Last Gasp of the Imperial Misadventure

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#160...no a contemporary Punjabi poet - Surjit Patar.

``Hinduan, SikhaN, MusalmanaN di bheeRh choN,
Rabb dhoon`Da phirda mera banda kidhar giya?``

Dulla -- who wrote that beautiful couplet -- Guru Nanak sahib?

Hinduan, SikhaN, MusalmanaN di bheeRh choN,
Rabb dhoon`Da phirda mera banda kidhar giya?

ikk shakhash si iss shehar wich sacha kidhar giya?
paTharaN de shehar choN sheesha kidhar giya?

Re: # 154
[....how you `convert` from Shia to Sunni -- and from Sunni to Shia...?...]

Ask YLH, he has converted from ahmedi to sunni to shia to ismaili... he has done all combinations possible...:)

good man Parathab -- here is another one that you would like to hang on the wall:
``Hindu hai ek ankh mussalman doosree`` -- we need stereoscopic vision for prespective -- to prevent us from falling on our face...!

another one that you may not like to hang is this one :

dair ko Hindu kee masjid ko mussalmaaN ki talash
kho gaiee iss khoj meiN insaaN ko insaaN ki talash

dair means Mandir -- the last one is mine.

now you can teach your kids:

Hindu nu banega nu mussalmaan bunay ga
insaan ki aulad hai insaan bunay ga

just tell them to be careful who they marry -- only insaan ki aulad!



Insaan ki aulad hai insaan bunay ga

Re: # 153

Wah!

Mein Hindu banoo`n ga nah Musalmaan banoo`n ga
Insaan ki aulad hoon` insaan banoo`n ga

I could frame that on my wall. How I wish more people could read that.

Re: # 153
``It`s much easier to leave both of them. I am reminded of a song of an Indian film:

Mein Hindu banoo`n ga nah Musalmaan banoo`n ga
Insaan ki aulad hoon` insaan banoo`n ga........``(freethinker)

Freethinker -- I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly -- as far I am concerned plague be on both houses....for what they are doing to each other in Iraq.

Will some one tell me how you `convert` from Shia to Sunni -- and from Sunni to Shia...?

nasah: #152

Great Question. But I think it`s a one way street. It`s much easier to leave both of them. I am reminded of a song of an Indian film:

Mein Hindu banoo`n ga nah Musalmaan banoo`n ga
Insaan ki aulad hoon` insaan banoo`n ga

Mohammad Gill

Will some one tell me how you `convert` from Shia to Sunni -- and from Sunni to Shia...?

``Free``thinker writes <<< President Bush is imperialistic in his foreign policy but thank God he will be gone in 2 years >>>

American foreign policy, and neo-colonization of the world did not start with Bush, and it will not end with Bush, Bush is the product of a political economy deeply and structurally related with its military and a militaristic world view- that system works with automatic precision using various legitimations, regardless of the face of the president.

okhla writes <<< Don`t you find it frustrating that most of the ``rest of the world`` refuses to see things your way? >>>

Most of the rest of the world, suffering under US domination, lives as fact the things I talk about, unfortunately they don`t have the luxury to merely ``see``, they live them as social fact day in and day out....

``Free``thinker writes <<< You also ignored my point that I made in my earlier post that conditions in the US have improved considerably compared with those which prevailed a century ago. This is because of the continuity of its system which is not toppled over by the army generals (not because there are no army generals in the US but because the system keeps them in their place). >>>

Another aspect of your near illiteracy is revealed by the fact that even after questions have been answered you keep repeating them, and that there is nothing deep in your analysis except banal points like ``America is better than it was a hundered years ago``. Of course it is ``better`` (for whom is also worthy of consideration) after raping the world and destroying the indigeneous population and looting the wealth of its people and achieveing cultural hegemony, past which dimwits like your goodself cannot look. Look at all the wars this misearble country`s elite have conducted, look at the people and the ecologies they have destroyed and are destroying and look at how they drain the poor countries of resoures and wealth, and then look at the slogans they use which are fictions even at the home front. Look at how they are dominating trade and finance and restricting development while promoting militarism and a militaristic worldview. Come on, are you blind?

Masadi,

Dimwits.

Tahmed, feroz, Freethinker etc are all dimwits.

Don`t you find it frustrating that most of the ``rest of the world`` refuses to see things your way?

After all your posts are based on your ``research`` in your ``institute`` and feedback from your ``students``. Maybe after you get the ``Nobel`` prize, you will be taken more seriously.

Regards to your fellow authors & intellectuals at lulu.com.

Masadi: 146

You are again indulging in general accusations. You evaded to answer my question.

Do you have a system (not theory or an ideology) which is better than the western democracy and is functional (that is, it is working in other parts of the world)?

The western democracy allows changes to its Constitution and if they found better alternatives (not necessarily that you propose) they would incorporate them in the Constitution. You also ignored my point that I made in my earlier post that conditions in the US have improved considerably compared with those which prevailed a century ago. This is because of the continuity of its system which is not toppled over by the army generals (not because there are no army generals in the US but because the system keeps them in their place).

Think over these points; maybe your frustration will be somewhat relieved. I know it is your anti-western posture which doesn’t leave you in peace.

I don’t suggest that the west is free from flaws. President Bush is imperialistic in his foreign policy but thank God he will be gone in 2 years. The danger is that he might not embark on any other misadventure in his remaining time. That is where the Senate and the Congress are going to play their roles to restrain him.

You should consider the system which I believe the Muslim world can use (with some appropriate modifications) for its benefit. We need the system and don’t have to import Bush because we already have the likes of him in our country in the uniforms.

Mohammad Gill

``free``thinker writes <<< I had asked you to inform the readers with which system you want to replace the western democracy if it is so bad. You evaded that question. Do you want to adopt a Pakistani, an Egyptian, a Syrian, an Iranian, a Saudi Arabian (so on and so forth) system, or what? You did not answer specifically but went on tangentially accusing the western system >>>

You had asked me a question that shows your ignorance of the issues, a question that I have answered multiple time on here. The system(s) you see projected across the globe are a product of a world system, which is dominated by....yes you guessed it right. Now if we replace the global politico economic relationships with any different system, the results, holding other factors constant are bound to benefit humanity. And to add to Zeemax, the US does not only have one system for the domestics and one for the foreigners, it has multiple systems of oppression inside based on a pharoahic hierarchy it has created in a class based system, and when it comes to dark skinned people abroad, they don`t even bother with the count of those killed by their policies according to their official admission, we are like cockroaches that you kill and forget... Even the explicitly coersive system of medieval times was not so impersonal reagarding human suffereing.

#140 by freethinker

“I never thought when I wrote the article that I would enter into such a discussion as is occurring between us.”

The Shia Sunni issue is an important part of your article; you should have anticipated that some one would bring this up for discussion.

“I had stated simply that the stronger faction always dominated the weaker one. By domination, I was implying the kind of violent strife that emerges in Pakistan almost unfailingly every year. Although such outbursts are no comparison to the life and death struggle which is going on in Iraq, it demonstrates that the co-existence between Shias and Sunnis is not always peaceful.”

Gill sahib, the kind of strife that emerges in Pakistan occasionally is entirely different than what we have in Iraq. The roots of both issues are different and as both nasah and Parthaab have pointed out, they should be treated differently.

