It’s Time to Bomb New York

Re: Saima,

Clarification well taken

However, the reason for Pakistan being asked to exercise restraint by the US when India carried out Nuclear test was purely not guided to belittle Pakistan and Promote India.

India managed to make-a-snook ( the right word in this expression was not allowed by chowk for obvious reasons ) at the CIA and the All-powerful American diplomacy. It was actually a slap in Clinton`s face. All he or even America wanted was not another slap on their face and they were willing to compensate Pakistan for a face-saving gesture. Everyone knows that Pakistan does possess Nuclear technology and probably even a couple of missiles capable of carrying the Nuclear warheads. If the US wanted a weak Pakistan they would have managed it through by making sure that China did not help Pakistan in these areas. Beleive me , the US actually want a Pakistan which is strong enough to counter the Indians from becoming a regional bully. Otherwise none of the have`s want another have in their midst. Something like a caucus of the Rich denying another new entrant the same status. There was no bias in America`s action as far as the Nuclear bombing was considered. Now that Pakistan has detonated the naam-ke-vaste bomb to keep her citizens happy just like India did to keep hers happy, has the US move any more sanctions on her than on India ? Actually they have been pretty leniant on Pakistan than on India. Again the US action was only selfish.

You said :

In my opinion the stimulus of the nuclear tests was comparable with the US embassy bombing. I was saying USA was being hypocritical.

Reply :

How in earth are they comparable. ? India did not bomb any one and kill American citizens or for that matter innocent Africans. Yes the Americans were being hypocritical, but have they not always been so with the CTBT and the NPT.... there is nothing new here , nor is there any raison d`etre for showing bias..

You said :

The reason for comparing Saddam Hussain and Vajpayee is that both made agressive actions. Saddam by invading Kuwait and Vajpayee by detonating nuclear bombs.

Reply,

Vajpayee detonated the nuclear bomb to prop up his sagging coalition government ( well that was a brilliant move, if i borrow SR`s words ) and amazingly it worked better than Clintons Stroke ( no pun intended ). Actually India did know about Pakistan`s capability and were fully aware that Pakistan can detonate the Bomb. Actually if India wanted to belittle Pakistan , then it makes better sense not to detonate the bomb, since there was a strong possiblity of a Pakistan bomb which would make a kind of equality in the sub-continent which did not exist till then as far as the nuclear issue was concerned ( Remember that India did detonate a bomb, way back while Pakistan was not a nuclear nation ).

It was a double edged move by Vajpayee, he survived his coalition government squabbles and also propped up his image in his country, where newspaper reports carried bulletins every day on the incredibly ( !) powerful missiles named after every foreign ( and not even pakistani ) invader who had plundered the then India. And the Pakistani foreign ministers dismal claims that every citizen in India can be decimated whereever he lives in India. Actually the fact that the plunderers murdered and pillaged most of the Now Pakistan than the Now India is a different matter altogether .

I insists that it was a wrong comparison that you make here........ India`s nuclear bomb was not Pakistan centric but Jayalalitha centric ( you might understand this statement , if you are knowledgeable about India politics ).

About Kashmir, India did go back on its word on Kashmir. However, much water has flown down the Ganges or for that matter the Indus since then and the geo-political scenario has changed so much that it is no longer considered valid. To pull the allegory further the truth is only the Dal lake still holds still waters .

Otherwise a brilliant answer.

Re: Rishi

I am clarifying some of my statements;

Pakistan was asked to excercise restraint by the USA at the time India carried out Nuclear tests. In my opinion the stimulus of the nuclear tests was comparable with the US embassy bombing. I was saying USA was being hypocritical.

The reason for comparing Saddam Hussain and Vajpayee is that both made agressive actions. Saddam by invading Kuwait and Vajpayee by detonating nuclear bombs. I will not touch upon Kashmir, you must know that India did go back on its word to hold a plebescite in Kashmir. Whether a democracy did this or a dictatorship is besides the issue. The real issue is the way countries (most/all countries) fight for supremacy by compromising on ethics.

The probable reason why some aggressors are viewed differently is how the USA /the rest of the world wants to play it. NOT because one is in any way better than the other; but how threatened US interests/other countries are by the actions. I think we should at least agree on this one:)

I also want to say that having a negative opinion on the Taliban does not justify bombing them.

