Sharif: Pakistan Is "Drowned In Blood"

Opposition Leader Accuses Musharraf Of Destroying Nation; Bomb Blast, Violence Take Toll

(AP)  Opposition leader Nawaz Sharif accused Pakistan's U.S.-allied president Monday of ordering anti-terror operations that have left the country “drowned in blood,” in his first major campaign speech since the slaying of Benazir Bhutto.

Bhutto's opposition party, meanwhile, said it may work with President Pervez Musharraf after the Feb. 18 parliamentary polls, despite his apparent unpopularity and allegations that elements within his government may have been involved in the former prime minister's assassination over two weeks ago.

The developments highlight the fluid nature of Pakistani politics ahead of the polls, which the United States and other Western nations hope will usher in a period of stability as the country battles rising attacks by al Qaeda and Taliban militants.

In the latest violence, suspected pro-Taliban militants ambushed a military convoy in a tribal region close to the border with Afghanistan, sparking a clash that left 23 fighters and seven troops dead, said army spokesman Maj. Gen. Waheed Arshad.

Sharif, who was ousted by Musharraf in a 1999 coup, made his comments to a rally of 3,000 supporters near the capital, Islamabad. The criticisms were among his harshest of Musharraf and his alliance with Washington forged after the Sept. 11 attacks and appeared aimed at gaining support from conservative Muslims.

“Musharraf has destroyed Pakistan. He is blindly following America's orders,” said Sharif. “The whole of Pakistan is drowned in blood.”

Sharif heads a secular party but in the past has forged ties with hard-line Islamic parties.

He alleged the army left “girls riddled with bullets” when it raided a pro-Taliban mosque and female seminary in the capital last year. The government said more than 100 extremists were killed in the operation, and disputed claims that female students also died.

Musharraf, who late last year gave up his position as army chief, faces the prospect of a hostile parliament and possible impeachment if the opposition do well in the elections. Many expect Bhutto and Sharif's parties to improve their current representation in parliament, but it remains to be seen if they can secure the two-thirds majority needed to force him from office.

A spokesman for Bhutto's Pakistan Peoples Party said “all options are open” when asked whether it would cooperate with Musharraf.

“These are bridges which we will cross when they come,” Farhatullah Babar said, echoing remarks reported in Pakistani media by Bhutto's husband, Asif Ali Zardari, now the de facto head of the party.

Many analysts predict any cooperation between Musharraf and Bhutto's party would be short-lived and unstable, given likely opposition by the group's rank and file. But it would represent a matchup of secular, moderate forces and, as such, could be welcomed by the West.

Adding to the uncertainty, opposition parties are threatening to reject the results of the elections if they are rigged. That would deepen Pakistan's political turmoil and likely trigger street violence.

Bhutto was a secular politician popular in the West for her opposition to hard-line Islam. The government has blamed her Dec. 27 murder in a gun and suicide bomb attack on a prominent Taliban commander who had reportedly threatened to kill her.

But her political party and family members have accused the government of failing to provide her with sufficient security. Some have made vague allegations that elements within the government may have been involved.

Fruit Cart Bomb Kills 4 In Karachi

A bomb hidden in a fruit cart killed four people and wounded 14 others Monday evening in Pakistan's largest city, Karachi, police said.

It was not immediately clear who was behind the blast. Islamic militants have been blamed for a growing number of bloody attacks in Pakistan, but violent crime also plagues this volatile city of 15 million people.

Sindh province Police Chief Azher Farooqi confirmed the incident. “Yes, it is blast of an explosive device under a fruit cart,” he said.

Dr. Kalim Shaikh of Jinnah Hospital, one of the Karachi's largest, said the hospital had received four bodies and nine wounded victims.

Police said a total of 14 people were wounded. They said that after the explosion, enraged local residents hurled stones at passing vehicles.

Fighting Kills 23 Militants, 7 Troops In Northwest

Suspected Islamic militants ambushed a military convoy in northwestern Pakistan on Monday, sparking a clash that left 30 dead, the army said.

The insurgents said they captured 17 troops in the attack, but denied suffering any fatalities.

The fighting broke out when security forces retaliated in Mohmand, a tribal region near the border with Afghanistan, said Maj. Gen. Waheed Arshad, the army's top spokesman.

The convoy of paramilitary troops was traveling from its base in Ghalanai, the main town in Mohmand, to Mohammed Gut, when it came under fire as it passed through a Taliban stronghold, said Murad Khan, a Ghalanai resident.

Arshad said 23 insurgents and seven soldiers died in the fighting.

Maulvi Muhammad Umer, spokesman for Tehrik-i-Taliban, an umbrella group for various pro-Taliban forces, claimed responsibility for the attack. He denied that the rebels had suffered any fatalities, acknowledging only that “some of our men sustained injuries during the clash.”

Umer also claimed the insurgents captured 17 troops during the action. The army said it had no information on any missing security forces.

Meanwhile, gunmen abducted and shot to death a political activist who had backed the military against armed supporters of a pro-Taliban cleric in the northwestern district of Swat, said Ghafoor Rehman, the slain man's brother.

