How Would Gandhi Answer This Attack?
Udayakumar September 14, 2001
#78 Posted by semipreciousme on September 16, 2001 5:57:10 am
Kalki:
”hahahahaha.... what is the result of all this medieval loser Moslems now ????
hahahahaha... no student visas, no H-1Bs. Good riddance. Don`t understand pakis and Moslems. I had this once Paki at Texas A&M univ in our MIS programme. Always cursing United States. Always cursing Americans as the dumbos. And all this while going to nuudeeee bars, looking for blonde women to sleep. Worst form of degeneracy I have seen in my life.
All right bozos, no more Student visas now. hahahahahaha......”
...good grief...there are times to be gleeful and there are times when you have to grow up and show some remnants of human decency that all sane humans have by default...and if no more student visas means that they are kept away from venom oozing hate mongers like you, then they’re definitely the better for it...
“All bets are off. Rules of engagement won`t work``.
...i doubt very much that even the rules of the jungle would work with you...
”hahahahaha.... what is the result of all this medieval loser Moslems now ????
hahahahaha... no student visas, no H-1Bs. Good riddance. Don`t understand pakis and Moslems. I had this once Paki at Texas A&M univ in our MIS programme. Always cursing United States. Always cursing Americans as the dumbos. And all this while going to nuudeeee bars, looking for blonde women to sleep. Worst form of degeneracy I have seen in my life.
All right bozos, no more Student visas now. hahahahahaha......”
...good grief...there are times to be gleeful and there are times when you have to grow up and show some remnants of human decency that all sane humans have by default...and if no more student visas means that they are kept away from venom oozing hate mongers like you, then they’re definitely the better for it...
“All bets are off. Rules of engagement won`t work``.
...i doubt very much that even the rules of the jungle would work with you...
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#77 Posted by AAmir on September 16, 2001 5:57:10 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#76 Posted by stuka on September 16, 2001 5:57:10 am
RSaxena
That may be, but I`d rather give Ylh the benefit of doubt. At least he is upfront..
The people who really get to me are hypocrites like UrsTruly who advocate violence against ``others``, wnat to execute people for blasphemy, and become Gandhi lovers, now that their ass is on the line. They are the types who took Gandhi for a ride...and try to take us for a ride too.
People who live by the sword should die by the sword. I`m not interested in the redemption of fundamentalists, not interested in learning the ``reason`` it happened, certainly not interested in Gandhian philosophy. Just want them dead...
That may be, but I`d rather give Ylh the benefit of doubt. At least he is upfront..
The people who really get to me are hypocrites like UrsTruly who advocate violence against ``others``, wnat to execute people for blasphemy, and become Gandhi lovers, now that their ass is on the line. They are the types who took Gandhi for a ride...and try to take us for a ride too.
People who live by the sword should die by the sword. I`m not interested in the redemption of fundamentalists, not interested in learning the ``reason`` it happened, certainly not interested in Gandhian philosophy. Just want them dead...
#75 Posted by Molko on September 16, 2001 5:57:10 am
Religion`s misguided missiles
Promise a young man that death is not the end and he will willingly cause disaster
Richard Dawkins
A guided missile corrects its trajectory as it flies, homing in, say, on the heat of a jet plane`s exhaust. A great improvement on a simple ballistic shell, it still cannot discriminate particular targets. It could not zero in on a designated New York skyscraper if launched from as far away as Boston.
That is precisely what a modern ``smart missile`` can do. Computer miniaturisation has advanced to the point where one of today`s smart missiles could be programmed with an image of the Manhattan skyline together with instructions to home in on the north tower of the World Trade Centre. Smart missiles of this sophistication are possessed by the United States, as we learned in the Gulf war, but they are economically beyond ordinary terrorists and scientifically beyond theocratic governments. Might there be a cheaper and easier alternative?
In the second world war, before electronics became cheap and miniature, the psychologist BF Skinner did some research on pigeon-guided missiles. The pigeon was to sit in a tiny cockpit, having previously been trained to peck keys in such a way as to keep a designated target in the centre of a screen. In the missile, the target would be for real.
The principle worked, although it was never put into practice by the US authorities. Even factoring in the costs of training them, pigeons are cheaper and lighter than computers of comparable effectiveness. Their feats in Skinner`s boxes suggest that a pigeon, after a regimen of training with colour slides, really could guide a missile to a distinctive landmark at the southern end of Manhattan island. The pigeon has no idea that it is guiding a missile. It just keeps on pecking at those two tall rectangles on the screen, from time to time a food reward drops out of the dispenser, and this goes on until... oblivion.
Pigeons may be cheap and disposable as on-board guidance systems, but there`s no escaping the cost of the missile itself. And no such missile large enough to do much damage could penetrate US air space without being intercepted. What is needed is a missile that is not recognised for what it is until too late. Something like a large civilian airliner, carrying the innocuous markings of a well-known carrier and a great deal of fuel. That`s the easy part. But how do you smuggle on board the necessary guidance system? You can hardly expect the pilots to surrender the left-hand seat to a pigeon or a computer.
How about using humans as on-board guidance systems, instead of pigeons? Humans are at least as numerous as pigeons, their brains are not significantly costlier than pigeon brains, and for many tasks they are actually superior. Humans have a proven track record in taking over planes by the use of threats, which work because the legitimate pilots value their own lives and those of their passengers.
The natural assumption that the hijacker ultimately values his own life too, and will act rationally to preserve it, leads air crews and ground staff to make calculated decisions that would not work with guidance modules lacking a sense of self-preservation. If your plane is being hijacked by an armed man who, though prepared to take risks, presumably wants to go on living, there is room for bargaining. A rational pilot complies with the hijacker`s wishes, gets the plane down on the ground, has hot food sent in for the passengers and leaves the negotiations to people trained to negotiate.
