Gods of War
Irfan HAMID June 5, 2006
#69 Posted by iron_mask on June 6, 2006 3:45:10 am
Re: # 66
Wiki is still a bad source. Nevertheles, it doesnot detract from your article...
Nothing wrong with the Iraq war. after all the arbs are nothing but rentiers (see today`s daily times for more details - manto`s rag) Rentier states of the muslim world.( http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006 06 06 story_6-6-2006_pg3_2)If the guys paying the bills are fed up with you they can demand for a change. And change came about simply because the rentier didnot change his ways. If the rentier was smart he would have done things differently.
But far more important question, is how long will this rentier class be able to extract rent from the world? With new technologies on their way, will they be able to move forward? Will they resort to their old pillaging ways? What will the people do, the people who have been fed a diet of extreme fundementalism, an ideology which reeks of supremacy? These are the questions which need to be tackled, not history.
Wiki is still a bad source. Nevertheles, it doesnot detract from your article...
Nothing wrong with the Iraq war. after all the arbs are nothing but rentiers (see today`s daily times for more details - manto`s rag) Rentier states of the muslim world.( http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006 06 06 story_6-6-2006_pg3_2)If the guys paying the bills are fed up with you they can demand for a change. And change came about simply because the rentier didnot change his ways. If the rentier was smart he would have done things differently.
But far more important question, is how long will this rentier class be able to extract rent from the world? With new technologies on their way, will they be able to move forward? Will they resort to their old pillaging ways? What will the people do, the people who have been fed a diet of extreme fundementalism, an ideology which reeks of supremacy? These are the questions which need to be tackled, not history.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#68 Posted by viewer on June 6, 2006 3:30:03 am
Re: # 64
Sanjay: ``Who gave them this mandate??? Nobody``
The mandate was not given by the governments of the Muslim countries but it is difficult to deny that the mandate was indeed given by the prevalent and popular hatred against the US that existed and continues to exist in the Muslim countries.
Sanjay: ``Who gave them this mandate??? Nobody``
The mandate was not given by the governments of the Muslim countries but it is difficult to deny that the mandate was indeed given by the prevalent and popular hatred against the US that existed and continues to exist in the Muslim countries.
#67 Posted by viewer on June 6, 2006 3:22:50 am
Re: # 64
Sanjay ``Do you think half a dozen Saudis who plunged into Twin Towers were representing the real interests of all Saudi people. Who gave them this mandate??? Nobody. It was all self-made, self created``
They were not self-made, self-created by sitting in their drawing rooms and suddenly coming up with the idea of hitting the twin towers. Of course, there is a history of resentment against the US in the Muslim world and the 9/11 was its expression and outlet. It is wrong to say that only a few individual, not respresenting the majority opinion of their countries, did that act with only personal motivation only that had no link with what the Muslim majority feels in their respective countries. If that had been the case then there would not have been the news of sweets being distributed in many Muslim countries soon after 9/11. These people were created by the injustices perpetuated against Muslims by the US, may it be via supporting corrupt regimes in middle east or by giving Israel its unconditional support for whatever atrocitites it wants to commit against Palestinians.
Sanjay ``Do you think half a dozen Saudis who plunged into Twin Towers were representing the real interests of all Saudi people. Who gave them this mandate??? Nobody. It was all self-made, self created``
They were not self-made, self-created by sitting in their drawing rooms and suddenly coming up with the idea of hitting the twin towers. Of course, there is a history of resentment against the US in the Muslim world and the 9/11 was its expression and outlet. It is wrong to say that only a few individual, not respresenting the majority opinion of their countries, did that act with only personal motivation only that had no link with what the Muslim majority feels in their respective countries. If that had been the case then there would not have been the news of sweets being distributed in many Muslim countries soon after 9/11. These people were created by the injustices perpetuated against Muslims by the US, may it be via supporting corrupt regimes in middle east or by giving Israel its unconditional support for whatever atrocitites it wants to commit against Palestinians.
#66 Posted by irfanhamid on June 6, 2006 2:31:44 am
A few points were raised by various people, let me respond:
- Wikipedia as reference: It`s true that Wikipedia is a collaborative resource and thus is subject to dangers of misinformation, lapse and ommission. But, it remains a quality repository of information. In addition, at the end of each article on Wikipedia you have an External Links section. Thus, any interested reader can create a bibliographic tree and it is for this reason that 5 out of 9 of my references are from there
- Pakistani/Muslim writing about atrocities: This point is just preposterous. Just because my nation or religion has committed excesses in the past or is committing them now disqualifies me from discussing those of others? If that were true we should just tell Germans not to talk about anti-semitism, the Swedes and Danes not to talk about piracy and pillaging and Indians not to talk about racism and classism. I refuse to be brow-beaten into silence because I was born in Pakistan. I can condemn the Bangladesh and Iraq massacres in the same breath, but since this article was about Iraq I didn`t bother.
