Can Religious Leaders Redeem the Future of the World?

SRK#215:

B. Raman is not the only one. Hamid Mir is saying the same thing:

Url: http://ia.rediff.com/news/2007/oct/19hamid.htm

Excerpt:



"The PPP leadership pointed their fingers towards the head of the Intelligence Bureau Brig (Rtd) Ejaz Shah as the person responsible for the bombings.

Even Benazir mentioned his name with displeasure few days ago in London and claimed that Ejaz Shah is trying to sabotage a reconciliation between the PPP and Musharraf.

Now the big question is why does the PPP think that the head of a civilian intelligence agency is the mastermind of the great tragedy in Karachi on October 18? Asif Ali Zardari told this writer that Ejaz Shah have old links with Islamic radicals.

He claimed Ejaz Shah was the person who managed the surrender of Omer Sheikh in 2002, a suspect in the killing of American journalist Daniel Pearl. Asif Ali Zardari is sure that people like Ejaz Shah have encouraged Islamic radicals to attack Benazir.

Ejaz Shah was the home secretary of the Punjab province in 2002. He belongs to Nankana Sahib area of Punjab. Mother of Omer Sheikh was also from Nankana Sahib. When security agencies raided the house of her mother's parents in Nankana Sahib, Ejaz Shah contacted the uncle of the alleged terrorist who was a session judge at that time.

Uncle convinced his nephew through Ejaz Shah to surrender and that was how Omer Sheikh was arrested.

Some PPP sources have said that Ejaz Shah was the person who created the Pakistan Mulsim League-Q in Punjab. He was also a key figure in breaking more than 20 members of the national assembly from the PPP after the election in 2002. This is why the PPP leadership has problems with him.

People like Abida Husain who left the PML-Q and joined the PPP due to the disliking of Ejaz Shah are also trying to poison Benazir against their old enemy. Ejaz Shah is being considered a trusted confidant of General Pervaiz Musharraf but he is also very close to chaudhries of Gujrat.

According to reliable sources, Benzair Bhutto have declared not only Ejaz Shah but also Chief Minister of Punjab Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi as the enemies of her life in a letter to Musharraf recently.

Top government sources are not ready to agree with Benazir. They think Benazir should make an alliance with Musharraf against terrorism instead of fighting with the old allies of Musharraf. One source claimed that Ejaz Shah, who was the head of anti-narcotics force in 1998, refused to do Nawaz Sharif's bidding when the then prime minister tried to involve Asif Ali Zardari in a norcotics case. The Nawaz regime later booked Zardari in the same fake case with the help of the Punjab police.

It is also viewed by some government circles that head of a civilian intelligence agency is a soft target for the PPP and the real target is the boss of Ejaz Shah, who is, no doubt, General Pervez Musharraf [Images].

The PPP is trying to pressurize Musharraf by targeting people like Ejaz Shah and Ch. Pervaiz Elahi for getting some more concessions. It is also believed that this mistrust between the PPP and Musharraf is not good for both of them.

Musharraf called Benazir on Thursday and condoled the death of her workers in suicide bombings. Musharraf conveyed a message that we must be united against terrorism and not fight with each other. Musharraf also asked the leadership of the PML-Q not to make statements against the PPP. Both the PPP and the PML-Q will face a big challenge in the coming months.

All the intelligence agencies are concerned about is the coming general election. Not only Benazir, but also many leaders of the PML-Q are on the hit list of suicide bombers and it would be difficult to organise public meetings and rallies during the election compaign. The differences between the PPP and the PML-Q will only help the opponents of Musharraf.

Pakistan is going through a very critical time today. It needs reconciliation not only between some individuals but also between political parties having adverse views. 40 years ago Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto wrote a book The Great Tragedy just six months before the disintegration of Pakistan.

He started his book by saying: 'Pakistan is passing through a terrible ordeal. This country, born in pain, is experiencing its gravest crisis. The nightmare of Pakistanis killing Pakistanis is not yet over. Blood is still being spilled. The situation has become greatly complicated by the aggressive involvement of India'.

40 years after, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's daughter is blaming not India but some Pakistanis for the great tragedy in Karachi. The nightmare of Pakistanis killing Pakistanis is still not over.

Musharraf should at least investigate who was actually responsible for shutting down the street lights on Shahra-e-Faisal just few moments before the bombers struck.

He owes it to Benazir."

hamidm#216:

I have a different take from most people on this issue and had once expressed my views in an exchange with Romair, now bulleya.

I do not think that the Iraq war has been a failure for everyone. There was one group, I think, that knew exactly what its goal was and has achieved that goal remarkably well. These were the neocons.

