Wag the Dog

re rishi

rishi, your analysis is on target.

the pakistani govt has, predictably, done nothing in response to the violation of its airspace. and in response to increasing right wing criticism, announced its 15th ammendment plans. as if...

Saima

I`m sorry but you have not (understandly `cause there are about 50) read all the replies.

Lets get some facts straightened out:

I have not said anything about Khartoum because I do not know enough about the history/politics of that region to be able to draw any sort of conclusions.

I have (neither has the US) also not said anything about the Taliban. Outside paksitan, I`m not sure how many countries even have diplomatic relations with any govt. of sorts from Afghanistan. Even the UN, RedCross, PeaceCorps were pulled out at one time. They were being attacked and killed. Osama Bin Laden is not affiliated with the Taliban.(at least not officially, unless you know some inside stuff :-) stop..before you flame me, its a joke :-). he is a Saudi banished from Saudi Arabia. There are a ton of other such merceneries from all over the world who make up a lot of these ``holy warriors``. Whose cause are they fighting for anyway ? A lot of these people are probably regular gundaa outcastes in their own countries. These foriegners have no reason to be in Afghanistan. They just capitalize on it being war torn and in a state of flux.

But still if the Taliban wants to tolerate them it is really upto them. The taliban, afterall, is made up of native Afghanis.

But when these miscreants attack people in other countires. that is a declaration of war. They have no business killing people or for that matter even being in any other country meddling in their affairs. Not once have I said anything or taken sides in the India/Kashmir dispute in this matter. In any case, foriegn killers have no place in the dispute.

Re: fair trial

YOu talk of war criminals being brought to heel, the war here is still being fought. If the Taliban were to stand up and take steps to prevent terrorists from operating on their soil I am sure the ``rest of the free world`` would have no problems.

See societies are based on common interests. One of them being nobody wants to be a victim of mindless terrorism. Almost every country in the world condemns terrorism. But since these terrorists operate from another country your local laws and means of bringing serial killers/murderers to justice do not apply. THis is war. THese people attack innocent people.

As far as ``I have asked this question elsewhere in Chowk and ask it here again; why is it that the fundamentalist muslims in Afghan target US?. Why don`t they attack other Western cultural symbols/countries too?``

HUH.... Lets see to date they themselves have claimed to have operated in Kenya, Tanzania, India, Bosnia, US, Turkey, Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia.

They are terrorists and war criminals.

You talk of political solutions, who should represent them politically. The Taliban. Pakistan, officially, does not want to acknowledge these camps and their operating through Pakistan. But they have always apprehended people and extra-dited them, at least with the US. Ramzi and Odeh were both arrested in pakistan. I can understand the official stance, though, they do not necessarily want to get involved. They would much rather be innocent bystanders rahter than tie up their lives and money to stop someone who doesn`t necessarily perceive them as an enemy. However, for countries under attack this is no less than war. How do you negotiate with a non-negotiator ?

You talk of repression and blah.....

I am confused, who is repressing who ? Would you say Osama is being opressed by Saudi Arabia ? Or are they repressing the Afghanis ?

regards

Ashish

Ashish,

Thank you for a stimulating argument:)

Point well taken, the 30 casualties of the 75 missiles as well as the khartoum factory were respectively plotting bomb strikes and chemical warfare. The USA is not responsible for anything. The same sort of people are creating trouble in Kashmir. India is not to blame. These people should be bombed because everyone knows they are extremists.

Is this what you mean? If it is than I have the following to say:

1. There are many other types of terrorists/serial killers/bad people. They get a trial in any civilized society. Even the German war criminals get a trial. The reason they get a trial is that people want to make sure they punish the right people. Since everyone is not witness to the crime, evidence has to be collected and examined.

2. I have asked this question elsewhere in Chowk and ask it here again; why is it that the fundamentalist muslims in Afghan target US?. Why don`t they attack other Western cultural symbols/countries too?

I will repeat, that in my view BG is not justifying the actions of the Taliban. To justify would be to exonerate from responsibility or to vindicate. I think what we are all trying to do is to address the question of justice; and BG is saying that we need to see what practically needs to be done to address terrorism. Also that terrorism is not an act in isolation but has many causes behind it which need political solutions rather than military. If I may add; remember the apology Clinton made to South Africans for apartheid?. I feel that this apology can be avoided 100 years later if the problems of Afghanistan are dealt politically.

I understand that you feel that external factors are to blame for the suffering of peope of India and USA. I appreciate your concern for innocent people. But, I will again say that retaliating in kind and worse, will perpetuate terrorism and not cure it. Repression is never a long-term solution for anarchy.

Regards

re ashish (again)
As Bulle Shah said,``....aiwain laddaa shaitan de naal bandeyaa, kadi nafs apne naal ladeyaa nahi``

``...you keep fighting with this external devil, yet you have never confronted the devil within``

hey, i can say it for you, for bill clinton, for the US for anyone. this doesnt really support you argument.

as a rule, i love sufi poetry, but if i am being moralized to, it`s not that pleasant.

re ashish

really ashish, you are jumping to huge conclusions here: i dont think of anyone as a kafir. lets try and not make any assumptions that are not warranted by what is being written. ;0)

re rishi
terribly sorry about confusing your name with ashish`s in writing even though the difference between the two of you as participants in this discussion is very clear in my mind. its all a part of dashing off replies in a hurry when i am supposed to be working!

re ashish.

you asked me what i think is the way to get rid of terrorism and that is why i said the US, if it is serious about getting rid of terrorism, must seriously and truthfully question its own policies in the middle east. by the way, you had no response to what i raised were problematic US policies in the Middle east.

if you think this constitutes condoning and justifying the bombing of civilians by militant islamic groups, then that is your reading. i am not implying that at all. of course, the guys who bombed the US embassies in kenya and tanzania are responsible for those acts. however, there are complex forces at work that make such ideologies and organizations attractive to a handful of muslim youth (remember there are over a billion muslims worldwide and these militants do not represent the entire muslim community). Futhermore, bombing them back IS NOT THE ANSWER. by suggesting that the US`s missile attacks are okay because they will get rid of these terrorists, YOU are supporting state terrorism, which is as bad as any terrorism in my book.

the US`s targetting of two muslim countries is just going to be perceived by the supporters of bin ladin and other muslims who might be on the fence, as yet another display of US arrogance, bullying and and victimization of muslims.

please stop twisting my words around to attack me for views i do not have. lets either stick to what`s being talked about or move on.

regards.

Re : All

To bring the article back into focus, I do agree with SR that the US President`s action is indeed a stroke of brilliance. But then the option was always there. Even clinton could not have ignored it.

Apart from the Yankee syndrome, it does spell disaster for the world community.

How can the US violate the boundaries and sovereignities of two countries (Viz., Pakistan and Afghanistan ) . Is it because one has a lackey government and the other is pretty weak in international affairs ?

The US action is justifiable (that is to go after the terrorists ) but then the method is not . Probably they should have persuaded the Afghan government to hand over bin laden to a world court or even gone through the Rambo approach. They could have even persuaded the weak kneed Pakistani government into helping them out in these scores. However Bill chose the more colourful approach for his own personal gains....? It was amazing to see Madame Albright changing her stance and that of her father in terms of relations with the Middle East though she does do the mandatory sugar coating when referring to Muslims a la Bill.

The interesting scenario awaiting to happen would not be Bin Laden`s (is the spelling right BTW ?) response (every one knows what that would be. A few more American business establishments blown up with more of Asian and African casualities, there might even be one in the KFC joints in Pakistan killing Pakistanis than Americans -- wonder how that would be perceived by some of us over here ---) but that of the Pakistani Governments. All said and done America did violate Pakistan too. Akin to disrobing a woman before raping her friend.

BG

The US did not target Muslim countries. They targeted terrorist training facilities/camps that are churning out killers.(read this in any newspaper)These killers have no respect for humanity. They respect no borders, and they wage war with whoever they like, wherever they like. These people were cold-blooded killers even when they operated only in Afghanistan and the average Afghani citizen felt the brunt of their crazed, irrational and senseless killing. They do not represent any country. There relationship to the ruling Taliban is not even clear.



