Military Action Begins in Afghanistan http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/oct2001-daily/14-10-2001/main/main3.htm

Musharraf among patrons of Rabita Trust: US

By Amir Mateen

WASHINGTON: US authorities say President Pervez Musharraf was one of the patrons of Rabita Trust, a charity organisation whose assets have been frozen by the US because of its links with Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organisation.

US officials said on Friday they had warned Musharraf of the impending order against the Rabita Trust and encouraged him to disassociate himself from what they described as its founder`s links to Al Qaeda.

The new list of 39 individuals and groups, which adds to 27 identified in a White House executive order last month, also named Jaish-i-Mohammad and four Pakistani individuals. The Rabita Trust has helped resettle refugees from Bangladesh to Pakistan for three decades. It had President Musharraf, among many other prominent Pakistani philanthropists, on its board. The main charge against the Rabita is that its secretary-general, Wael Hamza Jalaidan, was allegedly an original founder of Al Qaeda along with Osama bin Laden.

Some of the names enlisted by US authorities - including those of bakeries and corner honey shops -- may have raised some doubts about its credibility. Nevertheless, the naming of a havala dealer, Haji Abdul Mannan confirms about the impending crackdown on hawala and hundi dealers all over the world, particularly in Pakistan. US authorities are investigating if Al Qaeda used hundi system for their transactions.

Besides, Mufti Rashid of Al Rashid Trust, there are the names of Mohammad Zia and Dr Amin al Haq, described as an Afghan-born doctor practicing in Pakistan. He is believed to be security coordinator for Osama. The diplomatic sensitivity of Musharraf`s relation to the Rabita Trust was evident in the State Department`s handling of news inquiries about his role. A report in The New York Time said US officials initially drafted a standard response noting Musharraf`s involvement and making clear he was a well-respected figure with no knowledge of what it called al Qaeda`s `infiltration` of the trust. But later dropped any reference to Musharraf from its prepared response.

A State Department official said the Rabita Trust is ``a highly regarded Islamic trust with several prominent board members``. ``Our feeling is that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda deliberately infiltrated the Rabita Trust and corrupted a reputable organization,`` the official said and added: ``We don`t think the prominent people who have their names on it were aware of the infiltration.``

It acknowledges that Rabita Trust is affiliated with a Pan Islamic organisation Rabita Alam-e-Islami, which is known in different countries with different names. In Pakistan, they have links with Jamaat-i-Islami. US authorities claim it has a multibillion-dollar budget financed by many wealthy Saudis.

Many Muslims scholars have protested over the accusation. Mustafa Alani, a British expert on Islamic groups, expressed shock that the US government listed the Rabita Trust, given its ties to a revered, decades-old charity. ``I am surprised, to say the least,`` he told The Times. ``This could turn into a witch hunt. This will make many Islamic foundations very nervous,`` he added.

The Treasury Department said the Rabita Trust`s secretary-general is Wa`el Hamza Jalaidan, whom it described as ``logistics chief`` and co-founder of Bin Laden`s organisation. Jalaidan lived in Arizona in the early 1980s and headed an Islamic centre there before joining Bin Laden in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, terrorism expert Emerson said.

The list also names some of the biggest names in Saudi Royal family and may affect the US relations with Riyadh. It names Yasin al-Qadi, a Saudi businessman who has run a foundation with trustees that have included some of the kingdom`s most prominent families.

The Washington Post points out that the new list puts increased pressure on both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two countries whose help the United States has solicited in its war against terrorism. Today`s list, says the report, ups the ante by naming individuals and groups tied to countries considered vital in the alliance against terrorism.

Jihad: Paradoxes and Defining Moments http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/oct2001-daily/14-10-2001/main/main3.htm

Musharraf among patrons of Rabita Trust: US

By Amir Mateen

WASHINGTON: US authorities say President Pervez Musharraf was one of the patrons of Rabita Trust, a charity organisation whose assets have been frozen by the US because of its links with Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organisation.

US officials said on Friday they had warned Musharraf of the impending order against the Rabita Trust and encouraged him to disassociate himself from what they described as its founder`s links to Al Qaeda.

The new list of 39 individuals and groups, which adds to 27 identified in a White House executive order last month, also named Jaish-i-Mohammad and four Pakistani individuals. The Rabita Trust has helped resettle refugees from Bangladesh to Pakistan for three decades. It had President Musharraf, among many other prominent Pakistani philanthropists, on its board. The main charge against the Rabita is that its secretary-general, Wael Hamza Jalaidan, was allegedly an original founder of Al Qaeda along with Osama bin Laden.

Some of the names enlisted by US authorities - including those of bakeries and corner honey shops -- may have raised some doubts about its credibility. Nevertheless, the naming of a havala dealer, Haji Abdul Mannan confirms about the impending crackdown on hawala and hundi dealers all over the world, particularly in Pakistan. US authorities are investigating if Al Qaeda used hundi system for their transactions.

Besides, Mufti Rashid of Al Rashid Trust, there are the names of Mohammad Zia and Dr Amin al Haq, described as an Afghan-born doctor practicing in Pakistan. He is believed to be security coordinator for Osama. The diplomatic sensitivity of Musharraf`s relation to the Rabita Trust was evident in the State Department`s handling of news inquiries about his role. A report in The New York Time said US officials initially drafted a standard response noting Musharraf`s involvement and making clear he was a well-respected figure with no knowledge of what it called al Qaeda`s `infiltration` of the trust. But later dropped any reference to Musharraf from its prepared response.

A State Department official said the Rabita Trust is ``a highly regarded Islamic trust with several prominent board members``. ``Our feeling is that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda deliberately infiltrated the Rabita Trust and corrupted a reputable organization,`` the official said and added: ``We don`t think the prominent people who have their names on it were aware of the infiltration.``

It acknowledges that Rabita Trust is affiliated with a Pan Islamic organisation Rabita Alam-e-Islami, which is known in different countries with different names. In Pakistan, they have links with Jamaat-i-Islami. US authorities claim it has a multibillion-dollar budget financed by many wealthy Saudis.

Many Muslims scholars have protested over the accusation. Mustafa Alani, a British expert on Islamic groups, expressed shock that the US government listed the Rabita Trust, given its ties to a revered, decades-old charity. ``I am surprised, to say the least,`` he told The Times. ``This could turn into a witch hunt. This will make many Islamic foundations very nervous,`` he added.

The Treasury Department said the Rabita Trust`s secretary-general is Wa`el Hamza Jalaidan, whom it described as ``logistics chief`` and co-founder of Bin Laden`s organisation. Jalaidan lived in Arizona in the early 1980s and headed an Islamic centre there before joining Bin Laden in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, terrorism expert Emerson said.

The list also names some of the biggest names in Saudi Royal family and may affect the US relations with Riyadh. It names Yasin al-Qadi, a Saudi businessman who has run a foundation with trustees that have included some of the kingdom`s most prominent families.

The Washington Post points out that the new list puts increased pressure on both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two countries whose help the United States has solicited in its war against terrorism. Today`s list, says the report, ups the ante by naming individuals and groups tied to countries considered vital in the alliance against terrorism.

Black Tuesday: The View From Islamabad http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/01/inv.pakistan.funds/index.html

Sources: Suspected terrorist leader was wired funds through Pakistan

October 1, 2001 Posted: 11:00 AM EDT (1500 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As much as $100,000 was wired in the past year from Pakistan to Mohamed Atta, the suspected leader of the terrorist hijackings, CNN has been told by law enforcement sources.

Pakistan is a common conduit for money going in and out of Afghanistan, home to Islamic militant Osama bin Laden, the leading suspect in the attacks. But at this point it`s not known exactly where the funds may have originated.