Neocons and the oil lobby were the two groups supporting the Iraq war. While the oil lobby was interested in securing oil, the neocons were interested in the dismemberment of the Iraqi state and not just the removal of Saddam Hussain. This purpose would not have been served by any of the things which you suggest because that would have preserved a strong and unified Iraq. If you notice carefully, the neocons war-mongers have largely left the scene and columnists like Thomas Friedman, who were so gung-ho about Iraq, are now seeking a withdrawal from there. There purpose has been served and they are now even supporting a formal trifurcation of that country.. The state of Iraq has been destroyed.

On the other hand, the oil lobby, led by Cheney, is still interested in a stable source of oil supplies and is therefore not in favour of a withdrawal.

tahmed#211:

"o, you had to go back four and a half years on chowk before finding something I had written!!"

Yes, I googled chowk and picked up a random relevant interact from before the war started; indeed, I would have to go even farther to give evidence of support for the Afghan bombing. However, this sample was not the strongest one you wrote but I really hated doing what I did and have no stomach for doing this sort of thing any more.

The point however is that you have defended the US bombings of foreign countries, even its use of the nukes on other countries. Whether the US is justified in attacking undemocratic countries (and only those it doesn't like, it has no problem in supporting undemocratic regimes in China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and various countries in the Gulf and Latin America) is another matter.

Re: # 213

tahmed,

.... you read me wrong .... tommy franks was not in charge of iraq, he was just a battlefield general ...... what i meant was that bush should have put an american administration in place for 10-15 years with the highest ranking iraqi being the deputy dog-catcher in baghdad .....

... also i was referring to iran as being the next nazi germany and not some terrorist holed up in waziristan ........

BB is pointing finger at "certain people". Any guesses on who those people are? One Indian analyst ( B Raman) is saying that it is Ejaj Shah. Is that correct?

It is sad to see so many people losing their lives.

The mistake in Iraq started with not enough troops on the ground so the culprit is actually Rumsfeild and by continuing with him' Bush the CnC.

#212 hamidm: last i checked, Franks was an american general - and he screwed up royally by not providing for a peaceful transition to democracy by assuming that once saddam was gone, all iraqis would get together like little munchkins singing "Ding Dong, the Witch is dead!!".

As for the islamic terrorist becoming another Nazi Germany - I think they are more like the baader-meinhof gang than nazi germany (but dont hold me to this - unlike Romair, I do not have perfect foresight).

Re: # 211

tahmed,

... stop being such a wus and a monday morning quarterback ..... bush did the right thing in iraq; his only fault is that he didn't put in enough forces and tried to turn it over to the iraqis too soon - he should have put an american general in charge and told the bedouins to cool their heels for at least ten years while he kicked their nightgowned asses into shape ...... these people are not ready to run their own affairs yet ......

as for iran, i think it will be a mistake to wait too long .... once the iranians have nukes they will be much harder to deal with - it is time to bomb all their military facilities and enforce a comple economic embargo with a naval and air blockade ...... that regime must go ... now! ..... however, as i have said many times before, the root cause of all the troubles in the world is the province of hijaz - it must be liberated and put under under the control of the united nations ........

......... this problem has to be nipped in the bud before it becomes a bigger problem like nazi germany .......

... thank you for your support ..

dost mittar: So, you had to go back four and a half years on chowk before finding something I had written!! That in itself shows the weakness of your claim that I provide uncritical support of the west.

And lets not stop here. Lets examine what I wrote:

Your concern is that a US attack on Iraq will set a precedence for the US to attack any country at will. I dont share this concern, for a number of reasons. History shows democracies generally do not initiate aggressive wars. This is done by dictatorships, kingships etc. in their persuit of glory and retention of their personal rule. In a democracy like the US, there are too many countervailing forces, as indeed the intense debate on the subject within the US demonstrates.

My "uncritical support" above is clearly not to the west per se (unless you think that Putin's Russia is not a part of the west, or that Nazi Germany e.g. was not a part of the west), but of democratic societies. Big difference!! So, this does not back your claim.

I continued: And this is despite the fact that there is a very strong case for the US to attack Iraq and to take out Saddam Hussein. I was obviously wrong in assuming that the Bush Administration was telling the truth when it presented Powell presented the evidence at the UN. Had I known how fake the whole deal was, I would not have said this. So here again, you were too quick to jump to conclusions about my views without providing me the courtesy of asking.