Yes, these Islamocentric killers do not represent the entire Muslim and, thats why I do not (and neither did the US) hold the entire Muslim world responsible for their acts. You have to look at each incident objectively. THe US`s unfair policy in Israel, its unfair policy in Iraq/Kuwait has nothing to do with its decision to bomb Afghanistan. They all have their distinct, albeit self-righteous reasons. Likewise these terrorists (and you) should not see all those separate incidents as an attack on Islam or the entire Muslim community. Right.

You, however, argue that Americas unfair policies in some other Muslim countries brings about Islamocentric terrorist attacks on them, thereby justifying them. The reason I never got drawn into discussions about Israel, Iraq, etc. was because I was trying to stick to the topic here.

The burning question however, still is how do you deal with these crazed, cold-blooded killing machines who do not respect the laws of any other society but theirs. And they come and attack you on your soil. For a poor country like India, there is not much choice. They just send more people to the borders to try and curb them. However, America has more resources. It can remotely bomb their training facilities and freeze their finances. Its a question of choosing the lesser evil.

THe fact that they commit these heinous crimes in the name of religion, should hold them in contempt of that religion and humanity. Your ``tolerance`` of their acts amounts to SUPPORT of it. You make excuses for their behaviour instead of condemning it.

As for the poetry bit, it applies to all the Islamocentric people who refuse to see these people for what they really are, but instead see this conflict as Islamic victims of the ``arrogant and bullying US``.

``...you blame the evil US for your problems, yet you never confronted the devil within which makes you kill (anybody) in the first place``.

You do an amazing tap dance when you do not have the answers. I am calling myself a Kafir, nobody else is.

Why don`t you stick to the topic of discussion ?

re: Saima

You may need to re-read some of what I am writing. I am shedding light on the situation in Afghanistan and how it got to where it is today and providing the underlying causes for such an air-strike. It has nothing to do with Islam, or Capitalism for that matter. Its about what do you do when there is a killer on your door step who insists on coming in and killing you.

regards

Ashish ``the kafir``

Re : BG

Hey, Time out Maam. Is there some confusion about names and pseudonyms here. My views don`t necessarily correspond with Ashish.

Re : SR

I do appreciate your view. I shall do my bit to keep the focus of the article. A needless and unrelated reference to India and Kashmir triggered a needless and unrelated answer.

Re : Amin Saleh

You said :

Does India have problems in Hyderabad and Junagarh because of fundamental elements?

Reply :

Ofcourse, we do have sporadic bomb blasts by muslim extremists in Hyderabad. Even one recently. Also in southern tamilnad, Coimbatore an industrial town was recently bombed by muslim extremists who incidentally amount to less than 5% of the population. Even if my observation is wrong, still my statement about borders with pakistan being the root cause of the strife in kashmir is pretty much justified.

you said :

1) Canadian Constitution does not allow separation

2) International law does not allow separation

But:

If there is a substantial majority (which its been indicated by PM to be 67%) then the Federal Govt should sit down with the separatists and work out the conditions of separation.

Reply : You might be right . However my question was different . How would the canadian government handle the situation when a foreign power is instrumental in fomenting trouble and the whole situation is thrust under the barrel of a gun and not under parliament.

You said :

The UK government sat down with the IRA to work out the terms of defusion of tension.

Reply : a bad reply buddy. The UK government is only speaking with the IRA. They don`t even guarantee autonomy for Northern Ireland as India has done with Kashmir.

re: BG`s name

Personally what matters to me is what BG writes and not how pretty her name may be. What`s in a name?

Re: the latest reply by Ashish

I think you must re-read some of the posts on this article. the author is NOT saying that terrorist bombings are justified. ALL BG is doing is viewing the matter in its longer-term effects and searching for the underlying causes of such an out an out arbitrary action.

Re: SR

I am appalled at what is termed political brilliance but that is neither here nor there. I am more appalled at the nation who accepts such action as protecting its security. I think US citizens are more vulnerable all over the world now. First the leader embarrasses with Lewinsky then he bombs a country/group which quite certainly are capable of retaliating. Does this mean that Clinton is pretty sure that the Taliban won`t retaliate becasue they are not terrorists? That`s a slant I want to understand more.

Saima

Isn`t she giving justification of why Islamocentric people in Afghanistan want to attack the US (read an excerpt below)



BG writes

`` if the US is serious about attacks against its citizens, then it has to question why those who attack the US attack it. these terrorists dont attack canada or norway, for example. what is it about the US that is so `evil` in their eyes? ``

`` because of oil in the middle east, the US has, what i will call (again) indefensible policies in the region. foremost, its blind support of israel in the face of a global consensus against the illegal occupation by israel of 3 of its neighbours. secondly, the US`s active support of repressive, corrupt regimes in the region, primarily Saudi Arabia. And, thridly, the illegal, immoral sanctions against iraq that have killed around one million people. ``

How would you interpret that Saima.

regards

Ashish

BG

Are you actually trying to make a case for these Afghanistan based killers by saying that they have reason to hate the US (because of the US`s foreign policy elsewhere), which justifies their killing of innocent people.

Pray tell me, how their killing people in Kenya, India, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc. helps fight the cause of the Palestinians in Israel, helps Iraqis fight sanctions.

On one hand you claim to subscribe to ``two wrongs don`t make a right``, violence doesn`t get you anything, but then you go on to say these people want to attack Americans because of what the US does to other Muslims in other countries. Come on....

But how can Islamocentric people group everything where Muslims are involved together.

My cousin was killed by an Afghani muslim. Does that give me the right to walk down the street and kill the first Muslim I see. Or do I have to become Muslim and then all of a sudden its okay. I`ll atleast have a bunch of Islamocentrics defending me on the web.

...Unbelievable.

`` Uth BG suttheya, duniyaa wekhan jaa,

je koi mildaa, unhaanu baksh de

te tu bhi bakshaa jaa``

re:BG

You may disagree with the initial sequence of events and how the US and USSR in their own Communism v/s Capitalism wars got involved. In a number of places all over the world for that matter.

That, however, is not the issue. The issue here is after the US and USSR pulled out, Afghanistan slipped into Civil War. You seem to be in denial of the fact that Afghanistan had lured an amalgam of revolutionaries, united by fundamentalist Islam, just as Cuba attracted a cross section of Marxist revolutionaries in the 1970s. The warring factions drove out 1/3 rd of the Afghani population from Afghanistan. Afghanistan could have recovered, but for these extremist groups.

Do you acknowledge this sequence of events ?

Each one of these groups, by their own admission (which you can confirm in newspapers) has been operating in countries from Turkey, Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, India, Bosnia and Chechnya. They respect no borders. In the name of their religion they make war with whoever they chose, wherever they chose.

You seem to completely condone this. Especially by calling it a war between Capitalism and blah blah. That war between Capitalism and the rest of the worlds many idealogies(I will elaborate in an artiucle at some point) is also going on but has nothing to do with this particular incident. This was dealing with terrorists. People with one purpose in life, kill in the name of God. I do not believe in ``eye for an eye`` which is much touted by these Islamic extremist, who actually make open threats and deliver on them. However, I must say that I have to chose between the 2 evils. If they do something in their own land thats one thing.

Tell me, BG, what do you do when they attack you on your soil ??

I know it is easy to blame your problems on other people. But, come on, after the US and USSR pulled out it was upto these people to chose their destiny. A lot of these were foreigners in Afghanistan, yet they drove out Afghanis.

As Bulle Shah said,``....aiwain laddaa shaitan de naal bandeyaa, kadi nafs apne naal ladeyaa nahi``

``...you keep fighting with this external devil, yet you have never confronted the devil within``

Its amazing how you don`t hold these people responsible at all. Just remember, today you may feel secure because these terrorists are fellow Muslims. But a terrorist, a killer has no religion, he/she is just a killer. To this day, every newspaper carries items about people from these ``terrorist universities`` making open threats in the name of God. Yet you refuse to even acknoledge this.

