Letter to an American Muslim

Forget armchair musings: This is what learned ones think and write. The ones who matter to intelligent Pakistanis. Not the english-trash columnists.

Good job Ali. Now we need someone to write an interesting opinion piece like this and get it published in the New York Times and other large dailies. Its important that such messages get out to the larger American poplulation (or atleast those that read newspapers) because it highlights to them that we longer can be taken for granted and while you may make jokes about Muslims sooner rather than later we will have a voice that will have to be heard across the political spectrum.

Ref hamidm2 #137

[............... by this time you should know that my use of ``the bar`` and references to ``merlot`` are purely symbolic .............. kind of like the old poets` use of ``beloved`` to refer to a fictitious deity and ``ishq`` to symbolize infatuation with imaginary gods ...........

...... the bar could be the ball-park and merlot could be a lemonade................ ]

Please, please tell me that at least the 19-year-aged Macallen is real.

Letter to Daily Times:

Pak-Israel relations

Sir: It is great news that the Israeli Agriculture Minister, Yisrael Katz, is planning to visit Pakistan. Israel is a reality that Pakistan must accept, and I am glad that the Pakistan government has finally realised that Israel is too important a country to be ignored any longer.

Pakistan can benefit greatly by forging ties with Israel, in particular in the economic and scientific sectors. Improving its relations with Pakistan is also important for the government of Israel since Pakistan is the world’s second largest Muslim country and it would help Israel if it could establish relation with Pakistan.

The government of Pakistan must start preparing its people for the recognition of Israel (which hopefully will be soon). The people of Pakistan must be convinced that friendship with Israel is in Pakistan’s best interests and that this will not affect our stand on a state for the Palestinians. At the same time, Pakistan must tread this path carefully, not antagonising important Arab countries like Saudi Arabia. Pakistan will also have to take into account Iran’s reaction to this development.

With skilful diplomacy, Pakistan can retain the friendship of Arab countries (including the Palestinian Authority) while forging ties with Israel.
TAIMUR MASUD KHAN
USA

Hello Mr. Ali,


ANGOOR KHATTE HAIN KYA?

You may hoot n` holler about the fainlings of US, but have you looked at the lines that form ouside the US embassey? When was the last muslim gunned down in the streets of US, and how many shias sacrifice their lives in Pakistan? May be you get the point, it is just that you want to stick to your guns for now, hoping someday your children will get to the shores of green dollars.

HE at 209:

To the extent you mentioned, I agree with you. However, pinning our hopes on emotionally charged Islamic militants would be a suicide for the society, since there are many conflicting viewpoints on many a religious issues that these morons will like to settle through bullets.

Politically, Pakistan has already provided an opportunity to Islamists in partcipating in Governance and decision making process.

However, I will like to share my views on a matter that you are discussing with Tauheed.

It is not only Pakistanis who are critical of American invasion of Iraq. In my December`s trip to Europe and the USA, I found out first hand that Europeans are much more anti-Americans these days than Pakistanis, for example. And they express their hate explicitly. I was amazed at their loudness on expressing their dislike of the American policy.

#216 by tahmed32

Sorry for a long reply but judging from your melodramatic posts, it seems you are still not getting it.

Firstly, criticizing the US war effort does not make one a supporter of arab terrorists. That would make Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, Nelson Mandela, Sean Penn, etc ``supporters of arab terrorists`` too (which they of course are not).

Secondly, the term ``arab terrorists`` is a racist slur against people of Arab origin. Unless you see the War on Terror as a War on Arabs, you should really desist from such phrases.

Thirdly, America has lost the battle for hearts and minds of the Muslims, even the moderate ones. Stroll into any college campus in Pakistan, and you will hear an earful of criticism.

You might argue that some of this backlash was inevitable due to the war in Afghanistan. But I am not talking about Afghanistan in particular. People were quite willing to accept collateral damage in Afghanistan in the hope that America would rebuild it.

The real problem here is that Bush changed course and started another war against another Muslim state because its WMDs presented an ``imminent threat`` to the US. This war was conceived even before the Afghanistan war was over. He wasn`t even prepared to get a UN resolution authorizing war. Now almost a year later, he hasn`t produced a single WMD or any evidence thereof. Moreover, dozens of Americans die every week in what appears to be an organized resistance. Even the major Shia population (supporters of Ayotallah Sistani) don`t want Americans to stay in Iraq. When you start a preemptive war on the basis of WMDs and then fail to produce one, it is natural for people to distrust you.

This is America`s problem now. It is distrusted by Muslims. This is no longer a war on terror. It has now become something else. You can`t blame Pakistanis for expressing their criticism of America. Attacking other people`s freedom of expression is neither democratic nor an American thing.

Many countries including France and Germany see America as a bigger threat to world peace than Al-Qaeda. As a result, Osama the Moron is looking like a victim, an underdog. His meticulous body language and masterful selection of Quranic verses is intended to convey the same message. If a superpower with the most powerful media in the world starts losing the battle for hearts & minds to a man issuing statements from a cave... then something is seriously amiss.

+++
Fourth: You claim that no pakistanis were affected by 9/11. For your information planeloads of pakistanis who were in the US illegally were sent back. Learn to face facts.

Fifth: You claim that pakistanis come to the US only if jobs are available. FYI thousands of pakistanis come to the US on things like visitor`s visa and so forth without any job offer. Many of them are paying the price.
+++

Forgive my prudeness, but why should illegal residents NOT be sent home. Deportation of illegal immigrants is not something new, is it?

To my knowledge, Pakistanis applying for visit visas had problems in 2001 but not so any more. Sure, they have to endure the racial profiling and fingerprinting at airports. But they still get visas. Can you substantiate your argument with actual figures about what percentage of visit visas are denied?

HE #211

On demonstrations: neither you nor I know for sure what impact they had. What one can say with certainty is that they did not create feelings of goodwill towards pakistan in the US.

Second: You ignore the point I made about thousands of pakistanis who joined the taliban even prior to 9/11. Ignoring inconvenient points is a good way to escape reality. It does not make you any wiser, nor does it change reality.

Third: You talk about collateral damage caused among afghan civilians by US bombing. You conveniently forget the ``collateral damage`` caused by those arab murderers on the 40-50 pakistanis who were killed at WTC. The US was forced into the war on terrorism due to 9/11, the arabs and islamists are the ones responsible for every single life lost or ruined in this conflict. You may find it inconvenient to believe this, but these hijackers of islam and their supporters will not escape Allah`s justice.

Fourth: You claim that no pakistanis were affected by 9/11. For your information planeloads of pakistanis who were in the US illegally were sent back. Learn to face facts.

Fifth: You claim that pakistanis come to the US only if jobs are available. FYI thousands of pakistanis come to the US on things like visitor`s visa and so forth without any job offer. Many of them are paying the price.

CONCLUSION: There is threfore a cost to pakistanis of this irresponsible anti-US ideology that you and urstruly and others living comfortably in the US maintain.

And there is a cost pakistanis have paid for these islamist types that you support: and that cost is not only in terms of money, but in terms of blood (for those pakistanis killed on 9/11 by the arab terrorists).

No wonder you people are in denial on 9/11. Because the truth is too much for you to handle. So you can live out your lives in falsehood and delusions. If you believe in the Day of Judgement, you would be more concerned with being honest and straightforward.

rsridhar #213 agreed on 1, 2, 6 and 7. these add to, but do not replace, the reasons i gave.

disagree on:

5: what gen paddy does speaks louder than what he says. it is quite clear that the mood in india was to overrun pakistan once and for all. that mood took a sudden swing once it became clear that pakistan was prepared to use the nuclear option rather than allow itself to be run over.