I wish to also say that I have the deepest respect for India as a people and as a nation. I don`t however wish to agree that India does not discriminate against its own people. There is a great fear amongst liberal Indians that India is becoming less secular and less tolerant of its people.

Re: Safdar

Thank you for your reply. I realise that the Taliban are unpopular because of their pre-historic ideals and values. But before we decide that it is okay to kill off people who think differently from us (believe me I don`t agree with the Taliban!) we have to pause to think. Osama is being given shelter by the Taliban. Osama has denied his involvement in some of the bombings and accepted others. He can be tried as an international terrorist but bombing is an option which is not only extreme but has far reaching global political ramifications ( very well highlighted by Anita Zaidi above).

I realise that the Muslim community, for that matter the Ex Third World community has to be more clever in managing itself. But we can`t leave it at that. We have to understand the role the rest of the world is playing to ensure that their share of power remains un-diluted. I believe that the Taliban are reactionary products of exploitation in the global arena. The exploited has no God but mindless revenge. The reason why I feel that the poor of the world are exploited is economic. The West is a global buyer and the East a global seller. In other words money flows into the East for sale of essential commodities; whereas most of the East purchases capital generating goods from the West. This makes them too dependent on Western technology for survival and/or competition.

I agree that the Western civilization in the last two hundred years has become the strongest power and this has been due to technological advancement; no other civilization has come close to the achievements of western agnosticism. The simple choices for the rest of the world are, to adopt western thought or exterminate the West. At this point the West does not care about the Eastern conflict or perhaps does not understand its own vulnerability.

In my opinion a solution has to be found because war/violence in some form or other threatens the entire world. I believe that USA cannot afford to use reactive means to deal with violence just because it has better technology. I hope that a Third World War may not be the only way we understand that the solution is always political never military.

Lastly, i do empathize with the Taliban, (even tho they probably would not like me), and with the bombing victims. I do so because I find the vulnerability of both forms of victimization excruciatingly sad.

Re: Anita Zaidi

Thank you for your brilliant answers.

Dear Saima,

As a thoroughly disaffected cynic as far as politics and politicians are concerned, here is how I would answer the questions you pose.

Were the bombings politically motivated? Absolutely. Does the US really champion the cause of democracy and freedom throughout the world? Of course not.

The US acts in pure self-interest - as all rulers and governments do, and have done ever since the imperial unification of Upper and Lower Egypt in about 3000 B.C. From the US point of view, the equation is simple. Where the British-appointed monarchic dynasties are alive and flourishing - the establishments remain very US friendly (examples Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE states, Iran during Shah’s time). To state the obvious, in return, these illegitimate governments get US protection. A recent (within last four weeks) essay of Edward Said’s on King Hussain of Jordan, in Newsweek comes to mind. Apparently, during the Arab-Israeli conflicts of the late sixties, Hussain had secret meetings with Golda Meir to brief her on Arab military plans. On the other hand, where monarchies have fallen by the wayside, military or quasi-military dictatorships propagated in the name of Islam exist (Libya, Syria, Iraq, now Iran). These establishments are very hostile to the US. Such hostility perpetuates their rule. Thus, given its vital oil interests in the region, there is every reason for the US to maintain the status quo in the area, and a continued military presence. If we use history as a judge, yes, they are imperialistic monopolizers- but perhaps a tad bit more humane than lets say, Alexander the Great, the Ummayids, Aurangzeb, or Nadir Shah when he sacked Dehli.

If there was no oil in the area or alternative energy sources would the US care? Of course not. Few in the US, or for that matter in the world care that millions are being killed in the Sudanese civil war, millions of Rwandans have died in their civil war, Burma has a really repressive regime, the Taliban kill their own people, India and Pakistan are engaged in mutually assured destruction - if it doesn’t affect them, its not their problem. Its that elementary! Its the kind of world we live in, have always lived in. The people who can fix these problems are people whose own vital interests are at stake. The people who live in those countries, or whose loved ones live there. Not the US. It would be naïve to expect the US to care for anything that doesn’t affect them in any major way. These countries and its people are like insects for them - if they get too annoying, its just easier to quash them with a firm hand, than to think about why it is that they are doing what they are doing. I am being very simplistic here - but when a mosquito is hovering around you for a blood meal, do you stop to think that its hungry, or do you just clap your hands to quash that little bugger.