The problem with the human guidance system is precisely this. Unlike the pigeon version, it knows that a successful mission culminates in its own destruction. Could we develop a biological guidance system with the compliance and dispensability of a pigeon but with a man`s resourcefulness and ability to infiltrate plausibly? What we need, in a nutshell, is a human who doesn`t mind being blown up. He`d make the perfect on-board guidance system. But suicide enthusiasts are hard to find. Even terminal cancer patients might lose their nerve when the crash was actually looming.
Could we get some otherwise normal humans and somehow persuade them that they are not going to die as a consequence of flying a plane smack into a skyscraper? If only! Nobody is that stupid, but how about this - it`s a long shot, but it just might work. Given that they are certainly going to die, couldn`t we sucker them into believing that they are going to come to life again afterwards? Don`t be daft! No, listen, it might work. Offer them a fast track to a Great Oasis in the Sky, cooled by everlasting fountains. Harps and wings wouldn`t appeal to the sort of young men we need, so tell them there`s a special martyr`s reward of 72 virgin brides, guaranteed eager and exclusive.
Would they fall for it? Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next.
It`s a tall story, but worth a try. You`d have to get them young, though. Feed them a complete and self-consistent background mythology to make the big lie sound plausible when it comes. Give them a holy book and make them learn it by heart. Do you know, I really think it might work. As luck would have it, we have just the thing to hand: a ready-made system of mind-control which has been honed over centuries, handed down through generations. Millions of people have been brought up in it. It is called religion and, for reasons which one day we may understand, most people fall for it (nowhere more so than America itself, though the irony passes unnoticed). Now all we need is to round up a few of these faith-heads and give them flying lessons.
Facetious? Trivialising an unspeakable evil? That is the exact opposite of my intention, which is deadly serious and prompted by deep grief and fierce anger. I am trying to call attention to the elephant in the room that everybody is too polite - or too devout - to notice: religion, and specifically the devaluing effect that religion has on human life. I don`t mean devaluing the life of others (though it can do that too), but devaluing one`s own life. Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.
If death is final, a rational agent can be expected to value his life highly and be reluctant to risk it. This makes the world a safer place, just as a plane is safer if its hijacker wants to survive. At the other extreme, if a significant number of people convince themselves, or are convinced by their priests, that a martyr`s death is equivalent to pressing the hyperspace button and zooming through a wormhole to another universe, it can make the world a very dangerous place. Especially if they also believe that that other universe is a paradisical escape from the tribulations of the real world. Top it off with sincerely believed, if ludicrous and degrading to women, sexual promises, and is it any wonder that naive and frustrated young men are clamouring to be selected for suicide missions?
There is no doubt that the afterlife-obsessed suicidal brain really is a weapon of immense power and danger. It is comparable to a smart missile, and its guidance system is in many respects superior to the most sophisticated electronic brain that money can buy. Yet to a cynical government, organisation, or priesthood, it is very very cheap.
Our leaders have described the recent atrocity with the customary cliche: mindless cowardice. ``Mindless`` may be a suitable word for the vandalising of a telephone box. It is not helpful for understanding what hit New York on September 11. Those people were not mindless and they were certainly not cowards. On the contrary, they had sufficiently effective minds braced with an insane courage, and it would pay us mightily to understand where that courage came from.
It came from religion. Religion is also, of course, the underlying source of the divisiveness in the Middle East which motivated the use of this deadly weapon in the first place. But that is another story and not my concern here. My concern here is with the weapon itself. To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.
Promise a young man that death is not the end and he will willingly cause disaster
Richard Dawkins
A guided missile corrects its trajectory as it flies, homing in, say, on the heat of a jet plane`s exhaust. A great improvement on a simple ballistic shell, it still cannot discriminate particular targets. It could not zero in on a designated New York skyscraper if launched from as far away as Boston.
That is precisely what a modern ``smart missile`` can do. Computer miniaturisation has advanced to the point where one of today`s smart missiles could be programmed with an image of the Manhattan skyline together with instructions to home in on the north tower of the World Trade Centre. Smart missiles of this sophistication are possessed by the United States, as we learned in the Gulf war, but they are economically beyond ordinary terrorists and scientifically beyond theocratic governments. Might there be a cheaper and easier alternative?
In the second world war, before electronics became cheap and miniature, the psychologist BF Skinner did some research on pigeon-guided missiles. The pigeon was to sit in a tiny cockpit, having previously been trained to peck keys in such a way as to keep a designated target in the centre of a screen. In the missile, the target would be for real.
The principle worked, although it was never put into practice by the US authorities. Even factoring in the costs of training them, pigeons are cheaper and lighter than computers of comparable effectiveness. Their feats in Skinner`s boxes suggest that a pigeon, after a regimen of training with colour slides, really could guide a missile to a distinctive landmark at the southern end of Manhattan island. The pigeon has no idea that it is guiding a missile. It just keeps on pecking at those two tall rectangles on the screen, from time to time a food reward drops out of the dispenser, and this goes on until... oblivion.
Pigeons may be cheap and disposable as on-board guidance systems, but there`s no escaping the cost of the missile itself. And no such missile large enough to do much damage could penetrate US air space without being intercepted. What is needed is a missile that is not recognised for what it is until too late. Something like a large civilian airliner, carrying the innocuous markings of a well-known carrier and a great deal of fuel. That`s the easy part. But how do you smuggle on board the necessary guidance system? You can hardly expect the pilots to surrender the left-hand seat to a pigeon or a computer.
