Wag the Dog

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.