- Wikipedia as reference: It`s true that Wikipedia is a collaborative resource and thus is subject to dangers of misinformation, lapse and ommission. But, it remains a quality repository of information. In addition, at the end of each article on Wikipedia you have an External Links section. Thus, any interested reader can create a bibliographic tree and it is for this reason that 5 out of 9 of my references are from there
- Pakistani/Muslim writing about atrocities: This point is just preposterous. Just because my nation or religion has committed excesses in the past or is committing them now disqualifies me from discussing those of others? If that were true we should just tell Germans not to talk about anti-semitism, the Swedes and Danes not to talk about piracy and pillaging and Indians not to talk about racism and classism. I refuse to be brow-beaten into silence because I was born in Pakistan. I can condemn the Bangladesh and Iraq massacres in the same breath, but since this article was about Iraq I didn`t bother.
#64 Posted by sanjay on June 6, 2006 12:15:57 am
#32 VIEWER
sanjay ``Any country, with its interests threatened, will resort to war--thats for sure``
So do you really think that the people who planned the 9/11 were only simple maniacs and nothing more. Their interests, or the interests of the people whom they represented, were never threatened.
The people who planned 9/11 and all those who represent organisations like al-qaeda, Jaish-e-Mohammed and others are, to my mind, products of failed societies who could not give clear cut directions to their own people. The powers-that-be in those countries clinged shamelessly with USA and allowed their own people to develop a grudge against USA. Do you think half a dozen Saudis who plunged into Twin Towers were representing the real interests of all Saudi people. Who gave them this mandate??? Nobody. It was all self-made, self created.
Those who did 9/11, 7/7 and are still continuing with so-called Jehad are simply out of tune with the rest of the world. They have no future. They are to be forgotten. If they want to correct the things, they have to act against their own people who are shamelessly holding on to power in their respective countries.
A revolution, like French Revolution, is required in Islamic world where the Mullahs and the present power-wielders are to be thrown away. And this revolution is to be carried out in Islamic countries and not USA/UK.
sanjay ``Any country, with its interests threatened, will resort to war--thats for sure``
So do you really think that the people who planned the 9/11 were only simple maniacs and nothing more. Their interests, or the interests of the people whom they represented, were never threatened.
The people who planned 9/11 and all those who represent organisations like al-qaeda, Jaish-e-Mohammed and others are, to my mind, products of failed societies who could not give clear cut directions to their own people. The powers-that-be in those countries clinged shamelessly with USA and allowed their own people to develop a grudge against USA. Do you think half a dozen Saudis who plunged into Twin Towers were representing the real interests of all Saudi people. Who gave them this mandate??? Nobody. It was all self-made, self created.
Those who did 9/11, 7/7 and are still continuing with so-called Jehad are simply out of tune with the rest of the world. They have no future. They are to be forgotten. If they want to correct the things, they have to act against their own people who are shamelessly holding on to power in their respective countries.
A revolution, like French Revolution, is required in Islamic world where the Mullahs and the present power-wielders are to be thrown away. And this revolution is to be carried out in Islamic countries and not USA/UK.
#63 Posted by harish_hyd on June 5, 2006 10:26:30 pm
#16 by khamkhwa
... and yet bangladesh treats india like a pariah...wonder why....
why do you Khamkhwa mein bring in something that is irrelevant to this discussion? Anyways, to answer your question: for the same reason Afghans treat Pakis as dirt.
... and yet bangladesh treats india like a pariah...wonder why....
why do you Khamkhwa mein bring in something that is irrelevant to this discussion? Anyways, to answer your question: for the same reason Afghans treat Pakis as dirt.
#62 Posted by malik99 on June 5, 2006 10:16:27 pm
57 writes ``In terms of national and presidential vanity, the prospects of Iraq, short always of a miracle, vary between bad and ghastly.``
actually the prospects are much bleaker than ghastly. but then again, this war was not for america`s benefit to begin with.
Senator Joe Lieberman spoke the other day about the huge re-election challenge he faces in his senate bid due to his passionate pro-war stance. He said ``On the war, I`ve done what I thought was right for my country. I obviously haven`t done it for political reasons,``. It was the ``my country`` part where I nearly snickered. Lieberman, a Hassidic Jew, an ardent Zionist, an unapologetic supporter of Israel`s murder of palestinians, the trustee of a jews-only hospital in Tel Aviv where not even Bush could enter (gentile that he is!) was probably talking about Israel when he uttered ``my country``. No patriotic american could have come to this conclusion then, or even now, that this war is good for america (forget the moral reasons for starting it). Oil was not the reason. Saddam could have guaranteed oil supply to US in return for leaving him alone.
Israel is the sole beneficiary in the world of aggression on Iraq.....for this war has broken Iraq, and most likely reduced it to 3 small states, which will never amount to any challenge to Israeli hegemony in the region.
Now the americans, having fought a war for the security of Israel, are tired. They are weary. They dont want to fight anymore. But Israel is not tired. It is egging on America to now go after Iran. Americans are saying, please let us catch some breath. But for Israel, this is a historic opportunity to re-make middle east. Zionist - evangelist axis was never stronger. And so Israel is insistent. Condi is being made to run around the world whipping up firestorm over Iran. America`s domestic agenda is at stand still or even faltered. Dollar is on demise. Inflation is on rise. Personal bankruptcies are the highest ever. But it is Iran, and the gay marriage issue (that other evangelist pet issue to whip out votes in election year) that are at the center of media.
