Log in

View Full Version : Deadly confrontation with Islamist militants



Spirit of Spartacus
4th July 2007, 19:20
This is a story you DON'T want to miss! :D
If you want, you can skip the background info that I've provided, and go directly to the part in bold...

Pakistan's capital Islamabad turned into a war-zone on Tuesday, July the 3rd, 2007, when Islamist militants clashed with security officials and paramilitary forces. More than 20 people, including security forces, Islamic militants and innocent civilians died in the clashes occuring on Tuesday and Wednesday.

The militants were based at the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in Islamabad. Attached to the mosque was a seminary or religious school, called Jamia Hafsa.

These militant Islamists were led by two extremist clerics, the Ghazi brothers. The elder of the two was Maulana Abdul-Aziz Ghazi, and his second-in-command is Maulana Abdul-Rasheed Ghazi. (Maulana is a title given to Islamic clerics or religious leaders).

The religious school affiliated with Lal Masjid taught a message of militant Islamism and Jihad (holy struggle) to thousands of women. Wearing full face-veils and carrying heavy sticks, they formed a "morals police", and began patrolling parts of the capital Islamabad, trying to wipe out things which they considered "immoral".

I wrote about them in detail here (http://wrathofhephaestus.wordpress.com/2007/04/07/pakistani-fundamentalists-and-their-islamic-revolution-some-thoughts-on-the-rise-of-the-madrassah-thugs-in-islamabad/), in case anyone is interested. :)

Among their targets were music-shops, massage-parlors, etc. They also menaced women at various cultural and educational institutions. This often brought them into open conflict with State police as well as moderate and secular Muslims, who form the majority of residents in the capital city.

The international bourgeois-media, including BBC, CNN and others had a ball for the past two months, speculating on the rise of militant Islamists in the capital of Pakistan.

Matters came to a head in late June, when the Lal Masjid goons captured 6 female Chinese workers, held them for a day and then released them after pressure from the government.

This Tuesday, Pakistani security forces and military units surrounded the Lal Masjid mosque complex and the nearby Jamia Hafsa religious-school. The militants in Lal Masjid opened fire on the State forces, resulting in deadly fighting that left more than 20 people dead and hundreds injured.

On Wednesday, a cease-fire was arranged, but sporadic fighting continued, and the capital Islamabad was under a strict curfew, with troops patrolling the streets and armoured military vehicles all over the place.

As the military beseiged the mosque complex, hundreds of religious students began to surrender, laying down their arms and coming out, allowing security forces to take them into custody.
Around 1500 militants still remained holed-up in the mosque, and it looked as if there would be a bloody final battle, as security forces prepared to storm the mosque complex.
Gunship helicopters appeared overhead,

Just a few hours ago, early in the evening, Pakistan time, guess what happens?

Maulana Abdul-Aziz, the elder of the two Ghazi brothers, and commander of the militants, tried to escape, along with some female students of the mosque. All were wearing full face-veils, known as niqaabs or burqas. :P

Abdul-Aziz himself had worn a burqa to hide his face, and attempted to escape. The security forces stopped him and the women, and began searching them. The women tried to help the Maulana out of his sticky situation, claiming that he was their "aunt".

"Please let our aunty go", they said. "She is very ill, please let her go, don't search her!"

The security forces insisted on searching "Aunty", and demanded that "she" lift her veil. Guess what lay beneath the veil. ;)

The government has released security footage of "Aunty" being exposed, arrested and then bundled into a vehicle by security forces.

Morale in the beseiged mosque complex has fallen drastically after their chief leader was arrested trying to escape in a burqa. (Predictably)

Several hundred militants, both male and female, along with lots of children, are still holed up in the beseiged Lal Masjid area. They are now led by the younger of the Ghazi brothers, Maulana Abdul-Rasheed.

Hopefully, the crisis will come to an end without further loss of life.

It has certainly taken a very amusing turn. Only in Pakistan can a deadly clash turn into comedy. :P

Read about the violent clashes here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6267024.stm) on the BBC news website.

Read about the captured leader escaping in a burqa veil disguise here (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8B42C0B3-1B8D-4EDB-90BE-E40B895F9447.htm) on Al-Jazeera and here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6270626.stm) on BBC.

Most of Pakistan was watching with baited breath, as Maulana Abdul-Aziz made fiery speeches, urging his followers to go bravely to fight and die in their "holy war" against immorality in Pakistan.

He sent dozens of young followers to fight and die for his cause, and swore that he would fight to the very end.

He claimed that he saw in a dream, his blood sprinkled on the floor of the mosque, and the rise of an Islamic revolution in Pakistan.

And now...he was arrested trying to escape, wearing a burqa and veil. :D

Vargha Poralli
4th July 2007, 21:22
Really a good news and I hope the rest of the innocent and misguided people who were entrenched in Lal Masjid could be rescued without any harm.

Really that guy really embarassed himself and his followers. Atleast now they realise what they are really and start to realsie that nobody could liberate them except themselves.

Severian
7th July 2007, 02:56
Comic yes; end no.

Musharraf's plane fired on as standoff continues. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/world/asia/07pakistan.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

Really, I don't see how you can continue to deny there's a "real" conflict between the pro-imperialist regime, as they're shooting at each other. Additionally, Pakistani Islamists have entered Afghanistan to fight U.S. forces there, and been killed by U.S. missile strikes.

Of course, this doesn't make them progressive: they are fighting for, most obviously, reactionary goals, including the enforcement of Taliban-style rules. Both the Musharraf regime and the Islamists attack working people. Both have to be confronted by working people attempting to organize.

It's just a lot easier to cheerlead for this kind of reactionary force from afar....than when you actually have to deal with them.

