2004: One Year Closer to Nineteen Eighty-four

Thank you for your comments. Yet, again, my gender is male.

Ms. Shiralli, I dont want to be rude..but Im truly sick of reading about the war on iraq. Most of the points you have raised have already been dealt with by countless articles all around the world, and even here on chowk. Look we all know theres stuff going on out there that isnt right. However, most of us are not American citizens, and there is no point going on and on and on about how Bush is a big bad white man - John Kerry will not be much different!
Lets concentrate on ourselves - and believe me theres plenty of material. Still I applaud your effort and look forward to your next article.

arjun,

This sudden fit of realpoltic demonstrates exactly the same mentality as the terrorist. Idelogy-schmedology...that`s a laugable way of linking two unrelated conflicts.

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

arjun_m,

``Some would claim the Indian army is using a ``disproportionate application of power`` in Kashmir...do you oppose that too?``

I most certainly did when they were...as I would if they did the same in any other area of India. But you and I know very well that the terrorism in that area is pretty much Pak Irregular soldiers. But, since a state backs it, I suppose that makes it ``all right``...

``A decency that was in short supply when iraqi civilians were being killed by saddam...how many marches were there in India against that? zero.. ``

My point exactly. Why the sudden orgasm of righteousness when terrorism is involved, but if some state does worse, everyone turns the other way? And look at how they get rid of him…when he was pretty much de-fanged, the world continued to starve his people, left this idiot in charge, then started to invoke his past history (when he was the good guy) and killed some 10k more Iraqis….and it’s the 2.5k deaths we’re all declaring a war on terrorism on!!! Duh…it doesn’t add up.

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

arjun,

``My feelings?...i have no feelings..couldn`t care less...``

Exactly...all sympathy is with the small number of Russians dead...at this point I tune you out....needless to say, armies that use a disproportionate application of power and slaughter hapless civilians do indeed share an idelogy. You just happen to agree with it. Why sugar coat it?

``Your stronger feelings on the killings of civilians is because of your adherence to your religion..to me, it reinforces my belief that in a conflict between a non-mulim entity and muslims, muslims are required to come down on the side of their co-religionists``

Actually, it`s called ``common decency``....

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

arjun_m,

LOL, why on earth would I read a book by some idiot anonymous CIA dude (``duh...dere be bombs in dere!``) who proclaims to know Islam?!

Dude, given a list similar to OBL`s list of grievances most states would react through military actions. They wage war. Screw this business of trying to pin this on Islam...any person with a heightened sense of sovereignty would act the same way if he was feeling sold out. The Americans settle for no less, and have waged war for much less...the only difference between contemporary neo-con America and OBL is that the Americans have the might of the worlds most powerful war machine on their side. The attitude is the same. And that`s scary.

Insofar as chechnya is concerned, what do you feel for the 25,000-80,000 chechen civilians (and those are conservative numbers) who died during the first chechen war alone? It takes an ass to sympathize with terrorists, but an even bigger one to overlook this and pretend it has absolutely nothing at all to do with Beslan.

Pat Buchanan is one of the biggest neo-con opposers in the USA. Pat Buchanan is a conservative from the old Regan school of thought. He has a must-read book out, ``No End to War.`` http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html

``No End to War

The Frum-Perle prescription would ensnare America in endless conflict.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

On the dust jacket of his book, Richard Perle appends a Washington Post depiction of himself as the “intellectual guru of the hard-line neoconservative movement in foreign policy.”

The guru’s reputation, however, does not survive a reading. Indeed, on putting down Perle’s new book the thought recurs: the neoconservative moment may be over. For they are not only losing their hold on power, they are losing their grip on reality.

An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror opens on a note of hysteria. In the War on Terror, writes Perle, “There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust.” “What is new since 9/11 is the chilling realization that the terrorist threat we thought we had contained” now menaces “our survival as a nation.”

But how is our survival as a nation menaced when not one American has died in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11? Are we really in imminent peril of a holocaust like that visited upon the Jews of Poland?

“[A] radical strain within Islam,” says Perle, “ ... seeks to overthrow our civilization and remake the nations of the West into Islamic societies, imposing on the whole world its religion and laws.”

Well, yes. Militant Islam has preached that since the 7th century. But what are the odds the Boys of Tora Bora are going to “overthrow our civilization” and coerce us all to start praying to Mecca five times a day?.....

Say the authors: “We must hunt down the individual terrorists before they kill our people or others .... We must deter all regimes that use terror as a weapon of state against anyone, American or not” [emphasis added].

Astonishing. The authors say America is responsible for defending everyone, everywhere from terror and deterring any and all regimes that might use terror —against anyone, anywhere on earth.

But there are 192 nations. Scores of regimes from Liberia to Congo to Cuba, from Zimbabwe to Syria to Uzbekistan, and from Iran to Sudan to the Afghan warlords of the Northern Alliance who fought on our side—have used torture and terror to punish enemies. Are we to fight them all?

Well, actually, no. Excepting North Korea, the authors’ list of nations that need to be attacked reads as though it were drawn up in the Israeli Defense Ministry. By the second paragraph, Perle and Frum have given us a short list of priority targets: “The war on terror is not over, it has barely begun. Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas still plot murder.”

Now al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. But when did Hamas attack us? And if Israel can co-exist and negotiate with Hezbollah, why is it America’s duty to destroy Hezbollah? Iran and North Korea, the authors warn, “present intolerable threats to American security. We must move boldly against them both and against all other sponsors of terrorism as well: Syria, Libya and Saudi Arabia. And we don’t have much time.”

“Why have we put up with [Syria] as long as we have?” the authors demand. They call for a cut-off of Syria’s oil and an ultimatum to Assad: Get Syrian troops out of Lebanon, hand over all terrorist suspects, end support for Hezbollah, stop agitating against Israel, and adopt a “Western orientation”—or you, too, get the Saddam treatment.

But what has Syria done to us? And if Assad balks do we bomb Damascus? Invade? Where do we get the troops? What if the Syrians, too, resort to guerrilla war?

Bush’s father made Hafez al-Assad an ally in the Gulf War. Ehud Barak offered Assad 99.5 percent of the Golan Heights. Why, then, must Bashir Assad’s regime be destroyed—by us?....Indeed, it is because Americans cannot see the correlation between the wars the authors demand and security at home that Frum and Perle must resort to fear-mongering about holocausts, the end of civilization, and our demise as a nation.

If it is America we defend, An End to Evil makes no sense. The Perle-Frum prescription for permanent war makes sense only if it is the mission of the armed forces of the United States to make the Middle East safe for Sharon—and here we come to the heart of the quarrel between us.``

VERT
//...Stop freakin` meddling where you`re not wanted...//

That`s too simplistic for a viable solution, I think.