Americans will be asked to sacrifice yet again. Yes they can pay $5 a gallon with little protest. Even $9 too. Israel will force this war, americans will plan and fight it. Leave it to media to keep citizens compliant. As they say in the baseball, we are only in the second innings of a 9 innings game!
actually the prospects are much bleaker than ghastly. but then again, this war was not for america`s benefit to begin with.
Senator Joe Lieberman spoke the other day about the huge re-election challenge he faces in his senate bid due to his passionate pro-war stance. He said ``On the war, I`ve done what I thought was right for my country. I obviously haven`t done it for political reasons,``. It was the ``my country`` part where I nearly snickered. Lieberman, a Hassidic Jew, an ardent Zionist, an unapologetic supporter of Israel`s murder of palestinians, the trustee of a jews-only hospital in Tel Aviv where not even Bush could enter (gentile that he is!) was probably talking about Israel when he uttered ``my country``. No patriotic american could have come to this conclusion then, or even now, that this war is good for america (forget the moral reasons for starting it). Oil was not the reason. Saddam could have guaranteed oil supply to US in return for leaving him alone.
Israel is the sole beneficiary in the world of aggression on Iraq.....for this war has broken Iraq, and most likely reduced it to 3 small states, which will never amount to any challenge to Israeli hegemony in the region.
Now the americans, having fought a war for the security of Israel, are tired. They are weary. They dont want to fight anymore. But Israel is not tired. It is egging on America to now go after Iran. Americans are saying, please let us catch some breath. But for Israel, this is a historic opportunity to re-make middle east. Zionist - evangelist axis was never stronger. And so Israel is insistent. Condi is being made to run around the world whipping up firestorm over Iran. America`s domestic agenda is at stand still or even faltered. Dollar is on demise. Inflation is on rise. Personal bankruptcies are the highest ever. But it is Iran, and the gay marriage issue (that other evangelist pet issue to whip out votes in election year) that are at the center of media.
Americans will be asked to sacrifice yet again. Yes they can pay $5 a gallon with little protest. Even $9 too. Israel will force this war, americans will plan and fight it. Leave it to media to keep citizens compliant. As they say in the baseball, we are only in the second innings of a 9 innings game!
#61 Posted by bjkumar on June 5, 2006 10:06:08 pm
We (the USA) went to war in Afghanistan because that’s where the mastermind of 9/11 was hiding and the (then) rulers (aided and abetted by their Pakistani protectors (while the Pakistani “intellectuals” were hiding inside their burqas)) refused to turn him over.
The country of Afghanistan was ill-served by its rulers – but the true culprits are the morons next door who tried to make it into their personal playground of “strategic depth” – closely followed by the cowards in that same piece of land who refuse to see the truth for what it is.
Their strategy was simple. They liked it deep!
So they ended up deep – in trouble!
The damage to the country was inevitable in the process but still is regrettable. But unlike many other countries, we are trying to help them rebuild. The same fools who were carping that we left them after that last Afghanistan war are now carping that we are not leaving them alone!
The rationale for the attack on Iraq was and remains debatable – but it was conducted with the full approval of the US population – which also reapproved it during 2004 by reelecting GWB. By and large, the US troops have behaved like model soldiers – they have been far more humane than most of the Iraqi rulers and their agents ever were to their own people. Where there have been aberrations, we will use our due process to address the problems – not YOUR system of justice (if one could call it that)!
The true enemies of Iraq are those who are trying to stop its infrastructure from being rebuilt. The true enemies are those who are fanning sectarian hatred in that country – not the Americans, who are trying to help them rebuild and trying to install a very different value system than most of that region has ever been used to. If it succeeds – and right-minded Iraqis know this in their heart – it will be a shining model for the rest of that region.
It has been worth the try – in spite of the ultimate sacrifice that has been required of so many American soldiers!
God bless them!
#60 Posted by hamidm2 on June 5, 2006 8:43:33 pm
Re: # 57
forget about iran ........... the barbarians are at the gates - right across the border in toronto ............. in other news from the front, mogadishu fell to the barbarians today ..........
........... this war has just started and we must fight them in tehran, mecca and toronto lest we have to fight them in ny city ......
p.s. the rcmp would be wise to impose a blockade on missasgua ..........
forget about iran ........... the barbarians are at the gates - right across the border in toronto ............. in other news from the front, mogadishu fell to the barbarians today ..........
........... this war has just started and we must fight them in tehran, mecca and toronto lest we have to fight them in ny city ......
p.s. the rcmp would be wise to impose a blockade on missasgua ..........
#59 Posted by SR on June 5, 2006 5:29:26 pm
Following is Fred`s write-up ... Freddy is an Alabama boy, a Vietnam Vet and a straight talker. Please note the date he wrote the piece below. Prophetic.
