Explaining it to an American Friend

#: 22

Stuka

Hey dude, this is just great. How about we kill five million of their people and let them introspect on what part they had to play in creating the psyhces that lead to it. ``]]



Stuck,a

I DARE YOU TO DO IT!

Its no use masturbating intellectually and being cyber warriors & heroes.

If you think you can reply to this 9-11 Tragedy ,& have guts go ahead ,make my day ,Kill ONLY 5000 of whosoever you think deserve to .Answer will be clear ,who hurts for real & who just provide lip service & boast on Internet!

Only bravery BJP has done so far is cowardice act of torturing minorities.Ghar meine gidar bhi sher hota hai.

READ JANE`S REPORT AND KNOW ABOUT THE NEFARIOUS NEXUS BETWEEN PAK ARMY/TERRORISTS IN KASHMIR/AND LADEN.

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jid/jid010920_1_n.shtml

One of the more difficult issues which the general may have to explain is the close links between two Islamic militant groups involved in the Kashmir region and the world’s most wanted terrorist, Osama Bin Laden. The two groups in question, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and Lashkar-e Tayyiba, were specifically singled-out in the US State Department’s Report on the Patterns of Global Terrorism for 2000. Although, the Pakistani government has repeated denied that it has any involvement with these two groups, credible intelligence community sources point to close ties between senior members of Pakistan’s military and security services and both organisations.

Other awkward questions will focus on allegations that Pakistan has hosted training camps for militant Islamic groups and provided them with financial assistance — charges which Musharraf’s officials have repeatedly denied — and that Pakistan has been used as the regular transit route via which Bin Laden’s Al-Qa’eda group has travelled. In particular, there are serious allegations that Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence organisation has active links with both the Taliban regime’s intelligence service and Bin Laden himself.

According to local intelligence sources, the Pakistani authorities have provided medical facilities for the ailing Bin Laden, including renal dialysis, at a military hospital in Peshawar. None of this will be unfamiliar to US intelligence operatives who have been compiling extensive reports on these alleged activities. However, it is becoming clear that both the Taliban and Al-Qa’eda would have found it difficult to have continued functioning — including the latter group’s terrorist activities — without substantial aid and support from Islamabad. This would, logically, place Pakistan in the category of “states which support terrorism”, according to the US government’s definition. President Bush’s pointed warnings to Bin Laden’s backers will have put Musharraf on the spot.

I just heard on the radio that the code name `Operation Infinite Justice` for the proposed American actions against Osama bin Laden has been condemned by -- you won`t believe this -- Islamic clerics. Yes, the same fcukers who teach people that they should fly airliners loaded with fuel into buildings occupied by thousands of people are protesting the blasphemy of the code name because according to them only Allah dispenses infinite justice.

Somebody has already suggested the code name `Operation 72 Virgins`. My contribution thus is `Operation 24 smooth-bottomed young boys`. (I don`t think Americans will cotton to a name like 24 Ghilmans. They would want to know what a ghilman is. Once they know what it is, I guess they will stop mouthing conciliatory phrases like `Islam is Peace`.) Somebody else asked, `How about the 36 camels promised the shahids?`. I think that will make a nice title for a blockbuster Hollywood movie: `36 Camels for Omar`.

Screw you guys. We should tell the mullahs to shove their comments about Allah`s infinite justice up their rear-ends. If they don`t like the code name `Infinite Justice`, I think we should call it `Operation Screw Mullah`.

re Reply #: 1 (Gowardhan)

``Pakistan was moderate innocent country, I am the Pope.``

Well, your holiness, far be it from me to question your infallibility.

re. Reply #3 (harimau)

``[Only, bin Laden at least has grievances with the West, however skewed his judgement may be.]

Like, the infidel Americans should get out of the Holy Land called Saudi Arabia.``

er.. yes, actually... if their interests are ultimately against those of the Arabs. kinda like your asking taht Farangi_Kush and Urstruly get the fcuk out of the US/Western world. Perfectly legitimate IMHO.

``I suppose Pakistan doesn`t ``occupy`` its part of Kashmir but has given them independence.``

No, but when I hear of an indigenous uprising in Pakistan occupied Kashmir being quelched by the Pak Army, I`ll be sure to let Thomas and the world know about it-- even if the RSS militia joins in the insurrection.