You hit a nerve with this article BG. My father worked with the UNDP for 5 years in Afghanistan during which time I went their a number of times. I grew up with a number of Afghani refugees who were in school with me in India. Each one had their own story of the problems in Afghanistan, yet not one was anywhere close to what you talk about. But then, again, thats why those people were refugees.

Lastly, FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL

Ashish and Rishi are 2 separate kafirs with separate opinions and views. Please respect that

:-)

regards

Ashish

SR,

okay. since i like and respect what you write so much, i cant ignore your request. this bad name is going to stay unless umair or safwan stop accepting things under it ;0)

and, thanks for trying to bring the discussion back.

regards

re shafqat and ashish

thanks for the suggestions shafqat -- i am considering them seriously :)


re ashish:
you wrote: ``Lets start with clarification of events:

- In the 80`s the Communist Soviets forcefully occupy Afghanistan. Afghanis rightfully resist. THey wage a 10 year long battle against the Soviets. The USA/CIA, seeing this as a threat to their ideology, wage their own war against the Communists by funding/arming the Afghanis. In fact , at one time you would get $100(at the time 50,000 Afghanis when the average salary per month was about 20,000) for firing 5 shells and showing proof that they were fired, leaving little incentive for anyone to do much else.

All the NYtimes articles you refer to are about this. I am not justifying this at all.``

okay, here`s the version that i have (and excuse me i dont have the dates handy)
late seventies, an elected socialist government comes to power in afghanistan. they institute pretty decent social reforms, including land reforms, education, etc. the US gets nervous and lables this govt. communist. the socialist govt. tries to water down its socialist rhetoric and makes many public statements asserting its distance from communism (in any event only the US and its brain-washed dimwits believe socialism=communism). the US starts supporting islamic fundamentalists, who are the most vocal opposition to the socialist regime. the USSR urges the US not to do that because they dont want to deal with islamic fundoes in their backyard. these fundoes are also anti-western. but, the cia sees it fit to support them. the cia-supported guerilla war results in politcal de-stabilization and changes in government. the USSR unwillingly walks in to support the new afghan govt (that is weaker and more repressive). the US lables this an invasion of afghanistan and there is full-fledged war.


Rishi (continued) ...``We get no comments from you. Apparently these people killing in the name of religion does not bother you.``

that is untrue. i have said it so often that violence perpetrated by anyone is something i dont support. please read the article and my replies.


Specific questions for you:

- How does the above sequence of events amount to ``Lackeys of Capitalism v/s fanatics,
merceneries`` ?

well, i dont agree with the way you have laid out the sequence of events, so it doesnt flow logically from that. in any event, it is my opinion. i happen to believe that the US govt. happens to serve, first and foremost, the interest of large corporations, over and above the interests of its own people and, definitely, the interests of the rest of the world. i have my reasons for believing that and can provide evidence to back it up -- do you want to get into that discussion?





Rishi: SECOND QUESTION

``- How do you deal with these terrorist universities ? You talk about education and non-violent means. I absolutely agree. But who do you hold accountable for that, or the lack of it.

They obviously have a defferent ``rule book`` than me or you claim to have. They are not uneducated,
in fact most of these terrorist universities attracted ordinary youth for religious studies. There education ideology is different.``

Rishi, i dont pretend to have all the answers, but the US`s terrorist and illegal response is not a solution. the US`s bombings have only made matters worse and polarized both sides further. if the US is serious about attacks against its citizens, then it has to question why those who attack the US attack it. these terrorists dont attack canada or norway, for example. what is it about the US that is so `evil` in their eyes? in the last couple of weeks since the bombing, i have not heard or read anything in the popular, mass media which has adequately addressed this issue. because of oil in the middle east, the US has, what i will call (again) indefensible policies in the region. foremost, its blind support of israel in the face of a global consensus against the illegal occupation by israel of 3 of its neighbours. secondly, the US`s active support of repressive, corrupt regimes in the region, primarily Saudi Arabia. And, thridly, the illegal, immoral sanctions against iraq that have killed around one million people. (and, please, dont assume i support saddam hussein; he is the worst kind of dictator. but the sanctions are not hurting him, only killing thousands of babies and civilians. in fact, because of the enormous misery and impoversihment caused by the sanctions, strong, organized opposition to saddam hussein is decreasing as people are too busy trying to survive.)

in response to your question who is responsible. well, that`s hard to answer. there are so many forces: governments, organized religion, corporations, politicians, and even ordinary individuals like you and me. if we sit back in the face of violence being perpetrated against anyone, then we are implying its okay. laws and rights are for EVERYONE, regardless of whether or not those whose rights are being violated are virtuous or agree with us or not. Its easy to defend the rights of people we like; the real challange is defending those we dont like.

ALL:

This article was NOT about the Pak-Hind rivalry nor about the Kashmir problem. The Chowk has a Forum where such unrelated matters can be discussed.

BG had expressed her outrage at the arrogance shown by a superpower and suggested that it (the bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan) was a cynical act by a president in a `Wag the Dog` spirit. Please lets keep that focus.

I personally feel that it was a stroke of political brilliance on Clinton`s part. A desperate and cynical act, but a brilliant one nonetheless. By this act he has managed to upstage his Republican foes and has gained (cheap) brownie points with the ignoramus masses. It was a win-win option for Mr. Clinton with hardly any down side (from a purely cold-blooded pragmatic point of Amerocentric point of view). The couple of hundred who may have died don`t have a vote anyway and chances are that some of them may have been killed of other causes before too long any way, so it wasn`t really a very unchristian thing to do either. The pastor of the First Baptist Church in Hope, AK, will surely agree.

Lastly, BG, please, PLEASE, P-L-E-A-S-E ...do not, I repeat, DO NOT give up your name. I don`t care that it is `Bad`, it has been established and should remain thus. This, of course, is just my opinion, its your name after all and you can do with it as you will. My point being that we are more interested in what you write and less in what you call chose to yourself.

Rishi

You said:

Even if kashmir does not share boundaries we would probably still have some fundamental elements raring their heads. However, the scale of terrorism would not be this big. It is so only because of the extent of pakistan governments involvement. Hope this clarifies the issue.

reply:

Does India have problems in Hyderabad and Junagarh because of fundamental elements?

You said:

You mention you live in Canada. If in Canada (a multi-cultural, secular, democratic country on paper) a certain town with a heavy population of Muslims started asking for a separate country, because their religion requires it.

reply:

Interestingly this question was posed to the Supreme Court by the Federal Govt.

(1. Does the Canadian Constitution allow separation
2. Does the International Law allow separation
3. Which of the two laws would prevail under a separation mandate)

The court came back with the following ruling

1) Canadian Constitution does not allow separation
2) International law does not allow separation

But:

If there is a substantial majority (which its been indicated by PM to be 67%) then the Federal Govt should sit down with the separatists and work out the conditions of separation.

The UK government sat down with the IRA to work out the terms of defusion of tension.

Why cannot the Indian Govt. sit down with the militant groups and discuss the possibilities of reconciliation. (Personally I don`t see a major change in the economic or social conditions for the Kashmiris whether they become independent, or join Pakistan or remain in India - whatever the outcome would be of those talks. But the important thing would be that hopefully both would move to a more democratic process and move to a more peaceful environment.)

Re : YsMallick

Brave and thoughtful words Mallick. Even though Indians had once stupidly supported the LTTE, they have now reaped the benefits of this association. As you say, it is pointless to involve oneself militarily with another country`s internal matters.

thanks for the clear thoughts

Bad Girl, Good Decision.

I hereby applaud Bad Girl`s decision to give up a pseudonym that was incredibly silly to begin with. Friendly advice: as you explore the spectrum of natural nouns in the English and Urdu languages in search of your new label, my humble advice is to consider for this purpose a catchy name with a humorous ring borrowed from the Pakistani film industry, like `Rani`, `Nish-show`, `Neeli` or, my personal favorite, `Resham`. Good luck.

