An International Failure
Feroz R Khan December 5, 2001
#295 Posted by mohajir on December 29, 2001 2:37:36 pm
Pakistan, India and the United States
2230 GMT, 011227
Dec 27,2001
Summary
http://www.stratfor.com/home/0112272230.htm
With al Qaeda and Taliban elements fleeing Afghanistan, the United States will continue to grapple with strategic problems concerning its traditional ally, Pakistan. There are significant differences between what President Pervez Musharraf has said he will do to fight terrorism, what he intends to do and what he actually can accomplish. The threat of an imminent Indo-Pakistani war may be just the lever Washington needs to move Islamabad.
Analysis
The United States has been engaged in intense debate regarding the next steps it must take to eradicate al Qaeda. Two main strategies have emerged of late. One argues that there can be no solution to the problem of Islamic attacks on the United States until the regime of Saddam Hussein is eliminated. The other strategy argues that Iraq`s role is secondary, and that the United States` primary mission is to prevent al Qaeda from establishing a command center in some other isolated country, like Yemen or Somalia.
Obviously, the strategies are not incompatible. Equally obviously, at least from STRATFOR`S point of view, the debate misses the point entirely: the next country on the agenda is Pakistan.
When planning for the Afghan campaign began immediately after Sept. 11, it was clear -- at least from a naive standpoint -- that Pakistan, which has an extensive border with Afghanistan and a long-standing strategic relationship with the United States, would be the strategic key to the campaign. The planners` first impulse was to deploy U.S. forces in Pakistan and prosecute the campaign from there. This proved impossible. Instead, U.S. ground forces had to deploy in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, while air attacks were carried out from carriers in the Arabian Sea and from strategic bombers on Diego Garcia and elsewhere. Clearly, some forces were deployed in Pakistan, but only under tight secrecy.
The need for secrecy is the key to everything. Simply put, the Pakistani government was not in a position to permit a war against the Taliban regime to be waged from its soil. This was not simply because of substantial sympathy for the Taliban in Pakistan, although that existed. Nor is it simply because Pushtuns, the foundation of Taliban power, live on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border, although they do.
Rather, it was because the Taliban was ultimately as much a Pakistani phenomenon as it was Afghan. In a sense, the Taliban was a Pakistani construct, designed to conclude -- on terms acceptable to Pakistan -- the civil war that raged in Afghanistan following the Soviet withdrawal. Pakistan feared the ascendance of the Northern Alliance as well as other groups in Afghanistan, and saw in the Taliban a government that was congenial to Pakistan both strategically and ideologically. The ISI, Pakistan`s intelligence service, was in many ways the godfather of the Taliban government.
As the Taliban government provided al Qaeda with a secure operational base, the United States continued to parse the issue of Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is inconceivable that the Taliban would have been able to develop its relationship with al Qaeda without the knowledge of Pakistan`s intelligence services and government, and it is difficult to imagine that they would not have given at least implicit approval. However, the United States was not prepared to frame the issue as an Afghan-Pakistani issue -- only as an Afghan problem fundamentally distinct from Pakistan.
This policy continued after Sept. 11 and throughout the campaign, despite the clear limits Pakistan placed on cooperation with the United States. Washington clearly and rationally wanted to contain the Afghan campaign. It placed sufficient pressure on President Pervez Musharraf to force him to remove senior officials who were too closely aligned with the Taliban, to permit at least some basing of U.S. forces in Pakistan and to publicly commit himself to use Pakistani forces along the frontier to prevent Taliban forces from crossing into Pakistan.
The United States recognized that much of this was cosmetic. Support for the Taliban ran deep in the government and deeper in the country. The U.S. forces based in Pakistan were hardly strategic. Finally, whatever he promised, there were significant differences between what Musharraf said, what he actually intended to do and what he ultimately was able to do.
The United States carefully refrained from pressing the issue, afraid that excessive pressure would topple Musharraf and throw Pakistan either into chaos or into a fundamentalist dictatorship. Or if excessive pressure threatened Musharraf`s survival, he might simply reverse course and turn against the United States. In any case, the United States adopted a minimax policy -- it demanded the most it could get within the limits of what Islamabad could deliver, and it lived with the three differences: what was said, what was actually intended, what could really be delivered.
The manner in which the Afghan war concluded has suddenly rendered this policy untenable. While the Taliban has abandoned the cities, it continues to exist, both in alliances with particular warlords and in its own right. Where it exists most intensely, in fact, is in Pakistan, among Taliban sympathizers as well as among hundreds or thousands of Taliban fighters that have crossed into Pakistan during the past month. A very few have been very publicly apprehended, but most have gone to ground -- some protected by Pakistani forces.
Far more important than the fate of the Taliban is the fate of al Qaeda`s senior commanders, including Osama bin Laden, and of its fighters. It is becoming increasingly obvious that neither the Taliban`s high command nor al Qaeda`s has been captured. The release of a new videotape that appears to have been made in the past few weeks, and perhaps as recently as last week, dealt a blow to speculation that bin Laden and the others were killed at Tora Bora. It was always problematic that bin Laden would have chosen to travel from Kandahar to Tora Bora in the chaos that followed his last known taping. This would be not only dangerous but pointless. It was far more likely that he went directly to Pakistan, where supporters hid him and may still be doing so.
Whether bin Laden is in Pakistan or has traveled elsewhere, it is clear that many of his forces as well as Taliban leaders went to Pakistan and that the vast majority of those remain. In other words, apart from native support for the Taliban and al Qaeda, elements from Afghanistan are now in Pakistan and operating under the protection of, if not the government, certainly elements of the government and powerful political forces.
If we are correct in this, then the problem the United States faces in destroying al Qaeda does not concern Somalia, Yemen or Iraq, but Pakistan. Ideally, the United States would like Musharraf to use his security and military forces to destroy al Qaeda`s forces and hand senior leaders over to the United States. Certainly, this is something that Musharraf has assured the United States he would do. However, it is not clear that he is in a position to deliver on his promise -- it is not clear his orders are being obeyed. Nor, frankly, is it clear that he wishes to see these orders carried out. Certainly, he wants to placate the United States, but there is a huge gap between saying he will act, acting, and acting effectively.
A case in point is the Dec. 13 attack on India`s parliament by gunmen, which the U.S. government says were Islamic militants based in Pakistan. There are two explanations for the attack. The first is that Musharaff knew about plans for the attack and sanctioned it. The second is that he neither knew of nor sanctioned the attack. In a real sense, it doesn`t matter which it was. Either explanation raises serious questions about the course of Afghanistan.
All this creates a strategic crisis for the United States. Its fundamental goal is to defend its own territory against al Qaeda attacks and the global destruction of al Qaeda. In our view, al Qaeda has taken refuge in Pakistan -- historically an ally of the United States, and a country that poses a military challenge on an order of magnitude beyond that posed by Afghanistan. Launching a military campaign in Pakistan is possible but requires much greater resources than in Afghanistan, as well as the destruction of Pakistan`s nuclear capability. Rather than use direct military action, the United States would prefer a more subtle lever.
The attack on India`s parliament provides precisely that lever. Obviously, the shootout was as intolerable for India as a similar attack on Congress would be for the United States. India must react. But even apart from that, India sees itself as having an unprecedented opportunity to deal not only with the Kashmir issue but with the entire issue of the nature and future of Pakistan.
Pakistan`s alliance with the United States has placed severe limits on how far India could go. However, a profound schism is developing between Washington and Islamabad as post-Sept. 11 events evolve. Clearly, both sides are doing everything to avert an open breach -- but equally clearly, if it becomes undeniable that Pakistan is harboring al Qaeda elements, a break becomes inevitable. At that moment, India would have the opening it has awaited for 50 years. The United States would be not be able to refrain from acting against Pakistan, nor could it act efficiently without Indian support and involvement. India was eager to help from the beginning; now the United States would have no choice but to accept that help.
The United States does not want an Indo-Pakistani war, but the threat of such a war is precisely what Washington needs to move Islamabad. For Pakistan, the threat of a war with India in which the United States either stood to one side or actively participated is the worst possible nightmare. By allowing the specter to rise, Washington has given Musharraf an opportunity to become more forthcoming. If he is in control but insincere, he is being shown the abyss and can change course. If he is sincere but not in control, he can show the abyss to Islamic fundamentalists in his government and bring them under control.
The problem is that many of the fundamentalists would actually welcome a war and even defeat by India. Their goal is to radicalize the Islamic world by demonstrating that Christians, Hindus and Jews have formed a vast alliance designed to crush Islam. A combined U.S.-Indian attack would be exactly what would be needed to demonstrate this to the world. The destruction of Pakistan`s nuclear capability -- whether by nuclear or conventional weapons -- would further illustrate the point. It is therefore no accident that Islamic fundamentalists struck India at what would normally be considered the worst possible moment. From their point of view, it was the best possible moment to act.
This indicated that Musharraf may not be able to gain control of the situation, even if he wanted to. Thus, he visited Beijing in late December. China has historically been an enemy of India and an ally of Pakistan. Beijing has been extremely cautious since Sept. 11, but it remembers both the EP-3 spy plane incident and U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld`s redefinition of strategy toward the Pacific and against China prior to Sept. 11. Beijing is happy to see the United States diverted. It would not be happy to see India emerge without a threat on its western flank. Hence, Musharaff had a very cordial visit to Beijing.
At this point, the strategic imperative of defeating al Qaeda begins to intersect with Eurasian geopolitics. It is one thing to take Afghanistan apart, quite another to do the same with Pakistan. Afghanistan`s fate is of little significance to great powers. The fate of Pakistan matters to China, among others. At the same time, if al Qaeda is using Pakistan as a base of operations or even as a transit point and the Pakistani government can`t or won`t do anything decisive and effective about it, this strikes at a fundamental U.S. interest and cannot be tolerated.
The United States is, therefore, in the midst of a veiled crisis over Pakistan. It is an odd crisis in that Washington, fearing the consequences of a public confrontation, is trying very hard to maintain the fiction that Pakistan has been fully cooperating in the battle against al Qaeda, that it is acting effectively against the Taliban and al Qaeda and that its forces would certainly arrest senior al Qaeda leaders if they could catch them. At the same time, the United States is quietly showing Pakistan the abyss in the hopes that the plausible fiction of U.S.-Pakistani relations might thereby become reality.
The problem is that in Pakistan, there are those who prefer an open breach with the United States to accommodation. Even if we assume that Musharraf is not one of these elements, it is not clear that he can control them. If he can`t control them, the United States is faced with an extraordinary dilemma -- to go into Pakistan and get al Qaeda itself. It cannot do this without India, and India will not move unless Pakistan`s nuclear weapons are destroyed. It is not clear that U.S. precision-guided munitions are sufficient for a task that will tolerate no failure.
The rest follows logically.
2230 GMT, 011227
Dec 27,2001
Summary
http://www.stratfor.com/home/0112272230.htm
With al Qaeda and Taliban elements fleeing Afghanistan, the United States will continue to grapple with strategic problems concerning its traditional ally, Pakistan. There are significant differences between what President Pervez Musharraf has said he will do to fight terrorism, what he intends to do and what he actually can accomplish. The threat of an imminent Indo-Pakistani war may be just the lever Washington needs to move Islamabad.
Analysis
The United States has been engaged in intense debate regarding the next steps it must take to eradicate al Qaeda. Two main strategies have emerged of late. One argues that there can be no solution to the problem of Islamic attacks on the United States until the regime of Saddam Hussein is eliminated. The other strategy argues that Iraq`s role is secondary, and that the United States` primary mission is to prevent al Qaeda from establishing a command center in some other isolated country, like Yemen or Somalia.
Obviously, the strategies are not incompatible. Equally obviously, at least from STRATFOR`S point of view, the debate misses the point entirely: the next country on the agenda is Pakistan.
When planning for the Afghan campaign began immediately after Sept. 11, it was clear -- at least from a naive standpoint -- that Pakistan, which has an extensive border with Afghanistan and a long-standing strategic relationship with the United States, would be the strategic key to the campaign. The planners` first impulse was to deploy U.S. forces in Pakistan and prosecute the campaign from there. This proved impossible. Instead, U.S. ground forces had to deploy in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, while air attacks were carried out from carriers in the Arabian Sea and from strategic bombers on Diego Garcia and elsewhere. Clearly, some forces were deployed in Pakistan, but only under tight secrecy.