Sources said the wire transfers from Pakistan were sent to Atta through two banks in Florida. Then, Atta allegedly would obtain money orders -- a few thousand dollars at a time -- to distribute to others involved in the plot in the months before the hijackings.

Atta lived in Florida much of that time. He took flight training on the west coast of Florida in the summer of 2000, and then rented a series of apartments in the Miami and Fort Lauderdale area this year.

Meanwhile, sources in the Middle East confirm that Atta and two other men wired more than $15,000 back to the United Arab Emirates just before the attacks -- what may have been leftover cash from the terrorism funds.

The money went to a man who flew out of Dubai for Karachi, Pakistan, on September 11 -- the day of the attack.

Atta sent $5,000, according to the sources. His Florida roommate, Marwan Al-shehhi, wired $5,400. A third man, Waleed Alshehri, sent slightly more than $5,200.

The FBI has listed all three as being aboard the two planes hijacked in Boston and flown into the World Trade Center. Atta and Al-shehhi are thought to have been the pilots on those two jetliners.

Officials in the United Arab Emirates have identified the recipient of those wire transfers as Mustapha Ahmad Al-Hawsawi. They are investigating whether he may have any ties to Al Qaeda, the terror network headed by bin Laden.

The transfers took place September 8 and 9 -- only a couple days before the hijackings.

In Punta Gorda, Florida, the owner of The Shipping Post told CNN that Atta and one unidentified associate came into her store several times between mid-July and mid-August and purchased money orders on at least two occasions.

``He was very cold,`` said Jeanne Waldorf. ``Most people are friendly and cordial, and he certainly was not.``

Waldorf did not recall the total value of the money orders, but said they were made out in denominations of $100 and $200. She said the men paid cash for the money orders, and she had no idea where the orders were eventually sent. She said the men had visited her store between two and six times.

Atta attended an aviation school in Venice, Florida, which is just north of Punta Gorda.

From CNN Correspondents Susan Candiotti in Washington, Rym Brahimi in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and CNN Producer Rich Phillips in Miami.

Jihad: Paradoxes and Defining Moments http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/01/inv.pakistan.funds/index.html

Sources: Suspected terrorist leader was wired funds through Pakistan

October 1, 2001 Posted: 11:00 AM EDT (1500 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As much as $100,000 was wired in the past year from Pakistan to Mohamed Atta, the suspected leader of the terrorist hijackings, CNN has been told by law enforcement sources.

Pakistan is a common conduit for money going in and out of Afghanistan, home to Islamic militant Osama bin Laden, the leading suspect in the attacks. But at this point it`s not known exactly where the funds may have originated.









Sources said the wire transfers from Pakistan were sent to Atta through two banks in Florida. Then, Atta allegedly would obtain money orders -- a few thousand dollars at a time -- to distribute to others involved in the plot in the months before the hijackings.

Atta lived in Florida much of that time. He took flight training on the west coast of Florida in the summer of 2000, and then rented a series of apartments in the Miami and Fort Lauderdale area this year.

Meanwhile, sources in the Middle East confirm that Atta and two other men wired more than $15,000 back to the United Arab Emirates just before the attacks -- what may have been leftover cash from the terrorism funds.

The money went to a man who flew out of Dubai for Karachi, Pakistan, on September 11 -- the day of the attack.

Atta sent $5,000, according to the sources. His Florida roommate, Marwan Al-shehhi, wired $5,400. A third man, Waleed Alshehri, sent slightly more than $5,200.

The FBI has listed all three as being aboard the two planes hijacked in Boston and flown into the World Trade Center. Atta and Al-shehhi are thought to have been the pilots on those two jetliners.

Officials in the United Arab Emirates have identified the recipient of those wire transfers as Mustapha Ahmad Al-Hawsawi. They are investigating whether he may have any ties to Al Qaeda, the terror network headed by bin Laden.

The transfers took place September 8 and 9 -- only a couple days before the hijackings.

In Punta Gorda, Florida, the owner of The Shipping Post told CNN that Atta and one unidentified associate came into her store several times between mid-July and mid-August and purchased money orders on at least two occasions.

``He was very cold,`` said Jeanne Waldorf. ``Most people are friendly and cordial, and he certainly was not.``

Waldorf did not recall the total value of the money orders, but said they were made out in denominations of $100 and $200. She said the men paid cash for the money orders, and she had no idea where the orders were eventually sent. She said the men had visited her store between two and six times.

Atta attended an aviation school in Venice, Florida, which is just north of Punta Gorda.

From CNN Correspondents Susan Candiotti in Washington, Rym Brahimi in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and CNN Producer Rich Phillips in Miami.

Jihad: Paradoxes and Defining Moments YLH:

SHAME is not written by Salman Rushdie but by Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen. It has been translated in Hindi, Urdu, Marathi and other Indian languages.

Caught In Between Afghanistan`s Atmosphere Of Mistrust U.S. Looks for Partners In a Region of Rivals

By Peter Baker

Washington Post Foreign Service

Thursday, September 27, 2001; Page A01

JABAL SARAJ, Afghanistan, Sept. 26 -- Inside the compound that houses his rebel regiment, Gen. Mohammad Aref readies for what could be the final act of a long civil war with the ruling Taliban. He is prepared for a tough battle. He is prepared to fight alongside the United States. But he is not prepared to trust America`s ally

over the border.

``To trust Pakistan is difficult,`` Aref explained

today, ``because Taliban means Pakistan.``

Here in rebel-controlled northeastern Afghanistan, the suspicion and even hatred of Pakistan runs deep because of its role as prime patron of the radical Taliban, which has ruled most of Afghanistan for five years. The feeling

is mutual in Islamabad, Pakistan`s capital, where the Pakistani foreign minister this week warned the United States not to team up with the Afghan rebels, known as the Northern Alliance.

The enmity is a challenge for the Bush administration as it assembles a coalition to retaliate against the Taliban for harboring Osama bin Laden, the chief suspect in the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the

Pentagon. The United States wants to use bases in

Pakistan for possible strikes against Afghanistan, and it may support the Northern Alliance`s ground troops in their fight against the Taliban. But those two most important potential U.S. partners regard each other as blood enemies.

Even if the hostility is finessed in the short term, it promises delicate problems down the road. If the Taliban is dislodged, as President Bush has suggested is a U.S. aim, the formation of any new government in Kabul under the Northern Alliance is bound to foster tension and possibly destabilization in an already troubled region.

Pakistan worries that an unfriendly Afghan government dominated by the rebels would threaten its security as it faces a politically hostile India on its other flank. Some analysts believe that victory by the Northern Alliance could even trigger a backlash among Islamic militants in Pakistan that could threaten the government

of Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Because both India and Pakistan possess nuclear weapons, turmoil in the region could become a global crisis.

Nearly every country in Central Asia claims important stakes in the fortunes of the Northern Alliance. India, which contests the Kashmir region with Pakistan, has provided money and weapons to the northern fighters.

Shiite Muslim Iran, which despises the Sunni Muslim Taliban, also has supported the Northern Alliance, providing arms and training.

Russia, fearful of the spread of the Taliban`s brand of Islam into former Soviet republics on its border, has provided financial, military and logistical support to the Northern Alliance -- all of whose primary commanders fought Soviet forces that occupied Afghanistan in the

1980s. However, most Central Asian states have been wary of direct support to the rebels. In recent years, several have made diplomatic overtures to the Taliban in efforts to seek a peace settlement.

It is uncertain how closely the United States will work with the Northern Alliance. Abdullah, a top alliance official who like many Afghans uses just one name, said today that contacts with U.S. officials had increased in recent days. He hinted that the rebels had given Washington a list of potential bombing targets that

presumably includes air bases and other military

installations.