Re : Upal

You write:

in a multiple words, the same as the following ``that the majority oppress the minority and then blame the minority for complaining ``

Reply : As far as kashmir is concerned, the majority (read Hindus ) cannot oppress the minority (read muslims ) constitutionally. If only there is no seccessionist movement in kashmir , then kashmir would have been a muslim paradise with hindus visiting it only for religious or tourism purposes.

You said :

This points out another curious flaw in Indian thinking and that is that differences based on religion are not important whereas those based on ``race`` and regionality are extremely important. My friend fundamentalism is fundamentalism, whether it is based on religion, race or region. Just because yours is based on regionalism (insisting on the ``sanctity of the borders of India``) doesn`t make it any more rational.

Reply :

I am sorry that your assumption is wrong. No i do not think that race or culture should be the basis for seperatism. If so, i would support Goa`s seperatism (christian homeland, with a vibrant portugese culture ) or the tamil seperatism (dravidian civilization and a seperate hindu religion with a seperate set of gods not prominent for the northies and different from the so called Aryans ) or the bengali or the manipuri and so on. No my friend, all that i am not talking for the rationale to be united, but the rationale to be seperated. Now that India has its borders, it is not appreciable for any of these regions to be seperated based on reasons such as religion, race or creed. If any regions wants to seperate , it should be based on oppression by the majority either culturally or socially or economically. In kashmirs case none of these exist. Actually to say the truth, a tamilian is more oppressed in the North of India than a Kashmiri in terms of social acceptance.

The only reason why kashmir is facing this imbroglio is because it shares borders with Pakistan. Even if kashmir does not share boundaries we would probably still have some fundamental elements raring their heads. However, the scale of terrorism would not be this big. It is so only because of the extent of pakistan governments involvement. Hope this clarifies the issue.

You said :

The last point is what I have been able to get out of my best Indian friends as well, namely, ``The country is maintaining a decorum of secularism because of its borders. Take Punjab and Kashmir, then what is the rationale for having a secular country``

If Canada truly became multi-cultural then Qubecors would not want to separate. I have the same advice for my Indian friends, ``to keep India secular is your fight, don`t hold Kashmiris hostage to that. If India becomes truly secular, democratic and free then Kashmiri Muslims would not want to separate in the first place. But holding Kashmiris by force and committing acts of violence against them can only result in a more violence prone and undemocratic society. Survival of India`s secularsim and democracy lies not in the use of force and torture but in promotion of freedom and human rights. I wish all the luck in your fight to keep India secular.``

Reply :

Thanks for your wishes. I understand and do appreciate the last paragraph of your answer. Now let us look at another hypothetical scenario. Let us assume that Quebec shares its boundaries with france and the french desperately want to annex Quebec.They find easy prey among the unemployed, disoriented youth. France trains these youngsters and inculcates a false sense of comaraderie and french pride. Add a modicum of french ex-convicts, zealots and ex-army men . A series of bombings, and terrorist angles and the canadian government responds. Soon the situation turns pretty messy with killings and counter killings. In a quick span of a few years most of the populace in quebec is either directly or indirectly affected by the insurgency and start developing a disorientation towards the canadian government. Not that the majority of quebec`ers want a seperate country now, but then they would not mind that atleast to end this mayhem. After all every family has been affected by the mess.

Now if Canada holds a referendum, Do you think quebec`ers would want to stay in Canada. ? And better still, do you believe canada will hold a referendum ?

Does this answer your comparison, my friend ?

Whom is to be blamed here, Quebec, Canada or France.? Whom is to blamed here again, india, Kashmir or Pakistan. ? Atleast in Quebecs case they had problems with French not being given prominence even in Quebec and with English speaking canadians settling in Quebec. Kashmir does not have these problems too.

Give India and Kashmir some time and peace. Things will quieten down and all the Fascist BJP, RSS organizations would be overthrown and we would have a non-communal government in power. Keep your side of Kashmir with Pakistan and do not indulge in any mis-adventures in Indian Kashmir. Let people live in peace for a change.

And let India be a vibrant country with 200 million plus muslims and a muslim majority state. Where then would the perceived Hindu threat which pakistanis are inculcated with come from ? On the other hand, if pakistan precipitates things, India would become a Hindu country with a minimal muslim populace with or without Kashmir..The sufferers would again be only muslims and these would be my own friends and brethen who are more related to me inspite of belonging to different religions than ever to you . A foresign of this happening is the rise of the BJP and the destruction of the Babri Masjid..... Hope sanity prevails.

( do remember that Religious fundamentalism affects the liberal people of the same religion first before it starts its reign of terror on other religions -- any doubts ask the afghani people )

After reading the article , I read all the 28 responses which were available. I am sorry to say that most of the responses condemn terrorism and fundamentalism but take us to the extreme without any solution. Some examples :- a) We Muslims should be united b) India is a democratic country which has free society c) It is Pakistan who is creating all the problems in Kasmeer. d) It is India who is creating all the problems in Kasmeer. e) Clinton is a great president f) Clinton is the worst president.

I shall try to say something about India and Pakistan because I know more about them than USA.

For me, when India trained LTTE, it was wrong. Whatever Pakistan is doing in Kasmeer , it is wrong.

But we see faults only in others. I fail to understand why India and Pakistan need nuclear bombs. Can t someone see that 80% of rural Pakistani women and 70% of rural Indian women are illiterate ? Can t someone see the plight of our small girls? Can t someone see these politicians looting state money and instigating factionalism, communalism and so many `isms` ? Let us put a full stop to this squabbling.

Let us respect each other`s religion. Let us have a rational look at our religions and our holy books. Let us stop adhering to those norms which were relevant when these books were written. Let us stop teaching bigotry and fanaticism in the name of religious education. Let us stop killing innocent animals in the name of religion. Let us stop treating women as second class citizens. Let us promote love marriages across religions , regions and castes. Let us stop treating Cricket match as a war between India & Pak. Let us make economics as one of the compulsory subjects. Let us write letters to all national & regional newspapers regularly on the issues which are of concern. Let us cast our votes in every election. Let us adopt family planning in our houses. let us .... List is endless.

Regards

Upal

you confuse me. What exactly is your point ? I can see you are not very pleased with India. But then everything else seems very muddled up.

In Kashmir their are 4 groups:

- people who believe in Kashmiriyat (Kashmir for Kashmiris, Hindu, Muslim , Sikh alike)

- people who believe Kashmir should become separate and Islamic, so out with all the Kafirs

- people who want Kashmir to become Islamic and join pakistan

- people who want Kashmir to remain secular and stay with India

Now who do your arguments aline with.

Does the one with the largest, bloodiest AK-47 win ? There is currently a democratic process in Kashmir which elects Kashmiris. Kashmir, in particular, `cause of concessions made by Nehru, has a fairly autnomous state govt. Now the extremists do not recognise this process. To this day nobody can even say what the percentage falls into each category. I am not sure how you claim to be a mouth-piece for all Kashmiris in saying that ``if India were truly democratic and secular then Kashmiris would have no issue`` . You cannot talk secularism to an Islamist. You cannot talk democracy to people who do not believe in it. If some people do not believe in democracy or secularism, oppose democratic elections by force. What do you do ?

You mention you live in Canada. If in Canada (a multi-cultural, secular, democratic country on paper) a certain town with a heavy population of Muslims started asking for a separate country, because their religion requires it. And actually broke the existing law of the land by taking up arms and killing innocent people.

- How would you deal with it ?

- How would a Muslim living in a separate part of the country deal with the backlash.

- How should the majority in the rest of the country deal with this ?

These are serious issues, which blind hatred cannot solve. In fact a lot of these problems are unsolvable.

What are you though. Your arguments do not seem to be consistent.

- Are you a secularist

- Are you a democrat

- Do you believe/understand the concept of ``separation of Church and State``

- Are you an Islamist who believes that Muslims should have their own nation.

