Were We Too Hijacked by 9/11?

If a superpower needs to do such and such to protect itself, it would , so would any other nation that has the will and the werewithal.

Why would anyone be mourning the Taliban or the Baathist butchers , expect for the reason that in their collective infinite greed and stupidity they we were willing to play along and in the tradition of small time bullies tried to get too big for their sandals.

Why would anyone not question these moronic, self-destructive tendencies of the small-time crooks such as the Baathists or Taliban - is it because of poverty or is it religiosity that causes these morons to play Punch and Judy to skilled puppetters, and why is it that some end up doing this more often than others?

Can anyone share his / her opinions?

Dr. Hoodbhoy,
Good article. Aptly sums up the transition of feelings of the rest of the World in the wake of september 11th.
This nation needs an adversary to build itself upon. Remember, the biggest industry in this country is defence and it feeds upon wars to sustain itself. I am surprised, that as a scientist living in US, you did not observe the society closely enough to know its negative aspects too.
For instance, more than 25 states (in US) until 1957 had banned teaching theory of evolution in schools and had it replaced by creation theory. It took the launch of Sputnik by the soviets to wake them up from their medieval dream and spurred greater inclination towards sciences. The govrenment then decided to give greater impetus to science in order to compete with soviets (this was on a program aired by PBS).
As far as imperialism is concerned, in my opinion it has been ij existence forever albeit indirectly and with a lesser degree. The footprint (geographical term for the amount of resources consumed by an individual) of an average american is exccessively high. The need (or rather greed) of an american consumer is insatiable and the resources for that are extracted by hook or crook. Maintaining regimes in middle east, south america and now pakistan is a way of ensuring material satisfaction for the American way of life. And in my opinion it will increase in intensity from now on.
The other side of this scenario is that you cannot clap with one hand and as such various nations around the world do not have people aware enough and educated enough to take care of themselves (by themselves i mean their nation/state/society). They tend to spiral towards anarchy and mismanagment easily. This is where nations like US step in. In the 19th century and before it was UK which perfected this role and in the last century it has been taken to new heights by US. The beauty of it all is that unlike UK, US got the best of a particular region/people without physically occupying it. The Americans on their part have not directly tried to harm the local population, thereby maintaining their clean image. In turn, local people of a nation have vented their anger on that particular regime. This is called saanp bni maraa aur laathi bhi nahin tooti. The only exception to this rule has been Iran, where the locals have seen through the puppet regime of Shah and in the process of removing him have gone to the other extreme (harming themselves).
As a Pakistani you would know, how successive pakistani millitary establishemnt sold themselves to US from the late fifties onwards, neglecting their own people. It is sad that in many such countires, locals have to fight their own established institutes before demanding for their rights and a normal living. Sadder still are people who do not yet realise this and take their dictator/millitary/monarch for a beneficial ruler.

Well, all the above was my negative observation about US government. Their positive attributes though (specially towards her own citizens) are some of the best in the World.
Adios

soysauce: Absolutely. The current surge of Imperialism, if so named, will be short lived. The USA demography, the costs of maintaining offensive posture, the possible weakening of US economy and faster economic rise of Asian economies compared to USA and the West will change the equation in our lifetimes. Not that USA will not remain superpower, but the overwhelming influence due to military strength will decline but it definitely does not mean that Osama and Saddam Hussain are evils and must be allowed to continue their deeds.
The decimation of Taliban can also be looked through mirrors of different hues. For a well-intentioned Pakistani, it is good to see an end of Taliban. They were getting out of hand and providing a source as well as an example of ``success`` to Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan. Longer they survived, more difficult it would have become to control their influence on Pakistani multicultural and multiethnic society. Hardly anybody seriously contends that Taliban demise consequences are negative on Pakistan. Again, it was something very stupid done by Taliban and USA rightfully decided to deal with them rather than something Pakistan did.
For me, choosing between two evils, a perceived US imperialism and Talibanization of Pakistan, the decision did not need even a split second - lesser of two evils dictated my opinion.
As far Prof. Hoodbhoy article, it is his opinion and much better than saying the opposite. He is a intellectual and not politician or a person in power to negotiate. He does not have the power to adopt a national policy or make any law. Under such limitations, it is stupid to expect him to come to table with weaker hand. He comes to table with the strongest hand through ideas in writing, yet open to bargain if the opportunity presents itself. The chance of opportunity presenting itself is so low for a columnist that he/ she will be looked upon as an opportunist and hypocrite if compromise is suggested up front. Therefore a critic is better than opportunist or hypocrite and that is why Hoodhoy presents himself as a critic.
He can be criticized as a mere critic or an idealist when he says, ````A global, democratic, secular, humanistic identity must soon replace the twin evils of imperial domination and religion. Else we perish`` , but what else should he said to avoid critic label. How about:
``A regional, semi-democratic, semi-secular, part humanistic identity must sooner or later replace the perceived twin evils of imperial domination and religion. Else we may perish``
What a silly, hypocritical statement would this be - that also from an intellectual. He has said exactly what needs to be said, loud and clear. Lets discuss this as starting point and not the revealed truth.
Maharana, Stuka and dost-mittar: Good posts!

