The Future Is Another Country: 2050 And Beyond

Urstruly,

Thanks for the info... :) .. I wonder if other airforces in the region, especially those with crash rate of 80 planes/year, can do the same?

Sincerely

Yasser

For all Chowkies:

``The Pressures on Pakistan`` by Anatol Lieven, From Foreign Affairs, January/February 2002

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/Search/document_briefings.asp?i=20020101FAESSAY6560.XML

re urstruly # 60 to Shammi

``... to your own people like Kashmiris``

Please note everybody that Mullah sahib has finally, inter alia, accepted that Kashmiris are `your`, ie Indian, people. And our Indian chowkies thought they`d never see the blessed day!

re hamzad 28

So, what do you think would have happened if a bunch of PLO cadres decided to grow consciences and declare that they will no longer serve in a war that targets children on schoolbuses and pedestrians in Sbarros?

I doubt that the PLO`s papers would have printed their declaration and their security chief voiced mild annoyance. Chances are they would have been eliminated with the swiftness that Force 17 uses to deal with `collaborators`.

The more you point to Israel`s internal dissent, you only underline the pluralist and tolerant nature of Israel`s polity compared to the PLO fiefdoms. Keep up the good work. Makes our task of defending Israel`s image easier.

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

Sadna: Please feel free to write about something im remotely familiar with (enuff of this subcontinent crap) so that I can tear apart your posts like I do with everyone else`s.

Namaskar in advance.

hamidm---26

[with friends like you who needs herr advani and faulein sadna goebbels .......]

__________________________________________________

Dear baghlol,

The invaluable role you play on chowk should not be undermined by such name calling.Please do not scare them away.You have been doing a fine job to keep them visiting chowk and getting their due.Very few of them would understand the significance of addressing you as Baghlol,but you do know it and must appreciate & understand the unparalleled role he played.Therefore please continue your corraling & lassoeing and let others do the `job`.

Shammi/Urstruly: ``I think that the only way forward for India and Pakistan for the future is a loose confederation of both countries along the EU model, that jointly guards the Subcontinent and accepts certain basic values for their citizens --human rights, tolerance, pluralism and democracy.``

Urstruly, I think you are being quite harsh on this issue.

Shammi, it is good to see that you and I agree on something. This is the only solution for the Sub Continent. Not only Pakistan and India, but the whole SAARC area, needs to be turned into an EU type place. Perhaps a SAARC-U.

This should mean all areas that want political independence should be allowed to get it. I think South Asia is almost at its natural balance of areas which want independence. The only area left is Kashmir (I don`t know too much about the other independence movements going on in India, but I don`t think there is popular support for them in common people of those areas.).

Once political aspirations are fulfilled, then all the countries will automatically get into an EU type situation, because they are at about the same level of development, and most importantly have the same kinds of problems.

This SAARC-U should be an economic unit, with perhaps even the same currency. Very open borders, joint visas etc. It should have a joint defence organization like NATO, (IATO: Indian Ocean Treaty Organization) with near total de-escalation of each country`s own forces. There should be complete de-nuclearization of South Asia also under the SAARC-U.

Considering the large size of India, the head of the SAARC-U could alternate between India and each of the rest of the countries. One term India, second term Pakistan, third term Indian, fourth term Bangladesh, fifth term India, and so on.

Political independence for all South Asian areas who want it (including those in Pakistan, if they want it), with a strong joint Economic Union is what will happen in South Asia someday, I think (and hope).

The catalyst of all of this is, at least in my opinion, a solution to Kashmir issue.

Urstruly #51: ``The basic premise of your argument that India has metamorphesed from Gandhi`s India into Vajpayee`s India is wrong. Your argument is built around the basic notion that Gandhi and Vajpayee are two different things; is actually wrong.``

I am not sure whether the Indian society has, or has not, metamorphesed from Gandhi to Vajpayee. Perhaps it was in its current state all along, and perhaps it wasn`t. My knowledge of the actual Indian mindset of 1947 is very limited.

