Wag the Dog

re rishi

rishi, your analysis is on target.

the pakistani govt has, predictably, done nothing in response to the violation of its airspace. and in response to increasing right wing criticism, announced its 15th ammendment plans. as if...

Saima

I`m sorry but you have not (understandly `cause there are about 50) read all the replies.

Lets get some facts straightened out:

I have not said anything about Khartoum because I do not know enough about the history/politics of that region to be able to draw any sort of conclusions.

I have (neither has the US) also not said anything about the Taliban. Outside paksitan, I`m not sure how many countries even have diplomatic relations with any govt. of sorts from Afghanistan. Even the UN, RedCross, PeaceCorps were pulled out at one time. They were being attacked and killed. Osama Bin Laden is not affiliated with the Taliban.(at least not officially, unless you know some inside stuff :-) stop..before you flame me, its a joke :-). he is a Saudi banished from Saudi Arabia. There are a ton of other such merceneries from all over the world who make up a lot of these ``holy warriors``. Whose cause are they fighting for anyway ? A lot of these people are probably regular gundaa outcastes in their own countries. These foriegners have no reason to be in Afghanistan. They just capitalize on it being war torn and in a state of flux.

But still if the Taliban wants to tolerate them it is really upto them. The taliban, afterall, is made up of native Afghanis.

But when these miscreants attack people in other countires. that is a declaration of war. They have no business killing people or for that matter even being in any other country meddling in their affairs. Not once have I said anything or taken sides in the India/Kashmir dispute in this matter. In any case, foriegn killers have no place in the dispute.

Re: fair trial

YOu talk of war criminals being brought to heel, the war here is still being fought. If the Taliban were to stand up and take steps to prevent terrorists from operating on their soil I am sure the ``rest of the free world`` would have no problems.

See societies are based on common interests. One of them being nobody wants to be a victim of mindless terrorism. Almost every country in the world condemns terrorism. But since these terrorists operate from another country your local laws and means of bringing serial killers/murderers to justice do not apply. THis is war. THese people attack innocent people.

As far as ``I have asked this question elsewhere in Chowk and ask it here again; why is it that the fundamentalist muslims in Afghan target US?. Why don`t they attack other Western cultural symbols/countries too?``

HUH.... Lets see to date they themselves have claimed to have operated in Kenya, Tanzania, India, Bosnia, US, Turkey, Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia.

They are terrorists and war criminals.

You talk of political solutions, who should represent them politically. The Taliban. Pakistan, officially, does not want to acknowledge these camps and their operating through Pakistan. But they have always apprehended people and extra-dited them, at least with the US. Ramzi and Odeh were both arrested in pakistan. I can understand the official stance, though, they do not necessarily want to get involved. They would much rather be innocent bystanders rahter than tie up their lives and money to stop someone who doesn`t necessarily perceive them as an enemy. However, for countries under attack this is no less than war. How do you negotiate with a non-negotiator ?

You talk of repression and blah.....

I am confused, who is repressing who ? Would you say Osama is being opressed by Saudi Arabia ? Or are they repressing the Afghanis ?

regards

Ashish

Ashish,

Thank you for a stimulating argument:)

Point well taken, the 30 casualties of the 75 missiles as well as the khartoum factory were respectively plotting bomb strikes and chemical warfare. The USA is not responsible for anything. The same sort of people are creating trouble in Kashmir. India is not to blame. These people should be bombed because everyone knows they are extremists.

Is this what you mean? If it is than I have the following to say:

1. There are many other types of terrorists/serial killers/bad people. They get a trial in any civilized society. Even the German war criminals get a trial. The reason they get a trial is that people want to make sure they punish the right people. Since everyone is not witness to the crime, evidence has to be collected and examined.

2. I have asked this question elsewhere in Chowk and ask it here again; why is it that the fundamentalist muslims in Afghan target US?. Why don`t they attack other Western cultural symbols/countries too?

I will repeat, that in my view BG is not justifying the actions of the Taliban. To justify would be to exonerate from responsibility or to vindicate. I think what we are all trying to do is to address the question of justice; and BG is saying that we need to see what practically needs to be done to address terrorism. Also that terrorism is not an act in isolation but has many causes behind it which need political solutions rather than military. If I may add; remember the apology Clinton made to South Africans for apartheid?. I feel that this apology can be avoided 100 years later if the problems of Afghanistan are dealt politically.

