Breaking News: Suicide Bomb in Karachi

From Dawn: ``They said the women drivers, who were still learning driving at a training school, drove their cars slow and remained to the extreme left. Those, who planted the bomb, either were following the car or waiting for it at the Frere Garden. As the car reached near the US Consulate, they pressed the button of a remote device exploding the bomb, which was so powerful that it blew the car into pieces.

The criminals did have access to the driving school and used the car for the terrorist activity. The women riders never knew about the presence of the bomb.``

The bas!rds killed these women in cold blood, along with other innocent people.

Prem #66

``Musharraf recognized that the ISI had helped the Taliban (and its al Qaeda allies) take power in Afghanistan during the 1990s, a decade of political weakness and corruption in Pakistan.``

Amazing feat, given that as Musharraf`s spokesman Rashid Qureshi ``told FORTUNE that ``before Sept. 11, I for one had not heard of al Qaeda`` and that he was ``quite sure`` Musharraf hadn`t either..``.

http://www.meadev.nic.in/ind-ter/for-med/fortune-29apr2002.htm

Romair #22

{Pakistan is unfortunately being made to pay the price of a US war. Al-Qaeda`s had nothing against Pakistan before Pakistan joined the coalition.}

But of course ... the Pakistani state apparatus was the chief patron of Al Qaeda prior to 9/11. Cultivating it was found convenient to further Pakistan`s goal of creating an oil empire in Central Asia. It`s only fair that the Pakistani state now pay the price for its past policies. It may be very unfair to the mass of Pakistani citizens just ekeing out a living, who had absolutely no say in the foolish Afghan and India policies pursued by an oligarchic Pakistani elite. But that is all the more reason why they should emerge from their torpor, hold the army and the Musharraf dictatorship responsible for their predicament, and demand real democracy to clean out the Augean stables.

{The last time the US fought in Afghanistan, after the war ended, Pakistan was placed under sanctions by the US, before even the last tank had roled out. Pakistan had to accomodate millions of refugees, and drugs and the Klashnikov culture became a part of Pakistan, as a blowback of the US-Soviet war. The rest of the world did not bother about Pakistan, at that time.}

You conveniently forget that the previous Pakistani military dictatorship willingly sought out involvement in the Afghan jihad against the Soviets knowingly full well the `strategic`, military and financial benefits that might accrue. Zia even tried his best to draw out the war and delay the end of Soviet pullout. Those of the elite who got on the gravy train made out pretty well ... starting with Ziaul Haq`s son and Generals Akhtar Abdul Rehman and Hamid Gul ... refugees, drugs and Kalashnikov culture be damned. Neither America nor the rest of the world promised Pakistan indefinite support at the level to which the elite had become accustomed. It was a pure business relationship (albeit unequal), and if feudally-minded Pakistanis deluded themselves that it was something else, they have only themselves to blame. A courtesan should never imagine that she enjoys the same rights as a lawfully wedded wife. When she falls out of favour with a patron she should move on with dignity, not create a nuisance in her neighbourhood, throw tantrums, threaten suicide, etc. - which, effectively, is what Pakistan has been doing of late.

{If the US does not outright support Pakistan in various ways in the current post-Taliban period, .... If the rest of the world does not support Pakistan at this juncture and does a repeat of the previous post-Afghan war ...}

How can one `support Pakistan` when it is ruled by an usurping military junta headed by an insubordinate general? Especially when the junta`s interests - such as in sustaining a perpetual conflict with India, over Kashmir or some other excuse - run counter to the broader interests of the people?

Romair #27

{Currently, the general Indian thought process is that any terrorist attack in India is Pakistan`s fault, and any terrorist attack in Pakistan is Pakistan`s fault also. Does this make sense?}

I`m afraid so, in this particular case ...at least, it`s a good first approximation to the truth.

{Either every attack in India is Pakistan`s fault, and every attack in Pakistan is India`s fault, or each attack within each country is its own fault.}

No, your specious appeal to symmetry is invalid, for the simple reason that it is Pakistan and not India that has been incubating jihadi terrorism for use as an instrument of state policy.