All these ideologies are very different and are at odds with each other at most times.

regards

Ashish

re rishi:
``RE BG :


Hey a very objective answer. Thanks


``It is pretty difficult to maintain standards when it is terrorists that you are after. Hope the
NGOs in Kashmir do a better job in identifying gross violations of Human rights by the government
or the others. ``

i see we are on the same track, and i think what you point out is the real challenge: maintaining standards while pursuing terrorists. as i said earlier, if criminal, violent means are employed to fight terrorism by a state, then the state is also engaged in terrorism. and, on principle, if one is oppossed to terrorism, then one should be opposed to it no matter who perpetrates it.

furthermore, states often use their propaganda machinery and force to convince us that those who were killed were terrorists, or some such other despicable form of life. for instance, during the eighties there was a popular movement for democracy in pakistan, especially in sindh. the army/police would kill pro-democracy activists and tell the public that `dacoits` waere killed in a `police` encounter. so, you see, one has to watch out against state propoganda also.

re: ashish

thanks. i will get down to answering your questions soon. the reason i gave you references originally was because my responses threatened to be long and detailed. however, for this exchange to be beneficial, i will make the effort to respond as well as i can to the questions you have raised, even if it takes a few days. will that work?

as far as the pseudonymn `bad girl` is concerned: it was a very spontaneous decision to call myself that in the context of the first piece i ever submitted to chowk (maybe you`ve seen it -- good girls and bad postures?) wihtin that piece it made sense to call myslef that, but this name doesnt work well in other contexts, but i dont know what to do about that now. i will consult the editors.

till next time.

regards

Re: Rishi

Thanks for pointing out the differences between the British-Indian and Indian-Kashmiri relationship. I recognize that there are differences (but then I never claimed them to be exactly analogous). The only thing I wanted to point out by the comparison was the patronizing attitude that all majorities adopt towards all minorities. While killing them, maiming them, and torturing them they try to tell them that `we are going through all that trouble for your benefit.` The assumption is that the minority is imbecile and therefore the all knowing and purely benevolent majority has to take pains to decide all the things for the minority`s best interest. That is and has been the attitude of the oppressing majorities. That`s the only excuse an imperial power can have of holding people by force. As Nehru pointed out that the relationship between colonizers and colonized has to be ``that of herrenvolk and the master race, an idea inherent in imperialism.`` It is that attitude which is the source of all problems.

You write:

``let them ask for seperatism not on the basis of religion but on the basis of apartheid, then my dear friend that would be a valid requirement.

Try to comprehend the scenario first. When religion is used as the basis in the creation of a nation, then what else would you call it than fundamentalism.``

This points out another curious flaw in Indian thinking and that is that differences based on religion are not important whereas those based on ``race`` and regionality are extremely important. My friend fundamentalism is fundamentalism, whether it is based on religion, race or region. Just because yours is based on regionalism (insisting on the ``sanctity of the borders of India``) doesn`t make it any more rational.

The last point is what I have been able to get out of my best Indian friends as well, namely, ``The country is maintaining a decorum of secularism because of its borders. Take Punjab and Kashmir, then what is the rationale for having a secular country``

This to me is the heart of the matter for liberal Indians. I sympathize with them. I felt the same chill on the night of Quebec referendum. Despite conciously believing all the stuff about minorities have a right of self determination, unconciously I became extremely nervous and depressed when I heard that the Yes side was leading. I had similar thoughts that Canada`s muti-cultural policy would be under threat if Quebec decides to separate. But then the way I consoled myself was that in my fight to keep Canada multi-cultural, I cannot use Qubecors as a sacrificial lamb. I have to fight for my interests myself. If Canada truly became multi-cultural then Qubecors woud not want to separate. I have the same advice for my Indian friends, ``to keep India secular is your fight, don`t hold Kashmiris hostage to that. If India becomes truly secular, democratic and free then Kashmiri Muslims would not want to separate in the first place. But holding Kashmiris by force and committing acts of violence against them can only result in a more violence prone and undemocratic society. Survival of India`s secularsim and democracy lies not in the use of force and torture but in promotion of freedom and human rights. I wish all the luck in your fight to keep India secular.``

Re : Upal & Bad Girl

upal Says :

A naive question that every oppressive majority has asked of the minorities they were oppressing since the beginning of `civilization.` Just read the statements of British colonizers before 1947 who wondered as to why some Indians were `making trouble` when the benevolent British raj had `given them more rights than they had ever had.`

Reply :

Comparisons need to be objective. In the case of the British ruling India, Indians were denied self respect and rights. There were no democratic rights, Indians were exploited in terms of commerce, tax etc, and Indians were discriminated in their own country. None of these is valid for Kashmiris. Kashmiris have their own electoral system, they have their own chief minister, their own administration, their own shariet, they are not exploited to the extent that no non kashmiri can buy land in kashmir to protect their special status. Only foreign policy and defence is taken up by the central government. There are some problems in terms of centre and state relationships that cannot be wished away even in a democratic setup but then all the states in India face the same problem. If the Indians had all been christians , it is safe to assume that even then they would have fought for their independance from the British. The point is religion was not the basis for self-determination for India . However, if the majority in kashmiri had not been Muslims, it is again safe to assume that the seperatist movement would not be what it is today. Look at Punjab for instance, the whole Khalistan movement has fizzled out. Even the prospective Prime Minister in a congress led government is a Sikh in India.

The issue here is, frustrated youth exist in all parts of India. In Kashmir, they being muslims, Pakistan and ISI find them alluring bait to create the seperatist issue in them and make them perfect scapegoats. Let all kashmiris lay down arms, accept the indian political system and then

let them ask for seperatism not on the basis of religion but on the basis of apartheid, then my dear friend that would be a valid requirement.

Try to comprehend the scenario first. When religion is used as the basis in the creation of a nation, then what else would you call it than fundamentalism. India inspite of being secular , guarantees the muslims the shariat but then the criminal law is common for all. Thus muslims enjoy their own civil law but escape the tough penalties of the muslim criminal law. They ofcourse are having it both ways and Kashmiris in particular have been pampered even more.

Hope I made the difference clear. It is a pity that Pakistanis like you are brainwashed into believing that the scenario that existed in India with the british is the same as that which exists in Kashmir.

You said :

From a humanistic perspective such questions are pointless. What really matters is that the majority of Kashmiri Muslims pereceive that they are oppressed and want seccession. The question to ask is that why shouldn`t they have the right of self determination? What is so sacred about the current boundaries of India (or any other country)? Is the protection of these boundaries worth hundereds of thousands of lives?

Reply :

In an underdeveloped economy, people think that secession is the panacea for all problems. However in truth this only creates more issues. From the same humanitarian perspective that you quote, would you support seccession of Baluchistan or Sindh. ? Naive question right duh ?

From the same humanitarian perspective would you oppose the taliban government`s oppression of women ? Or would you oppose your government`s intervention and training of militants in Kashmir and don`t refute this allegation buddy boy, since we all know the truth, don`t we ? The santity of India does lie in its borders. The country is maintaining a decorum of secularism because of its borders. Take Punjab and Kashmir, then what is the rationale for having a secular country. India might as well follow pakistan and force conversion on all the muslims and christians left over in the remaining country and make it a hindu country. Even the thought repels me. I would any day prefer to live in a secular country than in a fascist religious country where the prime minister thanks allah for exploding a nuclear bomb. As if allah wanted that ? There is a certain sanctity in religion. It gets gross when you abuse religion in these ways. Probably you might not understand or you might

All seccessionist movements start only with a few people. Only with the connivance and active involvement of outside support do they grow. And they grow further when governments try to quel them through force . Violence begets violence and more people die and the nation or the part of it is in shambles. If the ISI really cares for muslims then it would stop abetting since only more muslims get killed. However, Pakistan government cares two hoots for the death of these muslims as long as the violence is alive and well

some brotherhood ?

All your empirical evidence is accepted but as i answered earlier violenc does beget violence and a equal number of evidence can be shown from the other side too. Anyways that would be a pointless charade.

