Pakistan's Afghan Policy

The question my dear friend is not whether the Pakistan cricket team had liberal aunties...

The question is when and how will you- a Hindu fascist- will declare that Muhammad Azharuddin, Zaheer Khan, Muhammad Kaif and Irfan Pathan ... the pride and joy of Indian cricket are actually non-Indians... And no my aunt would not have named me Gopinath... despite her liberal communist Indo-phile and Hindu-Phile views... because.. Gopinath is a Hindu name ... and I am not a Hindu. Simple.

Does that make me a lesser human being, lesser South Asian, lesser son of the Indus soil, ``Arab goo-chater`` ... You seem to think so... and today it is the names. Tomorrow you may ask Muslims to leave Islam because it is alien to the subcontinent... which is why I thank god I am not from the same country as you...

And lets assume... that it is the latent wish of a common South Asian Muslim to be more Arab that forces him to name his children with ``Arab`` names (which I have proved are as Pakistani, Indian, American as they are Arab) ... why must it bite you... If a person is a tax paying, law abiding citizen of your country ... you can hardly impose such cultural fascism on them.

misc. by Mantolives

[..I was named by a commie liberal aunt who is almost an atheist, loves Indians and Hindus and thinks partition might have been a big mistake .... she named me so because in 1980 most commies saw Yasser Arafat as a great leftist hero. ]

Accidental coincidence? She just MIGHT have named you Gopinath, eh? :)

Here`s a list of the names in the current Paki cricket team:

Mohammad Hafeez
Imran Farhat
Younis Khan
Mohammad Yousuf
Shoaib Malik
Kamran Akmal
Abdul Razzaq
Shahid Afridi
Yasir Arafat
Umar Gul
Iftikhar Anjum

Take a guess how many of them had liberal lefty aunts.

:)

#418 by dost-mittar

As far as my memory goes, he only offered to hand him over to an Islamic country, i.e., one where he would be tried according to Sharia and not to an international tribunal.

It might have been reported in this manner in some sections of the press but it is not true. He was willing to surrender Omar to The Hague with Pak intercession.

I also do not remember seeing any report of Osama being indicted by any US court on any specific charge....

That`s true. In fact, both Omar and Pak had asked US for proof in the very beginning. First the US admin kept saying it was too sensitive to be shared, then some documents were provided to Pak which were also conveyed to Taliban, but Pak after examining these had (quite hesitatingly) termed these as `inconclusive`. In fact those documents were little more than press reports and conjectures of intelligence agencies, i.e. pure trash. In any event, US attacked and rest is history.

...so I do not know on what basis the US was demanding OBL`s handover....

There was no legal basis. It was a unilateral and non-negotiable demand which Taliban rejected. Interestingly, there is still no hard conclusive proof of Usama`s involvement.

Even more surprising is that the alleged mastermind of 9/11 Khalid Shaikh Mohammad has been in US custody since 4 years. If there`s anyone who could have provided proof other than mere hearsay, it was him. But US kept him in secret confinement and has recently transferred him to Guantanamo, indicating the interrogation is over and still no proof.

Another interesting development is Karzai`s offer for talks with Mullah Omar. Isn`t there a US$ 10 million reward on his head? So there`s something very fishy in the entire matter.

#418

June 8, 1998

Federal grand jury investigation of bin Laden, initiated in 1996, issues a sealed indictment, charging Bin Laden with ``conspiracy to attack defense utilities of the United States.`` Prosecutors charge that bin Laden heads a terrorist organization called al Qaeda, the base, and was a major financier of Islamic terrorists around the world.

Some one please please please please ``FIX the BOARD ``.....

Chowk Staff.....where are you.....???....

zeemax:

``Omar says willing to hand over to neutral country and international tribunal but not US.``

As far as my memory goes, he only offered to hand him over to an Islamic country, i.e., one where he would be tried according to Sharia and not to an international tribunal.

However, I also do not remember seeing any report of Osama being indicted by any US court on any specific charge, so I do not know on what basis the US was demanding OBL`s handover.

zeemax #412

`` 1) Usama denies involvement.

2) US demands handover of Usama.

2) Omar says will carry out own investigation and if guilty will hand-over. ``

Did they punish the hijackers of Indian Airlines jetliner to Kandahar ?

`` In the above sequence, it is clear all Omar had to do to remain in power, was just to hand over Usama who was in no position to resist with a few hundred Arab fighters. Umar chose not to do that for the reason he explained in #323 that it was not a question of Usama, it was a question of Islam itself. You must also keep in mind that the Unocal pipeline deal was in the final stages at the time promising huge revenues for Taliban. ``

Explain why give shelter to Osama in the first place.

`` Taliban never fought the invasion. They simply withdrew. It is wrong to say they were defeated because they never fought. They had decided on the course which has now emerged which was to live and fight another day. ``

All those Pakistanis who were captured and slaughtered in Mazar-e-Sharif were withdrawing. Give me a break.

`` Please quote me a single example ... of a single ruler who gave up power and sacrificed everything for the simple principle of `Justice`. ``

The same Taliban slaughtered thousands of Hazaras in Bamian province. You must have a warped sense of justice.

#413 by zeemax

[If Power is the essential means to a greater good, without which good is unattainable, therefore it must naturally follow that Power in itself is the greatest `good` of them `all`. ]

Ah! I see now! The scales have fallen from my eyes!