6: throughout the 90`s the bjp tried to have pakistan declared a pariah state. i remember clearly the news reports on indian official statements. didnt work. in the post 9/11 world, with pakistan out of the woods, sanctions lifted etc., there was even less reason for pakistan to think that the self-serving indian government viewpoint would be accepted by the international community. so i dont accept this is being a concern.

the reason i support settling on the LOC is simply because i see it as the only practical way to move forward to more important issues (i.e. poverty alleviation within both countries). not because there is anything inherently moral about the dispute which is ultimately a territorial dispute due to the mess the brits made when leaving india.

rsridhar #213 thank you sir for the kind words. i am glad you and i have the same vision for peace in the subcontinent which will one day, most surely, become a reality.

re:#191 by tahmed32

``And incidentally, the best way to get rid of an enemy is to make it a friend. In this sense I am 100 percent behind musharaff in his peace efforts with India.``
Well said, tahmed Sahib,
I concur whole heartedly with this line of thinking.
Sridhar

re:#198 by tahmed32

``Pakistan-India: Recent imporvements in relations seem to be based on solid underlying reasons - (a) A realization among the extremists in India that pakistan cannot be bullied (I believe the turning point came last year when the million man army was neutralized by musharaff`s brilliant moves in terms of referring to the nuclear option and carrying out a few well timed missile tests). (b) A strong public resentment against militarists in pakistan who are seen as using the kashmir dispute as a reason to enrich themselves. (c) A general desire for peace and friendship among people in both countries, and a realization that both countries have a joint economic stake in a peaceful and progressive South Asia. ``

As usual, Pakis conveniently forget the real reasons for the Indo-Pak rapproachment.

1. US strategic interests are not served by Indo-Pak rivalry. Pak had often complained to US that it is unable to spend enough manpower and energy due to its rivalry with India and having to dedicate a large portion of its manpower and resources towards its eastern border. With new peace initiative, US believes Pak will be more serious in taking on the Al-Qaida warriors on its western border.
2. Pak`s role in fomenting jehad and trying to drain India`s resources thr` a ``thousand cuts`` in Kashmir failed as its own economy started to falter and India`s forged ahead.
3. India is a status-quo power and is satisfied with the realities on ground. It is Pak which is trying to change the status-quo in Kashmir. Nuclear deterrence might have saved an attack by India following attack on its parliament when it mobilized its troops along the border (i personally doubt if India was deterred by Pak`s nuclear status; read what General Paddy had to say on the matter from Ballukhan`s post), but it definitely did not help Pak to change the status quo. Nuclear assets were like an albatross around Pak`s neck as recent happenings testify.
4. Following 9/11, the equation changed drastically. India was successfully able to project itself as the victim of jehad and terrorism from ``across the LOC``. In the new world order, terrorism had no place, even if these were ``freedom fighters`` as Pak claimed (even LTTE claims itself as freedom fightrers but there are few takers for this line of reasoning, in India or abroad).
5. All above literally compelled Pak to sue for peace
6. For India, realization came that it too had to solve the Kashmir problem if it wanted to get out of this ``Indo-Pak`` rut that it has been in for years and become a global player.
7. Role of US in bringing an Indo-Pak rapproachment is unmistakable though not publicly acknowledged.
Sridhar

#165 by tahmed32

Let me first disabuse you of a few incorrect impressions.

Firstly, the demonstrations that took place in NWFP and parts of Sind during September 2001 comprised only 5,000-8,000 protestors. At one of the demonstrations in D.G.Khan, there were more policemen and press-reporters than protesters! The Mullahs basically failed to mobilize masses against US because of a huge sympathy wave for the Americans.

Only after news of massive collateral damage & human rights violations by Special forces/Northern Alliances poured in... the sympathy wave turned into an anti-US wave in NWFP, Karachi and Baluchistan. The first mass protest occured in late December and mid-Jan 2002.

Secondly, every weeks hundreds of Pakistan are getting visit visas for US. If today Pakistanis are not getting H-1 (work) visas easily, its because there are no new jobs in the first place!! With millions of Americans laid off since March 2000, the H-1 quota has already been reduced from 195,000 (in 2000) to 65,000 (in 2003).

Once U.S. companies begin re-hiring foreign workers, Pakistanis with the right qualifications will have no trouble getting H-1 visas... even if they sport a beard and criticize America`s foreign policy. The FBI and INS does not subscribe to your blanket definition of terrorism. It has its own specific and measurable criteria.

re: #170 by ballukhan

+++
UrsTruly, malik, Romair,HE can you answer these question?

1. Do you think that the American Jews are actually controlling the ``war on Terror`` efforts being made by the Americans?
+++

Yes and no.
The Israeli lobby (not all American Jews are pro-Israel) and an influential section of neo-conservative Christians are exploiting the ``War on Terror`` to implement their vision outlined in Paul Wolfowitz`s Project for the New American Century. This essentially means extending American influence over the world through military means and re-creating the world (by force) in America`s image. Destruction of Al-Qaeda is just a footnote in this project.

+++
2. Do you believe that America has corrupted and defiled the Muslim world, has stolen its wealth and whose foreign policies obstruct the attainment of the muslim political goals?
+++

No America has not corrupted/defiled the Muslim world. This is a task that corrupt Muslim kings, politicians and dictators have done themselves. However, American foreign policy supports regimes (Israel, India) that perpetrate state terrorism against Muslims and occupy their lands. It is these specific political problems (Israel in particular) that pitches Muslims against America.

+++
3. do you believe in the notion of Jehad as having the following goals and objectives:

· Establishing the rule of God on earth.
· Attaining martyrdom in the cause of God.
· Purification of the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity.
+++

Depends on the definition of ``rule of God``, ``cause of God`` and ``depravity``. There must be consensus among Muslims regarding the meaning of these terms... i.e. one state can`t arbitrarily accuse another state of ``depravity`` and then declare Jehad against it.

Secondly, it must be established that there are no peaceful ways (preaching, legislation, diplomatic pressure, economic pressure, etc) to achieve these goals.

Armed Jehad is only the last resort. And it must be undertaken by a state, not individuals/groups.

#186 by ahmadzai

I agree that Islamists can become a liability if they outgrow their wings. This is largely because of their inflexible doctrinaire world view. Isolationism is the root cause of this rigidity. Instead of marginalizing the Mullah, we need to include him in Pakistan`s decision making process. A few years of exposure to governance will facilitate a sea-change in the Mullah`s mindset.

Until 2002, the Islamist parties enjoyed power through the backdoor but never directly. They enjoyed the patronage of Army yet always remained in opposition. They could abuse power and yet evade criticism. Not any more.

Consider the change in Fazlur Rehman`s attitude towards India. Before 2002, his JUI (which is the parent of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba & Jaish-e-Muhammad) was a vocal supporter of Jihad in Kashmir. Ever since MMA`s ascent to power, the Maulana has adopted a dovish attitude towards India in general and Kashmir in particular. He even visited India on a bid to improve relations.

#206 by tahmed32 on February 3, 2004 7:01am PT
That is the point- there are loonies on both the side- if Mush was ready to act imbecile so were the Generals on this side- thankfully we had the civilian government on this side with the nuclear trigger and the command in their hands- and fortunately the civilians have a better perspective of the reults of war than the imbecile Generals from both the sides.
That is why I said Mush was plain imbecile and was putting both the civilian populations at grave risks because the military hawks on this side were also willing to have a go but were restrained by the civilian government.

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

ballukhan #204 Actions speak louder than words.

As for gen. padhawhatever`s words: any individual who talks about war as being ``jolly good`` has to be an idiot. No mature man, let alone a military man who should know something about the ugly realities of war, talks about war as if it is a sunday picnic.