As an insider to the US (citizen) and outsider to Pakistan (never been there) I have a slightly different perspective:

1. I *am* concerned about the US Imperialistic tendencies because my taxes are paying for it, and my life is endangered by it. I don`t challenge the notion that we are rich and free because we go around beating up those who would prevent us from being either; I do challenge the notion that there is no better way to be rich and free. Just as this is the case among individuals, large inequalities in power and wealth between nations is bound to lead to trouble. The ``have-nots`` have little to lose, and so it pressumably doesn`t take much to spark the imagination of at least some among them to cause havoc and mayhem. One cannot help but wonder if those hijackers would have been so eager to die if Saudi Arabia were a less disfunctional society? The same phenomenon can be observed in US inner cities every day as poor uneducated kids fight each other to death over the lucrative spoils of selling drugs to the rich. Sure they know they will die sooner than they otherwise migh have, but who cares? The alternative is to live in squalid poverty and suffer. At least so they believe. Because they don`t see a way to get coopted into main stream society and live a less glamorous, and less dangerous, life. Are they to blame for making bad choices? ABSOLUTELY! Are we to blame for not caring enough to show them an alternative? ABSOLUTELY! It is foolishness to assume that humans are rational automatons who will make the ``right`` choices independent of the environment in which they exist. Clearly the opposite is true. We are shaped by our social environment as much, or more so, as we shape it. Thus we ignore those who are growing up in disfunctional societies at our own peril. If this is to be a global village than we need to behave like villagers, otherwise, as Dr. Hoodbhoy states, ``we will soon perish``. The alternative is of course to continue to live in fear of each other as we have done for millions of years. Then again, that`s not much of a challenge (or goal)!

2. Precisely because the US occupies such a powerful position, we must carefully consider the consequences of our actions. Any perceived aggression by the US can act as a lightning rod for those who have nothing to lose. Which is not to say that we must do nothing, but rather, that we must be careful in what we do (and don`t do). Sending in the troops at the slightest provocation is hardly being careful, and can easily backfire!

3. There are few apologists for Bin Laden or Saddam and his ilk here in the US, and I would love to see nothing less than for the world to be rid of their pressence

4. HOWEVER, that is not sufficient cause to bring down the full might and power of the US armed forces upon Iraq at this time. There are many alternatives that can be persued before we resort to full scale invasion.

5. The consequences of an invasion of Iraq are mind boggling, which is why I find it mind boggling that so many people are ready to jump off that cliff, consequences be damned?! Could it be that we assume that the US populace will be largly unaffected (safe a few casualties of war). Could it be because we simply don`t want to think about what an invasion would do to those living in and around Iraq? Can we really make the decision that a post-invasion Iraq is a better Iraq for the Iraqis and their neighbors, and therefore the end justifies the inevitable suffering required to get there? Don`t get me wrong; I appreciate that the Iraqis are suffering now. But we do NOT have the power to alleviate all suffering, while we certainly DO have the power to avoid causing any more suffering.

6. It is undeniably true that the US dependence on oil is a menace that will not only have us ruin the environment but also those misfortunate few who are born with oil under the ground. It would seem like a blessing to have so much money thrown your way, but then again, individuals rarely manage to get rich quick gracefully (interesting side note to read up on the surprising fates of those who won large lottery jackpots), so it should not be surprising that entire nations fare no better. Why are we not pursueing a saner energy policy aimed at weaning us from this cursed (and limited!) energy source?!

