A Muslim Pope?

Here is some further documentation:

<<< Amply documented, but rarely mentioned in 9/11 news reports, the ``Islamic Militant Network`` (the forerunner of Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda), was actually created during Jimmy Carter’s presidency (1976-1981). In July 1979, Carter signed a presidential directive to launch a secret plan in support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Confirmed by former CIA director, Robert Gates, in his book, From the Shadows, this ``secret plan`` was instrumental in triggering the Soviet-Afghan war. (Robert Gates, From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider`s Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War, http://www.gtexts.com/worthreading/gates.html ).

Carter’s National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski confirms that it was the US and not the Soviet Union which started the war:

``According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention….`` (Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Le Nouvel Observateur, 15-21

In turn, the CIA-sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam. The madrasas were set up by Wahabi fundamentalists financed out of Saudi Arabia:

``[I]t was the government of the United States who supported Pakistani dictator General Zia-ul Haq in creating thousands of religious schools from which the germs of Taliban emerged.`` (Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), RAWA Statement on the Terrorist Attacks In the US, Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RAW109A.html , 16 September 2001)

US support to the Mujahideen initiated during the Carter administration led to the pumping of ``billions of dollars into the Afghan cause and thousands of Islamic zealots were given specialist training in the US and Britain.`` (Review of John Cooley’s Unholy Wars - Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, http://www.neue-einheit.com/mixed/terror/bookreview.htm ):

``In the United States they experienced tough courses in endurance, weapons use, sabotage, and killing techniques, communications and other skills. They were required to impart these skills to the scores of thousands of fighters who formed the centre and the base of the pyramid of holy war.`` (John K. Cooley, Unholy Wars - Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, London Pluto Press, 1999, p. 81.)

Carter’s July 3, 1979 Directive

Following President Carter’s July 3, 1979 directive, US support to various rebel groups evolved into the largest covert operation in CIA history. In the words of Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski:

``…That secret operation [in support of Islamic fundamentalism] was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

The Nouvel Observateur journalist concludes the interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski with following question:

``And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

To which Brzezinski retorts:

``What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war? ``

>>>>

Full article can be read at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO210B.html

masadi #48 I appreciate your civilized manner of dialog. However, I think you are determined to hold the US responsible for islamic terrorism while ignoring the ugly realities that reside within our Pakistani society which in my view are the root of the problem. The documentation you provide in #49 says nothing new as far as the facts are concerned and you can re-read the earlier posts I wrote to you on this and on the other board on the same issue of differentiating the Taliban from the Mujahedeen.

It is this avoidance of reality that is responsible for the mess we are in, where ironically Pakistan (the land created for the muslims) has become the world`s most dangerous country for a muslim to go to a mosque to say prayers. The rich sit in their fancy sitting rooms of Lahore and Islamabad and blithely blame the US, while closing their eyes to these ugly realities. This is of no benefit to any Pakistani or anyone else who wishes us well.

#50, what you are in fact saying is that the poor are to blame for their own poverty because of a ``culture of poverty``- your argument is similar. What I am saying is that you have to look at the wider society that produces that poverty in select groups which then assumes a cycle of its own. The difference my friend is between personal troubles and public issues, things that have to do with social structure and institutions that transcend individuals; you are confusing one for the other.

Take the example of marriage: Inside a marital relationship, personal problems might exist between the couple which may lead to divorce, but when almost half of all marriages attempted end in divorce in a society, it has to do with the social institution of marriage and family, how it is changing and how other institutions are affecting or causing such change, in short it is a issue involving social structure. Or take the example of single female headed households in the African American community, if you have no clue about social structure or institutional mechanisms you will blame that on weak morals, choice of women in thier community to have kids outside of marriage and so on, but if you have a clue about social structure and institutional pressure then you will note that 1) African american young males have three times the mortality rate as whites of similar age, 2) a third of them are involved with the tyrannous American criminal justice system, 3) the economic institution offers them limited chances of employment; 4) suicide rates peak for African American males at young ages while that for White males at older ages and so you will conclude correctly that the male pool available for African American women is drastically reduced as a result you see a large % of them being single mothers and so on. Or take the case of unemployment, if the economic structure of the society is not producing jobs, regardless of what kind of education you attain, you will not find a job~ a public issue not a problem of laziness or personal character- referred to as Structural Unemployment by economists.