Stop using terms like ``brilliant move`` for Mush`s belligerency- it was plain stupid , dangerous, imbecile, callous thing- Afterall it is the civilians who bear the brunt of the nuclear exchange- any one even thinking of this in the 21st century should be incarcerated to asylum- try saying this while sitting in Karachi or Lahore where you would be sure to be incinerated by the blast. Now it is clear where the WMD is in wrong hands- it is the Paki army!!
Sick!!!

#198 by tahmed32 on February 2, 2004 7:34am PT
``....Pakistan-India: Recent imporvements in relations seem to be based on solid underlying reasons - (a) A realization among the extremists in India that pakistan cannot be bullied (I believe the turning point came last year when the million man army was neutralized by musharaff`s brilliant moves in terms of referring to the nuclear option and carrying out a few well timed missile tests)......``

I think we had some discussions on that - if it makes you feel good so be it- but remember , all this first-use posturing can be dangerously counter-productive if some one is to call the bluff- The Indians were ready to mow Mush down even with his belligerent acts- I do not think there can be a better opinion from the Indian side on your nuclear bluff than this- I would suggest you stop getting worked over the 1971 experience-
Read this-

We had Pakistan by the tail: Ex-Army chief

PTI[ MONDAY, FEBRUARY 02, 2004 07:59:13 PM ]

NEW DELHI: In a throwback to the days of Indo-Pak tensions following the terror attack on Parliament, the then Army Chief Gen S Padmanabhan today said ``favourable circumstances and tides`` were allowed to ``pass`` during the year-long full-fledged army deployment in Operation Parakram which was ``conceived for specific operational purposes``.
Strongly rebutting a suggestion that Pakistan`s nuclear deterrence had acted as a ``dampener`` to any cross border operations by India, he said, ``Pakistan`s response had been adequately studied and factored in. No, they had nothing. We had them by the tail``.

The former Army Chief was speaking to reporters about his yet-to-be-released book India Checkmates America 2017`

While refusing to go into specific war plans saying that service restrictions did not allow him to disclose them, he said that during the operation ``circumstances and tides were very favourable to India. They passed time and again``.

He said Op Parakram deployment was ``cogent`` and in place by January 8 and said whether to launch or not to launch operations was political.

Asked if US intervention had stalled the operations at the last moment, Padmanabhan said, ``I would not like to talk about it``.

For the first time, the former army chief said that during the operation even army commanders were not given the nuclear button which remained with the Chairman, Chief of Staff Committee who held it for political high command.

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

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

Tauheed at 198:

Pak-Afghan border & Glory Days

You wrote a very detailed post on future outlook for Pakistan ;-). I would just like to add a few relevant points:

1. The most promising projects started by the current Government are those of Gwader Port and coastal highways connecting Makran coast with Karachi. There are reports that the businessmen of Dubai have already started purchasing industrial plots near the phase 1 of Gwader Post so much so that Dubai`s Government is in a bit of quandry and therefore, its offering real estate to expatriates in earnest.

2. The highways under construction that will eventually connect southern Afghanistan with Arabian Sea will make Pakistan a major beneficiary of economic development of Afghanistan.

3. Strangely enough, the projects in Afghanistan in those fields are being awarded to Pakistan where historically we have been weak. These include IT, railways, education, banking, etc.

4. The critical situation for Pakistan comes from issuance of travel advisories by the USA/UK at the very points when we need foreign visitors in Pakistan. The current advisory has been issued when there are couple of industrial exhibitions and some spring festivals, most notably Lahore`s Jashan-e-Baharan, slated to begin now.

5. But the most fundamental change that I see is in our business community. They have become very export-aware. Previously, no body thought about exporting their produce. But now every businessmen has one thing on mind - to take his product or service abroad.

However, there is one major need in the country - to take our people out of state of despair and pessimism (many Pakistanis on Chowk also tend to paint a doom and gloom picture that supports the view of resident fundoo Indoos here). People have to be given a feeling of hope and optimism. The independent TV channels are doing every bit on this front, because feeling of feeling good in itself is to their own benefit (it increases consumer spending that brings advertisements to the channels). There is a need for much more in this respect.

ballukhan at 197:

I have no problems in agreeing with your message.

Aleph Null # 177

I think i have addressed all your points in my post addressed to Ironman, as well.

ahmedzai #193 I had responded to this post but looks like it got lost in Chowk. So am re-writing my take on the three issues you mention which indeed are significant ones for pakistan today.

1. Pak-Afghan border: With pakistan forces for the first time exercising the writ of the federal government in the tribal areas, and with massive investments financed by the US and other rich countries now taking place in building roads and schools in these areas, we should see the end of al qaeda terrorists and of mullah rule in these areas. Afghan complaint of cross-border incursions should therefore diminish.
Interestingly, the Afghan economy got a jump start last year and rose by 30 percent!! Next year it is expected to grow by another 20 percent. And from all indications, the international community is in Afghanistan for the long haul. Thus, Afghanistan could very well emerge in about 10 years as another Dubai (this is a pipe dream right now, but certainly within the realm of possibility).

2. LFO: With MMA already on board LFO (per the agreement last month), it seems that this issue is resolved for the time being and the legislature can now function. And if PPP and PML(N) are not on board on this issue - that simply makes them irrelevant. The important thing is that public opinion is largely supportive of the manner in which LFO has been resolved, given that for now musharaff is the only viable leader on the pakistani political horizon.

3. Pakistan-India: Recent imporvements in relations seem to be based on solid underlying reasons - (a) A realization among the extremists in India that pakistan cannot be bullied (I believe the turning point came last year when the million man army was neutralized by musharaff`s brilliant moves in terms of referring to the nuclear option and carrying out a few well timed missile tests). (b) A strong public resentment against militarists in pakistan who are seen as using the kashmir dispute as a reason to enrich themselves. (c) A general desire for peace and friendship among people in both countries, and a realization that both countries have a joint economic stake in a peaceful and progressive South Asia.

So, things have never looked better for pakistan since the ``glory days`` of 1960-65 (for those of us who are old enough to have lived through that time) when Pakistan was considered by economists to be the model developing country.

#186 by ahmadzai on February 1, 2004 7:05am PT
``..but the problem is that when you have them on your side, there is no guarantee that they will continue to follow the route you want to take them. The ``Jihad`` begins to follow its own dynamism. The ``Jihadis`` soon tend to become independent and by refusing to listen to the State, end up becoming terrorists..``
This exacly what I have been saying all along- FORGET these Islamic theologians, Jehadis and cut the roots of these idiots by embracing SECULARISM in state matters- let Islam be confined to our religious and spiritual practices and stop this political variety of Islam from entering our lives for ever- Islam should be interpreted by Ummah as a way to spiritual fulfilment and not as a route to temporal power.

``tahmed32`` #195 I did NOT write that post.

Chowk staff to please stop trying to being funny. ;-)

MacGupta,

Thanks for explicating where I`m coming from.

Right now, I `m looking at some Composition Theory essays in which hard science profs describe how they use creative writing in assigning papers that will determine whether their students are really understanding their course work or merely parroting the text book. These kinds of intersections serve to clear up these field elitisms-the really innovative theorists/scientists/writers are those who extend themselves into many spheres of knowledge making.

malik #192 You need not be aghast: this is what you wrote ``imagine your brother`s throat is being sliced by another man...Regarding your suggestion that I did not answer the question regarding Jihad...Quran has talked about this topic in detail.`` I will agree that you did not explicitly say that 9/11 was justified, but it does seem to me that given the context of the discussion you were implying that the Quran justified 9/11. However, if now you say that you did not mean to imply this, I will take you at your word and assume that you are of the view that the killing of innocent people (as happened on 9/11) is a violation of the basic message of Islam. It would help if you wrote more explicitly, rather than making vague innuendoes. The deliberate killing of innocent people is clearly a one-way ticket to hell for the killer per our muslim belief, no ifs and buts. As bin laden and his followers and supporters are no doubt going to find out when God`s justice finally catches up with them.