I understand that you feel that external factors are to blame for the suffering of peope of India and USA. I appreciate your concern for innocent people. But, I will again say that retaliating in kind and worse, will perpetuate terrorism and not cure it. Repression is never a long-term solution for anarchy.

Regards

re ashish (again)
As Bulle Shah said,``....aiwain laddaa shaitan de naal bandeyaa, kadi nafs apne naal ladeyaa nahi``

``...you keep fighting with this external devil, yet you have never confronted the devil within``

hey, i can say it for you, for bill clinton, for the US for anyone. this doesnt really support you argument.

as a rule, i love sufi poetry, but if i am being moralized to, it`s not that pleasant.

re ashish

really ashish, you are jumping to huge conclusions here: i dont think of anyone as a kafir. lets try and not make any assumptions that are not warranted by what is being written. ;0)

re rishi
terribly sorry about confusing your name with ashish`s in writing even though the difference between the two of you as participants in this discussion is very clear in my mind. its all a part of dashing off replies in a hurry when i am supposed to be working!

re ashish.

you asked me what i think is the way to get rid of terrorism and that is why i said the US, if it is serious about getting rid of terrorism, must seriously and truthfully question its own policies in the middle east. by the way, you had no response to what i raised were problematic US policies in the Middle east.

if you think this constitutes condoning and justifying the bombing of civilians by militant islamic groups, then that is your reading. i am not implying that at all. of course, the guys who bombed the US embassies in kenya and tanzania are responsible for those acts. however, there are complex forces at work that make such ideologies and organizations attractive to a handful of muslim youth (remember there are over a billion muslims worldwide and these militants do not represent the entire muslim community). Futhermore, bombing them back IS NOT THE ANSWER. by suggesting that the US`s missile attacks are okay because they will get rid of these terrorists, YOU are supporting state terrorism, which is as bad as any terrorism in my book.

the US`s targetting of two muslim countries is just going to be perceived by the supporters of bin ladin and other muslims who might be on the fence, as yet another display of US arrogance, bullying and and victimization of muslims.

please stop twisting my words around to attack me for views i do not have. lets either stick to what`s being talked about or move on.

regards.

Re : All

To bring the article back into focus, I do agree with SR that the US President`s action is indeed a stroke of brilliance. But then the option was always there. Even clinton could not have ignored it.

Apart from the Yankee syndrome, it does spell disaster for the world community.

How can the US violate the boundaries and sovereignities of two countries (Viz., Pakistan and Afghanistan ) . Is it because one has a lackey government and the other is pretty weak in international affairs ?

The US action is justifiable (that is to go after the terrorists ) but then the method is not . Probably they should have persuaded the Afghan government to hand over bin laden to a world court or even gone through the Rambo approach. They could have even persuaded the weak kneed Pakistani government into helping them out in these scores. However Bill chose the more colourful approach for his own personal gains....? It was amazing to see Madame Albright changing her stance and that of her father in terms of relations with the Middle East though she does do the mandatory sugar coating when referring to Muslims a la Bill.

The interesting scenario awaiting to happen would not be Bin Laden`s (is the spelling right BTW ?) response (every one knows what that would be. A few more American business establishments blown up with more of Asian and African casualities, there might even be one in the KFC joints in Pakistan killing Pakistanis than Americans -- wonder how that would be perceived by some of us over here ---) but that of the Pakistani Governments. All said and done America did violate Pakistan too. Akin to disrobing a woman before raping her friend.

BG

The US did not target Muslim countries. They targeted terrorist training facilities/camps that are churning out killers.(read this in any newspaper)These killers have no respect for humanity. They respect no borders, and they wage war with whoever they like, wherever they like. These people were cold-blooded killers even when they operated only in Afghanistan and the average Afghani citizen felt the brunt of their crazed, irrational and senseless killing. They do not represent any country. There relationship to the ruling Taliban is not even clear.