The need for secrecy is the key to everything. Simply put, the Pakistani government was not in a position to permit a war against the Taliban regime to be waged from its soil. This was not simply because of substantial sympathy for the Taliban in Pakistan, although that existed. Nor is it simply because Pushtuns, the foundation of Taliban power, live on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border, although they do.
Rather, it was because the Taliban was ultimately as much a Pakistani phenomenon as it was Afghan. In a sense, the Taliban was a Pakistani construct, designed to conclude -- on terms acceptable to Pakistan -- the civil war that raged in Afghanistan following the Soviet withdrawal. Pakistan feared the ascendance of the Northern Alliance as well as other groups in Afghanistan, and saw in the Taliban a government that was congenial to Pakistan both strategically and ideologically. The ISI, Pakistan`s intelligence service, was in many ways the godfather of the Taliban government.
As the Taliban government provided al Qaeda with a secure operational base, the United States continued to parse the issue of Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is inconceivable that the Taliban would have been able to develop its relationship with al Qaeda without the knowledge of Pakistan`s intelligence services and government, and it is difficult to imagine that they would not have given at least implicit approval. However, the United States was not prepared to frame the issue as an Afghan-Pakistani issue -- only as an Afghan problem fundamentally distinct from Pakistan.
This policy continued after Sept. 11 and throughout the campaign, despite the clear limits Pakistan placed on cooperation with the United States. Washington clearly and rationally wanted to contain the Afghan campaign. It placed sufficient pressure on President Pervez Musharraf to force him to remove senior officials who were too closely aligned with the Taliban, to permit at least some basing of U.S. forces in Pakistan and to publicly commit himself to use Pakistani forces along the frontier to prevent Taliban forces from crossing into Pakistan.
The United States recognized that much of this was cosmetic. Support for the Taliban ran deep in the government and deeper in the country. The U.S. forces based in Pakistan were hardly strategic. Finally, whatever he promised, there were significant differences between what Musharraf said, what he actually intended to do and what he ultimately was able to do.
The United States carefully refrained from pressing the issue, afraid that excessive pressure would topple Musharraf and throw Pakistan either into chaos or into a fundamentalist dictatorship. Or if excessive pressure threatened Musharraf`s survival, he might simply reverse course and turn against the United States. In any case, the United States adopted a minimax policy -- it demanded the most it could get within the limits of what Islamabad could deliver, and it lived with the three differences: what was said, what was actually intended, what could really be delivered.
The manner in which the Afghan war concluded has suddenly rendered this policy untenable. While the Taliban has abandoned the cities, it continues to exist, both in alliances with particular warlords and in its own right. Where it exists most intensely, in fact, is in Pakistan, among Taliban sympathizers as well as among hundreds or thousands of Taliban fighters that have crossed into Pakistan during the past month. A very few have been very publicly apprehended, but most have gone to ground -- some protected by Pakistani forces.
Far more important than the fate of the Taliban is the fate of al Qaeda`s senior commanders, including Osama bin Laden, and of its fighters. It is becoming increasingly obvious that neither the Taliban`s high command nor al Qaeda`s has been captured. The release of a new videotape that appears to have been made in the past few weeks, and perhaps as recently as last week, dealt a blow to speculation that bin Laden and the others were killed at Tora Bora. It was always problematic that bin Laden would have chosen to travel from Kandahar to Tora Bora in the chaos that followed his last known taping. This would be not only dangerous but pointless. It was far more likely that he went directly to Pakistan, where supporters hid him and may still be doing so.
Whether bin Laden is in Pakistan or has traveled elsewhere, it is clear that many of his forces as well as Taliban leaders went to Pakistan and that the vast majority of those remain. In other words, apart from native support for the Taliban and al Qaeda, elements from Afghanistan are now in Pakistan and operating under the protection of, if not the government, certainly elements of the government and powerful political forces.
If we are correct in this, then the problem the United States faces in destroying al Qaeda does not concern Somalia, Yemen or Iraq, but Pakistan. Ideally, the United States would like Musharraf to use his security and military forces to destroy al Qaeda`s forces and hand senior leaders over to the United States. Certainly, this is something that Musharraf has assured the United States he would do. However, it is not clear that he is in a position to deliver on his promise -- it is not clear his orders are being obeyed. Nor, frankly, is it clear that he wishes to see these orders carried out. Certainly, he wants to placate the United States, but there is a huge gap between saying he will act, acting, and acting effectively.
A case in point is the Dec. 13 attack on India`s parliament by gunmen, which the U.S. government says were Islamic militants based in Pakistan. There are two explanations for the attack. The first is that Musharaff knew about plans for the attack and sanctioned it. The second is that he neither knew of nor sanctioned the attack. In a real sense, it doesn`t matter which it was. Either explanation raises serious questions about the course of Afghanistan.
All this creates a strategic crisis for the United States. Its fundamental goal is to defend its own territory against al Qaeda attacks and the global destruction of al Qaeda. In our view, al Qaeda has taken refuge in Pakistan -- historically an ally of the United States, and a country that poses a military challenge on an order of magnitude beyond that posed by Afghanistan. Launching a military campaign in Pakistan is possible but requires much greater resources than in Afghanistan, as well as the destruction of Pakistan`s nuclear capability. Rather than use direct military action, the United States would prefer a more subtle lever.
The attack on India`s parliament provides precisely that lever. Obviously, the shootout was as intolerable for India as a similar attack on Congress would be for the United States. India must react. But even apart from that, India sees itself as having an unprecedented opportunity to deal not only with the Kashmir issue but with the entire issue of the nature and future of Pakistan.
Pakistan`s alliance with the United States has placed severe limits on how far India could go. However, a profound schism is developing between Washington and Islamabad as post-Sept. 11 events evolve. Clearly, both sides are doing everything to avert an open breach -- but equally clearly, if it becomes undeniable that Pakistan is harboring al Qaeda elements, a break becomes inevitable. At that moment, India would have the opening it has awaited for 50 years. The United States would be not be able to refrain from acting against Pakistan, nor could it act efficiently without Indian support and involvement. India was eager to help from the beginning; now the United States would have no choice but to accept that help.
The United States does not want an Indo-Pakistani war, but the threat of such a war is precisely what Washington needs to move Islamabad. For Pakistan, the threat of a war with India in which the United States either stood to one side or actively participated is the worst possible nightmare. By allowing the specter to rise, Washington has given Musharraf an opportunity to become more forthcoming. If he is in control but insincere, he is being shown the abyss and can change course. If he is sincere but not in control, he can show the abyss to Islamic fundamentalists in his government and bring them under control.
The problem is that many of the fundamentalists would actually welcome a war and even defeat by India. Their goal is to radicalize the Islamic world by demonstrating that Christians, Hindus and Jews have formed a vast alliance designed to crush Islam. A combined U.S.-Indian attack would be exactly what would be needed to demonstrate this to the world. The destruction of Pakistan`s nuclear capability -- whether by nuclear or conventional weapons -- would further illustrate the point. It is therefore no accident that Islamic fundamentalists struck India at what would normally be considered the worst possible moment. From their point of view, it was the best possible moment to act.
This indicated that Musharraf may not be able to gain control of the situation, even if he wanted to. Thus, he visited Beijing in late December. China has historically been an enemy of India and an ally of Pakistan. Beijing has been extremely cautious since Sept. 11, but it remembers both the EP-3 spy plane incident and U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld`s redefinition of strategy toward the Pacific and against China prior to Sept. 11. Beijing is happy to see the United States diverted. It would not be happy to see India emerge without a threat on its western flank. Hence, Musharaff had a very cordial visit to Beijing.
At this point, the strategic imperative of defeating al Qaeda begins to intersect with Eurasian geopolitics. It is one thing to take Afghanistan apart, quite another to do the same with Pakistan. Afghanistan`s fate is of little significance to great powers. The fate of Pakistan matters to China, among others. At the same time, if al Qaeda is using Pakistan as a base of operations or even as a transit point and the Pakistani government can`t or won`t do anything decisive and effective about it, this strikes at a fundamental U.S. interest and cannot be tolerated.
The United States is, therefore, in the midst of a veiled crisis over Pakistan. It is an odd crisis in that Washington, fearing the consequences of a public confrontation, is trying very hard to maintain the fiction that Pakistan has been fully cooperating in the battle against al Qaeda, that it is acting effectively against the Taliban and al Qaeda and that its forces would certainly arrest senior al Qaeda leaders if they could catch them. At the same time, the United States is quietly showing Pakistan the abyss in the hopes that the plausible fiction of U.S.-Pakistani relations might thereby become reality.
The problem is that in Pakistan, there are those who prefer an open breach with the United States to accommodation. Even if we assume that Musharraf is not one of these elements, it is not clear that he can control them. If he can`t control them, the United States is faced with an extraordinary dilemma -- to go into Pakistan and get al Qaeda itself. It cannot do this without India, and India will not move unless Pakistan`s nuclear weapons are destroyed. It is not clear that U.S. precision-guided munitions are sufficient for a task that will tolerate no failure.
The rest follows logically.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#294 Posted by sherdil on December 23, 2001 2:37:21 am
(Continuation of my previous post ...)
Having gone through the different possible suspects in the last post, I keep coming back to the extremists within Pakistan and the Pakistani military/ISI rather than the others I listed. No real surprise but it had to be looked at from all angles. It has to be these guys because the results that such an attack (on the Indian Parliament) would bring are:
1. Increased pressure on Musharraf from the US and India to crack down on the Kashmiri groups. On this there are clearly limits - there is only so much Musharraf can do without being thrown out (or worse) of office for betraying Kashmir.
2. Possible war with India, which would provide a renewed rallying point for the extremists recently discredited.
3. Derailing potential talks and trade with India.
4. Forcing the US to come down hard on Pakistan and thus labeling the US as using Pakistan for its own (and India`s purposes) yet again. (A potent rallying point).
All these are aimed directly at Musharraf, and have the potential to rejuvenate the extremist`s agenda, as they see it.
I think they are wrong in their assessments. For one thing, their hopes rely on the backing of most Pakistanis. This is why the attack was Kashmir-centric in nature (ie directed at the Indian Parliament knowing it will be the Kashmiri groups that will be accused). Kashmir is the issue that Pakistanis will rally toward, no doubt, but things have changed recently. Everywhere I have been, the Pakistanis I talked to think Musharraf is the one who will do the right thing for the Kashmir problem - it is his approach that they will back. The extremists have lost a great deal of ground to Musharraf. Of course if India attacks, then all bets are off. And what if the US pushes Musharraf too far on cracking down on the Kashmiri groups as `terrorists`? Bush is treading a fine line here as well. One indication of how far things may go is to remember what the US officials at the State Department were saying in the beginning of the Afghan war: They said the battle would not be won in Afghanistan at the cost of losing Pakistan (to the extremists). That is the risk facing us today if either Pakistan or India falters. This entire extremist scenario depends on India realizing the battle Musharraf is facing, and helping rather than hindering him. And more so for Pakistan: Musharraf cannot afford to falter or backtrack on the course he has taken. He has to rid Pakistan of the extremists. The US would like to help him and is willing to do just that. India must and should (because it is in their best interests). And Pakistanis have absolutely no choice but to help him in this. That is a battle for us Pakistanis. We cannot expect the Americans to rid us of our baggage - that is a problem of our own doing and we are the ones who have to now reorient ourselves from the path of extremism. Easier said than done, I know, but just look at the reaction of the extremists to Musharraf. Their act speaks of desperation. It says that what Musharraf is doing is having an effect, and that his educational plans will have a still greater and longer lasting effect of removing the narrow focus of the madrassahs. The question is will he be given time? Is the Indian government mature enough to realize this? It looks like Vajpayee may be, but the Advani-types seem to be making things dificult for him.
At the moment, it looks to me like the war posturing is going to back off and the US influence will prevail. What has really helped is the restrained posture Pakistan has taken, in not getting into the tit-for-tat game with India, but realizing that Vajpayee`s government needs to let off some belligerent steam to blunt the emotions of some Indians. The hope is that India will allow a third party (the UN Security Council or the US) to help in the investigative process. It is to the advantage of all (except the terrorists).
Having gone through the different possible suspects in the last post, I keep coming back to the extremists within Pakistan and the Pakistani military/ISI rather than the others I listed. No real surprise but it had to be looked at from all angles. It has to be these guys because the results that such an attack (on the Indian Parliament) would bring are:
1. Increased pressure on Musharraf from the US and India to crack down on the Kashmiri groups. On this there are clearly limits - there is only so much Musharraf can do without being thrown out (or worse) of office for betraying Kashmir.