I see that in order to make me understand how badly your feelings were hurt you prepared a misrapresentation of my views. :-) So let me for the record say that what you attribute to me is incorrect and indeed the opposite of what I have always said on Chowk. That is, I have always held (on the basis of the Quran) that you can be of any religion and still go to heaven or hell depending on your actions.

Tauheed at 191:

``And incidentally, the best way to get rid of an enemy is to make it a friend. In this sense I am 100 percent behind musharaff in his peace efforts with India.``

There was a good debate on GEO TV the other day, where the participants were discussing the 3 destabilizing events that were hurting Pakistan at that time. Those were:

1. Pak-Afghan border where the Afghan Government was accusing Pakistan of supporting Taliban activity from across the border.

2. LFO situation

3. Pakistan-India war of words.

The compere asked the participants what are the measures that the Government could take to stabilize the country. Mushahid Hussain had a very interesting point to make. He said that the Afghan situation would continue for a long time, therefore, the Government should try to diffuse the situation with India and opposition on matter of LFO. This was interesting, because everyone would have thought that he would pick Afghanistan and LFO situation to tackle to confront India.

tahmed32 #185 - You wrote:

``I will not let you hide behind the cover of the Quran to justify the evil deeds of 9/11``.

I am aghast. How did you ever come up with that kind of accusation! Nowhere in my postings did i ever justify 9/11 or even suugested that it is Jihad. Infact I purposefuly did not even mention the ``Jihad with sword`` because there is a long list of circumstances, and pre-conditions (including self defense) that need to be in place before you take that Jihad.

Let me try to get even. Mr Tahmed32, I am surprised at your posting that anyone who is not a muslim will burn in hell.

You see what i mean?

EID MUBARAK to all chowkies.


Ahmedzai #186 I agree with most of what you write. However, on the question of Pakistan`s defense, I would like to add to what you say as being my view (or, to be more accurate, my two cents worth): namely, a small, well equipped army. That is, by small I mean about 150,000 and not 400,000. With a far higher tooth-to-tail ratio (i.e. more soldiers and junior officers in the battlefield, fewer generals and staff positions). AND (very importantly) this military would supported by a nuclear weapons with multiple delivery capacity that we already have: medium range missiles, plus nuclear submarines, plus tactical use in the battlefield to wipe out conventional military attacks.

A professional military that is focussed on the defense of pakistan (and not on adminstering coup d`etat`s and in enriching generals) would restore the pride we pakistanis once rightly had in our military. If you were around when we had the outpouring of patriotism and pride that pakistanis displayed for our military in 1965 - when the nation stood as one in the defense of Pakistan - you will know what i mean.

And incidentally, the best way to get rid of an enemy is to make it a friend. In this sense I am 100 percent behind musharaff in his peace efforts with India.

Peace with strength is the only long term guarantee of the rights and dignity of the Pakistani people.

why is hamidm waging a lonely battle against the urstrulys and romairs here

OK I don`t know whether this qualifies as a step towards maintaining positive attitude towards America or not, but I would just like to tell Chowkies living in Pakistan to avail the chance of winning many gifts while eating at Pizza Hut. The franchise is celebrating its 10th anniversary of operations in the country.

And this reminds me to remind Pakistanis living in the country to educate extremists amongst our folds against boycotting American franchise products and services. You tend to run into a couple of them in a gathering of 300 to 400 (usually) at marriage ceremonies advocating boycott of American products. These brainless soules need to be told that if Pakistani products are boycotted by Americans, then our paltry exports will crumble to almost zilch.

HisExcellency at # 155:

``Let`s give Masud due credit for his role in the Jehad. But let`s not deprecate the larger role played by Hekmatyar, Sayyaf, Dostum, Rabbani, Khalis, Qazi and Fazlur Rehman by calling Masud the ``leading figure in the anti-soviet struggle``. ``

You are right when you said that the main Jihad was waged by the Pakhtoons and Hazaras. Where I beg to differ is that Masud was a Commander. Many Mujahideens had reported that he was a goon who was charging the real fighters hefty sums of money for crossing his Panjshir Valley to strike against Soviet interests in Northern Afghanistan.

malik #183 While I had said earlier that I had no wish to interact with you, I shall waive that for now and am writing this post since I will not let you hide behind the cover of the Quran to justify the evil deeds of 9/11. The only time violence is acceptable in Quran is in self defense. This is precisely what is reflected in the criminal laws of every civilized country on earth today. The Quran calls for living in harmony and affection with all communities - muslim and nonmuslim - a call that falls on deaf ears on the followers of Iblis (which is exactly what the 19 suicide hijackers were, as they no doubt are learning as the roast in hell today, and as no doubt their apologists will learn in due course).

If you disagree that you have just distorted the peaceful message of the Quran by seeking religious cover for these criminals you seek to defend, then I challenge you to cut and paste from the Quran where it says that jihad is anything other than self defense of the kind I mention above.

HE at 157:

``Like it or not, the Islamists are an integral part of Pakistan. In the event of a war, only these Islamists will sacrifice their lives for Pakistan, whereas America will suddenly develop dyslexia (like it did in 1971). Spurning our true friends for the sake of an unreliable ally is not really a good policy in the longer run. A better policy would be to embrace both.``

This is a debate that I had with Tauheed sometime ago on another topic and I was of the same opinion as suggested by you, till the time I had a very good discussion with my younger brother one day and I concluded the following:

1. Its good to have Islamists on our side, but the problem is that when you have them on your side, there is no guarantee that they will continue to follow the route you want to take them. The ``Jihad`` begins to follow its own dynamism. The ``Jihadis`` soon tend to become independent and by refusing to listen to the State, end up becoming terrorists.

2. Tauheed is adamant on keeping the defense of the country with a well trained and highly motivated army of few in numbers. But a highly disciplined army cannot fight its enemies without the backing of its people. And like you said,we have a nation divided on many issues.

3. Therefore, I tend to agree with President Musharraf when he says that Pakistanis have to be aware of the great vision about ourselves. Army can only do that much. We have to develop ourselves economically and socially too. Mullas have to be kept in check for this development (example: Turkey, Malaysia, UAE, etc.). I clearly saw the point that was made my younger brother, who is employed with Jang group, that the very message of austerity that the Mullas preach is against economic development, where you need certain amount of consumption spending to boost it. It is therefore, useless to keep our hopes pinned on few Islamists, because when the situation desires, that role should be played by Tauheeds, His Excellencies, romairs, nazarhayatkhans, echobooms, urstrulies, ahmadzais, Binas, Sameenas, etc. If the time comes and we are not ready to fight the enemy with core competencies that Allah has blessed each of us with, then that would be useless. In that extreme case, it would be better for all of us to cease to exist as individuals and as nation.

.............jihad is what it is

............ all this camel kaka about jihad being some kind of benign exercise in meditation is a putrid exercise in clintonesque obfuscation - it is an attempt to white wash something that is fundamental to the spirit of islam and has been around since the first jihadis in medina started raiding the meccan caravans ............ every muslim child knows what jihad is from the time he is old enough to mutter innanities in arabic and just because malik sahib says it is something else does not make it so ..............

