Army and the President

#197 Posted by bulleya on October 12, 2007 3:56:33 pm


.......in any case, pakistan is in big trouble in the coming five to ten years.....it is destabilizing at all ends.


HAHA..how far we've come...less than 5 years ago you were telling indians to quickly hand over kashmir on a platter and make peace with pureland because pureland, with uncle sam's wind in it's sails, was on the rise and very soon it could afford to fuel the islamic terrorism in kashmir forever.


roses are red
violets are blue
the jihadis you created
are now beheading you.

majmudar/dost-mittar/zeemax/hamim2 mian#:.......one should never get into an offensive battle, unless one is 200% sure, one will win it.....

based on this, the worst battles to get into are against civilian insurgencies, in areas where the insurgents have popualariy...one need not be a great historian or critical thinker like hamdim2 mian to understand this point.....

.....in the past many decades there has been perhaps only one insurgency against civilians that has succeeded (british against malays?)....these are not my words, these are the words of the only sane politician left in usa, i.e. bill clinton.....

...from the algerians agaisnt the french, the vietnamese against the americans, the pakistanis against the bengalis, the indians against the kashmiris, the soviets against the afghanis, the russians against the chechnyans, the americans against the iraqis and the americans against the afghanis, can anyone name a single war against civilians, where the invading or occupying army(s) have succeeded?

at best, for them, they have accepted decades of stretched out insurgencies requiring hundreds of thousands of troops (india in kashmir, usa in iraq), or have lost outright (soviets in afghanistan, pakistan in bengal)........

....based on this, how in the world will pakistan win in waziristan.....this is made more difficult by the fact that the country (and members of the military itself) are totally against it; unlike the case of indains in kashmir.....

.......so, if one is in a losing offensive battle, that is never going to end, the morality of it being wrong or right becomes immaterial.......what is the point of being in a losing offensive battle?.......none whatsoever.....

.......this brings up the question: if ordinary mortals like myself can see the above, and can predict the loss of such battles even before they start, then why cannot individuals with much more experience in military strategy, like rumsfeld, bush, cheney, musharraf, ashfaq kayani, and hamidm not see this.......why are they on the forefront of cheering on every such battle, with total disregard to the embarrasments they face when their ideas are defeated.....

.......the answer is quite simple.......they are pushing an ideological or personal agenda.......they know they are going to lose such battles and wars, but realize that any small victory will increase their personal position, even if it results in long term losses for their countries.......with the remote chance that if they do end up winning then it will be of great personal advantage to them.......

.......bush cannot get out of iraq, even though he knows he has lost it, because it would be political suicide.....musharraf wants to remain in waziristan, because it keeps him on the good side of the usa and of the western world (and of the powerful israeli lobby).....and at the moment, he has calculated that the advantages of being on the good side of the usa, more than couterbalances the loss of popularity in pakistan.......

.......in the short run, these attacks on waziristan may earn musharraf five years in power.......however, in the logn run, they will destabilize pakistan, because they go against pakistan's majority opinion, and because such attacks bring in counterattacks, i.e. they result in explosions inside pakistan........i was to have a meeting in a building, which was two miles away from the explosion that took place which blew up the army bus a few months ago....

.....so pakistan needs to turn this miltiary conflict into a political conflict.....if for no other reason, because it will lose the military battle, or will be drawn out into a decade long battle, much like india in kashmir.......

.......as for orthodoxy spreading in pakistan.......it will only happen if pakistan keeps bombing waziristan and they become more and more popular, or if pakistan govt. tries to push ata-turk down pakistan's throat.......as i have been saying, pakistan is neither an orthodox nor a secular state of people........

.......in any case, pakistan is in big trouble in the coming five to ten years.....it is destabilizing at all ends.....when people (like hamidm2 mian) start cheering violence (be it in lal masjid or in waziristan) as the means of solution of a problem, the country is in trouble.....

its about time, pakistan stopped fighting usa' wars.....it made this mistake during the soviet occupation of afghanistan, to a great loss to pakistan.....and is doing so again.......in both cases pakistan has (or will be) left holding the bag........

pakistan has survived for 60 years, with tribal area folk not causing any trouble in pakistan.......it can continue the same way........let the americans and waziristanis fight it out and bomb each other.......pakistan should remain a neutral party........both usa and waziristanis need to have their heads examined in this conflict.........

Sorry, Instead the last para should be:

Furthermore, for the sake of a casual reader, masadi is asserting that one tries to destroy (or co-opt) a popular movement by inducing a leadership that one can control (directly or indirectly). IN SUCH A PROCESS OF INDUCTION THE MAINSTREAM MOVEMENT GETS (VOLUNTARILY OR OTHERWISE) TAINTED WITH THE PUBLICIZED CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LEADERSHIP. This leadership need not necessarily be 'jihadist'. So his theory is more general than what it seems from his statement.

Masadi:

"When you coopt a true people's movement from the true resistance and lay it by hook or crook (with great outside support) on the feet of those that least deserve to carry the label (i.e. the Jihadists) you end up mainstreaming the fringes."

This is a great observation. But it is also very subtle. Its validity (or feasibility) may be contextual and needs to be butressed through emperics. I doubt chowk interactors will reflect on it seriously because of the time-pass nature of chowk. If you want chowkies to see the importance of this observation you need to hammer on it day in and day out. Put it forth from different angles and through simple examples (perhaps even where an example is an article bt itself). I believe that the Iranian case fits in, more or less, with your observation .... Afghanistan?

Furthermore, for the sake of a casual reader, masadi is asserting that one tries to destroy (or co-opt) a popular movement by inducing a leadership that one can control (directly or indirectly). This leadership need not necessarily be 'jihadist'. So his theory is more general than what it seems from his statement.

#180 Posted by cliftonbridge

figuring out your gender is the first step for me before I respond to your posts.

its good to see you still comprehend some desi words despite your total slavery to the white man

post#191:

I did not mean to address that post to myself but to tahmed sahin. lol!

dm#183:

Context samjha karo, tahmed saheb. The comparison had been made between the insurgencies in the two countries and the armies fighting them. Here, there is no similarity, your India-Pak same-same mantra, notwithstanding. There are a lot of BJP supporters in India, its army and, indeed, here at chowk, just as there are jihadi supporters in Pakistani army, public and here at chowk. But unlike the Pakistani army which is fighting the jihadis, the Indian army is not fighting the BJP supporters in India but its enemies.

#189 hmmmmm...monkey-man..er..I mean amreekan slangwala babu arjun... is trying to do logic...ha! ha!