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

mohar11,

Yarr, no one is jumping into bed with terrorists here. What gets me is when people play dumb and start wondering ``oh dear God, why us!!!`` when the actual incidents happen. The cause for terrorism and it`s efficacy are two different things.

As for your suggestion to trade as an alternative to terrorism. You missed a crucial point: terrorists are radicals...they`re non-state actors. The major claim here is that corrupt govts. are propped up and strengthened by Uncie Sam. Your advice is golden, however it is exactly these inept and corrupt dudes that are screwing everything up. Now, OBL and his types think they can do better...probably not...however they are dead-on right about Uncie Sam`s role in their, and the people they forcibly want to represent, misery.

I mean, let`s get a clue...it is not a coincidence that the most friendly regimes to the US have the most virulent terrorists commin` out of them...yet the ones the US has a no-touch policy on has the most pro-US populations. Duh...could this possibly mean something?! You think neo-con dink wads would actually learn something here? Nooooo...they`re solution is to even get closer...like raping up the arse close...and here I`m talking about invading, and occupation. Ohhhhh dear....

``Anyway - you never mentioned your proposed solution out of the mess. Would you care to mention that?``

Well I think it`s OBVIOUS! Stop freakin` meddling where you`re not wanted....sheesh. ;-)

vert
//...Yes, pakis do meddle in Afghanistan for example. If indeed they suffered terrorist violence as a response, Indians would be the first to thumb their noses at the pakis. What is your point? Everyone`s doiing it...?! Root cause dude, root cause... ///

Good one. Except that the terrorist violence inside pakistan is not being done by Afgans. They are being done by arabs and disgruntled home-grown jihadi foot soldiers spawned for ``stratetgic`` purposes...

Anyway - forget about what Indians say - they are the third party. My point is, from the Afganis point of view - would it make sense to keep attacking inside pakistan as a renvenge for the meddling??? Would you ask them to do that??? Not really.

It would be better to move on. Get monies and trade from surrounding nations and build up the country - that would be a sensible option. Of course - Afgans must make sure the pakis never again meddle in their country - for that they can employ various options. But blowing up buildings inside pakistan wouldn`t be one of them - not that afgans are actually doing it.

Same for Arabs. Time to move on. Meddling was partly your own fault and you folks are no saints anyway - you are doing exactly same thing elsewhere. You must get that simple fact. So no moral outrage. So no victim mentality. No chest-beating about ``root cause``. Employ the good side of american coin. You will see better results.

Anyway - you never mentioned your proposed solution out of the mess. Would you care to mention that?

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

Bush will, going by current estimates, win in the coming elections. This will be quite good for Pakistan, since Bush and Musharraf have developed a close friendship. Bush seems to be quite pro-Pakistan at the moment. He tends to over-rule anything and everything that the Israeli lobby (and the upcoming Indian lobby) try to do against Pakistan. They tried hard to get him to give up on the 3 billion dollars that the US is giving to Pakistan, but he refused. And they have going from pillar to post in the press to make Pakistan a target, yet Bush continues to counter every statement by them. The neo-cons have not been successful against Pakistan, primarily due to Bush, himself.

However, is Bush good for the rest of the world? To get the answer, one needs to ask the rest of the world. In surveys of around 35 countries of the world (published on BBC website) nearly every country`s citizens (including UK) picked Kerry over Bush. I think only three picked Bush over Kerry. This should put to rest all the arguments of those who state that Bush is good for the world. The world`s citizens are saying he is not. In addition, according to Newsweek, the citizens of two countries in the world (USA and Israel) supported the war in Iraq. There are around 200 countries in the world. The Iraq war was thus the most opposed war in human history. Within South Asia, the citizens of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh were overwhelmingly against this war. Other than a few holier than thou expatriates, you will not find too many people from any political spectrum of these three countries, who actually still live in these countries, who supported this war.

Is Bush good for the USA? Apparently a lot of Americans think he is. Many think so, because his opponent, Kerry, seems to have nothing better to offer. I don`t think Bush is good for the USA. The whole basis of the success of Western civilization has been its use of logic and facts to make decisions. While South Asians make decisions on religious/ethnic/national emotion, the Western nations base their decisions on reason. As an example, if the facts indicate that something will hurt their economy etc. they do not pursue that course. And generally they do not let their country`s policies be hijacked by pressure groups; specifically religious and ideological pressure groups. America/Canada etc. have been ahead of even Europe on this, because they do not have the historical baggage of Europe.

Yet nearly every piece of information being given by Bush and his govt. about the USA economy and Iraq (two most important issues) is not based on fact. Consider the following info being fed by this govt:

1. Iraqis are liberated. (Actually over 90% of Iraqis in any poll say they are occupied by the USA. And their support for USA, according to Newsweek is down to 5%.)
2. Iraq had WMDs (Obviously it did not)
3. Iraq had links with Al-Qaeda (This has been declared by the US review panels, itself, to be false. Yet over 50% of the Americans still believe that it is true. This is probably a higher percentage than the number of Muslims who believe that Jews targeted the WTC)
4. USA is winning the war in Iraq (USA has already lost the war in Iraq, to the point it is having difficulty figuring out an exit strategy. It has had to go to the UN to try to get it out. And it has had to negotiate with every anti-US group, like Sadr’s militia).
5. Israel has no influence on US foreign policy (Everyone from Pat Buchanan to Gen Zinni has highlighted, in great detail, the direct links of the neo-cons with Israel. And the fact that the USA is fighting Israel’s wars.)
6. US economy is growing despite Iraq (USA has now spent close to 200 billion on maintaining its troops in Iraq. This is nearly four times the annual US education budget of 57 billion. US military actions are never-ending pit, which has put USA into historically high deficits. Warren Buffet, for the first time in his life, is betting against US currency)
6. USA is safer now from terrorism (OBL, himself, could not have hoped for more. He had no place to go. Now Iraq is a hub of violence, where any organization can gather and make its plans to attack Americans)

Bush seems to be making all his decisions on South Asian style emotionalism, combined with a religious streak. His strongest supporters are the Christian right of the USA, and the Jewish right, i.e. the two most ideological groups in America. As well as the NRA (another ideological group, though due to different reasons). He is completely indebted to these groups and they are on a warpath. When a country gets so deeply involved in ideology, it feels a temporary level of elation and victory, because facts on the ground do not matter. One can brush them aside, with religiously motivated emotional mumbo-jumbo. However, in the long run, it is the real facts that decide what will be successful or unsuccessful. And the real facts, on the ground, are not being presented to the American public. Sooner or later, that will catch up with them.

Most of all, it has now becoming blasphemous to say anything in favor of the USA in any Muslim country (infact even in European countries). The religious right in these countries is now defining the agenda, since the general population is against USA’s policies. If this cycle of US policies continues, and democracy spreads in the Muslim world, invariably, religious parties will become more and more popular as they are openly anti-USA. It will be the USA’s Christian right and Jewish right vs. the Muslim countries Islamic right. Not a very safe world.