2. Possible war with India, which would provide a renewed rallying point for the extremists recently discredited.
3. Derailing potential talks and trade with India.
4. Forcing the US to come down hard on Pakistan and thus labeling the US as using Pakistan for its own (and India`s purposes) yet again. (A potent rallying point).
All these are aimed directly at Musharraf, and have the potential to rejuvenate the extremist`s agenda, as they see it.
I think they are wrong in their assessments. For one thing, their hopes rely on the backing of most Pakistanis. This is why the attack was Kashmir-centric in nature (ie directed at the Indian Parliament knowing it will be the Kashmiri groups that will be accused). Kashmir is the issue that Pakistanis will rally toward, no doubt, but things have changed recently. Everywhere I have been, the Pakistanis I talked to think Musharraf is the one who will do the right thing for the Kashmir problem - it is his approach that they will back. The extremists have lost a great deal of ground to Musharraf. Of course if India attacks, then all bets are off. And what if the US pushes Musharraf too far on cracking down on the Kashmiri groups as `terrorists`? Bush is treading a fine line here as well. One indication of how far things may go is to remember what the US officials at the State Department were saying in the beginning of the Afghan war: They said the battle would not be won in Afghanistan at the cost of losing Pakistan (to the extremists). That is the risk facing us today if either Pakistan or India falters. This entire extremist scenario depends on India realizing the battle Musharraf is facing, and helping rather than hindering him. And more so for Pakistan: Musharraf cannot afford to falter or backtrack on the course he has taken. He has to rid Pakistan of the extremists. The US would like to help him and is willing to do just that. India must and should (because it is in their best interests). And Pakistanis have absolutely no choice but to help him in this. That is a battle for us Pakistanis. We cannot expect the Americans to rid us of our baggage - that is a problem of our own doing and we are the ones who have to now reorient ourselves from the path of extremism. Easier said than done, I know, but just look at the reaction of the extremists to Musharraf. Their act speaks of desperation. It says that what Musharraf is doing is having an effect, and that his educational plans will have a still greater and longer lasting effect of removing the narrow focus of the madrassahs. The question is will he be given time? Is the Indian government mature enough to realize this? It looks like Vajpayee may be, but the Advani-types seem to be making things dificult for him.
At the moment, it looks to me like the war posturing is going to back off and the US influence will prevail. What has really helped is the restrained posture Pakistan has taken, in not getting into the tit-for-tat game with India, but realizing that Vajpayee`s government needs to let off some belligerent steam to blunt the emotions of some Indians. The hope is that India will allow a third party (the UN Security Council or the US) to help in the investigative process. It is to the advantage of all (except the terrorists).
#293 Posted by shammi on December 22, 2001 1:00:54 pm
Re: Ferozk on `evidence`
``Pakistan cannot seek shelter under the guise of a freedom struggle in Kashmir,`` he (an un-named senior External Affairs Ministry official) said. ``If the US has acknowledged that the LeT and Jaish-e-Mohammed operate from Pakistan, it is because WE HAVE PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT CANNOT BE DENIED.``
http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/dec/22tara.htm
Ferozk, QED. Check out any number of news articles in the Washington Post, NY Times, etc., and you will realize that the public relations campaign for Pakistan is OVER. India does not feel the need to convince Musharraf (for the same reason that I do not need to convince you of the obvious -- you know that official Pakistan supports JeM and LeT). India only needs to convince external powers that matter. Musharraf should see the writing on the wall. He would do well by staying ahead of events (ie do a turn-around on the `terrorists-are-useful-agents-for-executing-foreign-policy`) rather than wait before his hand his forced by ignominy.
``Pakistan cannot seek shelter under the guise of a freedom struggle in Kashmir,`` he (an un-named senior External Affairs Ministry official) said. ``If the US has acknowledged that the LeT and Jaish-e-Mohammed operate from Pakistan, it is because WE HAVE PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT CANNOT BE DENIED.``
http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/dec/22tara.htm
Ferozk, QED. Check out any number of news articles in the Washington Post, NY Times, etc., and you will realize that the public relations campaign for Pakistan is OVER. India does not feel the need to convince Musharraf (for the same reason that I do not need to convince you of the obvious -- you know that official Pakistan supports JeM and LeT). India only needs to convince external powers that matter. Musharraf should see the writing on the wall. He would do well by staying ahead of events (ie do a turn-around on the `terrorists-are-useful-agents-for-executing-foreign-policy`) rather than wait before his hand his forced by ignominy.
#292 Posted by shammi on December 22, 2001 1:00:54 pm
Re: Ferozk
``...Musharraf will undertake actions against these groups, because according to CNN he has promised the Chinese to help them fight the Chinese Muslim extermist groups...``
Have the Chinese provided any evidence to Islamabad? If not, then why ask for the obvious from India? It is far from certain that Pakistan groups are even involved in Sinkiang violence, yet Musharraf has offered his support. His doublespeak on violence directed towards India does not go unnoticed in this increasingly small and well-connected world. India may not be able to dictate a time-table to Musharraf, but other events will. It remains to be seen how long he will keep sprinting ahead of internal contradictions that are fast catching up. The war against Al-Qaeda seems to be increasingly focused on the NWFP, and not Somalia/Iraq. When the Americans leave, Musharraf will have some answering to do in Pakistan. CIAO:)
``...Musharraf will undertake actions against these groups, because according to CNN he has promised the Chinese to help them fight the Chinese Muslim extermist groups...``
Have the Chinese provided any evidence to Islamabad? If not, then why ask for the obvious from India? It is far from certain that Pakistan groups are even involved in Sinkiang violence, yet Musharraf has offered his support. His doublespeak on violence directed towards India does not go unnoticed in this increasingly small and well-connected world. India may not be able to dictate a time-table to Musharraf, but other events will. It remains to be seen how long he will keep sprinting ahead of internal contradictions that are fast catching up. The war against Al-Qaeda seems to be increasingly focused on the NWFP, and not Somalia/Iraq. When the Americans leave, Musharraf will have some answering to do in Pakistan. CIAO:)
#291 Posted by harimau on December 22, 2001 1:00:54 pm
Ref whooly-precious-you #: 293
[….so we now have mahathir giving lessons in democracy…somebody should ask anwar ibrahim what he thinks of that….]
Hey, hey, hey... Malaysia is YLH`s ideal Islamic democracy, so let us be careful what we say about Malaysia here.
[….so we now have mahathir giving lessons in democracy…somebody should ask anwar ibrahim what he thinks of that….]
Hey, hey, hey... Malaysia is YLH`s ideal Islamic democracy, so let us be careful what we say about Malaysia here.
#290 Posted by ferozk on December 22, 2001 9:36:10 am
Re: Narain
That was my point. It is time that evidence was presented, which would make it difficult for Pakistani government deny the obvivious.
There is no sense in denying an open secret, but the case for the evidence being presented in an open forum is two fold. One, it is to prove, and expose, to the Pakistani public the real face of these organizations and make them question their activities. Secondly, to allow Musharraf to move against them on the basis of his Pakistan First Policy by showing them as a threat to Pakistan`s long term stability.
The problem is that Kashmir is an emotional issue in Pakistan and it has to be tackled very carefully. Musharraf will undertake actions against these groups, because according to CNN he has promised the Chinese to help them fight the Chinese Muslim extermist groups. Musharraf cannot move against these groups on India`s time table, no matter how much New Delhi may threaten him to do.
Having said that, India should still present evidence, because it is a question of India`s word and realistically speaking, there exists a huge credibility gap between the two nations. Unless India gives and shares its evidence, the case against these two organizations will be considered in Pakistan as heresay only.
Re: Shammi
It is your case; any forum other than a trial by the media would be fine.
I was saying that, because India has refused a joint investigation. India says that Pakistani government cannot be trusted. The feeling in Pakistan about India is the same; India`s word cannot be trusted.
Ciao
That was my point. It is time that evidence was presented, which would make it difficult for Pakistani government deny the obvivious.
There is no sense in denying an open secret, but the case for the evidence being presented in an open forum is two fold. One, it is to prove, and expose, to the Pakistani public the real face of these organizations and make them question their activities. Secondly, to allow Musharraf to move against them on the basis of his Pakistan First Policy by showing them as a threat to Pakistan`s long term stability.
The problem is that Kashmir is an emotional issue in Pakistan and it has to be tackled very carefully. Musharraf will undertake actions against these groups, because according to CNN he has promised the Chinese to help them fight the Chinese Muslim extermist groups. Musharraf cannot move against these groups on India`s time table, no matter how much New Delhi may threaten him to do.
Having said that, India should still present evidence, because it is a question of India`s word and realistically speaking, there exists a huge credibility gap between the two nations. Unless India gives and shares its evidence, the case against these two organizations will be considered in Pakistan as heresay only.
Re: Shammi
It is your case; any forum other than a trial by the media would be fine.
I was saying that, because India has refused a joint investigation. India says that Pakistani government cannot be trusted. The feeling in Pakistan about India is the same; India`s word cannot be trusted.
Ciao
#289 Posted by ferozk on December 22, 2001 9:16:16 am
Re: Shammi
You said, ``Pakistan`s questioning of the evidence will destroy India`s political case...``
You said it brother! :)
Ciao
You said, ``Pakistan`s questioning of the evidence will destroy India`s political case...``
You said it brother! :)
Ciao
#288 Posted by nasah on December 22, 2001 12:37:33 am
Dear Shammi:
The column by Kristoff in New York Times and the one in Washington Post accusing Mr. Musharraf of ``temporising`` -- indicate that the crunch on Mr. Musharraf by US, UK nd the Europeans is on -- ban the two Jihadi organizations -- and avert war with India.
The indications are that Mr. Musharraf will comply in some form or other -- within a week or two.
Some heads are going to roll in Pakistan Army and its Intelligence services.
With the Americans as ``house guests`` -- firmly planted in Pakistan governmental household -- there are not very many ``family secrets`` and skeletons -- that can be kept hidden -- from the prying electronic eyes of the snooping ``guests``.
You are right -- Americans know it who did it -- hence the Washington Post -- and NYT columns -- as reminders to Mr. Musharraf -- it`s TIME to ACT and ACT soon -- before it`s too late.
The column by Kristoff in New York Times and the one in Washington Post accusing Mr. Musharraf of ``temporising`` -- indicate that the crunch on Mr. Musharraf by US, UK nd the Europeans is on -- ban the two Jihadi organizations -- and avert war with India.
The indications are that Mr. Musharraf will comply in some form or other -- within a week or two.
Some heads are going to roll in Pakistan Army and its Intelligence services.
With the Americans as ``house guests`` -- firmly planted in Pakistan governmental household -- there are not very many ``family secrets`` and skeletons -- that can be kept hidden -- from the prying electronic eyes of the snooping ``guests``.
You are right -- Americans know it who did it -- hence the Washington Post -- and NYT columns -- as reminders to Mr. Musharraf -- it`s TIME to ACT and ACT soon -- before it`s too late.
#287 Posted by nasah on December 22, 2001 12:37:33 am
Famed Kashmiri poet - Agha Shahid Ali passed away last week in New York -- after a long illness with terminal cancer -- at the young age of 52.
1949 -- 2001
May his anguished soul rest in peace -- and may his beloved paradise on earth -- find peace and tranquility -- in 2002.
Our heart felt condolence and prayers for his family in Kashmir and in New York.
1949 -- 2001
May his anguished soul rest in peace -- and may his beloved paradise on earth -- find peace and tranquility -- in 2002.
Our heart felt condolence and prayers for his family in Kashmir and in New York.
#286 Posted by mohajir on December 22, 2001 12:37:33 am
In Kabul Indians get a bear hug
Agencies/Kabul
Kabul is one place today where an Indian visitor is glad to flaunt his nationality and Pakistanis would hate to be in.
Whether it is government offices or public places, Indians are greeted warmly, sometimes even with a bear hug, by smiling Afghans.
At the Foreign Ministry, the uniformed male receptionist wanted to see the equipment carried by a group of Indian journalists. ``Indians? Indians?`` he asked on being told of their identity. ``No Pakistanis, okay, please go,`` he said, directing the group to the Press office with a back slap and a smile.
``This is one place we are glad to be an Indian,`` commented a scribe. It is not journalists alone who are being greeted with such warmth.
A group of five doctors who have been here for the last three weeks as part of India`s relief effort and have been working at the Indira Gandhi Institute for Child Health, set up with Indian aid in the late 1960s, said they had been overwhelmed by the goodwill and affection shown by parents of their patients.