............. now, i am all for changing the definition of jihad, but some authority (gabriel?) has to step up, admit the wrong-doings of the past and say that from today this is what jihad means ....... short of that we will continue to follow the classic definition as established by the conquerer of mecca, khalid bin walid, tariq bin ziad and muhammad bin qasim ..................

............ and as long as the concept of jihad exists the god-crazed jihadis will continue to fly planes into tall buildings and their supporters like urstruly and malik will continue to cheer them on ..............

Ironman

I beg to differ with the basic premise of your thesis. I agree, however, that the plane would have been flying very low at low speed before it penetrated lateral side of the building and as the photographs suggest in my #118 that it penetrated the lower couple of floors of the building; since the pictures show that the roof of couple of top floors were intact initially after impact. If we keep this scenario in mind even then it doesn`t explain the smaller hole. as a matter of fact it would have made a bigger hole with its wings since there would have been a structural damage of the pattern of wings before the wings broke at the junction of fuselage and buckled into fuselage like a bird that folds its wings when stops flying..

Another point is regarding jet fuel (not petroleum or kerosene as you suggest). The boiling point of JP is somewhere between 130-150 deg C, which is not at all very high. So unlike the JP in the elevator shaft of wtc, the JP over here had open atmosphere to escape after the temps rose up. Meaning that certain amount of fuel would have escaped without being combusted. In addition the fire retardant that fire brigade would have started spraying over the fire with in 5-15 minutes of the impact would have reduced the temperatures further from the “evaporation” point of any metal.

Alephnull you have some good points that I would like to discuss further.

hossp #182 -

Regarding your assertion about my alleged ``admission that the US is not basically wrong in going after these Jihadi`` and that the US is acting in its best interest, is not even close to what I was trying to communicate. For example, imagine your brother`s throat is being sliced by another man. Now just because I can rationalize for you why he is being slaughtered (maybe he owed him the money etc etc) does not mean that a cruelty is not in the process of occuring. To put another way, just because the murderer is acting in his best self interest, does not lessen the impact of murder on your brother, you, or your family.

Regarding your suggestion that I did not answer the question regarding Jihad, I believe i did as much justice with it as is possible in the limited space and time here. There are scholars who have written books and volumes over centuries on this topic. Quran has talked about this topic in detail. So surely it would not have been humanly possible for me to cover it from every angle, not to mention that I do not claim to be an Islamic scholar. I wrote in a few lines what I truly believe in, and in the time that i had.

If you are genuinly interested in this topic, please let me know and i can suggest some books to you.

#172 Malik99, #181 bullukhan


I thought this malik guy must have something up his sleeve that Trudy baby and the bum were running after each other to own the whole thing up.
Let us look at this.

In reply to No.1, He very coyly shows admiration for Jews. See the use of words ``influence, controlling, rational and admirable``. So now we know and it is good thing that these jehadi are now in love with Jews and admire the way Jews handle themselves. This is actually called Screenshot effect.

No.2, This guy contrary to his friends in Tora bora and several post by Trudy about America, now is claiming that the US is not wrong after all and it is has a right to protect its interests.
“I believe America is doing what is in its best interest. Whether they are right or wrong, they have a rationale for their actions.” Read this carefully another admission that the US is not basically wrong in going after these Jihadi. As it is in the US interest to find the masterminds behind the 9/11 attacks before they do anything crazy. Another Screenshot moment.
No. 3, This has to be the most wishy-washy, cockamamie, perverse explanation of Jehad.
Read the questions again:
do you believe in the notion of Jehad as having the following goals and objectives:
• Establishing the rule of God on earth. where is the answer for this question?
• Attaining martyrdom in the cause of God. Where is the answer for this question?
• Purification of the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity. Where is the answer for this question?
He goes on and talks about Jihad every day and some more baloney but never actually answers the questions posed. Read his answer again.
“, i believe every human being (muslim or not) should engage in Jihad every single day of their lives. Jihad means struggle. Struggle to establish justice in their home, their street, their town, their city, their country. Struggle to do good in life; to fulfil obligations to other human beings; to respect others rights; to fight corruption; to abstain from vices.” Another screenshot classic.
Do you make out any thing from this dense answer? He just can’t even put the spin correctly.
Trudy and the bum are really proud. It is just that they did not read what malik actually wrote.

Thanks for answering these questions.

These are actually some of the beliefs and stated objectives of the members of the Al-Qaeda group (without exception).

hosp

You can take the screenshots of these replies as well.

Urstruly is our chowk freedom fighter: Just like a few thousand jehadi boys tied down 700,000 indian troops in kashmir, so does urstruly (with a bit of help from our zombie jehadi echoboom who terrorizes chowk with his meaningless mumbo jumbo) tie down the indian posters trying to explain to him why it wasnt a truck that hit the pentagon and why it wasnt the US that brought down WTC.

Against fools, the gods themselves struggle in vain. What to talk of ordinary mortals, yaar (this last sentence is written in pakistani english for which there is no equivalent in any other form of english.)

Ha! Ha!

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

#172 by malik99 on January 31, 2004 11:15am PT

Thank you mujahid Malik99.

Right from the Qur`an!

And never again would jihad be a dirty word on CHOWK.

Your post has honoured the much maligned and cursed word /jihad and I hope and pray that , henceforth, all will use it with the same respect and relish.

shukrun.

#173 Urstruly

{{I do not belive that the heat due to fuel oil was so extreme that it had evaporated each and every part of the plane, including seats, turbines, and structural units, however, the steel frames of the building retain their shape and form.}}

The aircraft that is said to have struck the Pentagon was a Boeing 757. It has an empty weight of about 57 tonnes and a maximum take-off weight of about 100 tonnes. I would estimate approx 20 tonnes of the MTOW could be fuel.

Of all the elements that made up the aircraft before the crash (structural members such as spars, ribs, stringers; wing and fuselage skin; integral fuel tanks; control surfaces; engines and their nacelles; undercarriage – wheels and tires, struts; flooring and paneling; overhead bins; seats and seat cushions; etc. etc. – not to mention passengers and luggage) – which of these are engineered to withstand a head-on or moderately oblique (about 45 degrees to the vertical) collision with a hard massive object (or a series of such objects – such as hard reinforced concrete columns, one after another) at 300 mph or more?

Apart from the known high-temperature parts of the engines – combustors and turbine blades - what fraction of the aircraft do you think is designed to survive prolonged exposure to temperatures in excess of 1100 C? How about 800 C?

What, roughly, is the melting point of aluminium alloy? When elements made of such a material are exposed to a prolonged kerosene fire (say about 800 C to be conservative) what happens to them? Do you expect them to evaporate, to melt, to burn, or to stay largely intact? What happens in the same circumstances to CFRP? What about paneling, seats/seat cushions, tires, etc?

{{the first question should be how that plane managed to squeeze itself into the pentagon building through a hole almost half its size.}}

A 757 has a wingspan of 38 meters (125 feet). The collapsed section of the Pentagon seems to be about 25 meters wide at the top – the entry wounds seem somewhat wider nearer ground level (I can’t tell exactly because of collapsed floors on one side of the hole). Why is that not consistent with the likely distribution of massive elements in the airplane (i.e. filled fuel tanks extending across the belly to about 4 metres from each wing tip, + engines at about the one-third points on the wings + fuselage)?

{{I think the question where the parts of the planes have disappeared should be the second question}}

Urstruly, do you know the weight of the Pentagon? Care to estimate the weight per 100 meters of side for a ring of the Pentagon, thus the weight for about 25 metres of width of collapsed section of the outer ring? [My quick (probably under-) estimate based on publicly available data – about 3000 tonnes for the collapsed section of the outer ring.] What proportion of the 57 tonnes of the empty aircraft would survived the initial impact at 300-400 mph into a series of concrete columns, and then the subsequent fire, to be in any recognizable shape, even distinguishable from surrounding building wreckage that outweighs it by a factor of 50 at least? [I would guess – maybe 5 per cent at most – turbine disks and blades, landing gear struts perhaps, some small massive counterweights.]