Yes, these Islamocentric killers do not represent the entire Muslim and, thats why I do not (and neither did the US) hold the entire Muslim world responsible for their acts. You have to look at each incident objectively. THe US`s unfair policy in Israel, its unfair policy in Iraq/Kuwait has nothing to do with its decision to bomb Afghanistan. They all have their distinct, albeit self-righteous reasons. Likewise these terrorists (and you) should not see all those separate incidents as an attack on Islam or the entire Muslim community. Right.

You, however, argue that Americas unfair policies in some other Muslim countries brings about Islamocentric terrorist attacks on them, thereby justifying them. The reason I never got drawn into discussions about Israel, Iraq, etc. was because I was trying to stick to the topic here.

The burning question however, still is how do you deal with these crazed, cold-blooded killing machines who do not respect the laws of any other society but theirs. And they come and attack you on your soil. For a poor country like India, there is not much choice. They just send more people to the borders to try and curb them. However, America has more resources. It can remotely bomb their training facilities and freeze their finances. Its a question of choosing the lesser evil.

THe fact that they commit these heinous crimes in the name of religion, should hold them in contempt of that religion and humanity. Your ``tolerance`` of their acts amounts to SUPPORT of it. You make excuses for their behaviour instead of condemning it.

As for the poetry bit, it applies to all the Islamocentric people who refuse to see these people for what they really are, but instead see this conflict as Islamic victims of the ``arrogant and bullying US``.

``...you blame the evil US for your problems, yet you never confronted the devil within which makes you kill (anybody) in the first place``.

You do an amazing tap dance when you do not have the answers. I am calling myself a Kafir, nobody else is.

Why don`t you stick to the topic of discussion ?

re: Saima

You may need to re-read some of what I am writing. I am shedding light on the situation in Afghanistan and how it got to where it is today and providing the underlying causes for such an air-strike. It has nothing to do with Islam, or Capitalism for that matter. Its about what do you do when there is a killer on your door step who insists on coming in and killing you.

regards

Ashish ``the kafir``

Re : BG

Hey, Time out Maam. Is there some confusion about names and pseudonyms here. My views don`t necessarily correspond with Ashish.

Re : SR

I do appreciate your view. I shall do my bit to keep the focus of the article. A needless and unrelated reference to India and Kashmir triggered a needless and unrelated answer.

Re : Amin Saleh

You said :

Does India have problems in Hyderabad and Junagarh because of fundamental elements?

Reply :

Ofcourse, we do have sporadic bomb blasts by muslim extremists in Hyderabad. Even one recently. Also in southern tamilnad, Coimbatore an industrial town was recently bombed by muslim extremists who incidentally amount to less than 5% of the population. Even if my observation is wrong, still my statement about borders with pakistan being the root cause of the strife in kashmir is pretty much justified.

you said :

1) Canadian Constitution does not allow separation

2) International law does not allow separation

But:

If there is a substantial majority (which its been indicated by PM to be 67%) then the Federal Govt should sit down with the separatists and work out the conditions of separation.

Reply : You might be right . However my question was different . How would the canadian government handle the situation when a foreign power is instrumental in fomenting trouble and the whole situation is thrust under the barrel of a gun and not under parliament.

You said :

The UK government sat down with the IRA to work out the terms of defusion of tension.

Reply : a bad reply buddy. The UK government is only speaking with the IRA. They don`t even guarantee autonomy for Northern Ireland as India has done with Kashmir.

re: BG`s name

Personally what matters to me is what BG writes and not how pretty her name may be. What`s in a name?

Re: the latest reply by Ashish

I think you must re-read some of the posts on this article. the author is NOT saying that terrorist bombings are justified. ALL BG is doing is viewing the matter in its longer-term effects and searching for the underlying causes of such an out an out arbitrary action.

Re: SR

I am appalled at what is termed political brilliance but that is neither here nor there. I am more appalled at the nation who accepts such action as protecting its security. I think US citizens are more vulnerable all over the world now. First the leader embarrasses with Lewinsky then he bombs a country/group which quite certainly are capable of retaliating. Does this mean that Clinton is pretty sure that the Taliban won`t retaliate becasue they are not terrorists? That`s a slant I want to understand more.