``Many of them remembered names of Indian doctors who had worked at the hospital before and asked about their welfare,`` A R Basu, a surgeon, said.
The Indian doctors are held in such high regard that often parents come to them with prescriptions given by Afghan doctors. ``But because of professional ethics we try to avoid seeing them,`` said B C Nambiar, an anesthetist.
Hindi film music can be heard in street corners and in taxis, and the only two functioning cinema halls here are screening Bollywood movies. Pirated video cassettes of recent Bollywood releases like the Amitabh Bachchan starrer ``Mohabbatein,`` smuggled in through Pakistan, are available in the markets. If the Afghans are effusive towards Indians, their anger against Pakistanis too is vented loudly. They say the Taliban cadres were largely composed of Pakistanis.
``They raped our country. We hate them,`` said Sanjar, a second-year medical student. ``When they were fleeing after the American bombing started, I asked them why they came. They said they came for jehad since we were not firm in our Islamic belief. I told them to go on to do that in their own country.`` ``Why doesn`t India go to war with Pakistan?`` asked Zia, a taxi driver. ``We don`t want the Taliban to come back.``
Ahmed Wali Masood, Afghan ambassador to Britain and brother of the late Northern Alliance commander Ahmed Shah Masood, had this to say: ``We don`t want help from our neighbours like Pakistan. We have paid a heavy price for that. We want help from India, the US and Britain.``
Agencies/Kabul
Kabul is one place today where an Indian visitor is glad to flaunt his nationality and Pakistanis would hate to be in.
Whether it is government offices or public places, Indians are greeted warmly, sometimes even with a bear hug, by smiling Afghans.
At the Foreign Ministry, the uniformed male receptionist wanted to see the equipment carried by a group of Indian journalists. ``Indians? Indians?`` he asked on being told of their identity. ``No Pakistanis, okay, please go,`` he said, directing the group to the Press office with a back slap and a smile.
``This is one place we are glad to be an Indian,`` commented a scribe. It is not journalists alone who are being greeted with such warmth.
A group of five doctors who have been here for the last three weeks as part of India`s relief effort and have been working at the Indira Gandhi Institute for Child Health, set up with Indian aid in the late 1960s, said they had been overwhelmed by the goodwill and affection shown by parents of their patients.
``Many of them remembered names of Indian doctors who had worked at the hospital before and asked about their welfare,`` A R Basu, a surgeon, said.
The Indian doctors are held in such high regard that often parents come to them with prescriptions given by Afghan doctors. ``But because of professional ethics we try to avoid seeing them,`` said B C Nambiar, an anesthetist.
Hindi film music can be heard in street corners and in taxis, and the only two functioning cinema halls here are screening Bollywood movies. Pirated video cassettes of recent Bollywood releases like the Amitabh Bachchan starrer ``Mohabbatein,`` smuggled in through Pakistan, are available in the markets. If the Afghans are effusive towards Indians, their anger against Pakistanis too is vented loudly. They say the Taliban cadres were largely composed of Pakistanis.
``They raped our country. We hate them,`` said Sanjar, a second-year medical student. ``When they were fleeing after the American bombing started, I asked them why they came. They said they came for jehad since we were not firm in our Islamic belief. I told them to go on to do that in their own country.`` ``Why doesn`t India go to war with Pakistan?`` asked Zia, a taxi driver. ``We don`t want the Taliban to come back.``
Ahmed Wali Masood, Afghan ambassador to Britain and brother of the late Northern Alliance commander Ahmed Shah Masood, had this to say: ``We don`t want help from our neighbours like Pakistan. We have paid a heavy price for that. We want help from India, the US and Britain.``
#285 Posted by shammi on December 21, 2001 4:08:40 pm
``…In case of 9-11, the United States did share its evidence of OBL`s crime with Pakistan; granted Pakistan had no choice, but the United States DID share the evidence. If India share the evidence with the world, it will only increase India`s moral standing in the war against terrorism...It makes no sense why India is so adamnt and refuses from sharing its evidence with world. Logic would suggest that it could only help the Indian cause and not hurt it…``
Ok - I am back from the meeting. It was boring. Glad to back for some fun stuff. So, here goes:
It was easier for the US to share its evidence because the asymmetry in Pak national power and US is very large. Pakistan was in no position to challenge the US evidence - doing so would have been suicidal. Indo-Pak asymmetry is smaller. Further, Pakistan does not carry the same misgivings when it comes to relations with the West like it does with India, and has few qualms agreeing with the West on Afghanistan/Taleban, unlike with India over Kashmir. Pakistan CAN challenge India, and both sides know it. There is the added problem of Kashmir, on which the twain shall never meet. Thus, since the two sides disagree on virtually everything, chances are that they would disagree even if the evidence were conclusive. From the Indian perspective, since India is convinced that Pakistan WAS behind the attack, and indeed other similar incidents elsewhere, no amount of evidence is going to change the mind of the Pakistani military. Thus, the risk for India in this situation is very high. Pakistan`s questioning of the evidence will destroy India`s political case, and India can ill afford it at this juncture. Maj. Gen. Qureshi`s remarks also sapped Indian confidence in the Pakistan government`s ability to be objective. Thus, India is sharing the evidence (to, as you say it, to `increase its moral standing`) with Western allies whom she deems more even-handed, but not with Pakistan.
Ok - I am back from the meeting. It was boring. Glad to back for some fun stuff. So, here goes:
It was easier for the US to share its evidence because the asymmetry in Pak national power and US is very large. Pakistan was in no position to challenge the US evidence - doing so would have been suicidal. Indo-Pak asymmetry is smaller. Further, Pakistan does not carry the same misgivings when it comes to relations with the West like it does with India, and has few qualms agreeing with the West on Afghanistan/Taleban, unlike with India over Kashmir. Pakistan CAN challenge India, and both sides know it. There is the added problem of Kashmir, on which the twain shall never meet. Thus, since the two sides disagree on virtually everything, chances are that they would disagree even if the evidence were conclusive. From the Indian perspective, since India is convinced that Pakistan WAS behind the attack, and indeed other similar incidents elsewhere, no amount of evidence is going to change the mind of the Pakistani military. Thus, the risk for India in this situation is very high. Pakistan`s questioning of the evidence will destroy India`s political case, and India can ill afford it at this juncture. Maj. Gen. Qureshi`s remarks also sapped Indian confidence in the Pakistan government`s ability to be objective. Thus, India is sharing the evidence (to, as you say it, to `increase its moral standing`) with Western allies whom she deems more even-handed, but not with Pakistan.
#284 Posted by nasah on December 21, 2001 2:22:16 pm
Dear SaeerJB:
re#266 #286
Here is another one from NYT:
December 21, 2001
Our Friends the Terrorists
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Just to puncture our hypocrisy for a moment: We`ve been battling terrorism by bolstering backers of terrorism in Pakistan.
Pakistan, our new ally in the war on terrorism, has a long history of supporting indiscriminate attacks in India and especially Kashmir.
The latest, headline-grabbing attack was the assault on the Parliament building in New Delhi that now threatens war between two nuclear powers, but many thousands of civilians have been killed over the years by Pakistani-financed terrorist organizations.
All in all, Pakistan`s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency, or I.S.I., is responsible for many more killings than Osama bin Laden.
But however hypocritical it may be to bolster one government that harbors terrorists while overthrowing another, there is no good alternative.
The Bush administration is exactly right to be simultaneously supporting Gen. Pervez Musharraf and twisting his arm to fight terrorism, for he may be Pakistan`s last hope to rescue his country.
Pakistan today is not only a catastrophe for Pakistanis but a threat to the entire region. Its economy is quasi-feudal, some 55 percent of adults are illiterate and more than 10 percent of children die by the age of 5. Pakistan now has more drug addicts than college graduates.
In the last 20 years public schooling has been partly replaced by madrasas that preach extremism, the pursuit of nuclear weapons has isolated the government, and foolish policies have crippled the economy.
The I.S.I.`s installation of the Taliban in Afghanistan has backfired, and now there is a risk of the ``Talibanization`` of Pakistan, as religious extremists return from their ``crusades`` in Afghanistan and Pashtuns perhaps revive their quest for an independent ``Pashtunistan.``
In Pakistan earlier this month, I flinched whenever I read the newspapers.
Guerrillas in Kashmir were ``freedom-fighters`` if they lived, ``martyrs`` if they died.
And on The Nation`s editorial page appeared this rant: ``The Christian world has not accepted us [Muslims] as human beings even. These nations are determined to exterminate the Muslims.``
General Musharraf is in charge of this morass, and — under strong pressure from President Bush, and less visible nudging from China — he has acted decisively to pull his country toward reality.
He ousted the head of the I.S.I., permitted the entry of U.S. troops to oust the Taliban, and sent troops for the first time into tribal areas to capture Taliban escapees.
He has moved to sideline the religious fanatics, close the extremist madrasas and deport foreign religious students.
Next he must clamp down on the Kashmiri fighters.
Over the last two years General Musharraf has shown himself capable of brutally tough decisions, and there is some reason to think that he can regain control of the I.S.I. (which may have run the latest Indian attack as a rogue operation), cut off state support for Kashmiri terrorists, nurture a growing market economy — and prepare for democratic elections.(a tall order indeed)
The religious parties get less than 5 percent of the vote in Pakistan, and so democracy can delegitimize extremism as well.
When I first traveled around Pakistan as a student backpacker two decades ago, I sneaked into closed tribal areas and visited a village that was a center for heroin and gun-running.
One gunsmith tried to sell me a pen that could not only write but also shoot a .22 bullet out the end.Not even a Palm Pilot can do that, and it was only $7!
This incredibly nifty gadget enthralled me as a symbol of Pakistani ingenuity — and it`s also apt because Pakistan has squandered its considerable potential and excelled far more at things destructive than constructive.
_________________________________________________
Now Pakistan is at a moment of maximum danger, threatened by the instability caused by returning Taliban fighters on the west and by the risk of war with India on the east.
Similarly, it was at a time when India was near economic collapse, in the summer of 1991, that New Delhi moved decisively toward a path of economic reform — and toward more sensible domestic and international policies across the board.
Pakistan, after so many wrong turns in its history, has tentatively taken a right one in the last few months.
Now it must build on that by clamping down on its own terrorists.
And, whatever the stench of blood in Islamabad, we Americans must hold our noses and do all we can to help General Musharraf hold his course. (NYT)
__________________________________________________
And that may go for India as well— the Indians ``must hold their noses and do all they can to help General Musharraf hold his course.``
re#266 #286
Here is another one from NYT:
December 21, 2001
Our Friends the Terrorists
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Just to puncture our hypocrisy for a moment: We`ve been battling terrorism by bolstering backers of terrorism in Pakistan.
Pakistan, our new ally in the war on terrorism, has a long history of supporting indiscriminate attacks in India and especially Kashmir.
The latest, headline-grabbing attack was the assault on the Parliament building in New Delhi that now threatens war between two nuclear powers, but many thousands of civilians have been killed over the years by Pakistani-financed terrorist organizations.
All in all, Pakistan`s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency, or I.S.I., is responsible for many more killings than Osama bin Laden.
But however hypocritical it may be to bolster one government that harbors terrorists while overthrowing another, there is no good alternative.
The Bush administration is exactly right to be simultaneously supporting Gen. Pervez Musharraf and twisting his arm to fight terrorism, for he may be Pakistan`s last hope to rescue his country.
Pakistan today is not only a catastrophe for Pakistanis but a threat to the entire region. Its economy is quasi-feudal, some 55 percent of adults are illiterate and more than 10 percent of children die by the age of 5. Pakistan now has more drug addicts than college graduates.
In the last 20 years public schooling has been partly replaced by madrasas that preach extremism, the pursuit of nuclear weapons has isolated the government, and foolish policies have crippled the economy.
The I.S.I.`s installation of the Taliban in Afghanistan has backfired, and now there is a risk of the ``Talibanization`` of Pakistan, as religious extremists return from their ``crusades`` in Afghanistan and Pashtuns perhaps revive their quest for an independent ``Pashtunistan.``
In Pakistan earlier this month, I flinched whenever I read the newspapers.
Guerrillas in Kashmir were ``freedom-fighters`` if they lived, ``martyrs`` if they died.
And on The Nation`s editorial page appeared this rant: ``The Christian world has not accepted us [Muslims] as human beings even. These nations are determined to exterminate the Muslims.``
General Musharraf is in charge of this morass, and — under strong pressure from President Bush, and less visible nudging from China — he has acted decisively to pull his country toward reality.
