. - and humanity has learned nothing, nada, zilch, nix.
And US-America is quite happy to go along, Hillary would have bombed, Obama would bomb, and so will McSame and Palin.

The citizens of the USA will only understand what they have signed up to, when the bombs start raining on them. But it will be to late by then, as these bombs will come from their own goverment/police. St. Paul was a training course, it worked well.

all errors mine
s

Posted by: sabine | Sep 12 2008 20:38 utc | 33

'Muslim Massacre' video game condemned for glamorising slaughter of Arabs

A computer game in which players control an American soldier sent to “wipe out the Muslim race” has been condemned as offensive and tasteless by British Muslim groups.

The goal of Muslim Massacre, which can be downloaded for free on the internet, is to “ensure that no Muslim man or woman is left alive”, according to the game’s creator.

Players control an “American Hero” armed with a machine gun and rocket launcher who is parachuted into the Middle East.

By slaughtering all the Arabs that appear on screen – some dressed as terrorists, some apparently civilians - players progress to later levels where they take on Osama bin Laden, Mohammed and finally Allah.

The game’s creator, a freelance programmer known as Sigvatr, described the game as “fun and funny” and some players have interpreted the game as a critical commentary - albeit a crude one - of US foreign policy.

......

In a discussion of the game on an internet message board Sigvatr, an American based in Brisbane, Australia whose real name is Eric Vaughn, appeared to distance himself from the view that it was a parody of American jingoism, and acknowledge that many players would enjoy the game for the chance to shoot virtual Muslims.

“I think it's pretending to be legitimate commentary and I'm sure there will be lots of people who defend it on those grounds, but ultimately it's just a game where you blow the gently caress out of arabs,” he wrote. "Gently caress" is internet slang for a common swear word.

“Anyone is free to believe whatever they won't (sic) though, because I don't even know how to interpret it myself anymore. The bottom line is that I enjoyed making it and it's fun to play,” he added.

Mr Vaughn told the Telegraph that the game did not push a more negative view of Muslims than they would pick up watching television news reports.

....

In a later post on a message board he wrote: “The Muslims represented in the game aren't meant to be based on actual Muslims.

“If I was to try and come up with a meaning for the game at this moment, it would probably be something along the lines of metaphorically destroying the stereotypical depiction of a Muslim.”

Posted by: annie | Sep 12 2008 21:15 utc | 34

'Muslim Massacre' video game condemned for glamorising slaughter of Arabs

A computer game in which players control an American soldier sent to “wipe out the Muslim race” has been condemned as offensive and tasteless by British Muslim groups.

The goal of Muslim Massacre, which can be downloaded for free on the internet, is to “ensure that no Muslim man or woman is left alive”, according to the game’s creator.

Players control an “American Hero” armed with a machine gun and rocket launcher who is parachuted into the Middle East.

By slaughtering all the Arabs that appear on screen – some dressed as terrorists, some apparently civilians - players progress to later levels where they take on Osama bin Laden, Mohammed and finally Allah.

The game’s creator, a freelance programmer known as Sigvatr, described the game as “fun and funny” and some players have interpreted the game as a critical commentary - albeit a crude one - of US foreign policy.

......

In a discussion of the game on an internet message board Sigvatr, an American based in Brisbane, Australia whose real name is Eric Vaughn, appeared to distance himself from the view that it was a parody of American jingoism, and acknowledge that many players would enjoy the game for the chance to shoot virtual Muslims.

“I think it's pretending to be legitimate commentary and I'm sure there will be lots of people who defend it on those grounds, but ultimately it's just a game where you blow the gently caress out of arabs,” he wrote. "Gently caress" is internet slang for a common swear word.

“Anyone is free to believe whatever they won't (sic) though, because I don't even know how to interpret it myself anymore. The bottom line is that I enjoyed making it and it's fun to play,” he added.

Mr Vaughn told the Telegraph that the game did not push a more negative view of Muslims than they would pick up watching television news reports.