This brings me to the question - why is national interest such a bad thing? The answer depends on which ``cause`` you think is worth fighting for. Some would say nothing (therefore one can safely predict that the Dalai Lama is never going to get Tibet back). Some would say religion; others nation; still others ideology. The common thread in all these ``causes`` is a desire for more power and more money. Through ``causes`` we can rationalize anything - whether it be razzias, atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the suppression of East Pakistan, aiding and abetting terrorists, or our own nuclear explosions in the cause of national self-interests.

Then why does the US not ``come-out`` and say that it acts purely in its national self-interest, instead of rationalizing and cloaking their actions ideologically (freedom-loving, blah, blah)? Because governments perpetuate their rule (and have always done so) by fooling their people. No one is going to come up and say, ``We do this because we and our type want to make sure that we get more power and more money.`` Its for the discerning to realize. Rulers know that nothing unites and defines people (the masses) more than erecting an oppositional identity that all can love to hate - the common enemy. Now that Americans have essentially done away with Communist threat, there is the need for another bogey man. And Islam is such a ready target. The prejudice against Islam didn’t die with the Crusades. It was kept alive by the Catholic Church, and by the likes of Voltaire and Hume. Its just below the surface, and its easy to whip up in the face of repeated onslaught of images and words that describe terrorist activities and agendas of people using Islam as their ``cause``.

We, the Islam-loving, are also similarly inclined. We too need our modern equivalents of the pillars at Mina to throw kankars at. And America, the imperialistic and guady giant of today represents the devil incarnate. If Germany, or Japan, or any of the other countries you mention would have been the Super Power of the day, it would have been the devil incarnate - anything that helps us refine our oppositional identity and rev up religious fervor will do. I predict that the Talibaan will soon be eyeing Tajikistan and Uzbekistan as territory in need of some invasion.

SR says that the bombings were a politically brilliant move. I hold two diametrically opposed views depending on my level of cynicism of the moment. Opinion one is based on the underlying assumption that the US really cares about the safety of its citizens. In this case, the bombings were clearly foolish, because many more innocent citizens will die from retaliatory acts. If on the other hand, I assume that the US doesn’t really mind that a few people are expended here and there - through terrorist acts or in military combat, then it is a brilliant move. It can act as a justifier for continuing to maintain their tremendous military capacity, their huge nuclear arsenal, their submarines in the waters, and their satellites roaming the skies. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, there has been tremendous pressure from home and abroad to make drastic cuts. Such continued military expenses seemed liked a huge over-kill. Well, here Osama bin Laden’s actions provide them a good reason (excuse) for not getting rid of much. He needs to be made out to be as big a monster as the former Soviet Union, and by God, overnight he is perceived to have become one by the American people. Brilliant!!

Anita

Re : Saima Shah

Are you actually supporting the taliban. I can understand if you oppose America`s action.. Actually even i do the same.

saying `` Poor Taliban were not good enough to risk US lives so missiles did the work of a small army.`` almost appear as if you empathize with them. And what do you empathize with them for .. because they have imprisoned their women behing the veil and the four walls, because they do not provide their women with education and even an internet access that you have....

Even as a passing remark, i found it too much not to criticize.

Safdar answers most of the questions that you have raised.

How come you are comparing Saddam and Vajpayee . For start even though i like Saddam for being himself, it is a fact that he is a dictator while Vajpayee is a democratic leader. And India did not invade another country like Iraq, nor does it poison gas its own citizens. And above all dissent is not only allowed to be practicised in India but allowed to flourish to a nauseating extent. Even Pakistan discriminated against its own citizens based on race and region (east pakistan) but In India this does not happen at all. C`mon your statement is not even worth replying to, i guess.

And anyways who is asking Pakistan to exercise restraint. What do you want pakistan to do while not exercising restraint , Nuke India ? Is anything but restraint feasible for Pakistan and for that matter even India... What are you talking here .......

And if kashmir had oil or not the US would still follow the same policy, because with India they are dealing with the worlds largest democracy and the second largest asian ethnic population within their own country and above all India is also considerably powerful militarily... Now don`t go comparing india and Pakistan ,, this answer is not Pakistan centric , like yours was india centric.

