Breaking News: September 11, 2001

Re: Akash

``Long live Hindu-Sikh brotherhood``

Please don`t resort to these cheap 2-cent-ylh-type slogans. Something like this doesn`t need to be said. People like ylh and Shah forget that the a$$-whippings they have received by the Indian army were delivered by many a Sikh.

By the ``learned`` Shah



``It is still active news trial in Canada of whole 330+passengers gone down by sikh terrorists bombing of Kanishka over the Atlantic cean in june of 1984!

Dont you know that some sikhs are still under surveilence of Indiangovt,& facing death sentence for there association with Khalistan``

What the hell is this!! It was Indira`s stupidity to have encouraged extremist factions like Bhindarawale and she paid for it with her life. Good riddance.

If Hinduism is alive today, some credit for it must go to the brave Sikhs who fought against the barbaric Mughals to protect Hindus. Hindus can never forget what Sikhs have done for them historically. I appeal all Indians to shield Sikhs from the hate crimes. Let not any Indian(even Paki) be harassed because of his skin colour. My mother used to tell that in those days the eldest son from every Hindu family in the region of Punjab served the cause of Panth ie to defend Hinduism, and became Sikh. The relationship between Hindus and Sikh is the blood relationship and too strong for any Indira to break. The Khalistan outcry raised by some overemotional misguided Sikhs(MAINLY CANADIAN) is over and Punjab is back on the path of prosperity. MAY THE PROSPERITY NEVER END.

I, AS A HINDU, SALUTE SIKHS

Long live Hindu-Sikh brotherhood

Ylh, you are back to your naked dancing on the streets of Rutgers with a picture Jinnah tied to your behind while fantasizing about US again?

You think whatever Pakis do or not do has anything to do with India?? Unlike your for-rent country, India maintains its policies regardless of the US. FOR 30 YEARS INDIA WAS AT ODDS WITH THE US AND NEVER DID WE BUDGE ON KASHMIR...YOU THINK SOMEONE WILL MAKE US BUDGE NOW?

Is Pakistan for rent by the US yet again? They used you and threw you to the street last time.

Shankar #474: It is quite sad to see your emotions get the better of you. That is quite uncharasteric of you.

``Dunno why, but when I read your posts I get the feeling that you think Pakistan is this poor, long suffering, victimised country that has no responsibility for terrorism in this world, the beacon of peace that has been used and abused, eventhough it has done everything in its power to be a good friend to everybody, but crapped upon by bullies & unscrupulous neighbors. Maybe I`m exaggerating a bit with sarcasm.``

I am perhaps the biggest critic of Pakistani policies on this board. You can check any of my replies. However, I try to base my criticism on facts. And it is a fact that the US has dumped Pakistan again and again holding the bag, after it has assisted the US (Why do you think Nehru was such a supporter of non-alignment?). This is by no means the major cause of Pakistan`s problems, but it is still a fact. So you definitely are exaggerating with a lot of sarcasm.

``I dont see any Pakistanis here kowtowing or apologising to the US because they are Pakistanis.``

There are quite a few posts on this site where Pakistanis have actually openly stated their fears of being harrassed, and feel thankful they haven`t been harrassed, so far. On other posts, some Pakistanis are blanketly criticizing their whole religion. Is this not apologetic behavior for a crime they had nothing to do with? Please read them before you reply.

``Its very convenient for Pakistanis like you to call those jihadis ``freedom fighters``.``

I am not sure what you mean by, ``those jehadis.`` If you are refering to those that carry out terrorist attacks, than I would like for you to show me one post where I have called them freedom fighters. If you cannot (which you cannot), then how about an apology for false accusation.

