July 1 Pakistan incident: Twin Attacks on Sufi Shrine in Pakistan Kill Dozens

The Pakistani Taliban appears to have engaged in a critical error by attacking Sufi Muslims.

AOL News story by Adnan R. Kahn

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (July 2) -- Two suicide bombers detonated more than 65 pounds of explosives in one of Lahore's iconic cultural landmarks, killing at least 37 people and wounding 175. The attack on the Sufi shrine, locally known as Data Darbar, has sent shockwaves through Pakistan's Sufi community, who have lived in fear of such violence for four years.

Sufism, the mystical strand of Islam, is a largely nonviolent, apolitical religious creed that places an individual's relationship with God above the demands of any single doctrine. It is credited with producing some of Islam's greatest works of art, in poetry, literature and music, as well as some of Islam's leading contributions to science and philosophy.

It is also hated by fundamentalists like the Taliban and al-Qaida.

The attack on the shrine of the Sufi saint Syed Ali bin Usman Hajweri came as pilgrims were gathering for a traditional Thursday night prayer. One suicide bomber reportedly struck devotees as they were performing the washing all Muslims perform before prayer, while the second struck a crowd gathered in one of the shrine's courtyards.

The dead and wounded were rushed to hospitals amid a scene of chaos and carnage. Some are reported to have died during a stampede that immediately followed the blasts, others succumbed to their injuries at hospital, according to doctors there who also warned that the death toll is likely to rise.

Video cameras captured both explosions, showing waves of dust engulfing the crowd and people running in panic.

No group has claimed responsibility, but Sufi devotees are commonly targeted by militants in Pakistan who accuse them of polytheism because of their veneration of the shrines of their saints, a crime in most fundamentalist branches of Islam punishable by death. A similar attack in 2005 at the shrine of Shah Abdul Latif Kazmi in Islamabad, targeting a group of people crowded around a musician singing devotional songs, killed 50. Other, smaller attacks and targeted killings have frightened many of Pakistan's Sufi devotees away from the shrines of their beloved saints.

Sufism reached its apex in the early years of Islam, producing some of its greatest thinkers between the 10th and 13th centuries, men -- and some women -- like Omar Khayyam, Rabia Balkhi, Jelaludin Rumi, and the ecstatic poet Hafiz, who was killed for declaring publicly, "I am the Truth."

Many Islamic experts point to the decline of Sufism as the starting point in the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, arguing that historical evidence clearly places the Golden Age of Islam during its Sufi era, when tolerance and the creative impetus were an integral part of Islamic society.

Its decline coincided with the rise of Taqi ad-Din Ahmad ibn Taymiyya, the 14th-century Islamic scholar considered to be the father of fundamentalist Islam. His arguments have been modified and refined over the centuries to a point now where in Saudi Arabia, the heartland of the Wahabbi branch of fundamentalist Islam, possessing Sufi literature remains a capital crime.

But in Pakistan, Sufism is considered a national treasure. During the military dictatorship of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, a national campaign to promote Sufism extolled Pakistan as "The Land of the Sufis." But the rising influence of the Wahabbi school, promoted by both the Taliban and al-Qaida, has terrorized the Sufi community here.

"Fear is our natural state now," said Khyber Muhammad, a musical instrument maker and Sufi devotee in Peshawar. "We have always been quietists -- you will never know if you are in the presence of a Sufi master. He could be a shoemaker, or a garbage collector, or even a beggar. But how can we express our love for our dead masters if the militants keep attacking our shrines?"

In Peshawar, the swarming heartland of Pakistan's Islamic militancy, even the word "Sufi" has become dangerous. Men like Muhammad refer to each other only as "seekers" in reference to their spiritual journey to enlightenment. Their gatherings, or dergahs, often marked by music and poetry readings, have virtually vanished or gone deep underground.

But this was not always the case. As little as four years ago, Pakistanis seeking the guidance of Sufi saints frequented the Khyber tribal agency adjoining Peshawar. "Sufism was very strong in both Khyber and Peshawar," said Anwar Shah, a local resident. "There are shrines all over Khyber, and we had peace when we were able to visit them."

