Jihad: Paradoxes and Defining Moments

YLH #673

Which school did you study at?

shankar:

marry that thing? dont know about miss scout, but I`d rather jump off habib bank plaza with stones tied to my ankles before i even hear another suggestion as repulsive

I am in Karachi.

LOL gorgeous? Persistence is more like it ;--)

Re: ylh

Please discredit each of these sources using your favorite delusion of the day:

- WSJ

- CNN

- Now shrinker`s post from BBC

And Patricia M, feel free to join him.

http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/columnists/story.html?f=/stories/20011015/736765.html

Saudis are behind all the `root causes`

Mark Steyn

National Post

Last week, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal gave a $10-million donation to New York City`s relief effort. He then said that ``at times like this one, we must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack. I believe the government of the United States of America should re-examine its policies in the Middle East.``

Mayor Giuliani told him to take his cheque and shove it. He had no time, he said, for ``moral equivalence`` over the deaths of 5,000 New Yorkers guilty of nothing other than going to work that morning. As he put it at the UN, ``You`re either with civilization or with terrorists.``

But let`s take up Prince Alwaleed`s suggestion to ``address some of the issues.`` In today`s New Yorker, Seymour Hersh writes that since 1996 the Saudi Royal Family has been channeling hundreds of millions of dollars to Osama bin Laden`s operations and to other terror groups. Giuliani may think that you`re either with civilization or with terrorists, but as usual the Saudi position is more, ah, nuanced. If the U.S. is going to ``re-examine its policies in the Middle East,`` it might like to start with its relationship with the House of Saud.

It`s remarkable how, for all the surface flim-flam about Afghanistan, Israel, Iraq, Palestine and Pakistan, everything specific about this crisis circles back to Saudi Arabia:

Who were the suicide bombers?

Several were wealthy Saudis.

Who`s their boss?

Osama bin Laden, another Saudi.

But doesn`t he live in Afghanistan?

Yes, under the protection of the Taliban, who were trained in Islamic seminaries in Pakistan funded by the Saudis.

So what`s his main beef?

The U.S. military has bases near the Muslim holy sites in Saudi Arabia.

Why are they there?

They`ve been there since the Gulf War, to protect the Saudis from Iraq.

What does Osama want to do?

Drive the U.S. out of Saudi Arabia.

How come he`s got the dough to wage war on the world`s pre-eminent power?

Because his dad got rich in the Saudi construction business.

Is being a general contractor that lucrative?

It is if you`re in with the Saudi Royal Family.

Even so, that must have been some building boom.

It was, mainly because of U.S. development of the Saudi oil industry.

So the Saudis and Americans are pretty close?

Not exactly. They refuse to let the U.S. use their own bases in Saudi Arabia for the current campaign against Afghanistan, so the American bombers have to come from Missouri.

Expensive on the gas?

True, but that`s all the more reason to kiss up to the Saudis.

Saudi, Saudi, Saudi ... American defence of Saudi Arabia gave Osama bin Laden his cause, American investment in Saudi Arabia gave him the money to bankroll it. If we`re looking for ``root causes`` to this current situation, American support for Israel is a mere distraction next to its creation and maintenance of modern Saudi Arabia.

The Beltway guys may talk about realpolitik, but they`re pikers compared to the House of Saud. Since King Fahd`s stroke in 1995, his half-brother, Prince Abdullah, has come to the conclusion that appeasing Islamic fundamentalism is more important than cosying up to Washington. After all, as this last month has proved, you can be one of only three states with diplomatic relations with the Taliban, you can be militarily uncooperative, you can refuse to freeze Osama`s assets, you can decline even to meet with Tony Blair, you can do whatever you like, and Washington will still insist you`re a ``staunch friend.``

Even the joint Anglo-American military action must cause some mirth in Riyadh: Aside from his impressively bloody warmongering and his deflowering of (officially) 135 virgins, the principal skill of Ibn Saud, the founder of the Saudi kingdom, was his ability to drive a wedge between the British and Americans and play them off against each other. Many regimes have attempted to do this, but in the modern era none has pulled it off with the flair of Saudi Arabia`s first king.

Both countries miscalculated: As the dominant power in Arabia between the wars, the British reckoned they didn`t need Ibn Saud, whom they regarded as an unstable thug next to the preferred Hashemite kings they installed in Transjordan and Iraq. The Americans, lacking any other clients in the region, were flattered by Ibn Saud`s eagerness to be their friend. He figured, quite correctly, that he`d have greater access in Washington than he would in London. So, in 1933, just a year after founding his kingdom, he signed his first oil contract with the U.S. and eventually gave them a monopoly on leases.