``In fact, you dont seem to think they even do any wrong. When hindu pilgrims & sikhs are killed in Kashmir, Pakistanis automatically believe it is the Indian army that is doing that, just to make the jihadis look bad!``

Once again, please let me know where I stated this about Hindu pilgrims getting killed. Otherwise, please refrain from accusations. In reference to Kashmir, my main argument has been that human rights organizations like Amnesty International should be allowed into Kashmir without any hinderance, and their views should be taken as final. After that, whatever the Kashmiris decide should be taken as final (regardless of how it effects India or Pakistan). This is exactly what Gandhi said, by the way. If you disagree with this, then how can you agree with anything else Gandhi said.

I never stated that Pakisatan should not assist America. I just stated that Pakistan should not get actively involved in a war between the US/Afghanistan. This is the policy that Canada and Switzerland and India (until the BJP) followed. If every country should get involved in every war in the world, then why should Pakistan not get involved in every single war in the world, not just the US/Afghanistan war. And why shouldn`t India get involved in every single war in the world.

As far as the Afghanistan war is concerned, I was in Pakistan and in the military at the time. Maybe, I have just a little bit more knowledge of what was going on in Pakistan at that time, than you do.

The Taliban are a very late phenomenon in Afghanistan. What happened before the Taliban? Let me give you some insight on how the US operation in Afghanistan ended:

Pakistan jumped on the US band wagon full scale during the Afghan war. The whole country became a highway of armament. This decision was the fault of the Pakistan leadership. I blame them for it. That is why I don`t want them to make this decision again (while your whole post is encouraging them to make such a decision). Pakistan`s hopes were that as soon as the war ended, the US would assist in handling the after effects of the war, which would be felt mostly in Pakistan.

What exactly happened? As soon as the last Soviet tank left Afghanistan, the Pressler Amendment was applied (please check the dates, if you don`t believe me). Even though, by that time Pakistan was back under democracy. What exactly was Pakistan doing correctly under Zia that the US was so close to it? And what did it do wrong under the subsequent rulers that the US started sanctioning it? Either the sanctions should have been there, even under Zia`s rule, or they shouldn`t have been there afterwards either. Was Zia`s rule so great and humanistic? Tell me? So no sanctions during Zia`s Martial Law, but sanctions under democracy (even before the atomic explosion). Why?

If the US agrees to assist Pakistan openly to coutner the after effects of allowing US soldiers on its soil, only then should Pakisatn agree (you seem to take that as a given, I do not take this as a given, due to past USA-Pakistan relations). Otherwise, Pakistan should give intelligence information and allow use of airspace, only. That, in itself, is quite a bit of assistance. When was the last time the US allowed Pakistan to use its airspace, or give intelligence info to Pakistan? Please enlighten me?

Pakistan in the 80s was the no. 1 country in the world to face terrorist attacks. More than Israel or any other country. All of that was the result of the Afghan war. Were these attacks Pakistan`s faults? According to your argument, the answer is, ``yes.`` You may want such terrorist attacks to occur in Pakistan again, but I certainly do not. These were a result of getting too actively involved in someone else`s war. Call me stupid, but perhaps you would understand if India had seen the same number of terrorist attacks.

``Whether you like it or not, accept reality, jihadis = terrorists. If not, Pakistan will be branded a terrorist state, without India`s goading.``

I would encourage you to read Sean McBride`s views on this concept. He was the head of Amnesty International, and the only person ever to recieve the Nobel Peace Prize and the Lenin peace prize. According to his arguments, the people who carried out this attack would be terrorists, and the people who are fighing an occupying Army (as in Kashmir) would be freedom fighters.