He ousted the head of the I.S.I., permitted the entry of U.S. troops to oust the Taliban, and sent troops for the first time into tribal areas to capture Taliban escapees.
He has moved to sideline the religious fanatics, close the extremist madrasas and deport foreign religious students.
Next he must clamp down on the Kashmiri fighters.
Over the last two years General Musharraf has shown himself capable of brutally tough decisions, and there is some reason to think that he can regain control of the I.S.I. (which may have run the latest Indian attack as a rogue operation), cut off state support for Kashmiri terrorists, nurture a growing market economy — and prepare for democratic elections.(a tall order indeed)
The religious parties get less than 5 percent of the vote in Pakistan, and so democracy can delegitimize extremism as well.
When I first traveled around Pakistan as a student backpacker two decades ago, I sneaked into closed tribal areas and visited a village that was a center for heroin and gun-running.
One gunsmith tried to sell me a pen that could not only write but also shoot a .22 bullet out the end.Not even a Palm Pilot can do that, and it was only $7!
This incredibly nifty gadget enthralled me as a symbol of Pakistani ingenuity — and it`s also apt because Pakistan has squandered its considerable potential and excelled far more at things destructive than constructive.
_________________________________________________
Now Pakistan is at a moment of maximum danger, threatened by the instability caused by returning Taliban fighters on the west and by the risk of war with India on the east.
Similarly, it was at a time when India was near economic collapse, in the summer of 1991, that New Delhi moved decisively toward a path of economic reform — and toward more sensible domestic and international policies across the board.
Pakistan, after so many wrong turns in its history, has tentatively taken a right one in the last few months.
Now it must build on that by clamping down on its own terrorists.
And, whatever the stench of blood in Islamabad, we Americans must hold our noses and do all we can to help General Musharraf hold his course. (NYT)
__________________________________________________
And that may go for India as well— the Indians ``must hold their noses and do all they can to help General Musharraf hold his course.``
#283 Posted by narain on December 21, 2001 2:22:16 pm
ref: Ferozek
Dear Feroze,
Can Pakistan deny:
1. That the LeT and the JeM both operate from Pakistani terriotery? That their leaders live there, collect funds there, and have their offices there?
2. That the LeT and the JeM have at the very minimum tacit support from the Pakistani government in conducting their affairs? That the government has placed no limitations on their operations?
3. That the JeM claimed responsibility for attacking the J&K state assembly initially? That even if we give them both the benefit regarding their actual involvement, both the LeT and the Jem have clearly stated their intentions to attack Indians, civilians or otherwise, everywhere, and are therefore a terrorist threat to India?
If Pakistan cannot deny the above, then the Pakistani govt. is as complicit in their actions as the Taliban were in the operations of Al-Quaeda.
AS for evidence, rest assured that India will try and get the maximum mileage from it. Even now the evidence is being presented to countries in the anti-terrorist coalition. As for Pakistan, I am not sure what the use is of presenting evidence to a government which one, already knows the truth, and two, definitely does not want to see it.
-narain
Dear Feroze,
Can Pakistan deny:
1. That the LeT and the JeM both operate from Pakistani terriotery? That their leaders live there, collect funds there, and have their offices there?
2. That the LeT and the JeM have at the very minimum tacit support from the Pakistani government in conducting their affairs? That the government has placed no limitations on their operations?
3. That the JeM claimed responsibility for attacking the J&K state assembly initially? That even if we give them both the benefit regarding their actual involvement, both the LeT and the Jem have clearly stated their intentions to attack Indians, civilians or otherwise, everywhere, and are therefore a terrorist threat to India?
If Pakistan cannot deny the above, then the Pakistani govt. is as complicit in their actions as the Taliban were in the operations of Al-Quaeda.
AS for evidence, rest assured that India will try and get the maximum mileage from it. Even now the evidence is being presented to countries in the anti-terrorist coalition. As for Pakistan, I am not sure what the use is of presenting evidence to a government which one, already knows the truth, and two, definitely does not want to see it.
-narain
#282 Posted by concerned on December 21, 2001 1:43:16 pm
shammi,
[...the US State Dept. today included the JeM and the LeT on its list of foreign terrorist organizations...]
i don`t see any such news in the media.
[...the US State Dept. today included the JeM and the LeT on its list of foreign terrorist organizations...]
i don`t see any such news in the media.
#281 Posted by shammi on December 21, 2001 12:52:04 pm
Re: Ferozk
``… Bring this man before the world and let it ask the question as to who really did it…``
Please be specific when you say `the world`. Do you mean the media? Or do you mean the UN Court of Criminal Justice (?) Or do you mean an international criminal tribunal? Please note that even in the case of the 2 Libyans tried for bombing Panam 103, they were tried by a SCOTTISH court (not any `world` court) albeit outside Scotland. At no time was any evidence shared with the Libyans outside of the court.
``…and if India is a democracy, as it claims, then it should give Pakistan the chance to question this person before it unilaterally condemns Pakistan…``
You mean cross-examination by the defence? Sure, but then do you also not unwittingly concede that Pakistan is really not on the same side as India when it makes claims for a `joint-inquiry`? I think that when the DG ISPR Maj. Gen. Qureshi made the blithe comment that `India staged the attack` it dispelled any notions that the military junta would be an objective participant in a `joint-inquiry`. However, reality is fast catching up with the General. India HAS been sharing evidence with several Western countries. On the weight of such evidence, the US State Dept. today included the JeM and the LeT on its list of foreign terrorist organizations. This is one of many salvoes across Pakistan`s bows. So now, it is not just India that Musharraf has to placate, it must placate the US too. The US has suddenly, but predictably raised the stakes for Musharraf. It would have been far better for Musharraf to have taken action against JeM and LeT himself on his own initiative, and therefore earn the respect of the US and India, but by letting external events dictate a course of action to him (first in Afghanistan and now in India), the General has not only earned the hostility internally (from his would-be rival officers/successors) but also externally. External friends would have bolstered his support against any internal rivals. Unfortunately for him, he picked a wrong fight...More later...gotta run for a meeting:)
``… Bring this man before the world and let it ask the question as to who really did it…``
Please be specific when you say `the world`. Do you mean the media? Or do you mean the UN Court of Criminal Justice (?) Or do you mean an international criminal tribunal? Please note that even in the case of the 2 Libyans tried for bombing Panam 103, they were tried by a SCOTTISH court (not any `world` court) albeit outside Scotland. At no time was any evidence shared with the Libyans outside of the court.
``…and if India is a democracy, as it claims, then it should give Pakistan the chance to question this person before it unilaterally condemns Pakistan…``
You mean cross-examination by the defence? Sure, but then do you also not unwittingly concede that Pakistan is really not on the same side as India when it makes claims for a `joint-inquiry`? I think that when the DG ISPR Maj. Gen. Qureshi made the blithe comment that `India staged the attack` it dispelled any notions that the military junta would be an objective participant in a `joint-inquiry`. However, reality is fast catching up with the General. India HAS been sharing evidence with several Western countries. On the weight of such evidence, the US State Dept. today included the JeM and the LeT on its list of foreign terrorist organizations. This is one of many salvoes across Pakistan`s bows. So now, it is not just India that Musharraf has to placate, it must placate the US too. The US has suddenly, but predictably raised the stakes for Musharraf. It would have been far better for Musharraf to have taken action against JeM and LeT himself on his own initiative, and therefore earn the respect of the US and India, but by letting external events dictate a course of action to him (first in Afghanistan and now in India), the General has not only earned the hostility internally (from his would-be rival officers/successors) but also externally. External friends would have bolstered his support against any internal rivals. Unfortunately for him, he picked a wrong fight...More later...gotta run for a meeting:)
#280 Posted by shammi on December 21, 2001 12:52:04 pm
Stuka:
Here is another tidbit from the NY Times which shows that the recent joint US-Pak investigation into the activities of the 2 top nuclear scientists suspected of links with OBL has FAILED with Pakistan refusing cooperation. Given this failure, does it not raise questions about the integrity of any joint Indo-Pak investigations into the activities of JeM and LeT over the Parliament attack? Still in giving the benefit of the doubt to the General?
``Today, it became clear the effort (sharing information and seeking common ground) had failed. Just last weekend, the son of Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, twice arrested in the case with the other nuclear scientist, Chaudry Abdul Majeed, said both men had been released and declared innocent. Today, diplomats speculated that General Musharraf had decided, in releasing the two scientists, to send a signal that Pakistan was drawing a ``line in the sand`` of its own...``
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/21/international/21MUSH.html
Here is another tidbit from the NY Times which shows that the recent joint US-Pak investigation into the activities of the 2 top nuclear scientists suspected of links with OBL has FAILED with Pakistan refusing cooperation. Given this failure, does it not raise questions about the integrity of any joint Indo-Pak investigations into the activities of JeM and LeT over the Parliament attack? Still in giving the benefit of the doubt to the General?
``Today, it became clear the effort (sharing information and seeking common ground) had failed. Just last weekend, the son of Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, twice arrested in the case with the other nuclear scientist, Chaudry Abdul Majeed, said both men had been released and declared innocent. Today, diplomats speculated that General Musharraf had decided, in releasing the two scientists, to send a signal that Pakistan was drawing a ``line in the sand`` of its own...``
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/21/international/21MUSH.html
#279 Posted by shammi on December 21, 2001 12:52:04 pm
Re: Prem
``...Offical India and offical Pakistan have gotten stuck in a finger-pointing loop ...``
I think that that is part of the story. The other part is that official Pakistan has gotten stuck in a violence-inflicting-on-Indian-public loop (something you did not mention). Official India is not engaged in any activity of that sort.
Here is an NY Times editorial
The Pressure Rises in Pakistan
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/20/opinion/20THU1.html
``...Offical India and offical Pakistan have gotten stuck in a finger-pointing loop ...``
I think that that is part of the story. The other part is that official Pakistan has gotten stuck in a violence-inflicting-on-Indian-public loop (something you did not mention). Official India is not engaged in any activity of that sort.
Here is an NY Times editorial
The Pressure Rises in Pakistan
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/20/opinion/20THU1.html
#278 Posted by semipreciousme on December 21, 2001 12:52:04 pm
SameerJB
“India should have followed what Mohathir Mohammed said to him. You may visit Malaysia if you like but you are not invited. India did not even give him a lesson in democracy what MM told him on his face.”
….so we now have mahathir giving lessons in democracy…somebody should ask anwar ibrahim what he thinks of that….
“India should have followed what Mohathir Mohammed said to him. You may visit Malaysia if you like but you are not invited. India did not even give him a lesson in democracy what MM told him on his face.”
….so we now have mahathir giving lessons in democracy…somebody should ask anwar ibrahim what he thinks of that….
#277 Posted by ferozk on December 21, 2001 9:28:24 am
Re: Shammi
The problem is no Pakistani trusts the word of India just like no Indian trusts the word of Pakistan.
Bring this man before the world and let it ask the question as to who really did it and if India is a democracy, as it claims, then it should give Pakistan the chance to question this person before it unilaterly condemns Pakistan. In this case, India is not United States and it cannot act as the judge, the jury and the executioner. Yes, there are two set of laws in this world; one for the United States and one for the rest of the world and no amount of Indian friendship with the United States will alter this reality.
If India has such solid evidence, why is it not sharing it with the world? India will only help her own case.
In case of 9-11, the United States did share its evidence of OBL`s crime with Pakistan; granted Pakistan had no choice, but the United States DID share the evidence. If India share the evidence with the world, it will only increase India`s moral standing in the war against terrorism.
It makes no sense why India is so adamnt and refuses from sharing its evidence with world. Logic would suggest that it could only help the Indian cause and not hurt it.
Things have reached a very serious stage and this has happened, because India and Pakistan trade allegations in a crisis situation and do not dicuss means to diffuse it. India refuses to talk with Pakistan and if India continues to adopt this posture, it will help no one.
India has everything to gain and nothing to lose if, as it claims, that its evidence is solid. The question is, why is India so eager to waste this golden opportunity of gaining the moral assendency over Pakistan?
Ciao
The problem is no Pakistani trusts the word of India just like no Indian trusts the word of Pakistan.
Bring this man before the world and let it ask the question as to who really did it and if India is a democracy, as it claims, then it should give Pakistan the chance to question this person before it unilaterly condemns Pakistan. In this case, India is not United States and it cannot act as the judge, the jury and the executioner. Yes, there are two set of laws in this world; one for the United States and one for the rest of the world and no amount of Indian friendship with the United States will alter this reality.