One can already see this happening. Iran has a religious govt. Iraq will now have a religious govt. and a religious opposition, once elections are held. Religious parties are popular there, because they have openly resisted the USA’s forces. Pakistan, for the first time in its history, has religious govts in two provinces. Saudi Arabia will have one if the Kingdom is toppled. Egypt will have one if the dictator Mubarak is kicked out. Jordan will have an extremely anti-Israel and anti-USA govt. if the King is kicked out. Turkey already has a religious govt. which is slowly sidelining the pro-USA military. Algeria elected a religious govt., which was toppled in a coup. It will elect it again. So on and so forth.

Bush’s policies have left the liberal Westernized groups in Muslim countries helpless. Based on Bush’s policies the religious right is now telling them, “I told you so.” And the liberal pro-West groups in these countries have no answer to give them, because they themselves oppose Bush’s policies.

I don’t see how the USA can be any safer, if even its supporters in Muslim countries no longer support it…….

stuka,

Read the rest of the posts, and everything will be clear. No, no one is going to negotiate with him. Like I said, he`s small time.

As far as I`m concerned, I`m comforted to know that not all Americans are neo-con retards. There is hope yet.

stuka,

Read the rest of the posts, and everything will be clear. No, no one is going to negotiate with him. Like I said, he`s small time.

As far as I`m concerned, I`m comforted to know that not all Americans are neo-con retards. There is hope yet.

As usual, all of it comes down to Standard Format Left Liberal Whining (SFLLW). Bush lied, OBL was not great a threat, corporations are controlling everything, Israel is being cruel etc etc. Same was the case during the Cold War. When al-Qaeda is finished off like Communism was, the SFLLW will latch on to some other nemesis of the liberal democratic order. What a pity that so many talented people and brilliant minds waste their time regurgitating the same stuff while enjoying to the hilt the benefits of liberal democracy and corporation dominated free markets.

The pent up rage against George W Bush is almost reminiscent of childhood tantrums. He is so offensive to the SFLLW crowd precisely because he takes no nonsense from their idols-Castro, Saddam, Osama. He makes no apologies for being forthright about defending America. And, most offensive of all, he WINS! That rankles the SFLLW crows to no end.

As for comparing Hitler with George W. Bush, apart from its patent offensiveness (I am the grandson of WWII vets), it is beyond ridiculous. In Hitler`s world you wouldn`t have a CHOWK discussion on your article; the only discussion you`d have had would have been with fellow concentration camp inmates.

And yes, Bush is going to win in November and I`ll be proud of contributing my taxes to a new generation of space based anti-missile defense. And then, I hope it`ll be Iran`s turn. And then Syria`s--unless they mend their ways like old Muammar Gaddafi did.

Vertex:

What`s the point of this? Do we really give a rat`s ass about Bin Laden`s demands? ts not like anyone is gonna sit across a table and negotiate with him.

As far as you are concerned, I guess it must be really comforting to know that your tax dollars are used to kill those whom you sympathoze with. Ofcourse, ain`t no wall holding you in.



``soundmeister on September 9, 2004 6:07am PT
Samina,

You a commie? Always mistook you for one of those bleedin heart liberals somehow.... ``

Same difference dude.

arjun_m

Jeez, your ignornat of the whole history of the conflict. Circa gulf war I, OBL got uber pissed at the Saudis for not letting him and his band of merry men kick saddam out of Kuwait (as if). Sooooo, he concluded that this must be some great alliance between Royal family and the Americans. Well, duh.

His primary concern, and his first demand, was that Americans leave the holy land. All else was of no concern untill he realized that he could implicate Americans in other conflicts around the world and futher his agenda by copting those causes.

His list of greivences is a new development post-911. In any case, nowhere is there evidence of a coherent political ideology being espoused. There is no reason to beleive he is sincire in invoking those causes. He had more than enough time to do so pre-911. Note he was an american ally even as many of the things he complained about was being carried out.

Needless to say, you missed his point c

(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;

(i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.

(ii) These governments give us a taste of humiliation, and places us in a large prison of fear and subdual.

(iii) These governments steal our Ummah`s wealth and sell them to you at a paltry price.

(iv) These governments have surrendered to the Jews, and handed them most of Palestine, acknowledging the existence of their state over the dismembered limbs of their own people.

(v) The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from out fight against you.


This is his personal quest. Everything else is simply a compodium of common, and some valid, complaints. I see no ideology in his demands.

Now, my dear arjun_m, let us not forget my point: the man is small time. Period.

Re: his popularity in S.A. and Pakistan....what about it? He`s revered if anything as a resistance fighter, not as the man with a neo-con ``final solution``. Now I`m still trying to figure out how a liar has 53% of the American vote...or whatever the toll is now...jeebus.

---

Mohar11,

Yes, pakis do meddle in Afghanistan for example. If indeed they suffered terrorist violence as a response, Indians would be the first to thumb their noses at the pakis. What is your point? Everyone`s doiing it...?! Root cause dude, root cause...

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

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

vertex
//...that American meddling is somehow an analog of a force of nature. ..//

I think you are too hung-up on this ``meddling`` business. That kind of sin can be attributed any other significant country in the world. China, Russia, Britain, India, Pakistan, Saudis, Iraqis, Iranis, Israel - they call meddle elsewhere according their strength and position and perceived national interest.

If your entire argument is based on the ``interventions`` theory - then we are not going anywhere. Unless you are living in some isloated island - meddling and other such negative interations(alongwith positive interactiosn) will keep happening between nations . Get over this simple fact.

Americans meddle in Saudi land, Saudis meddle in america too, saudis are meddling in pakistan also. Are pakis going to blow up a building in riyadh because of the meddling? China meddles big time in Pakistan - are pakis going to blow up chinese capital too??

There has to be other ways to stop the meddling than blowing up buildings.

+++

Your point regarding neo-con agenda is well-taken. But if you put the entire blame on the neo-cons for all that is wrong with muslims - you are stretching it too far. Unless you reform your won socieities - you cannot progress - neo-cons and other boogeymen notwithstanding. That`s another very simple fact for you to grasp.

++++

//.. if all of the above choose to ignore how they were (emphasis on the past tense) screwed over, that`s their prerogative....//

They don`t ignore it - they have got over it. Because that`s the only way to move forward.

+++

Anyway - I have put forward some ways to move forward. What is your solution? What is your proposal to stop the ``meddling``? We know - OBL`s methods won`t work.

amit,

``OBL`s message is to ``leave us alone``!! Are you kidding? This is the problem with so-called moderate muslims. OBL is leading a world-wide ideological battle with the objective of controlling the middle-east and establishing an extreme, fascist interpretation of Islam.``

I`ve heard this red herring before. And this kind of reasoning is the problem with so-called enlightened defenders of ``civilization. OBL is incapable of wrecking the kind of havoc the American neo-con establishment has already done in the middle east. Stop goin` on about hypothetical threats to the Muslim world when he`s in fact a small time player. And he knows it.