Monkey-man wisdom for today: The world thinks BJP is the same as GOP. And macaca arjun is an amreekan because he can say american slang (or so he thinks) like "put lipstick on a pig".

inbred retard: modi is in the BJP, the BJP isn't modi.

o gaandu arjun agar US BJP ko GOP samajhte to taire hero Modi Ko Visa deny nahi karti

HP writes "I think the point that I made is still not clear to Asadi. Let me try it again. You cannot let a country (be it Pakistan or any other) fall in to the hand of these criminals."

I got your point very well the first time what is unrelated to this point is your support of the (miserable)FerozK position that will ONLY strengthen the Jihadists, just like the US occupation force (Pak Army)'s action in Waziristan. When you coopt a true people's movement from the true resistance and lay it by hook or crook (with great outside support) on the feet of those that least deserve to carry the label (i.e. the Jihadists) you end up mainstreaming the fringes. So, look at the bigger picture, if the farce US war on terror proceeds unabated it will require a few countries to come under the influence of just such forces (the Jihadists) that the US purports to fight while strengthing them by their policies in order to get a war without end; therefore we must combat the farce to take away the life support of these parasites. The (miserable) FerozK's advice is more of the same BS that Bush & co have been practicing and it has done more to strengthen than weaken the Jihadists- that my friend is a fact and more of the same will produce more of the same...that was my point.

Now to the "bigger of the two evils". When a force like the US occupation force (aka Pakistan Army) is so deeply entrenched in Pakistani institutions, whichever way they are overthrown and a new "force" or "farce" comes to dominate, it is inevitable that they will not be so deeply rooted and so much easier to support. Regarding the Taliban they emerged after a whole history of vesting the mujahideen and their farce unto a nation with great outside support which continued throughtout the Taliban era thanks to the Pakistani regime(s). Without this history and support those fools wouldn't have lasted much longer. I for one do not support the US interference in or invasion of Afghanistan and what exists now in that country is hardly a poster-child for why the Taliban needed to be checked....

#183 Posted by tahmed32 on October 12, 2007 7:17:45 am

prophetboy: nobody outside your paki echo chamber buys the comparison between the BJP and the taliban supporting islamofascist MMA that rules half of your provinces. the world, outside of pureland, regards the BJP as something like the GOP.

While Pakistanis are busy being drama queens, India is moving ahead...Not picking quarrels over claimed injustice with the rest of the world..but rather joining the rest of the world in the real battle - the battle to make sure our grandchildren will have a better life, or even a planet to live on....Indian scientist wins Nobel Prize for work on global warming (personally, I think Al Gore deserved it more, but the Nobel Prize is not above practical considerations, notably encouraging Indians and Chinese to join in the real battle by recognizing those working to this end in India or China).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7041747.stm

dm: the main difference between hindu fanatics and muslim fanatics is that the former stick to bullying minorities within India and are too cowardly to take on anyone else (note the way Advani changed his tune when Pakistan showed in 1998 that it was not easy pickings like Babri masjid).

dm #175 " believe that there is a lot more support for the jihadis in the Pakistani army personnel and the public "

the comparison should be with support for hindu extremists in india (not support for kashmir separatists in india)- and given the popularity of BJP in India relative to the poor showing of their counterparts (i.e. religious parties) in Pakistan, I think your beliefs do not tally with the reality.

zeemax #174 see #181 below - this is why the rule of law is so important, and i hope you see my point now. and now you can educate hamidm and urstruly. And they can educate two more. And so on and so on until we have reached out to every last Pakistani, i.e. general "i am above the law" musharraf himself. "No general left behind" should be the motto.

hamidm #168 write if the desertion occurs on the battlfield, the the nicety of a court martial is not necessary ..........

I hear there is a vacancy for you now that Alberto Gonzalez, who held similar views, has left.

"If Jihadi take over Pakistan, I would be the first one asking for independent Sindh and would seek assistance from any one who is willing. At that point, I would ask the Indian army and if needed, the US army in to the country."...

In a fit of schizophrenia altaph paiyee has already asked india to rescue him from evil pakistani's....and now GA sindhi's are singing the same tune ...alchohol must work the same way on pakistani cerebrums regardless of ethnicity.

yesterday I posted and article about old mcPaki and his vegetable patch. Now the article's link is gone. Of course, they forgot to delete the actual article.direct link

Re: # 173

This is an interesting take - i.e they are criminals.

So is this a gigantic law&Order Situation? When did it become one?

Personally, I think nothing much will come out of it - this is all a play to confuse the Yanks in afghanistan, so that pak army does not do anything - and the surrender of the army personnel is real funny.

All of the guy who gave up the fight were people escorting Supplies. So along with the soldiers, all of the SUPPLIES Vanished. Come on guys are you seriously wanting the world to buy this story! The Pak Army and the Estblishment is upto its ears in mischeif, and is supplying the taliban and the Al Qaeda this way.

This is, to paraphrase sadna, another ruse by the Pak army, another form of blackmail and subterfuge.

But hey its a great charade!

zee, dash:

Thanks for the answer. I'll check the link.

#171 Posted by hamidm2 ,

hamidm no. Dr. Israr is not my guru. I think he's way too far-fetched, almost delusional. Though I do admire his commitment, but that's about all.

majumdar#123:

I agree with you regarding the strength of the Pakistani state and the army and its ability to withstand the jihadi threat. But I do not believe that your comparison with India holds. I believe that there is a lot more support for the jihadis in the Pakistani army personnel and the public at large than exists in the Indian army and public for the Kashmiri insurgents.

hamidm, tahmed32

"Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct" ......... if the desertion occurs on the battlfield, the the nicety of a court martial is not necessary ..........

How's that any different from my favoured beheadings? It's just the guy on the other side ... no?

I think the point that I made is still not clear to Asadi. Let me try it again. You cannot let a country (be it Pakistan or any other) fall in to the hand of these criminals. That creates a situation where all have to put hands together to eliminate them. At that point, mere political or non lethal options are not going to work very far. After controlling a country, these criminals or Havayoon will have state power behind them and would be hard to remove by just diplomatic actions.

Taliban would still be leading the Afghanistan. It was only an outside force that removed them from the power. It is like no amount of diplomatic persuasion was going to work against the Nazis.

There is a thread in some deranged leftists and progressives that these jihadi are nationalist and they are fighting for the national rights under Islamic ideological umbrella, far from the truth and a very opportunistic intellectual construct. These Jihadis have no idea what nationalism is and they don’t represent the emerging capital in the countries they are operating. How could anyone in Pakistan call these criminal the champion of the national rights and capitalism? They are against both.