``Anything short of complete, unflinching Pakistani support will not sit well with the US & NATO. You may whine ``thats not fair``---tough cookies; life is not fair.``

Should Pakistan do everything NATO asks? What if it asks Pakistan to attack Afghanistan? Would that be in the long term interest of Pakistan? Why do you have such a defeatist and slavish attitude towards former colonies? My interest is primarily the long term welfare of Pakistan. Can you name one terrorist attack that the Pakistan govt. has been involved in? Can you name one American that has ever been killed by the Pakistani govt? Can you name one Pakistani who has killed an American that has not been caught and handed over to America? Can you name one piece of armament that Pakistan has launched at America. Two of America`s cruise missiles, launched at Afghanistan earlier, did land in Pakistan however. Luckily they did not kill anyone. But that doesn`t mean Pakistan should happily encourage the USA to launch cruise missiles over Pakistan anytime it wants. Then again, according to your argument, Pakistan should do anything possible, and should thus risk its own poor slave citizens at the whim of any NATO country; lest they declare Pakistan a terrorist state. I thought coloniasm died when the British left. Perhaps you did not get the phone call. Third world countries are weak, but not quite as weak as you think them to be.

My argument is that Pakistan should only offer assistance of landing troops on its soil, if the US agrees it will help Pakisatn handle the backlash that will occur afterwards. Don`t you think the bargain should be two-sided? Or are you naively assuming the US will automatically help Pakistan control the backlash? If Nepal allows Pakistani troops to land in Nepal and attack India, wouldn`t India consider Nepal an enemy, and attack Nepal directly or through guirella ops. What would Nepal gain from such a scenario, unless Pakistan guaranteed that it would assist Nepal in handling the after-effects.

``The US gave Pakistan billions in aid. Your ``economic miracle`` is BASED on AID & FOREIGN REMITTANCES.``

Can you tell me exactly how much foreign aid Pakistan has received from the US? And how much money has been remitted to Pakistan, from the US? You probably cannot. Yet you make such off the cuff comments.

The US did not give Pakistan economic ``aid.`` If it did, then why is Pakistan under so much debt. Infact, the highest amount of debt accumulated by Pakistan ever, was in the 80s. The US gave the Pakistani military equipment at subsidized prices. The total F-16 project, if I remember correctly, did not go over $1 billion. And Pakistan paid for them (I believe Saudia Arabia assisted). Even now, there is $300 million of Pakistani money already paid to the US for F-16s, which the US has refused to refund, until it can sell those F-16s.

The Pakistani economic boom, of the 80s, was due to remittances from the Middle East. Plain and simple. Hardly any Pakistani-American sends money to Pakistan. In the height of the Middle East boom, Middle-East Pakistanis sent 67 billion dollars to Pakistan. The total IMF loans to Pakistan in ten years amount to single digit billions (and these are loans, not aid). The remmittance money was earned by Pakistanis themselves, so please give them some credit.

Either you have misunderstood my reply, or you are too emotional. Or you feel that Pakistan should sacrifice its future, even if the US doesn`t agree to give anything in return to Pakistan. I do not agree with this. Now if the US does openly agree to assist in controlling the backlash, then it is a different story. Apart from that, Pakistan should give intelligence info, and allow the US to use its airspace.

I don`t think Pakistan is not to blame for its problems. I do a lot of the blaming myself. However, unlike you perhaps, I do think that the US is to blamed for a lot of its problems also. And if it wants other countries to trust it, then it has to return the trust.

In judging countries policies, and judging who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter, I would encourage you to follow the standards of Amnesty International. That is what I follow. And just like them, I don`t base my criticism on how much I like or dislke a group of people, or a religion. They would consider the WTC bombing a terrorist act (as do I) and they would consider many attacks of the US as terrorism (as do I).

``The US has paid for Pakistan`s services many times over;``

Pakistan is not a slave that it should provide, ``services`` as and when, in any manner called upon, without regard to its future interests. It should only provide services, keeping in mind its own future interests.

``When Pakistan responded in the tit-for-tat nuclear blast; she lost a Golden Opportunity. If she had not jumped when her ``paranoid button`` was pressed; India would have been an outcast country today.``

Do you really think so? I don`t think India would have been an outcast country, regardless of what Pakistan would have done. If that were to be the case, both India and Pakistan should be outcasts now. Why aren`t they? Pakistan requested the USA for nuclear cover after India`s explosions. The USA did not agree. It requested debt removals. No agreement. The only thing the USA agreed to was around 60 F-16s, which Pakistan had paid for already. At that time, Advani was making statements of launching an attack on Pakistan. Only then, did Pakistan explode a device. It shouldn`t have even then, but I fail to see why you seem so convinced that the world would have done so much for Pakistan (even would have isolated India) had Pakistan not exploded. If that is the case, then shouldn`t the US agree to remove sanctions on Pakistan first, then India?

