unflinching idealism ... since 1997 archivessitemapabouthelpfeedback
all are welcome to read, write and think
  • Home
  • InFocus
  • Themes
  • Columns
  • Articles
  • Fiction
  • iLogs
  • Gallery
  • Unplugged
  • Writers
  • Interactors
  • Tags
Sign in | Join Chowk
web chowk
  • Article
  • Interact
  • read writer comments
  • add to favorites
  • get rss feeds
  • print
  • email this link

Iraqi Resistance Warns Turks to Keep Off Iraq

Gajendra Singh November 21, 2003

Latest comments   flat   threaded   latest   oldest   all
listing 1-16   1 2

#23 Posted by tahmed32 on November 27, 2003 8:45:49 am
vertex #22 no one except those directing the bombers would know for sure what they were trying to accomplish. The most plausible theory is that the saudi and turk bombings were timed to overshadow Bush`s UK visit. However, if that is true, then the bombings backfired since they in fact ended up overshadowing the massive anti-war protests in UK.

Clearly, reality is more complex than any planner can anticipate, and certainly a far more complex than the stupid mind of the mullah and of the saddam or bin laden admirer can grasp. That is why i have always argued on chowk against violence except in case of defense from a real and imminent threat to life: the ends never justify the means: and particularly when one uses violent means, the ultimate affect is generally very different than what was envisaged.

While these arrogant half-brains in the muslim world are busy hating and (in case of the extremists) conducting actual violence directed towards the US and the west, their neighbors in india and china and other progressive third world nations are busy learning from the US and the west and catching up with them.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#22 Posted by vertex on November 26, 2003 10:34:58 pm


Your point is taken. The selection of targets also seem odd for a Kurdish group...although I think the Turks using any Kurd terrorist attack as a pretext into entering Kurdish territories is a bit off. With the Americans out of the picture, the Turkish response would be obvious. I`m not too certain, though, that even Kurdish agitation would see the Americans welcome a Turkish rush into northern Iraq (weren’t the Turks meant to take over in the so-called ``sunni`` triangle?). That would be just another headache for America in post-war Iraq.

This is all meaningless now, though, since I think the bombers have all been identified...apparently veterans from Chechneya...I still can`t fathom what they wanted to accomplish...like I said, they seem to be as retarded as they look. If they wanted to send a message to the Turks, then certainly better targets were available...if they wanted to send a message to the West...then they must realize that ``we can attack your facilities in Muslim countries`` isn`t a very powerful message at all...Al-Ansar amature night?

Re your #20, I still laugh every time I read that...


reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#21 Posted by tahmed32 on November 25, 2003 10:53:44 am
vertex #18 you ask me to tell you the ``Reality of what (you) know)``. This is what you were saying:

``In both cases though, it shouldn`t be lost on us (those skeptical of American intensions in the region) that attacks in Saudis and Turkey were in fact congruent with American interests. Nothing like turning a population seemingly hostile to your interests like a few attacks of these natures to make it seem that there was a common enemy all this time. And his name was Sadama Bin Laden.``

In plain words, what you were claiming was that it was the US and not arab terrorists responsible for these attacks in saudi arabia and turkey. The reality of this is that al qaeda claimed responsibility for the saudi attacks. Now, you can be a dedicated conpiracy theorist and claim that this claim was made by the US. But, even that level of dedication would not be enough. You would then have to explain why al qaeda did not then refute the claim and deny responsibility. That has not happened.

So even in plain, simple logic, you are as removed from reality as the earlier generation of muslims were in India: back in 1917 when the Khilafat movement was started on the belief that the west was out to end the caliph - the reality turned out to be that the turks under ataturk himself abolished it. And the leaders of the khilafat movement ended up looking like the fools that they were. Of course they are still revered by some people in pakistan. Now what was that word you would apply to them? the same one as you would apply to someone who claims that al qaeda didnt do something when in fact al qaeda is proudly claiming the dastardly deed.