It is not the Pak army that has chosen to fight them. Havayoons were given ample opportunity to take their fight to Afghanistan but they chose the tribal area because they want Islamic Emarate of Waziristan there. In a situation like this, I can’t blame the army for attacking its own citizens because the army did not start this and has been circumspect in dealing with them. (This possibly could be a game by the Pak army to bring the US armies in the tribal areas. We will deal with that when we cross that bridge.)

#166 Posted by dost_mittar

Do Pakistani army regiments have distinct ethnic groups? especially are Punjabis and Pashtoons in separate units? I would suspect that it would be advisable for the army not to send Pashtoons to fight in the tribal areas.

Dost, may I refer you to Ayaz Amir's article of today in Dawn.

It is titled "Advantages of a ‘peasant’ army".

This will answer your question.

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/ayaz.htm

Re: # 167

zeemax,

... thank you ! ........ i don't think your, and dr israr's, wet dream will ever come true, but thank you anyway for the kind thought ........ i couldn't believe the bug-eyed idiot's ranting on ary yesterday - the man actually believes that the whole world will be conquered by forces riding out of waziristan ! ........ is he your guru ?

#165 Posted by majumdar,

For instance the Indian Army has been fighting insurgency in J&K for 17 years and Nagaland for even longer..

Oh I see now where the difference in the Indian perception and the Pakistani perception lies re insurgencies.

India is what .. 27 provinces? Pakistan is just four. NWFP and Northern areas bordering FATA control practically all the water, and most electricity. Punjab being neighbour understands Pushtoons better (and vice versa) than anyone else and will go with them. There's no question about that.

Pakistan is not India. Pakistan is very small in comparison.

Re: # 166

DM check these pages out for your answer

(a) Punjab regiment http://www.regiments.org/regiments/southasia/inf-pak/punjab.htm

(b)baloch http://www.regiments.org/regiments/southasia/inf-pak/baluch.htm

(c) Frontier force regiment http://www.regiments.org/regiments/southasia/inf-pak/frontier.htm

(d)Azad Kashmir Regiment http://www.regiments.org/regiments/southasia/inf-pak/azadkash.htm

(e)Sind Regiment http://www.regiments.org/regiments/southasia/inf-pak/sind.htm

(f)NLI regiment http://www.regiments.org/regiments/southasia/inf-pak/northli.htm

(g) SSG http://www.regiments.org/regiments/southasia/inf-pak/ssg.htm

(h) Presidents Body Guard http://www.regiments.org/regiments/southasia/guards/pak.htm

It makes interesting reading

also see http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/ for a more detailed information on the development of the army and recruitment situations (current one)

Re: # 162

tahmed,

......... i am not calling for anything ........ military law calls for execution for desertion in time of war ....... article 85 of the us uniform code of military justice reads: "Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct" ......... if the desertion occurs on the battlfield, the the nicety of a court martial is not necessary ..........

#162 Posted by tahmed32,

Well said ... but I have a soft corner for hamidm for some unexplained reason. I'm sure I can save him when his head is on the line. Maybe he'll say 'Thank You!'

zeemax:

Do Pakistani army regiments have distinct ethnic groups? especially are Punjabis and Pashtoons in separate units? I would suspect that it would be advisable for the army not to send Pashtoons to fight in the tribal areas.

There was a distinct unease among the Sikhs in the Indian army at the time of Operation Bluestar, for which Mrs. Gandhi chose to use Sikh generals. Even now, some friends in the Indian army tell me that the Sikhs in the army now do their soldier's duty but without the patriotic fervour that they used to have before the army attack on the Golden Temple.

Zeemax sahib,

(They just want to defeat the Pakistan army in FATA. However, as a result, Pakistan will fall into anarchy and the alternate forces to anarchy will fill that vacuum.)

I dont see that happening. Even in the worst case sceanrio, Pakistan Army will keep fighting a endless hard to win battle, probably end up giving up large swathes of territory in NWFP without losing control over the main urban centres of NWFP let alone the rest of Pak. For instance the Indian Army has been fighting insurgency in J&K for 17 years and Nagaland for even longer, it hasnt stamped out insurgency there and the state's writ is missing in many districts but India has yet to collapse.

I see a similar scenario unfolding in NWFP EVEN in the worst case.

Regards

zeemax #163 there is no power vacuum in pakistan. unless you ignore the elephant in the room - namely, the world's 6th largest army (i think).

#160 Posted by majumdar,

Bhai ... for the enth time .... they DO NOT want to take over Pakistan. They just want to defeat the Pakistan army in FATA. However, as a result, Pakistan will fall into anarchy and the alternate forces to anarchy will fill that vacuum. And those forces are certainly not democratic, as you've seen what the opposing democratic forces are worth in Pakistan, despite tahmed's admirable longings.

hamidm write the soldiers who are 'surrendering' should be executed by firing squad without a court martial

it must be some kind of terrorist bug in the water of the great lakes - first McVeigh blowing up government buildings (complete with child care center) in the name of God..then Urstruly calling for bloodshed in Pakistan from a safe distance...now Hamidm calling for firing squad without court martial from a safe distance...

#153 Posted by zeemax on October 12, 2007 4:31:58 am


The slogan of Pakistan army is 'Jihad fi Sabil-Allah'.


So what you're saying is that the surrender monkeys are, well, surrendering because they're not sure they'll get their 72 virgins..after all, the other guy is playing for allah's team too...

Zeemax sahib,

(I think Romair has already given his view in a previous post I read on some board. That this war is un-winnable.)

Read that. I am willing to accept the fact that Pak Army may not be able to defeat the havayoons decisively in W'stan but what I am contesting is the reverse position- the belief that the havayoons can defeat the Pak Army and impose an Islamist regime there.

Regards

Re: # 156

majumdar,

.......... romair's military background is as suspect as his credentials as a canadian citizen, international businessman, political pundit, infotech guru and gigolo ...... for god's sake, the man was a grease monkey in the air force ! ....... romair is to the military, what masadi is to the academia ..

.... the soldiers who are 'surrendering' should be executed by firing squad without a court martial - they are traitors, plain and simple ....... and the wild-eyed jihadis should be wiped out once and for all, even if it means genocide - these people are a burden on god's earth and if you let them live they will come back to kill you one day ..... babar had the right idea when he constructed his towers of chopped off heads as he came through this area

It may be that in other lands
Good men are to be found
But they are few and far between,
I know, among Afghans.

#156 Posted by majumdar,

I think Romair has already given his view in a previous post I read on some board. That this war is un-winnable.