..SR
Who Is Running This Choo-Choo Train?
Children At The Helm
June 18, 2005
Congressmen, a few only now, speak of withdrawal from Iraq. A small thing, but for the White House a worrisome step toward vertebracy in that body of polyps. The numbers of the dissenting will grow as they see that they do not get hurt. Military recruiting is way down, and will stay down: The gullibility of the young cannot forever be relied upon. The House has summoned the courage to vote against parts of the Patriot Act. The president’s polls drop and drop.
The crumbling has begun, methinks.
Is this surprising? If I may risk repeating myself tiresomely, the way to defeat the American military is to avoiding giving it clear targets, keep the body bags flowing into Dover or Travis, and wait. It is that simple. The insurgents know this. They are doing it, and it is working. Five Marines today, three tomorrow, twelve GIs one week, nine another. On and on. So far we have killed 1700 of our soldiers, closing in on 2000. Sooner or later, even Middle America will notice.
Is victory still possible, if it ever were? The military can’t stop the bleeding, or it would have. Short of a miracle, of perhaps a serious attack within the United States, actually or apparently by terrorists, the casualties will continue. The public will weary of the war, and it will all be over. No?
Wars are marketed as involving moral principles or geo-strategic necessity, but they can become grudge matches, contests of vanity grown stubborn. A president who has led his country into a war has his ego on the line. He cannot easily say, “In the light of events, the adventure appears to have failed, and so we will return home.” The world would regard him as a fool and a knave. Further, humble men do not become presidents. Such a man will struggle on desperately, unwisely, with no real purpose any longer than to avoid the personal ignominy of defeat. When his pride has been engaged he can’t stop. For this men die.
One sees a similar approach in the gambler who, having lost his car, bets his house in hopes of redeeming himself.
As the news worsens the lying, begun long ago, increases. Democracies of course have to be lied into aggressive wars, since no one really cares about the form of government in an obscure and remote nation. Thus as losses mount, the enemy’s successes are described as defeats, as the last throes of a failing force. (I would not be surprised to find that Tokyo described the bombing of Hiroshima as a sign of American desperation.) The government forbids reporters to photograph the coffins, punishes soldiers who talk to the press. The horribly wounded are discreetly hidden. Generals who are not upbeat are fired. Dissidents become labeled as traitors. War crimes become isolated incidents: Only those which are discovered have occurred. Etc.
Historians tend to see wars as consequent to abstract currents of history. They speak of the balance of power, the clash of civilizations, of economic rivalry, and it all sounds dispassionate, reasoned, and occasionally majestic. It might be more accurate to say that wars are the hobbies of half-informed children who have somehow come into possession of the levers of power. Can anyone possible believe that Mr. Bush knew anything about the Arab world when he set out to conquer it? That Hitler understood the Russians, or the Japanese Army, America?
Getting into wars is so often easier than getting out. In terms of national and presidential vanity, the prospects of Iraq, short always of a miracle, vary between bad and ghastly. If the United States pulls out, in a sort of exploitus reservatus, the One Remaining Superpower will be seen not to be. No one will be afraid of us any longer. In particular, countries like Iran will not be afraid. One wonders whether this may not be what Mr. bin Laden had in mind.
Of course in material terms the United States will not be weaker. If driven out of Iraq, America will still be superior in remarkable aircraft and fast carriers and extraordinary submarines. But submarines are of use only in certain kinds of wars, which the enemy will avoid. The good ship USS Thundertrinket can destroy Japan, yes. It cannot defeat a few thousand determined men with rifles. Militaries seem never to learn this.
It is curious. The French, having underestimated both the enemy and the potential of guerilla warfare, got thrashed at Dien Bien Phu. The Americans, equally full of themselves, then went into the same country and got similarly thrashed. The French, having learned nothing, tried again in Algeria, with the same result. The Israelis tried to hold down southern Lebanon, encountering the same problems and equally losing. The Russians, having seen all of this, invaded Afghanistan and got thrashed. Now the United States is in Iraq. For militaries, the learning curve seems to be flat.
The problem is not that soldiers are stupid. They are not. Rather it is (I think) that they become excessively taken with the technology and power of their weapons, with the computers and precision and speed, with themselves, and just do not stop to ponder the difficulty of killing hornets with a howitzer.
The future? Having restored the Vietnam complex, presumably the US will be very hesitant for a decade or so to throw its weight around. Then, having forgotten again, it will invade another country defended by only a few contemptible men with rifles who, in any case, will be expected to throw flowers.
If America loses the White House war—what? I suppose that Mr. Bin Laden will come out of his hole a hero in the Moslem world, laughing pointedly at Mr. Bush. I do not know what part he actually had in the events in New York, but he gets credit for them, which is enough. He would be able to say that he had goaded the Great Satan into a losing war in Arabia that left America defanged and no longer able to give orders to Moslem nations. Isn’t that what he set out to do?