It is however quite obvious that Indian leadership has gone from Gandhi to Vajpayee, and now onwards sliding towards Advani. While a majority of India now supports the BJP (or its alliance), there are a great number of Indians who hate the BJP also. Just like many Pakistanis hate JUI etc. Just ask these Indians about the BJP, and they will tell you how different they feel its leadership is from Gandhi.

You maybe correct (or you maybe incorrect) regarding the fact that the real Indian Hindu nationalist mindset was there all along, and is only now showing its face. Or it maybe that, India did actually metamorph into this current mindset. The mindset is definitely there now, as is indicated by the electoral popularity of the BJP, and the fact that it gains more popularity, the more it threatens Pakistan and its own Muslim population.

Personally, the more I read about Gandhi, the more I am begining to be impressed by him. And I consider him and the BJP to be on opposite ends of the spectrum; definitely not at the same end. However unlike most people, I do not consider Gandhi a saint or a sufi or a spiritual figure. I think he was a shrewd lawyer and a shrewd politician. These were after all his two professions. Saints and sufis and spiritualists tend not to go into politics.

There was also perhaps some communalism in his attitude in the early days of the Pakistan freedom struggle. However, one has to agree, that by the end of his career, he was about as big a supporter of human rights as one could find in the international political arena. It is very tempting for a political leader belonging to the more powerful party (India in circa 1947) to not support and not advocate human rights. Usually, the human rights argument is given by the weaker party, in the conflict (i.e. Indians against the British, Pakistanis against the Indians, Bangladeshis against the Pakistanis, Kashmiris against the Indians). Yet Gandhi supported human rights even from a position of power. One has to admire that.

His open support of Kashmiri human rights and self-determination is unprecedented in the history of Indian leadership (how many major Pakistani political leaders openly supported self-determination for Bangladesh in 1971?; none that I know of). Can you imagine any major or minor Indian leader now having enough guts to make statements similar to the ones made by Gandhi in 1947, regarding Kashmir.

I think Indians made the mistake of turning Gandhi into purely a spritual leader. They underestimated his political shrewdness and problem solving skills, vis-a-vis South Asia, and relied on the more, ``hip and upto-date`` Nehru for political direction. However, if one looks back at the political suggestions of Gandhi, it is quite clear that the Sub-Continent would have been a much more prosperous and peaceful place had Indians listened to him, and not to Nehru in 1947, on many issues.

It takes a big national leader to point out human rights violations being committed by his/her own country against his/her enemy, even from a position of weakness. It is almost impossible to find a national leader who points out human rights violations being committed by his/her country, against his/her enemy, from a position of strength. Gandhi did the later. And I certainly respect that. The current BJP leadership is doing exactly the opposite of this.

Based on that, I cannot see how they can be equated with Gandhi. They are at the other extreme. And I fail to understand what is happening to the Indian mindset when it is supporting the poltical wing of the RSS (BJP) with such intensity; RSS being an organization, which many claim actually assasinated Gandhi.

ylh #65: Landing and taking off on a highway is actually not a new idea, at least not in the PAF. The first time I heard of it was around 91, when there were plans to land fighters on one of the highways. I forget which one, perhaps the Sargodha-Mianwali highway. Portions of the highway were extended and widened. I am not sure whether actual landings were made or not.

The main aims of these are for emergency landings for aircraft.

While the usual bickering & brickbatting goes on the CHOWK,interesting events are taking place elsewhere.

``Aye chashm e giryaa naak too rotee hai kis liyay?

Miszgaan to khole!shehr ko sailaab lay gayaa``

meer

tr:O lamenting eye why such weeping & crying--

Open the eyelids!the city`s been washed away(by flood)

READ--& Watch!

__________________________________________________Canadian Television Openly

Questions 911 `Problems`

From Eyes On America

editor@eyesonamerica.org

1-27-2

On Monday, 28 January 28, 2002, ``Insight MediaFile,`` available on Vision TV in Canada, will try to answer the following question: ``What Happened on 9/11 and why aren`t the mainstream media asking that question?``



On the last edition of ``Insight MediaFile`` (first broadcast on 21 January) the show`s host -- media critic Barrie Zwicker -- dared to suggest in his weekly commentary that the CIA, Pentagon and White House may be complicit in the horrendous events of Sept. 11th, 2001.