If India has such solid evidence, why is it not sharing it with the world? India will only help her own case.
In case of 9-11, the United States did share its evidence of OBL`s crime with Pakistan; granted Pakistan had no choice, but the United States DID share the evidence. If India share the evidence with the world, it will only increase India`s moral standing in the war against terrorism.
It makes no sense why India is so adamnt and refuses from sharing its evidence with world. Logic would suggest that it could only help the Indian cause and not hurt it.
Things have reached a very serious stage and this has happened, because India and Pakistan trade allegations in a crisis situation and do not dicuss means to diffuse it. India refuses to talk with Pakistan and if India continues to adopt this posture, it will help no one.
India has everything to gain and nothing to lose if, as it claims, that its evidence is solid. The question is, why is India so eager to waste this golden opportunity of gaining the moral assendency over Pakistan?
Ciao
#276 Posted by nasah on December 20, 2001 8:15:12 pm
Dear SameerJB:
re#266
I agree with most of your summation.
Despite Kargil (that was pretty stupid) -- I don`t think Musharraf is THAT stupid to knowingly ALLOW the Indian Parliament attack.
However after the Kashmir Assembly attack he should have tightened his control over ISI sponsored or unsponsored terror activities -- by reining in the Jaishis and the LT. Apparently he did not do that considering the same pattern of attack on the Indian Parliament.
If not for the love of India -- for his own safety and his country`s safety -- Musharraf has to show some activity in this regard. This becomes of paramount urgency -- now that the all the Al Qadaeda terrorists are streaming into Pakistan.
The danger to Pakistan is real serious -- it MUST NOT allow itself to become -- the next incubator of World Terrorism -- after Afghanistan -- it`s not a distinction that Pakistan or any country can be proud of these days -- it`s very hazardous for the health and well being of a country.
India is prepared to help Mr. Musharraf to rein in his Jihadis -- but Mr. Musharraf has to help India as well -- instead of such Goebbelsian inanities like -- ``they attacked their own Parliament`` -- right now the LEAST he can do is to BAN THE B#ST#RDS.
As far as India encourging democracy in Pakistan is concerned -- India is as promiscuous as USA -- ready to go to bed with any dictator any tyrant any aggressor in the world -- as long it helps its ``national interests``.
India is partly responsible for the ascendancy of Army dictators in Pakistan -- ready to oblige them with legitimacy -- at the drop of the hat.
I agree with your idea that India should invite all the democratic leaders of Pakistan to visit India and interact with various institutions of Indian democracy -- it will help the Pakistanis to become more familiar with -- as to how to run democracy in Pakistan -- and it will also help India to make some lasting frienship with Pakistan leaders.
But with the BJP in power -- that is another chasing the rainbow.
Eid mubarak
re#266
I agree with most of your summation.
Despite Kargil (that was pretty stupid) -- I don`t think Musharraf is THAT stupid to knowingly ALLOW the Indian Parliament attack.
However after the Kashmir Assembly attack he should have tightened his control over ISI sponsored or unsponsored terror activities -- by reining in the Jaishis and the LT. Apparently he did not do that considering the same pattern of attack on the Indian Parliament.
If not for the love of India -- for his own safety and his country`s safety -- Musharraf has to show some activity in this regard. This becomes of paramount urgency -- now that the all the Al Qadaeda terrorists are streaming into Pakistan.
The danger to Pakistan is real serious -- it MUST NOT allow itself to become -- the next incubator of World Terrorism -- after Afghanistan -- it`s not a distinction that Pakistan or any country can be proud of these days -- it`s very hazardous for the health and well being of a country.
India is prepared to help Mr. Musharraf to rein in his Jihadis -- but Mr. Musharraf has to help India as well -- instead of such Goebbelsian inanities like -- ``they attacked their own Parliament`` -- right now the LEAST he can do is to BAN THE B#ST#RDS.
As far as India encourging democracy in Pakistan is concerned -- India is as promiscuous as USA -- ready to go to bed with any dictator any tyrant any aggressor in the world -- as long it helps its ``national interests``.
India is partly responsible for the ascendancy of Army dictators in Pakistan -- ready to oblige them with legitimacy -- at the drop of the hat.
I agree with your idea that India should invite all the democratic leaders of Pakistan to visit India and interact with various institutions of Indian democracy -- it will help the Pakistanis to become more familiar with -- as to how to run democracy in Pakistan -- and it will also help India to make some lasting frienship with Pakistan leaders.
But with the BJP in power -- that is another chasing the rainbow.
Eid mubarak
#275 Posted by shammi on December 20, 2001 8:15:12 pm
From the Washington Post:
``The Pakistani terrorist groups accused by India may be even tougher to take on: As supposed freedom fighters in Indian-ruled Kashmir, they have been supportedfor years by the Pakistani military`s own intelligence service. Their bloody and despicable attack on the seat of Indian democracy last week was undoubtedly timedas a counter to the downfall of their al Qaeda and Taliban allies, and meant to force Mr. Musharraf to shift his troops and attention away from the fleeing terroristsand toward India.Fortunately, India`s democratic government has reacted to the assault with admirable restraint; though it has as much right as the United States or Israel to defenditself against the extremists, it has so far refrained from acting while waiting to see what Mr. Musharraf would do. The Pakistani president has temporized, demandingto see evidence that the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed groups were involved. Meanwhile, his forces have been busy with al Qaeda, arresting more than150 fugitives and fighting a gun battle with one group. Mr. Musharraf`s defenders protest that he cannot be expected to take on both groups of extremists at once,and U.S. officials have been cautious, at least in public, in pressing him to do so. Yet aggressive action on both fronts is essential, above all for Pakistan`s sake -- itoffers Mr. Musharraf the chance to purge his regime once and for all of its corrupting links to Islamic extremism and terrorism. If he can act decisively in the comingweeks Mr. Musharraf could put Pakistan firmly on a course to greater stability and renewed development. If he flinches, he will likely face an even greater crisis.``
``The Pakistani terrorist groups accused by India may be even tougher to take on: As supposed freedom fighters in Indian-ruled Kashmir, they have been supportedfor years by the Pakistani military`s own intelligence service. Their bloody and despicable attack on the seat of Indian democracy last week was undoubtedly timedas a counter to the downfall of their al Qaeda and Taliban allies, and meant to force Mr. Musharraf to shift his troops and attention away from the fleeing terroristsand toward India.Fortunately, India`s democratic government has reacted to the assault with admirable restraint; though it has as much right as the United States or Israel to defenditself against the extremists, it has so far refrained from acting while waiting to see what Mr. Musharraf would do. The Pakistani president has temporized, demandingto see evidence that the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed groups were involved. Meanwhile, his forces have been busy with al Qaeda, arresting more than150 fugitives and fighting a gun battle with one group. Mr. Musharraf`s defenders protest that he cannot be expected to take on both groups of extremists at once,and U.S. officials have been cautious, at least in public, in pressing him to do so. Yet aggressive action on both fronts is essential, above all for Pakistan`s sake -- itoffers Mr. Musharraf the chance to purge his regime once and for all of its corrupting links to Islamic extremism and terrorism. If he can act decisively in the comingweeks Mr. Musharraf could put Pakistan firmly on a course to greater stability and renewed development. If he flinches, he will likely face an even greater crisis.``
#274 Posted by narain on December 20, 2001 8:15:12 pm
I am sorry to cut and paste rather than just giving the URL, but here`s the editorial from today`s Washington Post, one of the most influential newspapers in the US and most closely attuned to the US Govt.`s views.
Notice the use of the words ``credible information`` regarding India`s position on the attack.
______________________________________________
On to Pakistan
Thursday, December 20, 2001; Page A42
POLICYMAKERS are still debating where the war on terrorism should go next, but as a practical matter it has already moved -- to Pakistan, where it has been driven by an extraordinary and dangerous confluence of events in the past few days. Hundreds of Taliban and al Qaeda fighters, probably including a number of senior leaders, have filtered into Pakistan from Afghanistan, eluding the army of Gen. Pervez Musharraf. At the same time -- and surely not by coincidence -- Pakistani terrorist groups long connected to both al Qaeda and the Taliban have been credibly blamed by India for carrying out a suicide assault on the parliament building in New Delhi. Mr. Musharraf, who chose, after Sept. 11, to align his military regime with the United States and against the terrorists, now faces a crucial, two-front test of that commitment. Final defeat of the Taliban and al Qaeda may depend on how aggressively his forces move to kill or arrest the militants who have crossed the border; and a serious move against the Pakistani groups is essential to divorcing his government from extremism and avoiding military action by India.
Taking on either task may force Mr. Musharraf to confront formidable domestic opposition. The Taliban refugees, who by some accounts include many senior officials of the deposed Afghan regime, are likely to try hiding among fellow Pashtun tribesmen in the wild border area, or in the Islamic schools where many were trained in the first place. Though the government has enlisted some border tribes in its effort to root out the fugitives, many could find harbor, creating the possibility that a Taliban or terrorist structure might reconstitute itself inside Pakistan. Preventing that may mean confronting Pakistani Islamic militants and their followers, who have already staged several violent anti-government demonstrations since Sept. 11.
The Pakistani terrorist groups accused by India may be even tougher to take on: As supposed freedom fighters in Indian-ruled Kashmir, they have been supported for years by the Pakistani military`s own intelligence service. Their bloody and despicable attack on the seat of Indian democracy last week was undoubtedly timed as a counter to the downfall of their al Qaeda and Taliban allies, and meant to force Mr. Musharraf to shift his troops and attention away from the fleeing terrorists and toward India.
Fortunately, India`s democratic government has reacted to the assault with admirable restraint; though it has as much right as the United States or Israel to defend itself against the extremists, it has so far refrained from acting while waiting to see what Mr. Musharraf would do. The Pakistani president has temporized, demanding to see evidence that the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed groups were involved. Meanwhile, his forces have been busy with al Qaeda, arresting more than 150 fugitives and fighting a gun battle with one group. Mr. Musharraf`s defenders protest that he cannot be expected to take on both groups of extremists at once, and U.S. officials have been cautious, at least in public, in pressing him to do so. Yet aggressive action on both fronts is essential, above all for Pakistan`s sake -- it offers Mr. Musharraf the chance to purge his regime once and for all of its corrupting links to Islamic extremism and terrorism. If he can act decisively in the coming weeks Mr. Musharraf could put Pakistan firmly on a course to greater stability and renewed development. If he flinches, he will likely face an even greater crisis.
Notice the use of the words ``credible information`` regarding India`s position on the attack.
______________________________________________
On to Pakistan
Thursday, December 20, 2001; Page A42
POLICYMAKERS are still debating where the war on terrorism should go next, but as a practical matter it has already moved -- to Pakistan, where it has been driven by an extraordinary and dangerous confluence of events in the past few days. Hundreds of Taliban and al Qaeda fighters, probably including a number of senior leaders, have filtered into Pakistan from Afghanistan, eluding the army of Gen. Pervez Musharraf. At the same time -- and surely not by coincidence -- Pakistani terrorist groups long connected to both al Qaeda and the Taliban have been credibly blamed by India for carrying out a suicide assault on the parliament building in New Delhi. Mr. Musharraf, who chose, after Sept. 11, to align his military regime with the United States and against the terrorists, now faces a crucial, two-front test of that commitment. Final defeat of the Taliban and al Qaeda may depend on how aggressively his forces move to kill or arrest the militants who have crossed the border; and a serious move against the Pakistani groups is essential to divorcing his government from extremism and avoiding military action by India.
Taking on either task may force Mr. Musharraf to confront formidable domestic opposition. The Taliban refugees, who by some accounts include many senior officials of the deposed Afghan regime, are likely to try hiding among fellow Pashtun tribesmen in the wild border area, or in the Islamic schools where many were trained in the first place. Though the government has enlisted some border tribes in its effort to root out the fugitives, many could find harbor, creating the possibility that a Taliban or terrorist structure might reconstitute itself inside Pakistan. Preventing that may mean confronting Pakistani Islamic militants and their followers, who have already staged several violent anti-government demonstrations since Sept. 11.
The Pakistani terrorist groups accused by India may be even tougher to take on: As supposed freedom fighters in Indian-ruled Kashmir, they have been supported for years by the Pakistani military`s own intelligence service. Their bloody and despicable attack on the seat of Indian democracy last week was undoubtedly timed as a counter to the downfall of their al Qaeda and Taliban allies, and meant to force Mr. Musharraf to shift his troops and attention away from the fleeing terrorists and toward India.