But suggesting that Washington has so far withheld any commitment, Abdullah solicited U.S. assistance: ``We deserve this, and we have the right to get this support.``

The Northern Alliance represents a coalition of ethnic and political factions that banded together to resist the Taliban, which has imposed its rigid interpretation of Islam on most of the country. A major component of the alliance is the former Afghan government that the Taliban

drove from Kabul, the capital, in 1996.

The rebels control 10 percent or less of Afghanistan but say they have 15,000 armed fighters and an intimate knowledge of the territory that could be invaluable for

the U.S. military.

By themselves, the guerrillas might never defeat the Taliban. Despite a new push to recapture the strategic northern city of Mazar-e Sharif, and reports today of taking a nearby district, they have failed over five years to seriously threaten Kabul. But the prospect of a U.S. military operation has changed that equation.

The alliance still considers itself the rightful

government of Afghanistan -- Abdullah, for instance, holds the title of foreign minister -- but the group has moved in recent days to ease concerns that it expects to simply take over if the Taliban is ousted by the United

States.

A rebel delegation was heading to Rome today to meet with former Afghan king Mohammed Zahir Shah and overseas Afghan interest groups to begin discussing a post-Taliban government. Zahir Shah, the last of the Durrani dynasty that ruled Afghanistan for more than 200 years, was on

the throne for 40 years. He was deposed in 1973 by his brother-in-law, who established a republic and exiled the monarch to Rome.

If the Taliban is brought down, the rebels said, they plan to establish an interim government that would include various political blocs to establish order, draft a constitution and schedule elections. ``We will be a major factor`` in this temporary government, said Abdullah. But ``all other groups that share these

values should participate.

``What we want to see is a moderate Islamic country where democracy would be the rule of the game,`` he added. ``The will of the people should be accepted, and the rights of the people, women and men,``

protected. ``The people should decide who to go with

and who not.``

His comments came a day after Pakistani Foreign Minister Abdus Sattar told reporters in Islamabad that the United States should not choose sides between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. ``We must not make the blunder

of trying to foist a government on the people of

Afghanistan,`` he said. ``We fear that any such

decision on the part of foreign powers to give assistance

to one side or the other in Afghanistan is a recipe for

great disaster for the people of Afghanistan.``

The relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan has been complicated for years. The United States used Pakistan to manage its proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. After five years of chaos following the Russians` withdrawal, Islamabad intervened on behalf of the Taliban.

In recent years, Pakistan has given the Taliban tens of millions of dollars in aid, from wheat and fuel to funds for the salaries of its government officials; on behalf of the Taliban, Pakistan set up a telephone network,

repaired roads, provided electricity, overhauled aircraft and helped establish a national radio station in Afghanistan. In exchange, Pakistan used Afghanistan for its own purposes, such as training militants there for the conflict with India in Kashmir.

But the Taliban resisted subservience and began

manipulating its patron. It established a trade scheme that cost Pakistan millions of dollars in customs fees while allegedly enriching Afghan bandits. The Taliban has used Pakistani intelligence and military in the ongoing

civil war, according to rebel generals. The rebels say 500 of the 2,500 Taliban defenders on the Kabul front are Pakistanis. Pakistan has refused to cut diplomatic ties to the Taliban, and now it is the only country that still

recognizes the Afghan government.

Here in Jabal Saraj, 45 miles north of Kabul, Abdullah scoffed at Sattar`s invocation against foreign involvement, noting that Pakistan had interfered in Afghan affairs for years.

He accused Pakistan of deceiving the United States by targeting only enough terrorist elements to satisfy Washington. ``My fear is Pakistan will decide which terrorists are its `good terrorists` and `bad terrorists`

and keep some terrorists for the future. This would be a disaster. Pakistan is trying to keep its influence by keeping a part of the Taliban force in place in Afghanistan.``

The close ties make the Taliban and Pakistani governments indistinguishable to many in the Afghan opposition. From regimental commanders to everyday residents, Afghans living in rebel-held territory often volunteer harsher recriminations toward Pakistan than toward the Taliban.

Nasser Bakhshi, a rebel official in the town of Khoja Bahauddin, subscribes to a simple formula for victory in the civil war. ``If Pakistan stops helping, we would win,`` he said.

Mirakhman, a rebel commander at the front lines north of Kabul, offered a similar assessment when asked the prospects for retaking the capital if the United States bombs Afghanistan.

``You have to destroy Pakistan,`` he said.

``Then we`ll go to Kabul.``

Caught In Between http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/010925/khhtsyvoqywiyjo4d5agpq_1.html

BusinessWeek Online

DAILY BRIEFING -- Don`t Just Read His Lips

Daily Briefing

By Howard Gleckman

President Bush has made a breathtaking promise. ``Our war on terrorism,`` he told a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, ``will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.`` And, repeating a theme he has sounded since the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Bush grimly warned that ``any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.``

These are powerful words of extraordinary importance. And they appear to have enormous support within the U.S. Polls show more than 90% of Americans back the President`s efforts. Unfortunately, these are vows that the President cannot keep. More troubling, U.S. diplomatic actions since his impassioned speech suggest the White House has no intention of even trying.

John Mitchell, who was Richard Nixon`s hard-nosed attorney general, used to tell reporters, ``Watch what I do, not what I say.`` If you apply the Mitchell Rule to the Bush Administration, it`s clear that the White House`s goals are quite different from its rhetoric. Rather than really trying to end terrorism around the world, it is actually aiming at a much narrower target: To destroy Osama bin Laden and his network. And to pull this off, the Bush White House seems prepared to make peace with the very sponsors of terror it promises to defeat.

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS. The list of countries around the world that harbor, finance, and arm terrorist groups is hardly a secret. The U.S. State Dept. puts out its own annual report on the subject that names, among others, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Libya as leading state sponsors of terrorism. For its own political reasons, the State Dept. leaves two other governments off its list -- Pakistan and Yassir Arafat`s Palestinian Authority -- but their use of cross-border terrorism is evident to anyone who reads a newspaper on a regular basis.

Who is the U.S. trying to enlist in its battle against terrorism? Among others, Syria, Iran, the Palestinian Authority, and Pakistan. It is very likely that the U.S. has already promised a bundle of financial aid to the generals who run Pakistan. And it is a good bet they will use some of those funds to continue their terror campaign in neighboring Kashmir.

It`s the same story with Syria. For decades, that country has used radical groups, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah, as an integral part of its foreign policy. These groups, of course, are best known for their almost daily terror attacks in Israel. But their activities go far beyond their war against the Jewish State. Hezbollah, for example, bombed a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1984, killing 241 Marine, Navy, and Army personnel. In 1996, a Saudi chapter of the group participated in the bombing of the Khobar Towers, an apartment building in Saudi Arabia, killing another 19 Americans.

Hezbollah gets weapons and funding from Iran, funneled through Syria. It has free rein to operate in Lebanon, now little more than a client state of Syria. And, not surprisingly, the group has close ties with bin Laden.

LIP SERVICE? The list of countries that, in one way or another, back international terrorism doesn`t stop with the obvious cases. It also includes Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States, which provide much of the funding for these terror groups. The governments in these countries are terrified of Islamic radicals, so they have made a deal with them. They look the other way while terrorists raise hundreds of millions of dollars from private citizens. In return, the groups agree to operate somewhere else.

Then, there are nations, such as China and France, that without a second thought, sell arms -- directly or indirectly -- to terrorist organizations. Sometimes, the weapons go through Iran, Iraq, or Syria, but all involved know the ultimate destinations.

The White House says things are different now. It even suggests that countries such as Syria, Pakistan, and Iran are going to change their behavior and turn their backs on terror. But people such as Secretary of State Colin Powell know better than that. More likely, these nations will give little more than lip service to the U.S. effort to kill bin Laden. And even that will end once the first civilian casualties are inflicted.