So, spare your tears for the victims of the blasts - innocent people (muslims and jews) who were killed by these bombs. Dont try to protect islamic terrorists from themselves by ignoring their own claims and speculating instead that they wouldnt do something because it wouldnt be in their interest. After all, if they were not basically a bunch of half-brained sociopaths who have no clue what is even in their own interest (let alone in the interests of muslims, and let alone in the interests of humanity), they wouldnt be terrorists in the first place.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#20 Posted by ferozk on November 25, 2003 7:54:21 am
“The message is that there are known knowns - there are things that we know we know. There are known unknowns - that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns .... things we do not know we don’t know. And each year we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns.”

Donald Rumsfeld
United States Secretary of Defence

(LOL)
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#19 Posted by ferozk on November 25, 2003 6:53:08 am
re: Vertex # 18

I am against the war and was, when it started. I had a very intense argument with tahmed32 on this issue. Everything was discussed. There is nothing new I can add to this argument.

However, to answer your question. I would not discount the Kurdish motives in the Turkish bomb blasts, but why would the Kurds needlessly create problems with the Turks? Turkey`s government was against the war, and after the war it supported the idea of sending its troops but seems to be rethinking that choice. If the Kurds did this, Turkey would love it because it offer it gives Turkey a chance to send its army into the Kurdish enclave and prevent the emergence of a Kurdish state. Kurds for this reason do not want Turkish troops in northern Iraq.

It seems that this was a result of internal Turkish politics. The Kurdish-Turkish problem is secular and this problem seems to originate from religious reasons.

Ciao
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#18 Posted by vertex on November 24, 2003 6:28:07 pm


tahmed,

``you ignore the reality of what you know, and conjure up conspiracy theories for which you have no basis. there is a word for an individual who demonstrates such an attitude. can you help me find that word?``

Geeezus, so many pro-Kurds here. You guys really need to learn the difference between speculation and stating speculation as fact. Would you care to be brave enough to discuss specifics, or are you content with your own ignorance? Pray tell, what is this ``Reality`` of what I know...are you suggesting there ARE WMD`s in Iraq, and that the Americans did NOT use false evidence to make their ``case``? Give it a rest dude...

feroz,

That was the most non-commital response I`ve ever read. Anyhow, I agree with what you say in principle...but then nothing you said is new to anyone vaguely familiar with logic.
Yes, in the absence of fact everything is speculation and commiting to a viewpoint as anything other than speculation without concrete evidence is not waranted.



reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#17 Posted by ferozk on November 24, 2003 6:14:03 am
re: fosa # 14

Learn to write in a manner more intelligent than the one you display presently; replies that are nothing more hollow self styled rants of lipid pseudo intellectualism and till then, take long walk off a short pier and attach some heavy objects to your ankles and try not to come up for air.

As to the word ``nincompoopers``, which you used to describe me, I guess it takes one to know the other!

re: vertex # 15

It makes as much sense as your hypothesis.

The premise is that you collect all the facts and then deduce the most likely reason for an event and the answer you are left with, no matter how illogical it seems, is probably going to be truth. The only problem is that there is a solid, unavoidable need for facts to prove or disprove a given set of hypothesis. Your hypothesis may be valid one, but it cannot be proven till there is an evidence of facts stating your claim to be as the truth. Till that happens, an unproven hypothesis will remain, politically speaking, nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

Ciao
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#16 Posted by tahmed32 on November 23, 2003 10:21:20 pm
vertex: you ignore the reality of what you know, and conjure up conspiracy theories for which you have no basis. there is a word for an individual who demonstrates such an attitude. can you help me find that word?

could it perhaps be ``moron``? it cant be, because a moron is not delusional, and you are that as well. perhaps we can call it vertexoron (defined by webster dictionary to be ``delusional moron``). that seems about right, dont you think?
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#15 Posted by vertex on November 23, 2003 4:33:18 pm

arjun_m,

Man, read will you. I already said I think it was KURDS. Just ironic that accused in fact don`t benefit at all from this string of terrorism, and no doubt they would understand that (correct feroz?). Anyhow, Turkish PM claims these people were Turk nationals and members of an extremist group. I wonder if that`s speculative still or positive ID has been made.

As for Tom Clancy comment...no doubt their are two script writers here...primary one is American, the other seems to be an international ``open source`` group of Arabs. These events aren`t accidental, they follow from premeditated acts, action and re-action, or more properly counter-action. Reality is always more strange and nuanced than fiction...hence any writer like Tom Clancy must marvel at how such events unfold.


ferozk,

``You are basing your statements on the assumption of ``who benefits`` from all of this and the answer you get, may not gel with the offical truth and once you remove all the possibilities, what is left, no matter how improbale, is most probable explanation.``

Hunh? Can you insert some proper nouns in there...

