Musharraf's claims of fighting terrorism
There's no debate that Musharraf's "state of emergency" is targeting his democratic opponents and not the Taleban, but how the Taleban are benefitting from Musharraf's moves is getting very little coverage.
And this isn't even the tribal areas further west.
If the Taleban/Al Qaeda needed to move people, supplies, or communications for a terror attack, "our ally" Musharraf has granted them all the time and space they need.
Related: (AFP) "The United States reportedly has secret contingency plans to safeguard Pakistani nuclear weapons if they risk falling into the wrong hands.....
"We can't say with absolute certainty that we know where they all are," one unidentified former US official told the newspaper, adding that any US effort to secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal "could be very messy.""
Taliban fighters are tightening their grip in areas in the north-west of Pakistan as a result of the country's state of emergency, officials in the Swat valley have said.
Pro-Taliban fighters have advanced in recent days and government officials say they now control as much as 70 per cent of the valley, just a few hours' drive from Islamabad.
And this isn't even the tribal areas further west.
If the Taleban/Al Qaeda needed to move people, supplies, or communications for a terror attack, "our ally" Musharraf has granted them all the time and space they need.
Related: (AFP) "The United States reportedly has secret contingency plans to safeguard Pakistani nuclear weapons if they risk falling into the wrong hands.....
"We can't say with absolute certainty that we know where they all are," one unidentified former US official told the newspaper, adding that any US effort to secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal "could be very messy.""
5 Comments:
"Terrorism" = amorphous enemy
Everyone's fighting terrorism, because everyone's enemy is a "terrorist." Chalk up another one for the language ambiguity and inverse-definition brigade.
By -epm, at 9:14 AM
Well, it's tough to invalidate a constitution justified solely by domestic political opposition.
By mikevotes, at 1:06 PM
Sure. My point was the neutering of language -- the "ambiguification" of communication. What does it mean to be a "terrorist?" To possess "weapons of mass destruction?" To "support the troops?"
Sadly, in the American dialog language has been so perverted that communication is increasingly becoming impossible.... like the mute speaking to the deaf.
By -epm, at 1:39 PM
On a broad scale. I would argue it's actually worse than that.
They're not only are they uttering meaningless phrases. They're tapping into underlying linguistic triggers.
They are communicating on a subtextual level through redefinition.
Probably the best parody/example was from the Daily Show many years ago when they called the bomb craters "freedom holes."
By mikevotes, at 2:00 PM
Exactly.
By -epm, at 8:53 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home