Given a different social structure that doesn`t have the same context, this problem can be solved. Similarly why is it that this phenomenon of rabid Islamism, Saudi Arabia style coincides with the Afghan Jihadi war and its relationship to the American elite? The transformation or cultivation of an image that then becomes a ``self-fulfilling`` prophecy, a ``cycle of terror`` or a ``culture of poverty``. You cannot remain in the same relationship that produced this problem in the first place (i.e. the American elite and thier crackpot reality) and then expect to solve this disease that has been implanted upon Pakistan and the Muslim world by them.

#50 you say <<< The rich sit in their fancy sitting rooms of Lahore and Islamabad and blithely blame the US, while closing their eyes to these ugly realities. >>>

This imagery is incorrect. The rich in Pakistan are much impressed by the US, it looks pretty from the outside even though it has a rotten core when you come live in it by the way its elite treat not only the world but their own citizens. What you term ``Islamic terrorism``- that I still maintain is nurtured by the US elite- does not harm as many people as the rich corporations in the US, just the alcohol and tobacco companies alone kill over 400,000 in the US every year (though in a polite manner) and millions around the world.

The correct imagery would be the ``rich US elite, several million times richer than the rich Pakistanis you talk about, sitting in their multi million dollar homes and talking about ``Islamic terrorism`` and invading countries at whim.`` That is what you should be worried about not some Pakistanis sitting at home blaming America- they have seen the effects of American interference in thier country first hand, they have every right to complain, though very few of them do.

masadi sahib

This is a general comment, not a point in any debate.

You are right that US elites constitute a powerful force in today`s world. But as you yourselves have written, we live in a complex, interconnected world. In this world, the wishes and actions of the US elite form only one, albeit very powerful, factor, shaping the environment and choice-sets of others. And as you well know, in systems of such complexity, relatively small forces or local-level changes can generate large systemic and individual consequences, particularly over time. Even the US elite will lack full control over, and will often end up lost and confused in, this situation of intended and unintended consequences.

More importantly, for most given external conditions, actors or decision-makers face more than one option. These different options lead to different outcomes for specific actors and decision makers (and sometimes for the system). Thus, rarely do we witness utter cross-sectional uniformity in economic/political fortunes of different actors.

We notice that different actors respond differently to the facts of US power and US policies. And that the outcomes for individual actors, depend, at least partly, on the actors` own chosen courses of action within the opportunity space created by US policies.

Surely, structure matters. But so does something about the (actions and behaviors of the) individual actor.

Lest # 53 be miscontrued, in the context of US race relations, the implication won`t be that the blacks are lazy and no good. It would merely be that there is something about blacks that is different from whites ``as a group.`` Which of course, is empirically true, given black people`s different historical and societal experiences.

Re: # 51

masadi,

....... have you ever been to america or are you quoting all this from your madrassa lectures and textbooks ????

#54, in the construction of the objective world and how it is subjectively felt the American elite possess unparalleled power in today`s world, never before in the history of the world has a group held so much unchallenged power.

You are right, other actors can challenge this but the struggle is enormous, the US elite have a whole institutional network of neo-colonialism in place with which they can thwart most of these efforts. I believe change is possible that is why I encourage efforts at rejection of the system of the American elite, otherwise most- the vast majority on earth are doomed to misery~ somehow people on here don`t get that even though we have a vast history of failures when aligned with the US elite, as well as the current world situation that is quite miserable and getting worse by the year.

Yes other actors have influence, but when they challenge the system of the US elite, they are marginalized because of all the other dogs in the neighborhood that wag their tails by the few crumbs that the US elite drops on the poor nations, dividing one against the other. We need total unity among the majority world for any meaningful challenge. Divided up nation states, working in isolation trying to challenge the status-quo are either militarily disciplined (like Iraq) or marginalized economically (like Cuba)

masadi

It appears to me that you are drawing people in to some very flimsy arguments.
You make two points:
1. The US created Jihadis/Terrorists
2. The US elite have a whole institutional network of neo-colonialism in place.