In recent years, Khyber has witnessed the rise of a local militant, Mangal Bagh, who has eliminated Sufi practices. Bagh rose to prominence in 2006, after his followers, under the banner of jihad, defeated men loyal to a local pir, or Sufi saint, in fighting that turned Khyber into a battleground. Evidence has emerged over the years that Bagh was supported by Pakistan's spy agency, the Interservices Intelligence, which often backs militant groups they believe can be used to promote Pakistan's interests in India and Afghanistan.

The results have been devastating for Khyber and Peshawar. A significant minority of Sikhs living in Khyber, welcomed by the tolerant Sufi creed, have fled the region, their homes and businesses targeted by members of Bagh's Lashkar-i-Islam militants. Sufi shrines, once cared for by the local people, lie in ruins. In Peshawar, Muhammad's tabla business, thriving when Sufi musicians were prevalent, is nearing collapse.

"If the musicians stop playing," he laments, "what need is there for instruments?"

Anwar Shah is deeply saddened by the loss of Peshawar's Sufi traditions. But he is not alone. Sufi movements around the Muslim world -- and the tolerance they promote -- are under threat. The shrine of Data Ganj Bakhsh was often frequented by Hindu devotees, as are dozens of other Sufi shrines in India and Pakistan. In Turkey, Israelis regularly visit the shrine of Jelaludin Rumi in Konya, praising him as an enlightened human with the mystical knowledge to lead all of humanity on the path of unity.

The suicide blasts in Lahore are a reminder that unity is something militant Islamists fear. "With unity, inspired by a deep love for humanity, comes peace," said Ejazullah Baig, a Sufi mystic in Pakistan's northern mountains. "Intolerance requires disunity for its logic to function. These fundamentalists need chaos for their own survival."

But when asked why Sufis haven't done more to counter the influence of the fundamentalists, Baig fought back tears and struggled to provide an answer. "We are a quiet people," he said at last. "We spend our days studying and meditating. It is part of our creed not to interfere with the spiritual path an individual has chosen, even if it is leading him to violence. But we are talking more about what we can do. It is on our minds."

U.S. showed Pakistan evidence on militant faction

Reuters story by Adam Entous, reporter and Doina Chiacu, editor.

Haqqani faction in the tribal border region of North Waziristan has been linked by the Pentagon to political violence in May.

"Suicide bombers carrying rockets and grenades launched a brazen predawn attack on the base on May 19, killing an American contractor and wounding nine U.S. troops. About a dozen militants, many wearing suicide vests packed with explosives, were killed, the Pentagon said at the time.

A day earlier, a suicide bomber attacked a military convoy in Kabul, killing 12 Afghan civilians and six foreign troops."

The U.S. is insisting Islamabad place more pressure on its military to seek out members of Haqqani and prevent future attacks.

A dimension of complexity presents itself to Pakistan's leadership as future negotiations might be undermined by military missions against Taliban factions.

"But there are strategic reasons for Pakistan's hesitancy to attack the Haqqanis.

Pakistan sees the group as a strategic asset that will give it influence in any peace settlement in Afghanistan so Islamabad will want those militants on its side."

Insistence by the U.S. with Pakistan follows the May 1 attempted bombing in New York City's Times Square.

NPR, Brookings Institution discuss drone ethics and strategy

"CIA, Military Rely Heavily On Predator Drones" NPR, June 11, 2010

Audio or transcript available at npr.org

"One issue that Defense Secretary Gates has been pressed on during his global tour, has been drones. Those are unmanned aircraft used to target suspected terrorists along Pakistan's border. A critical U.N. report raised questions about a weapon that is a key part of U.S. war fighting. Peter Singer, of the Brookings Institution, tells Deborah Amos that Predadors are being used more and more."

A discussion between two people regarding U.S. drone strikes.

The individual who tipped ExEd off to the Newsy.com drone ethics debate video had this to say in referencing said video ...

"I agree with questioning the ethics in the use of UAV's. Drones are used to kill "the enemy," while the flyers of the drones are clear and out of any danger. It creates an unfair fight to be "hunted by robots," as you say. No longer is this man against man, but man against machine. It doesn't seem fair for the civilians that lose their lives to this kind of sneak-attack warfare ..."

"The video debates the recent drone attacks in Pakistan. It debates the effectiveness of the drones in finding the enemy, and whether they working to resolve conflicts or just create more anger and hate. The failed Time Square bombing by Faisal Shahzad obviously answers this question. The drone attacks in Pakistan directly influenced his decision to bomb Time Square. He certainly cannot be the only example of this, as I am sure similar images of hate is simmering in the minds of other people who have lost family members to US attacks."