BITTER HARVEST. Yet in its effort to buy the loyalty of these nations, the White House has already lifted its long-standing arms embargoes against Iran, Syria, and Pakistan. Think about it for a moment: A decade ago, the U.S. armed bin Laden and the Taliban to enlist their support against what was then our Enemy #1 -- the Soviet Union. Today, we are reaping that painful harvest. Now, we are about to do exactly the same with states such as Iran and Syria -- help re-arm them to fight what we have identified as our new Enemy #1 -- none other than bin Laden himself.

With money, luck, and probably at some cost in American lives, the Bush Administration may kill bin Laden. And the world will be a better place for it. But will it be rid of terrorism? Not likely -- especially since the White House is cozying up to the very states that have made suicide bombings a routine instrument of their foreign policy. Bush has made a promise he cannot keep -- and one we may all regret.

Go to www.businessweek.com to see all of our latest stories.

Caught In Between http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/010925/khhtsyvoqywiyjo4d5agpq_1.html

BusinessWeek Online

DAILY BRIEFING -- Don`t Just Read His Lips

Daily Briefing

By Howard Gleckman

President Bush has made a breathtaking promise. ``Our war on terrorism,`` he told a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, ``will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.`` And, repeating a theme he has sounded since the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Bush grimly warned that ``any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.``

These are powerful words of extraordinary importance. And they appear to have enormous support within the U.S. Polls show more than 90% of Americans back the President`s efforts. Unfortunately, these are vows that the President cannot keep. More troubling, U.S. diplomatic actions since his impassioned speech suggest the White House has no intention of even trying.

John Mitchell, who was Richard Nixon`s hard-nosed attorney general, used to tell reporters, ``Watch what I do, not what I say.`` If you apply the Mitchell Rule to the Bush Administration, it`s clear that the White House`s goals are quite different from its rhetoric. Rather than really trying to end terrorism around the world, it is actually aiming at a much narrower target: To destroy Osama bin Laden and his network. And to pull this off, the Bush White House seems prepared to make peace with the very sponsors of terror it promises to defeat.

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS. The list of countries around the world that harbor, finance, and arm terrorist groups is hardly a secret. The U.S. State Dept. puts out its own annual report on the subject that names, among others, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Libya as leading state sponsors of terrorism. For its own political reasons, the State Dept. leaves two other governments off its list -- Pakistan and Yassir Arafat`s Palestinian Authority -- but their use of cross-border terrorism is evident to anyone who reads a newspaper on a regular basis.

Who is the U.S. trying to enlist in its battle against terrorism? Among others, Syria, Iran, the Palestinian Authority, and Pakistan. It is very likely that the U.S. has already promised a bundle of financial aid to the generals who run Pakistan. And it is a good bet they will use some of those funds to continue their terror campaign in neighboring Kashmir.

It`s the same story with Syria. For decades, that country has used radical groups, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah, as an integral part of its foreign policy. These groups, of course, are best known for their almost daily terror attacks in Israel. But their activities go far beyond their war against the Jewish State. Hezbollah, for example, bombed a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1984, killing 241 Marine, Navy, and Army personnel. In 1996, a Saudi chapter of the group participated in the bombing of the Khobar Towers, an apartment building in Saudi Arabia, killing another 19 Americans.

Hezbollah gets weapons and funding from Iran, funneled through Syria. It has free rein to operate in Lebanon, now little more than a client state of Syria. And, not surprisingly, the group has close ties with bin Laden.

LIP SERVICE? The list of countries that, in one way or another, back international terrorism doesn`t stop with the obvious cases. It also includes Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States, which provide much of the funding for these terror groups. The governments in these countries are terrified of Islamic radicals, so they have made a deal with them. They look the other way while terrorists raise hundreds of millions of dollars from private citizens. In return, the groups agree to operate somewhere else.

Then, there are nations, such as China and France, that without a second thought, sell arms -- directly or indirectly -- to terrorist organizations. Sometimes, the weapons go through Iran, Iraq, or Syria, but all involved know the ultimate destinations.

The White House says things are different now. It even suggests that countries such as Syria, Pakistan, and Iran are going to change their behavior and turn their backs on terror. But people such as Secretary of State Colin Powell know better than that. More likely, these nations will give little more than lip service to the U.S. effort to kill bin Laden. And even that will end once the first civilian casualties are inflicted.

BITTER HARVEST. Yet in its effort to buy the loyalty of these nations, the White House has already lifted its long-standing arms embargoes against Iran, Syria, and Pakistan. Think about it for a moment: A decade ago, the U.S. armed bin Laden and the Taliban to enlist their support against what was then our Enemy #1 -- the Soviet Union. Today, we are reaping that painful harvest. Now, we are about to do exactly the same with states such as Iran and Syria -- help re-arm them to fight what we have identified as our new Enemy #1 -- none other than bin Laden himself.

With money, luck, and probably at some cost in American lives, the Bush Administration may kill bin Laden. And the world will be a better place for it. But will it be rid of terrorism? Not likely -- especially since the White House is cozying up to the very states that have made suicide bombings a routine instrument of their foreign policy. Bush has made a promise he cannot keep -- and one we may all regret.

Go to www.businessweek.com to see all of our latest stories.

Caught In Between http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/010925/khhtsyvoqywiyjo4d5agpq_1.html

BusinessWeek Online

DAILY BRIEFING -- Don`t Just Read His Lips

Daily Briefing

By Howard Gleckman

President Bush has made a breathtaking promise. ``Our war on terrorism,`` he told a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, ``will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.`` And, repeating a theme he has sounded since the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Bush grimly warned that ``any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.``

These are powerful words of extraordinary importance. And they appear to have enormous support within the U.S. Polls show more than 90% of Americans back the President`s efforts. Unfortunately, these are vows that the President cannot keep. More troubling, U.S. diplomatic actions since his impassioned speech suggest the White House has no intention of even trying.

John Mitchell, who was Richard Nixon`s hard-nosed attorney general, used to tell reporters, ``Watch what I do, not what I say.`` If you apply the Mitchell Rule to the Bush Administration, it`s clear that the White House`s goals are quite different from its rhetoric. Rather than really trying to end terrorism around the world, it is actually aiming at a much narrower target: To destroy Osama bin Laden and his network. And to pull this off, the Bush White House seems prepared to make peace with the very sponsors of terror it promises to defeat.

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS. The list of countries around the world that harbor, finance, and arm terrorist groups is hardly a secret. The U.S. State Dept. puts out its own annual report on the subject that names, among others, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Libya as leading state sponsors of terrorism. For its own political reasons, the State Dept. leaves two other governments off its list -- Pakistan and Yassir Arafat`s Palestinian Authority -- but their use of cross-border terrorism is evident to anyone who reads a newspaper on a regular basis.

Who is the U.S. trying to enlist in its battle against terrorism? Among others, Syria, Iran, the Palestinian Authority, and Pakistan. It is very likely that the U.S. has already promised a bundle of financial aid to the generals who run Pakistan. And it is a good bet they will use some of those funds to continue their terror campaign in neighboring Kashmir.

It`s the same story with Syria. For decades, that country has used radical groups, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah, as an integral part of its foreign policy. These groups, of course, are best known for their almost daily terror attacks in Israel. But their activities go far beyond their war against the Jewish State. Hezbollah, for example, bombed a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1984, killing 241 Marine, Navy, and Army personnel. In 1996, a Saudi chapter of the group participated in the bombing of the Khobar Towers, an apartment building in Saudi Arabia, killing another 19 Americans.

Hezbollah gets weapons and funding from Iran, funneled through Syria. It has free rein to operate in Lebanon, now little more than a client state of Syria. And, not surprisingly, the group has close ties with bin Laden.