The result has been a spectacular transformation. A century ago, Ibn Saud was a desert warrior of no fixed abode. Today the House of Saud has approximately 7,000 members. In our own Royal Family, the title of Prince is restricted to children or grandchildren of the Sovereign: HRH The Duke of Kent, the grandson of King George V, is a Prince; his heir, the Earl of Ulster, being a mere great-grandson of a king, is not. But Saudi Arabia produces about 40 new princes a month. Chances are, while you`re reading this, some hapless female member of the House of Saud is having contractions. Because if there`s one thing Saudi Arabia can always use, it`s another prince. The family hogs all the cabinet posts, big ambassadorships and key government agencies and owns all the important corporations: that takes a lot of princes. Public service in Saudi Arabia is an expensive business because salary is commensurate with Royal status: cabinet ministers can earn over US$6-million (base).

This isn`t some quaint ancient culture that the U.S. was forced to go along with, but rather one largely of its own creation. American know-how fueled Saudi Arabia`s rapid transformation from reactionary feudal backwater into the world`s most technologically advanced and spectacularly wealthy reactionary feudal backwater. They`ve still got beheadings every Friday, but the schedule is computerized. As Ibn Saud told Colonel William Eddy, the first U.S. minister to Saudi Arabia in 1946, ``We will use your iron, but you will leave our faith alone.``

The ``stability`` junkies in D.C. still like the deal, but others are beginning to mull over the likely shape of a post-Saud Arabia. ``How about we tell the Palestinians they can have Saudi Arabia if they`ll move and leave the Israelis alone? The Palestinians are hard working and entrepreneurial,`` writes Virginia Postrel, ``unlike the Saudis`` -- which is true: The economy is mostly dependent on the six million foreign workers, who make up a quarter of the population. ``The Palestinians aren`t going to get Jerusalem,`` she points out. ``Maybe they`d settle for Mecca and Medina.`` Professor Glenn Reynolds, whose Instapundit.com is having the best war of any Internet site (the guy seems to update it 22 hours a day: never mind having a night out, he barely takes bathroom breaks), prefers the idea of restoring the Hashemites -- the traditional rulers of the Hejaz and the ones the Brits had in mind for a pan-Arabic kingdom until Ibn Saud started slaughtering his way to the top. Reynolds` point is well-taken. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was a political afterthought -- Churchill, as Colonial Secretary, used to say he created the nation in an afternoon`s work -- but generally it has proved more benign than its neighbours. It`s possible to foresee (admittedly some way down the road) Jordan evolving into a modern constitutional monarchy, but not the decadent, bloated, corrupt House of Saud. It`s not a question of if the Royal Family will fall, but when. Even if they were really the ``good friend`` Washington insists they are, their treatment of women, the restrictiveness of the state religion and their ludicrous reliance on government by clan make it impossible for the Saudi monarchy to evolve into anything with a long-term chance of success. By backing and enriching Ibn Saud`s swollen progeny, the U.S. has put all its eggs into one basket case.

If Washington wasn`t thinking about these things before Sept. 11, I hope it is now. America may be the engine of the global economy, but Saudi Arabia is the gas tank, producing more oil more easily than anywhere else on earth. Without Saudi oil, the USAF wouldn`t be able to fly from Missouri to the end of the runway. So, if King Fahd`s playboy princes are really paying off terrorists, it`s time to make sure they get with the program or get off the stage. Newt Gingrich recently said that victory in this war would be defined by new governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the long run, we need to add Saudi Arabia to that list.

Re Shankar 681

But don`t you know what the great Chuck Yeager said about the PAF, don`t you? That`s all that matters, get it?

ylh,

bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1602000/1602184.stm

``Further wars, in 1965 & 1971 went comprehensively in India`s favour``

I suppose the good ol BBC did`nt read your posts. They feel India ``won`` those wars. Or maybe the phrase ``comprehensively in India`s favour`` means something else:)

``Win`` in a war means achieving the objectives in the war. Glorifying heroics in battle means squat, if the objectives are not met.

Re:Reply #: 616

shammi,

Thanks for your post.

Your mentioning Thirupati brought back some painful memories. Every year it was kind of a chore that whenever i visited Madras, i would invariably go to Thirupati. Not anymore. That place has become so commercialised. The higher you pay, the easier access you have to God. Everything there seems to have a price. And there are people willing to pray the price for a darshan! Amazing. As Swami Yogananda says, all one needs to pray is a little corner in one`s house. I feel perfectly happy in the little corner in my house where i can meditate in seclusion. No more Thirupatis for me.

Sridhar

Re:Reply #: 620

PM,

Thanks for your long but interesting post.