The ethnic, sectarian or communal violence at a large scale emerges when both warring parties sidestep the law and the state apparatus to resolve their differences violently and this violence can go on until 1. both parties are exhausted, 2.one group is completely taken out or 3.the government is able to re-establish its preeminence to stop the violence. Minor scuffles that you mentioned in Pakistan may cause loss of life, nevertheless, is not the result of a complete breakdown of law and order but is a result of emotional issues between the communities.

To illustrate this I would mention that there is a rift between the Hindu and Muslim communities in India. The disputes go on until they reach a point where both parties sidestep the law, which results in incidents like Gujarat. Similarly, when groups of people in 1947 decided to take their differences outside the limits of law, a massacre took place on both sides of Punjab. The massacre did not stop until the warring groups were completely ejected from each others areas of influence or majority.

The two examples that you quoted are actually very illustrative of what I have been implying in my posts. You seem to believe that the sectarian violence and the state persecution are one and the same thing. What you are quoting are mostly instances of state persecution against one group which could be a political or may even be a different religious group.

As I had shown you in my previous posts, Saddam on many occasions persecuted both Shias and Kurds as they were his political opponent. He did not persecute them for their ethnicity or the religious beliefs on behalf of his Sunni brethren or his own Sunni faith. That is why despite Saddam’s brutalities, Shia and Sunni still lived side by side in Baghdad. Saddam also maintained a strict state structure that had the ability to control any sectarian violence before it could spread in Iraq.

Once the US took over, they destroyed the state structure in Iraq by removing the army, police, and the Bureaucracy thus leaving a vacuum that they were never able to fill with the US army. Obviously, the US army lacked skills to mediate or forestall the spread of violence between the two communities. With complete control of media in Iraq and by managing the information the US was able to create a situation where both communities decided to operate outside the limits of the law and the eruption of sectarian violence that spread quickly and still goes on unabated.

If the US had maintained the structure, both groups could possibly have had recourse to the government officials, police, the court system and even the Iraqi army to address the grievances. In the absence of such a structure, and by constant attempts by the US controlled media in Iraq to magnify the differences to divert attention from insurgency, it was not difficult to escalate the problems between the communities into a full fledged sectarian war.

This is my last post on this subject. However, I would like you to read this article to see the impact of the sectarian violence in Baghdad, probably something the US encouraged from the get go.

Read it here

http://www.ndtv.com/topstories/showtopstory.asp?slug=Officials+suspended+over+Gorakhpur+clash&id=21297&category=National

Re: # 140

A flaw in your argument is the assumption that internal security is not the primary ingredient to peace.

If that were the case, then in India at least, in the absence of internal security, there would have been massacres on a large scale on religious, casteist and linguistic lines. This would have happened even in the USA.

Certainly compounded by biased media and revenge mode.

Internal security is the key to peace.

Re: # 118,

Dr. Gill, It would be rather a simplistic and naive person to accept wholesale, the current media propaganda that Bush initially had only good intentions for Iraq.

If that were the case, he would nt have needed an excuse like WMD to attack the country. Saddam was by and large doing nothing on the international level, having been weakened considerably by economic sanctions. Iraq was already sufferring, but due to his dads sanctions.

The whole world knew that Bush was on the look out for a muslim nation for revenge on the 9/11 attacks, and Saddam, as a `dictator` fitted the media bill. And that a war would cripple the country and eventually divide it on sectarian lines, after an ethnic blood bath, in the absence of any internal security and warring factions. This, the whole world knew BEFORE even the WMD were claimed by Powell.

How could the CIA have possibly not known what the whole world knew before the attack?

Re: # 139 Nasah

``but what is happening in Iraq is something else. the Americans bear the direct responsibility for these bloody encounters massacres``

Nasah, before convicting the Americans, spare a moment for this thought:

``The fall of Tabriz in 1501 before the advancing forces of Shah Isma‘il Safawi marked the beginning of a new era in Iranian history. The land of Persia, whose population up to that time had been mainly Sunni, was now beginning to be transformed into a Shi‘ite homeland. Suppression of the Sunni Iranians was swift and merciless. The Sunni ‘ulama and Sufis were specifically targeted for persecution. Many preferred exile to certain death`` [reference]

or this:

``The House of Saud has made no secret of declaring the Shi`a as ``not being Muslims``, or ``Kaafir``. This is evident from the Shia minority in Saudia Arabia which has no political power or rights, and from outright edicts in which Salafi clerics have declared ``Shia blood to be halal, i.e. permissible to be shed.``[reference]

In short, what we see as relative calm in the Mideast is a result of centuries of tribal warfare that `cleaned out` Sunni-Shia populations. Even Saddam maintained relative calm through a brutal clampdown.

HP: 130

I never thought when I wrote the article that I would enter into such a discussion as is occurring between us. I had stated simply that the stronger faction always dominated the weaker one. By domination, I was implying the kind of violent strife that emerges in Pakistan almost unfailingly every year. Although such outbursts are no comparison to the life and death struggle which is going on in Iraq, it demonstrates that the co-existence between Shias and Sunnis is not always peaceful.

The battle between Ali and Aisha became a precursor to what happened afterwards at Karbala which perpetuated Shiism as a permanent and distinct sect. You wrote, “Ali and Aisha fought a political battle for the control of power in Mecca,” which is true and the bloody battle at Karbala was also motivated by the political reasons. Are you trying to validate the Aisha-Ali battle?


The US also invaded Iraq for political reasons. Why should then this be a big deal? The Shias and Sunnis who are cutting each other’s throats on daily basis cannot be exonerated from the responsibility of the ongoing bloodshed in Iraq.