All that`s happened is that the virulent jihadi strain of `freedom fighters` that Pakistan was cultivating has broken loose within Pakistan`s borders. Something that lots of sensible people, in Pakistan and elsewhere, have warned about for ages.

Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

Mir #57

I completely agree. 100%. Unfortunately, much has been said and nothing done by the powers that be in Pakistan. Trusting Pakistan leadership will not come easy to us Indians. In fact, we KNOW that in the past -- in spite of incessant denials -- your govt actively bred these vipers to be sent into India to create mayham there. It is going to be that much harder now for Pakistan to do what needs to be done because getting any co-operation from India will be tough.

Now, there should still be a way for India to co-operate so that this fumigation process can be carried out properly. After all it is in India`s interest too.

How about a joint operation? :)

IMHO Sameer is not being callous; his posts are cutting because he probably is as angry as the rest of us...when I first read this news I had a combination of different reactions; honestly, 1. the grief that this kind of violence is taking over South Asia 2. Anger at the creeps who believe in the means of terrorism 3. I compared this with the suicide bombers in Palestine/Israel

(that in itself was no easy cakewalk-and I don`t want to hear from y`all who don`t support a tnt in Is/Pal) 4. Acknowledgement that the chickens have indeed come home to roost 5. Conviction/Hope in the various procedures that the current govt. to bite the bullet and understand that this problem of terrorism/bombing must be addressed at a comprehensive level-which frankly, I don`t know is a realistic possibility.

In reading some of the posts here, it seemed that Zafar had some good points in describing the difficulties and tensions involved in Mush`s position. I also think that Sameer brings up a point that is becoming painfully apparent-that there seems to be an active Muslim percentage that performs violent acts in protest of proto ``Islamacist`` issues. And not only is it phemonmenal how there has been such an identification with the perceived performances of being a ``Muslim``, but that terroristic acts are accepted as legimate form of protest by a small faction of adherents- it seems that there is also a very large number of Muslims who tacitly support certain acts of violence (i.e. suicide bombing in Israel), which in itself is a subject of study.

tvrad

[Musharaff is getting a taste of what it is like to support extremists. Indira Gandhi did this in Punjab (Bhindranawale) and Sri-Lanka (Prabhakaran) and India paid for it (as well as herself and her son)]

- You are spot on. And India has just recently tasted what happens when Hindu extremists and terrorists are cosseted and allowed to run wild inside. My friends wife who`s family lives in Ahmedabad says that the true death toll there is around 5000. Lets attend to our problems and not get too sanctimonious.

-h-

MISSION KASHMIR

CNN

Life and death imitate art in Kashmir

June 14, 2002 Posted: 4:01 PM EDT (2001 GMT)



CNN`s Martin Savidge



Editor`s note: In our Behind the Scenes series, CNN correspondents share their experiences in covering news around the world

SRINAGAR, India (CNN) -- The next time you stop in your local Indian video shop (there`s one down the street from my home in Atlanta), pick up a copy of the movie ``Mission Kashmir.``

The film is an action-packed thriller that was shot on location here in Srinigar several years ago. It`s a romantic tale of Kashmir`s ongoing battle against terror, albeit with a heavily pro-Indian skew.

Sure it`s all in Hindi, but the plot has enough action and is simple enough that even us non-speakers can get the gist. Like Kashmir – the land at the source of the tensions between nuclear powers India and Pakistan -- the film is marked by beauty and violence: It shows all the magnificent scenery of Kashmir, yet it is violent even by American standards.

The plot is fairly typical. Tough, heroic special-forces commander loses young son in tragic accident, and adopts a local boy after wiping out his family in a raid. Boy grows up happy until he realizes his new father killed his old family. Boy runs away and becomes a terrorist.

Now don`t go rolling your eyes mumbling, ``Not that old plot again.`` I left out the ending so not to spoil it for you.

Unlike your typical, gratuitous, explosion-packed, bad-guys-get-it-in-the-end saga, the Indian directors have worked in something that is the staple of all their movies: singing and dancing.