7. Conspiracy theories aside, the only plausible reason I can see why the Bush team is so heavily pushing invasion is to ``send a message to the terrorists``. Cleaning up Afghanistan was clearly not a very difficult or impressive task, and therefore doesn`t send a very strong message. Cleaning up Iraq would put the terrorists on notice that while guilt by association is illegal in the US criminal system, they are not subject to the US criminal system, are they (to paraphrase a rather hypocritical line in the movie ``Toy Story``)? By lashing out at any ``potential terrorists`` the US would be sending a strong message that terrorism doesn`t pay, while at the same time pressumaly dealing a large blow to potential weapons infrastructure that could be used by e.g. Saddam to wreak havoc. But I fear that rather the opposite will prove true, that is, many more people would find reasons to hate the US and seek to injure it and its people. And as Al Qaeda has demonstrated so painfully, where there is a will, there is always a way!

8. The US cannot and should not extricate itself from international politics, and of course no country is immune to pursuing its own interests. Which again raises the question of exactly what our interests are and whether they still make any sense? I don`t have all the answers, and I`m no idealist, but somehow, invading Iraq given what we know (and don`t know) right now, seems foolish. I can only hope I`m wrong, because the tanks are on the way, and if you think anything can stop this train you`ve got another thing coming :-(

No metter - Usema dead or not , Pakstan has suffered . We are losing our collective religion to Wahabi religion imported from Saudi Arab. WHere are we in teachings of Baba Ghulam Farid and many other Pirs. All we hev is Military President dancing to tunes that are not Pakstani.

Rab Rakha

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

Ref Sangilikkaruppan #15
[This is the first time i have ever heard anyone equate Bush (rather BushBlair) with Osama. The juggernaut of american power rolls on unchallenged, strangely at the service of an imperial presidency. The team that took over american presidency in a bloodless coup is working overtime to install someone pliant in iraq so their big-oil buddies can make more money. It`s banana reincarnated as oil. At some point the game will no longer be controllable for america and that`s when the al-qaedas will move in for the kill.]
Welcome to The True Faith! Spoken like a true madrassah-educated jihadi! But then, when your entire life has been based on entitlements, one doesn`t expect anything better from the likes of you.
Can you tell us when the game will become uncontrollable? Any idea when the al-qaedas will move in for the kill? Will you be staying in Amerika at that time or would have moved back to Tamil Nadu to see if MK Stalin has any goodies left for the pallans and paraiyans of Tamil Nadu?
As for the banana reincarnated as oil, just remind yourself that it is actually a self-lubricating dildo that America intends to shove up the tailpipes of people like you.

Ref Field Marshal Romair#14
[That is why I have always found it strange when many people who want the Constitution and democracy etc. in Pakistan have no problem if all the religious brigade of Pakistan is locked up in an unconstitutional manner, with no due process.]
Let me hazard a guess: you wouldn`t have any problem at all if the VHP or Bajrang Dal in India were to be locked up without due process but have serious problems if some Hurriat goon in Kashmir is kept in jail. Oops, I forgot you don`t have time for constitutional niceties, everything can be justified under the Doctrine of Necessity, particularly military take-overs.
[Infact, they even complain when many of the religious brigade, with no due process, are let out of jail. They don`t realize that this unconstitutional jailing is even worst than the Hadood and Blasphemy laws that the secular brigade (correctly) complains about. At least, in the later, the guy gets a chance to go to court.]
If you actually would care to get your facts correct, the person who is arrested for blasphemy is usually thretaened with an immediate lynching by the mob. The judge who hears the case is thretaened with death if he doesn`t find the accused guilty and pass the maximum sentence. And while the accused is awaiting appeal of his sentence in a government-owned-government-controlled prison, he is shot dead.
Can you say ``kangaroo court``?