You wanted instances of Sunni-Shia strife in history. I give you a couple of quotations regarding Safavids and the Ottoman Empire’s wars and battles in the following to illustrate it:
“The major impact of the Safavid-Ottoman conflict on Iraqi history was the deepening of the Shia-Sunni rift. Both the Ottomans and the Safavids used Sunni and Shia Islam respectively to mobilize domestic support. Thus, Iraq`s Sunni population suffered immeasurably during the brief Safavid reign (1623-38), while Iraq`s Shias were excluded from power altogether during the longer period of Ottoman supremacy (1638-1916). During the Ottoman period, the Sunnis gained the administrative experience that would allow them to monopolize political power in the twentieth century. The Sunnis were able to take advantage of new economic and educational opportunities while the Shias, frozen out of the political process, remained politically impotent and economically depressed. The Shia-Sunni rift continued as an important element of Iraqi social structure in the 1980s ,“ (Iraq: Historical Setting, Library of Congress Country Study, The Ottomon Period 1534- 1918).
Another extract is as follows:
“If we look back at the history of Islam and to the Shia-Sunni strife that broke out at in the first chapter of Islamic history following the death of the Prophet of Islam, and that ruptured in a bloody way in the battle of the Great Sedition between Ali and Muawiyyah and continued to divide the Muslim memory into two parts, we can see that nothing has changed since that era—matters calm down and flare up pursuant to the balance of powers between the two parties.
Political strife together with direct threat is the key motivator of sectarian literature, and history has much to relate in this regard. An example is the bloody conflict between the Ottomans and the Safavids that began with the famous Battle of Chaldiran in August 1514 between the Safavid Shah Ismail, the founder of the Safavid state and who was devoted to Safavid culture, and the Ottoman Sultan Selim I, who was prompted to fight this battle to restrain the Safavid ``Empire`` that had expansive ambitions under the slogan of Shia sectarianism….. Ardebili, was a Sunni Sufi mystic. Gradually and due to special complexities, steps were taken towards the conversion to Shia Islam until we reach the era of the Safavid Shah Ismail.
Shah Ismail was extreme in Shiism, in oppressing the Sunnis and in spreading Shia Islam in Iran. He had ambitions in Iraq and in the territories that bordered Iran in the east and north. His ambitions in Iraq were justified—it is home to the holy shrines.
What is also interesting about the story is that the father of Sultan Selim I, Bayezid, corresponded with the Safavid Shah and was interested in poetry and philosophy. He did not feel that he had to fight the Safavids. When news was confirmed about the Shah`s suppression of the Sunnis, the Ottoman Sultan, out of responsibility for his subjects, advised him to be kind to the Sunnis and refrain from being aggressive towards them. However, Sultan Selim I had a different view and believed that the Safavid Empire posed a real danger to the Ottoman Empire and that the Shah`s zealous promotion of the hardline version of Shia Islam was part of Ismail`s endeavor to provide an appropriate cultural ground for the expansion of the Safavid state. Here, the political considerations intertwine with the religious and social ones. Originally, perhaps the cause, or one of the causes for Ismail`s ancestors to choose Shia Islam and Ismail`s consolidation of the Shia doctrine was the political concern in the framework of creating a cultural identity for the new empire, an identity that is based on denominational distinction, differences in historical references, and collective local memory to complete the components of a different identity. We should not be surprised by this as the man`s ambitions, though profuse, were limitless when coupled with power.
In any case, the Ottomans managed to confine the Safavid extension within its present borders, however, the open border for conflict remained in Iraq; at one time the Safavid Shah entered Baghdad torturing the Sunnis, and at another point in time the Ottoman Sultans entered, torturing the Shia and reconstructing the tomb of Abu Hanifa,” (Mshari al-Zaydi, Sectarianism and Forms of Politics, Ashraq al-Awast).

I really do not understand where our discussion is heading to. We seem to have lost the basic point of the article. If we are at two different pages and do not understan each other`s point of view, this discussion is pointless. Be well,

Mohammad Gill

Of course there have been a minor schism between Shia and Sunnis in places like Lucknow for centuries -- that usually exacerbated during Muharram -- but what is happening in Iraq is something else.

the Americans bear the direct responsibility for these bloody encounters massacres and ethnic cleansing -- it is something they started by doing themselves in Fallujah -- and by arming sectarians of one community against the other -- the whole premise of American aggression and diabolical misadventure in Iraq were based on the devious premise -- that the Shias will welcome the Americans with garlands against the `Sunni` Dictator Saddam Hussein.

The same American game is being played in Syria -- that the dastardly American `liberators` will have Sunni garlands waiting for them if Bush invades `Sunni`` Syria ruled by a `Shia` son of a ruthless `Shia` Dictator Assad.

in reality the two dictatorship were NEVER based on the Shia Sunni divide. It is an entirely -- Made In USA -- counterfeit product.

The Shia-Sunni massacres have been started by the Neocon vermins of George Bush -- by playing one against the other and then becoming a pious `arbiter` between the two -- the old trick of the occupiers against the occupied that always worked -- as it worked `wonderfully` for the ethnic cleansing that happened in Punjab post independence.

SR -- thanks for the delights -- here is one that I have on my car bumper -- I am not the real president I only play one on TV.

from your list my favorit two:

5) If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran

21) So Many Christians, So Few Lions....:)

``Human behavior is so strange.``(Sri)

Human behavior is INDEED sooo strange -- when you talk to a plump clay figure that has an elephant head over its human neck -- the strangest when you talk to someone and there is nothing there......:)

For ALL you Bush lovers!


NEW POLITICAL BUMPER STICKERS

1 ) (On an infant`s shirt): Already smarter than Bush

2) 1/20/09: End of an Error

3) That`s OK, I Wasn`t Using My Civil Liberties Anyway

4 ) Let`s Fix Democracy in This Country First

5) If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran

6) Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber.

7) You Can`t Be Pro-War And Pro-Life At The Same Time

8) If You Can Read This, You`re Not Our President

9) Of Course It Hurts: You`re Getting Screwed by an Elephant

10) Hey, Bush Supporters: Embarrassed Yet?

11) George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight

12) Impeachment: It`s Not Just for Blowjobs Anymore

13) America : One Nation, Under Surveillance

14) They Call Him ``W`` So He Can Spell It

15) Which God Do You Kill For?

16) Cheney/Satan `08

17) Jail to the Chief

18) Who Would Jesus Torture?

19) No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade

20) Bush: God`s Way of Pro ving Intelligent Design is Full Of Crap

21) So Many Christians, So Few Lions

22) Bad president! No Banana.

23) We Need a President Who`s Fluent In At Least One Language

24) We`re Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them

25) Is It Vietnam Yet?

26) Bush Doesn`t Care About White People, Either

27) Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Handbasket?

28) Frodo Failed. Bush Has the Ring.

29) Impeach Cheney First

30) The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century

..... a hint to the answer is that the Government death squads are only in Baghdad ....

But try the question anyway ..

#133 by sri

... it is a sad commentary on Sunnis and Shias that they are behaving worse than animals. Justifying or glossing over the Sunni-Shia carnage by saying that Bush started it is really lame.

I will pose the same question to you which I have posed many times before but never received an answer from those of your ilk who believe it is a religious conflict between Shia/Sunni:

Why isn`t it happening anywhere outside Baghdad in Iraq.

If you don`t have an answer, then desist from making shallow and sterotypical statements. In other words, shut up.

Though I see that now at-least many of your types are coming around to it being an illegal war thrust upon the Iraqi people.

Human behavior is so strange.

People immediately identify ( and magnify ) even the smallest of shortcomings in people who they consider as enemies. Whereas, they remain totally apathetic to the shortcomings of the people who they consider as their ``own``. Even to the point of covering up or justifying their own groups despicable actions. Examples are many - Indians glossing over the gut wrenching poverty in India, muslims justifying terrorism, mexicans thinking nothing of criminal illegal aliens, etcetra ...

The question is, is that a healthy attitude? Does it really help in the improvement of their lot ? These are simple questions and simple concepts.. but I guess in reality the basic impulse of peoples emotions take over.

Now, it is beyond argument that Bush waged an illegal war... but given that, it is a sad commentary on Sunnis and Shias that they are behaving worse than animals. You can only take a horse ot the pond but you cannot make it drink. Justifying or glossing over the Sunni-Shia carnage by saying that Bush started it is really lame. But alas, who said people think intelligently in all circumstances ....

Gill Saheb,

I second this question which HP has posed. I really think we deserve an answer from you:

.... show us the instances when Shia or Sunni were shedding blood before the Iraq drama. Please provide us some instances or the names of any war that these two factions fought on religious or sectarian issues. You don’t have to provide any links to support your claim just name a few of the incident and the periods would suffice.

The second question is over the battle of Ali and Ayesha.

....Both Aisha and Ali were not Shia or Sunni either.

I will just add to above HP`s statement that Usman was not Shia either ... so why did Ayesha rise against Ali to avenge his death (which Muwaiya had promised to avenge and failed to do at the appeal of no less than Usman`s wife? She had sent the severed finger of Usman to Muawiya from the hand he had raised to protect his face).