What price nothing? A couple of thousand dead kids, countless cripples who will remain crippled when the current administration has been forgotten, a country wrecked, God knows how many dead Iraqis (I know, they don’t count), thousands of sisters and mothers remembering Bobby every Christmas and looking at his last year book from high school, a tremendous diminution in America’s influence and prestige as China rises, unforeseeable consequences in the Middle East. For what, Mr. Bush? For what?
..SR
Who Is Running This Choo-Choo Train?
Children At The Helm
June 18, 2005
Congressmen, a few only now, speak of withdrawal from Iraq. A small thing, but for the White House a worrisome step toward vertebracy in that body of polyps. The numbers of the dissenting will grow as they see that they do not get hurt. Military recruiting is way down, and will stay down: The gullibility of the young cannot forever be relied upon. The House has summoned the courage to vote against parts of the Patriot Act. The president’s polls drop and drop.
The crumbling has begun, methinks.
Is this surprising? If I may risk repeating myself tiresomely, the way to defeat the American military is to avoiding giving it clear targets, keep the body bags flowing into Dover or Travis, and wait. It is that simple. The insurgents know this. They are doing it, and it is working. Five Marines today, three tomorrow, twelve GIs one week, nine another. On and on. So far we have killed 1700 of our soldiers, closing in on 2000. Sooner or later, even Middle America will notice.
Is victory still possible, if it ever were? The military can’t stop the bleeding, or it would have. Short of a miracle, of perhaps a serious attack within the United States, actually or apparently by terrorists, the casualties will continue. The public will weary of the war, and it will all be over. No?
Wars are marketed as involving moral principles or geo-strategic necessity, but they can become grudge matches, contests of vanity grown stubborn. A president who has led his country into a war has his ego on the line. He cannot easily say, “In the light of events, the adventure appears to have failed, and so we will return home.” The world would regard him as a fool and a knave. Further, humble men do not become presidents. Such a man will struggle on desperately, unwisely, with no real purpose any longer than to avoid the personal ignominy of defeat. When his pride has been engaged he can’t stop. For this men die.
One sees a similar approach in the gambler who, having lost his car, bets his house in hopes of redeeming himself.
As the news worsens the lying, begun long ago, increases. Democracies of course have to be lied into aggressive wars, since no one really cares about the form of government in an obscure and remote nation. Thus as losses mount, the enemy’s successes are described as defeats, as the last throes of a failing force. (I would not be surprised to find that Tokyo described the bombing of Hiroshima as a sign of American desperation.) The government forbids reporters to photograph the coffins, punishes soldiers who talk to the press. The horribly wounded are discreetly hidden. Generals who are not upbeat are fired. Dissidents become labeled as traitors. War crimes become isolated incidents: Only those which are discovered have occurred. Etc.
Historians tend to see wars as consequent to abstract currents of history. They speak of the balance of power, the clash of civilizations, of economic rivalry, and it all sounds dispassionate, reasoned, and occasionally majestic. It might be more accurate to say that wars are the hobbies of half-informed children who have somehow come into possession of the levers of power. Can anyone possible believe that Mr. Bush knew anything about the Arab world when he set out to conquer it? That Hitler understood the Russians, or the Japanese Army, America?
Getting into wars is so often easier than getting out. In terms of national and presidential vanity, the prospects of Iraq, short always of a miracle, vary between bad and ghastly. If the United States pulls out, in a sort of exploitus reservatus, the One Remaining Superpower will be seen not to be. No one will be afraid of us any longer. In particular, countries like Iran will not be afraid. One wonders whether this may not be what Mr. bin Laden had in mind.
Of course in material terms the United States will not be weaker. If driven out of Iraq, America will still be superior in remarkable aircraft and fast carriers and extraordinary submarines. But submarines are of use only in certain kinds of wars, which the enemy will avoid. The good ship USS Thundertrinket can destroy Japan, yes. It cannot defeat a few thousand determined men with rifles. Militaries seem never to learn this.
It is curious. The French, having underestimated both the enemy and the potential of guerilla warfare, got thrashed at Dien Bien Phu. The Americans, equally full of themselves, then went into the same country and got similarly thrashed. The French, having learned nothing, tried again in Algeria, with the same result. The Israelis tried to hold down southern Lebanon, encountering the same problems and equally losing. The Russians, having seen all of this, invaded Afghanistan and got thrashed. Now the United States is in Iraq. For militaries, the learning curve seems to be flat.
The problem is not that soldiers are stupid. They are not. Rather it is (I think) that they become excessively taken with the technology and power of their weapons, with the computers and precision and speed, with themselves, and just do not stop to ponder the difficulty of killing hornets with a howitzer.
The future? Having restored the Vietnam complex, presumably the US will be very hesitant for a decade or so to throw its weight around. Then, having forgotten again, it will invade another country defended by only a few contemptible men with rifles who, in any case, will be expected to throw flowers.
If America loses the White House war—what? I suppose that Mr. Bin Laden will come out of his hole a hero in the Moslem world, laughing pointedly at Mr. Bush. I do not know what part he actually had in the events in New York, but he gets credit for them, which is enough. He would be able to say that he had goaded the Great Satan into a losing war in Arabia that left America defanged and no longer able to give orders to Moslem nations. Isn’t that what he set out to do?