Let’s take your first point first. There is no need to put books and some really not reliable links into this. Nobody, not even the US has ever denied supporting the Jihadi in Afghanistan. The US provided them support and encouraged both Pakistan and the Saudia to work with Jihadis. There is no need to even go in to the why the US supported or created them.

tahmed talked about linear extrapolation and you clearly seem to excel in it. Let us look at it now. You created a simple paragon that CIA created and supported the Mujahideen so the CIA and the US are responsible for creating the terrorists too and the CIA supported Pak army created the Taliban so indirectly the US and the CIA are totally responsible for the Taliban too.
That is stretching the reality way too thin to support an argument that has no bases at all.

The US may be responsible for supporting the Jihadis but what role the US played when these Jihadis morphed into terrorists?

The transformation happened after the US had already left Pakistan and had pretty much withdrawn its support from the Mujahideen and Pakistan. From the early 1991 to almost 9/11 the US had no involvement in mujahideen turning into Terrorists and creating a state based on a heinous ideology.

There are several examples in the history when organized militancy groups turned into marauding forces when the cause they were fighting for was either over or the organized struggle was sufficiently beaten by the other party and only some splintered groups were able to continue with the struggle. You seem to have good handle on the history so I don’t have to bring in the examples in this post.

The point that I am making is that though the US was responsible for putting a Jihadi resistance to the Soviets together, the US had no role when the same Jihadi turned into terrorist after the afghan war. IMO, blaming the US for terrorists is little too much though no one can deny that US had allowed these groups to get together in Pakistan initially.

That too has lots of precedents. Priorities change. Political and military alliances change. Political and military groups switch sides. It was all too common during the cold war.

And the second point above.
The US appear to be all too powerful and it can “militarily disciplined (like Iraq) or marginalized economically (like Cuba)” but the reality is that the US had never been able to put an economic chokehold over Cuba nor it is militarily successful( not yet) in Iraq. What does that tell you about the US power? The US was challenged by Europe and by pretty much all the world over the Iraq war. The Iraqi insurgents are supported by some powers against the US. The insurgency in Iraq is not completely indigenous though people leading the insurgency may be Iraqi. There is robust opposition to war internally in the US too.

If the US was all powerful then there was no way for the Taliban to deny OBL to the US or the US did not have to rely on the Pakistan army to control Afghanistan even now.

The reality is that despite being a powerful country, the US is also dependent on the world. It does take unilateral actions but again the history would suggest, the US has failed more than it has succeeded in its unilateral actions.
There is no denying that the US has the ability to be an empire but the opposing forces are getting stronger too. It is a classical struggle that has gone on in human history and it will continue; only the actors would change.

“He spoke other languages (Gujarati) but the choice of Urdu as the National language of Pakistan was borne more out of necessity than anything else. Pakistanis needed to quickly choose a common vehicle of communication. In hindsight if that language had been either English or Arabic, the initial hue and cry especially from people in former East Pakistan (Bangladesh today) could have been avoided. But the decision on promoting Urdu was a logical one. Hardly anyone spoke it in the rural areas of new country in 1947.”

Spoken like a true UP-iate!
It was not necessary at all to choose any National language at that time. That task should have been left to be decided in the constitution. You don’t choose a “common vehicle of communication” it evolves over a period of time. Urdu was never a common vehicle of communication in Pakistan in 1947. That common vehicle existed for only about 5% of the people who came from India. Rest of the Pakistan had no interest whatsoever in Urdu.

The demand for Urdu as National language was entirely an issue with the Urdu speaking from India who moved to Pakistan. The Pakistan movement in the minority provinces was almost 40% Urdu language. It was part of the whole political stand that talked about exploitation of Muslims in undivided India and the destruction of the Urdu language.

For people from UP, only two things mattered 1) their religious identity and 2) their language Urdu.

Jinnah succeeded because he was able to put together a coalition of majority Muslim provinces with the Minority Muslim Provinces. The vocal elements in the whole Pakistan struggle came from UP/CP/Bihar and they wanted to preserve Urdu. They were also Jinnah’s main constituency. He was a popular leader in Majority provinces too but without the support from the minority provinces, Pakistan would not have become a reality.

He knew the UP-iates or Mohajir were more important than Bengali in getting Pakistan for Muslim League and it was a payback time. He did payback but did that with such arrogance and political naiveté that he instigated the whole Bengali nationalistic movement that led to Bangladesh eventually. So he initiated the undoing of a country he created from almost nowhere.