Ball`s in your court Sir!

#125 by PewResearch

``...who had predicted two years ago that Iraq will be fully democratized in six months and the insurgency over...`` Any references? Otherwise go to jahanum!!

I`m not likely to go over the archives of NY Times over two years to fulfill your wish. However as for your other wish, My Lord, I am on way!

#127 by freethinker

“I have read the history of Islam and it pained me every time when I read about the violence which existed between these two sects (including other bloodsheds for different reasons) at varioue periods of time.”

That is what I have been asking. If you have read the history, I am very much interested in finding out when and where the blood was shed and in what periods of time. Just saying various is perhaps not enough here. Since you wrote this article and made some unsubstantiated comments, you owe it to us to show us the instances when Shia or Sunni were shedding blood before the Iraq drama. Please provide us some instances or the names of any war that these two factions fought on religious or sectarian issues. You don’t have to provide any links to support your claim just name a few of the incident and the periods would suffice.

“I wish what you are implying were true because if we cannot resolve our religious differences peacefully even after the passage of fourteen or fifteen centuries, it is really a shame.”

For a mature person like you, who claims to have read the history and dabbles in political issues, this statement is somewhat below par and just emotional. Why is it a shame? People fight all the time. The history is full of such examples. People living in the same country and the followers of the same religion have fought many battles in human history. What is so shameful about it? It is a reality and a person of your knowledge must analyze the causes and understand why these fights cannot by stopped by good wishes alone. Religious differences exist in every religion some fight over them now and some others fought over them just a few centuries ago. I am kind surprised that after writing an article about a volatile issue you are now cowering under some really juvenile wishes.

“It is Shias who are killing the Sunnis and Sunnis killing Shias in Iraq. Why can`t they stop this carnage and work together for emancipating their country from foreign occupation?”

Now please tell me how you propose to stop this fight. Just asking why they can’t stop is downright childish. They were fighting for their country but now the fight has been diverted by forces that are way powerful than the common man on the Iraqi street. As I said before the diversion has been created by a much powerful occupying army and the situation may not change immediately. It is not like somebody would go up on masjid minar and announce the ceasefire. The situation like this takes time to resolve.

“The first battle that pitted Muslims against Muslims was between Aisha and Ali and the seeds of continuing strife were sown.”

I have no idea what do you mean by this. Ali and Aisha fought a political battle for the control of power in Mecca and I don’t see that as some thing different than many other battles for political power in every part of the world. This is ridiculous to assume just because they fought a war, whole generations are condemned. Both Aisha and Ali were not Shia or Sunni either. I think you need to have a better look at the history and frame the issues in a better context and with a different perspective.

Re: # 126 Islamabad Bob

[...The occupation army has created this situation…..]

Ha ha... Islamabad Bob never gives up... :)

Dr. Gill:

Iraq is over – at least as far as the USA is concerned.

Yes, we are still there. And yes, we may even have a temporary surge in forces, but there is no doubt that we have lost it.

The loss – as in case of Vietnam, is not due to any of US military mistakes (although one can debate endlessly how long the US should have stayed in) – but strictly from the lack of public will back home – the fuel that is necessary to keep this machine going.

But who are the real losers – the people of that country – and not just because they are getting killed in droves.

They are the losers because the light of democracy burns so close to them that they can practically touch it yet they have chosen to close those eyes and turned their attention inwards and they have succumbed to ancient calls of hate and they have become hostage to that old embrace of the killer instinct – the worst of the dark knights – which, once it grabs hold – will seldom let go.

There lies the country of Iraq – dying of its self-inflicted wounds when it was so close to a recovery due to forcibly-administered medicines – with every neighbor looking on without the slightest empathy and only counting what THEY can get for themselves when the patient dies – how they can best divvy up the proceeds!

And everyone coolly blaming the ONLY Good Samaritan who took the trouble to come from far away and offered his own blood to help them live and breathe freedom!

It is indeed a grievous mess – and not just for that country – but for that whole region – because it has established once more that only brute force prevails in that region and not reason or compassion or common-sense but fear is what the population responds to!

HP: 126

Your observation that there was always peace between Shias and Sunnis (gives me pleasure if it were really true) in the Muslim history is very general, I have read the history of Islam and it pained me every time when I read about the violence which existed between these two sects (including other bloodsheds for different reasons) at varioue periods of time. The first battle that pitted Muslims against Muslims was between Aisha and Ali and the seeds of continuing strife were sown.

I wish what you are implying were true because if we cannot resolve our religious differences peacefully even after the passage of fourteen or fifteen centuries, it is really a shame.

What is happening in Iraq was truly triggered by the war but tell me why the Shias are killing the Sunnis and Sunnis killing Shias, if they are historically peacefull people? It is always the third party which is responsible for our shortcomings. We refuse to take responsibikity for our misdeeds.

It is Shias who are killing the Sunnis and Sunnis killing Shias in Iraq. Why can`t they stop this carnage and work together for emancipating their country from foreign occupation?

The recurring troubles almost every year between Shias and Sunnis particularly near Muharram in Pakistan are not caused by the Americans. I wish we could kive peacefully among ourselves. We don`t have tolerance for differing religious viewpoints.

Mohammad Gill

#114 by freethinker
“It was not my intention here to outline why the U.S. army is in Iraq and continuing its occupation.”

I think I never asked for the reasons....this appears to be a case of sawal gandum jawab channa.

I did ask to show me instances of Shia Sunni violence from the Arab History. Instead you quoted Iqbal’s couplet.

I think it is time you get your history straight.

There was no Shia Sunni divide when Hussain was murdered. The group that was then known as Shian-e Ali or friends of Ali took up Hussain’s cause and that group was later known as Shia. It took almost 100 years for this group to snatch power away from the Ummiads. The shia Caliphate was known as the Abbasids. They ruled Iraq for a long time but there is no history of their taking any revenge or even making life difficult for Sunnis. Btw, even the Ummiads for as long as they ruled Baghdad never murdered the Shian e Ali group even though they were political opponents.

The level of the reported violence between the Sunnis and Shia is a new phenomenon despite a long history of political disputes. Having political dispute does not necessarily mean that Shia and Sunnis were chopping each others heads off in Iraq before the US got there.

This is the newest implantation of the age old colonist policy of divide and rule….So don’t get caught up in the so called violence and start saying that the US army is haplessly mired in the conflict. The occupation army has created this situation…..

Re: # 123 Zeenuts

``...who had predicted two years ago that Iraq will be fully democratized in six months and the insurgency over...``
Any references? Otherwise go to jahanum!!

Re: # 122 Bulleya
``...hence the defeats in lebanon (of Israel)...``

That is sick analysis showing just what Kakul teaches! Israel winswhen Warren Buffett`s company* there is fully back in business - not when Nasrallah is out of business. Because that will only happen, not by war, but when Arabs wake up and realize that he is just another fraud, just another Nasser, whose strategy would condemn the flower of Arab youth - who deserve and need so much better - to another decade of making potato chips, not microchips. Nasrallah can win in the long run only if he can condemn the flower of Israel`s youth to the same fate.
Israel has the most companies listed on NASDAQ (except Canada). Its GDP is more than that of any Arab country (except Saudi Arabia) - and Nasrallah won! It has more high tech companies than the rest of the Arab world combined - and Nasrallah won!