What i do not understand is why you guys can`t deal with issues at the right perspective and have to keep harping on India even where comparisons are odious....

Saima, after your previous postings, i expected better of you

take care

Re: safdar

Leaving the women beaters, and beard inspectors aside ... they truly are misguided.

Until there is irrefutable proof that a certain group/individual was responsible for embassy bombings ... lets not label them ... Innocent until proven guilty? or is that in Utopia?

:)

Peace to you too!

ArtZ

saima,

just came across your post here. what can i say, my heart resonates.

Re: Saima

I fail to understand what the crux of your argument/opinion is. Is it that the US should have fought a ground battle with the taliban instead of bombing them ? You go on to say that the maybe the US does not consider the taliban worthy enough for a true battle and thus used bombs so that they could hit their targets from far away. The question is: so what ? In war there is no shame, one fights to subdue and win.

But I digress, my main point here is that the Taliban have provided shelter to Osama under their tribal laws- As far as proof of Osama`s activities, Osama himself states that the US should be attacked on all fronts (including civilians), and calls for these attacks and aggression until the US leaves the holy lands Makkah/Medina. Osama should be bombing and killing the Saudi Royal family if he wants the US to leave Saudi Arabia (sarc)- The Saudi rulers are the ones who have allowed the US on their soil for their own protection against whackos like Saddam.

Simple answers to your simple questions:

1. If Laden did these bombings (Taliban did not, and they have asked Laden to shut his lid and not spew any more garbage from Afghanistan - good for them), his goal as stated by himself is for the US to leave Saudi Arabia/Holy lands.

2. Why don`t the US go away ?- For one their interests are in that region (oil), and secondly the Saudi rulers want them their for protection of their interests (staying in power etc.)- And no it is not a much less expensive option- because if anyone causes trouble they can blow them sky high, from miles away. And America knows that one has to sacrifice/take some risk to achieve one`s goals.

3. Saddam is not a bad guy to the Americans- he is a bad guy mostly for his own people and to his neighbours- To the Americans he is the idiot who fought a war while knowing he had no chance of winning and who gave the Americans the opportunity to maintain their presence in the region, by being invited to help by the Saudis- Saddam invaded Kuwait (a separate country).

Vajpayee is after his own nation`s interests (isn`t every leader ?), but the difference is that he is not stupid- Only stupid people get branded as terrorists, due to their idiotic actions which cost their people lives and put them through so much pain. India in past wars has had a chance to overrun Pakistan (our valiant soldiers are not invincible!)- but India is intelligent enough to know that, they would be labeled as a rogue nation, would have many problems on their hands (the pakistanis) and possibly would be attacked by others- Vajpayee is smarter than Saddam, that makes a big difference.

I won`t go on, but I hope you get the idea- Its about ones interests/selfish reasons and intelligence. Until the intelligent muslims get their act together, they will have to continually mediate, interpret, and defend the actions of the idiotic illiterate moulvi muslims.

Lets not defend people who kill embassy workers secretly by bombs, who kill Indian laborers/families in Kashmir, who kill tourists in Egypt, who beat women in Afghanistan for leaving their homes without an escort and men for not having the prescribed length of beard, and who call on others to kill civilians-

And if we choose to criticize the Americans for their terrorist attacks in Sudan and Afghanistan, lets also criticize the fools who are invloved in the activities mentioned in the prev. para- In short lets be impartial and not give any terrorists a break just because they are muslim or are fighting for some vague muslim cause.

Peace

The selfishness of America is of such a profound level that it has reached a quasi-divinity. In CIA`s latest revelation (the same one who goofed up India`s tests) the `state` of fundamentalist Muslims was seen plotting against the interests of Mr Bill Clinton.

Rationalization casts a cloak of `reason` over the most arbitrary displays of power.

Poor Taliban were not good enough to risk US lives so missiles did the work of a small army. It provided Instant gratification for the US; it is so easy to kill from across a continent; why bother with fair combat? The Taliban don`t deserve it.

The Taliban don`t even deserve making sure they did bomb those embassies.

The US ideals of justice and fair play seem restricted to US citizens only. For me this is a sort of apartheid; this is a form of fascism; this is a form of cowardice.

IF truly the Islamic fundamentalists are so fundamentalist, how come it is only the US they target? Why not Japan? Why not communist China? why not Colonial Britain? Why not Australia? Why not Germany? Why not some nudist colony??