LIP SERVICE? The list of countries that, in one way or another, back international terrorism doesn`t stop with the obvious cases. It also includes Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States, which provide much of the funding for these terror groups. The governments in these countries are terrified of Islamic radicals, so they have made a deal with them. They look the other way while terrorists raise hundreds of millions of dollars from private citizens. In return, the groups agree to operate somewhere else.

Then, there are nations, such as China and France, that without a second thought, sell arms -- directly or indirectly -- to terrorist organizations. Sometimes, the weapons go through Iran, Iraq, or Syria, but all involved know the ultimate destinations.

The White House says things are different now. It even suggests that countries such as Syria, Pakistan, and Iran are going to change their behavior and turn their backs on terror. But people such as Secretary of State Colin Powell know better than that. More likely, these nations will give little more than lip service to the U.S. effort to kill bin Laden. And even that will end once the first civilian casualties are inflicted.

BITTER HARVEST. Yet in its effort to buy the loyalty of these nations, the White House has already lifted its long-standing arms embargoes against Iran, Syria, and Pakistan. Think about it for a moment: A decade ago, the U.S. armed bin Laden and the Taliban to enlist their support against what was then our Enemy #1 -- the Soviet Union. Today, we are reaping that painful harvest. Now, we are about to do exactly the same with states such as Iran and Syria -- help re-arm them to fight what we have identified as our new Enemy #1 -- none other than bin Laden himself.

With money, luck, and probably at some cost in American lives, the Bush Administration may kill bin Laden. And the world will be a better place for it. But will it be rid of terrorism? Not likely -- especially since the White House is cozying up to the very states that have made suicide bombings a routine instrument of their foreign policy. Bush has made a promise he cannot keep -- and one we may all regret.

Go to www.businessweek.com to see all of our latest stories.

Explaining it to an American Friend Pakistan`s Christians Fear Militant Reprisals

Asia: Members of tiny community believe they will become targets in expected war between U.S. and neighboring Taliban regime.



By JOHN DANISZEWSKI, Times Staff Writer

QUETTA, Pakistan -- At Holy Rosary Roman Catholic Church here, the priest prays in Urdu, parishioners sit cross-legged on the floor, and some of the faithful wander past the altar in the middle of Mass to set flowers at the foot of a statue of Mary.

Isolated in a corner of the Islamic world where many visitors are surprised to find any non-Muslims, Pakistan`s tiny Christian community has managed to survive in the shadow of neighboring Afghanistan`s Taliban regime. This is despite a rise in Islamic militancy and recent attacks from extremists who consider Christianity heresy and black magic.

But this perilous existence shows signs of worsening. In recent days, Pakistan`s Christians have been asking for protection from the government because of the expected war between the United States and the Taliban.

Holy Rosary parishioners believe that enraged Islamic militants and Afghan refugees in Pakistan will take out their fury at the United States on the nearest convenient target--their Christian neighbors. Says Father Maxie, the parish priest: ``Our people are living in fear.``

Worshipers were in a nervous frame of mind Sunday, counseling one another to keep low profiles and avoid any public discussion of politics or religion. Already, some Christian families reported, they have been told they will be slaughtered if U.S. bombs start falling.

Shafeek Masih, a 25-year-old laborer in the outlying village of Nawan Kili, heeded the warnings and moved his mother and sister to what he considers a safer place near the church, an area with a high concentration of Christians.

Tensions in his neighborhood of Nawan Kili, where there are about 500 Catholic families, increased immediately after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, he recounted in an interview conducted in a cramped apartment across from the church. About 15 men piled into one room to hear the discussion.

``We started to have problems already on Sept. 11,`` he said. ``When my mother and sister came out of our house, there were young students there who were throwing rocks at them and using words of abuse. . . . They said, `If America attacks Afghanistan, we will kill you.` ``

Shafeek--the last name, Masih, means simply ``Christian`` and is used by almost all the members of Pakistan`s Christian community--said the house is surrounded by a militant Muslim area, so it would be difficult for the family to escape an angry mob. That is why he moved part of his family.

``We are Pakistani,`` he explained. ``But they think that we are Christian, and Americans are also Christian, so that is why they will do it. I think it is safer here.``

Another member of the community, Saleen Masih, 34, agreed.

``At the moment, things are under control, but if America is going to attack, the situation will quickly change,`` he said.

Patrick Saint Masih, chairman of Quetta`s Asian United Christian Assn., said he is desperate that the wider world know of his community`s vulnerability before America launches any attack.

``Many Christians are residing among the Muslims, and especially in Quetta these Pushtuns from Afghanistan are residing with us,`` he said, referring to the ethnic group that is the main base for the Taliban movement.

He said the Christians should get financial aid from America so they can build a ``Christian colony``--a self-imposed ghetto where, the retired government servant imagines, they could live securely behind a cordon of police or soldiers.

``Our main problem is that we are all very poor,`` he lamented.

There are only about 25,000 Christians in this city of 1.2 million, and in all of Pakistan--a country of 140 million--less than 2 million people are Christian. They are mostly Catholic, Episcopalian and Pentecostal.

In 1998, when the United States launched cruise missiles into Afghanistan after the terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Christians were targeted in riots that swept through much of Pakistan.

A series of religiously inspired assaults in recent years has included a 1998 bombing in St. Patrick`s Cathedral in Karachi and the massacre in 1999 of a family of nine, hacked to death in Nowshera, 25 miles from the northern city of Peshawar. According to published accounts, an anti-Christian slogan was scrawled in blood on the walls of the house where the family was killed.

Patrick Masih said he would expect even worse attacks this time.

``The Taliban use the words of Islam,`` he said. ``That is why we are afraid they will try to turn this into a war over religion.``

Although Christianity claims roots in the Asian subcontinent dating to the time of St. Thomas, the doubting apostle, today`s Pakistani Christians trace their history more directly to missionaries who arrived when the British conquered India. Many of the Christians of Quetta are descendants of Punjabi soldiers who fought for the British.

As a result, the Holy Rosary parish is located in a part of Quetta known as the ``cantonment,`` a neighborhood reserved for the military since the days of the British Empire. It sits on Ordnance Road, a street controlled by an army checkpoint at one end where a soldier in a sandbagged foxhole points a rifle at passing cars.

That military presence affords Christians a measure of security around the church, but those living in outlying neighborhoods feel much more afraid, the parishioners said.

At their Sunday service, men in drab tunics and baggy pants sat on the floor on one side of the aisle. Women, their long black hair covered by brightly shimmering scarves, sat on the other. Shoes are taken off at the doors, and the worshipers singing their lilting hymns in Urdu to the accompaniment of a traditional Pakistani drum were mostly barefoot.

Patrick Saint Masih said he hoped that the United States will be careful.

``I think war should be made against terrorism by thinking, not by attacking,`` he said. ``So innocent human beings could be saved.``

Implications for India COMMENTARY - Business Week

By Manjeet Kripalani

How Uncle Sam Is Alienating India

New Delhi offers the U.S. its support, yet Bush turns to Pakistan. Ignoring a friend to woo its foe is no way to build an alliance

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2001/nf20010920_4588.htm

In early September -- days before the terrorist strikes in New York and Washington, D.C. -- Robert Blackwill, U.S. ambassador to India, visited Bombay, India`s commercial capital. There he addressed an elite group of business leaders and journalists on the need for forging closer ties with India as an ally and partner. ``Gone are the off-putting days of Indo-U.S. relations,`` Blackwill declared. The audience cheered. The relationship, Blackwill added, should stress not just liberalized trade and support for economic reforms, but a new partnership against terrorism, as ``the international terrorist Osama bin Laden calls for a holy war against America and India in the same breath.``

With the attacks in New York and Washington, D.C., on Sept. 11, and impoverished Afghanistan`s Taliban leaders calling for a jihad against the U.S., the atmosphere on the subcontinent is now almost electric. After the attacks, India immediately offered Washington its complete cooperation -- an overture of friendship after years of friction between the two nations. Now you can almost feel Indians thinking: ``See how the Pakistanis have lent the terrorists support all these years against us, and now against you, mighty America.``

LOGICAL CHOICE. Little wonder, then, that many Indians now feel slighted that President Bush still hasn`t called India`s leaders for consultation, despite all their offers of assistance. Instead, his first overtures were to India`s perennial rival and America`s old ally, Pakistan.