*The most important thing you need to know about Israel today and how it has performed so far in the war with Hezbollah is Warren Buffett. Say what? Well, the most talked-about story in Israel, before Hezbollah started this war, was the fact that on May 5, 2006, Mr. Buffett, the Berkshire Hathaway chairman and the world`s most successful investor, bought an 80 percent stake in the privately held Israeli precision tools company, Iscar Metalworking, for $4 billion - Mr. Buffett`s first purchase of a company outside America.

#117 by PewResearch

Just some rhetorical observations:

``Tom Friedman``

This must be the same Tom Friedman who had predicted two years ago that Iraq will be fully democratized in six months and the insurgency over. I mean, he is a real expert on Muslim and Middle Eastern affairs.

``Great powers should never get involved in the politics of small tribes.”

That is exactly why Americans are so disgusted with them that they want to leave these insignificant `small tribes` of ingrates to their own primitive ways, and to head back immediately. The additional 20,000 are there to just help with the packing :)

....there is an interesting difference between how the israeli prime minister and the us president have handled their respective war defeats......

.....israel has never lost in an outright war in the middle east....it even won a major war in six days........its only real loss has been in an occupation of a portion of lebanon.....but never in a war.......similarly, usa has to go back to vietnam to look at a loss......after that, it has bombed and occupied quite a few countries without much problem.....

....hence it is second nature for usa and israel to assume that, if they want(ed) they could invade any country and easily defeat them....in the un, the usa would handle everything for israel and for itself.......

......hence the defeats in lebanon and iraq have been a watershed point for both, as well as for arabs.....its the first time, any arab country has actually defeated the israelis and americans.......something that was unheard and even unthought of......

.........if one follows israeli newspapers (which i have found far far more objective than the us media), one can tell that israelis are in a state of shock......it is how the leaders of usa and israel have handled the situation that is interesting.......

.......israeli leadership, the moment it saw defeat, retreated and ended the war.......it withdrew its forces and took the blame......when, in fact, if could have easily, like the usa, continued bombing its opponent, getting its own and lebanese killed or no reason.....the prime minister took the blame, thereby possibly destroying his political career and his party`s........the miltiary leadership either resigned or was sent packing, including the very top commanders.......the govt. took the hit and the blame......

........the usa leadership has done the exact opposite.....instead of accepting its defeat and the stopping the senseless killing of people, it is continuing to extend the war to make it look like an operation that is still going on.....rather than what it is, i.e. a defeat......in the process doing a lot of damange to its own party, but most of all, to the people in iraq......

.......it will be the interesting to see the situation, when the usa has to finally retreat from iraq.......it will be sugar-coated in some manner, but will be a retreat, just the same......what impact will it have on the arab population.........if the iraqis are able to hold their country together, their stock and respect will go sky high in the middle-east, having defeated an invading super-power........

on the other hand, iraq could end up like an afghanistan, with oil.......a nation completely destroyed by an invading superpower, which has not been able to recover for 30 years......

#119 by freethinker

.... however our friend of #117 believes it was perfectly legal, and whatever Kofi Annan siad about it being illegal was just his `own` opinion :)

Re: # 116

``Dr. Gill,
Don`t be too hard on the Amrikkans. The US involvement in Iraq was well-intentioned.....``(BJ)

why not -- the Iraqis did not invade Washington that son of a Bush invaded Baghdad -- Dubya`s involvement was il-intentioned ignorant -- it was demented diabolical and dastardly -- and every word Dr Gill wrote including the ``placement of articles`` is well placed and 100% correct.

BJ for heavens sake don`t forget your colonial past.....``The US involvement in Iraq was well-intentioned....`` -- is as `well intentioned` as the British `involvement` in India was....

....the dirty word is occupation not involvement.

In continuation of my post 118, let me mention, lest we forget it, the United Nations called U.S.`s attack on Iraq illegal.

Mohammad Gill

parthaab and bjkumar: #115 and 116

The reasons for invading Iraq given in my post #119 are from Richard Clarke`s book verbatim. He was a member of the Senior Executive Services and Chief Counter-terrorism Adviser in President Bush`s administration at the time of his resignation. I believe he knew mor than you and I of the internal actions and mechanism of Bush`s administration.

As to Bush`s good intentions you mentioned, it is all subjective.

America`s invasion of Iraq was a naked aggression and all aggressions are well-intentioned. You know it as well as I know it.

Mohammad Gill

It is quite pathetic to read the sorry posts by Pakistani ‘intellectuals’
like Romair (Bulleya), Tahmed32, Zeemax, HP and others. Romair is fixated on
the American quagmire in Iraq. Tahmed is busy defending why Pakistan is not a failed state. All these champion cheerleaders of Pakistan’s sick polity and its tinpot dictatorship ignore the Shia Sunni tribal warfare that has gripped Iraq resulting in 35,000 dead this year. This age-old tribal warfare has had its spillover from Arabia in Pakistan and they are busy (as is usually the case with the male, Pakistani elites, who are amongst the most irresponsible elites in the world) remaining deafeningly silent on what ails the Muslim world and their country, in particular. Rather, they will deflect attention to virtually every other deficit in the world, but ignore the steady descent of Arabs and their country into the murderous history of the 7^th
century.

The Sunni Saudi king’s comments on the Shia-Sunni conflict and the
assertion that ‘Sunni Islam will remain dominant’ meant as a warning to Iran, is further evidence in support of this Mideast maxim: In Middle East tribal politics there is rarely a happy medium. When one side is weak, it will tell you, “I’m weak, how can I compromise?” And when it’s strong, it will tell you, “I’m strong, why should I compromise?”. Read this excellent opinion piece by Tom Friedman of the NY Times. Yet, our grown, adult, male, ‘mature’ Pakistani champions are busy ignoring reality and engaged in the most irresponsible of behaviors.

Tom Friedman asks: How could it be that Danish cartoons of Muhammad led to mass violent protests, while unspeakable violence by Muslims against Muslims in Iraq every day evokes about as much reaction in the Arab-Muslim world as the weather report? Where is the Muslim Martin Luther King? Where is the "Million Muslim March" under the banner: "No Shiites, No Sunnis: We are all children of the Prophet Muhammad."… I raise this question because the only hope left for Iraq — if there is any — is not in a U.S. counterinsurgency strategy. That may be necessary, but without a Muslim counternihilism strategy that delegitimizes the mass murder of Muslims by Muslims, there is no hope for decent politics there. It takes a village, and right now the Muslim village is mute. It has no moral voice when it comes to its own…."The Koran describes the Prophet Muhammad as a Prophet of Mercy," said Husain Haqqani, the Pakistani- born director of Boston University`s Center for International Relations. "Muslims begin all their acts, including worship, with the words: `In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful.` The Koran also says, `To you, your faith, and to me, mine.` But unfortunately, these mercy-focused, peacemaking ideas are lost [today] in the overall discourse in the Muslim world about reviving lost glory and setting right the injustice of Western domination.

That last phrase about ‘lost glory’ particularly resonates with Tahmed32’s positions, who is quick to jump to talk about ‘missiles and bombs’ when I last made a meaningful attempt to follow his thread to ‘discuss the future’. However, if I had heeded Tom Friedman’s advice, “The most underestimated emotion in Arab politics is humiliation,” I should have learned to stay away from arguing with him on the basis of reason and logic.