Zeemax sahib,

Re: #153

You have a point there. In any case even if it had not been trained as an Army of God, still Pak Army would have had qualms about the operations becuase all national armies are taught to defend their borders not quell insurgenices and fire at their own citizens. I am sure the Indian Army people face the dilemma in Kashmir and in NE.

And especially in FATA, the Pak soldiers face an even greater dilemma. They are firing at people who share not only a passport but also the same faith and in case of Pushtoon soldiers common blood as well. And as u rightly say till recently the soldiers would have been accustomed to treating the jihadis as comrades fighting for God.

So it is no surprise that the morale of the troops is poor. But is it poor to the extent that a widespread mutiny would take place? I think not. Isolated acts of mutiny, disobedience yes outright collapse, no.

But it would be really nice if someone here with a military background, Romair for eg, cud shed some light on the matter.

Regards

#151 Posted by jayp

Jayp Yaar,

Zeemax, ... The surrender seem to be a reasonable thing to to do rather than being slaughtered.

A convoy of 280 with 20 vehicles including armored ones being slaughtered by how many? A thousand? Actually reports are it was just a bunch of teenagers on high ground.

The troops were on a supply mission and it is reasonable that they did not have any heavy weapons.

You must be joking. Enemy troops in Waziristan on whatever duty without a heavy weapons escort?

According to the report, they were stopped by the tribals, possibly in valley and their senior officer went to negotiate, and it took 4 hours. By that time it was dark, and the tribals told them that they were surrounded, which tunred out to be around 30 tribals according to what they have told.

Nice tale. Yes I heard it too :)

A night fight in a valley, where the troops are in their vehicles, is not win situation, with better terrain knowledge of the tribals. Hence the senior officer told them to surrender. Quite a reasonable step.

LoL !

#146 Posted by tahmed32.

tahmed, this part:

Don't believe everything you hear. The Officer has to make some justification.

#147 Posted by majumdar,

Majumdar, listen. I have said this before. The slogan of Pakistan army is 'Jihad fi Sabil-Allah'. The entire Pakistani military training doctrine including Kakul Academy for commissioned officers is based on Jihad as motivation and the Shahadat as the ultimate aim of warfare. There is huge confusion now as to who is conducting Jihad against whom? Both sides are 'Jihadis'. There's a problem for the media whom to call Shaheed and whom to call Jaan-Behaq.

The rift with the Lal Masjid began initially over their Fatwa during the first army operation in 2005 calling on tribals not to give army men an Islamic burial. Not many people take into account this fact.

Then you have to see the former illustrious military men still around. Mirza Aslam Beg is openly supportive of Jihadis. Of-course you know Hameed Gul who himself is an active Jihadi. All of them reflect the foot-soldier's dilemma in what they were trained to fight against, and whom they have ended up fighting ... i.e. their own ..

Consider ...

majumdar #150 no doubt military morale has been hurt by musharraf's trying to use the military to further his personal ambitions. but it is a stretch to say that islamists are taking over pakistan.

low military morale has probably tied musharraf's hands already on cracking down on the "enemy" he fears more than a bunch of cd-burners, namely the civil society of Pakistan represented by the mainstream political parties. but that is a good thing for the cause of democracy in Pakistan.

Zeemax,

You are too stuborn in your version. The surrender seem to be a reasonable thing to to do rather than being slaughtered.

The troops were on a supply mission and it is reasonable that they did not have any heavy weapons. According to the report, they were stopped by the tribals, possibly in valley and theor senior officer went to negotiate, and it took 4 hours. By that time it was dark, and the tribals told them that they were surrounded, which tunred out to be around 30 tribals according to what they have told.

A night fight in a valley, where the troops are in their vehicles, is not win situation, with better terraib knowledge of the tribals.

Hence the senior officer told them to surrender. Quite a reasonable step.

Tahmed sahib

Re: #146/140

Zee sahib has a point about the captured soldier. If he is one of the 280 solider captured in one shot. That surrender appears to be more of a defection rather than surrender. I may be wrong though.

Regards

#140 zeemax: no one talks lightly about dismemberment with aerial bombs as you talk about chopping off of heads.

#140 Posted by tahmed32,

btw - chopping off of heads simply demonstrates animal-like behavior ....

And being dismembered with aerial bombs doesn't?

Zeemax sahib,

(All it will take is a military rebellion.)

You are right. But the kind of mutiny that you are envisaging isnt the easiest of thing- armed forces have fairly strong discipline. And for that mutinies don't happen every now and then at least not in modern armies. My opinion would be that a mutiny is a remote affair. Of course I am no expert in military affairs and it wud be nice if Parag or Romair could throw some light on this matter.

Having said that the collateral damage that is taking place in FATA is very sad and I hope someone will sit down and sort things out.

Regards

zeemax: how does that post relate to what i wrote about the captured captain?

#140 Posted by tahmed32,

See below my post to jayp.

Partitioning pakistan,

The scenario is simple. Jihjadis take over pakistan, the world denukes pakistan. The pak airforce is destroyed. There will be civil war, the remainig pak army dominated by the punjabis retreat to punjab. The army splits along ethnic lines.

NWFP joins afghanistan. Kashmir becomes aprt of india. Sindh is independant and may be some part of punjab as another country.

The TNT meets its end and the region lived happily ever after.

zeemax: and tribals were fighting armies centuries before lal masjid and will keep doing so until the government ends their tribal rule through force and introduces local elections as in the rest of Pakistan. so what you are seeing in the tribal areas is not the takeover of Pakistan by tribals, but perhaps the end of tribal rule.

#129 Posted by jayp,

Yes that's what the Lieutenant Colonel said ... surrounded. That was 280 heavily armed troops. And surrounded by how many?

Don't believe everything you hear. The Officer has to make some justification. The military command knows what happened therefore no efforts to rescue them.

"chopping off of heads "

that is the jihadi trait and signature.

Indeed glorying in a bath of blood is something out friend relishes!

zeemax: i saw a bbc interview of a military captain held by the tribals - and the man was totally unfazed by his situation, and calmly told the reporter that the military would free him, either through negotiations or through force. Hats off to this brave soul, and I hope he is freed. Dont talk of head chopping so lightly, btw - chopping off of heads simply demonstrates animal-like behavior and nothing more.

#131 Posted by majumdar,

Actually an Islamist Pakistan is very foreseeable in not too distant future if things continue like this. All it will take is a military rebellion. What Jayp quotes from a Lieutenant Colonel in custody is a good indicator (Thanks Jayp!).

majumdar bhai: you have a point there (about pakistani dictators remaining in power until pushed out). so, i'll exclude zeemax's statement from the list of drama queen statements i put together.