That commentary was the first in a series on MediaFile that will deal with this important issue. MediaFile is perhaps the first current affairs TV program in Canada to raise this possibility.



Barrie Zwicker says that following that show, ``the program`s senior producer, executive producer and program director decided we`ll devote the whole of next Monday`s program [28 January] to `What Happened on 9/11 and why aren`t the mainstream media asking that question?` It will lead off with our most extended viewer feedback segment ever, followed by the media panel on that topic, followed by Part 2 of my series. All commercial-free.``



A RealAudio clip of his 21 January 2002 commentary can be viewed at: http://clients.loudey e.com/imc/mayday/mediafile.ram



A transcript of that commentary follows:





* * * begin transcript * * *



What really happened on Sept. 11th? 9/11 - Part 1



For four months Iíve been waiting in vain for the North American media to pursue questions about the startling events of September 11th. Hereís what I want to know:



The multiple hijackings are unprecedented. The first occurs at 7:45 in the morning. Itís a full hour before the first plane hits the World Trade Center. But itís an hour and 20 minutes -- and after the second plane hits ñ that the President allegedly becomes informed. Think about that.



Then, he gives no orders. Why? He continues to listen to a student talk about her pet goat. Why?



Itís another 25 minutes until he makes a statement, even as flight 77 is making a bee-line for Washington, DC.



In the almost two hours of the total drama not a single U.S. Air Force interceptor turns a wheel until itís too late. Why? Was it total incompetence on the part of aircrews trained and equipped to scramble in minutes?



Well, unlike the U.S. Air Force, Iíll cut to the chase. Simply to ask these few questions is to find the official narrative frankly implausible. The more questions you pursue, it becomes more plausible that thereís a different explanation: namely, that elements within the top U.S. military, intelligence and political leadership ñ which are closely intertwined ñ are complicit in what happened on September the 11th.



Why U.S. complicity, you ask?



Well, to stampede public opinion into supporting the so-called war on terrorism, to justify a war on Afghanistan for a future oil pipeline, the grab for Middle East oil, big budget increases for the military, and the general drive for global domination by the American Empire.



I know it sounds incredible.



But hereís some historical context from this book, Body of Secrets. Its author is James Bamford. Bamford until recently was Washington Investigative Producer for ABCís World News tonight with Peter Jennings. I learned of this book on ABCís website.



Bamfordís information comes from interviews. With, for instance, the former dean of the U.S. intelligence community. And from government documents. It takes 80 pages to list Bamfordís more than 600 information sources.



Hereís the story. Itís 1962. John F. Kennedy is U.S. president. Robert McNamara is Secretary of Defence. And Admiral Lyman Lemnitzer heads the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. The CIA has failed in its illegal Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.



JFK decides, Bamford writes, to back away from military solutions to the Cuban problem.



But Lemnitzer, the CIA and others at the top remain obsessed with Cuba. Writes Bamford: ``As the Kennedy brothers appeared to suddenly ëgo softí on Cuba, Lemnitzer could see his opportunity to invade -- quickly slipping away. --attempts to provoke the Cuban public to revolt seemed dead--``



Continues Bamford: ``Lemnitzer and the other chiefs knew there was only one option left that would ensure their war. They would have to trick the American public and world opinion--``



Lemnitzer comes up with Operation Northwoods.



``We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba--casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.``



``We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.``



An elaborate variation: create ``an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft--`` ``At a designated time the duplicate would be--loaded with--selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone [a remotely controlled unmanned aircraft]``-- ``the destruction of (that) aircraft will be triggered by radio signal.``



The Cubans would be blamed.



