The Price

Zafar #380

Habib Tanvir rules!

btw... what are you doing in Chowk on a saturday?

shammi:

“True. I agree with you. However, something is amiss. Why is it that of the 500+ suspects arrested in the US after 9/11, the largest contingent by a long shot (208 to be exact) are Pakistanis? Egyptians are a distant 2nd with only 74.”

……almost all the pakistanis arrested were because of immigration infringements eg overstaying their visas….of all the 500 odd in detention only a handful have been found to have links to al-qaieda and so far none of their nationalities or names have been released….

RSaxena:

``...it`s no secret pak`s had a better team for most of the time...but hey, you gotta be better at something when you`re worse in everything else ;)``

....lol...this isn`t a cop-out is it?...

fawad79: The question is not of putting up a Christian lawyer. The question is of having the maximum effect. Pakistan will not gain or losing anything by putting a Christian as an ambassador to the US (I think it will gain by putting a female however). Whomever can do the best job, and have the maximum effect should be the representative. In a perceived war between Jews and Muslims, an articulate Christian female would be a good choice of leader, for Palestinians.

As for Christians in the Pakistan military: They do quite well. And are very well respected. Far more respected than they are in the Pakistani civilian society. There were six Christian pilots in the PAF in 65. Five of them received Sitar-i-Jurat. Needless to say, Christians command far more respects amongst their unit officers, squadron pilots and sailors than they are accorded in civilian Pakistan.

All the Christian military officers I have met seem to agree with that.

It is now an unwritten (or perhaps written) law that no one except a Shia or a Sunni will go past Lt. General. This was actually imposed on the military by the civilian establishments and civilian society. The military itself, probably wouldn`t have imposed it (unless someone like Zia came into power).

I have worked with Christian/Parsi/Ahmadi etc. F-16 pilots, commandoes, unit commanders, base commanders etc. I had a Christian instructor, a Parsi instructor and an Ahmadi instructor. I didn`t know for a year that the Parsi was a Parsi. No one really cared. There are Christians and other minorities flying F-16s over Kahuta and stationed in Kashmir, facing India.

There was rarely, if ever, any discrimination, at lower ranks, that I can recall. Discrimination starts when they reach the General ranks.

Soldiers who are actually fighting the war, dont care what the religion of their colleague is. They just look at the rank and the courage of the person. It is civilian pressures from politicians and critics (both of whom themselves will never have the courage to risk their lives for their countries) that put up all the hype about religion in the military. Due to this Christain and other minorities will probably not make it past Maj. Gen. in the military now. Quite sad.

Yehuda #369 ``I am a lawyer in Tel Aviv and have seen lot of violence committed by Arafat and his supporters. I hope to present my views to some of you, from Israeli perspective.``

Welcome to chowk. Arab-Isreali issues are not the burning ones on chowk, since chowkies are nearly all either Indian or Pakistani and one fine rep from Bangladesh (just as I am sure you dont worry too much about Pakistani-India issues in Tel Aviv). But all I can say is this: You blame (in your other post) Iraq and Saudi and Pakistan for Israel`s problems. It is easy to blame other people (and I am not defending the policies of any government when I say this). If Israelis and Palestinians lived as good neighbors with one another, and saw each other as fellow humans with families and feelings, there is nothing anyone could do to cause trouble between you. And the rest of the world, and future generations, would thank the peacemakers (who would ultimately have to be from among the Palestinians and the Israelis) for that.

SameerJB #345: ``A better than usual relationship with India would have gone long way- from approaching Northern Alliance to saving few phridom phyters of Pakistani origin. You do not hear this from Radio Romair:``

I rarely take the time to reply to name-calling and personal attacks. It is not worth my time, and their are too many people who seem to make a living out of name-calling on Chowk. But, I need to make an exception in this case, since your normally reasonable replies, over the past six months or so, have turned into illogical attacks on poeple, based on personal hatred.

Sameer, I have always stated that Pakistan should have friendly relations with India. Could you point to one instance where I have stated that Pakistan should not have friendly relations with India. If you cannot, then I would expect that you would have enough decency to apologize.