I shall start by saying that i agree with you about the Baghdad war which was mainly fought to secure US economic interests but the Iraqi people continue to suffer the consequences. A result of that war has been the permanent stationing of ``US Force`` in the Saudi soil, something that has been the ire of OBL. The US govt justifies its presence on the pretext that it is protecting Saudi oil interest from Mr SH of Baghdad. The American people seem to accept this logic. However, at no time do they come to know how the average Saudi Arabian or muslim feel about the troop presence in Saudi Arabia. Perhaps this has a lot to do with how the media works here. The Saudi King is secure with his interests well protected by a super-power. I wonder if he ever ponders to think if he is doing the right thing in allowing US troops. Perhaps he fears an overthrow if he refuses to co-operate. With the money that Saudi Arabia has, it can easily purchase any weapon to protect itself. I am sure there is no dearth of men to protect that country if Iraq decides to invade. There is really no reason for Saudi Arabia to allow US troops on its soil if it does not want it. I suspect, there is something deeper here. US troops is there not only to protect Saudi Kings economic interest but is also his best bet from being overthrown by a rival. So, there is a symbiotic relationship here.

In reality, Arabs are a divided lot and USA has taken advantage on one pretext or the other. While the policy of stationing troops in Saudi Arabia makes a lot of economic sense for US, it does not make a lot of political sense, as recent events prove. US foreign policy makers act in their own self-interest. Economic interest comes before anything else. This has been the bane of their foreign policy. They are not interested in areas where economic potentials do not exist. I recently read in ``The Atlantic`` magazine how failure of US to intervent in Rwanda caused millions in that country to die when 2 rival tribes clashed. Apparently, US had prior knowledge (as per the magazine)of the impending disaster but chose not to intervene. One wonders how it would have reacted if the same thing had occurred in Kuwait or Taiwan.

Yes, the other culprit is the US media. It has its own agenda. Average American is naieve and believes what the media says. I am amazed at the level of ignorance of an average American about places and cultures outside USA. All of a sudden everyone wants to learn about Islam. Everyone is wondering why Americans are so much hated. Foreign policy mandarins, in collusion with the media, have kept the Americans in dark for a long time on a lot of issues. One such issue is Palestine Vs Israel. Today, many are asking if it is not a good idea for US to disentangle itself from its special relation with Israel. However, the jewish lobby is very strong here and this is something that will not happen easily. An attack like the one on Sept 11 makes palestinian cause more difficult to defend. Many Israelis, including some former PMs, have found common cause with the US on terrorism. The only real way to make Palestinian and other causes known in US is through lobbying with senators and through creating a public awareness via the media. Unfortunately, the muslim world has not done that. In the news media including the history channel, i hardly ever see anything about Islam or Palestine. America until know was not interested in any other muslim country other than Egypt. Things definitely have changed recently but not in a constructive sort of way.

So, if Mr OBL had really wanted to change US policy in ME and get US out of Saudi Arabia, he would have been better off lobbying and creating awareness for his cause. In this endeavour, he would have had the support of all muslims and many non-muslims. Of course, this is a long but difficult road. OBL has however chosen a wrong path, one of violence and has justified it quoting scriptures from Qoran. Muslims the world over should isolate him but condemning his acts.

rgds,

Sridhar

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

Re:Reply #: 662

ylh,

You forget something that is almost always responsible for winning or losing a war:a committed population and industrial infrastructure. India has 1 billion population with more than 300 million middle class. Also, India is a democracy with a vast Industrial infrastructure. These things matter a lot in a long drawn war. India has also a powerful media. Finally, the figures that you state are never proven to be accurate. These are just figures. You may or may not choose to believe them. Surely, India is not going to say how vast its nuclear arsenals are. This is a closely guarded secret and India has always been very paranoid about letting the world know its nuclear secrets.

Let us hope Pakistani generals who rule your country realise the follied of last 50 years and turn a new leaf. Let us also hope we live to see peace in the subcontinent. All this talk about who is superior to who sound jingoistic considering the consequences of a nuclear exchange.

Sridhar

shankar bhai #656,

raveena would be better off perpetually single.

we wouldn`t want any poor guy to suffer her endless b#tchy wrath.

India - Pakistan`s new best friend

``Message for Colin Powell?

EDITORIAL : Whether the Indian firing across the working boundary in three sectors near Sialkot on Monday evening, continuing till daybreak, was intended to be a message for Colin Powell also that India may go it alone to stamp out the freedom struggle in occupied Kashmir, is for the US Secretary of State to ponder. As for Pakistan the meaning of the rehearsal on a border more or less quiet for the last ten months is absolutely clear.

It was to be expected after Jaswant Singh, India`s fire eating foreign minister had hinted at plans to invade Azad Kashmir, during an interview with BBC the other day.