How about using humans as on-board guidance systems, instead of pigeons? Humans are at least as numerous as pigeons, their brains are not significantly costlier than pigeon brains, and for many tasks they are actually superior. Humans have a proven track record in taking over planes by the use of threats, which work because the legitimate pilots value their own lives and those of their passengers.
The natural assumption that the hijacker ultimately values his own life too, and will act rationally to preserve it, leads air crews and ground staff to make calculated decisions that would not work with guidance modules lacking a sense of self-preservation. If your plane is being hijacked by an armed man who, though prepared to take risks, presumably wants to go on living, there is room for bargaining. A rational pilot complies with the hijacker`s wishes, gets the plane down on the ground, has hot food sent in for the passengers and leaves the negotiations to people trained to negotiate.
The problem with the human guidance system is precisely this. Unlike the pigeon version, it knows that a successful mission culminates in its own destruction. Could we develop a biological guidance system with the compliance and dispensability of a pigeon but with a man`s resourcefulness and ability to infiltrate plausibly? What we need, in a nutshell, is a human who doesn`t mind being blown up. He`d make the perfect on-board guidance system. But suicide enthusiasts are hard to find. Even terminal cancer patients might lose their nerve when the crash was actually looming.
Could we get some otherwise normal humans and somehow persuade them that they are not going to die as a consequence of flying a plane smack into a skyscraper? If only! Nobody is that stupid, but how about this - it`s a long shot, but it just might work. Given that they are certainly going to die, couldn`t we sucker them into believing that they are going to come to life again afterwards? Don`t be daft! No, listen, it might work. Offer them a fast track to a Great Oasis in the Sky, cooled by everlasting fountains. Harps and wings wouldn`t appeal to the sort of young men we need, so tell them there`s a special martyr`s reward of 72 virgin brides, guaranteed eager and exclusive.
Would they fall for it? Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next.
It`s a tall story, but worth a try. You`d have to get them young, though. Feed them a complete and self-consistent background mythology to make the big lie sound plausible when it comes. Give them a holy book and make them learn it by heart. Do you know, I really think it might work. As luck would have it, we have just the thing to hand: a ready-made system of mind-control which has been honed over centuries, handed down through generations. Millions of people have been brought up in it. It is called religion and, for reasons which one day we may understand, most people fall for it (nowhere more so than America itself, though the irony passes unnoticed). Now all we need is to round up a few of these faith-heads and give them flying lessons.
Facetious? Trivialising an unspeakable evil? That is the exact opposite of my intention, which is deadly serious and prompted by deep grief and fierce anger. I am trying to call attention to the elephant in the room that everybody is too polite - or too devout - to notice: religion, and specifically the devaluing effect that religion has on human life. I don`t mean devaluing the life of others (though it can do that too), but devaluing one`s own life. Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.
If death is final, a rational agent can be expected to value his life highly and be reluctant to risk it. This makes the world a safer place, just as a plane is safer if its hijacker wants to survive. At the other extreme, if a significant number of people convince themselves, or are convinced by their priests, that a martyr`s death is equivalent to pressing the hyperspace button and zooming through a wormhole to another universe, it can make the world a very dangerous place. Especially if they also believe that that other universe is a paradisical escape from the tribulations of the real world. Top it off with sincerely believed, if ludicrous and degrading to women, sexual promises, and is it any wonder that naive and frustrated young men are clamouring to be selected for suicide missions?
There is no doubt that the afterlife-obsessed suicidal brain really is a weapon of immense power and danger. It is comparable to a smart missile, and its guidance system is in many respects superior to the most sophisticated electronic brain that money can buy. Yet to a cynical government, organisation, or priesthood, it is very very cheap.
Our leaders have described the recent atrocity with the customary cliche: mindless cowardice. ``Mindless`` may be a suitable word for the vandalising of a telephone box. It is not helpful for understanding what hit New York on September 11. Those people were not mindless and they were certainly not cowards. On the contrary, they had sufficiently effective minds braced with an insane courage, and it would pay us mightily to understand where that courage came from.
It came from religion. Religion is also, of course, the underlying source of the divisiveness in the Middle East which motivated the use of this deadly weapon in the first place. But that is another story and not my concern here. My concern here is with the weapon itself. To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.
#74 Posted by rajanjua on September 16, 2001 5:57:10 am
``Any Pakistani top policy makers or Military top generals (or the likes of those who r in way or two in policy making) if they r reading the Chowk please respond and tell us what exactly the threat is. How true is the Fundamentalism is spread in the Army or in the policy makers.``
There are no fundamentalists in Pakistan. You dumbass!
Sincerely,
YLH
Prime Minister of Pakistan
The influence of fundamentalists is minimal.
Sincerely,
Romair
CGS, Pakistan Army
Pakistan is run by fundamentalists.
Sincerely,
Jay
Chief Executive of Pakistan
(formerly known as the Kerela Brahmin)
There are no fundamentalists in Pakistan. You dumbass!
Sincerely,
YLH
Prime Minister of Pakistan
The influence of fundamentalists is minimal.
Sincerely,
Romair
CGS, Pakistan Army
Pakistan is run by fundamentalists.
Sincerely,
Jay
Chief Executive of Pakistan
(formerly known as the Kerela Brahmin)
#73 Posted by rajanjua on September 16, 2001 5:57:10 am
``maybe they can hire back hamid gul who i am sure can be bought for a couple of million dollars ......``
Sorry to disapoint you, old chap. But men like Hamid Gul can`t be bought. You take away his pan-Islamic wishful thinking and the guy is a model of what a Pakistan Army officer should be - compotent, hardworking and a man of unquestionable integrity.
Sorry to disapoint you, old chap. But men like Hamid Gul can`t be bought. You take away his pan-Islamic wishful thinking and the guy is a model of what a Pakistan Army officer should be - compotent, hardworking and a man of unquestionable integrity.