What price nothing? A couple of thousand dead kids, countless cripples who will remain crippled when the current administration has been forgotten, a country wrecked, God knows how many dead Iraqis (I know, they don’t count), thousands of sisters and mothers remembering Bobby every Christmas and looking at his last year book from high school, a tremendous diminution in America’s influence and prestige as China rises, unforeseeable consequences in the Middle East. For what, Mr. Bush? For what?
#58 Posted by bharath on June 5, 2006 5:04:46 pm
And when is the next donor conference a.k.a BEG THE EVIL WHITE MAN conference?
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006 06 06 story_6-6-2006_pg1_5
DEFENCE BUDGET UP to Rs 250b
ISLAMABAD: The defence budget for the fiscal year 2006-07 is Rs 250 billion, 12 percent more than the Rs 223.5 billion allocated for 2005-06. The government has revised defence expenditure for the outgoing fiscal year to Rs 241.1 billion.
The defence budget allocation for 2006-07 contains a higher foreign exchange component so that defence imports, such as F-16 fighter aircraft from the United States, can be financed.
The government plans to modernise the armed forces under a phased plan that will continue for the next 15 years. The defence budget allocations in the coming years will be made accordingly and keeping in view geo-strategic requirements.
The government is negotiating a $375 million deal for the import of missiles for the Pakistan Navy with the United States. Pakistan has also approved the acquisition of airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft from Sweden to match Indian capabilities. The other main foreign defence purchases include US-made F-16s, four naval frigates from China, and Chinese F-10 fighter planes. Pakistan is indigenously producing tanks, armoured vehicles and various types of missiles.
The government also plans to procure JF-17 Thunder fighter aircraft. The Jf-17 Thunder is being jointly produced by Pakistan and China and recently successfully passed a test flight.
The jets will initially be produced in China, but Pakistan is to soon start producing the JF-17 Thunder at the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex at the rate of 20 jets per annum. This rate will eventually be stepped up.
The government says that defence expenditure has been decreasing as a percentage of total GDP for the last five years. Defence spending was 6.5 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) a few years ago but has now come down to 3.5 percent of GDP. The government claims that it has not passed on the total impact of inflation in determining defence allocations during the last five years, and a nominal increase is being made to adjust expenses. However, experts point out that defence expenditure invariably crosses the budget limit and has been revised upwards by Rs 20 to 30 billion in each of the last few years. sajid chaudhry
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006 06 06 story_6-6-2006_pg1_5
DEFENCE BUDGET UP to Rs 250b
ISLAMABAD: The defence budget for the fiscal year 2006-07 is Rs 250 billion, 12 percent more than the Rs 223.5 billion allocated for 2005-06. The government has revised defence expenditure for the outgoing fiscal year to Rs 241.1 billion.
The defence budget allocation for 2006-07 contains a higher foreign exchange component so that defence imports, such as F-16 fighter aircraft from the United States, can be financed.
The government plans to modernise the armed forces under a phased plan that will continue for the next 15 years. The defence budget allocations in the coming years will be made accordingly and keeping in view geo-strategic requirements.
The government is negotiating a $375 million deal for the import of missiles for the Pakistan Navy with the United States. Pakistan has also approved the acquisition of airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft from Sweden to match Indian capabilities. The other main foreign defence purchases include US-made F-16s, four naval frigates from China, and Chinese F-10 fighter planes. Pakistan is indigenously producing tanks, armoured vehicles and various types of missiles.
The government also plans to procure JF-17 Thunder fighter aircraft. The Jf-17 Thunder is being jointly produced by Pakistan and China and recently successfully passed a test flight.
The jets will initially be produced in China, but Pakistan is to soon start producing the JF-17 Thunder at the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex at the rate of 20 jets per annum. This rate will eventually be stepped up.
The government says that defence expenditure has been decreasing as a percentage of total GDP for the last five years. Defence spending was 6.5 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) a few years ago but has now come down to 3.5 percent of GDP. The government claims that it has not passed on the total impact of inflation in determining defence allocations during the last five years, and a nominal increase is being made to adjust expenses. However, experts point out that defence expenditure invariably crosses the budget limit and has been revised upwards by Rs 20 to 30 billion in each of the last few years. sajid chaudhry
#57 Posted by SR on June 5, 2006 4:58:24 pm
``Death to the Great Satan`` vs ``God Bless America``
Its been an ongoing theme on these forums at Chowk. Both the America-bashers and the America-worshippers have turned blue in the face screaming their pet (and pat) lines. Though few minds have changed as a result of these debates, yet a subtle change has occurred over the last several months. When it comes to the Iraq war in general, the US-bashers have remained just as vociferous while the US-apologists have been heading for the exit sign. Compared to 2003, 2004, and hell, even compared to 2005, fewer and fewer voices have been heard where we could see the US-worshippers going out on a limb to ``defend`` the US policy in Iraq. Gone are the chats about ``bringing democracy`` to a backward region and hardly anyone is touting the virtue of the ``first free and fair elections`` in Iraq any more. Some have had a change of heart and have thus altered their tune while others prefer to either remain sheepishly silent or shamelessly side-step the Iraq War and talk of something else.