Rehman blamed the killing on followers of the cleric, Maulana Fazlullah, who have been battling security forces in the mountainous region since July.

In Tank, a town on the edge of the South Waziristan tribal region, security forces captured 31 militants and sealed an Islamic school because it was being used as a militant base, the army said in a separate statement.

[Netterz]

I see so many ppl rush to blame Bush alone for going to war in Iraq. Its not like some one sent him an anonomous letter saying there were WOMD''s there. It takes alot more than 1 man, to go to war. Afganistan & Iraq, were places to start fighting terror, One housing Taliban, the other a mass murdering tyranical Sadam. Had it not been Iraq, it would have, and possiy shoud have, been elsewhere, as we see now n hindsight. In dealing with these ppl who have lived in fear, and been suppressed for decades, it is a cycle of violence, that wont be broken and repaired over night. 9/11 was just a warning and example of what they are capable of doing, for attemtping to interfere in there way of life and control. It took them only a handful of ppl, to kill over 3000 ppl, in a matter of minutes. They are violent ppl by nature, in there way of life, It will take a long time, to bring them to our idea of civility.

[libsluvsuvs]

And I have personally known Iraqi vets who thought the whole thing was a mistake and a cluster-fu*ck from the word go.

And no, there have not been several investigations into if Bush lied us into this war. There are some on-going ones and more to come.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by SgtRDS at 05:50 PM : Jan 14, 2008
+ report abuse


************ I know personally think and personally know tons of veterans from all wars THAT BELIEVES THAT IS TIME TO DEAL WITH TERRORISM instead of trying to deny it exist..and I know a lot of veterans and member of the military and friends who hates the war on terrorism JUST BECAUSE Bush''S policies and belief''s on OTHER ISSUES ASIDE TERRORISM clashes with thier own personal lifestyle.

SEVERAL INVESTIGATIONS AND SEVERAL CRUSADES WERE TAKEN to impeach the president WHICH WAS KILLED BY THE DEMOCRATS because it would expose that thier is NO FOUNDATION to the allegations..WHICH UP TO NOW IS NO WHERE TO BE HEARD OR FOUND even after the House was taken over by the DNC.

[sgtrds]

notblue

And I have personally known Iraqi vets who thought the whole thing was a mistake and a cluster-fu*ck from the word go.

And no, there have not been several investigations into if Bush lied us into this war. There are some on-going ones and more to come.

[sgtrds]

You people scream how stupid the "shrub is" yet according to you people he was smart enough to fool the Dems and the rest of the world.

Posted by notblue at 05:36 PM : Jan 14, 2008

Sooner or later we''ll get that lying piece of sh*its head on a platter. My greatest hope is that I live long enough to have the pleasure of pis*sing on his grave.

Oh and I didn''t say the Taliban was stronger then at anytime since 9-11, I was refering to Al-Qaeda.

[notblue]

SGT, when you say the Taliban is stronger now. please explain. Before they were defeated, they controlled the Government and had instituted their barbaric 6th century ideology, executed womman in public, eliminated women from schools and destroyed centuries old artifacts and sites that did not coincide with their strict religious beliefs. Since there DEFEAT, democratic elections have been held, woman areback in school, and the militants have retreated to caves! How have they become stronger????? please site specific details not just more moveon rhetoric.

[notblue]

sgt, your SPECULATION that it was all lies is just that, that''s what the Dems have stated, however despite several investigations NO charges were brought so go ahead and scream the mantra if it were actuallt true Bush would be gone. You people scream how stupid the "shrub is" yet according to you people he was smart enough to fool the Dems and the rest of the world.

I have personally known and talked to many vterans who returned from Iraq, in most cases served ,ore than one tour and not one has ever thought or stated that what they were doing over there was for nothing, they felt there cause was worthy and noble, and could see real progress for Iraq''s people. Those facts will not be found here at CBS or MoveOn.org

[sgtrds]

notblue

Oh and Bush and the neocons were going to invade Iraq no matter what Saddam did short of actually stepping down and handing the country over to them. They idea that there was anything other then that that he could have done to avoid this invasion is an out and out lie. Bush was going to invade, no matter what lie or excuse he had to come up with to try to justify it.

[sgtrds]

Of course there is a branch of Al-Qaeda in Iraq now, because we let it there. However that''s not the same thing as drawing them in since they''re STILL where they were before we invaded Iraq too! In fact they''re even stronger now in Afghanistan then at anytime since 9-11. If this move into Iraq was a move against Al-Qaeda then it qualifies as one of the major scr*ew ups in American history since all it did was to spread Al-Qaeda to a country that didn''t have it before and give them fantastic on the job training. Your argument of we invaded Iraq to have a battlefield against Al-Qaeda is a ridiculous bloody joke.

[mitywhity]

How about a cessation of ALL foreign aid to the entire world "Slack-istan"

[rgmiron]

NotBlue, You are right on !! To some people the USA can''t do anything right. We just can''t give them enought foreign AID or we should take there attacks, with a understanding smile. They object when we fight back. I grow tired of them.