Assumptions on who benefits seems like a logical choice in absence of any other evidence. We have to ask who and why, among other questions. What are the other possible motivators? How is this to further Al-Queda`s cause? What is the motivation behind this kind of terrorist attack? Prior terrorist campaigns was against occupying powers, and so the rational - ``theory`` if you like - of their terrorism was well understood.

This kind is distinctly different, and seems to defy logic - that invokes suspicion. Aside from simple ``they hate so they commit mass murder`` explanations, what is the political motivations behind these kind of attacks? How do terrorist gauge their success? Why would they waste resources on particular targets if they wouldn`t see some kind of benefit to their cause?

Given above questions, Kurds would seem like a likely choice. Now it seems they`ve ID`d these people so we are left scratching our heads. Maybe these terrorists ARE as retarded as they look...but those of us who are against American Imperalism-lite can`t get over the irony, that the supposed enemy is often doing things that actually help out the American agenda.

Let us keep in mind that America and friends have already been caught in a lie...a down right `conspiracy` no less, in their WMD claims in Iraq. We SHOULD be paranoid against people like that.





reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#14 Posted by Fosa on November 23, 2003 10:53:43 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#13 Posted by Fosa on November 23, 2003 10:53:43 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#12 Posted by ferozk on November 23, 2003 5:29:59 am
First of all, some sarcasm.

It turns out that the recent bomb blasts in Turkey were the work of the Turkish military. The Turkish military was getting concerned about the increasing Islamic sentiment in Turkish politics and need to take steps to stop the so-called Islamization of Turkish politics. As Turkey is interested in joining the European Union, the possiblity of a military coup to change the government was not a politically feasible possibility. Therefore, it was decided that Turkish military would ``stage`` a few terrorist attacks and blame it on Turkish citizens and this way, discredit the Islamic parties in Turkey.

re: Vortex # 10

``Even paranoids have enemies`` - Henry Kissenger

In intelligence gathering, there are three different levels of considering available information: probable, possible, and improable. A good intelligence officer will always consider the three options and in fact, s/he is encouraged to theorize about possibilities that seem as unlikely. There are ``links`` or facts, which may seem as conspiracy theories, but they have to be considered. Good intelligence pre-supposes that everything must be considered before it is presented. The basic rule in intelligence gathering is, which makes it imperative to consider all the possibilities no matter how illogical they seem, is that truth is stranger than fiction.

You are basing your statements on the assumption of ``who benefits`` from all of this and the answer you get, may not gel with the offical truth and once you remove all the possibilities, what is left, no matter how improbale, is most probable explanation.

Ciao
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#11 Posted by arjun_m on November 22, 2003 10:54:29 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#10 Posted by vertex on November 22, 2003 6:31:30 pm
Saudi first, now Turkey.

Seems to be home-grown, although details are scarce. No one knows who is doing the attacks, although Western analysts like to invoke Al-Queda, which seems to be more of a terminology for such kind of attackers rather than an actual movement.

After Riyadh attacks, Americans turned towards Saudis and pretty much said ``we told you so``. That is, their ``support`` for foreign militants (...let us put aside the fact that this support began on America`s behalf...) was the ``root cause``. Funny, when same is said to Americans, it`s some how considered improper to mention.

Now, we have attacks in Turkey...a country that was anti-Iraq war but in the end somewhat willing to send troops to Iraq - sort of. Writer is correct in stating these attacks were related to Turkey. My bet is on Kurdish terrorists who want to ensure Turkey stays OUT of northern Iraq...West too busy blaming everything from ozone depletion to DPG (donkey propelled grenade) attacks on ``The Book``.

In both cases though, it shouldn`t be lost on us (those skeptical of American intensions in the region) that attacks in Saudis and Turkey were in fact congruent with American interests. Nothing like turning a population seemingly hostile to your interests like a few attacks of these natures to make it seem that there was a common enemy all this time. And his name was Sadama Bin Laden.