OBL has no intentions of exporting his ideology, whatever it is, beyond Muslim lands. OBL was incapable of exporting his rule to anything beyond a base or two in Afghanistan. I have no idea what his political ambitions were aside from eliminating foreign influences from the Kingdom – which was a stated and explicit goal. (``all american troops must leave the holy land`` was his only real demand). There is no reason, aside from fear mongering, to think he had any other ambitions. There is certainly no reason to fear any kind of military threat from the man. He`s a terrorist. These people are terrorists and not guerilla fighters for a reason....it`s called weakness.

The threat of a new ``evil OBL empire`` emerging is a red herring. It`s designed to justify a neo-con Imperialist agenda. That is the true threat to the Muslim world as we speak. It`s foolish to blab on and on about potential threats from minor players when you already have no less than three nations (one of which has been all but destroyed...and with a very uncertain future) being adversely affected by retarded policies. You speak of fictions, I`m speaking of reality.

``He is responsible for brutal savagery and bloodthirsty behavior, yet moderate muslims like yourself try to find ``root`` causes and other justification for such evil, satanic behavior.``

Whatever. Bombing a city in a shock-and-awe tactic is what? Lying to justify a war on a nation is what? Oh, yeah....they were ``mistakes``. Sorry dude, but that doesn`t fly. You need a sense of scale. But I suppose ignorance is bliss, and whatever is on TV must be the only truth out there. Naturally, there are no civilian deaths in Iraq. That`s all a big lie. Sure.

Consider a General standing there and thinking ``hmmm....can`t charge the city, too risky, may as well bomb the heck out of it...civilians be damned`` and a terrorist thinking ``hmmm...can`t charge the army, they`ll kill is in a minute, to risky. May as well target those civilians over there``. The difference between the two is nominal. Both are satanic and evil modes of thinking, But it is disingenuous to think the two are unlinked, or there is no causation between the two. The thing that drives the terrorist is invariably the initial act by the General. There is a chain (not cycle) of violence, and the lead link is invariably state-sponsored. It`s only a matter of time when someone says ``enough is enough``. OBL is wayyyy down the chain of reactionaries.

So, root cause arguments are valid. Only those with an ideological bent will choose to ignore one over the other. Those people are beyond help. Such people want to treat terrorism for the justification of a civilization conflict, and are incapable of recognizing it for what it is: a tactic of anti-state criminal activity. That sounds too sanitary...can`t win an election or wage spurious wars off of that.

``The Islamic world has to take responsibility for its own state of affairs and fix its own problems. The moderates in the Islamic world have to lead this effort. It is as simple as that.``

This is what magicians call redirection. ``Don`t pay any attention to this hand...``. What you say is true, but it is a parallel problem. You have offered no evidence that the neo-con Americans are willing to deal in good faith with Arab countries even if they are developing well. There is no reason to believe that their attitudes in the middle east will change one bit. Lack of development is not the reason for American medaling in the region. They are interested in pliancy and obedience, not in freedom, for regions where their immediate interests lie. The Middle east has the curse of oil. They had it good in the Cold war when there was a balance of power. The honey moon is over.

No amount of development or education save the Middle east becoming a super power in it`s own right would change that. Your solution is to pretty much take part in the American dominated system, grab a cut of the pie, precludes the possibility of the latter since it is a stated American policy to ensure no rivals to American power appear. Sorry, but this is a problem with America that Americans need to solve. Redirection and obvious, conceited and condescending advice doesn`t help a bit.

There is a simple fact of geopolitics and that`s Americans pursue their policies even if it is to the determent of others (depending on the importance of the policies, of course). It is this attitude that is the cause of American headaches in the world. Americans of good faith want to change that, and not make excuses.

Samina,

You a commie? Always mistook you for one of those bleedin heart liberals somehow....

Re:vertex#37
OBL`s message is to ``leave us alone``!! Are you kidding? This is the problem with so-called moderate muslims. OBL is leading a world-wide ideological battle with the objective of controlling the middle-east and establishing an extreme, fascist interpretation of Islam. He is responsible for brutal savagery and bloodthirsty behavior, yet moderate muslims like yourself try to find ``root`` causes and other justification for such evil, satanic behavior.

The Islamic world has to take responsibility for its own state of affairs and fix its own problems. The moderates in the Islamic world have to lead this effort. It is as simple as that. All this baloney about dictators, Israel, US is a way to shirk your own responsibility. If you do not exercise caution, I am afraid that we are slowly drifting towards an all-out war between non-muslims and muslims.

``You are getting it. All you need to do is invest the oil wealth in people. Educate and empower. Produce. Manufacture. Contribute to the world at large. Get a share of world trade and economy. Just like Malayasia, Dubai, Brunei. You have examples to follow.``

Heheh, ``you``. Look everyone, ``I`m`` an entire nation of people! How cool.

In response to above: duh. Try it when you`re either prevented or excluded by your ruling class (whose security apparatus is trained and supported by you know who). Like I said, Islamists have the right ideas, just no vision and a stupid strategy. OBL represented a bunch of Saudis. Why? Why do you think rank-and-file Saudis in particular are so upset with America? Any honest reading (and I`m not talking about the Rohan Gunaratnan reading) of OBL`s message is simple: ``leave us alone``. Yours is an assumption that American meddling is somehow an analog of a force of nature. It`s not. Get over the simple fact: by far and wide the influence of America in the middle east and even beyond (say Afghanistan and Pakistan) has been dire. Get over the simple fact: OBL-variety Jihadism was architect by the Americans and co-opted by the Pakis (not the other way around). NO amount of development save becoming a super power would have prevented the kind of meddling they have been doing all along. So your advice makes sense on it’s own merit, however not as a recipe for independence.

``But so far you have done exactly opposite - invested oil wealth in spreading islamic fundamentalism, medievalism, madrassas and mullahs, narrow ideologies. You have used oil wealth to create havoc around the world. This was bound to happen. You love to talk about ``blowback`` - now that`s the ``blowback`` ``

LOL, you have no clue. The ones with the oil monies make regular visits to the Bush ranch. The ones without are the ones blowing back. Cost of friendship. And it`s ``me`` that`s paying for it. Simple fact.