Secondly, I have gone out of my way, to state that Pakistan should stay out of interfering in Afghanistan. Please go thru all my replies to the article previously written by FerozeK. Once again, could you point to one instance where I have stated that Pakistan should interfere in Afghanistan. I don`t think Pakistan should even contact Northern Alliance (which it is now doing). This is no different than contacting the Taliban, earlier. I think Pakistan should just completely freeze the border in both directions, in its foreign policy. If you cannot point to any of comments supporting your outright false allegations, then I would expect that you would have enough decency to apologize.

If you are unwilling to either point out where I have stated either of the above, and you are not gentleman enough to apologize, then I would like to request you to kindly refrain from accusations, based on false statements (at least against me). I don`t appreciate them, nor do I have time for them.

As Musharraf has become more popular, your extremism is growing in proportion to the extremism of the religious parties in Pakistan (and their subsequent hatred against Pakistan`s current govt). This to me is a form of fundamentalism, which sees everything, accept one`s own views are wrong. You have a strong hatred against anything religious and anything to do with the military. You do not pick and chose; you just hate, on the basis of one`s religious inclination, or one`s profession. This amounts to racism, and not patriotism, because there are both good and bad people of the cloth and uniform. Not all of them are good, and not all of them are bad.

You keep stating that Pakistan should be friendly with India, as if you are the only one who wants this. Could you point to one person in India or Pakistan, who does not think the same thing (even the ones on Chowk, who through insults at each other regularly, want friendship; they just want it on their own terms)? Yet you seem to state this in a condescending manner, implying that you are the only one who has enough common sense to support friendship, while everyone else is a fanatic (once again pointing towards your own fundamentalist tendencies).

The major sign of fundamentalists has nothing to do with religious tendencies. The major sign is they assume anyone who does not agree with their views (be they religious or non-religious), is wrong. They cannot argue their points logically, so they rely on accusations. They tend to point out themselves to be the most religious, or the most peace-loving, or friendlier with India, etc. While completely attempting to discredit everyone else. This gives the fundamentalists a strong following within a small group of people.

According to your views, If people want friendship with India, on different terms than yours, they don`t want friendship, at all. If someone wants human rights of Kashmiris to be given the same importance as trade with India, they become war-mongers, in your book. Much like anyone who does not pray identically to a religious fanatic is considered a non-Muslim, straight out, by the fanatic. The fact that he practices Islam slightly differently, but is still a Muslim, is not an option, at all. Please rest assured, you are not the only South Asian who wants peace in South Asia. There is no need for you to deal with others in a condescending manner, on this issue.

``Musharraf is a person who can not be trusted not because he is not patriiotic Pakistani but because he is stupid and like Saddam Hussain``

This is ridiculous, and does not do justice to a person with intellect like yours. Are you seriously comparing Musharraf to Saddam Hussien? I have never heard this kind of a comparison from anyone, on any news channel, anywhere in the world. Once again, much like a religious fanatic, you are declaring people you do not agree with, to be equivalent of Saddam Hussein. Qazi Hussein, Sami-ul-Haq called Musharraf a lot of names, but your comparison has them beat.

``now it is Iran-Pakistan joint proposal - you bring your supporters in Herat and Shia Hazara and we will bring in Pathans, keeping the NA out.``

Pakistan has openly stated that the govt. in Afghanistan should be broad-base including the Northern Alliance. There are many statements from Saddam Hussein (oops, my mistake, I meant Musharraf) on this subject. And from the Pakistan foreign office. Iran has stated the same.

There are a lot of commonalities between your attitude and that of the fanatic maulvis. Both of you consider each other to be useless; one stating religion should be shoved down everyone`s throat, and the other stating it should be completely taken away. Why are both of you so obssessed with religion? This is no different than men who are obssessed with the clothes women wear; one wants them in a burka, the other wants them in a bikini. Both concentrating on women`s clothings as the sign of progress or backwardness. Why don`t you let people do with religion as they want? I don`t want religion out of my life (and I don`t want it shoved down my throat, either). Why do you want to take it out of my life? Who gave you that right? Just take it out of your own life, and leave everyone else alone.