It`s not your typical militant musical, so it`s worth a peek.

I bring this up because what goes on at times in this lesser- known war on terrorism can seem almost as odd. There`s really nothing to smirk about.

India says since cross-border terrorism began here in 1989 more than 30,000 people have been killed. Other unofficial estimates say the figure is closer to 80,000.

Anyway, I`m wandering. A source who helps keep me in the know calls me up to say seven militants have been killed in a gun battle. I take down the info, including where and when, and then say, ``So, they were killed in a shootout with police?`` ``No`` he said.

Now, this is where it gets a bit Keystone Kop-like, minus the cops. There were actually two groups of militant/terrorists in the same town, the bad and the really bad. Turns out they had a few words over turf rights. By way of settling it, the terrorists decided to kill each other.

When the shooting cleared, six of the less bad guys were dead, along with one really bad guy. Three of his co-terrorists were wounded.

What do you think the police were thinking when they rolled up? Of course there`s nothing funny about this, but I did laugh when the source told me.

Somehow I thought it would make a great plot for a movie. If only I could find a good score writer and choreographer.

... takbeer! ... and stop whining!

...... i don`t understand the bruhaha over ten, just ten, people being blown to jannah - martyrs, everyone of them, i say ..... so what ?.... in this jihad against the infidel and rock and roll what`s ten, hundred, even a million lives .... did we worry about silly things like this at badr and khandaq and karbala ........ did tariq worry about getting wet when he burned his boats? .... did ghazni wring his hands when he romped through somnath scattering the horrible hindoos and their filthy idols ? ..... did hazrat osama (RA) and his one-eyed brother/father-in-law worry about a hang-nail when they flew planes into wtc? ...... stop whining !

..... meanwhile allah`s warriors continue to fight the good fight on all fronts .....in islamabad the supreme court`s shariat appellate bench is about to declare riba un-Islamic......the caliph will distribute piggy banks and six yards of cloth to the ummah........ stand up tall and proud - praise allah and pass the ammunition! .... we have everyone from the the southern baptist convention to the gay and lesbian society of akhand bharat on the run ! .......... so what is ten more dead - stop whining!

Re: Zafar

``...The similarity to Lebanon is depressing. The birth of this kind of conflict is bad news for Pakistan, and also (my self righteous fellow bharatvaasis) bad news for India...``

You are depressingly right about this. There is one even more depressing issue that goes beyond Lebanon -- and that is the presence of nuclear weapons. The West cares diddly squat about the lives of ordinary Indians/Pakis (OK -- that may be too harsh an assessment -- the West does operate with greater enlightened self-interest than India does, and does make friends with countries that share its values -- democracy, free markets, respect for human rights). They look at the Subcontinent as a huge market, and as some sort of China containment piece of the puzzle, but overall I have no dreamy eyed illusions about this (there are no permanent friends and enemies in international relations -- only permanent interests). What are India`s interests? -- IMHO India should operate with enlightened self-interest -- give Musharraf some rope again in the hope that he is able to introduce democracy and self-rule in Pakistan. And India should accomodate some of Pakistan`s grumblings about Kashmir by giving greater autonomy to the state. The maximalist solutions being touted by either side are unlikely to work. India cannot let go of Kashmir and expect no adverse reaction within India -- indeed, it may provide the wind in the sails that Hindu fanatics are waiting for, and ignite a firestorm within India that nobody wants. I believe that this is one reason that any government would go to war rather than allow disorder and chaos to prevail in India. On the other hand, various Pakistani governments have worked themselves to such positions on Kashmir that the only outcomes are (i) conflict with India, and (ii) fall of regime. At the same time, saving Kashmir to see Pakistan fall apart is in nobody`s interest either.

The challenge will be how does one give rope to an unsteady regime, without it appearing to be `sold-out`, and negotiate with somebody with whom the buck stops. Musharraf blew his chances with Kargil and Agra, and now the buck no longer stops with him. He still remains the only person who can control Pakistan, and perhaps Delhi should work with him.