BTW, Urstruly, do you think you have good ‘physical intuition?’

Urstruly #173,

Any other opinion I give you will be guesstimates...but that pentagon fireball was a petroleum fire, that much I can place my life savings on.

About the small hole created by the hit, I can offer a couple of studied conjectures.

Firstly the pentagon is no ordinary building. During the cold war it was one of the top targets for a soviet nuclear strike. So, I think its reasonable to say that the pentagon is a `hardened` building.

Second, the flight path of the plane. Perhaps NHK can confirm this...its easier to climb rapidly, say at 50 degrees, than to descend at 50 degrees. These passenger planes are built with excellent aerodynamics and are designed to GLIDE by default (and not fall steeply) in the absense of engine power.

So...the vertical path shown in that website I linked earlier is all wrong. No passenger plane (at speed) can descend at that angle. Therefore the plane must have been flying rather low for a considerable time. And that means it was flying around 200 mph or so.

Even if the pilot was flying at 150 feet, he still was considerably higher than the top floor of the pentagon. So he must have done something to drop the plane even lower seconds before the hit. That means he would have lost further speed. So the force of the hit was magnitudes lower than the WTC hit.

If he skidded on the grass outside (and there are marks that look like skid marks)...then the hit was really low quality.

These might explain the small hole, but what about debris?

As I said earlier, there is no data on what happens when a plane has a head-on collision with a vertical wall. Planes are not built to withstand such forces.

I remember that first couple days the newsreaders would simply mention about the pentagon hit, but no photos. I think a coule days are more than enough to remove all identifiable debris from a high security area like the pentagon.

Well, all this is educated conjecture...except the petroleum fire and the pentagon being a hardened building.

Malik:

I am your polar opposite, politically. But I agree with your response to the first question. That is a fair assessment.

ballukhan# 170

I absolutely agree with malik99`s replies to your questions.

Ironman. # 166

I do not belive that the heat due to fuel oil was so extreme that it had evaporated each and every part of the plane, including seats, turbines, and structural units, however, the steel frames of the building retain their shape and form. I think the question where the parts of the planes have disappeared should be the second question; the first question should be how that plane managed to squeeze itself into the pentagon building through a hole almost half its size. I dont thnik we need new common sense rules here.

ballukhan # 170 - First of all I want to thank you for asking these questions. Instead of making some generalized assumptions and drowning the real debate you took the trouble of asking me. There are some people on this board who blame everything under the sun, including their marital problems, constipation etc on mullahs. These people are the ``reverse mullahs`` in that they impede debate just like the mullahs do. Now let me answer your questions:

1. Do you think that the American Jews are actually controlling the ``war on Terror`` efforts being made by the Americans?

No I do not believe that they ``control`` the war. However, I do believe that because of their dual loyalties (to Israel and America) they do ``influence`` the war. Even if they were ``controlling`` the war, it would be a very rational and admirable thing on their part to do. Any minority living in the ``Rome`` of today with strong religious and ideological association to their ``back home`` would do the same. Its just that jews do it better than anyone else. So to reiterate my point, it would be absurd to think that american jews are indifferent to war on terror.

2. Do you believe that America has corrupted and defiled the Muslim world, has stolen its wealth and whose foreign policies obstruct the attainment of the muslim political goals?

What America is doing to Muslim countries, and lets not forget what it did to non muslim countries like vietnam, combodia, colombia, panama, haiti, cuba etc, is what is expected of any ambitious empire. All the empires in history did the same. Empires do not care whether they would be remembered thousands of years later as ``nice`` people. They like to be remembered as powerful. Empires have ambitions, they constantly need new sources of wealth, they look for opportunities in disasters, and they create a ``new world order`` around their ideals. So to sum it up, I believe America is doing what is in its best interest. Whether they are right or wrong, they have a rationale for their actions. Those who oppose this hegemony are doing so out of their convictions that they would not be enslaved. And this is a continuous story of human struggle since Adam walked on earth.

A good question to ask here would be: are muslims doing what is in their best interest?

3. do you believe in the notion of Jehad as having the following goals and objectives:
· Establishing the rule of God on earth.
· Attaining martyrdom in the cause of God.
· Purification of the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity.

Unlike those who have taken this word out of its context, i believe every human being (muslim or not) should engage in Jihad every single day of their lives. Jihad means struggle. Struggle to establish justice in their home, their street, their town, their city, their country. Struggle to do good in life; to fulfil obligations to other human beings; to respect others rights; to fight corruption; to abstain from vices.

Your taking your time to ask me these questions is also an act of Jihad on your part to learn about me. I congratulate you on your jihad. I hope i have answered your questions.

was urstruly born a rabid, terrorist-sympathizing baby ?

malik: please take some laxatives

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

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

UrsTruly, malik, Romair,HE can you answer these question?

1. Do you think that the American Jews are actually controlling the ``war on Terror`` efforts being made by the Americans?

2. Do you believe that America has corrupted and defiled the Muslim world, has stolen its wealth and whose foreign policies obstruct the attainment of the muslim political goals?

3. do you believe in the notion of Jehad as having the following goals and objectives:

· Establishing the rule of God on earth.
· Attaining martyrdom in the cause of God.
· Purification of the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity.

Urstruly #142,

``A pertinent question to ask here is where is the aeroplane or pieces of it in the burning wrekage. Why US government had to remove those parts from the crash sight while it was burning at 3000 degrees Fahrenhiet before shooting these pictures (I am being sarcastic here ok.``


Your question is a good one (no sarcasm there). This is probably what most laymen are questioning too.

We often see big pieces of broken/exploded planes being fished out of the water or picked up from a hillside. Now you ask...how come we see no such big piece in the twin-towers or the pentagon.

At the outset, let me assure you that there is **NO data anywhere** about what happens when big passenger jets packed with aviation fuel are slammed into vertical walls at 500 mph (like those car air-bag ads we see on TV with dummies).

Since it looks like you have no doubts about the fact that planes did indeed hit the twin-towers, we`ll skip that.

I had a look at one of these crank sites. http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm
It has good shots of the gas station camera recording of the pentagon crash.

Look at slide#5 particularly (down the page). Speaking from my experience in the aerospace industry I have no doubt that this is a petroleum fire. Its impossible to get this from a bomb or missile (which carry high-explosive, which `detonate` and not `deflagrate` (thats the tech word for petroleum-type burning).

The pervasive orange fireball and intense billowing black clouds are signature petroleum fires.

I repeat, its **impossible** to get this from a bomb or missile.


(Never mind the imbecile `reasons` why the US should do this to themselves to `malign` the good name of Saud).

Ballukhan #159 and HE #157: These posts deal with the issue of the costs and justifications for the anti-US rhetoric that flows so easily from the tongues of many muslims.

COSTS: As I had pointed out earlier, the reason illegal alien pakistanis were deported (or decided to leave on their own rather than face deportation) while illegal alien indian muslims or bangladeshis did not face similar deportation is a direct result of the anti-US sentiment in pakistan that the US perceived (rightly or wrongly). This perception was a (a) a direct result of the fact that tens of thousands of pakistanis had gone to afghanistan to become taliban for the express purpose of conducting jihad. and (b) the street demonstrations where mullahs burnt the US flags. In addition, as I also pointed out, thousands of young pakistanis who dreamt of coming to the US are now unable to do that. To these very real monetary costs (who pays for them? mullah fazloo who was in front of everyone in the street demos? mullah hussain whose own son is legal and comfortable in the US?)
Add to these costs the costs in human life: at least 50-60 bright young pakistanis were killed on 9/11 by the hijacking ooperation that Al Qaeda carried out (and urstruly`s obviously bogus attempts at clearing Al Qaeda of this crime does not matter). Who pays for those Pakistani lives?? Do we behead 60 bloody mullahs for that? Or their supporters??