However Kashmir as other parts of India has its own Indian NGOs and internations Human rights commissions which work in atleast highlighting the atrocities committed by both sides. That is democracy for you

I primarily wanted to talk about how agitated some Moslems like you get when a foreign non-muslim nation inflicts wrong on a muslim nation, but distance themselves from the wrongs inflicted legally on their own countrymen who happen to be non-muslims (the anti-christian blasphemy law).

That`s blatant nepotism and parochialism good friend. Someone else might call it fundamentalism.



What d`ya think ?

RE BG :

Hey a very objective answer. Thanks

I too do not support the Indian Governments approach while dealing with the ordinary kashmiri folks. It is pretty difficult to maintain standards when it is terrorists that you are after. Hope the NGOs in Kashmir do a better job in identifying gross violations of Human rights by the government or the others.

Look BG, I apologize for saying ``Bad Girl, Bad answers``. It is in no way a personal attack on you (even if your name happens to be Bad Girl). It was meant to be a play on ``Bad`` and in some a way a joke. I apologize if that offended you. Our views, however, are different and at least I feel I would benefit from some answers from you.

Please do reply.

regards

Ashish

re rishi

rishi, we agree on more than a few things. i dont endorse violence by anyone for any cause. i agree with you that the pakistan government`s handling of the bangladeshi, sindhi, MQM and other national conflicts with heavy handed agression have been and continue to be problematic. but, just because i think the indian government has a repressive, militant policy in kashmir does not mean i endorse pakistan`s armed interference in the area. and, i dont agree with you that if the kashmiri`s are having a problem with their government, the rest of us need not be concerned. the global community has a responsibility to intervene in a constructive manner in situations where anyone (governments, corporations,etc.) are violating basic human rights. and i dont consider `terrorism`, whether state or otherwise, constructive intervention.

regards

re ashish

i refuse to answer your questions if you continue to preface everything by ``bad girl, bad answer, etc.``. i have refrained from attacking you or your views in my last response and tried to provide some references to answer your questions. but, i will not engage in a discussion with you unless you show me the respect that you would want shown to you.

Bad Girl, Bad answers.

Lets start with clarification of events:

- In the 80`s the Communist Soviets forcefully occupy Afghanistan. Afghanis rightfully resist. THey wage a 10 year long battle against the Soviets. The USA/CIA, seeing this as a threat to their ideology, wage their own war against the Communists by funding/arming the Afghanis. In fact , at one time you would get $100(at the time 50,000 Afghanis when the average salary per month was about 20,000) for firing 5 shells and showing proof that they were fired, leaving little incentive for anyone to do much else.

All the NYtimes articles you refer to are about this. I am not justifying this at all.

Other sources like Osama, plus numerous people from all over the Islamic world come to Afghanistan to fight ``their own`` holy wars.

- War ends, Soviet crumbles, US has no more icentive to pump money into the area, they pull out.

- Now you have a bunch of warriors with no holy war to fight anymore. Since then Afghanistan breaks goes into a Civil war of sorts where warring factions drive out 1/3 rd of the population (numbers published by the UN, referred to by NYT) each claiming his war to be holier than the others.

- Meanwhile, these ``holy warriors`` with less and less to do everyday (people migrating out or dead) now wage ``holy war`` in other countries. They make open statements about what they do and where so I don`t really need to get into that.

- They then threaten to destroy all things ``American`` and start by blowing up American embassies.

We get no comments from you. Apparently these people killing in the name of religion does not bother you.

- The USA retaliates by blowing up their ``terrorist universities``.

Specific questions for you:

- How does the above sequence of events amount to ``Lackeys of Capitalism v/s fanatics, merceneries`` ?

-Its more like ``lackeys of capitalism v/s Communists via innocent Afghani victims.

-Followed by fanatics, merceneries, killers v/s innocent Afghani citizens.

- Now fanatics, merceneries, killers v/s the rest of the world where THEY feel their brotherhood being threatened.

- And finally one victim saying ``eye for an eye``, take that.

SECOND QUESTION

- How do you deal with these terrorist universities ? You talk about education and non-violent means. I absolutely agree. But who do you hold accountable for that, or the lack of it.

They obviously have a defferent ``rule book`` than me or you claim to have. They are not uneducated, in fact most of these terrorist universities attracted ordinary youth for religious studies. There education ideology is different.

They can do whatever they want in their own country but what do you do when they start threatening you in your home.

Re: Rishi

:``Tell me what do the Kashmiri muslims lack to want a seperate country except the lack of exploitation by a neighbouring quasi-terrorist foreign government `s of its own unemployed, fanaticized youth.``

A naive question that every oppressive majority has asked of the minorities they were oppressing since the beginning of `civilization.` Just read the statements of British colonizers before 1947 who wondered as to why some Indians were `making trouble` when the benevolent British raj had `given them more rights than they had ever had.`

From a humanistic perspective such questions are pointless. What really matters is that the majority of Kashmiri Muslims pereceive that they are oppressed and want seccession. The question to ask is that why shouldn`t they have the right of self determination? What is so sacred about the current boundaries of India (or any other country)? Is the protection of these boundaries worth hundereds of thousands of lives?

A letter to Calcuta Online quotes from ``Blood in the Valley: Kashmir - Behind the Propaganda Curtain`` (published by Lokshahi Hakk Sanghatana, Bombay, India, 1995.)

``The brutality of torture in J & K defies belief. It has left people mutilated and disabled for life (Amnesty International, January 1995).

We will give below a few recent instances of torture, to indicate the nature of the practice.

During the night of 25-26 May, 1994 there was a cordon and search operation in Mohallah Kralteng in Sopore, Baramulla district. At about 8.30 am on 26 May. all the male inhabitants were asked to assemble near a clinic on the road. Fourteen boys

and young men (of age ranging from 19 to 33) and one 65 year old man were taken for interrogation to two local houseswhich were converted into temporary interrogation centres. They were tied with ropes and gagged. A pipe of 4`` diameter was

used as a roller over their legs and thighs. Metal rods were passed through the anus and electric shocks were given. In the case of Md Mubashir Naikoo (35). a razor blade was used to inflict a deep cut wound on his anal region. (reported by a local human rights organisation, Kashmir Monitor)... Such examples can be multiplied by the thousand.`` To read more please visit http://www.calonline.com/emails/em010298.html

I agree with Bad Girl`s observations. What could be more obscene than to launch attacks against sovereign muslim nations and then run off to return to one`s vacation at Martha`s Vinyard. I really don`t care about the president`s penchant for sexual indescretions but clearly his ploy to transform the Lewinsky affair into a senstive personal marital matter between him and Hiliary wasn`t working so why not create an international issue!I don`t think that anyone is being fooled about the President`s real motives behind the seneless bombings against Sudan and Afghanistan.There is no proof that the supposed chemical weopons plant in Khartoum was anything other than what even Sudanese government detractors claim: a pharmaceutical plant! I deplore terrorism of any kind- whether it be perpetrated by a gang of misguided fundamentalists or whether it is being carried out by the United States. Or in the words of president Clinton himself, ``Two wrongs don`t make a right `` when he referred to Pakistan`s testing of Atomic weopons after waiting 17 days for the world to signal that

Pakistan`s safety would be assured. It is sad to note that whenever such incidents take place, invariably it is Muslims who are the victims. In this case, most of the victims in the original bombings in East Africa were Muslims and following the cruise missile strikes, more Muslims were killed. For years we have become accostomed to seeing the plight of Muslims being abused throughout the world. Be it in Bosnia or Kosovo by Serbs, in Chechnya by Russians, in Occupied Kashmir by Indians or in Palestine by Israelis. It seems that a muslim life is worth less than that of another faith. When will muslims finally learn to empower themselves and unite. I have read a few comments by folks on this site who instead point to Muslims abusing their own kind. Sadly this is true but it does not take away from the basic issue of self determination and freedom. This includes the freedom to mismanage oneself until the ugly growing pains are worked out. The Israelis seem to think that Palestinians should be thankful that they enjoy a higher standard of living while living under Israeli rule but apart from a handful of collaborators, most Palestinians still want freedom. Indians may refuse to acknowledge that Kashmiris want freedom because they see themselves as a captive people in India from the time of the partition when their wishes as a people were ignored by the British and India. Russia thinks that Chechnya is better off in the CIS and Serbia refuses to acknowledge that Kosovo has a right to self determination. The list goes on but I think that Muslims the world over realize that this cannot go on indefinitely and we must all work together to bring about freedom and a respect for our right to exist on this planet.