Anyone see Tom Clancy on CNN? I think he looked jealous, because whoever`s writing the script to this show is doing one heck`ve a job....





reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#9 Posted by jay on November 22, 2003 6:31:29 pm
post 7,

I will support taht for pakistan. In the legal system of pakistan, most elements of the book has been puit into practice, the blasphemy laws and honour killings, what is needed next is hand choppings and kalifayet. There is hope for pakistan, when the elites like you can seriously think of kalifayet, and in a way will be the most convincing answer to pakistan ka matlab kys.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#8 Posted by tahmed32 on November 22, 2003 4:55:06 pm
haroonelahi #7 are you seriously unaware that the caliphate was the form of government in the middle east for a thousand years?

if you dont like democracy, that is good though: that means you want someone else to tell you what to do. i am in need of a slave to do my bidding (some of them i will turn into eunuchs, as was done in the caliphates). i will be glad to accomodate all of those individuals who do not wish to live in a democracy and would rather follow a caliph like a bunch of eunuchs.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#7 Posted by HaroonEllahi on November 22, 2003 4:17:13 pm
Why does every one fearr Islam so much? perhaps it MIGHT do some good. democracy and all forms of goverments have not worked so well with us Muslims. perhaps we should try the Caliphate system? :P
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#6 Posted by jay on November 21, 2003 10:58:23 pm
Turkish expert,

At last we have a turkish expert on chowk. Two bombs and the man has declared that it is agaisnt the recognition of israel. Now two more bomb blasts, I am waiting for the expert to come back, it is against the british, against the part britan played in the collapse of ottoman empire. In producing pathetic experts, chowk is second to none.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#5 Posted by jay on November 21, 2003 10:58:22 pm
Minister`s remarks spark British Muslim fury
Indo-Asian News Service
London, November 22

British Muslim leaders have protested against a minister for his statement that Muslims do not speak out strongly enough against terrorism.

Europe Minister Denis MacShane found himself at the centre of a political maelstrom Friday when he urged British Muslims to follow the ``British way`` of political dialogue and reject Islamist terrorism.

Speaking in his Rotherham constituency a day after the Istanbul bombings, MacShane likened terrorists to Nazis and urged imams and other Muslim leaders to use ``clearer, stronger language`` to speak out against them.


///May be what is needed is contained in the above news item, one of my usual posts on chowk, that the muslims ahve to conemn jihadic killings and say that jihad is not killing of kafirs. It is amazing that after each jihadic killings, the pakistanis and other muslims come up with ideas of fundamental cause of terror, as though there is something other than jihad behind it.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#4 Posted by tahmed32 on November 21, 2003 5:06:03 pm
so you write that the six turkish jews who were murdered (includinga six year old girl and her grandmother) while in prayer were being punished!! and ignore the ``collateral`` damage of 21 or so turkish muslim who were killed.

and the fact that the turkish governmnet is an elected one, and these thugs whom you admire are trying to override the will of the turkish people by scaring them with bombs.

evil indeed exists in this world. not just in the form of these murderers of innocent people, but of haraamis like you.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#3 Posted by Romair on November 21, 2003 12:47:16 pm
Your knowledge of the area seems quite impressive.

Turkey, to take Samuel Hunington’s words, is a, “torn” country. I think certain people are unnecessarily and overly impressed with it, since it, at one time, “shoved the mullahs into the sea.” However, secularism (or any other ism) in the form of semi-fascism, with weak economic foundations, is usually not a long-term constructive strategy.

Ataturk gets more credit than he deserves, in my opinion. Some of the writings about him, on his treatment and policies towards Kurds and Armenians make sad reading. If they are true, then I would consider him more of a human rights violator than a visionary reformist. Personally, I rate Jinnah much higher than Ataturk.

Turks are involved in too much of a hodge-podge to figure out what is wrong and what it right, and which direction to take their country. They have just become victims of terrorism. Yet their own human rights records against the Kurds is terrible. The military is very secular, but it is also very undemocratic. They are sometimes a fascistly secular country, having banned religious parties, again and again, even after the religious parties won elections. To the extent of even kicking young girls out of universities for wearing scarves. Yet now they are ruled by an outright majority of a religious party. And it is this religious party that has finally neutralized the military’s indulgence in politics. The parent of this religious party, “Rafah,” was initially banned, by the same military, after it had won the highest seats in a previous election.