#72 Posted by concerned on September 15, 2001 10:31:34 pm
romair #68,
[...I don`t think there is too much bite behind the bark of Pakistan`s internal Jehadis. The only ones with bite are dedicated to fighting in Kashmir. They rarely make any noise. Infact some of these guys are bankers, engineers, businessmen etc., living quite well off in Pakistani cities...]
some of pakistan`s internal jihadis with `bite` are bankers, engineers, businessmen? and they are dedicated to fighting in kashmir? don`t tell that to tahmad/ylh/sarwari/scout/...
so these are the .1% you keep talking about and these guys, i imagine, form the workforce of jihad, inc. and jihad.com, eh?
[...I don`t think there is too much bite behind the bark of Pakistan`s internal Jehadis. The only ones with bite are dedicated to fighting in Kashmir. They rarely make any noise. Infact some of these guys are bankers, engineers, businessmen etc., living quite well off in Pakistani cities...]
some of pakistan`s internal jihadis with `bite` are bankers, engineers, businessmen? and they are dedicated to fighting in kashmir? don`t tell that to tahmad/ylh/sarwari/scout/...
so these are the .1% you keep talking about and these guys, i imagine, form the workforce of jihad, inc. and jihad.com, eh?
#71 Posted by sadna on September 15, 2001 9:18:19 pm
http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2001/09/14/opinion/COMRUBIN14.htm
The Pakistan connection
Those who aid or abet Osama bin Laden are being warned.
Just as all signs point to Osama bin Laden as the mastermind behind the attack on our country, all signs point to Pakistan as the key to bringing him down.
Pakistan is the key supporter of the Taliban, the primitive Muslim extremists who rule over remote Afghanistan. The Taliban shelter bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi businessman whose terror network aims to show the world that the United States is a spent power.
Getting Pakistan to squeeze the Taliban into expelling bin Laden represents the best chance for our country to grab him without risky military action.
But such Pakistani help is not a sure thing.
The Pakistani connection is unsure, even though Pakistan`s ruler, Gen. Pervaiz Musharraf, pledged yesterday to help the United States find the attackers.
Over the last two years, Musharraf chose not to press the Taliban to expel bin Laden, despite strong U.S. urging. U.S. officials believe that Pakistan - one of only three countries that recognize the Taliban government - still trains and aids the Taliban, despite Pakistani denials.
The level of U.S. pressure on Pakistan has risen sharply this week. President Bush says we won`t distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them - or, presumably, those who help the harborers.
Yet, to confront the Taliban over bin Laden, the modern-minded Musharraf will have to confront Pakistani extremists who support them. He will have to risk domestic upheaval.
``This is the moment of reckoning,`` I was told by Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, author of the best English-language book on the Taliban and its bin Ladin links: ``Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia.``
``Pakistan has supported a jihad [holy war] culture,`` says Rashid. ``They have to turn it around completely. No more rhetoric, this is the moment they need to clamp down on the fundos [fundamentalists].``
Rashid refers to the tens of thousands of young Pakistani zealots who have crossed the border to train and fight with the Taliban. Educated at religious schools run by extremist Islamic political parties, these youths bring back Taliban values to Pakistan.
I visited one of these schools, Madrassa al-Haqqania, not far from the fabled Khyber Pass to Afghanistan. Many of the top Taliban leaders have trained at the school. The bearded Rashid ul-Haq, son of its founder, told me the school trained students to become good politicians and commandoes.
``We teach the concept of jihad,`` ul-Haq said. ``It`s what makes us different.``
Many young Pakistani fighters who return from Afghanistan subsequently go to fight against India in Kashmir. This is one reason why the Pakistani army doesn`t oppose the Talibanization of its youth.
If Musharraf tries to lean on the Taliban, he risks infuriating Islamic radicals and elements of his army. But now is the moment that Pakistan must make a choice.
Rashid thinks the Pakistani army is strong enough to take on the ``fundos.``
``National survival is at stake,`` Rashid says. He adds that he would like the United States to give Pakistan a chance to ``press the Taliban to give bin Laden up`` before undertaking military action. Pakistan could use the threat of breaking diplomatic relations with Afghanistan, or even withdrawing recognition, which would leave the Taliban totally isolated.
But Washington is asking for more, requesting Pakistani intelligence on bin Laden`s movements and the location of his training camps, along with permission to fly over Pakistan and possibly use air bases should military action be needed.
Musharraf is truly in a dilemma. U.S. relations with Pakistan have declined since the days when his country was the staging point for our proxy battle with the Soviets over Afghanistan. We maintain sanctions on Islamabad for its nuclear testing, even as we tighten our ties with Pakistan`s arch enemy and neighbor, India.
If Musharraf helps Washington, he can ask us to drop sanctions and embrace Pakistan again. But this first requires him to confront the jihad culture within his country.
The stakes couldn`t be higher - for Musharraf or for us.
The Pakistan connection
Those who aid or abet Osama bin Laden are being warned.
Just as all signs point to Osama bin Laden as the mastermind behind the attack on our country, all signs point to Pakistan as the key to bringing him down.
Pakistan is the key supporter of the Taliban, the primitive Muslim extremists who rule over remote Afghanistan. The Taliban shelter bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi businessman whose terror network aims to show the world that the United States is a spent power.
Getting Pakistan to squeeze the Taliban into expelling bin Laden represents the best chance for our country to grab him without risky military action.
But such Pakistani help is not a sure thing.
The Pakistani connection is unsure, even though Pakistan`s ruler, Gen. Pervaiz Musharraf, pledged yesterday to help the United States find the attackers.