For India, it was a slap in the face. It`s the old U.S. foreign policy trick -- mixing pragmatism with opportunism. Just as Indo-U.S. relations were beginning to improve, the friendship may again be in jeopardy. ``The U.S. has a good record of going with whoever suits its interests more,`` says Kanti Bajpai, professor of international affairs at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi. ``It will look at the first enemy first, even if it means supping with the devil.``

Practically, of course, the best hope of hitting the Taliban is through Pakistan. India, with its Hindu-dominated, Bharatiya Janata Party-led government, remains a fragile democracy that takes ages to reach a consensus about anything. Fact is, India, a predominantly Hindu nation, can`t contribute as much in this situation as an Islamic nation like Pakistan, especially in the Arab world. And Pakistan is ruled by a dog-loving, nattily uniformed general perceived as a moderate -- not by a bearded mullah like Atal Bihari Vajpayee, India`s shuffling, poetry-spouting, 77-year-old prime minister.

EXPENSIVE ALLY. And what a deal Musharraf is reported to have demanded of the U.S. in return for his support: a $30 billion aid and bailout package for his ravaged economy, easing of U.S. trade sanctions imposed on Pakistan in 1998, assurances that India and Israel would be excluded from Pakistani-based operations against the Taliban, and a pledge that the U.S. will seek to put an end to the unrest in Kashmir, territory that both Pakistan and India claim as sovereign territory.

There came immediate howls from New Delhi. Blackwill quickly huddled with Jaswant Singh, India`s foreign and defense minister, denying that any such deal had been struck and assuring him that Kashmir would not be used by the Americans as a bargaining chip. But many Indians had to admit that Musharraf`s negotiating ploy was clever. ``Pakistan looks good,`` says Subir Gokarn, chief economist at the National Centre for Applied Economic Research in New Delhi, who adds: ``It`s cut the feet from under India`s foreign policy.``

Just what deals have been struck between the U.S. and Pakistan remain a mystery. Musharraf will probably get a bailout package like the one the Egyptians received after their first meeting with the Israelis at Camp David in the `70s. Egypt has not looked back since -- though troubled by fundamentalist Muslim terrorists, Egypt has grown into one of the world`s most moderate Islamic states.

PAKISTAN`S POVERTY. Musharraf and Pakistan need the money badly, and India shouldn`t begrudge Pakistan a bailout. After all, a $30 million aid package could make the difference between a dangerous neighbor and one that could contribute to a growing regional prosperity. An impoverished Pakistan with a nuclear bomb -- and a history of border wars and hostility with India -- is far more dangerous to India`s security. And U.S. intervention would conceivably help counteract the effects of Muslim extremism in parts of disputed Kashmir, where extremist groups are demanding that young women wear the veil -- or have acid thrown on their faces.

But make no mistake: Many Pakistanis are worried. ``The U.S. will come and bomb and seek its retribution, but they will go away, and we will be left with the scars,`` says one Pakistani privately. The Afghans, it is feared, will then turn on Pakistan: ``They are cunning and merciless, and we are afraid.``

The U.S., in addition to updating its old alliance with Pakistan, would be wise to take a larger view of its engagement in central Asia -- and not forget India. Remember, it was Pakistan that aided and abetted the establishment of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Pakistan and India have quietly been building closer ties with China, a rival power whose interests the U.S. doesn`t always share. When the looming war is over, real bridges will still need to be built between India and the U.S. -- two democracies standing against terrorism, and for prosperity.

Kripalani is India bureau chief for BusinessWeek

Edited by Douglas Harbrecht

Explaining it to an American Friend Islamic Myths Dispeller

1cust227.tnt1.bastrop.la.da.uu.net

Fri Sep 21 03:41:29



War Myths-What not to believe.

By Victor Davis Hanson, author most recently of Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power.

September 20, 2001 1:40 p.m.



. We have incurred legitimate hatred from the radical Islamic states. Nothing could be further from truth. The Taliban, the mullahs in Iran, and other assorted fundamentalists despise the United States for its culture and envy it for its power. The wealth, technology, and freedom of America`s global culture — from bare navels to the Internet — have challenged fundamentalists, who are wedded to a medieval world of perpetual stasis. That terrorists use frequent-flyer miles and cell phones to kill us only sharpens that paradox, and accentuates their dual sentiments of envy and inadequacy. For the record, in the last ten years, the United States freed the Arab

and Islamic state of Kuwait, opposed Saddam Hussein and his murder of Islamic Kurds and Shiites, prevented Muslim Afghanistan from becoming a Soviet satrapy, and saved the

Muslims of Bosnia and Kosovo from extinction — as

European and ``moderate`` Arab states watched the

carnage of their neighbors and kin. The majority of the terrorists that surround bin Laden are from the upper and middle classes of Arab society, are highly educated, and are driven to murder by hatred and envy, not hunger or

exploitation. They are a world apart from the starving in South America and Africa, who do not crash airliners into office towers. These terrorists hate us for who we are, not what we have done.

2. The Arab and Muslim worlds are formidable.

In fact, despite being over a billion strong, they are not monolithic and are at their weakest since the 15th or 16th century. There is not a single Arab democracy, nor one truly free populace. Like the Ottomans of the past,

who made poor copies of Venetian cannon, so too the fundamentalists are parasitic upon Western culture, their societies unable to mass-produce, or even create, a single one of the weapons they employ. The economies of the larger Muslim world — from Indonesia and Iran to Lebanon and Palestine — are in shambles, ruined by either

autocracy or theocracy. Moreover, new coalitions are emerging that will only further isolate Muslim states, in which even mainstream clerics and intellectuals have not successfully reconciled the unfettered dynamism of global

capitalism and technology with the doctrines of the Koran. In response, the United States will gradually gravitate toward tough nuclear powers like Russia and India, whose secular democracies have long-standing affinities with the West — and deep enmity toward Islamic fundamentalism.

3. The moderate Arab countries are our friends.

We also need to revisit the myth of the

``moderate`` Arab countries. Most are moderate in

only a relative sense, the way an opportunist like Franco was a moderate fascist in comparison to Hitler, or a wily Tito a moderate Communist as opposed to Stalin. We must accept the bitter truth that states like Palestine,Egypt, Syria, and others — despite American deference and

occasional aid — are not our friends, much less our allies. Their citizens do not vote freely; their media is controlled and censored; women are not fully liberated, if at all; and they are growing less, not more, tolerant of religious and cultural diversity. While the United States should not gratuitously incite societies like

Jordan (a supporter of Iraq in the Gulf War), Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, we must reexamine our relationships with them — from military assistance to foreign aid to travel

and immigration. One of the more frustrating facets of the American media has been their reluctance (or inability) to show the grassroots celebration — going on in the streets of Palestine, Pakistan, Egypt, and other

countries — of 6,000 American deaths. We should pay close attention to what the upscale parents of the terrorists now profess to European journalists: They may well be representative of Arab ``moderates`` in Egypt and Lebanon, and yet, with perfect consistency, either deny their progeny`s involvement, spin myths about CIA conspiracies, or suggest that the attacks were warranted.