I continue: And even if the US were to attack an undemocratic regime like Iran, I personally would shed no tears: the inhabitants of such countries are effectively dienfranchised, and their basic human rights to hold and express their opinions are already curbed, so at worst (which, realistically speaking, wont happen anyway) they will simply exchange rulers and at best (which is much more likely) they will be on the road to democracy and freedom. Look at how the US occupation of Japan freed that country from the dictatorship of the Japanese militarists and a god-like emperor into a modern, peace-loving and progressive nation. No Japanese seriously wishes to start worshipping their political rulers again.

I was correct in saying that the Iranian regime is undemocratic, and I was correct in pointing to the historic benefits that the US occupation of Japan and Germany after World War II provided to those countries - i.e. they have emerged as robust democracies. I was incorrect in assuming that the US would repeat this performance under Bush. Given the mess made by the Bush regime in Iraq, the innocent people killed, would I suggest it mess with Iran? Of course not.

So, next time you presume to present my views, I suggest you provide me the courtesy of asking first.

And btw, the above post - written four and a half years ago - still does not support the what I said were lies written by masadi, as I had said earlier. So I can only assume that I was correct in noting that the difference between a lie and the truth is not important to you as long as you like what you hear.

Re: # 202

urstruly,

....why is your heart sinking ? ... i thought that this is what you had hoped for - a showdown between the momineen and the kafiroon ........ are you hedging your bets now? .... don't worry, if things don't work out for the party of al-lah, you can apply for political asylum in the us (unless you have already done it once) ......

tahmed32:

Here is one of the "namoonas" of your support for the US invasion of not only Iraq but possibly of Iran as well:

" #25 Posted by tahmed32 on March 8, 2003 9:27:34 am
Your concern is that a US attack on Iraq will set a precedence for the US to attack any country at will. I dont share this concern, for a number of reasons. History shows democracies generally do not initiate aggressive wars. This is done by dictatorships, kingships etc. in their persuit of glory and retention of their personal rule. In a democracy like the US, there are too many countervailing forces, as indeed the intense debate on the subject within the US demonstrates. And this is despite the fact that there is a very strong case for the US to attack Iraq and to take out Saddam Hussein.
And even if the US were to attack an undemocratic regime like Iran, I personally would shed no tears: the inhabitants of such countries are effectively dienfranchised, and their basic human rights to hold and express their opinions are already curbed, so at worst (which, realistically speaking, wont happen anyway) they will simply exchange rulers and at best (which is much more likely) they will be on the road to democracy and freedom. Look at how the US occupation of Japan freed that country from the dictatorship of the Japanese militarists and a god-like emperor into a modern, peace-loving and progressive nation. No Japanese seriously wishes to start worshipping their political rulers again.

#207 dm: "Now, do you want me to dig up those posts?"

That is what I have been asking you, isnt it? Go get them, then we can talk.

You are welcome to think what you like about Goldsteen.

tahmed32:

Not that fast, braather. It's easy to summarise your or anyone else's views, one does not have to dig through thousands of posts of anyone, including yours and mine, to know one's views on chowk - we all repeat our views all the time. For example, I do not have to go through hamidm's posts to know that he hates Islam but is still a proud and patriotic Pakistani, or that naqshbandi is in awe of the sufis.

That said, I did point out to your uncritical and repeated support of the US bombing attacks on Afghans and Iraqis. Now, do you want me to dig up those posts?

As regards Mr. Goldstein, he was not from the West and probably not even an Israeli, perhaps just an Indian pretending to be one. And of the posts that I recall, you never criticised the West in your rejoinders to him.

dm: So, you had the time to summarize my views, but are too busy to show where these views came from. And it is indeed presumptious on your part to expect me to spend the time proving my innocence to you!!

Accusations and misrepresentation of views without burdening oneself with substantiating them is your privilege. Not wasting my time with them is mine.

Have a nice day.

Re: # 179 Posted by hamidm2 on October 19, 2007 5:19:00 am

(...today america alone bears the white man's burden to civilize the barbaric world - specially the mahommedans .......).....Why?

And who would civilize the so-called civilized anglos?

#199 Posted by mohar11

who do you think did this blast on BB?

The same people who shot her brother alongwith six crack armed guards cleanly through the head and neck right there on the street from tree tops without anyone getting a chance to raise their weapons, and the Police SHO on picket duty who was a witness was found strangled the next morning in Police quarters with many sleeping alongside not noticing.

There are many sinister forces opposed to the Bhutto family in Pakistan. Blaming it on the Waziris is simplistic BS.

The alleged Baitullah-Mehsood threat has been denied by the original source quoted by daily times, Senator Saleh Shah, as utterly rubbish on television today. It never occurred.