Over the last two years, Musharraf chose not to press the Taliban to expel bin Laden, despite strong U.S. urging. U.S. officials believe that Pakistan - one of only three countries that recognize the Taliban government - still trains and aids the Taliban, despite Pakistani denials.
The level of U.S. pressure on Pakistan has risen sharply this week. President Bush says we won`t distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them - or, presumably, those who help the harborers.
Yet, to confront the Taliban over bin Laden, the modern-minded Musharraf will have to confront Pakistani extremists who support them. He will have to risk domestic upheaval.
``This is the moment of reckoning,`` I was told by Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, author of the best English-language book on the Taliban and its bin Ladin links: ``Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia.``
``Pakistan has supported a jihad [holy war] culture,`` says Rashid. ``They have to turn it around completely. No more rhetoric, this is the moment they need to clamp down on the fundos [fundamentalists].``
Rashid refers to the tens of thousands of young Pakistani zealots who have crossed the border to train and fight with the Taliban. Educated at religious schools run by extremist Islamic political parties, these youths bring back Taliban values to Pakistan.
I visited one of these schools, Madrassa al-Haqqania, not far from the fabled Khyber Pass to Afghanistan. Many of the top Taliban leaders have trained at the school. The bearded Rashid ul-Haq, son of its founder, told me the school trained students to become good politicians and commandoes.
``We teach the concept of jihad,`` ul-Haq said. ``It`s what makes us different.``
Many young Pakistani fighters who return from Afghanistan subsequently go to fight against India in Kashmir. This is one reason why the Pakistani army doesn`t oppose the Talibanization of its youth.
If Musharraf tries to lean on the Taliban, he risks infuriating Islamic radicals and elements of his army. But now is the moment that Pakistan must make a choice.
Rashid thinks the Pakistani army is strong enough to take on the ``fundos.``
``National survival is at stake,`` Rashid says. He adds that he would like the United States to give Pakistan a chance to ``press the Taliban to give bin Laden up`` before undertaking military action. Pakistan could use the threat of breaking diplomatic relations with Afghanistan, or even withdrawing recognition, which would leave the Taliban totally isolated.
But Washington is asking for more, requesting Pakistani intelligence on bin Laden`s movements and the location of his training camps, along with permission to fly over Pakistan and possibly use air bases should military action be needed.
Musharraf is truly in a dilemma. U.S. relations with Pakistan have declined since the days when his country was the staging point for our proxy battle with the Soviets over Afghanistan. We maintain sanctions on Islamabad for its nuclear testing, even as we tighten our ties with Pakistan`s arch enemy and neighbor, India.
If Musharraf helps Washington, he can ask us to drop sanctions and embrace Pakistan again. But this first requires him to confront the jihad culture within his country.
The stakes couldn`t be higher - for Musharraf or for us.
#70 Posted by rsaxena on September 15, 2001 8:25:06 pm
Re: stuka
You wrote to ylh:
``Similarly, your criticism of Gandhi or even the appearence would be misconstrued.``
He was attempting a jab at India and Gandhi, that was his only intention. Nothing wrong with that - many of us, including me, do it.
But he`s a dirty little hypocrite...he will do this and then scream innocence about not being the first to start an Indo-Pak bashing match.
It was clear he was delusional and incapable of independent/peripheral thinking (only selective quoting of textbooks), but this is a new one.
You wrote to ylh:
``Similarly, your criticism of Gandhi or even the appearence would be misconstrued.``
He was attempting a jab at India and Gandhi, that was his only intention. Nothing wrong with that - many of us, including me, do it.
But he`s a dirty little hypocrite...he will do this and then scream innocence about not being the first to start an Indo-Pak bashing match.
It was clear he was delusional and incapable of independent/peripheral thinking (only selective quoting of textbooks), but this is a new one.
#69 Posted by stuka on September 15, 2001 8:25:06 pm
Romair
Yes, if you look at the track record of insurgencies, you`re right. Weapons seem to flow in. Historically, I don`t think I can say otherwise.
In this particular case however, I just don`t seem to see a sponsor. Unless it is Pakistan itself which does it in a covert fashion.
If you look at the list of probables who would love to see the US get stuck in a quagmire, you will also see that all these countries have much more to lose.
Russia - Chechnya
China - Sinkiang
Uzbekistan / Tajikistan - The very survival of the secular gov`ts.
Which leaves Pakistan. I think Musharaf himself is keen to help. IMO, uninformed as it may be, Mushy is not too keen on the hardcore Islamis himself, but is not too sure on how to handle them. To him, this may reflect an opportunity. However, does he have the capability himself to fully control the Army and the ISI. I know you will give me an opinion, but there seems to be no consensus on that. Not in Chowk, not even in the mainstream Pakistani media, and I don`t think even American intelligence is too sure.
Regarding the example of foreign countries coming in, well I see your point of view. In Iraq, the Iraqis saw the Americans as oppresors, surprisingly, because any regime the Americans would have brought in would have been better than Saddam`s I think. The United States might have to do some unconventional thinking if they want local support. Firstly, start with precise and limited Air warfare. Secondly, usage of ground troops is a must to present a human face to the local population. I hate to bring the example of Kashmir here because of its controversial nature, but just want to present an example. In certain areas, the Army has done a lot of recruitment of civil labor and has built infrastructure. This has given the local population a stake in the Army, and popular support exists. The US Army could do the same. Ofcourse all this is hypothetical, because we don`t even know if they are willing to commit ground troops.
You are in the United States as well, what do you think? I feel that this country is totally ready to go to war, and they won`t stop after launching a few cruise missiles. Also, I just saw on MSNBC that Pakistan has agreed to be a staging area for a ground assault, and the only thing they won`t do is actually contribute troops. Looks like its going to happen then.