Mantolives, who is currently unable to respond, would like to pass on this message for Mr. Masadi:

``Please feel free to go through my articles on Chowk over the past six years - much before the rise of wikpedia`s popularity. You shouldn`t feel that everyone relies on cut-and-paste methods like yourself.``

#6 MASADI

``In my opinion some kind of a decentralized autonomous arrangement within the same union might have worked better, atleast in preventing wars, military rule in Pakistan and the migration bloodshed, as well as religious/ethnic tensions once the British left, given time and autonomy those would have dissolved. ``

You are correct here. Looking back at those times, the viablity of Pakistan was indeed there but it was within the laps of Mother India. Outside her laps, it is an orphaned child.

Secondly and ironically, Pakistan did not come up at those places where it was..rather it came up at those places where it wasn`t.

All these circumstances and its upbrining has made Pakistan a complex youth.

Believe it or not, its salvation lies in the laps of Mother India only. Otherwise ,it will never get peace in the rest of the world. The mother longs for the child and the child cries for the mother but their cruel fate is such that neither the mother can extend her hands and take the child back in her lap nor the child can jump and sit in the mother`s lap.

But, Inshallah, one day they will definitely meet....Ameen.

Ras,

Thanks for the article. In August, when Yasser, I and Zoya visited Karachi, one of the first things we did was visit Jinnah`s mausoleum, but the rush there was insane, it was Independence Day and seemed like everyone had just poured into the park. There was no place to step out of our rented van. I felt like a tourist in my own city, so we decided to go to Wazir Mansions in old Karachi, where Jinnah spent most of his childhood. It was a nice experience. There were only two guards there, who saw our enthusiasm and let us climb the fence for a closer look indoors. The most beautiful things in life are unplanned and that was one of my most beautiful moments.

MA Jinnah will never die for my family. We share no genes but my consciousness and much of my identity which case the concepts of life are all due to what options he planted in the world for me.

He never lied, never cheated, his loved the women in his life, lived successfully, invested in land and grew with it, cultivated from his diverse background and foreign experience notions that were all-encompassing for majority of the people who lived in his political context. He did his best, and he couldn`t have done any better.

It is now an established fact among academic circles that the partition cannot be ``blamed`` on anyone, anyone but Jinnah, for he, like the older Congressites understood the politics of exclusion. As people who made it under the British Raj, Gokhle and all, they held sacred both the concerns for their people- The Indians- and the ideals of the British justice system. Until Gandhi came along, universalizing Hinduism under the garb of clever partymongering that didn`t need the Muslim consensus. He could galvanize support in any direction he wanted without harming his inert religious doctrine of caste hood.

So, Dear Ras, Why should we talk about Gandhi when the whole world respects him? Because the world respects him for the wrong reasons! He was a clever man, no less than a cut throat capitalist, a crude and conniving, an outsmatter, who outsmarrted the best of the best, a gung-ho Hindu, with a blinding desire to reign in the bad PR and get the prize without much ado. The problem is that OUR narrative is lost when you fail to acknowledge that the Muslim, lower caste Hindu and other minority (women`s rights) interest did not fall into Gandhi’s concept of nationalism. And a greater problem is that the world fails to acknowledge that Jinnah had to function in a condition called Gandhism, an India hypnotized by his rhetoric, one clearly supported by the British.

Gandhi was great, but Jinnah was greater. He didn`t cow down to a cleverly-destined-to-win game and he raised the stakes by declaring that the Muslims will not give in. The only thing that he manufactured was an organized and legalized articulation of their rights, he did not manufacture their consent, unlike Gandhi. Had he done so, there would be a profuse use of Arabic terms akin to ahimsa and satyagrahanism. There are none. Without losing dignity to the witchdoctors and saints of the world, Jinnah beat them at their own game.

I live in my country. I am free from the alternative of being Indian Muslim. Having grown up in the polarized conservatism/rejectionsism of it, Pakistan is an option, left to me by the man who will never be forgotten. I owe him my voice.

And to honor him on his birthday, I call on Faiz-Ahmed-Faiz`s Bol key labb azad hey Teyrey!

Long Live the Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah!

Long Live Pakistan!

Down with the witchdoctors the Ayatollah’s and all their cronies!

#31 by ahmakzai

[Khan`s success would always be attributable to the environment provided to him by Pakistan.]