HP writes "Asadi actually I agree with what Feroz wrote in that article. I too believe that all the jihadi and fanatics supporting Jihadis should be quarantined until they are completely detoxed!"

It is quite unfortunate that being a smart and "moral" person you'd support the thoughtless rant of the miserable FerozK. What he is suggesting will not take care of the "evil" you talk about, it will ensure that those lands get a concentrated dose of a problem that the Americans have created in our lands. It will ensure that this farce the WOT is fed and nurtured. It will not end the US/Jihadi game, and the greatest suffering as a result of this barbarism of so-called containment would be to our people, and the greatest beneficiaries would be the US elite, not the US people at large. That is what Bush wants when he talks about fighting them there and not at home and that is what Feroz wants because his first priorities lie with supporting the US and its perverted system rather than the needs of the people of Pakistan- something that is quite clear not only by this point but by the general tone of his article.

Now, you will quite agree with me if you stop and think about it that you came to this agreement and conclusion not because of any intellectual thought you put into this particular point but because you are biased against (maybe for good reason) the Jihadists, their image and their doings are not very pleasant and those of us who have had the bad fortune of dealing with some of them in our lives know that all the more. However that is no reason to abandon the truth and confront those who have created conditions for this evil to fluorish in our lands. Holding the entire Muslim population hostage in an "arc of instability"- i.e. imprisoning them for all real intents and purposes, because of a few among them- a frankenstein of the US creation is not only inhumane it is barbaric and does absolutely nothing to fix the situation, rather it adds fuel to the flame that makes these Jihadists even stronger-i.e. mainstreams the fringe

Tahmed sahib,

Re: #133

Agreed.

I was just talking hypothetically about the havayoon overwhelming the Army and then the US not allwoing a takeover. But as u rightly say, Pak Army/State will never come to that stage.

Regards

#130 Posted by tahmed32,

You quote majumdar "There is no need to be so dramatic or pessimistic." Majumdar can be forgiven for making this statement my friend, but not you. Perhaps, none of you is aware of the scale the events have deteriorated in the entire NWFP, not only the tribal areas. Aerial bombardment by PAF has made things worse than 1971.

And remember what triggered the whole affair ... Lal Masjid!

When will Pakistanis learn?

Zeemax sahib,

(coal is the MOST expensive to extract and use being very low quality, and the only ones are Chinese to build these plants )

I dont know about the cost of extraction but in terms of quality Indian coal is exceptionally poor ( 45% + ash content) and BHEL boilers run extremely beautifully with this kind of coal (availability factor of close to 90% for 500 MW sets)

Tahmed sahib,

(Musharraf will be firmly in charge...till a cataclysmic event removes him)

I dont think Zee sahib is being dramatic here. History is with him, Paki dictators remain firmly in charge unless a war happens or an assassin bumps him off.

Regards

majumdar #131 you write it would either never allow an Islamist takeover

i see that you are deviating from your own advice (as quoted by me in #130) a bit. Islamists will come to power only if the military allows them - they have no chance in elections. and the military isnt about to let a bunch of CD-Burner jokes telling it what to do.

Re: # 122
HP for a measured man, you seem to have hit a rather rich vein of pessimism in this post.


Its the question of who will bell the cat?

I donot think the population of pakistan led by the elite has the will to do so - since this particular cat has been the goose which laid the golden eggs (pardon the mixingof metaphors here) so far. Actually, what the population and elite thought was a goose is actually a rabid man-eater....

IMHO, pakistan needs a complete and total sea-change of elite - a managed change will not help nor will it help. The the only ones who can do it with little pain for the population is the Army - hence you see the elite squeeling like little pups. It is a bad sign that the likes of BB and Shareef-e-badmash and other riff-raff are making a comeback.

Tough call for pakistan, but nevertheless it has to make this call.

Zeemax sahib,

I agree a Sind separation from an "Islamist Pakistan" will be a very messy affair. Having said that though I have to say that an Islamist Pakistan is an unlikely event to begin with.

First, of all the havayoons are not strong enough to defeat the Pak Army/Pak state which for all its weakness is still a formidable force. A few ambushes and a few suicide bomb attacks notwithstanding, they are unlikely to be able to overwhelm the GoP.

Second, It is quite unlikely that the USA will allow an Islamist govt to form in Pakistan. For a simple reason- Pakistan has nukes. If it didn't have nukes, US wud have looked the other way. But having nukes, it is quite unlikely that US would look the other way, it would either never allow an Islamist takeover or even if it does it will ensure the removal of WMDS and secession of Sind and Baluchistan (to provide access to Iran) before allowing an Islamist takeover of remainder of Pakistan.

Regards

I think urstruly's drama queen performances on chowk have inspired others on chowk:

hamidm: this beast must be exterminated in its cave
pardesi: I am afraid we will be fighting these wars in western cities before full power is used to save the evolved civilizations.
HP: If Jihadi take over Pakistan, I would be the first one asking for independent Sindh and would seek assistance from any one who is willing.
zeemax: Musharraf will be firmly in charge...till a cataclysmic event removes him

What majumdar writes to HP applies to all of the above: There is no need to be so dramatic or pessimistic.

Hamidm: these tribals have been picking off the odd convoy, kidnapping the odd soldier, from armies since the days of Alexander, the Brits, and in the 1950's, 1960's. The only thing that has changed is that a handful of arab and central asian thugs have spilled over from afghanistan are taking advantage of their hospitality - and so have directed world attention to the tribals. And musharraf is now doing some larger scale fighting to show just how necessary he is to the world - and thus try to hang on to power (granted this part is conjecture, since no one can read a man's intentions - but it certainly would fit in with his past actions).

zeemax,

At last teh truth is out. As you said, teh troops did not surrender because they refused to fight. They were surrounded and overwhelmed by teh tribals, classic bangladesh situation, and the indians are waiting for the niazi to stand up.

Again the captured troops beleive that they have been abandoned becasue no relative of a general or politician is among the captured, this is according to an officer among teh captured.

So much for the pak army.

Ferozk 111,

At last there is one open supporter for my views. Islam will have to be contained and putting fences around is the first step, and will have to be followed by economic containment. Already trade is getting restricted, pakistan in the textile sector has been reduced to exporting of raw materials as the manufacture textile products in pakistan will require technology transfer and uncreased interaction with the consuming societies. I know of many who do not want to travel to pakistan for business matters as pakistan visa on passport is a lot of hazzle.