But one thing we have to confess. This US love-hate debate is not too terrible. For one thing, at least it`s not as retarded and frivilous as the pissing match among the moronic members of Chowk`s notorious Pak-Bharat Dushmani Club. Boy, those guys are so full of it that they are literally bloated. They need purgatives. Alas Gandhi ji is not amongst us any more, or he might have offered to administer them a soap water enema.
Onward to Iran... let`s nuke em. After all, isn`t that what they want? To get nukes? No?!
...SR
Its been an ongoing theme on these forums at Chowk. Both the America-bashers and the America-worshippers have turned blue in the face screaming their pet (and pat) lines. Though few minds have changed as a result of these debates, yet a subtle change has occurred over the last several months. When it comes to the Iraq war in general, the US-bashers have remained just as vociferous while the US-apologists have been heading for the exit sign. Compared to 2003, 2004, and hell, even compared to 2005, fewer and fewer voices have been heard where we could see the US-worshippers going out on a limb to ``defend`` the US policy in Iraq. Gone are the chats about ``bringing democracy`` to a backward region and hardly anyone is touting the virtue of the ``first free and fair elections`` in Iraq any more. Some have had a change of heart and have thus altered their tune while others prefer to either remain sheepishly silent or shamelessly side-step the Iraq War and talk of something else.
But one thing we have to confess. This US love-hate debate is not too terrible. For one thing, at least it`s not as retarded and frivilous as the pissing match among the moronic members of Chowk`s notorious Pak-Bharat Dushmani Club. Boy, those guys are so full of it that they are literally bloated. They need purgatives. Alas Gandhi ji is not amongst us any more, or he might have offered to administer them a soap water enema.
Onward to Iran... let`s nuke em. After all, isn`t that what they want? To get nukes? No?!
...SR
#56 Posted by bharath on June 5, 2006 4:54:28 pm
re#49 by bbabu on June 5, 2006 3:41pm PT
``A simple question to irfan hamid:
Under what rock were you hiding when Pakistani generals were supporting the Taliban ?``
please refer to #20
``A simple question to irfan hamid:
Under what rock were you hiding when Pakistani generals were supporting the Taliban ?``
please refer to #20
#55 Posted by bharath on June 5, 2006 4:48:04 pm
All said and done hearing Islamists talk about military aggression and violence on the innocents ...is like
listening to Hitler & Goebbels lecturing on human rights :-))
http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/1586678/posts
Muhammad and Massacre of the Qurayza Jews
To understand how and why this atrocity unfolded, some straightforward history of early Islam is helpful.....................
.................
The sentence: Death by decapitation for around 300-600 men and pubescent boys, and enslavement for the women and children. Ibn Ishaq says that the number may have been as high as 800-900 ........
How did the executioners decide on which boy to slaughter or leave alive? This hadith gives the obvious answer. Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu [tribe] Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair. (Bukhari; see Ibn Ishaq p. 466)
This next hadith indicates that a woman was delirious. She was killed. Narrated Aisha . . .
No woman of Banu [tribe] Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah . . . was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so?.... I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. [Aisha] said: The man took her and beheaded her. [Aisha] said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed. (Bukhari)
The following narrative says that Muhammad took one woman for himself.
The apostle had chosen one of their women for himself, Rayhana bint Amr . . . one of the women of . . . Qurayza, and she remained with him until she died, in his power. The apostle had proposed to marry and put a veil on her, but she said: “Nay, leave me in your power, for that will be easier for me and for you.” So he left her. She had shown repugnance towards Islam when she was captured and clung to Judaism. (Ibn Ishaq p. 466)
............The steps to the massacre
Since all the names and politics can be confusing, here is a quick summary of the facts found in the previous section.
1. After the Meccans and their allies depart, the Jews are left powerless and outnumbered, facing 3,000 Muslim jihadists.
2. While the Jews were negotiating the terms of surrender with Abu Lubaba, he gestures to his throat, which indicates slaughter. This means that the flow of the events headed in one direction.
3. Sad bin Muadh is the leader of the Aws tribe.
4. This tribe had old alliances, whatever they were, with the Qurayzah tribe of Jews.
5. However, the Aws fought alongside Muhammad.
6. The Jews sided with the coalition (though the Jews did not actually fight). 7. Thus, the old alliances between the Aws and Jews are weakening.
8. After Muhammad’s attack on the Jews, some of the Aws plead with Muhammad to be lenient, such as expulsion.
9. Muhammad turns down this request for mercy—a key point, which supports no. 2. The outcome is never in doubt.
10. Instead, Muhammad appoints Sad bin Muadh to decide, and everyone agrees to abide by his decision.
11. Sad decrees slaughter and enslavement, wanting to firm up his allegiance to Islam before he dies. He dies shortly thereafter from his wound.