Fortunately, India`s democratic government has reacted to the assault with admirable restraint; though it has as much right as the United States or Israel to defend itself against the extremists, it has so far refrained from acting while waiting to see what Mr. Musharraf would do. The Pakistani president has temporized, demanding to see evidence that the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed groups were involved. Meanwhile, his forces have been busy with al Qaeda, arresting more than 150 fugitives and fighting a gun battle with one group. Mr. Musharraf`s defenders protest that he cannot be expected to take on both groups of extremists at once, and U.S. officials have been cautious, at least in public, in pressing him to do so. Yet aggressive action on both fronts is essential, above all for Pakistan`s sake -- it offers Mr. Musharraf the chance to purge his regime once and for all of its corrupting links to Islamic extremism and terrorism. If he can act decisively in the coming weeks Mr. Musharraf could put Pakistan firmly on a course to greater stability and renewed development. If he flinches, he will likely face an even greater crisis.
#273 Posted by narain on December 20, 2001 8:15:12 pm
REf: Stuka #275
Stuka,
First of all I am not all convinced that the choice India has to make is between Gen. Musharraf or the Jehadis. Its more likely to be between Musharraf or some other General, who might be more sympathetic to the jehadi cause than him. Does that really matter so much? In any case Musharraf is no friend of India, nor is he likely to become one. And after having survived Zia, do we really need to be scared of what Pakistan can throw at us?
Secondly, not acting at this moment is likely to confirm Pakistans and the jehadis` conviction that India is a wussy state waiting to be kicked around. We need to act now, or we deserve everything that we get. The only question is about what to do.
My personal favorite is to withdraw from the Indus river treaty, and reduce water flow to Pakistan. This would not be a declaration of war, especially if we declare our intentions of negotiating a new and ``just`` treaty. Then we can go ahead and draw out the negotiations as long as possible while Pakistan hurts. And if Pakistan feels threatened enough to declare war on us, so much the better. We could teach them a lesson, and still be acting in self-defense!
I think that one low grade aggression deserves another. Don`t you?
-narain
Stuka,
First of all I am not all convinced that the choice India has to make is between Gen. Musharraf or the Jehadis. Its more likely to be between Musharraf or some other General, who might be more sympathetic to the jehadi cause than him. Does that really matter so much? In any case Musharraf is no friend of India, nor is he likely to become one. And after having survived Zia, do we really need to be scared of what Pakistan can throw at us?
Secondly, not acting at this moment is likely to confirm Pakistans and the jehadis` conviction that India is a wussy state waiting to be kicked around. We need to act now, or we deserve everything that we get. The only question is about what to do.
My personal favorite is to withdraw from the Indus river treaty, and reduce water flow to Pakistan. This would not be a declaration of war, especially if we declare our intentions of negotiating a new and ``just`` treaty. Then we can go ahead and draw out the negotiations as long as possible while Pakistan hurts. And if Pakistan feels threatened enough to declare war on us, so much the better. We could teach them a lesson, and still be acting in self-defense!
I think that one low grade aggression deserves another. Don`t you?
-narain
#272 Posted by narain on December 20, 2001 8:15:12 pm
ref: Trojan Horse #258
``Our forefathers were smarter. They didnt build a house on someone elses property.``
...though of course they built mosques over other people`s temples. :)
-narain
``Our forefathers were smarter. They didnt build a house on someone elses property.``
...though of course they built mosques over other people`s temples. :)
-narain
#271 Posted by shammi on December 20, 2001 8:15:12 pm
Stuka, Ferozk, Sherdil
Detainee: Pakistani Forces Backed India Attack
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - A man arrested over the bloody raid on India`s parliament said Thursday Pakistan`s army and top intelligence agency had armed the suicide squad and they had telephoned their families in Pakistan the night before they died...
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011220/wl/india_parliament_dc_20.html
END OF QUOTE
I think that this proof is as good as, if not better than, the proof provided by the United States through the Bin Laden video. Here is a live conspirator who is telling tales. Ferozk, do you still consider the Pakistani government as a bona-fide investigator after this evidence (in other words, can a prime accused be the prosecutor?). Stuka, what do you think? Army and top intelligence agencies are implicated. Sherdil, anything to add?
Detainee: Pakistani Forces Backed India Attack
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - A man arrested over the bloody raid on India`s parliament said Thursday Pakistan`s army and top intelligence agency had armed the suicide squad and they had telephoned their families in Pakistan the night before they died...
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011220/wl/india_parliament_dc_20.html
END OF QUOTE
I think that this proof is as good as, if not better than, the proof provided by the United States through the Bin Laden video. Here is a live conspirator who is telling tales. Ferozk, do you still consider the Pakistani government as a bona-fide investigator after this evidence (in other words, can a prime accused be the prosecutor?). Stuka, what do you think? Army and top intelligence agencies are implicated. Sherdil, anything to add?
#270 Posted by soysauce on December 20, 2001 8:15:12 pm
#219 saminashah
How about translating some of that nooyawk-yiddish into english? Whatever it was, sounded like you were telling him off!
How about translating some of that nooyawk-yiddish into english? Whatever it was, sounded like you were telling him off!
#269 Posted by Prem on December 20, 2001 8:15:12 pm
Audio-video-Radio,
I don`t know about phreedom phiters and their phathers but if any phreedom phiter could come and get you, we will all be better off.
Give up this Urstruly-like hatred, man.
I don`t know about phreedom phiters and their phathers but if any phreedom phiter could come and get you, we will all be better off.
Give up this Urstruly-like hatred, man.
#268 Posted by Prem on December 20, 2001 8:15:12 pm
Ferozk # 227
I share your view that our countries need to act more mature and begin to trust each other, but IMHO there is a far more critical, and more difficult to achieve, maturity that all of us need urgently: the maturity to be more self-critical, to begin to question our own governments, most importantly, to realize that our governments are NOT our countries, no matter what they tell us.
Offical India and offical Pakistan have gotten stuck in a finger-pointing loop that has absolutely no resolution, because they trust each other less than two gladiators of yore did, when they were told to fight till death.
That is a hard fact that we all must face.
So the responsibility devolves to individuals. If we really love our COUNTRIES then we need to start asking our GOVERNMENTS: What the hell is going on? What dangerous games are you guys upto?
Indians must ask the Indian government and Indian hawks to stop talking about launching a full-scale attack until they make a better case for any allegations they might level against Pakistan. Pakistanis must ask the Pakistan government and Pakistani hawks whether there may be reasonable grounds to suspect that some of the allegations Indians make might be true.
Unless we develop that attitude, no amount of information, no amount of evidence, no amount of reassurance means a thing.
To what extent do Indians and Pakistanis have that attitude? I find very little of it.
As an Indian, I have a natural inclination to believe more of what the Indian governments says than what the Pakistanis government says. The same, and perfectly justifiably, is the case for Pakistanis. My Pakistani friend has an equally strong natural inclination to believe more of what the Pakistani government has to say than what the Indian government says.
But are we, as thinking, non-robotic human beings, willing to move beyond that? And, if not, what point is there in our making that sort of idealistic demand on our governments and those who have vested interests in keeping the enmity between the two nations alive?
Regards.
I share your view that our countries need to act more mature and begin to trust each other, but IMHO there is a far more critical, and more difficult to achieve, maturity that all of us need urgently: the maturity to be more self-critical, to begin to question our own governments, most importantly, to realize that our governments are NOT our countries, no matter what they tell us.
Offical India and offical Pakistan have gotten stuck in a finger-pointing loop that has absolutely no resolution, because they trust each other less than two gladiators of yore did, when they were told to fight till death.
That is a hard fact that we all must face.
So the responsibility devolves to individuals. If we really love our COUNTRIES then we need to start asking our GOVERNMENTS: What the hell is going on? What dangerous games are you guys upto?
Indians must ask the Indian government and Indian hawks to stop talking about launching a full-scale attack until they make a better case for any allegations they might level against Pakistan. Pakistanis must ask the Pakistan government and Pakistani hawks whether there may be reasonable grounds to suspect that some of the allegations Indians make might be true.
Unless we develop that attitude, no amount of information, no amount of evidence, no amount of reassurance means a thing.
To what extent do Indians and Pakistanis have that attitude? I find very little of it.
As an Indian, I have a natural inclination to believe more of what the Indian governments says than what the Pakistanis government says. The same, and perfectly justifiably, is the case for Pakistanis. My Pakistani friend has an equally strong natural inclination to believe more of what the Pakistani government has to say than what the Indian government says.
But are we, as thinking, non-robotic human beings, willing to move beyond that? And, if not, what point is there in our making that sort of idealistic demand on our governments and those who have vested interests in keeping the enmity between the two nations alive?
Regards.
#267 Posted by audio-video-rad on December 20, 2001 12:34:35 pm
InYourFace #206 writes ``Don`t you know that Arundhati Roy, Farzana Versey, Praful Bidwai, Varsha Bhosle, Dilip DeSouza et al e ``Journalists``? Their job is to find ``problems`` but not ``solutions``.``
One man`s problems are another man`s solutions.
One man`s problems are another man`s solutions.
#266 Posted by sadna on December 20, 2001 10:41:34 am
Stuka #275
``You are concentrating on ``should``, what should be done, what should Pakistan do etc.``
Nope I am talking about what INDIA should do.
``to expect Mussharaf to do a major crackdown on Kashmiri militants is foolhardy, Mussharaf will be overthrown, and the Jehadis will get what they want. On the other hand, if we go to war, again, the Jehadis, to whom the destruction of India is more important than saving Pakistan, will get what they want``
The mythology of jihadis overthrowing Musharraf in any event is a load of BS propagated by the jihadi security paradigm folks like Hamid Gul.
Think about it, `indigenous freedom fighters` or `Kashmiri militants` as you refer to them, taking over a neighbouring country Pakistan, how is that possible?
Or much-enumerated 5% of the population which is madarassa-educated taking over the liberal moderate modern-educated Army as well ruling over 95% moderate majority including Harvard/Wellesley- returns? Are these 95% totally emasculated to be taken over by 5% religious zealots?
We see enough outrage both on chowk and elsewhere among Pakistanis at the slightest suggestion elsewhere that Pakistani can be thus ruled over by jihadis.
Its seems Pakistanis expect India should subscribe to this jihadi takeover mythology only in the context of the Indo-Pak but at no other time. At all other times, we are expected to believe that Pakistan is this progresive country with liberal leaders and liberal modern population. Its clear Pakistanis subscribe to both ``jihad will keep us safe from India`` AND to the ``jihadis have no role in Pakistan`` theory.
By modelling the Indian response based on irrational fear of the cultivated irrationality of a few thousand(or few hundred thousand) jihadis, we will be giving the jihadi security paradigm folks of Pakistani planners, the success THEY want. This will only serve to encourage them to continue with it in other parts of India in future. India has to put an end to this crap once and for all.
``You are concentrating on ``should``, what should be done, what should Pakistan do etc.``
Nope I am talking about what INDIA should do.
``to expect Mussharaf to do a major crackdown on Kashmiri militants is foolhardy, Mussharaf will be overthrown, and the Jehadis will get what they want. On the other hand, if we go to war, again, the Jehadis, to whom the destruction of India is more important than saving Pakistan, will get what they want``
The mythology of jihadis overthrowing Musharraf in any event is a load of BS propagated by the jihadi security paradigm folks like Hamid Gul.
Think about it, `indigenous freedom fighters` or `Kashmiri militants` as you refer to them, taking over a neighbouring country Pakistan, how is that possible?
Or much-enumerated 5% of the population which is madarassa-educated taking over the liberal moderate modern-educated Army as well ruling over 95% moderate majority including Harvard/Wellesley- returns? Are these 95% totally emasculated to be taken over by 5% religious zealots?
We see enough outrage both on chowk and elsewhere among Pakistanis at the slightest suggestion elsewhere that Pakistani can be thus ruled over by jihadis.
Its seems Pakistanis expect India should subscribe to this jihadi takeover mythology only in the context of the Indo-Pak but at no other time. At all other times, we are expected to believe that Pakistan is this progresive country with liberal leaders and liberal modern population. Its clear Pakistanis subscribe to both ``jihad will keep us safe from India`` AND to the ``jihadis have no role in Pakistan`` theory.