Foreign policy is a dangerous game. One must watch one`s own back, and not naively expect other countries to watch its back. I trust American people, but I do not trust American foreign policy promises.

I normally ignore such posts from Indians, however this is not the tone of your normal replies, so I have made an exception, and have replied. However, the rest of your post is too irrelevant and emotional to comment upon.

P.S. You seem to have all of sudden developed a lot of knowledge (mostly incorrect) about the internals of Pakistan, when previously you stated openly that you did not have much. How has this occured :-)

Good background material now in full text at the website for foreign affairs magazine:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/home/terrorism.asp

How does US view Pakistan? A state department review:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/bgn/index.cfm?docid=3453

Re:Reply #: 463

Layman

Your scenario has only one flaw. As and when Pak becomes a threat to world peace, US and possible Israel may strike against its nuclear facilities. Giving threats under such a situation will be of no use. Even as i am writing this, a similar question was asked by a reporter to Judith Miller, a terrorism expert. She was asked if Pak would be willing to share nuclear technology with Taliban and other such rogue regimes or will it co-operate with USA, her answer was ``it is a very

difficult decision for Pak``. The eyes are on Pak.

Sridhar

Upman,

Your words of hatred against Pakistan that you have uttered the past few months are enough to make plain your hypocrisy.

In any event, the Indian frustration at the prospect of Pakistan improving its relations once again with the US, is abundantly clear in the actions of your countrymen who are trying to bring Pakistan into everything right now...

Collin Powell`s Message to Pakistan:

He had made it very clear that friendly relationship with Pakistan had its ups and downs, and that Pakistan has problems of its own to deal with which are a major concern, he suggested that sanctions will be removed in return for this.

This is a golden opportunity for us to rid ourselves of this excess baggage of (the former `Congress-Allies`) Islamic Fundamentalists who had not supported Pakistan`s creation but then had arrived in Pakistan to `Islamicize` it... remember Deobandis are at the heart and soul of this problem... Taliban are Deobandi, and Bin Laden is possibly a deobandi too... (Note: Deobandis had denounced Pakistan`s creation with a Fatwa saying that the makers of Pakistan are kufaar and had carried out several attempts on the ML leaders)

The inevitable:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1544000/1544071.stm

Anyone who has listened in to phone-in programmes on American radio stations since Tuesday will probably not have had to wait long before hearing a caller deliver a sweeping condemnation of Islam and urge swift military retaliation somewhere in the Islamic world - perhaps even against several targets.

In a nation with its emotions understandably charged by the New York and Washington attacks, the stunned reaction of the day of the attacks often seemed to give way later to a more obvious anger.

``Islam is the faith that most consistently finds itself vulnerable to being manipulated and to being demonised. ``



And some of that has turned towards Islam and towards people living in the United States who simply happen to be Muslim.

There have been several reports of hostile scenes outside mosques and similar incidents.

This may not be at all representative of the overall mood.

But even if the outbursts have been relatively isolated they have had the US administration sufficiently alarmed for President Bush to urge that there should be no hostility towards Arabs and towards Muslims.

Suspicion

Given the level of so-called Islamaphobia that exists in the West, perhaps none of this is too surprising when the finger of suspicion has been pointed at ``Islamic extremists``.

And what may have fuelled some of the anti-Muslim sentiment are the scenes of jubilation in the Middle East shown on television screens across the world after Tuesday`s attacks.

Inter-faith prayers were held for the victims



There were many Muslims, themselves utterly appalled by the carnage in America, who pointed out that the celebrations were far more limited than the scale this coverage might have suggested.