Mujibur Rehman, despite winning a massive majority couldn`t become the PM of Pakistan because he was a darkie, meaning not Muslim enough. Paki soldiers who went on a raping spree boasted that they were doing that to improve the Bengali Muslim race.

So in a perverse sense, yup, the environment was just perfect for Fazlur Khan. He had to get out of that concentration camp called East Pakistan quickly if he had to make anything meaningful out of his life, or he could sit back and watch his mother and sisters being raped by the west Pakis.

#61 by aisha_sarwari

[He was a clever man, no less than a cut throat capitalist, a crude and conniving, an outsmatter, who outsmarrted the best of the best, a gung-ho Hindu, with a blinding desire to reign in the bad PR and get the prize without much ado.]

You said Jinnah ``invested in land and grew with it`` and yet Gandhi who had no material possessions of his own was a cut-throat capitalist? No wonder the Jinnah-greater-than-Gandhi club has only 2 adults and a kid as members.

[Gandhi was great, but Jinnah was greater.]

Too bad the world doesn`t think so.

[He didn`t cow down to a cleverly-destined-to-win game and he raised the stakes by declaring that the Muslims will not give in.]

Instead he resorted to blackmailing the Congress with his give-us-what-we-want-or-else game.

[The only thing that he manufactured was an organized and legalized articulation of their rights, he did not manufacture their consent, unlike Gandhi.]

Organized and legalized? Oh yeah, direct action was organized all right, but not legalized, which is why poor Jinnah was sleeping on the floor aniticipating arrest.

[I am free from the alternative of being Indian Muslim.]

Thank god Indian Muslims have been spared the embarrasment of having you in our midst. Instead we have the likes of Abdul Kalam, Azim Premji, Irfan Pathan, and Sania Mirza, token Muslims to Pakis but an honor to their community and the country at large.

#57 HP, actually by what you say you confirm my argument and go against what tahmed was stating. He was totally denying the US role in the creation of the Jihadist culture in Afghanistan. Now, once a structure develops in any society, that structure tends to be persistent. It becomes the only reality- so regardless of whether the US kept helping them or not, it left a set up in place that eventually gave birth to the Taliban. When the tobacco companies push cigarettes and you get hooked, they are responsible, the courts find them responsible even though advertising is not as set in stone as a culture becomes. The war that the US started in Afghanistan destroyed the country`s institutional setup, all that remained were the Jihadis and a power vacuum, which led to the ascendency of the Taliban. The US is directly responsible, just like it asked the Shias to rise up against Saddam after Gulf War One but then abandoned them- it was responsible then just like it was in Afghanistan.

You CANNOT detach facts from thier context, especially when discussing social phenomena. What you are saying is the same as what the Israelis say when they talk about Palestinian suicide bombers without taking note of the fact that that phenomena has its roots in the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and the oppressive social structure in which they have been forced to live. It is an abnormality which has a social context and cause. Similar social contexts in the ghetto produces street crime. These are facts.

Second, the fact is that the US elite get their way, more often than not, whether commanding others to do their bidding as in the case of Pakistan or going it alone as in the case of the Iraq war- nobody, not even the Europeans could stop them- and after the war started, they were falling over each other not to get on the bad side of the US- that is power. They have been challenged by the resistance, people who have rejected US hegemony, however Iraq has been reduced to the stone age, and the chokehold placed on Cuba has ensured that it remains a poor nation.

Look at US military/CIA adventures around the world post world war 2, these are well documented and you`ll see empirical confirmation of what I said- they oppose any and every attempt at breaking free from their system of exploitation- they are not always successful in getting what they would ideally want but the big losers in the end are the divided nation states be it Vietnam or Afghanistan etc.

# 61 you say <<< Down with the witchdoctors the Ayatollah’s and all their cronies! >>> you sound like one yourself when you say <<< So, Dear Ras, Why should we talk about Gandhi when the whole world respects him? Because the world respects him for the wrong reasons! He was a clever man, no less than a cut throat capitalist, a crude and conniving, an outsmatter, who outsmarrted the best of the best, a gung-ho Hindu, with a blinding desire to reign in the bad PR and get the prize without much ado. >>> and then you conclude <<< Gandhi was great >>>>

At best, you are totally confused and ignorantly partisan.