Turkey doesn’t get along with its Christian neighbors in Greece. And its Muslims neighbors in Iraq. And not only will it not allow its own Kurds their rights, it has vowed to invade Iraq, if Iraqi Kurds get those rights.

It will be interesting to see, which direction Turkey goes in. An un-elected politically active and overly secular military pulling it in one direction, with a democratically elected, overwhelmingly popular, Islamic party, pulling it in the other direction.

Ataturk’s vision may have worked in the short term. But, perhaps the contradictions in his own stances, are only now starting to show up, 80 years later.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#2 Posted by ali_1 on November 21, 2003 11:34:14 am
Gajendra,

You knowledge of ME and specially Turkey is impressive. However, you write like an Upper Division Clerk of the ministry of foreign affairs. I suggest that you have someone write for you.

PS. Our Foreign Ministry Babu, Karamatullah can write much better than you.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#1 Posted by sigalph235 on November 21, 2003 10:40:32 am
The attacks were indeed a gauntlet thrown down to the most secular, modernist, anti-clerical Muslim country. The response ought to be Atatturk-like: give no quarter, show no mercy, take no chances. The only good Islamist radical is a cold, dead one.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
listing 1-16   1 2

Interact Index

    #23 tahmed32
    #22 vertex
    #21 tahmed32
    #20 ferozk
    #19 ferozk
    #18 vertex
    #17 ferozk
    #16 tahmed32
    #15 vertex
    #14 Fosa
    #13 Fosa
    #12 ferozk
    #11 arjun_m
    #10 vertex
    #9 jay
    #8 tahmed32
    #7 HaroonEllahi
    #6 jay
    #5 jay
    #4 tahmed32
    #3 Romair
    #2 ali_1
    #1 sigalph235

Also by Gajendra Singh

  • Gen. Petraeus & Crocker's Washington Show is a Damp Squib
  • India and the Cricket World Cup
  • Texan Poker Bluff and Persian Chess Moves
more »

Similar Articles

  • Losing the Battle, Losing the Faith Ehtisham Iqbal
  • Better Times Muhammad Farhan
  • A Weak Pakistan is a Threat to Neighbours Beena Sarwar
  • Hotel Babylon: The Marriot Hotel Explosion Asif Naqshbandi
  • September Morning Feroz Qutabshahi
more »

US Elections 2008 Primaries

  • Hillary Clinton a Better Presidential Candidate
  • Leaders, Heroes and Mountains
  • Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and New American Dreams
  • Pakistan Elections 2008 - An analysis
  • Political Issues Ahead of Pakistan Elections
more »
get rss feed Get Chowk RSS Feed

Get Chowk Newsletter

Latest Interacts

  • Inaara: I was moved by... Demon
  • pmishra2: Thanks, KaalChakra for posting... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
  • pmishra2: ugh, yet another of... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
  • captainjohann: Nobody is stopping legal... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
  • mohar11: Re: # 133 There is... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
  • ahmedmadani: Re: # 37 Parth... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
  • tahmed32: pinku: "they don't know... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
  • Ras: All, for the article... Three Cups of Tea

THEMES

  • Pakistan's Struggle for Democracy
  • The Indian Story
  • Indo-Pak Relations
  • Personal Narratives
  • Religion Today
  • War on Terror
  • Role of Media
  • Call for Social Change
  • Hold Them Accountable
  • Environment and Us
  • Way of Life
more »

Top 5 Articles This Week

  • Popular
  • Terrorism Accused: Is Legal Aid Justified?
  • Rape Survivor Families Struggle Against Odds
  • Three Cups of Tea & Pennies for Peace
  • Losing the Battle, Losing the Faith
  • Demon
  • Featured
  • There are a Lot of Monkeys
  • White Charade
  • Words of a Woman
  • FOX News and the Smelly Shoes
  • Dilemmas of Creative Children
  • 10 Years Ago
  • Professor Abdus Salam
  • The Amsterdam Treasures
  • The Street Fighter
  • Scaly
  • The New Education Policy

Write on Chowk Interact Guidelines Privacy policy Terms Contact

Copyright © 1997 - 2008 chowk.com. All Rights Reserved
Reproduction of material on any www.chowk.com pages without prior written permissions is strictly prohibited