There will be aslow steady decline in islamic societies like pakistan and eventually jihadis will take over, as they will attribute the decline to the western expolitation.

The next most likely even will be defanging of pakistan, korean option, the proven libiyan option or the last the iraqi option.

#126 Posted by majumdar,

Majumdar, HP is not talking about a negotiated secession from an Islamist Pakistan. He is talking about a 'hostile' seperation even with Indian help. In that event, do you think he will have any lower riparian rights?

As for electricity, he can forget about Iranian Gas because that will pass through Baluchistan coastal control which Punjab would have annexed far before HP lays eyes on it. As for coal, yes he can use the Thar Coal for power plants if he can find financiers to build some since it this coal is the MOST expensive to extract and use being very low quality, and the only ones are Chinese to build these plants who will only side with Punjab (i.e. which will then be the Pakistan) with whom its interest will continue to lie!

Zeemax sahib,

(HP, you do that and you will have to irrigate your irrigable lands (whatever remain) with bottled water from bharat ... and get electricity from batteries imported from I dunno where ... LOL!)

Dunno about the water but can explain where they will get the power from. The Iran-Sind-India pipeline, Sindhis will collect the transit fee and that should pay for the gas they will need for their power plant. Sind has a lot of coal too in the Thar Parkar region I understand.

About the water I am not too sure but as a lower riparian they will certainly continue to have some rights on the Indus Valley waters just as Pakistan continued to have the same after Partition.

Regards

HP Sain has gone completely insane agreeing with people like ferozk who do not have a clue about what this conflict is all about ... wanting to separate Sind ... contain Islamists in NWFP ... Haha ... LoL.

HP, you do that and you will have to irrigate your irrigable lands (whatever remain) with bottled water from bharat ... and get electricity from batteries imported from I dunno where ... LOL!

Forgot the 'Lower Riparian'? And the province which can't even keep its main city Karachi alight without begging for half of its daily requirement from WAPDA which in turn gets it from Tarbela which is in NWFP? LoL ... Haha.

But I guess you forgot all of the above in your 'peenak'. Actually, the Islamists have you and your friends by your balls ... and you know it. :)

Bhai, this conflict is NOT about Islamic ideology. It is about foreign occupation of Afghanistan which is only another country in you liberals' puny dumb minds but the SAME country for the FATA tribals (they don't give a rat's ass about Durand Line). They're fighting for its liberation and you apostate Pakistanis are killing them (and their schoolgirls, and their old and young) for their doing that. This is totally unacceptable for them. Their terms of staying loyal to Pakistan since the very outset mandate NO Pakistan army inside their territory. If you send it there, they will kill your army. Period.

Secondly, the larger conflict in the rest of the Islamic world (Terrorists? Fundamentalists?) is also not about Islamic ideology. It is all about resisting the projection of US military power in Muslim regions to maintain the US single political & economic system, which is considered by large segments of their populations as exploitative.

Islam is an alternative politico-economic system to the US type Capitalism, PLUS a huge motivating force in the rationale for violent Jihad. That's why the resistance has taken an Islamic form. However, religion was never either the initiator nor the raison' detre for it to begin with.

This fire will not be contained, but will soon spread to your city main squares and shopping malls. Where will you hide then? The only people to blame will be your types who ddidn't listen in arrogance while there was still time.

But I have discovered since long that it is impossible to explain things to libero-fascists. It is just much easier to behead them! :)

#114 Posted by Urstruly Re: # 110 zeemax

I can only sympathize with your nievette.

Urstruly, thanks for your sympathy. However, the 'hope' in those 5 points was just to the extent of getting a favorable verdict from SC for tahmed32 who feels strongly about the 'independence of the judiciary', and not for me :) I know what's going to happen in either event - verdict or no verdict. Musharraf will be firmly in charge without uniform if there's a favourable verdict, and with uniform if it comes against him. Same same ... i.e. till a cataclysmic event removes him.

HP sain,

There is no need to be so dramatic or pessimistic.

(If Jihadi take over Pakistan, I would be the first one asking for independent Sindh and would seek assistance from any one who is willing. At that point, I would ask the Indian army and if needed, the US army in to the country.)

IF, IF, that is the operative word. It is not going to happen period. Yes, the havayoons are going to create a fair deal of chaos in the medium term, ocasionally waylaying and kidnapping soldiers in W'stan. And once the Army gets its act together and they will find soldiers rather difficult targets, they will resort to random acts of violence against unarmed civilians- suicide bombing et al. But if their aim and belief is that they will takeover Pakistan they are in for a nasty surprise much like jihadis in Kashmir. They will find the state of Pakistan a much tougher target than they had reckoned.

Yes there will be some violence on both sides and lot of innocent casualties, but they are not getting anywhere.

Regards

Asadi actually I agree with what Feroz wrote in that article. I too believe that all the jihadi and fanatics supporting Jihadis should be quarantined until they are completely detoxed!

What those Jihadis have to do with Muslims at large? They are criminals and if any country supports them or for some reason they appear to take control of one or more countries, I am all for confronting them with whatever means.

If Jihadi take over Pakistan, I would be the first one asking for independent Sindh and would seek assistance from any one who is willing. At that point, I would ask the Indian army and if needed, the US army in to the country.

These guys are criminals. Now you can say the US is criminal too but I guess sometimes things come down to selecting the lesser evil.

We sure can talk about the WOT being fake but Jihadis are real. They maybe playing someone else's game but they play these games in the most dirtiest way possible.

#120 hamid

Real enemies are liberals/Democrats who would not allow you to contain the "beast". I am afraid we will be fighting these wars in western cities before full power is used to save the evolved civilizations.

Re: # 115

masadi mian,

i fully agree with ferozk's statement that "United States will have to create a cordon of containment around the Muslim nations, along the “arc of instability”, from Morocco in the east to Pakistan in the west and not allow Islamic militancy to break this cordon of containment. " ................. because if we don't, who will ? ...... this beast must be exterminated in its cave before it gets on to the streets of the civilized world to threaten our way of life ....... it is better to kill them in mirali and miran shah than fight them in islamabad and lahore .........

......... my only quibble with george bush is that he is not being tough enough ........

HAHA..growing vegetables...figures...what else are these guys going to do...can't get back kashmir...growing vegetables is better than surrendering to the tribals and getting your throat cut in the process..