Romair, you may find this of interest regarding the American intervention in Iraq, ‘The Lebanese historian Kamal Salibi had it right: “Great powers should never get involved in the politics of small tribes.”’

Dr. Gill,

Don`t be too hard on the Amrikkans. The US involvement in Iraq was well-intentioned - unlike either the iron-hand of the Saddam or the killers who are currently out there killing civilians.

Re: # 114, freethinker, You say `` “The justification for invading Iraq was due to the following five reasons “attributed to three senior advisers (Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz) and to President Bush:

•To clean up the mess left by the first Bush administration when, in 1991, it let Saddam Hussein consolidate power and slaughter opponents after the first U.S. – Iraq war;
•To improve Israel’s strategic position by eliminating a large hostile military;
•To create an Arab democracy that could serve as a model to other friendly Arab states now threatened with internal dissent, notably Egypt and Saudi Arabia;
•To permit withdrawal of U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia (after twelve years), where they were stationed to counter the Iraqi military and were a source of anti-Americanism threatening to the regime;
•To create another friendly source of oil for the U.S. market and reduce dependency upon oil from Saudi Arabia, which might suffer overthrow someday.”




Does nt that appear to you that the neo-cons are in fact very friendly to the middle east people, if indeed that was the reason for the Iraqi invasion?

Shall I dare say then, that they and their intentions, then, were thouroughly misunderstood?

So was the dismantling of internal security in Iraq not well thought of in advance?
Was the propaganda about WMDs merely a diversionary tactic?
Is the institution of a dictatorship there totally unintended?
Lastly, the killing of thousands of hundreds, merely collateral damage?


Dont you see the flaw in the propaganda about the `real` intentions of the neo-cons?

HP: #110

Thanks for writing a detailed discussion on American misadventure in Iraq. You took issue with my article on several grounds. I’ll try to respond to some of them here.

Regarding Shia-Sunni divide, I had used the phrase “the stronger faction had always dominated the weaker.” Domination does not necessarily imply violence. There is however evidence of violence also in history. In fact this divide began with violence.

Iqbal wrote:

Qatl-e-Hussain asl mein marg-e-Yazid haiy
Islam zindah hota haiy har Karbla kay ba’ad

Ever since, we are engaged in reviving Islam on the lines of Karbla.

It was not my intention here to outline why the U.S. army is in Iraq and continuing its occupation. I had given the reasons why Bush invaded Iraq from Richard Clarke’s book “Against All Enemies” in my book review which was published at Chowk on April 12, 2004. Five of the reasons outlined by Clarke are as follows:

“The justification for invading Iraq was due to the following five reasons “attributed to three senior advisers (Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz) and to President Bush:

•To clean up the mess left by the first Bush administration when, in 1991, it let Saddam Hussein consolidate power and slaughter opponents after the first U.S. – Iraq war;
•To improve Israel’s strategic position by eliminating a large hostile military;
•To create an Arab democracy that could serve as a model to other friendly Arab states now threatened with internal dissent, notably Egypt and Saudi Arabia;
•To permit withdrawal of U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia (after twelve years), where they were stationed to counter the Iraqi military and were a source of anti-Americanism threatening to the regime;
•To create another friendly source of oil for the U.S. market and reduce dependency upon oil from Saudi Arabia, which might suffer overthrow someday.”

However, President Bush had a plan to invade Iraq even before he became president and many of our brothers facilitated him by casting votes ‘en mass’ for him in 2002.

Whether it is ‘last gasp’ or not, only time will determine although I do hope it is the ‘last gasp’. When President Bush invaded Iraq, majority of the Americans were with him; now they have deserted him and are working to stop him from entering into further misadventures.

Be well,

Mohammad Gill

#112 by bulleya

Romair, there`s the privatised war angle to this as well. Bush mentioned it in his SOTU speech of raising a `civilian` army.... meaning Blackwater. What do you think about that?

Watch this:

Our Mercenaries in Iraq: Blackwater Inc and Bush`s Undeclared Surge.

...i can`t see how long the usa can keep going in iraq......even some of the republican congressmen are openly starting to go against it.....there is no way, the next us president can get elected on a pro-iraq war agenda.......mccain is the only one pushing that and he will have to drop it soon....

......isrealis are still trying to recover from their first ever defeat in an arab-israeli war.....they have slowly fired their military high command.....and olmert isn`t looking too stable either.....so they are probably not going to be pushing for any more hot wars.....

......so it is only the us executive branch that is now pushing the iraq war......and the uk executive branch to a smaller extent.......the populations of every country in the world (including iraq and usa), other than israel is against this war....the legislative branch of the usa is against it now.......the judicial branch of the usa has over-ruled the executive on issues related to the war......the retired us generals are against it.....

.......basically, it is bush and cheney that are keeping the war going, and creating problems for everyone in the world.....the scary part is that, if they want, they can start another one in iran......and there is a pretty good chance that they just might do that.......

i have a feeling these two will keep the usa military in iraq, until the military breaks........which is going to happen soon......i would say another year or two, and the usa military will break.......already, far too many us soldiers are getting injured.......and far too many have to rotate in and out of iraq..........and i don`t think even the usa can afford 80 billion per year, on a war for such a long time.......

these two guys, more than obl and mullah umar etc. are the real threat to the world......i am not the only one saying this......

#110 by HP

I see that Cheney`s remark of `enormous successes` in a different light. He has fractured a great Islamic country, and that`s indeed an enormous success.

Your views on the whole situation are not only half-baked but dangerously come close to being called ridiculous. I understand that you don’t have some hidden agenda and might just be someone who would like to see this whole situation end peacefully but promoting falsehood would not help your good intentions.

“Historically, Shias and Sunnis have not ever lived peacefully with each other; the stronger faction had always dominated the weaker.”

Shia and Sunni are two factions but for centuries, despite religious differences and occasional minor flare ups, they have pretty much lived peacefully throughout the centuries. Could you please cite any major conflict between these two sects or groups that can be of the same scale that we are watching in Iraq? Even in Baghdad, and we all know that it is a Shia majority city for the last 1200 years, there have never been any violence between the two communities and they have lived either side up side or in separate boroughs of Baghdad with NOT many incidents of violence. During the Saddam days when he was fighting Iran and later when he was crushing Shia insurgency in south Iraq, there was no violence between the two communities in Baghdad.

Has it ever occurred to you that there might be, just might be some reasons beyond the control of common man that helped create the chasm between the communities for the benefit of the occupying army?

There were no Shia or Sunni issues in 2003 when the US announced Mission accomplished and the President was talking about “bring ‘em on” and when they really showed up, we saw a steady decline in Sunni Shia relations in Baghdad. Ever wonder why that happened?

“American army in Iraq is haplessly trapped in the sectarian civil war. “

Haplessly trapped in Iraq? Sir, the united state President sent the army there and he can always withdraw them thus ending the state of haplessness. Have you ever tried to analyze why the US President won’t end the state of US army’s haplessness? The US army is not hapless in anyway in Iraq it is actively involved in escalating the violence and fighting. We read the reports that come out of Iraq every day. Perhaps you ignore them or don’t have the stomach to look at the Abu Gharib pictures.