These thoughtful and concerned comments prompted my response, which after writing, I thought worthwhile to share with everyone else here--

"You raise a notion I don't think gets any play at all in the media. You hear an argument that goes, "Attacking civilians in regions where terrorists lives inevitably gives rise to recruitment of more terrorists and attacks like Times Square and the Detroit Christmas attempt." This one sort of fades into the din of "We must stop the terrorists at all costs, never letting up at any point in the day," which is more like what our servicemen and women get to hear all the time.

What you do not hear is a theory or line of reasoning that goes, 'Terrorists [those who use violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims--Oxford English Dictionary] use their precious resources to strike where they can, when they can based on the support they have from populations outside their group dependent on public opinion and recent developments. They cannot strike anywhere they want whenever they want.' What happens when that public support dwindles to a whisper and their resources dry up too far for them to raise airfare for one person beyond 500 miles? These ideas you do not see in the media much of anywhere.

The drone ethics debate, as you've seen, is highly marginalized at present. Why is the debate relegated to blips on the horizon of mainstream media coverage and deep fringes of internet fora? There are reasons. Typical reasons but not necessarily good ones. Military actions are subsidized by taxpayer and citizen support, but they are not beholden to it. Most military actions are classified, and discussing troop movements publicly is speech unprotected by the First Amendment under the definition of sedition. But drone missions come with a special controversy: they are moved further and further from public purview. From U.S. military operations in Afghanistan away to JSOC, the Joint Special Operations Command at the forward operating base in Bagram. From JSOC to the CIA. And we are told CIA agents have a different exposure to U.S. law than U.S. soldiers. And finally from the CIA, who administers the flights into Pakistan, to private contractors like Blackwater/Xe and similar companies, some of Pakistani and Afghan origin.

The way I see it, the push for accountability to the public on killing civilians in the hunt for terrorists whose "high value" is actually quite disputable, profiles of the victims doled out to the media on a need-to-know basis, has to come from the public.

If the public says, 'Drones kill bad guys, our soldiers don't come into harm's way,' then that's the world we live in now. I think it sounds like the last Terminator movie for reasons not rooted in science fiction. But that's my piece.

If the public says, 'I really don't want more women and children killed by unmanned missile strikes, no matter who you're targeting, because I wouldn't want that to happen to me or to my children,' then enough public outcry could actually get the drone program decommissioned and put a stop to some of this Fox News type spin with might-makes-right, the Empire will emerge victorious, the ends justify the means always and we're mandated by our God to win in the Middle East mindless silliness that keeps us damning the torpedoes and lodging U.S. presence further into central Asia and the Middle East with no end in sight."

I welcome readers to this discussion. If you feel moved to post a comment, please help continue the thread and thank you.

U.N. Report: U.S. Drones Do More Harm than Good

On a tip from a reader who monitors Newsy.com for multiple reverse angles on the same story appearing in television, print and online news media, this video contributes to opening further the debate on the use of drones in situations listed and described on this site.

Colin Powell and the Terror Industrial-Complex

From an Oct. 16, 2009 Rawstory.com article

Quoted in a Gentleman's Quarterly magazine interview with former Secretary of State Colin Powell in September of 2007

"What is the greatest threat facing us now?" Powell asked. "People will say it’s terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. ... The only thing that can really destroy us is us. We shouldn’t do it to ourselves, and we shouldn’t use fear for political purposes—scaring people to death so they will vote for you, or scaring people to death so that we create a terror-industrial complex."

When Powell delivered a speech at the University of Oklahoma a short time later, campus reporters asked what he had meant by his remarks, and he replied, "We're spending an enormous amount of money on homeland security, and I think we should spend whatever it takes. But I think we have to be careful that we don't get so caught up in trying to throw money at the terrorist and counter-terrorist problem that we're essentially creating an industry that will only exist as long as you keep the terrorist threat pumped up. ... Let's make sure that we are spending money on the right things and not spending money just to spend money."

US to expand Pakistan drone strikes

The US has reportedly carried out more than 100 drone strikes in Pakistan since 2008
Al Jazeera story May 6, 2010 13:07 GMT

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been granted approval by the US government to expand drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal regions in a move to step up military operations against Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters, officials have said.