47 Army officers strike it rich
by selling off plush farmhouses

By Rauf Klasra

ISLAMABAD: As many as 47 officers of the Pakistan army who were allotted big farmhouses in the suburbs of Islamabad by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) at throwaway price for growing “vegetables, orchards and poultry” have quietly sold off their 310 acres of prime farmland at exorbitantly high price. The market prices are in the range of Rs100-200 million per acre depending upon on the location of the farm.

The CDA has submitted the names of these army officers to the Supreme Court of Pakistan along with 499 top guns who own 2500 acres of prime farmland worth Rs75billion.

General Pervez Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz too are among those powerful people who now own these plush farmhouses.

At the time of allotment of these farmhouses, these army officers were shown as the interested parties and individuals keen to grow vegetables, orchards and poultry products, in line with the CDA’s policy, for supply to the residents of the twin cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad. These farms were allotted to these military officers in the farming schemes in Chak Shahzad, Orchard Scheme Murree Road, etc. But, after getting them allotted at highly subsidized rate, these officers later sold these farms at market rates to earn massive profits.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had directed the CDA authorities to submit a report containing the names of all those who were given land at throwaway prices for growing vegetables. The CDA has now submitted the list of these 499 big and influential people who have converted these big farms into residential palaces. The Authority too is blamed for changing the byelaws to accommodate the high and mighty of Islamabad to give legal cover to the otherwise massive irregularities committed in the name of growing vegetables and orchards.

#114 Posted by Urstruly on October 11, 2007 10:49:18 am


he is killing their women and children already using airforce on 24/7 basis.


Wonder if the PAF's token women pilots are involved in the bombing..you know..you posted their pictures..

Good night everyone, later...

Hamid writes "you are a quitter - you couldn't hack it in the land of opportunity where the son of an illiterate man from domeli (my sprinkler guy) managed to go to hbs and then you got fired from preston university in gowalmandi ."

I am no quitter, I am a free man, and free men don't play by the status rules of an enslaving society and so they are punished. I was not fired from any University, and Preston is the alma mater of FerozK, don't associate it with me. Can't you see the infantile level of his comprehension and reasoning not to mention the extremely low level of his morals (as revealed by his covering up of his lies). He is not alone in this, all supporters of dictators and all enemies of the people have similar low morals. That they can put together two or three complex english sentences that have little worth as meaning does not mean they are either "intellectual" or "accomplished".

Re: 111 ; The problem with this miserable FerozK is that once he is caught in his own stupidity or ignorance, instead of owning up to it and saying, yes I was misled, I did not think about my recommendation that it would infact be rank racist and quite barbaric, he comes up with more absurdities to cover it up. Remeber the time when I proved to all here that a certain 17th amendment was illegal and hense totally within the functions of the SC to judge it thus, he says "who will amend the illegal amendment" and other such BS.

Here is the URL of his dimwitted article in which he is kissing the feet of the Americans, trying to appease them while at the same time being barbaric in his recommendation regarding the Muslims and the Muslim countries:

The Long War: Rethinking American Options in the War on Terror By Feroz R. Khan (where the R stands for Royal Liar)-
[http://www.chowk.com/articles/10780]
And here is the famous quote about putting Muslims in continent wide prisons, his "arc of instability"-

He writes : "As mentioned earlier, the United States will have to create a cordon of containment around the Muslim nations, along the “arc of instability”, from Morocco in the east to Pakistan in the west and not allow Islamic militancy to break this cordon of containment. The best way to guarantee the sanctity of such a zone of political quarantine of the Muslim world would be by applying a consistent political pressure on it and if the situation warrants, to employ military force to keep Islamic militancy and agitation bottled up inside the nations of the “arc of instability” and not allow them to infect the nations outside of this area of containment. "

Now think about these words and what he has written. What he has written in fact is a round about way of stating what Bush has been stating all along: It is better to fight them there (because them there the people are like cockroaches that can be killed at ease and made the playing field of the Islamists) than to fight them at home (because the home front is "superior")

This is what this miserable Ferozk is stating in a nut shell and HP, I don't know why and how thinks that this peon of the West will in someway help the Muslims and the people of Pakistan and the Third World....ain't gonna happen...

Re: # 110 zeemax

I can only sympathsize with your nievette. This is Pakistan we are talking about and a vicious dictator who will not hesitate a bit killing school children if he has to. Given the number of school children he has killed, it turns out that he has been eating one school child in the breakfast everyday for the past 8 years.

The plan is very simple. If the verdict comes against him. He will impose Martial Law (as if it is not the case today) for 2-3 wks. dissolve the constitution and SC. And then seek the new oath of judges under a "new" fukked up "constitution". Who is there to stop him? tribals? he is killing their women and children already using airforce on 24/7 basis. Political parties and moulvis are in his pocket and people do not trust them. Media and lawyers make some waves only because they are groups. An ordinary citizen will be kidnapped and disapperade by the agencies. Western propaganda machinery and governments want this vicious dictator imposed on us at all costs. I think the rule of Dajjal is having an absolute chokehold. People of Pakistan are left on their own. I would say, jaisa moonH waisee chupaiR. It is none other but us who have disrespected the gift that Allah had given us 60 years ago. When we had time to get rid of bastard children of East India Company i.e. NaPak fouj we didn't.

Zeemax #110 Thanks for the signs of hope in Pakistan, and I am always bullish on Pakistan. How can we lose we we are so sincere? :-)

Regarding the CD-Burners of Islamabad: If the alternative to musharraf was these pathetic individuals (who can only destroy, and are incapable of building anything other than hot air and brutalization of any poor soul unfortunate enough to fall into their hands), then most reluctantly I would have to admit that even a tin-pot self-absorbed general like musharraf is better than these losers.

Fortunately, the alternative to Musharraf's Demockery is not Mullahcracy or even BB or NS's Broken Crokery. The alternative is what I shall call "YLH ka Pakistan" (in honor of YLH, with whom I dont agree on his focus on historical personalities rather than concepts, but nevertheless whose vision of a peaceful, progressive Pakistan guaranteeing basic freedoms to all is what makes sense). And inshallah, YLH ka Pakistan will, sooner or later, replace Musharraf's Demockery and that have in place. Or even NS/BBs Broken Crokery if it should take over for a few years. No one is going to rule over Pakistan other than Pakistanis themselves.

re: Mantolives

I did not comment on this article before as I was caught up with work, and felt, that this article deserved time to be completely read and understood.

This article was brilliant and I think you are the first one to have brought up the possibility of the legal precedents, which the events seem to be establishing in Pakistan. Your conclusion were very insightful given that Pakistan was created on the traditions of the British representative government.

I am afraid that the consequences of the events of 2007, will become too expensive to afford in the years to come and the generations, after us, will pay a very heavy price for this new legalism in our history.