``When we horrible Hindoos excluded the Untouchables from our temples, that is casteism gone horribly wrong. But when YOU guys exclude others from an entire country, you are protecting the holiness of your religious sites. How wonderfully logical!``

Try this for (il)logic: Comparing a case of exclusion by an identidty-by-birth (caste) with one of exclusion by opposing interests/ideology!! How wonderfully logical!

And what has the targeting of Shias got to do with any of this? Get a life!

re. Hobbyty #various

Thanks... will read Muzzafar Iqbal`s article later and comment.

re. anNy, scout, ylh: Thanks.

re. HN #8

Harish, thanks for the helpful critique.

Yes, I did mean to say that `` when a mob wants to stone somebody...you just label the man a Taliban/Commie or Paedophile...`` The latter is the equivalent of an inside joke, actually. Don`t lose sleep over it :)

You`re quite right on the Kashmir characterization thingy. However, the object was not to present a complete picture of the imbroglio, or even to justify Pakistan`s stance, as much as to present the Pak ``short-sighted`` rationale for Taliban support. (..and perhaps to give this board some chance of getting a thousand interact posts :) )

You write; ``i am not too sure of the ``unequivocally`` part. Most of these reactions have ended up questioning or directly attributing the attacks to being the fallout of the US foreign policy. And seeking introspection from the US...and in cases even veiled threats that similar things are in store ``if they don`t introspect.``

If `uneviquivocally` implies the absence of a call to question or introspect, then I am wrong in using the word. However, I see no conflict in condeming the actions outright but calling for introspection on the what might have motivated them. I sure as hell would want to throw a bomb into the neighborhood of those who I feel unjustly bombed mine (even as they went about their `clinical` operations). Whether or not I go through with the action should not diminish the issue of the original injustice.

I grant that the question of the original sin is never going to be resolved in a cycle of ``victim`s defensive overcompensation`` which you seem to be willing to grant the US on the suggesstion that it ``is relatively easier to understand and forgive...because the first stone was cast by somebody else.``] Well... I`m sure to have it from the perpetrators of the WTC horror, they`re not the ones to have cast the first stones.

``What worth Patrick of a truthful misogynist, bigot and fanatic. By label they are already peddlers of their brand of truth is it not?``

Harish, the issue of thruthfullness was brought up specifically with respect to their claim that they will hand over ObL once the US provided some concrete evidence. In any case, as for worth, with unabashed misogynists, etc. you at least know who you`re dealing with.

regards,

Pat.

P.S. Am awaiting Thomas` reply. My reply was actually sent his way after it was accepted by chowk... thanks to hotmail`s up-now, down-then servers.

re. jay:

``Islam is the religion of peace, but why is it so misunderstood, it is always the mullah, the wrong interpretations. If a book is so prone to misinterpretations, revise the book, or at least add some modern commentry...``

I agree. I always have. But is this an either-or situation? Whose blaming the mullahs anyway? I`m holding the US partly respobsible for the stew they`ve created viz fundamentalism in the region, thanks to their own shortsightnesss and self-interestedness.

``Well well there is trouble,, fatwas are flying.``

And jays are out singing with the larks, aren`t they!

The rest of your post, however valid, does not relate to anything I`ve said in my corresspondence.

re. #10 jafridi:

``yuppie class``?? No, not me. And I have a BIG emotional stake in the country`s future, having been a social worker there for over a decade.

re. thrasher #12

You write: ``Your opinion... is that we are the same as ObL and other terrorists. You are wrong.``

Actually, my reasoning was that if the US decides to exact revenge instead of justice, THEN they`d be acting on a par (or perhaps worse than) the other terrorists. hope that offers some insight into the psyche of these `evil terrorists` now.

``In armed conflict, such as the Gulf War, only after diplomatic solutions had failed, did the U.S. move on its targets.`` now tell me again, does ``hand-back-Kuwait-and-our-Oil-fields-or-we`ll-blow-your-asses- to-pieces-with-two-minute-interval-sorties-for-five-weeks`` qualify as true diplomacy?

``Yes, there was collateral damage but our targets were military and we were willing to fight face to face.``

Yeah right. Tell that to the... er.. marines. if you were so willing to engage your forces `face to face`, why didn`t you guys just go ahead and finsih the job? Or did you suddenly forget that ``this war is not against the Iraqi people, this war is against Saddam Hussain``?? And pray tell, why was the UN investigation into the bombing by US forces in Sudan (doubtless targetting military installations only!) in `98 blocked?