The secret of a sane and just society is for people to learn to live with others, who have different views. It is based on people arguing points intelligently, based on facts; not on innuendos, lies and futuristic conspiracy theories. It is also based on a moderate outlook on life (somewhere between yours and the maulvis, in my opinion), which realizes that everyone does not have to hold the 100% identical views as one`s own self. If someone prays with their hands to the side and not to the front, it does not mean he/she is not a Muslim. And if someone wants religion in their private and public life, this does not make them a religious fanatic. Similarly, if someone wants certain political matters handled differently than your solution (provided they do not support people who are known to be corrupt or destructive; it is good to see you have finally stopped supporting Benazir, and Shahbaz Sharif), they automatically do not become Indian-haters or non-patriots. It also means that one does not zero in on religion as the cause or solution to all of Pakistan`s problems (it is neither the cause, nor the solution). The solution to Pakistan`s problems lies in lack or excess of corruption, education, moderation, freedom, feudalism, real democracy, etc. Why do all the religious and secular fanatics keep obssessively narrowing in on religion?

Any intelligent discourse becomes impossible with a person who does not follow the above rules. If you would like to discuss something with me, please quote statements I have made, so at least I can explain my point. There is no way for me to reply to false statements anyone makes regarding my opions, on issues. Otherwise, I would like to request you to kindly keep me out of your comments.

P.S. There is one point I would like to make here, regarding Pakistanis fighting in Afghanistan: I, like many people, do not agree with Pakistanis going into Afghanistan to fight with the Taliban. Sameer, has incorrectly, (perhaps due to emotions and a personal dislike for Musharraf) stated, that Musharraf is trying to save the, ``phridom phyters`` in Afghanistan. Musharraf has actually supported Sameer`s views on this issue, i.e. if Pakistanis in Afghanistan get killed, it`s their own fault. Please go to, ``http://www.pakistanvision.com`` and listen to Musharraf`s video interview.

I however, disagree with Sameer and Musharraf, on this issue. I think any human life that can be saved should be saved, provided that person is not attacking anyone, at the moment. Even though, I am completely against the Pakistanis fighting in Afghanistan, in support of the Taliban, I still think, if they have laid down their arms, or are willing to lay down their arms, they should be treated like prisoners of war, and should face a trial under the Geneva convention rules. To suggest that someone should be killed, even if he can be tried in a court of law, is a view based on hatred, and not on logic. This is the basis of fundamentalism and fanaticism. And it is becoming quite clear, that one does not necessarily have to be religious to be a fundamentalist.

Reply Stuka, Hamzad # 361

``Ridiculing the former masters is what slaves are still afraid of------I think``

Much more fun to make fun of current masters.

Anybody ever saw ``Charandas Chor``?

re a v r

``After the defeat of communism, next real fight should be the defeat of Muslim fundamentalism. It will be appropriate to enlarge the theatre of action to Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Syria and Pakistan. There was no Palestine as a state or country. Bible records Palestine as a region and not as a country or state. Hundred years ago Middle East was a vast land with no defined borders and Baduins wandered from place to place not from country to country. Middle east nations should absorb Palestinians. Jerusalem belongs to Israel. There is no mention of Jerusalem as a Muslim state in Bible or any ancient books. It is the left over from Ottoman Empire. It is time for ``REVERSE PERSECUTION and reverse discrimination``. If Pakistan has to be supported by foreign aid and food, then it has to give up state sponsored terrorism.``

I agree with almost everything except

A. ...the reverse discrimination. An enlightened and evolved Western Civilization has no place for any kind of discrimination

B. Targeting Pakistan. Pakistan, a basket case right now, has the greatest potential west of India to see a renaissance a la Turkey.

C. Palestinians in Arab world. The `Palestinian` people, are but mostly Arab citizens of Israel. Their `ummah` brtheren have responsibilities towards them. But those within Israel should learn to live as loyal citizens of democracy, something most Arabs don`t enjoy.