Federal lawyers backed the measures on grounds of self-defence to counter threats the fighters pose to US troops in neighbouring Afghanistan and the United States as a whole, according to authorities.

The US announced on Wednesday that targets will now include low-level combatants, even if their identities are not known.

Barack Obama, the US president, had previously said drone strikes were necessary to "take out high-level terrorist targets".

Conflicting figures

"Targets are chosen with extreme care, factoring in concepts like necessity, proportionality, and an absolute obligation to minimise loss of innocent life and property damage," a US counterterrorism official said.

But the numbers show that more than 90 per cent of the 500 people killed by drones since mid-2008 are lower-level fighters, raising questions about how much the CIA knows about the targets, experts said.

Only 14 of those killed are considered by experts to have been high ranking members of al-Qaeda, the Taliban or other groups.

"Just because they are not big names it does not mean they do not kill. They do," the counterterrorism official said.

The US tally of combatant and non-combatant casualties is sharply lower than some Pakistani press accounts, which have estimated civilian deaths alone at more than 600.

Analysts have said that accurately estimating the number of civilian deaths was difficult, if not impossible.

"It is unclear how you define who is a militant and who is a militant leader," Daniel Byman, a counterterrorism expert at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy, said.

Jonathan Manes, a legal fellow at the American Civil Liberties Union, said: "It is impossible to assess the accuracy of government figures, unattributed to a named official, without information about what kind of information they are based on, how the government defines 'militants' and how it distinguishes them from civilians."

US message

Former intelligence officials acknowledged that in many, if not most cases, the CIA had little information about those killed in the strikes.

Jeffrey Addicott, director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St Mary's University, said the CIA's goal in targeting was to "demoralise the rank and file".

"The message is: 'If you go to these camps, you're going to be killed,'" he added.

Critics say the expanded US strikes raise legal as well as security concerns amid signs that Faisal Shahzad, the suspect behind the attempted car bombing in New York's Times Square on Saturday, had ties to the Pakistani Taliban movement, known as Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan.

CIA-operated drones have frequently targeted the group over the past year in Pakistan, and its members have vowed to avenge strikes that have killed several of their leaders and commanders.

Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Pakistan's foreign minister, told CBS television channel that the US should not be surprised if anti-government fighters try to carry out more attacks.

"They're not going to sort of sit and welcome you [to] sort of eliminate them. They're going to fight back," Qureshi said.

Anonymous source to CBS: Taliban can't strike with global reach

Bummer on the anonymity of the source, but if this is true about the key differences between the Taliban (Afghnistan's, Pakistan's) and Al Qaeda, it's something to keep in mind. Also, who besides the Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) stands to gain if this failed attempt is plausibly pinned on the Pakistani Taliban?

Excerpt— "A Western diplomat in Islamabad who also spoke to CBS News on condition of anonymity said, 'The Taliban have no demonstrated ability to strike in distant places. Structurally, they are far from being a global organization like al Qaeda.'"

CS Monitor: how credible are Pakistani Taliban claims to NY bomb attempt

Christain Science Monitor story May 3 by Ben Arnoldy ...

From the evidence available so far, it's going to be difficult to determine what to make of the van filled with explosives parked in Times Square Saturday.

Attorney General Eric Holder's press conference maintains the suspect is a white male in his forties. A van filled with propane tanks, gas canisters and some crude timers to trigger an explosion fit well within what an average person would term an act of terrorism, but it's a little hasty to jump to any conclusions about what the perpetrator's grievance is. Are there not a lot of things in the United States about which one might get angry about in this political atmosphere? Could be almost anything.

The Christain Science Monitor reports on the claim by the Pakistani Taliban to the attempted bombing, "The Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) have posted two videos since the attack, according to US-based monitoring groups. In one, a Taliban spokesman claims the New York attack. In the second, alleged to have been filmed on April 4, TTP leader Hakimullah Mehsud promises attacks inside the United States within a month. The US and Pakistan had believed Mr. Mehsud died in a drone attack back in January."

Arnoldy also reports, "The videos do not convince experts of the Taliban's ability to strike inside America."

To a reasonable person, this investigation and developing story are going to get really weird before they begin to become clear in terms of the intent of those who actually participated in this attempted disaster.