4. Fundamentalist terrorism cannot be eliminated.

This fear too is erroneous. Terrorist organizations like bin Laden`s, the Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad are not as formidable as either German Nazism or Japanese militarism, both of which were exterminated within five

years of America going to war and have not plagued the planet since. The Waffen SS, Gestapo, the Kamikazes, and the Japanese army at Bataan were all more horrific than the Taliban. Terrorism is a tumor with tentacles, but

these can be excised by frequent and continued air strikes, coupled with sudden ground incursions and ongoing counterinsurgency. The hosts can be given a series of ongoing ultimatums: to surrender suspects, demolish camps, and cease monetary support — or face the

month-by-month, systematic destruction of their military assets, banks, and communications. Add in financial, economic, and cultural ostracism, and terrorism can and will be crushed — if the United States is willing to give treasure and lives for the greater good and for our

children`s future.

5. The crisis is an international problem.

In theory, of course it is, and we should welcome

assistance from our traditional allies and enlist

indigenous resistance groups in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the United States must be prepared to act alone, especially as casualties mount and terrorist reprisals increase. Nor should we welcome alliances with past

terrorist culprits that will haunt us later and erode the moral high ground.

The United Nations is not only as impotent as the old League of Nations, but lacks the former`s idealism and has become ever more morally bankrupt. Once the fighting starts, despite initial pledges of support, the Europeans

will probably extend words of encouragement but lend no real material or military assistance of any value. We cannot expect the French to remember Normandy Beach or the Germans the Berlin airlift. Indeed, most Europeans have already forgotten American intervention on their

doorstep to stop the recent holocaust in the Balkans. We should neither lament nor be angered by their hypocrisy,but rather expect it, and realize what a different country America is and always has been compared to its European allies. We must be ready to be lectured by the Swedes who passed on World War II, ignored by the Swiss

who profited from it, and hectored by the French who nearly lost it. America needs and welcomes friends, but the absence of such should not deter our response to avenge our own dead and protect our innocent.

6. War has never solved anything.

Quite the contrary. The three greatest scourges of the 20th century — Nazism, Japanese militarism, and Soviet Communism — were defeated through war or continued military resistance. More were killed by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao outside of combat than died in World Wars I and

II. War, as Sherman said, is all hell, but as Heraclitus admitted it is also ``the father of us all.`` Wickedness — whether chattel slavery, the gas chambers, or concentration camps — has rarely passed quietly into the night on its own. The present evil isn`t going to either

Caught In Between Arvind Lavakare

Irony or retribution?

It would be utterly hypocritical of a true Indian not to blame American policy makers for that dark day in its history. Remember, today`s generation of highly educated Indians are just not hypocritical the way their elders have long been.

If facts be therefore faced, let it be admitted straight away that the USA has,for comprehensible reasons, always been pro-Pakistan and lukewarm towards India.

In the matter of Jammu and Kashmir in the United Nations 53 years ago, the US recognised the state`s accession to India as legal, but, toeing the British line, it did not condemn Pakistan`s blatant invasion of the state, did not uphold India`s position, and refused to wield its clout in the Security Council to mete justice to India. And today that same Pakistan has turned out to be the breeding ground ally of those evil destroyers of New York`s skyline. Is that irony or retribution?

From the fifties right till the collapse of the Soviet Union, America saw India`s non-alignment and socialist policies as an affront to its capitalistic march to superpower status. During all those years, America turned a blind eye towards Pakistan`s communal and military dictatorships, its revengeful wars against a truly democratic, secular India whose only fault was that, unlike Britain or Canada or Australia or Japan, it refused to act as a submissive

protectorate of Uncle Sam. Why, during our war with China in 1962, the USA even linked its arms aid to us with our gifting Pakistan the Kashmir Valley. And that very same Pakistan, which cosied up with the CIA in training bin Laden and others against the Soviets, has turned out to be the breeding ground ally of those evil destroyers of America`s military might symbolised by the Pentagon. Is that irony or retribution?

Having nothing to do after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the terrorists trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan`s Islamic factories turned toward Jammu and Kashmir. Between, January 1, 1988 and the end of December 1999, terrorists killed 11, 814 human beings in J&K. Included among

them were Kashmiri Pandit women. Some 350,000 of these Pandits were hounded out from their homes in the Kashmir Valley, to become refugees in their own country. Marriage parties were dragged out of buses and shot dead on the road. Arms and

ammunition recovered from the terrorists were sufficient to equip at least one army division while the floating stock probably equals that number. America stood unmoved by all this and instead financed think tanks to come up with `solutions` that flagrantly violated our constitutional and moral position on

J&K. In these last 12 years, we have been pressurised to smoke the peace pipe with Pakistan. Today, it is America that is hounded by Pakistan`s support to bin Laden. Is that irony or retribution?

Even when President Clinton belatedly realised it was India that was America`s natural ally and that Pakistan was the rogue, he did not put the terrorist tag on Pakistan, he didn`t lift the sanctions on India. Even the Bush administration

has deliberated for over eight months as to how to remove the sanctions on India without offending Pakistan, and, therefore, whether lifting the sanctions on both the countries simultaneously might not better serve the interests of `justice.` Today, angry America wants to mete ``justice`` to the bin Laden

patronised by Pakistan. Is that irony or retribution?

So blind has America generally been to India`s viewpoint that it has ignored not only our considerable evidence on Pakistan`s terrorism of all these years, but even our caution of the same fate befalling them. V Balachandran, former special secretary of our external intelligence agency, RAW, has gone on record on this.

As reported in The Asian Age of September 13, Balachandran points out that though India had, since the early nineties, been warning the USA -- and other Western countries -- that terrorism would strike them too unless they thwarted that evil plaguing India, the USA -- and other Western countries -- failed to appreciate our stand. Now, hopefully, America has finally woken up to jehad and all that.

Truly does America have a lot to set right after the wake-up alarm of that tragic, traumatic Tuesday in its history.

See the security lapse at Boston`s Logan airport from which suicide groups hijacked two departing flights that day. It`s only very recently that Federal Aviation Authority had heavily fined Boston because its security was rated as being very poor. Clearly, the fine had not worked till that disastrous day. And it will not work as long as American airports are, according to Balachandran, satisfied only with a metal detector check as against the x-ray check for

luggage as well as cabin baggage and a body search additionally resorted to at Indian airports.

Consider the laggard air traffic control on that fateful day of America. The flight from Boston on the east coast to Los Angeles on the southwest coast went southwards to New York instead and hit one of the two Trade Center towers. The other flight also Boston to Los Angeles destroyed the second tower. Now what in the blue skies were America`s concerned AT controllers doing when these two civilian aircraft strayed from their mandated flight paths for as much as half an hour? A retired Indian Airlines captain who commanded Airbus 300 flights says on the few times he deviated ever so little from his flight path from Bombay to Calcutta, both the civilian as well as the Indian Air Force radars would warn him; he says that every Indian Air Force station always has two fighters ready for scrambling precisely for such warnings that are ignored by the pilot in the cockpit. Though this is said to be a standard international aviation practice, the ATCs concerned in America were apparently engrossed in something else on

that tragic Tuesday.

Lastly, as yet not even whispered about after that terrible Tuesday, there is the existence of the the Redstone Arsenal Hazardous Devices School.

Based at Huntsville, Alabama, the school has, for the last 20 years, been providing `explosive ordinance disposal training` not only to employees of various American organisations such as the armed forces and the FBI, but also to foreign army and intelligence personnel. Sponsored by the US state department,the curious part of this most exclusive explosives school is that it has reportedly been training even those individuals and foreign military personnel who are hostile to the US. Thus, it is reported that Palestinians have been trained in the garb of being from the Taiwan army and an Afghan has wound up being a colonel of the Swedish army. Readers interested in details should log on

to www.etherzone.com for an article by Al Martin posted on September 7, 2001 in order to grasp why all Americans need to examine it since it explores a vital root of their nation`s latest trauma.

The American tragedy of today has, nevertheless, some lessons for Indians to learn.