Yes, if you look at the track record of insurgencies, you`re right. Weapons seem to flow in. Historically, I don`t think I can say otherwise.
In this particular case however, I just don`t seem to see a sponsor. Unless it is Pakistan itself which does it in a covert fashion.
If you look at the list of probables who would love to see the US get stuck in a quagmire, you will also see that all these countries have much more to lose.
Russia - Chechnya
China - Sinkiang
Uzbekistan / Tajikistan - The very survival of the secular gov`ts.
Which leaves Pakistan. I think Musharaf himself is keen to help. IMO, uninformed as it may be, Mushy is not too keen on the hardcore Islamis himself, but is not too sure on how to handle them. To him, this may reflect an opportunity. However, does he have the capability himself to fully control the Army and the ISI. I know you will give me an opinion, but there seems to be no consensus on that. Not in Chowk, not even in the mainstream Pakistani media, and I don`t think even American intelligence is too sure.
Regarding the example of foreign countries coming in, well I see your point of view. In Iraq, the Iraqis saw the Americans as oppresors, surprisingly, because any regime the Americans would have brought in would have been better than Saddam`s I think. The United States might have to do some unconventional thinking if they want local support. Firstly, start with precise and limited Air warfare. Secondly, usage of ground troops is a must to present a human face to the local population. I hate to bring the example of Kashmir here because of its controversial nature, but just want to present an example. In certain areas, the Army has done a lot of recruitment of civil labor and has built infrastructure. This has given the local population a stake in the Army, and popular support exists. The US Army could do the same. Ofcourse all this is hypothetical, because we don`t even know if they are willing to commit ground troops.
You are in the United States as well, what do you think? I feel that this country is totally ready to go to war, and they won`t stop after launching a few cruise missiles. Also, I just saw on MSNBC that Pakistan has agreed to be a staging area for a ground assault, and the only thing they won`t do is actually contribute troops. Looks like its going to happen then.
#68 Posted by rsaxena on September 15, 2001 8:25:06 pm
RE: Romair
``Yes, this is exactly why the US contacted Pakistan. What other reason could there be. Why didn`t it accept the offer of India? Why Pakistan? All of a sudden Pakistan is the friendliest of the friends again.``
You and ylh must have swallowed some LSD together.
That`s like asking why isn`t US taking help from Britain instead of Pakistan.
India cannot do much for the US -- WE ARE GEOGRAPHICALLY ISOLATED FROM AFGHANISTAN AND ARE NOT TALIBAN`S BUDDIES LIKE PAKISTAN IS.
It is a matter of practicality, not some long lost American love for Pakistan. They have asked you to listen nicely and obey, or else....
Your comments go to show how desperate Pakistan really is.
``Yes, this is exactly why the US contacted Pakistan. What other reason could there be. Why didn`t it accept the offer of India? Why Pakistan? All of a sudden Pakistan is the friendliest of the friends again.``
You and ylh must have swallowed some LSD together.
That`s like asking why isn`t US taking help from Britain instead of Pakistan.
India cannot do much for the US -- WE ARE GEOGRAPHICALLY ISOLATED FROM AFGHANISTAN AND ARE NOT TALIBAN`S BUDDIES LIKE PAKISTAN IS.
It is a matter of practicality, not some long lost American love for Pakistan. They have asked you to listen nicely and obey, or else....
Your comments go to show how desperate Pakistan really is.
#67 Posted by Romair on September 15, 2001 7:38:53 pm
hamidm #67: ``it will have to be a long and sustained effort to take apart their network and the isi will have to play the major role ...``
Yes, this is exactly why the US contacted Pakistan. What other reason could there be. Why didn`t it accept the offer of India? Why Pakistan? All of a sudden Pakistan is the friendliest of the friends again. Just two weeks ago, Bush wasn`t willing to meet Musharraf. Now he himself called him.
If the American military planners are intelligent, they will listen to what the ISI tells them. They will also listen to the advice the PAF gives them. I am quite certain, Pakistani soldiers will be guiding them into Afghanistan covertly. Otherwise the Americans will be sitting ducks (unless they just use high altitude bombing).
Hopefully, the Green Berets will realize that bombing from high altitudes is one thing (something the US is excellent at), but invading on the groud and commando ops (something the US is terrible at) is another. The US govt. and military right now needs to be humble and cooperative, not arrogant and coercive.
On the whole, the US generals have a lot of respect and a lot of personal contacts for and with the Pakistani military, respectively. I have seen this personally. They respect the fact that Pakistan has held its own against much larger militaries of the Soviet invasion and India.
``maybe they can hire back hamid gul who i am sure can be bought for a couple of million dollars ......``
I do not agree with a lot of what Hamid Gul says, but the guy has a very successful track record. He was give a piece of the Berlin Wall for assisting in breaking the back of the USSR empire. He may know more about how to fight in the Afghan terrain than any other human being in the world, outside Afghanistan. When the US was training OBL against Russia, it was through Hamid Gul.
``my biggest fear is that osama will turn himself in (more likely dead than alive) and we will be stuck with the taliban and maulana samiullah ...... it is also possible that if the U.S. makes a half-a$$ attempt to punish the taliban and they are left wounded but standing they will make life hell for pakistan ...... there are no easy answers``
My no. 1 concern is that the US will bomb Afghanistan with its traditional high altitude attacks, to save the precious US soldiers, and kill thousands of innocent Afghanis in the process. Like it did in Iraq. Hopefully, the US realize that by doing so it will only create more anger and create more terrorists.