Will this be new the "doctrine of necessity" in a legal bottle?

Ciao

re: masadi # 94

Stop misquoting me out of context and in fact, you have an enfantile level of comprehension. Below are the paragraphs form the article and what I was arguing is that the United States will have to MILITARILY contain MILITANT ISLAM BEFORE DEFEATING IT'S POLITICAL MESSAGE AND NOT THAT MUSLIMS, AS YOU THINK, SHOULD BE PUT INTO CONCENTRATION CAMPS.

THE ARTICLE IS SAYING THAT THE BEST APPROACH TO DEALING WITH MILITANT ISLAM IS A POLITICAL PROCESS AND NOT A MILITARY ONE!.

You have totally failed to understand the article, which was a submission to my old college professor, on the question to define the goals of the United States' foreign policy in the war on terrorism. This paper, was presented as a "working" paper to debate the US foreign policy (in a conference which was recently held in Utah) since Septemeber 11, 2001 and was basically refuting the idea of United States' use of military force to solve political problems and not supporting it.

Now read the line "arc of instability" in context and not out of it, as is your habit.

"Therefore, it is incumbent upon the political process in the United States to favor such a policy and adopt it by removing from such a future policy any ambiguity of any particular political ideology, which might be ascribed to it. This policy cannot be subjected to the whims of partisan politics in the United States, and both the Democratic and Republican parties must support a consensual agreement on this policy rubric, which represents the sovereign interests of the United States, against the political ideology of Islamic militancy. The underlying rational and need behind such a political requirement is that as the “long war” endures, the scope and the frequency of military actions will give way to an increased political influence, because given the duration of this conflict, if this war is to be successful, would argue that military force will be used resist militant Islam occasionally while the war would be fought generally on a political battlefield. In a significant sense, with far reaching consequences, the role and influence of politics and military power will have to be reversed and instead of the military logic dictating the politics of fighting this war, as it is presently happening; politics must dictate the logic of using military power in fighting this war.

As mentioned earlier, the United States will have to create a cordon of containment around the Muslim nations, along the “arc of instability”, from Morocco in the east to Pakistan in the west and not allow Islamic militancy to break this cordon of containment. The best way to guarantee the sanctity of such a zone of political quarantine of the Muslim world would be by applying a consistent political pressure on it and if the situation warrants, to employ military force to keep Islamic militancy and agitation bottled up inside the nations of the “arc of instability” and not allow them to infect the nations outside of this area of containment. The key to the success of such a policy of containment and defeating Islamic militancy and its ideological philosophies, would be not to allow it to expand beyond the cordon of containment by keeping it under a political and military pressure, and once that is done, the internal contradictions in political Islam will start fissuring and the political threat of an Islamic militancy will collapse on the account of its own internal weaknesses. The most salient flaw in militant Islamic philosophy, which the United States must exploit, is that Islamic militancy draws its ideological inspiration from politics and not from Islam itself and this exploitation can be achieved through the application of military power and political influence designed to identify and discredit the political message of militant Islam by exposing the hypocrisy of its ideologically religious claims and showing them to be non-Islamic.

Once the United States adopts such a policy and it is articulated and implemented as the expression of the United States’ foreign policy objectives, it would mean that the United States will have to pay a more detailed and nuanced attention into the domestic dynamics of the Arab and Muslim societies. In this sense, the United States’ policy makers and its political leadership will have to understand and learn to appreciate the reality that Islam is not a monolithic religion, but has many political, cultural, social and ethnical variances, which allows for the existence of a plurality of antagonist opinions in Muslim nations. The sub-textual reality of this fact is that whereas, the Muslims might agree on the holistic message of Islam itself, they might not necessarily agree on its interpretative explanation. The experience of Islam, as a religion and as a cultural and social motif of life in Muslim societies differs accordingly and therefore, this difference is the sum of an evolutionary process of how Islam has been able to develop and fuse itself into the cultural, historic, social and political milieus of the lands and societies, where it developed its religious roots. It is imperative that the United States’ policy decision-makers understand this distinction, because the realization of this distinction will allow the United States to tailor its policies in a subtle manner and it would also impress upon them the futility of using military power as a “skeleton key” solution to their political problems.

As mentioned earlier, this struggle which the United States is waging against militant Islam will be a political struggle, because the United States will have to understand the myriad opinions of disagreement that exist in Muslim societies. The first logical step in this process will be for the United States to review its military policies, because the continued use of American military power, against an asymmetrically weak opponent, will be self-defeating for the United States in a strategic sense. The asymmetrical military superiority of the United States actually helps to foster a sense of grievance in the Arab and Muslim societies, which groups like Al-Qaeda employ to continually justify their armed struggle against the United States. Ironically, the overwhelming application of United States’ military power in pursuit of a political goal, is actually fermenting a sense of injustice amongst the Arab and Muslim populations and the failure of the United States to perceive this policy flaw has only helped in legitimizing a perceptional analysis in the Islamic world that the United States’ policies are against Islam and even more worse, that the United States is using its military power to destroy Islam as a religion.

Consequently, the continued use of military power by the United States will simply reinforce this perception in the minds of the Muslims and the strengthening of this perception; will only confer upon Islamic militant groups, such as Al-Qaeda, legitimacy for justifying their ideas of an armed struggle against the United States. Therefore, the bitter experience of the last five years of an armed struggle against militant Islam, in Afghanistan, Iraq and in Pakistan, concludes that United States needs to review its policy options, because it is in the interests of militant Islam to seek a prolonged military confrontation with the United States; not in hopes of defeating it, but using it as an raison d’etre to validate its own political cohesion and importance as the flag-bearer of the Muslims’ struggle for justice and respect in the world. The United States must be willing to accept the fact that militant Islam cannot, and will not, be defeated in a military sense but only though a political sense. Only a political approach towards fighting militant Islam offers the best option of removing the sense of injustice and victimization, which exists in Muslim and Arab nations due to the use of United States’ military power or the employment of such a power by the allies of the United States in the “global war on terrorism”"

I know, as is your habit, you will claim to have refuted my arguments and being the judge and the jury yourself, you will claim to be right in your arguments and you will, as ususal, insult me and call me names such as "ignoramus" or much worse.

Ciao

P.S.: Yasser et al, sorry for this longish post, but this gentleman is insufferable and his interacts do not lend themselves to a reasonable discussion of topics and I am sorry for using the "caps".

#104 Posted by tahmed32,

You have reason still for hope. Consider the following:

1) Attorney General Malik Qayyum says if the verdict