``Nope. They choose to move on. No whining. No victim mentality. Rebuild, Reorganize. Look to future, for the next generation. Now S. Korea is a first world country. Vietnam is getting much better economically. Latin America is still mired in mess of course - but sooner they will get back on their feet. ``

S. Korea is the only one worth talking about. Latin America and Vietnam (who were victorious in a conflict that concluded) are still a major mess. S. Korea is a very good example to follow. Can`t blame people who call a spade a spade though, so if all of the above choose to ignore how they were (emphasis on the past tense) screwed over, that`s their prerogative. Oil still exists, and so the implications are obvious. These are bad examples to prove your point. OBL and his ilk don`t act out for past sins...or so they claim.

vertex
//..There is already enough influence in terms of oil wealth...what is needed is a bit of unity and coherence in vision..//

You are getting it. All you need to do is invest the oil wealth in people. Educate and empower. Produce. Manufacture. Contribute to the world at large. Get a share of world trade and economy. Just like Malayasia, Dubai, Brunei. You have examples to follow.

Nobody will ever invade Malayasia - why?? Your answer lies there.

But so far you have done exactly opposite - invested oil wealth in spreading islamic fundamentalism, medievalism, madrassas and mullahs, narrow ideologies. You have used oil wealth to create havoc around the world. This was bound to happen. You love to talk about ``blowback`` - now that`s the ``blowback`` for you guys. How does that feel???

+++

//...Because they either won, are beat, or are too embrolied in their current messes to do so....//

Nope. They choose to move on. No whining. No victim mentality. Rebuild, Reorganize. Look to future, for the next generation. Now S. Korea is a first world country. Vietnam is getting much better economically. Latin America is still mired in mess of course - but sooner they will get back on their feet.

Because they choose to move on. They choose to employ the tool that works - trade and business. The other american force. The other side of american coin. The side that produces, invents, builds, donates, heals, educates. The good side. Have you thought about employing that tool? Of course not.

+++

//...Geez, it`s amazing how some Indians are still nostalgic for the old soviet Union....//

Nope. Just pointing out your past foolishness. Learn from mistakes. It was not just ``some dictators``. Entire ummah was cooing after Allah-America freindship.

``All your moral outrage , at that point, is meaningless. I mean - what were you folks thinking - that america will sit quietly???``

My moral outrage is reserved for those who speak in moral terms. FYI, your use of terms like ``you folks`` misses a key distinction between terrorist violence and (much more destructive, brutal) American one. The terrorist violence is by a lunatic fringe. You would kindly refrain from saying things like ``you folks``. As for the American one, well...you can get away with it 53% (or whatever the latest poll figures are) of the time...