As a Pakistani I get furious at how think of the costs we pakistanis have had to pay at the hands of these people. Someday perhaps more of my countrymen will wake up to their real enemy - the enemy within.

On JUSTIFICATIONS:

HE says that the anti-US demonstrations were after civilians were killed. Firstly, this is factually wrong: thousands of pakistanis went to afghanistan to get trained for jihad well before even 9/11. The street demos in Quetta and other places started well before the US invaded Afghanistan - indeed their express purpose was to try and deter the US from going after Al Qaeda and their hosts, the taliban. HE can deny knowledge of history that took place before he was born (on the matter of the 1965 war that I have dealt with separately below). He cannot deny something that we all lived through just three years ago.

Second, as for the civilians getting killed: the US did not deliberately kill civilians. Those are the deeds of the terrorists whom HE seeks to defend. So, the relevant question is: Was the US justified in attacking Afghanistan. And the answer, using common sense, is yes. We all know the events well enough to claim that the US should have backed down simply because the taliban ignored its demands to hand over bin laden. The burden of the civilians killed due to US bombing rests on the shoulders of the mullahs - and I realize this simple fact will be anathema to the mullah apologists on chowk. But as I advised urstruly: dont be afraid of the truth. Even if it challenges things you take for granted.

HE #155 I agree with you that there was no Massoud was one of the Afghan commanders in the anti-soviet struggle.

I disagree when you say that ``Ahmad Shah Masud was not included in the 7-party alliance. This is because he didn`t have a political party. He was a brave commander, but not a leader with millions of followers. And commanders can only lead battles, not freedom struggles. ``. I disagree on this point for the following reason: The fact is that NONE of the afghan commanders was the leader of a political party. After the Soviets left, it was not the Afghan people who were given a role in determining their leaders and their constitution (as the international community is now doing in Afghanistan). Rather, it was zia who determined who the leaders would be - and he chose these hikmatyar and co because their islamist ideology was more to his liking than the more secular outlook of Massoud. History will never forgive the pakistani generals for imposing the taliban on afghanistan, and for the resulting civil war and years of misery that millions of afghan refugees had to endure.

Incidentally, on the first point, note that there is a reason there was no central Afghan figure in the war - since the central coordination was done by the ISI. In this sense, the much maligned ISI can at least take this to its credit: it coordinated the historic defeat of the Soviets. But note also that the ISI too would have been ineffective if it was not for the US supplied weapons - notably the Stinger that neutralized russian air power. Prior to the stinger, the afghan mujahadeen were losing the war. So ultimately, it was all three - the US, the Pakistani army, and the afghan mujahadeen who get credit for the final straw (defeat in Afghanistan) that broke the back of the camel (i.e. of communism).

malik #158 I have no wish to have a discussion with you - on the previous board, you proved to be a deceiptful, abusive individual. At a minimum you owe me an apology for the unwarranted personal abuse and for your outrageous twisting of my words.

PS: I didnt bother to read more than the first line of your above post. I really dont care what you have to say there.

HE #157 you write ``In the event of a war, only these Islamists will sacrifice their lives for Pakistan, whereas America will suddenly develop dyslexia (like it did in 1971). ``

I beg to differ. In 1965 and 1971 it was the regular pakistan army that fought. The Islamists were nowhere to be seen. My own uncle (who was commanding officer of the armored regiment that led the tank attack that chased the indians all the way from Chhamb to Jaurian, and who was badly wounded and lost his leg defending Sialkot had the following story to tell of the mullahs: Prior to the war, his regimental mullah loved to talk big about defeating the Indians. When his regiment was ordered to move to the front, the mullah came to him virtually in tears - he begged to be left behind because of his wife and children. You may wish to reflect on this.

Also, I remember in 1971 we were on the brink of total defeat in Pakistan. I myself saw two Indian planes strafe Chaklala airport unchallenged (they had evaded our radar, and there was not even an air raid siren when they came). While we did have some reserve strength (an armored division in the south e.g.), the fact is that had it not been for international pressure led by the US, we could not have held back the Indians in the West for very long. The movements of the US seventh fleet (which the US sent to the Indian Ocean to back up its words) were in fact one of the few straws we had at the time. Now of course, with the nuclear bomb and missiles we can feel secure, but that was not the case in 1971. The main role of the mullahs in 1971 was in east pakistan where they committed (along with the other paramilitaries) some of the worst atrocities against civilians. I dont have to refer to books - I lived through all that, had relatives and family friends who fought and died defending the lost cause.

My disgust with the mullah is based on decades of observing their behavior, of trying to understand their viewpoint (including even on chowk when I tried one last time to see if they had anything to say), of satisfying for myself the vast gulf between their ideology and the peaceful message of the Quran.

Thanks hamidm2
I don`t run into this problem. We like to go on some weekends with buddies in the neighborhood. She doesn`t go for it, it comes in handy, in case somebody needs to drive us back home:-)
Look me up. YM hossp12.

#111 by tahmed32
Tahmed Saheb, I think you understand better that there are some worst loonies like UrsTruly and Grand Jehadi Strategists like General Romair who are willing to provide more than intellectual support to the Al-Qaeda brand of Islam. These are OUR guys who are willing to shout the hoarsest and meanest and are OUR Problem- because the white guys sees them shouting and thinks that WE are silent because we implicitely aprove and agree to whatever profanities they shout as muslims about the whites. It is important that such guys must be NOW considered as ``Dangereous`` who are constantly trying to MARGINALIZE our voices.
WE have to SPEAK and not let these loonies drown our voices in their gun fire.

``.....Like it or not, the Islamists are an integral part of Pakistan. In the event of a war, ONLY these Islamists will sacrifice their lives for Pakistan, whereas America will suddenly develop dyslexia ....``

#155-157 by HisExcellency

``But let`s not deprecate the larger role played by Hekmatyar, Sayyaf, Dostum, Rabbani, Khalis, Qazi and Fazlur Rehman by calling Masud the ``leading figure in the anti-soviet struggle``.

``Silent Soldier: The Man behind the Afghan Jehad. (Akhtar Abdur Rahman was Zia`s ISI chief and died with Zia in the Bahawalpur crash).

Jami`at-e-Islami (led by Prof. Rabbani), Hezb-e-Islami (led by Hekmatyar), Ittehad-e-Islami (Sayyaf), Jamaat-e-Islami (led by Qazi Hussain Ahmad), Jami`at-e-Ulema-e-Islam (Fazlur Rehman, Sami-ul-Haq and Sattar Niazi factions), etc.

So now you are defending the most despicable characters of Pakistan History. These scumbags and bachaa Baaz are responsible for drugs, Kalashnikov, and Jihadi culture, and sectarian violance that exist in Pakistan now. They are the master killers and the friends of the thugs from Tora bora. Anybody who supports them and still lives in the US must insure that he/she has a good defense of this support. I need to protect my family and I will do whatever necessary to do that. Let the chips fall where they may. I am taking screenshots of your posts.

“Like it or not, the Islamists are an integral part of Pakistan. In the event of a war, only these Islamists will sacrifice their lives for Pakistan, whereas America will suddenly develop dyslexia (like it did in 1971). Spurning our true friends for the sake of an unreliable ally is not really a good policy in the longer run.”