Look at the US secretary of state`s double quick pronouncement `The American people made a judgement: we are at war, and they want a comprehensive response.` No American has questioned whether that really reflects the national sentiment.

Contrast that with the tepid Indian reaction whenever Home Minister Advani announces that what we have been suffering in J&K for years is a proxy war.

Look at how the guests on American television simply refuse to play the blame game even when asked provocative questions regarding intelligence and security lapses by anchors who themselves offer news reports, not opinions, who put out questions, not answers.

Look how not a single American soul has used the word `militants` to denote `terrorists.` Our pseudo-secular media should should note that and if not

convinced about the right word to describe those perpetrators of evil in J&K, let them be informed that our President`s Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, explains `terrorist act` to mean `any act or thing by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal weapons or poisons or noxious gases or chemicals or any other substances (whether biological or otherwise) of a hazardous nature.` Yes, whether irony or retribution, America`s trauma and tragedy of that Tuesday has lessons for all.

Explaining it to an American Friend Arvind Lavakare

Irony or retribution?

It would be utterly hypocritical of a true Indian not to blame American policy makers for that dark day in its history. Remember, today`s generation of highly educated Indians are just not hypocritical the way their elders have long been.

If facts be therefore faced, let it be admitted straight away that the USA has,for comprehensible reasons, always been pro-Pakistan and lukewarm towards India.

In the matter of Jammu and Kashmir in the United Nations 53 years ago, the US recognised the state`s accession to India as legal, but, toeing the British line, it did not condemn Pakistan`s blatant invasion of the state, did not uphold India`s position, and refused to wield its clout in the Security Council to mete justice to India. And today that same Pakistan has turned out to be the breeding ground ally of those evil destroyers of New York`s skyline. Is that irony or retribution?

From the fifties right till the collapse of the Soviet Union, America saw India`s non-alignment and socialist policies as an affront to its capitalistic march to superpower status. During all those years, America turned a blind eye towards Pakistan`s communal and military dictatorships, its revengeful wars against a truly democratic, secular India whose only fault was that, unlike Britain or Canada or Australia or Japan, it refused to act as a submissive

protectorate of Uncle Sam. Why, during our war with China in 1962, the USA even linked its arms aid to us with our gifting Pakistan the Kashmir Valley. And that very same Pakistan, which cosied up with the CIA in training bin Laden and others against the Soviets, has turned out to be the breeding ground ally of those evil destroyers of America`s military might symbolised by the Pentagon. Is that irony or retribution?

Having nothing to do after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the terrorists trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan`s Islamic factories turned toward Jammu and Kashmir. Between, January 1, 1988 and the end of December 1999, terrorists killed 11, 814 human beings in J&K. Included among

them were Kashmiri Pandit women. Some 350,000 of these Pandits were hounded out from their homes in the Kashmir Valley, to become refugees in their own country. Marriage parties were dragged out of buses and shot dead on the road. Arms and

ammunition recovered from the terrorists were sufficient to equip at least one army division while the floating stock probably equals that number. America stood unmoved by all this and instead financed think tanks to come up with `solutions` that flagrantly violated our constitutional and moral position on

J&K. In these last 12 years, we have been pressurised to smoke the peace pipe with Pakistan. Today, it is America that is hounded by Pakistan`s support to bin Laden. Is that irony or retribution?

Even when President Clinton belatedly realised it was India that was America`s natural ally and that Pakistan was the rogue, he did not put the terrorist tag on Pakistan, he didn`t lift the sanctions on India. Even the Bush administration

has deliberated for over eight months as to how to remove the sanctions on India without offending Pakistan, and, therefore, whether lifting the sanctions on both the countries simultaneously might not better serve the interests of `justice.` Today, angry America wants to mete ``justice`` to the bin Laden

patronised by Pakistan. Is that irony or retribution?

So blind has America generally been to India`s viewpoint that it has ignored not only our considerable evidence on Pakistan`s terrorism of all these years, but even our caution of the same fate befalling them. V Balachandran, former special secretary of our external intelligence agency, RAW, has gone on record on this.

As reported in The Asian Age of September 13, Balachandran points out that though India had, since the early nineties, been warning the USA -- and other Western countries -- that terrorism would strike them too unless they thwarted that evil plaguing India, the USA -- and other Western countries -- failed to appreciate our stand. Now, hopefully, America has finally woken up to jehad and all that.

Truly does America have a lot to set right after the wake-up alarm of that tragic, traumatic Tuesday in its history.

See the security lapse at Boston`s Logan airport from which suicide groups hijacked two departing flights that day. It`s only very recently that Federal Aviation Authority had heavily fined Boston because its security was rated as being very poor. Clearly, the fine had not worked till that disastrous day. And it will not work as long as American airports are, according to Balachandran, satisfied only with a metal detector check as against the x-ray check for

luggage as well as cabin baggage and a body search additionally resorted to at Indian airports.

Consider the laggard air traffic control on that fateful day of America. The flight from Boston on the east coast to Los Angeles on the southwest coast went southwards to New York instead and hit one of the two Trade Center towers. The other flight also Boston to Los Angeles destroyed the second tower. Now what in the blue skies were America`s concerned AT controllers doing when these two civilian aircraft strayed from their mandated flight paths for as much as half an hour? A retired Indian Airlines captain who commanded Airbus 300 flights says on the few times he deviated ever so little from his flight path from Bombay to Calcutta, both the civilian as well as the Indian Air Force radars would warn him; he says that every Indian Air Force station always has two fighters ready for scrambling precisely for such warnings that are ignored by the pilot in the cockpit. Though this is said to be a standard international aviation practice, the ATCs concerned in America were apparently engrossed in something else on

that tragic Tuesday.

Lastly, as yet not even whispered about after that terrible Tuesday, there is the existence of the the Redstone Arsenal Hazardous Devices School.

Based at Huntsville, Alabama, the school has, for the last 20 years, been providing `explosive ordinance disposal training` not only to employees of various American organisations such as the armed forces and the FBI, but also to foreign army and intelligence personnel. Sponsored by the US state department,the curious part of this most exclusive explosives school is that it has reportedly been training even those individuals and foreign military personnel who are hostile to the US. Thus, it is reported that Palestinians have been trained in the garb of being from the Taiwan army and an Afghan has wound up being a colonel of the Swedish army. Readers interested in details should log on

to www.etherzone.com for an article by Al Martin posted on September 7, 2001 in order to grasp why all Americans need to examine it since it explores a vital root of their nation`s latest trauma.

The American tragedy of today has, nevertheless, some lessons for Indians to learn.



Look at the US secretary of state`s double quick pronouncement `The American people made a judgement: we are at war, and they want a comprehensive response.` No American has questioned whether that really reflects the national sentiment.

Contrast that with the tepid Indian reaction whenever Home Minister Advani announces that what we have been suffering in J&K for years is a proxy war.

Look at how the guests on American television simply refuse to play the blame game even when asked provocative questions regarding intelligence and security lapses by anchors who themselves offer news reports, not opinions, who put out questions, not answers.

Look how not a single American soul has used the word `militants` to denote `terrorists.` Our pseudo-secular media should should note that and if not

convinced about the right word to describe those perpetrators of evil in J&K, let them be informed that our President`s Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, explains `terrorist act` to mean `any act or thing by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal weapons or poisons or noxious gases or chemicals or any other substances (whether biological or otherwise) of a hazardous nature.` Yes, whether irony or retribution, America`s trauma and tragedy of that Tuesday has lessons for all.

Breaking News: September 11, 2001 Did you`ll check the video of Pakistanis celebrating and distributing Osama-bin-Ladin`s CD`s?

Breaking News: September 11, 2001 Did you`ll check the video of Pakistanis celebrating and distributing Osama-bin-Ladin`s CD`s? Also there is a video of Masood Azhar`s speech on ``Death to America``.