Maybe my questions are simplistic, but I want to ask them anyway:

1. /IF/ it is the Taliban/Laden who did those bombings, why are they doing it? Why do they accord the US such an accolade?

2. If it is because of the US`s presence in Saudi Arabia, why don;t they go away? Isn`t that a much less expensive option rather than risking the lives of its non-`expendable Citizens?

3. Why is Saddam such a bad guy and Vajpayee not so? Kuwait is `helped` against aggression but Pakistan is told to exercise restraint?

4. If Kashmir were found to have oil, who would the USA `help`?.

5. What would happen if someone discovered alternative energy and the importance of oil fell?

would the US bother with Saddam, chemical weapons?.

Re : Sri

I can understand and appreciate most of what you have said here except your subservient attitude towards the whites just because they are taller, more beautiful , fairer --- etc., etc., , C`mon give me a break, OK

I would never look up at a race nor would i look down on another one. Do remember that the moment you start thinking that another race is superior, you would start hunting for an inferior race to straigtenup your deflated ego. An inferiority complex is a precursor for a superiority complex.......and both are nonsense.

Ashish dear,

One question, DO you have ANY evidence of the involvement of ``Islamic terrorists`` in bombings other than CIA`s ``claims``?

I understand and share the author`s view of US `facism`, arrogance, selfishness and ah Yes! the Borg syndrome americans seem to be suffering from (thanks, Kafir!)

Re: Kafir

I couldn`t have put it more clearly!

Suds

Do you even acknowledge the fact that the WTC was bombed by Islamic terrorists ?

Do you acknowledge the fact that American embassies were bombed by Islamic terrorists ?

Before you launch your verbal terrorist strike on me, I am against any sort of violence. For me 2 wrongs don`t make a right.

regards

Ashish

hmmm.....i agree with most of it but how does your stereotyping all americans as islam hating ``whities`` make your prejudice any better?

With the death of communism, capitalism is on the look out for an enemy and Islam fits the Bill (no pun intended). Islam focusses on social organisation, drinking, dress, criminal law etc. the usual domain of secular views. Capitalism has moved away from its concern about the ownership of means of production because of the widespread capital ownership and inturn is concentrating on the social aspects, corruption (Indonesia), military dictatorship (Burma) and the like. Islam is the only competing social organiser with the other religions having retreated to the realms of spirituality.

While I sympathize with your anger at American unjustified aggression, I think you cross the line of fairness when you make this an issue of racism:

``Is this all deep-rooted racism? Not specifically based on color, however, one gets the sense that America views Muslims as offensive ``blackies`` that need to be either painted white or removed effectively just as a pimple is popped.``

Many white Americans are opposed to the US bombings and the transgression of international law, though they don`t get nearly the same amount of media time as the smug, patriotic cheerleaders. Many Muslims are also white. The problem is the lack of education about world politics and cultural differences that the American populace suffers from. Most Americans are too busy in their own lives to take the time listen to the real grievances of the Muslim world. They end up swallowing whatever the corporate-run TV, radio, and journalistic media feed them. And since corporations are only interested in expanding American political and economic hegemony across the world, they`ll never question the fairness of American foreign policy.

America doesn`t have any specific hatred of Muslims as a people or religion. As a government, it simply acts in its own selfish interests and knocks down whoever gets in its way, be it a Muslim nation, an Asian nation, or a Latin American nation. Because many of America`s economic and geopolitical (pro-Israel) interests lie in predominantly Muslim countries, Muslims appear to be the frequent target of American bullying. In reality, though, America is like the Borg. It doesn`t care who you are. You will be assimilated to serve its ends. Resistance is futile.

The article states at the end, an action plan for a few avuncular global politicians/buffoons to teach USA a lesson leaving the same bad after taste (excuse me for choice of words more suitable for Miss Lewinsky):

As Pakistan is itself a nuclear force to be reckoned with, and therefore the suggestion was made:

``... Mr. Nawaz Sharif: Los Alamos, New Mexico. As the world`s newest nuclear power, honor the gods of the atom bomb and get rid of the place where all this madness started. Most importantly, I don`t think you could botch up such an easy target, right?``

Wanna bet?????

Regards

Asim