And yes, I fully agree a democratic Israel has every right to exist and prosper within safe and secure frontiers with a united Jerusalem as its ancient and eternal capital.

re bapu 373

````[[t is time for reverse persecution and reverse discrimination. Muslims have discriminated and persecuted people all over the world for centuries.``]]

#

Proff.proof.proof ``

Here is proof:

In Saudi Arabia, non-Muslims are not allowed the right to publyc worship.

In the Ottoman Empire, non-Muslims were treated as dhimmis, subject to extra taxation and prohibition from certain professions.

In 21st century Pakistan, non-Muslims are restrcited to their `own` ghetto constituuencies in elections (that is when they have elections).

In Egypt, fixing the plumbing of a chruch requires permission from several ministries which may take several years.

All this is to point that while Chrictians and Jews have no tolerance on tolerance, Muslim polities certainly do not have a leg to stand on when it comes to lectures about human rights.

Ref shammi #: 365

[Five days after having gunned down Gulzar Ahmad Lone, headmaster of a primary school in Rajouri, militants on Thursday night killed Daya Ram (45), Congress block president and a contractor, at Bani in Kathua by slitting his throat...]

Hold it right there. It was quite halal as the militants did say `Bismillah....` as prescribed as they slit Daya Ram`s throat.

hamzad #360 ``Ridiculing the former masters is what slaves are still afraid of------I think`` I think when you stop seeing western people as ``masters`` (former or present, doesnt matter), and start seeing them for what they are, a talented and civilized people, this urge to ridicule them that you seem to have will disappear.

This is a great article in the latest edition of The Friday Times

http://www.thefridaytimes.com/news2.htm

QUOTE:

``...One might ask why Pakistanis are reluctant to ask their embassy for help in such circumstances. As one community activist put it, ``we don`t trust the government of Pakistan. It is quite possible that they might start working against their own people to please the Americans and declare that it was in the national interest``...END QUOTE

Such is the burden of ill-gotten power and illegitimacy. Had Mr. Musharraf been sure of popular support, he could have rightfully demanded that the citizens of his country be better treated. But he can`t -- he has to trade well-being of his citizenry with overseas endorsements of his rule.

Re: Ali Akbar Poonawalla

There are absolutely horrible stories of ordinary individuals` lives being turned upside down. This one is particularly heart-rending:

``Thanamandi (Rajouri), November 29: Many at Alal village feel that Gulzar Ahmad Lone was destined to meet a violent end. After one-and-a-half years of running from pillar to post, he was neither granted voluntary retirement nor transferred from the school where he was shot dead by militants on Saturday last...``

``...The 57-year-old teacher was shot dead by an unidentified militant on Saturday afternoon in front of his students in the school. He was due to retire in May next year.``

``According to police, he was targeted because one of his daughters is a doctor and married to an army major, while the other is sub-inspector...``

http://www.expressindia.com/kashmir/kashmirlive/kl20011130.html

Mr. Ali Akbar Poonawalla:

All in a grim day`s work:

``Jammu, November 30: Five days after having gunned down Gulzar Ahmad Lone, headmaster of a primary school in Rajouri, militants on Thursday night killed Daya Ram (45), Congress block president and a contractor, at Bani in Kathua by slitting his throat...``

http://www.expressindia.com/kashmir/kashmirlive/kl20011201.html

http://www.msnbc.com/news/664935.asp

The ‘airlift of evil’



Why did we let Pakistan pull ‘volunteers’ out of Kunduz?



A convoy of several hundred Taliban soldiers evacuate their northern foothold of Kunduz to surrender to opposing Northern Alliance forces earlier this week.



By Michael Moran

MSNBC



NEW YORK, Nov. 29 — The United States took the unprecedented step this week of demanding that foreign airlines provide information on passengers boarding planes for America. Yet in the past week, a half dozen or more Pakistani air force cargo planes landed in the Taliban-held city of Kunduz and evacuated to Pakistan hundreds of non-Afghan soldiers who fought alongside the Taliban and even al-Qaida against the United States. What’s wrong with this picture?



THE PENTAGON, whose satellites and drones are able to detect sleeping guerrillas in subterranean caverns, claims it knows nothing of these flights. When asked about the mysterious airlift at a recent Pentagon briefing, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, denied knowledge of such flights. Myers backpedaled a bit, saying that, given the severe geography of the country, it might be possible to duck in and out of mountain valleys and conduct such an airlift undetected.