And, of course, there has been widespread condemnation of the New York and Washington attacks across the Muslim world - from governments, influential leaders and ordinary individuals.

But there is little doubt that - even with the investigations incomplete and the US Government not having officially laid the blame for the attacks at anyone`s door - many Muslims will be once again left feeling that they, their loyalties and their faith are somehow under suspicion.

In the wake of the attacks, Muslim leaders have been appearing on television and radio in America and elsewhere in the West to say that the killing of civilians has no place in Islam - that there could be no religious justification whatsoever for it.

Anti-Christian hate

The issue of the distorted portrayal of faith is not restricted to Islam.

Christians in India, who have been on the receiving end of a spate of attacks in recent years, have complained that they are wrongly accused by Hindu hard-liners of being part of a Western conspiracy to convert all Hindus and even to take over the country.

Some Hindus complain that their faith is denigrated by Christians.

But the political volatility of the Middle East and of a number of other parts of the world where there are significant numbers of Muslims has ensured that Islam is the faith that most consistently finds itself vulnerable to being manipulated and to being demonised.

Islam is the world`s fastest growing faith, a faith that abuts a number of the world`s political fault lines and a faith that does not draw a distinction between the religious life and the political life.

``The combination probably guarantees its fate. ``

Mike Wooldridge is a former BBC religious affairs correspondent

Re:Reply #: 404

ylh,

I feel i need to put things in perspective. If it means waking you up from your dream, so be it. You say Colin Powell said sweet things about Pak. Sure he did. What he did not say however can be understood only if you read between the lines. If you had seen that press conference on C-Span, you would have heard an American journalist ask something like ``How does USA have any leverage over Pak when that country has sanctions upto the neck``, his answer was ``You said it, that is the leverage we have``. He is a great communicator and uses words very carefully. USA will give Pak a chance to prove itself by doing what it has been saying it will do: help fight terrorism. I hope Pak joins the comity of nations in fighting this menace. Will Musharraf have the courage to reject Taliban and join the anti-terrorist forces remains to be seen.

sridhar

Rsaxena #508

The guy arrested from the Amtrak at Providence was a Sikh called Sher Singh. He was charged with possesion of a knife (Kirpan) and was later released. I don`t know about Indian bureaucrats, but there was a meeting at the Gurudwara in Boston. Some PR effort was made, and is ongoing. The Boston Globe and the Herald came out with half page articles the very next day stating that the guy arrested was a Sikh, not an Arab. They also followed up by giving details of the Sikh religion and the national origin of the Sikh ethnic group

nameless,

You are right, I am back to see whats going on though not under any other alias.

I think the excrement that has been spread by your countrymen makes plain what kind of people you Indians are.... profitting off a human tragedy. Utterly shameless and inhuman.

Have a nice day.

The USA Government is accusing Usamah bin Laden of

terrorism. It is accusing the Taliban of harboring

terrorists. It is not accusing Taliban of

Terrorism. But it is saying that in its punishment

it will equate terrorists with supporters of

terrorists. The USA Government does not brand the

``Jehadis`` in Pakistan and Kashmir either

terrorists or freedom fighters. Rather as a

problem to be solved through talks by Pakistan and

India.

Will their position change after the attack on the

WTC? Who knows. But one does know that though

India and its journalists have been screaming till

they are blue in the face, the US Government is

looking to Pakistan as a friend and an ally to

help them battle terrorism - rather than as a

supporter of terrorism.

The Indians on this forum can scream about Jehadis

= terrorism till they are blue in the face also,

unfortunately for them, this notion is not getting

traction where it counts - the USA Government and

the American People.