That was part of the castles built in the air in New Delhi, when Jaswant Singh offered free use of Indian military bases for action against Afghanistan: That the Taleban infested Pakistan would certainly demur at joining the US-led war against Afghanistan for the capture of Osama bin Laden, the pre-judged architect of the September 11 tragedy in the US, and would be declared a terrorist enemy; that would be a golden opportunity for India to destroy Pakistan`s military machine, to begin with, its nuclear deterrent incapacitated by US missiles and bombers. The dream was shattered and all the meticulous planning - including a car bomb explosion in the Srinagar assembly - went awry when events took a different course and Pakistan sagaciously accepted an important role as a frontline state in the war against terrorism. Exasperated, the Indians blurted out that they still had a trump card left: a unilateral declaration of war against Pakistan.

A trump card surely it is, and on the Sialkot border they are now warning everybody it can be used. The threat, however, is directed mainly against the US. If Pakistan is engaged in full-scale hostilities on its eastern flank, its western flank, with unguarded military installations would automatically turn into a flood-gate for the Taleban militants in search of safety, food and weapons of war. That would be the moment of truth for Pakistan`s decision makers: To use or not to use the weapon of last resort for survival; for the Americans the choice would be: off-loading their obsolescent bombs and missiles aimlessly on the deserted rocks, impenetrable nature-made bunkers of the Taleban militia, or to give up before being entangled in an infinite ground war. The American leadership naturally has a clearer idea of the consequences of an Indian intervention in a war effort that is claimed to be proceeding satisfactorily so far. President Bush hastened to issue a call on Monday night to New Delhi and Islamabad to cool down tensions, while the avowedly unprovoked Indian firing was still going on. ``I think,`` said he, ``it is very important that India and Pakistan stand down during our activities in Afghanistan and, for that matter, forever.`` The US Secretary of State, whose arrival in Islamabad just an hour earlier, might have occasioned the heavy mortar fire on Pakistani posts on the excuse of transborder terrorist movement, hit the nail on the head when he said that for promoting stability in South Asia ``we, too, believe that the Kashmir issue is central to the relationship and can be resolved if all parties engage with a willingness to address their concerns in mutually acceptable ways.`` This is as close as could be expected to the Pakistan stand that the Kashmiris be allowed to determine their own future. If Colin Powell elaborates upon it in less ambiguous terms in his meeting with the Indian leaders, he will have answered the Sialkot message and that may have a sobering effect on them. There may be some indication of it in his Indian hosts` reactions. Focusing on the general understanding reached between President Musharraf and the US Secretary of State on the post-Taleban set-up in Afghanistan, some commentators have described it as the revival of a stagnant relationship. This is a bit exaggerated. Powell agreed with Musharraf that ``there were some moderate elements of the Taleban and they would have a role to play in Afghanistan`s future.`` On Kashmir just as on the issue of Taleban, there has been a significant shift in the US stand, no doubt. But it is, in fact, a rediscovery of American interests in a critically important region. A peaceful Kashmir is the key to harmony between Pakistan and India, which is essential to the promotion of US interests in the vast expanse from Dhaka to the shores of Caspian Sea. Afghanistan, in any case, cannot be managed without Pakistan`s help. American diplomacy seems to be in the process of growing up. It remains to be seen how long it will take to steer clear of the myopic vision borrowed from the Islam hating media and industry`s obsession with the Indian market.

Business Recorder

re: RSaxena # 668

``Do you also go to tupperware parties?``

LOL...good one.

The less interesting answer is that I was sent that song by someone, and since I did not expect that song from them, I wanted to put it to good use. After all, we do want eternal bliss for Binifer.

Keeping a safe distance from all tupperware -

EK

Ms Rubina Saigol used to teach me history in 7th grade ... Amazingly she is one of the top feminists of Pakistan...

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/review/review6.htm

Re: ylh on CNN

Dude, you keep getting your behind whacked on this board, again and again and again....

You like CNN but not the WSJ, eh? Well read what Akash had posted from CNN. You too, Patricia M.

{{Here is one more ``foreign`` and reliable reference on the ``defeat`` of Pak in 1947-48 war and 1965 war against India. This time it is CNN website.

Go to the countrywatch and read the history of Pakistan. I am producing the following relevent excerpt.

`` Ayub Khan kept his grip intact on both the civil society as well as the armed forces of Pakistan. He also led Pakistan into its second war with India in 1965, which began when India alleged that Pakistan was aiding and instigating armed groups to infiltrate Kashmir and attack Indian forces there. However, as in 1947-48, the Indians defeated the Pakistani army. This loss had serious consequences on the domestic politics of Pakistan. Ayub Khan`s power declined sharply, leading to large-scale political and economic grievances all over the country. There were massive agitations and movements against Ayub Khan`s rule and that forced his resignation in March 1969``}}

Re: ylh

``Perhaps Your mummy daddy probably ``

You think everyone is like you, summoning mummi to the resuce? (Dude, I`ve got to thank you for that one...that was some funny $hit...you running off ``mummi, mummi yeh log ko bolo aisaa hi hota hai``)