Born to Be

You amaze me. In my reply to Bad Girl I did not even mention Islamic brotherhood or an aversion/fear to any such thing.

But since you ask.

- It is not brotherhood which scares me. Brotherhood to different people obviously means different things. I do not believe that if one kills your brother you ``stick up`` by killing one of theirs. There lies the difference in our idealogies. For me ``two wrongs do not make a right, under any circumstances``.

``Eye for eye only seems to make sense until you lose both your eyes ....DUH``

- THe issue here is these ``institutions``(in this case in Afghanistan) where people are taught hate, kill in the name religion. Instead of dealing with this, you point to other such people around the world who are doing similar (wrong) things as justification ?

- Your assumption that I have certain views about Israel and Jews because I have a Indian sounding name is ridiculous. I don`t think like all other Hindus. Come on ... take a deep breath and think about it.....

- What does scare me is the number of people who subscribe to this idealogy in the name of religion (any religion).

Re; Born to Be.

If Islamic brotherhood is your soul then what would you do with the U.S since they have bombed a fellow muslim nation.

c`mon put your actions where your words are buddy

khuda haafiz

Re: Ashish & Rishi

Why does Islamic brotherhood bother poeple? Is it because of a secret yearning that thay dont have anyone to stnad up for THEM? Jealousy perhaps?

(to put it very simply).

It is the fear of people who feel threatened by Islam that `perverts`/distorts their view.

What about the creation of Israel for the Jews?

How come I never hear anythign from Indians about that?

What about standing up/protecting the rights of jews all over?(moving black jews to Israel & investments in their future) How come I never hear anything about jewsih brotherhood?(I have NOTHING against it!you gotta stick together man!) Or is it just Islam that gives you the nightmares?

Re : Bad Girl

Actually I do agree with all your view points except your reply below.

As far as the Indian government`s approach to Kashmir is concerned, it is only an issue involving the Indian Government and its People and that includes the Kashmiris too. How is it that we don`t hear you complain about the Sri Lankan Govt`s handling of the Tamil issue, the Pakistani goverment`s handling of the Sindhi/Mohajir issue or even the British Government`s handling of the Irish Issue. The whole problem is that Muslims tend to involve themselves into the affairs of other countries whereever Muslims are present. It is the Muslims concept of brotherhood and jihad that presents a perverted picture. Pakistan can as well bother about its own muslims and the killings in its own backyard than what happens across the border. It is quiet funny that Pakistan cries hoarse over Kashmir while turns a blind eye to both its own internal contradictions, lack of a viable democracy, feudalism and a sickling economy and also the killing of innocent Hindus in Kashmir by the afghan and pakistani terrorists.

Just like America which is reaping the fruits of its own doings in the middle east, well meaning educated and liberal muslims (both men and especially women ) would be the worst affected when islamic fundamentalism rears its head (ref : taliban )

And as far as India`s handling of terrorism is concerned, it is only a pity that the Indian government is not firm in handling it thanks to the democracy it preaches and practices.

Tell me what do the Kashmiri muslims lack to want a seperate country except the lack of exploitation by a neighbouring quasi-terrorist foreign government `s of its own unemployed, fanaticized youth.

An inappropriate comment in an otherwise well meaning article

re: ashish

i already explained, and i think another reader reiterated better than myself, how terrorism can be `fought` via non-violent means: the education and empowerment of people, whether they are muslim or otherwise. if you had read my piece CAREFULLY you would have seen that one of the reasons i am against bill`s heavy handed tactics is that this bombing is likely to lead to more `violence` and `terrorism` not less. take the conflict in south asia for example: the indian government`s heavy handed approach to the kashmir problem has not worked -- it has only escalated the issue (and let me clarify, that i am not implying that i agree with the official pakistani handling of the situation EITHER)

i believe that bill clinton is a lackey of capitalism. why? read noam chomsky for a start (amazon.com, search author = chomsky). if you would like other references, i would be happy to provide them.

as far as these `terrorist universitites` are concerned, please read ``killing hope: the secret wars of the CIA`` by blum. actually, if you can get either CNN or the new york times, you will see many references implicating the CIA in the setting up of these `universities`. and, as far as `terrorist universities` go, what do you think of the infamous school of the americas (in georgia, US, i believe) that has trained the worst Latin american assasins.

when a government throws bombs on people, in my opinion, that is as much terrorism as when individuals and non-state groups do. i am against state terrorism, as well as the other variety. if you support bill clinton`s actions, you are supporting terrorism, albeit calling it by a different name.

Bad Girl, Bad article

You picked a catchy title, drew attention then did not even care to explain how this was ``A war between the lackeys of capitalism claiming to represent the free world, and violent, fascist mercenaries``

This is ``eye for an eye`` as a lot of Islamists have often explained. It is a reply to these terrorists in their own language and possibly the only language they understand.

These ``terrorist universities`` have been churning out and letting lose killers for the longest time now. They themselves admit to operating in India amongst other countries and now they have made good on their Jihad against all things ``American``. Unfotunately, America is not like India. they are much stronger and richer.

Pray tell me Bad Girl, how to curb ``Bad Boys`` (read killers) like these.

To answer your question about what good it has done. It has taken away resources from churning out more killers.

Saad,

While there is no problem with the sex part, I think Monica`s case stems from the testimony Clinton gave in Paula Jones case where he denied having sex with Monica. Again here he used legal mumbo jumbo to obscure the term of having sex in his testimony.

Star is only pursing what he believes perjury by Clinton. Star`s motive is not to make a case against the President for having sex but for having utterred untruths in the courts (Jones Case). Lets keep things in perspective. If the man has done good, its great. But under no circumstance should he be able to use good to commit a crime against specific individuals (in this case maybe Paula Jones).

Sorry BG, I just had to put my two cents in. (at the risk of going tangent to the actual article).

Notes: I dashed off this piece in a hurry and have since learnt that the death toll in Afghanistan has also been reported at 21. i`m not sure which figure is more accurate. and, furthermore, pakistan has retracted its report of 6 dead in a mis-fire on pakistani territory. when i heard the report on CNN (friday, august 21), the official US response had been that the missile accident in pakistan was the result of a technical error. in other words, the US had affirmed pakistan`s claim. i`m unsure about the whole thing anymore and i wonder if anyone else has some information on that.

also, when one thinks about it, the only `evidence` the US has against bin ladin is pakistani reports and the confession odeh is supposed to have made to the pakistani`s who apprehended him. since he has been handed over to the US americans, odeh has not confessed or given any information. so, at this point, the case against bin ladin is open. the new york times has persistently reported that the president has evidence that ladin was connected, but none of this evidence is ever detailed.

re: everyone
thanks for the comments. it`s always wonderful when respondents agree, but then there`s nothing to argue about!

re: saad shafqat and syed ahmed
saad, i think you did miss the point. i believe clinton is a contemptible, but his sexual appetite is none of my business. his wag-the-doggish timing was too good to let pass without comment.

as far as bill`s brilliance as a politician is concerned, i think syed ahmed has done a better job than i could do, of arguing against that.

regards.

shafqat writes :

``Republicans want to avenge Nixon, and they have found in Bill Clinton the ideal target - a brilliant man who wins everything but who also loves women and belongsto the wrong social class.``

The US Presidency has been a fairly egalitarian institution - of the last 10 presidents only
FDR ( Roosevelt), Kennedy ( even they were castigated by the Boston brahmins) and Bush could be considered blue-bloods. All the rest came from very humble backgrounds - TRuman - was a shopkeeper`s son, Eisehower a farm boy, Johnson - a sharecroppers son, Nixon & Ford both products of the lower middle class, Carter was a rich and
realtively unknown country farmer, and of course
Reagan had no pedigree whatsoever. Suprisingly the vice-presoidency a patronage position has usually been held by scions of wealthy families - Rockfeller, Gore, Quayle, Agnew, Humprhey, Stevenson, Mondale are a few that come to mind.