Also I noted in one of the Hindu emails a charming

outburst of anger against the shortcoming of their

embassy in educating people that Sikhs are not

Muslims. Charming - but patently naive. THose

people who are inclined this way don`t care - they

are not only attacking Sikhs, they attacked Hindu

shops in Chicago, today one Pakistani friend told

me that the day care his child goes to has a Hindu

woman teacher and some American parents refused to

leave their child with her. In Australia they

burnt a Lebanese Church! It is not a matter of

religion - it is a matter of how one looks. A

crazed mob is not in the mood for an explanation

of how Sikhs are not Muslims or Lebanese

Chirstians are not really Muslims - it is looking

to vent its rage. Maybe a year long campaign on

CNN might - just might - change perceptions, but

no embassy and nothing short of that has any chance.

In my mind, over the last few days, the Hindu has

distinguished himself. While the Christian and the

Jewish leaders of the community have embraced the

Muslim, the Hindu is gleefully stoaking the fire -

though it is burning him also. This is the true

difference between civilizations. Doublespeak,

xenophobia, the end is near.

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

nuclear optionhttp://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20010914-87723680.htm



Time to use the nuclear option

Thomas Woodrow

The time has come for the United States to make good on its past pledges that it will use all military capabilities at its disposal to defend U.S. soil by delivering nuclear strikes against the instigators and perpetrators of the attacks against the nation`s political capital and the nation`s financial capital.

At a bare minimum, tactical nuclear capabilites should be used against the bin Laden camps in the desert of Afghanistan. To do less would be rightly seen by the poisoned minds that orchestrated these attacks as cowardice on the part of the United States and the current administration.

To consider use of the nation`s nuclear forces, in the present circumstances, cannot be brushed aside as an overly emotional response to the unknown face of terrorism. To begin with, we know who that face belongs to, and we know where a goodly portion of his logistical and training capabilities are located. A series of low-level, tactical nuclear strikes in the Afghanistan desert would pose no risk to large population centers and would carry little risk of fallout spreading to populated areas.

Also, our nuclear capabilities were designed to include just such a mission, and they are capable of fulfilling such a mission.

Lastly, the use of nuclear weapons against the bin Laden groups and his supporters will rightly shock the world, but it will also shock those nations that have been disposed for a variety of reasons to back the terrorist groups with economic and political support. The United States will, in effect, have raised the bar against future such acts from occurring. If we, as a nation, show the willingness to use the ultimate weapon in the current situation, there can be no doubt anywhere in the globe that the United States will make good on its past pledges to defend its sovereign territory with such weapons.

The attacks that occurred this week have been classified both as acts of war and as a second Pearl Harbor, but these designations ennoble the acts in Washington and New York. An act of war is constituted when one nation-state uses military force against another. Pearl Harbor was used by Japan to attack U.S. military targets to begin such an act of war. The bin Laden groups are not nations or states, and they have primarily targeted civilian populations. In fact, the use of so-called Islamic fundamentalist terrorism on a global scale is a new phenomena, a product of the modern age. In centuries past, civilized nations would conduct ``punitive`` expeditions against pirate regimes, but those actions were strictly local in scope and the protagonists could not approach the sophistication shown by the bin Laden groups. As we have seen from such ``punitive`` actions by the previous administration, those actions achieved next to nothing.

The fight against the bin Laden groups will be a fight to the death, and this is another valid reason to make use of our nation`s nuclear forces. Unlike the more limited goals of wars between nations -- territory, formal surrender, etc. -- bin Laden`s goals are the elimination of the United States as the global leader for progressive political, economic and cultural change. Should, God forbid, the United States withdraw from the Middle East and Persian Gulf, the terrorists will raise their sights to eliminate our influence elswhere in the world. For a vision of what these groups see as their ultimate objective, we need look no further than the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, where women are beaten in the street for walking in public, owners of television sets are sent to prison or shot and ancient Buddhist monuments to universal peace and understanding are reduced to rubble.

No, the bin Laden groups must be exterminated completely before they become more powerful in their efforts to exterminate us. We should use our nuclear capabilities to help achieve this. We must, as a nation, take the firmest action possible against this growing evil in the world, before its poison spreads even further. If not the United States, who? If not now, under these circumstances, when?