My second concern is what you have mentioned. I don`t think there is too much bite behind the bark of Pakistan`s internal Jehadis. The only ones with bite are dedicated to fighting in Kashmir. They rarely make any noise. Infact some of these guys are bankers, engineers, businessmen etc., living quite well off in Pakistani cities. They are not too concerned in brining about revolutions inside Pakistan.
The ones threatening inside Pakistan are generally politically or sectarianly motivated. These guys on the whole are still scared of the military.
What I am scared of is this whole network (of which OBL, if guilty, is probably a small part and just an interface funded by multi-millionaire Arabs, turning against Pakistan.
All I can say is I hope Musharraf has ensured that Bush will not just dump Pakistan, after it has assisted the US. From the public statements Powell and Bush are making, it seems that Musharraf has gotten some sort of a good deal for Pakistan.
On the whole, Pakistan is important once again. The US desparately needs Pakistan`s land and airspace. But much more importantly, it needs Pakistan`s knowledge of the area, to succeed.
I feel sorry for the WTC victims and I feel sorry for any innocent Afghanis who will become, ``collateral damage.`` I hope the US openly displays the evidence it has against OBL, before it attacks Afghanistan.
Yes, this is exactly why the US contacted Pakistan. What other reason could there be. Why didn`t it accept the offer of India? Why Pakistan? All of a sudden Pakistan is the friendliest of the friends again. Just two weeks ago, Bush wasn`t willing to meet Musharraf. Now he himself called him.
If the American military planners are intelligent, they will listen to what the ISI tells them. They will also listen to the advice the PAF gives them. I am quite certain, Pakistani soldiers will be guiding them into Afghanistan covertly. Otherwise the Americans will be sitting ducks (unless they just use high altitude bombing).
Hopefully, the Green Berets will realize that bombing from high altitudes is one thing (something the US is excellent at), but invading on the groud and commando ops (something the US is terrible at) is another. The US govt. and military right now needs to be humble and cooperative, not arrogant and coercive.
On the whole, the US generals have a lot of respect and a lot of personal contacts for and with the Pakistani military, respectively. I have seen this personally. They respect the fact that Pakistan has held its own against much larger militaries of the Soviet invasion and India.
``maybe they can hire back hamid gul who i am sure can be bought for a couple of million dollars ......``
I do not agree with a lot of what Hamid Gul says, but the guy has a very successful track record. He was give a piece of the Berlin Wall for assisting in breaking the back of the USSR empire. He may know more about how to fight in the Afghan terrain than any other human being in the world, outside Afghanistan. When the US was training OBL against Russia, it was through Hamid Gul.
``my biggest fear is that osama will turn himself in (more likely dead than alive) and we will be stuck with the taliban and maulana samiullah ...... it is also possible that if the U.S. makes a half-a$$ attempt to punish the taliban and they are left wounded but standing they will make life hell for pakistan ...... there are no easy answers``
My no. 1 concern is that the US will bomb Afghanistan with its traditional high altitude attacks, to save the precious US soldiers, and kill thousands of innocent Afghanis in the process. Like it did in Iraq. Hopefully, the US realize that by doing so it will only create more anger and create more terrorists.
My second concern is what you have mentioned. I don`t think there is too much bite behind the bark of Pakistan`s internal Jehadis. The only ones with bite are dedicated to fighting in Kashmir. They rarely make any noise. Infact some of these guys are bankers, engineers, businessmen etc., living quite well off in Pakistani cities. They are not too concerned in brining about revolutions inside Pakistan.
The ones threatening inside Pakistan are generally politically or sectarianly motivated. These guys on the whole are still scared of the military.
What I am scared of is this whole network (of which OBL, if guilty, is probably a small part and just an interface funded by multi-millionaire Arabs, turning against Pakistan.
All I can say is I hope Musharraf has ensured that Bush will not just dump Pakistan, after it has assisted the US. From the public statements Powell and Bush are making, it seems that Musharraf has gotten some sort of a good deal for Pakistan.
On the whole, Pakistan is important once again. The US desparately needs Pakistan`s land and airspace. But much more importantly, it needs Pakistan`s knowledge of the area, to succeed.
I feel sorry for the WTC victims and I feel sorry for any innocent Afghanis who will become, ``collateral damage.`` I hope the US openly displays the evidence it has against OBL, before it attacks Afghanistan.
#66 Posted by stuka on September 15, 2001 7:38:53 pm
Ylh
`You should let yourself be slaughtered man woman and child but you should give up in spirit and not respond in kind` ... Kindly see his statements and letters during the second world war.
You`re absolutely right. Trust me, I was brought up in the Indian educational system and nothing shocked me out of Gandhism than Gandhi himself. Gandhi`s writing are the best advocate of his own insanity.
Reflect though, there is enough dirt one can dig up or even create on any leader including Jinnah. I have no admiration for Gandhi, but if you want to keep a serious tone going in the posts, desist from maligning him. Its like the blacks can call each other Nig@er, but we can`t. Similarly, your criticism of Gandhi or even the appearence would be misconstrued.
`You should let yourself be slaughtered man woman and child but you should give up in spirit and not respond in kind` ... Kindly see his statements and letters during the second world war.
You`re absolutely right. Trust me, I was brought up in the Indian educational system and nothing shocked me out of Gandhism than Gandhi himself. Gandhi`s writing are the best advocate of his own insanity.
Reflect though, there is enough dirt one can dig up or even create on any leader including Jinnah. I have no admiration for Gandhi, but if you want to keep a serious tone going in the posts, desist from maligning him. Its like the blacks can call each other Nig@er, but we can`t. Similarly, your criticism of Gandhi or even the appearence would be misconstrued.
#65 Posted by hamidm on September 15, 2001 6:16:11 pm
romair
``That is an indication that you are over your state of fear`` ....... wrong - i am still scared kakaless by the religious fundamentalists in pakistan .... that is my worse fear and nightmare ...