Let`s see.

If a toothbrush is the essential means to healthy teeth, without which healthy teeth are unattainable, therefore it must naturally follow that the toothbrush itself is the `healthiest teeth` of them `all`.

Brilliant!

This is so easy, that even uneducated tribals should be able to understand this. And they do! Which would explain why Islam is so popular in Pakistan.

re: Zee # 413

As usual, a brilliant and instructive post! How one wishes more people possessed anywhere near such depth of understanding of Islam as a specific socio-religious system. It is maddeningly frustrating to see well-meaning people describing Islam as if it were little more than Arabic name for Jainism or Buddhism. :(

But then, that complete confusion is obviously part and source of Islam`s great strength.

Zee, we could discuss this fascinating subject for a very long time (and if I am lucky, some day we may be able to do that). But that will take us farther from Ms Pande`s immediate concerns than we already are. So if you don`t mind, let`s defer this discussion to another time and forum.

So where`s Muhammad Atta? What happened to everyone who knew him in USA?

An interview with Amanda, Atta`s American live-in girlfriend in Florida.

``Then Amanda, and the story, disappeared``

``They had massive supplies of cocaine. Whenever they`ld run out they would go the flight school``.



Wake UP.

#404 by kaalchakra

Very tough question Yaar. This will be heavy!

But could it be that power is the ESSENTIAL MEANS, the prerequisite, to human good, not good itself?

If Power is the essential means to a greater good, without which good is unattainable, therefore it must naturally follow that Power in itself is the greatest `good` of them `all`.

If that is the case, then one can imagine different powerful forces leading to different amounts and kinds of human good.

That`s true. The path to human `good` is an elusive one. The bombing of Lebanese civilians was said to have been `good` for Lebanon. Meaning that if a thousand plus people (1/3rd of them small children) were dismembered in their homes, the rest of the 4 million or so would be better off. It didn`t work, but never mind. Let`s take Tiananmen Square in 1989. That did work. So we can say that the Lebanese massacre was not `good` because it failed while Tiananmen Square was `good` because it succeeded. The former did not provide good while the latter did, except for the hundreds of unfortunates who got trampled under tanks. China would not have been what it it is today if it hadn`t done what it did in 1989.

The point of above is that `good` cannot be provided universally and equally to all. `Good` is a zero-sum game. In economic terms, it means for one to have the necessities of a good life (which themselves progressively enhance alongwith with success according to Maslow`s pyramid), someone else`s wages will need to be squeezed to the bottom of the pyramid so he stays there at subsistence level and does not aspire for the top, which incidentally is Power and self-actualization. Therefore, best one can do when in a position of power is to attempt equitable treatment rather than equal treatment.

Islam solves this problem by removing Power i.e. the top of the pyramid from the domain of man and pre-assigning it to Allah alone. Man is not supposed to aspire for it. Man is just to submit, and do Allah`s will. Satan has no role other than to misguide, and has no Power to either enforce or even define evil. Life neither has any meaning nor does it matter, but just to pass a test to see whether Satan succeeds or Faith does for transition onwards to the next semester. This is what is termed as an `ideology of death` but I don`t know how far that is descriptive. It is more of an ideology of the eternal.

Of course, if one force is able to demolish all others, then any good others may do is of no consequence :(

Right. When the several `good` elements have a fight amongst themselves, the `good` which has the most power wins, and becomes the `ultimate` good. So in the end it all boils down to Power, good or not! It is only Power which defines what is more good than the other good.

Cheers.

#405 by krishna_abcd / #406 by bjkumar

Gentlemen,

Either you are genuinely short on `facts`, or you purposely ignore these just for the sake of arguing your stated positions i.e. anti-pak/anti-Islam. That is not fair. Of-course you know well what happened immediately after 9/11 ... don`t you? Well let me refresh your memory in the sequence of events leading to rout of Taliban:

1) Usama denies involvement.

2) US demands handover of Usama.

2) Omar says will carry out own investigation and if guilty will hand-over.

3) Us declines and threatens attack.

4) Omar says willing to hand over to neutral country and international tribunal but not US.

5) Us declines and threatens attack.

6) Intense negotiations take place between Talibs/Pak.

7) Omar doesn`t yield and insists he will only hand over Usama if justice is guaranteed.

8) Us threatens attack.

9) Umar says eff you.

10) US threatens Pak, attack begins with Pak support, and Taliban abandon power!

In the above sequence, it is clear all Omar had to do to remain in power, was just to hand over Usama who was in no position to resist with a few hundred Arab fighters. Umar chose not to do that for the reason he explained in #323 that it was not a question of Usama, it was a question of Islam itself. You must also keep in mind that the Unocal pipeline deal was in the final stages at the time promising huge revenues for Taliban.

Taliban never fought the invasion. They simply withdrew. It is wrong to say they were defeated because they never fought. They had decided on the course which has now emerged which was to live and fight another day.

So why did he give it all up? For a defeated stateless foreigner i.e. Usama Bin Laden? Think.

In the light of the above, let`s rephrase the question of:

Please quote me a single example ... of a single ruler who gave up power and sacrificed everything for the simple principle of `Justice`.

TO:

Please quote me a single example ... of a single ruler who gave up power and sacrificed everything for the simple principle of `Justice` to even a stateless foreigner?.