12. Muhammad says that Sad’s verdict is the judgment of “King Allah.” It is right and just. Sad makes him glad.
13. Even though everyone agrees to abide by the verdict, Muhammad still does not show mercy, as the men and boys are handcuffed behind their backs and beheaded, and the women and children are enslaved. Instead, he takes one of the beautiful, recently “widowed” Jewish women for himself.
14. Muhammad gets twenty percent of the Jewish property (movable, immovable and human), and the jihadists get eighty percent, to be distributed as he sees fit.
In any steps leading up to an atrocity, something wrong is bound to be revealed, and this appears to be no. 9. As noted, Muhammad could have exiled the Jews, as he had done to the Jewish tribes of Qaynuqa and Nadir a few years earlier. Or he could have executed only the leaders, if he believed that they stirred up his enemies—assuming that they really did this, as the Islamic sources allege.
listening to Hitler & Goebbels lecturing on human rights :-))
http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/1586678/posts
Muhammad and Massacre of the Qurayza Jews
To understand how and why this atrocity unfolded, some straightforward history of early Islam is helpful.....................
.................
The sentence: Death by decapitation for around 300-600 men and pubescent boys, and enslavement for the women and children. Ibn Ishaq says that the number may have been as high as 800-900 ........
How did the executioners decide on which boy to slaughter or leave alive? This hadith gives the obvious answer. Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu [tribe] Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair. (Bukhari; see Ibn Ishaq p. 466)
This next hadith indicates that a woman was delirious. She was killed. Narrated Aisha . . .
No woman of Banu [tribe] Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah . . . was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so?.... I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. [Aisha] said: The man took her and beheaded her. [Aisha] said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed. (Bukhari)
The following narrative says that Muhammad took one woman for himself.
The apostle had chosen one of their women for himself, Rayhana bint Amr . . . one of the women of . . . Qurayza, and she remained with him until she died, in his power. The apostle had proposed to marry and put a veil on her, but she said: “Nay, leave me in your power, for that will be easier for me and for you.” So he left her. She had shown repugnance towards Islam when she was captured and clung to Judaism. (Ibn Ishaq p. 466)
............The steps to the massacre
Since all the names and politics can be confusing, here is a quick summary of the facts found in the previous section.
1. After the Meccans and their allies depart, the Jews are left powerless and outnumbered, facing 3,000 Muslim jihadists.
2. While the Jews were negotiating the terms of surrender with Abu Lubaba, he gestures to his throat, which indicates slaughter. This means that the flow of the events headed in one direction.
3. Sad bin Muadh is the leader of the Aws tribe.
4. This tribe had old alliances, whatever they were, with the Qurayzah tribe of Jews.
5. However, the Aws fought alongside Muhammad.
6. The Jews sided with the coalition (though the Jews did not actually fight). 7. Thus, the old alliances between the Aws and Jews are weakening.
8. After Muhammad’s attack on the Jews, some of the Aws plead with Muhammad to be lenient, such as expulsion.
9. Muhammad turns down this request for mercy—a key point, which supports no. 2. The outcome is never in doubt.
10. Instead, Muhammad appoints Sad bin Muadh to decide, and everyone agrees to abide by his decision.
11. Sad decrees slaughter and enslavement, wanting to firm up his allegiance to Islam before he dies. He dies shortly thereafter from his wound.
12. Muhammad says that Sad’s verdict is the judgment of “King Allah.” It is right and just. Sad makes him glad.
13. Even though everyone agrees to abide by the verdict, Muhammad still does not show mercy, as the men and boys are handcuffed behind their backs and beheaded, and the women and children are enslaved. Instead, he takes one of the beautiful, recently “widowed” Jewish women for himself.
14. Muhammad gets twenty percent of the Jewish property (movable, immovable and human), and the jihadists get eighty percent, to be distributed as he sees fit.
In any steps leading up to an atrocity, something wrong is bound to be revealed, and this appears to be no. 9. As noted, Muhammad could have exiled the Jews, as he had done to the Jewish tribes of Qaynuqa and Nadir a few years earlier. Or he could have executed only the leaders, if he believed that they stirred up his enemies—assuming that they really did this, as the Islamic sources allege.
#54 Posted by shobig_sifar on June 5, 2006 4:13:15 pm
Re: # 52 AND that terror infrastructure is still intact, while hundreds of thousands of innocent civlians have died...someone has to be held responsible for their deaths.
Is it really really that hard to understand?
Is it really really that hard to understand?
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- Kulharee: With the wealth and... Hop Aboard the Interfaith
- HP: A friend sent me... The Correct Turn
- HP: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1859878,00.html Diarrhea kills more people... The Correct Turn
- HP: Bigger than the curry... The Correct Turn
- KaalChakra: ha, not only that,... The Correct Turn
- Naqshbandi: I take back my... Independence Thinker
- HP: #167 Posted by hamidm2 I... The Correct Turn
- hamidm2: Re: # 165 hp mian, ...... The Correct Turn