Re: shankar

I don`t think that your Hool Theory was off the mark, just that you should perhaps revisit it in light of recent events.

Nagnatheswar # 65

Well said, Do we need this trouble to spread to India, certainly not.

Let Pakis take care of themselves etc., we should leave them to their just desserts.

SnakeLord God at it again ,

tumcha asli nao kai , Snake Lord God naahi

tumhi prison bison madhe navi research kela aahe ka

tumchi paki girlfriend aahe kai

Re: Romair

``...Assuming Al-Qaeda did this, then what exactly does Al-Qaeda have to do with Kashmir...``

Please pay attention to the last phrase in post #54. It is not a quote from an Indian rag, but from the NY Times:

The Qaeda fighters appear to have mixed with Pakistani militants dedicated to ending the Indian presence in Kashmir, the diplomat said.

``The trail goes back to Kashmir,`` he said.

This is all that is needed to bring down the industrial-military-zionist edifice of Capitalism ensconced in Secularism----also known as Dehryaas & Maddaa-purusts(matter-worshipers).

Global Corporatism or Corporate Globalism has a lust for MATERIAL ``progress``-----what truly terrifies them is a system that pricks their conscience & punctures their Hedonistic life-style(Drinking,gambling,fornicating,flesh-exposing,and perversion-promoting)

Let us not let this world become The ``Pottersville`` of `Its a wonderful Life``.

All other methods to counter are Quixotic---just fighting the windmills....like 9/11.When will we realise this?

__________________________________________________

COPY DISTRIBUTE PROMOTE PROPAGANDISE PUBLISH BROADCAST E-MAIL.Do whatever you can to starve the enemy of your cash.The real enemy is hiding in the tora-boras of CORPORATIONS.The ``government``

are nothing but a decoy---sitting ducks!

__________________________________________________

Starbucks the target of Arab boycott for its growing links to Israel

By Robert Fisk in Beirut

14 June 2002

Across five Arab states a new and closely co-ordinated campaign to boycott American goods is being launched, with Starbucks coffee shops their primary target, but with Nestlé, Coca-Cola, Johnson & Johnson and Burger King outlets also on the list. In Beirut today, activists will be leafleting outside the city`s four Starbucks shops, detailing the pro-Israeli sentiments of its chief executive, Howard Shultz, and claiming he is ``an active Zionist``.

In 1998, Mr Shultz was awarded the ``Israeli 50th Anniversary Tribute Award`` from the Jerusalem Fund of Aish Ha-Torah, which is strongly critical of Yasser Arafat and insists that the occupied Palestinian territories should be described only as ``disputed``.

In a speech to Jewish Americans in Seattle earlier this year – at the height of the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon`s, reoccupation of West Bank towns – Starbucks` top man condemned Palestinian ``inaction`` and announced that ``the Palestinians aren`t doing their job – they`re not stopping terrorism``. Gideon Meir, an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, complimented Mr Shultz for helping American students to hear ``Israeli presentations on the Middle East crisis``.

Starbucks operates in six other Arab countries – Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates – but the boycott protesters, who include both Palestinians and Muslim groups at Ein Shams University in Egypt and the American University of Cairo, have a much wider list of companies they wish to punishfor allegedly supporting Israel, not only in the Middle East but in the United States itself.

They include AOL Time Warner, Disney, Estée Lauder, Nokia, Revlon, Marks & Spencer, Selfridges and IBM. Students at Dubai University and in the Syrian capital, Damascus, are now also liaising over their boycott plans.

``At first, it was very frustrating getting even the four boycott groups in Lebanon to work together,`` Amira Solh, one of the Lebanese activists, says. ``We had difficulty defining whether we should target American goods or those companies that have direct relations with Israel. We really only got going the first time the Israelis laid siege to Arafat`s headquarters in Ramallah. Lebanon boycotts all Israeli goods, so we started asking, `What about those companies which help Israel directly?`

``Most Arab countries have fallen into a capitalist world that accepts American companies with close links to Israel. What we are now initiating is an economic war.``

Burger King incurred Arab anger more than two years ago when it opened an outlet in an illegal Jewish settlement on the occupied West Bank. The company initially decided to close the outlet and then – after pro-Israeli lobby pressure in America – apparently allowed it to reopen under a different franchise.