Finally, another variation is described by Bamford: ``On February 20th, 1962 (John) Glenn was to lift off from Cape Canaveral--on his historic journey. Lemnitzer ``proposed -- that should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, ëthe objective is to provide irrevocable proof that--the fault lies with (Cuba)--`` ``by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans.``



Thus, Bamford notes, ``as NASA prepared to send the first American into space, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were preparing to use John Glennís possible death as a pretext to launch a war.``



The Operation Northwoods plan shows the Pentagon was capable, according to Bamford, ``of launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting a (war on Cuba).``



Can we be sure, therefore, that complicity by the Pentagon in the events of Sept. 11th is entirely out of the question?



Next week, a more precise look at the events of that fateful day.



And what about bin Laden? Iíll have more on him too. And the arrests of people named as terrorists around the world.



* * * end transcript * * *



Are You Being Brainwashed By Mainstream Media?

Find News The Script Readers Won`t Tell You About!

Visit http://eyesonamerica.org/ Today!

Email This Article

Reading Ms. Gopal`s article, the first thing that flashed across my mind was.... is there room for idealism on chowk? Ultimately aren`t we all a big bunch of cynics who visit here just to validate our own worldview that nothing`s REALLY gonna change, so let`s enjoy the party by getting some intellectual (?) mileage out of it.

Reading such pseudo-intellectual Tam-Brahm psychobabble is the last straw..... I am still in saccharine shock, to be able to respond coherently :(((

Romair #84:

Regarding your SAARC Union - you want to have your cake and eat it too. Free movement of people into India, single currency, all the economic benefits you can get out of India, but no political union.

I dont think India has anything to gain from a EU type union in South Asia. If anything, India should aim for greater internal integration, rationalisation of duties and tax rates across states (which has still not been done), efficient transport networks and so on. A market of one billion people is large enough for Indian firms to flourish as long as the people prosper. The few things that India cannot produce but has to depend on its neighbours for (eg energy), it can import from them.

However, I think a economically progressive India surrounded by weak economies will attract much unwanted immigration from Pakistani and Bangladeshi scum. At least to keep them from messing with our country, it should be in India`s interests to ensure that neighbouring economies prosper. But India has nothing to gain from free movement of people from PK and BD into India or even vice-versa.

One more thing - in terms of size, there is just too much asymmetry between India and the other South Asian countries (as opposed to the EU nations). This makes the chances of an economic union succeeding here bleak. The smaller countries will forever shout about Indian hegemony blah blah while suckling at its teats.

hamzad 48,

Jaish e jesus

The born again jihadist asghar, your hero, and and a poor imitation of david suzuki is fighting against the globalisation. Like a typical pakistani, how the biharis the ones who supported you in bangladesh were bandoned, now the taliban who supported the kargill invasion, and now it is the time for a religious leader to turn turtle. The organisation has been renamed, jaish e jesus, and was last seen pushing the jihadists on to kashmir land mines for a quick trip to heaven.

Right from the allegedly educated on the chowk like you, to the religious leaders like asghar, to the generals like mushy have absolutely no idea of what integrity means, a trait acquired from the great leader, the one who promoted the idea of hatred by TNT and finally spoke of secularism and the very last words, `` pakistan was a blunder``. Treachery, another aspect of the darwenian selection that created pakistan.

YLH,

You were very impressed by the high technology of pakistan in landing aircraft on roads. This only shows how ill informed you are about pakistan. The letter to editor below is the proof that pak airforce had been using this road as a regular airfield. Plese read the book by Chuck Yaeger `` Road to no where`` about the road landing and the road rage of the pak airforce while several of them were in indian prisons. from dawn of today

Dangerous road

The only road between Zafarabad to Tehsil Kulachi is in a very bad condition. One side of the road which is in desrepair is being used for the two-way traffic. Furthermore most of the bridges on this road are about to collapse and can cause a fatal accident any time.

QUDRATULLAH GANDAPUR

Dera Ismail Khan

Romair

Afetr a very long time, I read something sensible from you. The SAARC-U idea is a good one. Also ther should be a pact between al the countries in the region that the political boundaries of the region are frozen and no country would allow its soil to be used for harming the other country. This way every country would feel secure. India can guarantee it unilaterally that any further changes in the boundaries of any nation in SAARC-U will not be allowed.