“This kind of sectarian trouble was foreseen by President Bush Sr., who wisely had abstained from occupying Iraq in the first Gulf war. “

Could you please cite a reference which shows that Bush sr. had actually foreseen the Shia Sunni violence? It is a made up story and there is no evidence of any such thing. The fact of the matter is that the Bush sr. admin encouraged Shias to stand up against Saddam and then betrayed them in the face of the Saddam reprisal attacks against Shais in South Iraq.

“President George W. Bush ignored the sane advice of his father’s well-experienced advisers and went ahead to occupy Iraq.”

Sounds like you are following the myth that is created by the media that somehow Bush Jr. went into Iraq to finish the unfinished business. That is very simplistic. The Bush admin went in to Iraq with some specific purpose; the unfinished business meme is for simple people. A lot has been written about the real purpose of the attack and I see no reason to repeat all that here. You can do a Google search and find out what different analysts have said about it. But no serious minded person would ever mention the “sane advice” as there was none.

The US was in trouble in 2004 and since then we have seen different enemies emerge in Iraq and disappear. First they were dead Enders, then Insurgents, then Zarqawi and Alqaeeda, then Baathist, then Shia Sunni violence and now it is moving from the Mehdi army to Irani interference. Has it occurred to you why we seem to have new enemies every six months in Iraq?

Is it really the last gasp?


Besides many other considerations, here is one more that will help you understand what is at stake in Iraq now. In the last 230 years of the US history no US president has lost a war. The Vietnam War was officially over in Gerald Ford days, who was not an elected President. Nixon was removed on some trumped up and very cleverly designed charges and that saved him from losing the Vietnam War.

President Bush carries a heavy burden of the History on his not very bright shoulders. If he moves his armies out of Iraq, he will become the first American President to lose a war. Obviously, he and the people around him too would go down as losers in the US history. So the war will continue until the President leaves office. In the meantime, his only saving grace would be to escalate the war as much as possible, create enormous amount of chaos and if possible, extend the war to Iran so that the people asking to end the war are silenced.

The sectarian violence or the security issues are just some very convenient excuses. The surge and Rice aptly called it an augmentation is just a way to buy some more time. The effort to move the war towards Iran is also meant to buy some more time and keep at least one justification of the war going until the President’s term is over.

This admin is in desperate states and that is not good for the union. Have you had a chance to see or read Cheney’s interview where he talked about “enormous successes” in Iraq? Read that again until you figure out that he does not even consider Iran, Shia, Sunni or any other group as the real enemy but he claims the real problem are people who oppose the war.

#107 by hamidm2

The report you mention is correct. That procession was being guarded by a police party headed by the Police Chief. The bomber attacked the police party, and not the procession itself. Check out Pakistani newspapers today,

Abdul v/s Abdul...

Report: Saudi King says attempts to spread Shiite faith among Sunnis will not succeed

KUWAIT CITY: Saudi Arabia`s King Abdullah said in an interview published Saturday that attempts to convert Muslim Sunnis to the Shiite branch of Islam will not succeed, and that Sunnis would always make up the majority of the world Muslims.

Although Abdullah did not mention Iran by name, his comments — rare for the Sunni monarch — appeared aimed at easing Arab concerns over the Persian Shiite nation`s growing influence in the Middle East.

Arab media have claimed that Iran seeks to spread Shiism among the region`s predominantly Sunni Arab countries as a way of increasing Tehran`s political power.

``We are following up on this matter and we are aware of the dimensions of spreading Shiism and where it has reached,`` Abdullah told the Kuwaiti Al-Siyassah daily.

Re: # 106

zeemax,

....... based on the following, i don`t know about your conclusion .....

``Superintendent of Peshawar Police Zaibullah said the unidentified bomber detonated explosives strapped to his body when police stopped him from entering the procession, which was to be taken out from Qasim Ali Khan Mosque.``

......... i don`t have to wish for shia-sunni strife in pakistan - you guys have been killing each other for years ........

#104 by bulleya/ #97 by hamidm2

Correction. It has now been established that the bombing in Peshawar was not aimed at Shias, but at the police party led by the Police Chief in a targeted killing. Obviously the promised blowback of tribals.

Hamidm, sorry to dash your hopes. Much as you wish for a shia/sunni strife in Pakistan so they can kill each other instead of heading in your direction, it doesn`t appear to be happening as of now. Your boss Negreponte still has a lot of work to do before your dreams will come true.

#104 by bulleya on January 27, 2007 8:17pm PT


to the best of my knowledge, pakistan had never experienced suicide blasts, prior to it joining the US GWOT........the local shia-sunni terrorism has always been drive by shootings or bomb explosions....never suicide bombings......


Actually the suicide bomb blasts are the result of pakiland using islamic terrorism as a foreign policy tool..the paki army doesn`t have the balls to make kashmir banega pakiland so it sends jihadis to try what they`ve failed repeatedly at..

what? You didn`t hear?...the suicide bomber who blew up himself up in the marriot was a kashmiri (indigenous) freedom fighter..

Al-Furqan ‘involved in Islamabad bombing’

By Shakeel Anjum

ISLAMABAD: Sensitive agencies after a preliminary investigation believed that a militant group, ‘Al-Furqan’ led by Abdul Jabbar, was involved in Friday’s suicide bombing at the Marriott hotel.

Abdul Jabbar earlier belonged to Jaish-e-Muhammad (JM) and remained a close aide to Masood Azhar, the chief of JM. He later formed Al-Furqan after developing difference on the concept of Jihad, sources said. The sources said Abdul Jabbar was involved in the bombing at the Church in Taxila.

.......these suicide bombings are all a product of pakistan aimlessly joining the battle


Oh so NOW you think it`s aimless..after your business selling t-shirts with paki flags went out of business...a little more than 5 years ago you wanted to quit your job and join the American army in invading Afghanistan...

Capt Clueless: I don`t know if you`re deluded or stupid...surely even the most frikking deluded paki couldn`t have believed the whole t-shirt thing...if the t-shirt thing was an attempt at propaganda, you missed the memo..the idea of propaganda is to get the enemy to fall for it...not yourself...

hamidm2 mian: `` bomb blast in Pakistan`s north-west city of Peshawar has killed at least 15 people - mostly policemen including two senior officers........ i think it is about time you did some introspection under your gariban instead of looking under the bed for imaginary foes ........ stop playing the victim - it is pathetic .......``

to the best of my knowledge, pakistan had never experienced suicide blasts, prior to it joining the US GWOT........the local shia-sunni terrorism has always been drive by shootings or bomb explosions....never suicide bombings......

........these suicide bombings are all a product of pakistan aimlessly joining the battle that americans should be fighting, on their own.....i have never quite figured out why the rest of the world has to get involved in every war the usa gets into......is it ethically mandatory that all countries participate in wars the usa wants to start?.......why do such wars get labelled as, ``global`` wars.......

........its kind of like the, ``world`` series,`` and, ``world`` championships in the usa......the usa plays sports internally, yet the finals are called world series in baseball and other sports.......even though no other country is participating!!

.........ditto on wars........pakistan got involved in a usa war against ussr in afghanistan earlier.......and look what it did to pakistan......drugs, klashnikovs, taliban, madrassah culture, etc..............now it has jumped onto another one......and this phase includes suicide bombings in major cities........

its about time, pakistani policymakers realized that they should only concentrate on battles that pakistan is directly involved in.....let the palestinians and iraqis and americans fight their own wars......america has created a mess for itself, due to its support for israel and of arab dictatorships.......let america fight those wars.......

this isn`t a global war on terrorism.....it is an american war on terrorism.....all other countries are only becoming targets, if they join this war......why not just stay away from it.....since terrorism is being committed by usa and al-qaeda........why join either side?.....