[notblue]

Sgt, why do you refuse to acknowledge that after we went into Iraq Al Qaeda followed? If one was to admit Alqaeda followed us in then the mantra of retreat or the moveon rhetoric you stick to would no longer make sense. Haven''t you heard of "killing two birds with one stone". Maybe some high=er ups not blinded by hate for Bush understood Iraq was the key to this thing in more ways than one. you people like to forget if Sadam had been TRANSPARENT as agredd after he was driven out of Kuwait in his previously started war, there would have been no invasion. THe reality is when we decided to invade both sides of the isle were in agreement. It wasn''t until afterwords that the Dems jumped ship, all due to politics at home, they new there would be enough Republican haters to beleieve there turn around and the lies regarding it, all to save their political necks without care fro our countries security. So you go ahead and Blame the hated Bush, I will just keep my eyes wide open and SEE both sides for what they are. THe real difference between you and I is, I choose to blame the Islamic jihadists for the unrest in the world and for the U.S. to take the proactive approach to the barbarism the militants commit throughout the world on a daily basis!

[sgtrds]

notblue

The decision to go to war in Iraq did not have anything to do with any war on terror or radical Islamics. It was completely because the neocons had a harebrained and incredibly ignorant idea that the whole Middle-East would suddenly blossom out with American friendly democracies who would gladly sell us oil if we took down Saddam. That plus the fact that war is very very very profitable to war contracting companies. The people that Bush murdered in this invasion died for profit and because of a twisted and very stupid political ideology. They did not die to fight terrorism or radical Muslims.

[notblue]

Sgt, it is just as cynical to believe there were NO radicals in Iraq, please! They were andare in every country in the middle east.

Why is it beyond comprehension that if America was going to go to war with the militants that it may be possible, that strategically, Iraq was the best choice, certainly it is the best choice geograghically being the heart or center of the middle east.

[sgtrds]

antoniof123

The problem with some people is that they think that hating Bush came before he gave people reason to hate him and that hate blinds people who do hate him. When Bush snuck into office in 2000 I thought he was a buffoon, but a relatively harmless one. I didn''t like him, but I can''t say that I hated him. The hate comes from the slaughter of innocent people in Iraq and the dishonor he brought to our military by using it for his own ends to attack a nation that did not attack us. He twisted what happened on 9-11 into a lie to wage this war and many many many people have died because of it. Hating him became very easy after that and he has brought every bit of hate there is toward him on himself. He deserves to be hated.

[antoniof123]

Posted by notblue at 01:35 PM : Jan 14, 2008

Blue, you have an interesting argument with Sgt, but I must say this and remember it was Bush that said it "I don''t think about him much he really doesn''t matter." That by itself is what you have to hate the administration knew that Iraq did not have any ties to 9-11. In fact the UN inspectors were in Iraq 3 days before when the administration told them to leave because attack was going to happen at any time.

So I must say that it was the administration fault for how many fell towards them with justification. Had they not lied to the American people and the world and most of the world had their own intelligent to rely on that is why they didn''t join us. He would not be so unpopular and in many cases hated.

Sorry but facts are facts and now the economy. Well, you can guess it from there.

[sgtrds]

notblue

Of course I hate Bush. He lied us into a war against a country that was not a threat to us. They had no connection whatsoever to terrorism or radical Islam. He cynically used the very real problem of terrorism to launch a war of choice against a country that just happened to be on the neocon hit-list since the early 1990''s. If Bush would confine his war mongering just to the radical Muslims we are fighting then I would have no problem with that. That said the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terrorism.

[kennedy7955]

I think the answer to my question earlier is that it would be impossible to see the difference. If that is so, then there is no sense dropping bombs, waging war, trying to buy an enemy...so let''s just get out of there.

[notblue]

Sgt, I know you hate Bush, your posts have made that perfectly clear, in fact you hate Bush more than radical Islam and that''s your choice. The part you haters miss is it''s not just Bin Laden , I know your narrow vision is required to justify your hatred and stance, however, by your logic we should be atacking Saudi Arabia because that''s where the hijackers came from. If you people understood it is a radical ideology that goes under many flags and names then the Bin Laden rhetoric would be moronic and laughable. While Bin Laden is still a threat , there are other related threats posed by these same radicals that go beyond one man and one nation. Your narrow visioned stance makes it impossible to admit that.

[missingamerica]

Question, if the USA were to carpet bomb Pakistan...

Posted by kennedy7955 at 01:24 PM : Jan 14, 2008

"Carpet bomb Pakistan" - the right''s evangelicals would probably love that.

If carpet bombing won''t accomplish anything else, it will surely make a country holier.

(Horrible pun...I should be ashamed.)

[kennedy7955]

Question, if the USA were to carpet bomb Pakistan for many weeks, afterwards, would you be able to tell the difference? I mean, does a blown up shi_ hole look any different from a non-blown up shi_ hole? Just wondering.