Needless to say, you`re right. Obviously they won`t sit quietly. That`s a seriously misguided way of thinking...it`s almost a compliment. The neo-con capacity for violence and nation-rape has been seriously underestimated. Dumb, dumb dumb. As dumb as the war on terror. I don`t think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that the various adventures around the war is, if anything, validating the terrorist stance and generating more terrorists. But then, I wonder if that`s really a concern...

````Decades of intervention`` and other real or imagined sins of the US have to countered in other ways. For example - Muslim countries must reform, drop islam as a political tool, go for democracy, educate the population, reform the mindset, participate in world`s economy like other civilized people.``

Other civilized people who turn a blind eye to 100k+ murders in the name of some other state-sponsored cause? Your notion of civility needs much to be desired. Terrorism is hardly the harshest expression or manifestation of human violence.

Needless to say, power comes from some of that you stated. Muslims countries need to do what every other ambitious country does. Understand the sources of, and to seek, power. Enough of this bandying about visions of some Utopia. Screw it. India has it right here, at least.

There is already enough influence in terms of oil wealth...what is needed is a bit of unity and coherence in vision. It`s this lack of direction, and this crony rule that needs to be first eliminated. Here the Islamists are actually bang on in their attitudes (OBL was the first, and for all I know only, proponent of internationalizing local conflicts). Just they have no vision to complement their list of grievances.

``Only then the ``intervention`` from outside sources will stop. Only then you will get respect and your place in the comity of civilized people.``

Screw other ``civilized people`` if they`re willing to justify slaughter on the basis of simply being weak. The respect of savages who deem themselves as civil should be the goal of no one. It is sufficient to seek power for the sake of independence. Let all else flow naturally, and at our own pace.

``Muslims are not the only people who have been ``intervened``. There have been others - vietnamese, koreans, latin americans etc... Are they flying planes into buildings? No - why?``

Because they either won, are beat, or are too embrolied in their current messes to do so. That`s why. Plain and simple. This is a silly defense of American ``interventions``.

``Think. Learn from them.``

LOL, what the hell is there to learn from Vietnam, Cambodia or Nicaragua?!

``Evolve out of your bedouin mindset.``

LOL, okay into a neo-con one:

Muslims must work to ``contain`` and subjugate other nations that are ideologically at odds, and must rely on the use of deadly force at large scales to ensure our supremacy throughout the world - to the extent of ensuring total annihilation or at the very least mutually-assured annihilation. I get it. Fabrication of minor threats into larger ones for mobilization of mass support (``the kafirs are coming!``) is a cool trick, and necessitates and validates the `us or them` attitude that our Islamists have always had. No need to get rid of that useful attitude. I get that too. The only, and penultimate, concern for Muslims shall be pursuits for our material interests - even if it is to the detriment of others. Cool, I think my evolution is well on it`s way. Thank you for showing us the way to a ``new Muslim century``.

``Besides, arabs and wannabe-arabs were very much in hand-in-hand with the Americans while you folks were fighting the godless communists.``

Geez, it`s amazing how some Indians are still nostalgic for the old soviet Union. Get over it, it`s gone. And it was a handful of Arab dictators (propped up by the US) that fought a war (that would have been apparently been avoidable) designed by (including the Holy war bit) America...despite the fact that Muslims had much bigger things to worry about. Geez, isn`t it great to have a friend that will point you in the right direction from time to time...

vertex

Well - if you go beyond the jargons ( terrorist/freedom fighter, state rights/civil rights etc, international law etc etc....) and get down to the basics - that`s what you have. If you employ violence to achieve whatever political goals and ``just causes`` then you must expect counter-violence in return. And when you are the small guy - you can never expect any mercy. All your moral outrage , at that point, is meaningless. I mean - what were you folks thinking - that america will sit quietly???

``Decades of intervention`` and other real or imagined sins of the US have to countered in other ways. For example - muslim countries must reform, drop islam as a political tool, go for democracy, educate the population, reform the mindset, participate in world`s economy like other civilized people. Only then the ``intervention`` from outside soruces will stop. Only then you will get respect and your place in the comity of civilized people. it`s a long haul, it needs leadership, enlightenment, moderation, change of mindset - there is no short-cuts for this. No amount of whining will do.

Muslims are not the only people who have been ``intervened``. There have been others - vietnamese, koreans, latin americans etc... Are they flying planes into buildings? No - why? Think. Learn from them. Evolve out of your bedouin mindset. You can`t use violence as a tool. You must realize that. Your penchant for violence at the drop of a hat has finally met its match. Nobody in this world is surprised at such turn of events.

Besides, arabs and wannabe-arabs were very much in hand-in-hand with the Americans while you folks were fighting the godless communists. Allah and America were best of buddies. So you should know how it works.

America knows how it works. And they are going to make it work. You should be prepared. It`s too late for moral outrages of any kind.

labyrinth,

``Every country has there intrests and most of them do whats best in there national intrest and if its USA , they do what is best for them in long term when if they have to invade Mars .``

Everybody, their aunt, and her pet dog are familiar with ``realpolitik``. Here`s another bit: piss enough people off enough of the time, and you`ll eventually get ``blowback``, i.e. pursuing the nation`s interest has it`s price. So, given this bit of ``realpolitik`` do we tell the Americans to shuddup and stop whining about 9-11 already?! I think your answer is gonna be ``no``...and I think it should be no as well...

mohar11,

Heheh, thank you for showing us that the Americans are indeed thinking like the Terrorists. Well done.

//..Moreover, we need to realize the reality that 9/11 was not without provocation. Decades of intervention..//

you are right - ``decades of intervention`` has led to 9/11. Muslims just had to take the revenge for ``decades of intervention`` and humiliation - it was due.

So now that muslims have extracted their revenge in form of two buildings and 3000+ lives - what should US do? Sit on its hunches and lick its wounds like an impotent buffoon .... or take a counter revenge?

My guess would be - the counter revenge. So there you have it. Iraq, Afganistan is part of the counter revenge. Now then why are you blaming Uncle Sam for taking the revenge which was due? Why are you crying if pakis are deported or searched/profiled at airports?

There are many other ways to confront the 800 pound guerrilla for his ``decades of intervention``. But use of violence against him is NOT one of them. And yet that`s what you muslims did. Well - now there is only one outcome - you get crushed. Crying mummy now won`t help.

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

Arjun,

Let me guess...youre a Dubya cocaine-weed-booze republican...that explains your delusions...


soundmeister,

Actually, what`s worse than a boring commie is a capitalist functionary...peon on!

I think US government has every right to impose any law - that may also imfringes on civil liberties - in a war like situation. The only dilemma that Muslims are facing is that they are still not willing to accept that they are also in a warlike situation - a war that has been imposed on them. Sooner they understand this the better. As far as white American population is concerned, I think it is their own prerogative whether they want to understand or not why the principles and system of values of human rights and civil liberties, that they have been so proud of, collapsed like a house of cards, when it faced its first real test. In either case Muslims are in a different boat than them.

What we need is a thoroughfare rise of a strong Left which challenges the options we have today between the Right Wing and the Lesser Right Wing. The Market that represents democracy is also the basic cause of all the ills.

Is Democracy nothing without Capitalism.....

This statement might be true of the US/West`s version of democracy but Venezuela shows that their is an Anti Capitalist Face of Democracy which sprouts from the Roots of a nation. A humane Governmental system that actually focuses on the enrichment of the masses. This requires strong leadership.....

Nina...A well thought out article.

#11 Lt Rathore....Well said...

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

Every country has there intrests and most of them do whats best in there national intrest and if its USA , they do what is best for them in long term when if they have to invade Mars . Either its for oil or for stategic reasons Iraq is the best place where US troops should be deployed especially when some of the Saudi family are getting critical of US presence in KSA , so what better then Iraq ? Iraq borders Iran aswell . So where did the Isrealis come from ? Isreal`s best intrest is to install socialist and moderate regimes in close by countries which is been done for them by US , Jordan is one of the examples.

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

Sound observation of the day-
The only thing worse than a commie is a boring commie.

Whats also ironic is that few US cheerleaders have a problem with the mo: the ends justify the means...in the mouths of capitalists, its the sound of golden fleece...