...... personally, i don`t care what happens to afghanistan ... they are a pariah nation which if left to themselves will go back to their favourite pastime of patricide, matricide and any other cide you can think of ..... once the taliban government is brought down the achakzais will be fighting the yusufzais who will be marching on the afridis who in turn will go to war against the uzbeks ...and hopefully they will all be extinct soon .......
...... but i do agree with you that the U.S. faces a dilema - who and what to strike at ..... the taliban are not a conventional enemy with a conventional army ..... it will have to be a long and sustained effort to take apart their network and the isi will have to play the major role ......... the isi now has to undo what it did .... maybe they can hire back hamid gul who i am sure can be bought for a couple of million dollars ......
......... my biggest fear is that osama will turn himself in (more likely dead than alive) and we will be stuck with the taliban and maulana samiullah ...... it is also possible that if the U.S. makes a half-a$$ attempt to punish the taliban and they are left wounded but standing they will make life hell for pakistan ...... there are no easy answers
``That is an indication that you are over your state of fear`` ....... wrong - i am still scared kakaless by the religious fundamentalists in pakistan .... that is my worse fear and nightmare ...
...... personally, i don`t care what happens to afghanistan ... they are a pariah nation which if left to themselves will go back to their favourite pastime of patricide, matricide and any other cide you can think of ..... once the taliban government is brought down the achakzais will be fighting the yusufzais who will be marching on the afridis who in turn will go to war against the uzbeks ...and hopefully they will all be extinct soon .......
...... but i do agree with you that the U.S. faces a dilema - who and what to strike at ..... the taliban are not a conventional enemy with a conventional army ..... it will have to be a long and sustained effort to take apart their network and the isi will have to play the major role ......... the isi now has to undo what it did .... maybe they can hire back hamid gul who i am sure can be bought for a couple of million dollars ......
......... my biggest fear is that osama will turn himself in (more likely dead than alive) and we will be stuck with the taliban and maulana samiullah ...... it is also possible that if the U.S. makes a half-a$$ attempt to punish the taliban and they are left wounded but standing they will make life hell for pakistan ...... there are no easy answers
#64 Posted by Ordinary on September 15, 2001 6:16:11 pm
Hamidm # 53
``...Langar Brigade `` man u shamelessly funny, your humorus post sees no bound...true very true after loosing the 3 wars with safron brgds it`s right word.
please ignore my previous reply where I asked the Top policy makers comments....right now the most importatn thing would be ``..go back to decide more important matters like who gets the new honda vti staff cars ...........``
``...Langar Brigade `` man u shamelessly funny, your humorus post sees no bound...true very true after loosing the 3 wars with safron brgds it`s right word.
please ignore my previous reply where I asked the Top policy makers comments....right now the most importatn thing would be ``..go back to decide more important matters like who gets the new honda vti staff cars ...........``
#63 Posted by ylh on September 15, 2001 6:16:11 pm
Rsaxena the chowk child-abuse victim:
This article is totally irrelevant to the discourse or the issue... Any honest historian and author knows what Gandhi`s true response would have been.... One only needs to read his statement to the British in the second world war in which he suggested that British should surrender and let Nazis rape and slaughter them.
In any event, for some reason Chowk staff censored
the rest of my post... in which I said that I totally agree with the spirit of the article though.
As for what you have called me a liar for ... well here are the facts... Plane crash into WTC, YLH makes a condolence remark on Chowk, other Pakistanis make condolence remarks... Indians start criticizing Pakistan.
It is not that you are accusing me unnecessarily but the fact that you probably believe that you are right in assuming these positions which bothers me Saxena... You made a personality analysis in which you declared that something very dark lurks behind seemingly idealistic statements I make.... well I kept quiet then but now I have come to the conclusion that you could only think this way because you probably are like that yourself.
-YLH
PS If anyone has a contention about my comment about Gandhi`s response `You should let yourself be slaughtered man woman and child but you should give up in spirit and not respond in kind` ... Kindly see his statements and letters during the second world war. Also read the collected works of Mahatma Gandhi which is close to 30 volumes... but check out the wartime era.
This article is totally irrelevant to the discourse or the issue... Any honest historian and author knows what Gandhi`s true response would have been.... One only needs to read his statement to the British in the second world war in which he suggested that British should surrender and let Nazis rape and slaughter them.
In any event, for some reason Chowk staff censored
the rest of my post... in which I said that I totally agree with the spirit of the article though.
As for what you have called me a liar for ... well here are the facts... Plane crash into WTC, YLH makes a condolence remark on Chowk, other Pakistanis make condolence remarks... Indians start criticizing Pakistan.
It is not that you are accusing me unnecessarily but the fact that you probably believe that you are right in assuming these positions which bothers me Saxena... You made a personality analysis in which you declared that something very dark lurks behind seemingly idealistic statements I make.... well I kept quiet then but now I have come to the conclusion that you could only think this way because you probably are like that yourself.
-YLH
PS If anyone has a contention about my comment about Gandhi`s response `You should let yourself be slaughtered man woman and child but you should give up in spirit and not respond in kind` ... Kindly see his statements and letters during the second world war. Also read the collected works of Mahatma Gandhi which is close to 30 volumes... but check out the wartime era.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- bulleya: d-m #:"I don't think... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- pinku: #322 Posted by dost_mittar... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- pinku: #321 Posted by tahmed32... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- MantoLives: Tahmed, What I said is... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Adam, That was a... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Majumdar bhai, I am... Living Gandhi and King
- _arjun29: Pakiland is the father... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Mohar mian, Nice try but... Living Gandhi and King