But Rumsfeld intervened. With his talent for being blunt and ambiguous at the same time, he said: “I have received absolutely no information that would verify or validate statements about airplanes moving in or out. I doubt them.”





Western reporters actually in Kunduz in the days after it fell this week found much to dispel that doubt. Reports first appeared in the Indian press, quoting intelligence sources who cited unusual radar contacts and an airlift of Pakistani troops out of the city. Their presence among the “enemy” may shock some readers, but not those who have paid attention to Afghanistan. Pakistan had hundreds of military advisers in Afghanistan before Sept. 11 helping the Taliban fight the Northern Alliance. Hundreds more former soldiers actively joined Taliban regiments, and many Pakistani volunteers were among the non-Afghan legions of al-Qaida.

Last Saturday, The New York Times picked up the scent, quoting Northern Alliance soldiers in a Page 1 story describing a two-day airlift by Pakistani aircraft, complete with witnesses describing groups of armed men awaiting evacuation at the airfield, then still in Taliban hands.

Another report, this in the Times of London, quotes an alliance soldier angrily denouncing the flights, which he reasonably assumed were conducted with America’s blessing.

“We had decided to kill all of them, and we are not happy with America for letting the planes come,” said the soldier, Mahmud Shah.



IN DENIAL



The credibility gap between these reports from the field and the “no comments” from the U.S. administration are large enough to drive a Marine Expeditionary Unit through. Calls by MSNBC.com and NBC News to U.S. military and intelligence officials shed no light on the evacuation reports, though they clearly were a hot topic of conversation. “Oh, you mean ‘Operation Evil Airlift’?” one military source joked. “Look, I can’t confirm anything about those reports. As far as I know, they just aren’t happening.” Three other military and defense sources simply denied any knowledge.

Something is up. It certainly appears to any reasonable observer that aircraft of some kind or another were taking off and landing in Kunduz’s final hours in Taliban hands. Among the many questions that grow out of this reality:

Was the passenger manifest on these aircraft limited to Pakistani military and intelligence men, or did it include some of the more prominent zealots Pakistan contributed to the ranks of the Taliban and al-Qaida?

What kind of deal was struck between the United States and Pakistan to allow this?

What safeguards did the United States demand to ensure the evacuated Pakistanis did not include men who will come back to haunt us?

What was done with the civilian volunteers once they arrived home in Pakistan? Where they arrested? Debriefed? Taken to safe houses? Or a state banquet?



WHY NOT ADMIT IT

The answers remain elusive. If the passengers were simply Pakistani military and intelligence men, and not civilian extremists, what possible motive is there for concealing the truth about their evacuation? Pakistan may believe that no one has noticed the warmth of its intelligence ties to the Taliban and even al-Qaida, but surely the Pentagon isn’t operating under this illusion, is it? This news organization has quoted U.S. intelligence sources as far back as 1997 as saying that ties between Pakistan’s intelligence service and al-Qaida, and links to the Taliban — a movement nurtured by Pakistan — are undeniable.









Furthermore, the United States can easily explain why it would have allowed a military ruler under intense pressure at home to adopt an unpopular pro-American stance in this war to evacuate some elite intelligence and military forces from a chaotic battlefield. But only if, in fact, the planes were limited to evacuating those people.



The lack of a forthright answer to this question suggests otherwise, and that is a great shame. The history of American policy in Southwest Asia, from the shah of Iran to Saddam Hussein to Afghanistan and Pakistan, is marred by one example after another of short-term decisions that stored up enormous trouble for later. We failed for decades to find common ground with the world’s largest democracy, India. We failed to temper the shah’s domestic abuses in Iran in the name of anti-communism and wound up with the ayatollahs. We decided not to rile our Gulf War coalition allies by pushing onto to Baghdad and find ourselves a decade later wondering how to deal with Saddam Hussein. We pumped Afghanistan and Pakistan with billions of dollars worth of weapons and military know-how to fight the Soviet invasion, but then adopted the Pontius Pilate approach in victory, washing our hands of these struggling nations as soon as Moscow withdrew.

Now, are we careening down the same road with a nuclear-armed Pakistan? Are we allowing an army of anti-American zealots to live and fight another day for the sake of our convenient marriage with Pakistan’s current dictator? I wish I could quote Rumsfeld. I wish I could say “I doubt it.” I can’t.

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