``Your heros on the other hand are the ultimate cowards and criminals. Their targets were civilians--no warning--no diplomacy--no chance to respond or preempt. This is the exact opposite of U.S. policy. This is what separates us.``

Agree with your description of ``my heroes`` (!!!); not with your assertion of US policy... You seem strangely willing to accept that there will be `collateral damage` in your (ha!) `clinical` operations. The fact that it is primarily military targets you target seems to justify in your mind the loss of hundreds or thousands of civilians. I am at a loss as to how this differs from say, an ObL, targetting the ``collateral`` in order to win his war. It is especialy hard to justify your `collateral damage` in the context of a war fought merely to secure your economic interests.

Do take the time to read the couple of articles on the pschye and motivations of the terrorits in this weeks TIME. Perhaps the fact that they`ve been written by Americans might cause you less indignation. Also try Chomsky for extra credit.

``Realize this, your ``reasoning`` has marginalized and murdered many people who are merely lost.``

Gee.. stole the words from my mouth!! except, I would have had `Foreign Policy` in place of `reasoning.`

btw, which part of my fear of an ``unjust retaliation`` did you fail to understand? And please tell the world what evidence you have that ObL, not Gaddafi, or Saddam was behind this?

You have my every wish that the true perpetrators of this tragedy are brought to justice (hell, to use your word -- obliterated!) Please just let us know how much in keeping with the American principles of justice and fairplay your actions will be. Or is would it be okay to fight terrorism with terrorism?

rgds,

PM

(And also please tell me what the hell I am supposed to do with all those letters following USMC anyway?)

re. Sadna #13;

Sadna,

I share your wishes. What say we bring all that up on a board describing sectarian violence in Pakistan. Why don`t you post one such article. For now, let`s not confuse issues. Thanks.

re. Stuka #22

``Hey dude, this is just great. How about we kill five million of their people and let them introspect on what part they had to play in creating the psyhces that lead to it.``

Ahh.. but why do you assume you haven`t already done harm to or killed their people? Could it be that you`ve been too glued to CNN to know what really happens in the world??

harimau #17, ``Tell me, sweetheart, when was the first time elections were held in Northern Territories.``

First of all, keep the term ``sweetheart`` to yourself. I don`t need that kind of cheap patronizing.

Secondly, I don`t want to argue with hatemongers like you. I just told you not to vomit your hatred onto this board as well.

``The more you interact here, the more you are becoming like YLH. Are you dating him, by any chance?``

No, I don`t date kids, but I`m sure you`re dating Gowardhan, Akash, Suxena, or maybe all of them these days. Judging from the fact that all of you have nothing but vicious statements to make.

So once again, don`t pollute all of the boards with hate. It`s getting boring, repetitive, and no one`s reading. Tell that to your boyfriends too.

Gowardhan #33, ``Not only Islamic fundamentalists are fools. Remember you are one also.``

didn`t i tell you, a long time ago, that it takes a fool to know one.

you aren`t learning from your mistakes kiddo...you`re slipping :)

re. Joseph #29

Fully agree with the first part of your post.

Later you write: ``It is time to stand up for humanity`s sake and oppose these fanatics, rather than justify historically why these bafoons act like this.``

Sure, as long as you can identify the fanatics and prove (reasonbly) their crimes. Anything else would be mere perpetuation of terrorism.

``Fanatics are in every religion, but only Islam has trouble controlling their bafoons. KKK in USA can not get enough support from public like islamic fanatics are getting.``

It is very convenient to lump all (Muslim) fundamentalists together, and throw in the KK to boot. Might the reality -- the motivation and methods, and yes, the history! -- not, in fact, be quite different in these cases?

``Americans understands why these fanatics are behaving badly, but sorry, there is no justification to their rationale.``

What is the ``American`` understanding on the motivations of these fanatics` (who exactly??)-- apart from some innate evil (to hear it from Mr. bush anyway)?

In my own understanding, at least *part * of the motivation is not being the Numero Uno on the bloc. but I woud hardly consider that a complete explanation.

rgds,

PM

P.S. Am disappointed that no one has addressed ``War Not on the Iraqi People`` and Sudan `98 as possible forms of (state-sponsored) terrorism.

Charmed

We know. Those sinful jews. Those horrible Hinoos. Those satanic Americans. Those loving Talibanis. Those innocent Pakis.

re. ylh: ``I am touched once again by your patriotism... Thankyou for working to save Pakistan`s image.``

Yasser.. this is not about patriotism, or saving Pakistan`s image. It`s about presenting angles and facets people do not or would not often see.