Romair
you are partially correct about Dr. Hoodboy, he is a critic and we need critics who are constructive - but he is also an advocate, a religious zealot.
No piece by Dr. Hoodboy goes without the exhortation to move towards secular humanism. Like so many in Pakistan and India, Dr. Hoodboy does not care to discern between ``secularization``, a process of reordering of values, enabling social transformation, from ``secularism``, a political and social ideology bent upon profanation, the denial of space to religion in culture and conscience.
Secularization is the scientification of society, it is the making of scientific method, the intellectual norm of societal and personal transaction. Secularism is not concerned with any process, save the institutionalization of the use of coersion to banish religion from culture and conscience. We need secularization not secularism.

The failed scientist is again trying to reiterate his perverted (munafique) worldview. What he has failed to grasp is that an academic paper from the farangi madressas may get him employment but never a place among the learned.

A phone call to Dr. Hussein Nasr might cure this perversion....of course, only if he seeks it.

It is time CHOWK dumped him or rather dumped on him.
____________________________________________________________
Osama bin Laden - The Forbidden Truth

by Firoz Osman
It is becoming more apparent that the war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with terrorism, Osama bin Laden, the Taliban or the World Trade Centre. Realpolitik, the need and greed for oil and gas are, once again, the source of misery and tragedy. This time it is in Central Asia, just as it was in Iraq.

In a book entitled “Unholy Wars”, ABC news correspondent John K Cooley reveals United States and multi-national oil companies intentions to establish pipelines to route the oil and natural gas of Central Asia and the Caspian Basin to the West. To this end the aims of the generals of the Pakistani ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) and their American counterparts, the CIA, converged. They saw in the Taliban the means by which they could achieve their objectives.

In 1993, Pakistan and Turkmenistan had signed an agreement to jointly develop their energy resources and build a pipeline between the two countries. UNOCAL, based in California, signed a protocol with the Turkmen government to explore the feasibility of building this pipeline. The one-year study cost $10 million for a huge energy project worth $18 billion, to transport Turkmen oil and gas by pipeline to the Indian Ocean. This trade and energy would run through Pakistan, America`s ally, rather than through Iran, her adversary ever since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979. This will also bypass Iranian ambitions to channel Turkmen energy.

A further objective of both the Taliban and Pakistan is the recovery of natural gas from northern Afghanistan`s Shibergan province, pumped northward to Russia through Uzbekistan. Afghan estimates of the resources in the Shibergan gas fields run to 1,100 billion cubic meters. Export of the gas continued throughout the 1979-89 war, despite periodic sabotage orchestrated by the CIA and ISI.

Corroborating Cooley`s findings, a book has just appeared in Paris entitled ‘Bin Laden, La Verite Interdite` (Bin Laden, the Forbidden Truth). The book claims that the Bush administration held extensive talks with the Taliban regime from February to August 2001 with the aim of securing control over the vast oil and gas reserves in Central Asia through the construction of an oil pipeline from the rich oil fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakstan, to Afghanistan, Pakistan and onto the Indian Ocean.

The authors, Jean Charles Brisard and Guiliaume Dasquie, with long experience in intelligence analysis allege that if the Taliban had facilitated the construction of the pipeline and US control over Central Asian oil and gas reserves, the latter would have paved the way for economic assistance to, and political recognition of, the Taliban. Taliban`s unwillingness to accept US conditions frustrated the Americans. According to co-author Jean Charles Brisard,`` At one moment during the negotiations the US representatives told the Taliban,` either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.```

It is well established that the Bush administration, and the President Bush`s family in particular, have a strong oil background with close oil corporate links. Vice-president Dick Cheney was until the end of 2000, president of Halliburton, a company that provides services for the oil industry. National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice was a manager for Chevron between 1991 and 2000, while Commerce Secretary Donald Evans and Energy Secretary Stanley Abraham worked for oil giant, Tom Brown.

As John Pilger asserted, the Taliban were trained and supported by the CIA and SAS, agencies of the US and Britain. Soon after their take over of Kabul in 1996, their leaders were entertained by the executives of Unocal Oil Company in Houston, Texas. With secret US government approval, the company offered them a generous cut of the profits of the oil and gas pumped through the pipeline that the Americans wanted to build from Soviet Central Asia through Afghanistan. A US diplomat said: `The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did.` He explained that `` Afghanistan will become a US oil colony; there would be huge profits for the West, no democracy and the legal persecution of women. We can live with that,`` he said.