Saima

Isn`t she giving justification of why Islamocentric people in Afghanistan want to attack the US (read an excerpt below)



BG writes

`` if the US is serious about attacks against its citizens, then it has to question why those who attack the US attack it. these terrorists dont attack canada or norway, for example. what is it about the US that is so `evil` in their eyes? ``

`` because of oil in the middle east, the US has, what i will call (again) indefensible policies in the region. foremost, its blind support of israel in the face of a global consensus against the illegal occupation by israel of 3 of its neighbours. secondly, the US`s active support of repressive, corrupt regimes in the region, primarily Saudi Arabia. And, thridly, the illegal, immoral sanctions against iraq that have killed around one million people. ``

How would you interpret that Saima.

regards

Ashish

BG

Are you actually trying to make a case for these Afghanistan based killers by saying that they have reason to hate the US (because of the US`s foreign policy elsewhere), which justifies their killing of innocent people.

Pray tell me, how their killing people in Kenya, India, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc. helps fight the cause of the Palestinians in Israel, helps Iraqis fight sanctions.

On one hand you claim to subscribe to ``two wrongs don`t make a right``, violence doesn`t get you anything, but then you go on to say these people want to attack Americans because of what the US does to other Muslims in other countries. Come on....

But how can Islamocentric people group everything where Muslims are involved together.

My cousin was killed by an Afghani muslim. Does that give me the right to walk down the street and kill the first Muslim I see. Or do I have to become Muslim and then all of a sudden its okay. I`ll atleast have a bunch of Islamocentrics defending me on the web.

...Unbelievable.

`` Uth BG suttheya, duniyaa wekhan jaa,

je koi mildaa, unhaanu baksh de

te tu bhi bakshaa jaa``

re:BG

You may disagree with the initial sequence of events and how the US and USSR in their own Communism v/s Capitalism wars got involved. In a number of places all over the world for that matter.

That, however, is not the issue. The issue here is after the US and USSR pulled out, Afghanistan slipped into Civil War. You seem to be in denial of the fact that Afghanistan had lured an amalgam of revolutionaries, united by fundamentalist Islam, just as Cuba attracted a cross section of Marxist revolutionaries in the 1970s. The warring factions drove out 1/3 rd of the Afghani population from Afghanistan. Afghanistan could have recovered, but for these extremist groups.

Do you acknowledge this sequence of events ?

Each one of these groups, by their own admission (which you can confirm in newspapers) has been operating in countries from Turkey, Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, India, Bosnia and Chechnya. They respect no borders. In the name of their religion they make war with whoever they chose, wherever they chose.

You seem to completely condone this. Especially by calling it a war between Capitalism and blah blah. That war between Capitalism and the rest of the worlds many idealogies(I will elaborate in an artiucle at some point) is also going on but has nothing to do with this particular incident. This was dealing with terrorists. People with one purpose in life, kill in the name of God. I do not believe in ``eye for an eye`` which is much touted by these Islamic extremist, who actually make open threats and deliver on them. However, I must say that I have to chose between the 2 evils. If they do something in their own land thats one thing.

Tell me, BG, what do you do when they attack you on your soil ??

I know it is easy to blame your problems on other people. But, come on, after the US and USSR pulled out it was upto these people to chose their destiny. A lot of these were foreigners in Afghanistan, yet they drove out Afghanis.

As Bulle Shah said,``....aiwain laddaa shaitan de naal bandeyaa, kadi nafs apne naal ladeyaa nahi``

``...you keep fighting with this external devil, yet you have never confronted the devil within``

Its amazing how you don`t hold these people responsible at all. Just remember, today you may feel secure because these terrorists are fellow Muslims. But a terrorist, a killer has no religion, he/she is just a killer. To this day, every newspaper carries items about people from these ``terrorist universities`` making open threats in the name of God. Yet you refuse to even acknoledge this.

You hit a nerve with this article BG. My father worked with the UNDP for 5 years in Afghanistan during which time I went their a number of times. I grew up with a number of Afghani refugees who were in school with me in India. Each one had their own story of the problems in Afghanistan, yet not one was anywhere close to what you talk about. But then, again, thats why those people were refugees.

Lastly, FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL

Ashish and Rishi are 2 separate kafirs with separate opinions and views. Please respect that

:-)

regards

Ashish

SR,

okay. since i like and respect what you write so much, i cant ignore your request. this bad name is going to stay unless umair or safwan stop accepting things under it ;0)

and, thanks for trying to bring the discussion back.

regards