ComradeR
10th July 2007, 08:43
Pakistani soldiers storm mosque (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6286500.stm)


Really, I don't see how you can continue to deny there's a "real" conflict between the pro-imperialist regime, as they're shooting at each other. Additionally, Pakistani Islamists have entered Afghanistan to fight U.S. forces there, and been killed by U.S. missile strikes.

Of course, this doesn't make them progressive: they are fighting for, most obviously, reactionary goals, including the enforcement of Taliban-style rules. Both the Musharraf regime and the Islamists attack working people. Both have to be confronted by working people attempting to organize.
Couldn't agree more, we don't want to see one reactionary capitalist system traded for another. They help in weakening the imperialist grip but that is as far as they go towards helping our cause.

Spirit of Spartacus
10th July 2007, 14:09
Yes, its all over today. Special forces stormed the mosque, 61 dead according to the TV.

Anyhow, Severian, you misconstrued my position on the Islamists. I don't support or oppose Islamists because they're Islamists. We need to look at what they're doing in material terms.

In our previous discussion about Islamist anti-imperialists, I suggested that we look for:

(a) genuine resistance against imperialism and its lackeys in the Third World

(b) mass support among the working-class (or significant sections of it)


The Islamists in Pakistan, including the ones who were killed a few hours ago today, they have no mass support. All the support they have is among isolated fundamentalist cells.

There have been no mass mobilizations to support them over the past few days. In fact, even mainstream Islamists are making cautious efforts to distance themselves from the Lal Masjid Islamists.

In such circumstances, it really doesn't make sense for us to support them.

Severian
11th July 2007, 04:23
Originally posted by Spirit of [email protected] 10, 2007 07:09 am
Yes, its all over today. Special forces stormed the mosque, 61 dead according to the TV.

Anyhow, Severian, you misconstrued my position on the Islamists. I don't support or oppose Islamists because they're Islamists. We need to look at what they're doing in material terms.

In our previous discussion about Islamist anti-imperialists, I suggested that we look for:

(a) genuine resistance against imperialism and its lackeys in the Third World

(b) mass support among the working-class (or significant sections of it)


The Islamists in Pakistan, including the ones who were killed a few hours ago today, they have no mass support. All the support they have is among isolated fundamentalist cells.
OK, in my first post I disposed of your first condition. Your second one doesn't make any more sense.

If a party doesn't deserve support - it doesn't become more deserving just because a lot of people mistakenly support it. All kinds of reactionary crap can be very popular for a time.

For example, in its early years the Khomeini regime in Iran probably met both of those conditions. It was definitely in conflict with imperialism, and probably had a lot of support.

Should Iranian Maoists have supported the regime that was executing and jailing them? Hell, maybe some did support it?

Also: where, exactly are these Islamists who have mass support?

In another thread, you suggested Hamas' election victory proved the masses "supported their line." I'd suggest it proves a lot of Palestinians had lost all patience with Abbas and Fatah, and wanted to cast protest votes. Not that they agreed with Hamas' political approach. Also, you've given no class breakdown of those who voted for Hamas.

In any case many of those who voted for Hamas no longer would do so. Will you do an about-face and support Abbas and his "emergency government" instead?

Palestinian opinion poll (http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2007/p24e1.html)
# 56% support the declaration of the emergency situation and the formation of an emergency government and 38% oppose that. Support for the declaration and the emergency government increases to 59% in the West Bank and decreases to 49% in the Gaza Strip.
# If new parliamentary elections are held today, Fateh would receive 43% of the popular vote and Hamas would receive 33%.
# If new presidential elections are held today, Mahmud Abbas would receive 49% and Ismail Haniyeh would receive 42%. If the competition is between Marwan Barghouti and Ismail Haniyeh, the former would receive 59% and the latter would receive 35%.

And Palestine's probably a place with more support for Islamists than most.

I suppose Iraq would be another; but the Islamists with the most supporters are the ones leading the U.S.-backed Baghdad government.

Islamism is generally in decline; and most in decline in the places where people have had the most experience with it. In Iran, for example. If you're going to take the masses as your guide....that's mostly a reason not to support Islamists.

****

And what does this "support" consist of anyway? If you, in Pakistan, wanted to help the Pakistani Islamists, you could actually do so.

What does it mean to "support" Islamists in other countries? What is the point of people in, for example, London, chanting slogans in favor of Hezbollah rather than, say, demanding an end to material aid to Israel?

I'd suggest it did nothing to actually aid Hezbollah in its armed conflict with Israel - but it does aid the spread of Islamist ideas and influence elsewhere, when they're held up as something deserving "support".

Severian
13th July 2007, 05:52
An interesting article about the situation, including some historical background:

Mosque Siege Exposes Rift In 'Mullah-Military' Alliance: Pakistan's Extremists Increasingly Turn Against Old Ally (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071202083.html?hpid=moreheadlines)

Cheung Mo
14th July 2007, 20:00
It's too bad Washington stopped the Soviets from dealing appropriately with these fascists in Afghanistan.

Omar
14th July 2007, 20:28
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:56 am
Comic yes; end no.

Musharraf's plane fired on as standoff continues. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/world/asia/07pakistan.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

Really, I don't see how you can continue to deny there's a "real" conflict between the pro-imperialist regime, as they're shooting at each other. Additionally, Pakistani Islamists have entered Afghanistan to fight U.S. forces there, and been killed by U.S. missile strikes.

Of course, this doesn't make them progressive: they are fighting for, most obviously, reactionary goals, including the enforcement of Taliban-style rules. Both the Musharraf regime and the Islamists attack working people. Both have to be confronted by working people attempting to organize.

It's just a lot easier to cheerlead for this kind of reactionary force from afar....than when you actually have to deal with them.
Excellent post.

Have you read Clash of Fundamentalism's by Tariq Ali by any chance? Pakistan's recent history is very frustrating.