Dear nasah:

Thanks for your correction also. I understand what you mean.

In fact, I started publishing at Chowk after I had published a few articles at Secular Web. The editor at Secular Web was very demanding and wouldn`t accept any article for publication unless it was thoroughly reviewed first both for content and composition. One of my articles was reviewed by a professional philosopher.

But I am quite receptive to positive suggestions.

``Haiy justjoo keh khoob sey haiy khoobtar kahan```

With regards,

Mohammad Gill

``wasiq:
Thanks for your advice. I`ll invest more time to write the articles.``(Dr. Gill)

Dr. Gill -- let me `correct` you too -- you could have written the last sentence as:
I`ll invest more time to the ``the placement of articles`` -- from Chowk to somewhere else.....:)

wasiq:

Thanks for your advice. I`ll invest more time to write the articles.

Mohammad Gill

Mr. Gill
Though I agree with your argument, I find the writing here to be quite mediocre. Sorry to say so, but you may want a more fluent English writer to help you a bit with editing, particularly the placement of articles (which are missing in many spots) and quite a few phrases are marred by awkward sentence structures.

#96 by freethinker

Agreed Sir.

The Muslim world will resolve itself. It`s just that it doesn`t need to be taught what to do. It knows what to do. It has seen enough ups and downs to have determined what is best in any given situation. That`s all.

Cheers.

#97 by hamidm2

Hamidm, and I think it is about time you really started packing up ... as many others are ... to move to a safer place, which is back to Pakistan. Before Bush`s term is out (and it`s still a couple of years), he`s going to do what he has to do, and the Muslims will do what they have to do.

I gave you this advice before but you didn`t listen. Since then do you think things have gone better or worse? Then you thought the bunker busters are enough to do the job, and then a bit later you thought Israel will finish the job. But did it? Now it`s the shia/sunni thing as the Salvadore Option, but that won`t do it either. Nothing will.

So stop yapping and start packing.

Re: # 94

zeemax,

..... personally i think it is a stupid idea to pass any law that puts a limit on freedom of speech (as long as it does not incite violence against a group of people) ....... but even if such a law is passsed in the us it will only be used against the wild-eyed islamists and their suicidal followers - which is a good thing .......... in any case, how do you explain the shia-sunni carnage in the islamic world which has been going on long before the us appeared on the scene :

A bomb blast in Pakistan`s north-west city of Peshawar has killed at least 15 people - mostly policemen including two senior officers - officials say.
At least 30 others were injured by the explosion just as a Shia religious procession was about to start.

........ i think it is about time you did some introspection under your gariban instead of looking under the bed for imaginary foes ........ stop playing the victim - it is pathetic .......

zeemax:

I was born and lived in India for 12 years, lived in Pakistan for 13 years and have been visiting Pakistan now and then, lived in Nigeria for nearly 20 years and lived in England for more than two years. The world didn`t begin for me in the U.S. although it will most probably end here. I am trying to be quite objective in my outlook.

Read the title of this article (Last Gasp of Imperial Misadventure). I am not always supportive of the U.S. foreign policy.

I believe that the Muslim world can progress if it develops a constitutional system and adhere to it. If in Pakistan, the ruler has to be a military general, why can`t they agree on it and include it in the Constitution? They should develop a procedure to select such a head of state. I am sure you`ll not support it. Nor do I. Our problem is that we don`t have any system and don`t respect the rule of the law. To break the law and get away with it is a status of symbol in Pakistan.

Thanks for your patience,

Mohammad Gill

#91 by freethinker

Agreed.

However, USA`s system is one domestically, and quite another for the rest of the world. I think our perceptions diverge where since you reside in the US, the world begins and ends within the US, which is fine because USA is a self-contained world within itself. For the rest, USA is quite another story.

#92 by hamidm2

Hamidm, the holocaust denial law is not only in Europe but now being passed in USA too. How come you didn`t mention that?

As for beheadings and amputations and the rest, how many Muslim countries do that? KSA is not a good example because they`re kings. They can do whatever they want. I do not, repeat do not support harsh Sharia laws because I genuinely think these are outdated, and this is the area in which there must be Ijtihad. As an interactor said very validly on another board, that even Umar stopped amputations when the amputees were never able to rehabilitate and started lining up on Bait-ul-Maal. And to your knowledge, Hudood laws were only in force (other than KSA) in Pakistan introduced by your adopted country`s stooge Zia. One part of these has now been repealed, and others never carried out after Zia despite sentencings by the Sharia courts.

So do not kindly write off Islamists as some kind of barbarious ignoramuses.

Re: # 91

gill sahib,

.......... it is impossible to convince islamists that the reason they are miserable is because of fundamental flaws in their system of beliefs and values - it is much easier for them to blame the west ........... these people are like impotent men who beat their wives and kick their dogs instead of admitting their own inadequacies and seeking a cure ..........

Re: # 89

zeemax,

..... you are clutching at straws and you know it ........ there is a differnce between laws designed to protect innocent people from being slaughtered and those designed to protect the honor of an imaginary god and his long-dead prophet ....... in any case, even though i think the european laws against holocaust denial are silly, they cannot be compared to the barbaric hadood laws in islamic countries ........as far as i know, no one has been beheaded and stoned so far, and the one person who was jailed for it in austria was released after a few months ............ on the other hand, thousands of people are languishing in jails in pakistan for crimes against god and the imposter ........ and just yesterday saudi arabia threw 56 people in jail and deported many others .......... their crime ?..... they were ahmedis ........

......... so stop whining about the `injustice` in the west - it is downright silly !

zeemax: #89

Your point regarding holocaust is well taken. My point is that such exceptional things will occur from time to time and will be sorted out in due time according to the law.

There was a great deal of discussion recently in the news regarding the Black Muslim, Keith Ellison who was elected as a member of the Congress from Minnesota. The point of discussion was whether he should be allowed to take ceremonial oath on a copy of the Quran and not of the Bible. The debate was started by a neo-con. Eventually, Mr. Ellison took his oath on a copy of the Quran because it did not contravene the constitution, When I say that the western system is working, I mean, it is working on the whole.

I am glad you are following the discussion and raising some valid questions. I want to reiterate that I am not writing my posts to win points in any argument. I am hoping that my posts might open some closed minds which are allergic to the west.

All the valuable scientific knowledge resides in the west and that is the reason many of us come here to acquire it. I want to encourage my Muslim brothers to acquire this knowledge and improve it for our own benefit. This cannot be done by isolating ourselves from the west.

Mohammad Gill

#86 by ahmedmadani


Actually it`s no problem at all, as long as you can get a Mr. Durand to give the areas floating on oil to the people who love you the most ... :)

Gill saheb,

Excuse me for jumping in this fine debate. Your questions are valid and I expect Masadi Mian to answer these to your full satisfaction. However just one remark to keep things in perspective:

They (westerners) have abolished the blasphemy law.

.... and put in place laws which jail Holocaust Sceptics? Now in USA too? How do you justify that. I mean, it`s all about respecting or hurting the feelings of any particular community, isn`t it?

Continue please.

Rgds