Nestlé has bought a control-ling share in the Israeli firm Osem, allowing Nestlé to sell its products in Israel, including Nescafé, Perrier, Carnation, Smarties and KitKat. It is a deal which, in the words of one Israeli journalist, ``provides Osem with a worldwide distribution and advertising infrastructure``. In a recent report to investors, Osem-Nestlé an- nounced a four-monthly profit of $7.5m (£5.1m).

In Lebanon, Coca-Cola – which runs a plant in the country – has attempted to deflect Arab criticism by pointing out that it does not manufacture Coca-Cola in Israel and sells only imported bottles of its products, including Fanta and Sprite, in the Jewish state. In what was widely seen as an attempt to soften the mood of protesters, the Coca-Cola company in Lebanon has suddenly embarked on a programme of planting cedar trees – the national emblem – near the town of Jezzine, south of Beirut.

Starbucks, which has 4,709 retail locations around the world, has been trying to damp down its pro-Israeli image, telling protesters who have written to the company that its chief executive, Howard Shultz, who is himself Jewish, ``does not believe the terrorism (sic) is representative of the Palestinian people``.

When he spoke recently to his local synagogue, Starbucks says, ``Howard was speaking as a private citizen and did not interview with the media regarding this subject``. Another Starbucks response says the company ``is deeply saddened by the current events (sic) in the Middle East`` and quotes a statement by Mr Shultz. ``I deeply regret that my speech in Seattle was misinterpreted as anti-Palestinian,`` he says. ``My position has always been pro-peace and for the two nations (sic) to co-exist peacefully.``

Arab students believe the real fears of American executives are focused not on losses in the Arab world but on the danger that Arab protests will be picked up by Palestinian sympathisers in Europe and even in America itself.

Mr Shultz, who does not appear to have condemned the building of illegal Israeli settlements on occupied land, spearheaded Starbucks` entry into the Israeli market last year with its first two coffee shops – built through a joint venture company called Shalom Coffee Ltd – in Tel Aviv. By the end of this year, Starbucks plans to have a total of 20 coffee houses operating throughout Israel.

Mr Shultz is a regular visitor to Israel and one of many personalities who have been brought to Jerusalem as a guest of the Theodor Herzl mission, at whose gala dinner is held an award ceremony of the Friends of Zion to honour those ``who have played key roles in promoting close alliance between the United States and Israel``.

Others who have travelled on the Theodor Herzl mission include Baroness Thatcher, Newt Gingrich, the US Speaker of the House, and the former US governor Tom Ridge – now the head of ``Homeland Security``.

Re: Zafar

``...re: jihad in Kashmir. Does India gain from undermining Musharraf`s credibility in this area?...``

Million dollar question. No easy answers.

BTW, my knowledge is foggy on the allegedly dubious role of the superpowers in Lebanon. Would you please shed light on how the US exploited the situation, and what the parallels with Pakistan are? There is one difference between Lebanon in the `80s and the Subcontinent today -- there is no Cold War and superpower rivalry. US/Russian/EU and Chinese interests converge on the Subcontinent -- all want to see Musharraf pull through and quell terror, and all want a negotiated settlement on Kashmir.

Re: Zafar

Sorry for the bevy of posts here, but this one goes more directly to your question about what India should do about bolstering/undermining `the credibility of Musharraf on the Kashmir jehad`:

QUOTE from Prem Shankar Jha

The best course of action may be to associate the US, the UK or the UN observers with the Indian army and give them full access to the methods by which the level of infiltration is determined.

If infiltration remains on hold for sometime longer, India would do well to resume the dialogue with Pakistan that Musharraf has been urging. Both these steps would appear in Pakistan as concessions that he has wrested from India. This will strengthen his position marginally in the difficult transition that lies ahead. END QUOTE

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20020624&fname=Column+Prem+%28F%29&sid=1