From BBC News, “Madrassa foreigners ‘must leave’”:
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf says all foreign students at madrassas, or religious schools, some 1,400 pupils, must leave the country.
“Any (foreigners) in the madrassas—even dual nationality holders—will leave Pakistan,” Gen Musharraf said.
This is the latest in a series of measures the president has announced in a renewed clampdown on extremism.
Madrassas have been in the spotlight after one of the London bombers was reported to have studied at one.
‘No misuse’
Gen Musharraf told foreign journalists in Rawalpindi: “They must leave. We will not issue visas to such people.
“We will not allow madrassas to be misused for extremism, hatred being projected in our society.”
No new visas will be issued to foreigners wishing to study in the schools.
THE SUBCONTINENT WILL TURN AGAINST YOU, MR BUSH—THE WILL OF ISLAM MADE MANIFEST IN A HOLOCAUST OF HOLY FIRE THAT WILL CLEANSE THE EARTH OF INFIDELS IN A SHOW OF ALLAH’S MIGHTY NUCLEAR BREATH!
Or, y’know—maybe not. But I digress:
[…] the BBC’s Aamer Ahmed Khan says it is not clear what effect these measures will have on extremism as the more militant students work at unregulated madrassas that have survived previous crackdowns.
Well, perhaps someone could explain to Aemer that by disallowing any future visa holders, Pakistan might just be preventing the matriculation of a good deal of potential extremists—even in the “unregulated madrassas”—which, on the whole, is a postitive development. But then, to point that out might force Mr Khan into acknowledging a bit of good news, news that doesn’t jibe with his fatalistic narrative of a doomed war on terror.
Anyway, good to see Musharraf at least attempting to crack down on the export of terrorism from Pakistan. For that he deserves plaudits. Wish I could heap the same praise on some of our more “moderate” Muslim groups.
(h/t C-Log)
Well, I thought it was good news…
Thanks for the leg work.
I’ll take it. Baby steps and all…
Bingo?
When will State allow Israel to implement the Bush Doctrine? See #3.
Khaaaan! I think the “BBC’s” in front of his name just about deep-sixed any chance of getting the slightest admission of a positive aspect to the story.
I was just thinking recently that the Bush administration’s policies violate the “Bush Doctrine” every day.
What if someone were to “implement the Bush Doctrine” against Pakistan?
Which reminds me, whatever happened to the millions of Pakistanis who were going to flood the streets if Musharraf allied with Bush in the invasion of Afghanistan?
Remember that?
Heck, for that matter, remember all the liberals screaming about the Afghan invasion?
Where’d they go?
Here’s a prediction: three weeks after we engage the next front in the Global, er, Struggle Against Violent Extremism (formerly “Global War on Terror”), the reactionary Left, while vehemently opposing the new action, will conveniently forget it ever opposed attacking Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein.
I’m not sure I understand what your interpretation of Bush Doctrine is. What do you mean, and how is Bush policy violating it?
That comment was aimed at Aakash.
Well, I was just looking through the comments at a past entry at an anti-terrorism weblog, and then I came back here… I think that my comment there, and that blogger’s response, are one example of what I said above.
I don’t think the Bush Doctrine commits the US to pre-emptively striking any and every country in which terrorists train—or else we’d be forced to attack Great Britain and Germany, among others.
It also doesn’t mean we will rule out diplomacy and pressure as a first resort. The Bush Doctrine simply makes clear that the US will not wait to be hit before it takes action against foreign threats.
So far, Musharraf is cooperating; Bashir in Syria? Not so much.