....

In a later post on a message board he wrote: “The Muslims represented in the game aren't meant to be based on actual Muslims.

“If I was to try and come up with a meaning for the game at this moment, it would probably be something along the lines of metaphorically destroying the stereotypical depiction of a Muslim.”

Posted by: annie | Sep 12 2008 21:15 utc | 35

here is more from the moby games website. from the comment sections of some of the gaming sites certain posters say things like..'it is just satire'...

Description In Muslim Massacre, a game of modern religious genocide, the player is invited to "stop acting like a liberal pussy" and take up arms now. After many bombings in the US and an executed US ambassador, Muslims start rioting throughout America and president George Bush declares war on Islam, as shown in the introduction with a real speech of Bush rolling in the background.

In this alternative course of history, players need to become A Real American Hero and face the Muslim rise in the country. The game is played from a top-down perspective and resembles an 8-bit arena shooter. Players control the hero in different rounds that last 60 to 90 seconds. Enraged Muslims appear from all sides, some defenceless, some armed, some on a suicide mission, and the hero can fire in eight directions while avoiding them. The area scrolls, but the movement only lasts a few screens. Advanced enemies pass in trucks or have rocket launchers.

Helicopters regularly drop power-ups such as shotguns, machine guns, rapid fire, grenades, health or a rocket launcher. The base gun has unlimited ammo. The hero can take some damage and has five lives in total. There are also boss levels where Osama Bin Laden, Muhammad and eventually Allah need to be taken on.

Movement is done through the keyboard while the mouse is used to control the firing direction. Although largely tongue-in-cheek, this is a controversial game that puts the player against the entire religion of Islam and also depicts Muhammad inside the game.

Posted by: annie | Sep 12 2008 21:52 utc | 36

Pfaff: Quagmire, Phase 2: The Invasion of Pakistan

The United States has just invaded Cambodia. The name of Cambodia this time is Pakistan, but otherwise it’s the same story as in Indochina in 1970.

An American army, deeply frustrated by its inability to defeat an anti-American insurgent movement despite years of struggle, decides that the key to victory lies in a neighboring country. In 1970, the problem was the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Cambodia. Today it is Taliban and al-Qaida bases inside Pakistan, which the United States has been attacking from the air for some time, with controversial “collateral damage.”
...

Posted by: b | Sep 13 2008 6:05 utc | 37

PAF aircrafts start flights in US missiles-hit tribal region

BANNU (NNI): Fighter aircraft of Pakistan Air Force on Saturday conducted flights in the tribal region for the first time where U.S missiles attacks have killed dozens of people in recent days, witnesses in the region said.
...
Pakistan Air Chief Air Marshal Tanvir Mehmood has said that the air force can respond to violation of air space by the U.S forces if the government issues orders. The army spokesman Major General Athar Abass said on Thursday that the army has been issued orders to react in case of violation by Afghanistan-based U.S forces. A tribal elder in Miranshah, the center of North Waziristan, said on phone that he saw Pakistani fighter planes hovering over North Waziristan. “The people are very happy over action by Pakistani aircraft in view of the frequent air violations by U.S spy planes,” the tribesman said. “I saw the fighter plane also flying towards the Afghan border area,” the tribal elder said, requesting not to be identified.

Posted by: b | Sep 14 2008 9:31 utc | 38

Pakistani tribal chiefs threaten to join Taliban

A controversial new US tactic to mount counter-terrorist operations inside Pakistan has met with fresh hostility, it emerged yesterday, as Pakistani tribesmen representing half a million people vowed to switch sides and join the Taliban if Washington does not stop cross-border attacks by its forces from Afghanistan.
...
"If America doesn't stop attacks in tribal areas, we will prepare a lashkar [army] to attack US forces in Afghanistan," tribal chief Malik Nasrullah announced in Miran Shah, north Waziristan's largest city. "We will also seek support from the tribal elders in Afghanistan to fight jointly against America."