Re: Saad Shafqat

``My humble advice is to let Clinton be. He is an outstanding President and a brilliant policy thinker. We all need to learn that consensual sex is a private matter. A he-said/she-said dispute over the fine details of oral sex (even if it happened in the Oval usness of something like the Watergate break-in or the firing of Archibald Cox and the Saturday Night `Massacre`. To reiterate,
get a life.``

Clinton brilliant policy thinker ?? What policies
There is nothing original about the Clinton presidency except sexual trysts in the White house.- The Monetary policy is a left over of the Reagan era - Thank Paul Volcker & Alan Greenspan for that. CLinton is one lucky slippery SOB.
The man is the worst paraody of a politician, - He stands for nothing. NAme a major policy isssue that came to fruitation - domestic or internal during his tenure. NOw Nixon was a crook but a very effective president, Reagan was a demagogue -
but his policies against big government, anti -regulation, sterner foreign policy, revitalization of the american spirit continue
to practised by this Democrat controlled presidency. If you want to give CLinton credit,
give him for perpetuating Republican policies.


This sir is not Pakistan, nobody inluding the President is above the law. To quote Truman ``the buck stops here``. Clinton could have a roman orgy for all we care, but he used his power to mislead a congressional investigation, - he comitted perjury , a felonious crime , - irregularties in comapaign finances, and the list goes on and on..
Why blame Judge Starr, - for Clinton`s transgression. He is just an investigating prosecutor, blame the perpetrator. NOw whether CLintons crimes constitute an impeachable offense is quiet another matter, maybe a censure would suffice. The trauma of an impeachment proceedings would hurt the presidency more than the president.
Clinton`s politicla career has been chequered by
smoked but did not inhale, had sex but did not touch, enrolled but didnot avoid the draft etc etc... The man is certainly intelligent, but a brilliant president he is not.

Yes BG the circus will continue because there is no incohenrent US foreign policy. It smacks of third world banana republic adhoc-ism.

U.S. foreign policy, all those foggy bottom intellects aside, is re-active. Ike`s military-industrial complex is focussed on world market strategies, a few hundred millions scattered world wide notwithstanding.

Saad, welcome back.

Nothing wrong with `consensual` or consentual sex. It is the cover-up that matters. If one is `man` enough to unzip, one should be man enough to standup and own it too.

regards

Totally agree,

Even if the lewisnky coverup tactic would be inapplicable to US bombings, it still does not justify the atttitude of the US. Where was the respected UN and its members, probably blinded by Iraq`s arsenal?

Serbia and ISRAEL indeed! Good point!

Keep writing!/stimulating our brain cells!

Re: Saad sahfqat

er.. did you miss the point? the focus i believe was on the `bombing` act not the blowjob or was it the only thing that jumped up at you?

I agree with the many obvious truths in this article, such as the usual rhetoric of democracy, equality, human rights, illiterate interpretation of Islam, etc., which is of course straightforward common sense.

But I disagree with the unfair and thoughtless portrayal of Bill Clinton as a real life Wag-the-Dog operative. Who are we to begrudge an adult man a consensual blow-job ? The blood feud between Clinton and Starr is the maturation of a petty vendetta that has its roots in the incendiary partisanship of national American politics kindled by Watergate. Republicans want to avenge Nixon, and they have found in Bill Clinton the ideal target - a brilliant man who wins everything but who also loves women and belongs to the wrong social class. Towards this end, an exceedingly immature, mean-spirited and malicious scheme has been orchestrated by the Office of the Special Prosecutor to trap this poor fellow in any kind of mess, even if it happens to be something isolated and technical and utterly peripheral to the national cause. So what if Whitewatergate, Travelgate and Filegate turned out to be blanks, Starr seems to be thinking, we`ll trap him for lying about the details of sex acts. My response: who cares and get a life!

A powerful destructive force that is compounding this unnecessary tragedy is the phenomenal capacity and eagerness of modern electronic and print media to cater to our most vulgar appetites. (In a world defined by consumerism, what else can we expect ?) It is clear from all the ongoing coverage on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, the networks, as well as Talk Radio, that the goals of journalism have finally come to be at cross-purposes with the social good. This is because, in deference to the profit motive (and also the intense ambition to become Woodward or Bernstein), there is no longer any modertion between what the public would like to know and what it needs to know. I think the author of this article has also fallen into this media trap and is unthinkingly calling for renewed focus on `perjury`, `obstruction of justice`, and other mindless topics that have the potential to satisfy our most crude urges.

My humble advice is to let Clinton be. He is an outstanding President and a brilliant policy thinker. We all need to learn that consensual sex is a private matter. A he-said/she-said dispute over the fine details of oral sex (even if it happened in the Oval Office) does not even begin to approach the seriousness of something like the Watergate break-in or the firing of Archibald Cox and the Saturday Night `Massacre`. To reiterate, get a life.

Saad Shafqat

Good to see BG after a very long time:)

The questions you have raised are brilliant. There is no justification for the US`s action. It is as stupid and pointless as terrorist bombings. You cannot treat intolerance with intolerance. The real issues of global power sharing go unaddressed in the diversion of attention from Monica to missiles.

It is tempting to think that Clinton`s shame of the confession triggered this outrageously fascist action. The under-lying arrogance of the Global Power shows through.

In a society that is in Chomsky`s words `to an unusual degree business run, with huge expenditures on marketing- $1 trillion a year` such fireworks on the heads of expendible people provide very effective advertising for the arms-mafia. I agree with the writer that the public show is just a farce put on for a people so used to these shows that the whole thing passes without any cry of doubt. The capitalistic mind manipulation machine works very well indeed. To the very few who are able to withstand the onslought of brain washing messages, it is quite clear that bombing people, depriving them of education, health and food is not the way to combat terrorism and fanaticism. In fact, the reverse is true. We know that fanaticism and ignorance can be fought by empowering people through education and by not exploiting them (by imposing thugs as their rulers who steal their fundamental rights and their wealth). As I argued in an article before, it is to the long term benefit of all of us

(including the rich of the rich and the poor of the poor) to break with the patterns of violence, plunder and exploitation because otherwise we are heading towards extinction as a species. Alas, only if we could think long term!

Excellent article that gets to the heart of the matter. Your observations were right on target (no pun indended). It has been nearly ten years since the end of the cold-war and during that time, the United States was not able to articulate a foreign policy aim. These strikes seem to signal a change in that policy.

We just have to wait and see what the full intent of this policy will be; who will replace the evil empire as a future object of American wrath.

In a society that is in Chomsky`s words `to an unusual degree business run, with huge expenditures on marketing- $1 trillion a year` such fireworks on the heads of expendible people provide very effective advertising for the arms-mafia. I agree with the writer that the public show is just a farce put on for a people so used to these shows that the whole thing passes without any cry of doubt. The capitalistic mind manipulation machine works very well indeed. To the very few who are able to withstand the onslought of brain washing messages, it is quite clear that bombing people, depriving them of education, health and food is not the way to combat terrorism and fanaticism. In fact, the reverse is true. We know that fanaticism and ignorance can be fought by empowering people through education and by not exploiting them (by imposing thugs as their rulers who steal their fundamental rights and their wealth). As I argued in an article before, it is to the long term benefit of all of us

(including the rich of the rich and the poor of the poor) to break with the patterns of violence, plunder and exploitation because otherwise we are heading towards extinction as a species. Alas, only if we could think long term!

Excellent article that gets to the heart of the matter. Your observations were right on target (no pun indended). It has been nearly ten years since the end of the cold-war and during that time, the United States was not able to articulate a foreign policy aim. These strikes seem to signal a change in that policy.

We just have to wait and see what the full intent of this policy will be; who will replace the evil empire as a future object of American wrath.