Here's some great news. After Sufi Muhammad was set free for renouncing violence, he has returned to the field to promote Global Jihad and to install Shar'ia Law throughout the world. He was jailed for sending thousands of volunteers to Afghanistan to fight the U.S.-led invasion in 2001.
On 2.16.09, the New York Slimes reported that Pakistan had made an agreement with the Taliban (forced from power in Afghanistan) to create Shar'ia Law in seven States in the wastelands in Pakistan. Once this was agreed upon, Sufi Muhammad immediately began a campaign to spread Shar'ia Law even farther.
Other political leaders stated that this agreement was not acceptable.
[...] The concessions to the militants, who now control about 70 percent of the region just 100 miles from the capital, were criticized by Pakistani analysts as a capitulation by a government desperate to stop Taliban abuses and a military embarrassed at losing ground after more than a year of intermittent fighting. About 3,000 Taliban militants have kept 12,000 government troops at bay and terrorized the local population with floggings and the burning of schools. [...]
Back in May of 2008, this process began its long trek of realization as reported by MEMRI.
In The Daily Monitor we find this: (TNSM chief says Islam forbids elections, democracy)
LAHORE: Tehreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat Muhammadi (TNSM) chief Sufi Muhammad, who signed a controversial peace deal with the NWFP government on Monday, said he hated democracy and wanted supremacy of Islam over the entire world.
“From the very beginning, I have viewed democracy as a system imposed on us by the infidels. Islam does not allow democracy or elections,” he told Deutsche Presse-Agentur in an interview held a few days before the government accepted his demand of enforcing sharia in the region. “Had the government accepted our demands in 1994, we would have not seen the violence we are seeing today,” he added. Sufi Muhammad’s son-in-law, Mullah Fazlullah, has fostered the violence in the name of Islam.
Sufi Muhammad said he was against shedding the blood of Muslims, however, added the government should have talked to the Taliban instead of taking military action. He pledged to work for complete peace in Swat if the government enforces Islamic laws, a demand which has now been met.
“I believe the Taliban government formed a complete Islamic state, which was an ideal example for other Muslim countries. Had this government remained intact, it could have led to the establishment of similar Islamic governments in many other countries,” he said.
So, what makes people believe that those that are working towards the re-establishment of the Caliphate can be talked to, negotiated with or to be made "working partners for peace" when their end goal is the elimination of Free Thought and Freedom in general? Can anyone explain this in a viable manner? What will it take, exactly, for people to come to the realization that this war we are in is for real and is in no way a fabrication nor is it about oil? I have tried to figure out the mind-set of your basic libtard and have failed in that endeavor.
To make matters worse, Hillary is gallivanting across the globe, violating rhyme and reason. In conjunction with that gross error in judgment, Obama was making behind the scenes secret deals. One of those deals was Shar'ia Law in exchange for peace. Shar'ia Law and Peace are like oil and water - Freedom and Socialism. They do not mix at all and neither can survive and live in harmony with each other. Ever.
As he spoke out publicly that this was a bad deal, he was secretly saying OK and giving the Presidential Marxist nod of approval. And we aren't to question his loyalty? And he sends 17,000 more Troops into Afghanistan to fight the very people he approves of?
And don't hand me that "he didn't know" nonsense either. He is wearing the Big Boots now (that don't fit btw) and he is responsible for everything. If that was so for GWB as the libtards all yammered about, it is so for the little boy living in the White House Marxist House.
"US privately backs Pakistan's 'Sharia law for peace' deal with Taliban"
The deal, under which Sharia law will be introduced in the Malakhand and Kohistan districts of Pakistan's North West Frontier Province if Taliban militants end their armed campaign in the Swat Valley, has been met with alarm by Nato chiefs and British and American officials.
Nato fears the deal would create a new "safe haven" for extremists, said a spokesman on Tuesday night, while a statement from Britain's High Commission in Islamabad said: "Previous peace deals have not provided a comprehensive and long-term solution to Swat's problems. We need to be confident that they will end violence, not create space for further violence."
President Barack Obama's special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan voiced the greatest concern about the strength of Taliban militants in Swat as he ended his first visit to the region since taking up his post.
"I talked to people from Swat and they were, frankly, quite terrified. Swat has really deeply affected the people of Pakistan, not just in Peshawar but in Lahore and Islamabad," he said, while a Defence Department official described the deal as a "negative development".
On Tuesday night however, US officials in Islamabad privately backed the deal as an attempt to drive a wedge between Swat's Taliban, which is focused on its demand for Sharia law, and the al-Qaeda-linked Taliban led by Baitullah Mehsud, the notorious commander who controls much of North and South Waziristan and other tribal areas along the Afghan border.
While they expressed fears that the deal might yet be sabotaged by some Swat Taliban militants who support al-Qaeda, they said that if successful, the deal would break up the alliance between the two groups, which has caused alarm throughout Pakistan and in Washington. [...]
So, in the open, it is a bad deal but behind closed doors, Obama agrees to it. So, which side is he on again and to what, to whom and where does he place his loyalty in again? As Douglas V Gibbs states: "So, President Obama, can you put your money where your mouth is? Or was that tough talk about Pakistan just a little more typical politician rhetoric to get elected, and in truth you never meant a word of it?" I would call that, more lies.
Obama has had so many sides to the Pakistan-Taliban issue than any other issue in the history of political buffoonery in this nation. No wonder he is a laughing stock.