US troops' attempt to enter inside Pakistan's territory foiled

WANA: Pakistan Army and local tribes on Monday foiled an attempt of US troops to enter inside Pakistan’s territory through two American helicopters.

According to sources, US troops boarded on two helicopters were trying to enter onto Pakistan’s areas near Angoor Adda along Pak-Afghan border when local tribes and troops of Pakistan army resisted the move and opened fire, forcing US helicopters to return.

Sources said situation remains tense in the area while local tribals along with Pakistan army are also positioned to face any untoward situation.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s authorities haven’t officially confirmed the incident.

Posted by: b | Sep 15 2008 7:27 utc | 39

US pretty much declares war on Pakistan:

US Army general warns Pakistan of new war

LAHORE: A new war could begin if Pakistan does not step up its fight against terrorists, Maj Gen Jeffrey J Schloesser of the US Army said in a report published in an American weekly on Sunday.

“If militants escape into Pakistani territory and Islamabad does not step up, a new kind of war could well begin,” he said.

Pakistan says 'you're on':

Pakistan scrambles fighter jets to scare off spy plane

PAKISTAN was reported last night to have scrambled its fighter aircraft for the first time to repel a US spy plane in its airspace, further raising temperatures in the standoff over Washington's declared determination to launch attacks against militants inside Pakistani territory.

Pakistani newspaper Dawn, in a report from Miranshah, the main town in North Waziristan that is a hotbed of militant activity, said the US spy plane "was seen in the skies above North Waziristan earlier in the day, but it disappeared as soon as the Pakistani fighters appeared.

"The jets, which were (being) seen for the first time after a series of US attacks in the tribal belt, reconnoitred the region for an hour."

Analysts in Islamabad said the the air force move was the first time that Pakistan's armed forces had directly intervened to defend their sovereignty against incursions by the US-led forces in Afghanistan.


Posted by: Juan Moment | Sep 15 2008 12:12 utc | 40

Pakistan should get its nuclear arsenal ready, it will be needed pretty soon

Posted by: Ahmad | Sep 15 2008 15:00 utc | 41

ramping up the rhetoric

Swing-State newspapers distribute 'terror' videos

A 60-minute DVD, titled "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West," is being distributed in millions of newspapers across the country this week primarily in swing states through an advertising purchase by a shadowy group called the Clarion Fund.

the DVD does not violate their usual standards; see our exchange with The New York Times below. A spokesperson there said the Times last Sunday inserted 145,000 DVDs in its papers delivered in the following markets: Denver, Miami/Palm Beach, Tampa, Orlando, Detroit, Kansas City, St Louis, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee/Madison. Note: These are all in swing states.

The documentary showcases scenes of Muslim children being encouraged to become suicide bombers, interspersed with shots of Nazi rallies. 'The threat of Radical Islam is the most important issue facing us today,'' reads the sleeve of the DVD. ''But it's a topic that neither the presidential candidates nor the media are discussing openly. It's our responsibility to ensure we can all make an informed vote in November.''

It was shown on Fox News just before the 2006 mid-term elections, and conservative activist David Horowitz screened the film on college campuses during 2007. An article at the group's site, www.radicalislam.org, endorsed John McCain as the strongest candidate this past week, then was pulled down. The DVD carries on-screen text near the outset that it is not indicting most Muslims."

Posted by: annie | Sep 15 2008 15:36 utc | 42

Pakistan = the New Switzerland (during WW2, that is)?

Posted by: kao_hsien_chih | Sep 15 2008 18:32 utc | 43

Pakistan is controlled by various parties like the newly elected govt and also Pakistani army.The Pakistani army ISI created Taliban .There is no option but to attack the border areas of pakistan.Otherwise this thing will go for decades.

Posted by: Mang | Sep 27 2008 0:03 utc | 44

The comments to this entry are closed.