Thomas Woodrow, a 22-year veteran intelligence officer, resigned from the Defense Intelligence Agency in May.

Pakistan President Faces Dilemma

By STEVEN GUTKIN

Associated Press Writer

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) _ If he cooperates with Washington, he risks the wrath of Islamic fundamentalists. If he doesn`t, he risks the fury of Washington.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf faces a dilemma in what could be a major U.S. assault on neighboring Afghanistan and the suspected terrorists it harbors.

Pakistan asked for more time Friday to consider Washington`s requests in the wake of this week`s terror attacks in the United States. That reportedly included a request to use Pakistani air space in the event of an attack on Afghanistan, and the closure of the Pakistani-Afghan border.

Militants on Friday threatened ``jihad,`` or holy war, if Musharraf caved in to U.S. demands.

Some liberals urged the government to place itself squarely on Washington`s side.

But in its editorial Friday, The News daily recalled Pakistan`s Cold War alliance with the United States, which it said helped plunge the country into chaos by bolstering banditry and religious radicalism. The United States allied itself with many religious militants in the region while trying to drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

``Participating in any U.S. operation will be just as hazardous as not participating in it,`` the editorial said.

Since taking office in a bloodless coup nearly two years ago, Musharraf has performed a balancing act between seeking to modernize his poverty-stricken nation of 140 million people and keeping the fundamentalists at bay.

Pakistan has maintained close ties to Afghanistan`s ruling Taliban militia, which is accused of sheltering terrorists who might be behind this week`s terror attacks, the worst in U.S. history. Those relations have strained ties with Washington but earned Pakistan a measure of security on its western border.

For now, Musharraf has pledged full cooperation with Washington.

``Pakistan ... will assist in the eradication of terrorism,`` Gen. Rashid Quereshi, Musharraf`s chief spokesman, told The Associated Press.

Responsibility for the attacks has not yet been established. But U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, say the prime suspect is Osama bin Laden, a Saudi exile hiding out in Afghanistan.

A major U.S. attack on Afghanistan would likely place heavy burdens on Pakistan, which could be called upon to provide air and ground space and to share the intelligence it has collected on both bin Laden and the Taliban.

On Friday, a senior U.S. official speaking on condition of anonymity confirmed that the Bush administration is asking Pakistan for permission to fly through its territory if airstrikes are ordered against Afghan targets.

The official also said Washington has asked Pakistan to close its 1,560-mile border with Afghanistan, presumably to prevent bin Laden`s operatives from leaving.

A top Pakistani official said Friday that Pakistan has asked the United States for time to consider its demands. Musharraf met with his military high command Friday to discuss Pakistan`s options, though details of that meeting were sketchy.

``In the mood they are in, the Americans are not going to indulge fence sitters,`` former Pakistani senator Shafqat Mahmood wrote in a newspaper column Friday.

The potential price of cooperating with Washington was illustrated during Sabbath prayers at mosques throughout Pakistan on Friday.

The terror attacks were ``punishment from God for what the Americans have done to Muslims,`` prayer leader Maulana Abdul Aziz said from a pulpit in the capital of Islamabad.

``We will join the jihad against the West if the Americans dare attack Afghanistan,`` said Muslim cleric Hasan Jan in Peshawar, a city on the Afghan border. Hundreds of his followers responded with chants of ``Jihad! Jihad!``

``We shall be on the streets. We will be shouting against Americans and the whole Muslim world will be shouting against Americans`` if Pakistan caves in to Washington, said Munawwar Hassan, General Secretary of the Muslim Party Jamaat-e-Islami.

History has shown that fundamentalist threats against Americans in Pakistan are not hollow.

In 1979, protesters burned down the U.S. Embassy here following the takeover of holy sites in Saudi Arabia by Muslim dissidents. In 1989, demonstrators attacked U.S. offices in Islamabad during a protest against author Salman Rushdie`s ``Satanic Verses