Although the deal fell through, it still remains an urgent priority of the administration of George W Bush. The Caspian Basin has the greatest source of untapped fossil fuel on earth and enough, according to one estimate, to meet the US`s voracious energy needs for generations. Only if the pipeline runs through Afghanistan can the US hope to control it. So, not surprisingly, US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, is now referring to “ moderate`` Taliban, who will join a US-sponsored `` loose federation`` to run Afghanistan. The `` war on terrorism`` is a cover for this. A means of achieving strategic aims that lie behind the flag-waving facade.

If the allegations and arguments contained in ` Bin Laden, The Forbidden Truth` and `Unholy Wars` are true, it raises some fundamental questions about he US bombing of Afghanistan, and indeed, about the 11 September tragedy itself. Is oil the ulterior motive, the hidden agenda, behind the assault upon Afghanistan? Is the attack a vile attempt to gain control of the country and establish a pliant regime in Kabul, which will enable Washington to extend its tentacles over Central Asia and its oil wealth?

The world has the right to know the truth - for the sake of the innocent people who are being slaughtered in Afghanistan, and indeed, for the sake of the thousands who were killed in New York and Washington on 11 September.

(Mr. Firoz Osman is Secretary of the Media Review Network, which is an advocacy group based in Pretoria, South Africa.)

pipelines or no pipelines -- despite my harsh criticism of GW`s stupidity on Iraq -- I do agree with Dr. Hoodbhoy 100% that -- the crowning moment of Bush presidency indeed -- is, was and will remain -- when exactly a year ago TODAY on 9/11 -- he picked up the gauntlet thrown by the Buddha-bashing, woman-beating, museum-vandalizing, bearded bullies of Islamist extremism -- and smashed their heads in Afghanistan for all times to come.

The men, WOMEN AND CHILDREN of Afghanistan -- will always remain indebted to the Neophyte for liberating them from a tyranny that if left to the so-called Umma to remedy -- would have been left wallowing in filth -- unremedied for centuries to come.

hasan

FK: Who is Hussain Nasr? Thanks.

Why does fk write like progressive?

Seachers

We gave our dogs a button to sniff,
or a tissue, and they bounded off
confident in their training,
in the power of their senses
to recreate the body,

but after eighteen hours in rubble
where even steel was pulverized
they curled on themselves
and stared at up at us
and in their soft huge eyes
we saw mirrored the longing for death:

then we had to beg a stranger
to be a victim and crouch
behind a girder, and the dogs
discover him and tug him
proudly, with suppressed yaps,
back to Command and the rows
of empty triage tables.

But who will hide from us?
Who will keep digging for us
here in the cloud of ashes?

-D. Nurkse

PAKI PATRIOT

``Dr. Hoodbhoy is an intelligent man. And since he is sitting in Pakistan, even though he could be sitting anywhere in the world, one would have to agree that he is perhaps more of a patriot than all of us expatriates``

That is the opening remark by the field marshal. I have seen that often from ylh and a host of other pakistanis when they post about hoodhboy, asma jahangir and the like. It appears that to be a patriot is something supreme in pakistan, and any criticism of pakistan amounts to being a traitor.

The above is something new for a citizen of a modern nation state. Well then again, pakistan is an islamic country, and any criticism of the book is blasphemy. Naturally, the ilks of romair and ylj extrapolate the book to the military and what ever that is left of the country to implicate any one who criticises it as a traitor.

People of pakistan, the so called educated one wants a moderate pakistan, and it is an impossiblity when one realises that the western educated ones like the ylh are obcessed with patriotism.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/sep/11rajeev.htm

....an interesting and different perspective on september 11...he is right on with most of his arguments, except when he whines about american indifference to india`s fight against musharraf-brand terrorism...it is not america`s job to fight india`s battles!...

...amongst others, his point about iraq is particularly valid...it seems like bush is going after saddam for the sake of his father`s legacy rather than any strategic rationale...the american economy cannot afford a war right now...if this is a moral argument, go after all the damn dictators, not just saddam...and last i checked al qaeda has mostly saudis, taliban, and some pakistanis....not iraqis...let`s not demonize iraq when plenty of america`s ``allies`` are bigger demons as far as the world`s immediate security is concerned....(i don`t mean to defend saddam, but merely point out the stupidity bush is about to get himself into)....