Nima,

Well done.

Re:nimashirali#16

The real problem that I have with your article is this tendency to blame US for every problem on this planet. This has become very fashionable and chic, especially in Europe and Pakistan. Let`s look at the facts. In the entire nineties, the US played a reasonably honest broker between Israelis and Palestinians and nearly hammered out a fairly equitable deal. Yasser Arafat decided to walk away from it all and launch his mindless intifada, which is the cause of so much Palestinian suffering. If he had accepted the solution with some minor adjustments, Palestinians would have been all set today.

As far as Iraq is concerned, it is true that US supported Saddam earlier, but it was as a means to contain the Iranian revolution, which was yet another gem of a contribution from the Islamic world. Iranians today are realizing how ridiculous that revolution was but are unable to free themselves from the mullahs. Then Saddam decided to go ballistic and invade his other neighbor for no apparent reason besides megalomania. If that resulted in economic sanctions, is it the fault of the US or the fault of the Iraqi regime?

I am not saying that the US foreign policy has been harmless. Far from it. The US behaves in its own rational self-interest like any other nation and it does make mistakes like its support for the Afghan mujahideen in the eighties. The problem is the effort to demonize the US foreign policy as if it is an evil conspiracy against the Islamic world. That is a bogus argument which enables the Islamic world from avoding responsibility for its own actions. The real focus has to be on why the vast millions of good, moderate muslims all over the planet are not raising their collective voice and taking action against Islamic fundamentalism, dictatorships and other evils in their societies instead of searching for scapegoats all the time.

The entire balance of US foreign policy does not provide any justification for murdering 3000 civilians on 9/11. I can never accept any kind of justification for that because it was a pre-meditated, pure act of evil with the sole purpose of somehow defeating western civilization and creating an opportunity for Islamic fundamentalism to spread its fascist wings. Thankfully the US is not like Russia and it hits back hard.

Nima:

There are two sides of each coin. You have very eloquently advocated the case from one side of the coin. Many of the tings you said are undeniable and the conclusions drwan thereof have merits. The other side of the coin is intellectually equally impresssivee. A person can draw just the opposite conclusions from the other side of the coin, based on equally solid facts and figures.

For every Cuba, North Korea and Iraq, there are examples of the nations who have greatly benfited from USA. The US share of world economy has been constantly declining since WWII and all what you have mentioned about geopolitics of USA since WWII has not helped USA economically. For example what have USA gotten from poring billions into Egypt (alongwith Israel) since the Camp David accord in 1973? I suggest you to look at the economy of Egypt since 1973. It has grown 8-fold since then. In a way, Iraq is a price paid for Egypt although I understand that reasons have nothing to do with recovering some of the billions poured into Egypt as aid.

Jordan is another example with no oil, almost no tourism, exports or anything. So US helped develop a service sector economy.

Most of the foreign exchange reserves of China, India, Taiwan, and other Asian tigers are the result of business relationships with the USA. Almost all the faculty members of Pakistani universities have gotten their higher education in the USA and most of it for free like myself.

In Africa, USA quietly and systematically helped remove apartheid from south Africa through embargoes.

Despite all the prpaganda, US economy is 85 percent internal. Therefore, most of the income generated by US corporations come from within USA followed by industrialized nations of mostly Western Europe. Today, Japanese car, Toyota is the best selling car in the USA.

US does play politics internationally which is not liked by many in the world but US is seldom responsible for the povery of nations. Take Malaysia for example under Mahathir Mohammaed. He was very vocal critic of USA yet US chip makers prefered to invest money in Malaysia and many components of PC are manufactured in Malaysia. Nike is today the second biggest source of foreign exchange after rice in Veitnam. All Philippine economy is dependent on US companies, except local San Miguel beer company.

In Pakistan, US companies have almost monopoly on medicine market. A cough syrup costing 5 dollars by the same manufacturer in Pakistan sells for 20 rupees (33 cents). They make money by selling it for 5 dollars than selling for 33 cents. The combined income of all US pharmaceutical companies from Pakistan is less than 100 million dollars. Lever Brothers of Netherlands have been the biggest company in Pakistan in homecare products. They could have easily make a killing by setting up prices of their choice for all their products since competition could not meet the demand of all Pakistanis. Actually foreign companies are much less involved in price gouging and tax evasion than Pakistani companies.

No super power has ever been angelic towards the rest in the history of the world. So why much more is expected from USA than the trend of world history? Actually USA has been one of least harmful super power in world histoy. I also disagee with US policies towards Palestine but I also understand that Palestine is not the world; it is about 5-6 million people from the world population of more than 6 billions (one tenth of one percent). Palestine is not the biggest concern for US but it is for Muslims and Arabs in particular.

Did US play any role in the most recent holocaust in Rwanda-Burundi? How did US respond? What did US got from Somalia except dead bodies of their soldiers for ending famine and restoring some sense of peace? Afghanistan is not a heaven of justice, prosperity and democracy but it never was. At least now women can get medical attention, education and Kabul has running water and electricity. Should we not thankful to USA for it, in addition to stabilizing Pakistani economy so that every Pakistani tom, dick and harry can claim to be responsible for recovery?

Just imagine if instead of USA, Russia was the sole super power? First of all they would have never let go of so much central Asian land to Muslims. Now there are 5 new Muslim countries in the region and each one is bigger than Palestine. Did USA play any role in bringing USSR down and letting 50 million or more Muslims have independent nations?

How can I forget that President Clinton refused to shake hand with Pakistani military dictator Musharraf on the basis of principles while Supreme Court of Pakistan rubber stamped his anti-constitutional act(s)? Shouldn`t I have more respect for Clinton than idiots like Irshad Ahmed Khan (then CJSC Pakistan) and Musuharraf? I do!!

rahul_capri,

Well yeah, altruism and a bit of selflessness may well do the trick. People are just too retarded to think otherwise....so I beg to differ, the alternatives are what appeal to the people with intellects of 7-14 year olds. And they tend to dominate...go figure.

nima,

How do we discredit the followers of an ideology that deem the deaths of 300,000+ people as necessary,or acceptable, or at the very least ignorable in the name of said ideology? The numbers don`t matter, it`s the cause. How do we reason with this kind of mindset? If I remember correctly, in Orwell`s 1984 he pretty much opines that you can`t...there`s no sanity in the masses.

This is Nima Shirali, author of the article. Before asserting my response to some of the written comments, I must mention two preliminary points. First, my gender is male. Secondly, I am not Muslim, as one commentator apparently thought.

For those who believe I`m an advocate and supporter of Islamic fundamentalism, I advise a quick look at my other work, especially the article entitled ``The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Question of Palestinian Statehood`` (www.merecforum.org). As a victim of Islamic fundamentalism, I have exhausted all my abilities so far to undermine this violent ideology that has justified many vicious acts against humanity. This article was meant to deal with another issue and Islamic fundamentalism was not the topic. Hence, criticizing the work by saying ``the writer failed to speak of fundamentalism`` is parallel to criticizing a mathematics book for not containing chemistry.

Moreover, we need to realize the reality that 9/11 was not without provocation. Decades of intervention in other nations` affairs (i.e. the CIA overthrow of Dr. Mossadegh`s government in Iran--a democratically elected government that nationalized oil, support for dictators like [ironically] Saddam Hussein, etc) have caused inexplicable resentment towards the US. Some of you sound as if you may be concerned about the Third World. If you are, you need to become cognizant of the effects that US-implemented economic sanctions have had in places like Iran, Cuba, and (formerly) Iraq. The UN has estimated that between 300,000-500,000 children under the age of five died as a result of the twelve years of US-backed sanctions.

This is not about being ``left`` or ``right`` wing. It is about considering the facts and making logical conclusions that are not based on CNN news reports. Years of being in war as a child and of living in the impoverished Third World have had their effects on my views. Now, I feel a moral obligation to challenge the oppressors, defend the weak, and speak independently.

The objections of those who defend war, oppression, violence, and killing innocent Iraqi children only serve to strengthen my conviction.

All this 50 page pontification and the answer is altruism? Might appeal to 7-14 year olds.As for the responses,this is what you get when you try to solve all the problems of the world in one article.

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

Nima:

I don`t know to what extent of the truth to your observation that the elitist and oppressive West causes folks of the under-developed countries to support `strong` dictators. In fact, aside from maybe a couple of instance (themselves dubious), this line of logic is faulty.

Agreed that there is a corporate link that can be seen. Corporate interests, it seems, more than `national` will eventually guide policies (more determinantly so than today).

It`s a matter of how resources are distributed. And how we see people - as mere consumers or someone to invest in. For multi-nationals, it is mostly the former.

However, there are always examples of hope scattered around the globe where resources are distributed along non-elistist lines. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is perhaps the most brilliant one. Latin America has been an area most invovled with the capitalist - lefitst struggles. Despite being in America`s backyard (or maybe because of this), the people of that region are far more active in arguing for their rights than say the folks of the middle east.

I0 amir
//...any surprise that Pakistanis, who have very little interest in liberal causes given their government structure and institutions, have suddenly become Jeffersonian democrats..//

Exactly. Pakis` crocodile tears for liberal causes has come a little to late.

Uncle sam has suffered (like rest of us) and has wisened up. Europeans are still fooling around because they haven`t seen the real face Islamic Fundamentalism.

I0 amir
//...any surprise that Pakistanis, who have very little interest in liberal causes given their government structure and institutions, have suddenly become Jeffersonian democrats..//

Exactly. Pakis` crocodile tears for liberal causes has come a little too late.

Uncle sam has suffered (like rest of us) and has wisened up. Europeans are still fooling around because they haven`t seen the real face Islamic Fundamentalism.

#1 by arjun_m on September 7, 2004 9:41am PT
``I think we can all vividly recollect the Madrid train bombings, which were undoubtedly in response to Spanish participation in the war.


And 9/11 was undoubtedly in response to some other wrong? I can see where this is going...``

Undoubtedly YES! 9/11 is doing of the Americans themselves. If they don`t change their foreign policies then this is just the beginning.

Brilliant article and very well put. This rant about democracy from the US is just becoming unbearable. I don`t even know if Al Gore should have been governing America instead of Bush. When there is a major flaw in the elections of the World`s most popular democracy, then a rant from them deosn`t make sense.
Also, what happens to the Palestinians every day, when they get brutally murdered by the Israeli forces, supported by India and America with new and modern weapon systems and money? They get killed. So when they kill their enemy then why is that a problem? It is a war. Americans have destroyed their homeland, taken over their homes, killed and massacred their children, and then have the guts to preach democracy? The doings of the Palestinias are justified. You kill them they kill you. Simple. The only problem is that they are Muslims otherwise they would have been termed Freedom-Fighters.

``The American people DO have a choice. They`ll exercise that choice come Nov 2nd. ``
and choose the lesser evil? I really don`t see a ``good`` choice coming out of this election. Both are bad for Muslims and will make the Palestinians suffer.

To The Author: But please don`t be dis-heartened by what people have written. I have read alot on this website and most of these people, have very set and clumsy ideas. What they have written is their trade mark. Don`t even be bothered. They do it to put their two cents in there too so they can feel special. Their ability to think and make coherent judgement has been clouded with the greed to make more money and ``fit in`` in a land whihc is not their own. They are very few here at Chowk who give constructive criticism and whose feedback makes sense. America is one country who if will not change their ideology and policies will bite the dust. The Holy Roman Empire was broken by the Muslims, the Byzantinians were defeated by Napolean, and the Nazis were defeated by the Allies. As Toynbee said, ``Every nation is like a dot on a car`s wheel``. So if it is in charge right now it will be in our shoes pretty soon.

Re:#6

The problem is that a lot of people with Islamist agendas are becoming allies with the liberal causes and using the cover of liberalism to protect and further their pan-Islamic agenda. The attacks on Bush, capitalism etc. are just on the surface. Their real objective is to slow down and stop the war on terrorism, which is hurting Islamic fundamentalism all over. The world ignored Islamic fundamentalism for the past 20-30 years and we are paying the price for that. The Islamists have noticed that the weakness of the west and for that matter India, is our attraction to liberalism and its egalitarian ways. Hence they try to exploit that weakness and use the cover of human rights and democracy, to further their pan-Islamic agenda.

Is it any surprise that Pakistanis, who have very little interest in liberal causes given their government structure and institutions, have suddenly become Jeffersonian democrats? After the Taliban got the boot and the entire jihad express has been derailed, they have no other option but to find any way possible to halt the juggernaut. The Europeans have bought into this BS but thankfully, the US is not so naive and is not getting fooled.

Bush is worse than Hitler and the Madrid bombings are somehow justified because of spain`s alliance with the US…..This is the kind of left wing propoganda that pushes moderates to the right. Bush`s lead over Kerry is already in the double digits and it looks like more moderates are moving to the Bush side.

NFP:

Talking oif Brazil, Lula certainly turned around on his anti market rhetoric didn`t he? Sensible chap. :)

Baaghiraaja:

But the market constitutes of who? Us!

The market is ultimately democratic because of choices. The state exists to regulate markets to some extent (law and order) but it is ultimately more democratic that leftist elitism.

#2 Stuka,
It`s not about left-wing or right-wing anymore. It`s about being wingless but pretending to be in glorious flight. It`s quite a different world now. And that is why I would shove a Nokia Phone up Orwell`s butt today instead of one of Stalin`s favourite pair of army boots, dig?

And amit,
BJP lost the elections, or haven`t you noticed? And Gujrat was quite a scene a few months ago, or have you forgotten? And anyways, stop confusing the issue. It`s not about religion. Religion usually sucks (as your response to this article has proven). It`s about the agenda of neoliberal economics, or didn`t you get it?

-NfP

Ms. Shirali,
It is really painful to hear muslim intellectuals like yourself continously rant and rave against the US, while you do not devote even 1% attention to the absolute breakdown of humanitarian values in the Islamic world. The world just witnessed 100 plus kids being slaughtered in cold blood by Chechen rebels in Russia in the name of Islamic jihad, yet you have the nerve to lecture the west about its slipping commitment to democracy? Do you even realize the depth of double standards that you have?

Every day you hear about bomb blasts somewhere, suicide bombings, brutal and graphic beheadings and all kinds of barbarism from the Islamic world or its interface points with the rest of the world. Yes, there are just causes and freedom is indeed a just cause to fight for. But the means adopted by the terrorists all over the globe, is simply beyond the pale of human decency. By their repeated actions, they are creating a wrong image of muslims as bloodthirsty killers. Yet there is hardly a voice raised against this kind of outrage. What is the rest of the world supposed to do? Just swallow this nonsense and follow democratic norms to the letter? The US was attacked on 9/11 without any provocation at all. After that they have got rid of the Taliban which was long overdue due to the monstrous nature of that regime. The attack on Saddam was not necessary but at the end of the day it is good riddance of an absolute brute. So please look into your side of the equation which is totally rotten, before pointing fingers at the US.

“The “concentration of power” means that the elites are progressively accumulating more and more authority and control over the majority of the human race. Elites exist in both the private and public spheres and they share the common interest of violently preserving their position of dominance by suppressing any threat which may jeopardize their power.”

I will have more on this later but may I ask the author:
When was the last time in human history when elites were not in control of all the resources?
Even the communist Party, its surrogates, and bureaucrats became the elite in the only state, where some claimed to have reached the pinnacle of power with the help of non-elite.
Then isn’t the non elite only party that pays for the misdeeds or misadventures of the elite.

What was the last time a war was fought exclusively(physically) by elite?

Being poor means working for the owners- you like it or not. Orwell and his books are for poor to know exactly how they are going to be treated because it is their fault to be poor.

…And please don’t call me insensitive… I am a good paymaster.

I have already maintained that if the state is/was the Big Brother in ``communist`` societies, than the ``market`` is a bigger brother in capitalist setups. Do watch 1985`s `Brazil` for a stark, Kafka-meets-Monty-Python version of the said observation. Made me want to dig out Orwell from his grave and stick a Nokia Mobile Phone up his arse!

rgds,
NfP

Another leftist rant. Roght wing Think tanks are NOT funded by the government. No think tanks are funded by the government in a literal sense. Governments, depending on thier political orientation, may use or sponsor some activites.

Please do not make an attempt to come across as objective in your article. Also, it is rather ironic that a leftist alludes to 1984 whereas Orwell`s Animal Farm as well as 1984 were scathing crtiques of Communism and not ``right wing`` Petit Bergouise sponsored democracies.

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