Here it is obvious that you are suggesting that the Jihadi, the scumbags, the supporters of your friends in Tora bora, are the true friends of Pakistan.

Did you say in the event of war? We had a war in 1965 and then in 1971. In ‘65 they never left their caves and in 1971 they were busy killing Bengalis in Bangladesh. They were the first one to disappear when the Indian Army showed up. Now don’t explain to me the difference between the JI and JUI they are all the same. They are Traitors and destroyer of Pakistan. These money grabbing scumbags are a curse for Pakistan.

Taking your arguments apart on educated level would be degradation of the education.

If somebody defends these scumbags I doubt that he has any education at all.

#111 by tahmed32

+++
The anti-US demonstrations by these mullahs has not been cost free to Pakistan
+++

The demonstrations broke out only after the Americans started bombing Afghanistan without building a coalition first (most unlike the Gulf War of 1991 when the war didn`t start until 5 months after the invasion).

In addition, the American troops and Northern Alliance resorted to gross war crimes against Afghans, many of whom were neither Taliban nor combatants. Remember the 40 odd Afghans who were killed at a wedding party? Remember the dozens of Taliban prisoners who suffocated to death in a container while being escorted by Northern Alliance troops? Remember the hundreds of Taliban prisoners who were executed in a Mazar-e-Sharif jail by Dostum? Remember the mass graves found in Herat by Amnesty International?

There is a difference between a just, multi-national war on terror... and a trigger happy American crusade against poor Afghani Muslims. The Mullahs were demonstrating against the latter, not the former.

Maybe these demonstrations discouraged US investment in Pakistan. But we should also keep our priorities right. National cohesion and unity is more important than foreign investment in the longer run. Pakistanis should not let any country ``divide and rule`` them by economic incentives.

Like it or not, the Islamists are an integral part of Pakistan. In the event of a war, only these Islamists will sacrifice their lives for Pakistan, whereas America will suddenly develop dyslexia (like it did in 1971). Spurning our true friends for the sake of an unreliable ally is not really a good policy in the longer run. A better policy would be to embrace both.

tahmed32 # 154 - Your point that ``The US, being a democracy, has self-correcting mechanisms like this built in`` is quite cute, and anyone reading it is tempted to nod his head in agreement while sipping coffee in front of computer screen in a warm cofy room somewhere in US.

Please try telling this ``self correcting`` theory to any of the hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, who had missiles and bombs dropped on their heads only a few months ago; who are facing checkpoints in their own homeland; whose homes are getting raided; who have turned from the second largest exporters of oil to the net importers of oil; who stand in 3 mile long lines to fill up a tank of gas. Being the uncivilized people that they are, they might ask you a stupid question ``Tahmed32: How does this `self correcting` theory bring back my mom and my dad who were incinerated when a 1000 pound bomb dropped on their shack?``

Or if ``thousands`` of dead iraqis is not a big enough number for you, tell this to millions of vietnamese. ``We saved the village by setting it on fire`` is how a US general explained his orders of first surrounding and then setting fire to a vietnamese village. Tell this happy theory of ``self correcting mechanism`` to those millions of vietnamese who lost their lives; to those hundreds of thousands mothers who are still giving birth to severly deformed babies due to the mustard gas and agent orange use by americans some 30 years ago. How did the ``self correcting`` mechanism from lessons in vietnam stopped US from killing hundreds and thousands more in the years since vietnam?

And when you are telling this ``self correcting`` mechanism to those stupid people, I am sure they will all stand up and applause. Way to go America, is what they will say. This theory will bring them immense comfort and they may even forget their lost loved ones.

Not to cause you any discomfort, but I wonder if would have put this much faith in the ``self correcting`` theory if all your family had been incinerated by a ``smart bomb``.

Perspective changes quickly when one is on the wrong end of the stick !

#111 by tahmed32

+++
The leading figure in the anti-soviet struggle was Ahmed Shah Massoud
+++

Mr. tahmed32, this is a fallacy which has been disseminated by Northern Alliance and Indian media, for obvious political reasons. I recommend a reading of Mark Adkin`s Afghanistan: The Bear Trap - The Defeat of a Superpower as well as Muhammad Yousaf`s biography of Lt.Gen.Akhtar Abdur Rahman, aptly titled Silent Soldier: The Man behind the Afghan Jehad. (Akhtar Abdur Rahman was Zia`s ISI chief and died with Zia in the Bahawalpur crash).

The Afghan Jehad did not have a central character. It was a potpourri of commanders, each operating in his own territory. Ahmad Shah Masud operated in the Valley of Panjshir and led the Tajik resistance against Soviets. He was a brave commander, but not the commander-in-chief of the Afghan Mujahideen.

FYI, Tajiks represent only 20-30% of the Mujahideen. The rest (Uzbeks, Pashtuns, Hazaras, Pahaaris) fought under their own commanders. The Uzbeks e.g. fought under General Dostum who controlled Herat and Mazar-e-Sharif. The Pashtuns from western Afghanistan (Kunar province) were led by Prof. Abdul Rasul Sayyaf. The southern Pashtuns were led first by Gulbadin Hekmatyar, based in Jallalabad. Later one of his deputies, Yunus Khalis (based in Kandahar) formed his own faction of Hizb-e-Islami to fight the Soviets.

On the political track, General Zia formed a 7-party alliance including Jami`at-e-Islami (led by Prof. Rabbani), Hezb-e-Islami (led by Hekmatyar), Ittehad-e-Islami (Sayyaf), Jamaat-e-Islami (led by Qazi Hussain Ahmad), Jami`at-e-Ulema-e-Islam (Fazlur Rehman, Sami-ul-Haq and Sattar Niazi factions), etc. This 7-party alliance was responsible for recruiting Mujahideen and countering the RAW/KHAD propaganda. Ahmad Shah Masud was not included in the 7-party alliance. This is because he didn`t have a political party. He was a brave commander, but not a leader with millions of followers. And commanders can only lead battles, not freedom struggles.

Let`s give Masud due credit for his role in the Jehad. But let`s not deprecate the larger role played by Hekmatyar, Sayyaf, Dostum, Rabbani, Khalis, Qazi and Fazlur Rehman by calling Masud the ``leading figure in the anti-soviet struggle``.

hossp,

.............. thanks for your rigorous defense of the much maligned neighbourhood bar - i always knew i was fulfilling a social obligation by frequenting these venerable institutions ......... cheers! ........ if only mrs hamidm was as understanding... sigh!

152 by Urstruly:

Are you performing the ``stonning of Satan`` ritual, here?

Urstruly: There we go! I told you to swim with the truth, not against it. Because ultimately truth wins out. And you actually came up with a fine example of how the truth came out on the WMD. Now all you have to do is to start practicing to swim with the truth.

Here are your homework assignments:

1. David Kelly was not murdered. The truth came out with the Hutton commission yesterday, and Tony Blair and his government was exonerated of any wrong-doing in Kelly`s death. INSTEAD, the truth came home to roost in the BBC, whose Chairman resigned in the face of the truth.

Repeat the above three times.

2. Americans are not the big satans. The truth is that Bush is under the most severe criticism by Americans themselves. Ritter and Kay are both Americans - and the Congress itself sat and listened to Kay yesterday. Ritter was on C-Span this morning. THere is a 9/11 commission looking into who knew what before 9/11. The US, being a democracy, has self-correcting mechanisms like this built in. There is no place for Satan in the US. Plenty of places for Satan to hide in the muslim world though, where a mountain of falsehood is used by islamists to hide the peaceful and profoundly democratic message of the Quran.

Repeat the above three times.