By modelling the Indian response based on irrational fear of the cultivated irrationality of a few thousand(or few hundred thousand) jihadis, we will be giving the jihadi security paradigm folks of Pakistani planners, the success THEY want. This will only serve to encourage them to continue with it in other parts of India in future. India has to put an end to this crap once and for all.
#265 Posted by ferozk on December 20, 2001 10:24:26 am
The latest terrorist incident with the Indian parliament exposes the fragility of the confidence that exist between Pakistan and India. Both the nations are nuclear weapons` state, but do not have the maturity to act as one and it is because of this, that there has to be a ``information bridge`` between them.
India`s rejection of the Pakistani offer for a joint investigation was immature and shortsighted. By working together, both sides could have gauged the intentions of the other party, but by refusing to work together India and Pakistan will continue to trade allegations and threats and create a ground, which will be fertile for more misunderstandings in the future.
A long time ago, there was a discusion on the topic of a ``hegemony``. If India wants to be the hegemonic power, it needs to determine the facts before it acts. A hegemon`s task is to promote stability; not undermine it.
Ciao
India`s rejection of the Pakistani offer for a joint investigation was immature and shortsighted. By working together, both sides could have gauged the intentions of the other party, but by refusing to work together India and Pakistan will continue to trade allegations and threats and create a ground, which will be fertile for more misunderstandings in the future.
A long time ago, there was a discusion on the topic of a ``hegemony``. If India wants to be the hegemonic power, it needs to determine the facts before it acts. A hegemon`s task is to promote stability; not undermine it.
Ciao
#264 Posted by stuka on December 20, 2001 1:48:16 am
Sherdil:
``The response from India so far is not helpful, nor is it very well thought out. ``
I agree with you. I am not a dove by any means, but I think by going after Musharraf, the Indian gov`t is barking up the wrong tree. I think it`s more because of public pressure than anything else. It`s not that they are stupid, but the middle class does not have the patience any more, and the government is also sensitive about it`s legacy i history. Overall, they are thinking from the heart and not from their head, and I fear, playing into the hands of the Jehadis.
Sadna:
I am sorry I could not reply to individual posts. Our basic perspective at looking at the issue is different. You are concentrating on ``should``, what should be done, what should Pakistan do etc. I am looking at the ``Could``. What could be done by India, what can Pakistan do under the circumstances etc. Obviously, to expect Mussharaf to do a major crackdown on Kashmiri militants is foolhardy, Mussharaf will be overthrown, and the Jehadis will get what they want. On the other hand, if we go to war, again, the Jehadis, to whom the destruction of India is more important than saving Pakistan, will get what they want. I am well aware that successive Paki govts have said, ``deal with us or the alternative is much worse`` and it basically a hoodwinking measure. However, this is the first time I feel that it is really the case.
All I hope is that Mussharaf hands over Dawood Ibrahim. That guy is of no strategic importance to Pakistan, has no significant recognition among the Paki masses, and the gesture will soothe temperatures in India.
``The response from India so far is not helpful, nor is it very well thought out. ``
I agree with you. I am not a dove by any means, but I think by going after Musharraf, the Indian gov`t is barking up the wrong tree. I think it`s more because of public pressure than anything else. It`s not that they are stupid, but the middle class does not have the patience any more, and the government is also sensitive about it`s legacy i history. Overall, they are thinking from the heart and not from their head, and I fear, playing into the hands of the Jehadis.
Sadna:
I am sorry I could not reply to individual posts. Our basic perspective at looking at the issue is different. You are concentrating on ``should``, what should be done, what should Pakistan do etc. I am looking at the ``Could``. What could be done by India, what can Pakistan do under the circumstances etc. Obviously, to expect Mussharaf to do a major crackdown on Kashmiri militants is foolhardy, Mussharaf will be overthrown, and the Jehadis will get what they want. On the other hand, if we go to war, again, the Jehadis, to whom the destruction of India is more important than saving Pakistan, will get what they want. I am well aware that successive Paki govts have said, ``deal with us or the alternative is much worse`` and it basically a hoodwinking measure. However, this is the first time I feel that it is really the case.
All I hope is that Mussharaf hands over Dawood Ibrahim. That guy is of no strategic importance to Pakistan, has no significant recognition among the Paki masses, and the gesture will soothe temperatures in India.
#263 Posted by sadna on December 19, 2001 11:14:57 pm
shammi #267
You may have seen an exchange on this `elsewhere`.
http://www.piads.com.pk/users/piads/kargilarticles.html
A list of gallantry awards to armed forces personnel on top and a long list of analyses by experts, based on claims or implications that only Kashmiri mujahiddeen were involved in the same conflict for which armed forces personnel won those awards?? Its mindblowing that the site owners and the experts donot realise that they are themselves proving to any reader that they are all lying.
(Seriously, dementia comes to mind :()
You may have seen an exchange on this `elsewhere`.
http://www.piads.com.pk/users/piads/kargilarticles.html
A list of gallantry awards to armed forces personnel on top and a long list of analyses by experts, based on claims or implications that only Kashmiri mujahiddeen were involved in the same conflict for which armed forces personnel won those awards?? Its mindblowing that the site owners and the experts donot realise that they are themselves proving to any reader that they are all lying.
(Seriously, dementia comes to mind :()
#262 Posted by sadna on December 19, 2001 10:20:28 pm
sherdil #264
``but I`m a little puzzled by your disagreement with Stuka`s post on the terrorist attack.``
sherdil, what do you think, why did Brig Rashid Qureshi, Musharraf`s spokesman say on television that India had engineered the Parliament attack on itself?
``but I`m a little puzzled by your disagreement with Stuka`s post on the terrorist attack.``
sherdil, what do you think, why did Brig Rashid Qureshi, Musharraf`s spokesman say on television that India had engineered the Parliament attack on itself?
#261 Posted by sadna on December 19, 2001 9:48:15 pm
tahmed321 #271
Anyone is free to interpret anything as they like, but compulsive hostility was not the issue there, that comes and goes. The Pakistani Foreign Minister`s dissembling was the issue.
Hopefully, Indian and Pakistani officials are conveying some meaningful message to each other with these statements with some other hidden meaning not obvious to the general public.
Anyone is free to interpret anything as they like, but compulsive hostility was not the issue there, that comes and goes. The Pakistani Foreign Minister`s dissembling was the issue.
Hopefully, Indian and Pakistani officials are conveying some meaningful message to each other with these statements with some other hidden meaning not obvious to the general public.
#260 Posted by tahmed321 on December 19, 2001 7:41:46 pm
sadna #251 You write ``Abdus Sattar said on CNN yesterday something like ``India has a elemental hostily toward Pakistan...``
Perhaps he reached this conclusion after reading certain chowk posters... (Just joking - I am equally fed up of Pakistanis and Indians who think like this).
Perhaps he reached this conclusion after reading certain chowk posters... (Just joking - I am equally fed up of Pakistanis and Indians who think like this).
#259 Posted by audio-video-rad on December 19, 2001 7:41:46 pm
bluenoon #199 you write, referring to Pakistanis, that ``the basket is full of bad eggs and I am calling a spade a spade, political correctness notwithstanding.``
These are the words of a bigot. Say hello to your fellow bigot Sadna who has said the same thing many times, and to arjun, who is on chowk for the express purpose of ridiculing Pakistanis from the safety of his home. Also say hello to your brother bigot from across the border, urstruly, who cant help but see all 850 million hindus as being in the same basket.
Bigots can be harmless (as in chowk interactions, where they simply post insults) or they can be harmful (as in the Gujrat, where they can form a mob, throw kerosene over 8 year old children and put them on fire). They can be hindus or muslims, Pakistanis or Indians. But the mindset is always the same.
Fortunately, no Pakistani has to prove anything to you and your kind. We just need to make sure that we have enough military strength to make sure that you can never hope to walk into Pakistan and inflict your hatred on innocent people.
So, enjoy posting your useless opinions and your stupid insults on chowk. You will never have a chance to do this in real life without getting a slap on your face.
These are the words of a bigot. Say hello to your fellow bigot Sadna who has said the same thing many times, and to arjun, who is on chowk for the express purpose of ridiculing Pakistanis from the safety of his home. Also say hello to your brother bigot from across the border, urstruly, who cant help but see all 850 million hindus as being in the same basket.
Bigots can be harmless (as in chowk interactions, where they simply post insults) or they can be harmful (as in the Gujrat, where they can form a mob, throw kerosene over 8 year old children and put them on fire). They can be hindus or muslims, Pakistanis or Indians. But the mindset is always the same.
Fortunately, no Pakistani has to prove anything to you and your kind. We just need to make sure that we have enough military strength to make sure that you can never hope to walk into Pakistan and inflict your hatred on innocent people.
So, enjoy posting your useless opinions and your stupid insults on chowk. You will never have a chance to do this in real life without getting a slap on your face.
#258 Posted by tahmed321 on December 19, 2001 7:41:46 pm
Sameerjb #233 Based on my unscientific ``survey`` of what Pakistanis think, I dont believe most people would like to see BB or NS back in power. They dont want mullahs in power, that is for sure. And Musharaff has so far done far more than you give him credit for. Not the least of which is that he has been in office for over an year and so far been quite honest. And he has put the fear of God in the loan defaulters, brought a corrupt naval chief back to pakistan in shame and in chains from the US, broken the back of the rotten bureaucracy and made a solid start in introducing democracy at the local government level - How can you ignore all this??? I agree that he needs to do more on fixing the religious extremists in Pakistan,and to mend fences with India, and I never liked the looks of Sattar anyway and you have confirmed my suspicions. But you need to be more balanced and fair in your criticism.
#257 Posted by nasah on December 19, 2001 7:41:46 pm
``I am expected to defend my homeland and kill.`` (Yahuda Goldsteen)
Holiday greeting from Showk to Yahuda Goldsteen:
Happy Killing -- Yahuda Goldsteen -- have a nice time in the child killer army.
#256 Posted by tahmed321 on December 19, 2001 7:41:46 pm
Goldsteen: So you are off to the trenches. Does this mean we will be deprived of your routine, moronic insults to us Pakis?
Anyway, stay clear of the incoming stones and try not to kill people...
Anyway, stay clear of the incoming stones and try not to kill people...
#255 Posted by rsridhar on December 19, 2001 7:41:46 pm
Re:Reply #: 250
sadna,
India is a soft state. We are comparing ourselves with USA which is the sole superpower. India can do a lot without taking military action, which should be the last resort. Diplomatically, India is now informing the western powers of Pak`s involvement. Once US and others are convinced, you may see a change in their policies. Already, US is pressurising Pak to come down on the 2 terrorist groups.
Pak does not have a friendly western border and is in a vulnerable position. Why would Mushy gain anything by such acts of terror is anyone`s guess. I think he is getting desperate. All he got from US for his cooperation was money distributed over time. His Taliban policy is in shambles. He is unable to convince US that Kashmir terrorists are freedom fighters. We may expect more such desperate acts but that only will put more nails in his coffin.
Sridhar
sadna,
India is a soft state. We are comparing ourselves with USA which is the sole superpower. India can do a lot without taking military action, which should be the last resort. Diplomatically, India is now informing the western powers of Pak`s involvement. Once US and others are convinced, you may see a change in their policies. Already, US is pressurising Pak to come down on the 2 terrorist groups.
Pak does not have a friendly western border and is in a vulnerable position. Why would Mushy gain anything by such acts of terror is anyone`s guess. I think he is getting desperate. All he got from US for his cooperation was money distributed over time. His Taliban policy is in shambles. He is unable to convince US that Kashmir terrorists are freedom fighters. We may expect more such desperate acts but that only will put more nails in his coffin.
Sridhar
#254 Posted by saminashah on December 19, 2001 7:41:46 pm
Yahuda,
Dude, reading your post made me verklempt...the touching manner in which you have kept in touch with your inner mensch; its enough to give a girl the will to dump her schmattahs at the Good wWill and join you...who needs Women in Black when you`ve got enough chutzpah and meshugana to open a can of whoop derrier on those ingrateful Palestinian insects...yes, that the answer; dialogue=no, death=yes....btw, have you seen the Hassidim Workout Video? This is no Balfour agreement talking, I read in yesterday`s fishwrapping paper that there is a video out to get the Hassidim hopping...and the part youre really going to oy vey over is that some of the moves are taken from Tai Chi and Yoga...
Dude, reading your post made me verklempt...the touching manner in which you have kept in touch with your inner mensch; its enough to give a girl the will to dump her schmattahs at the Good wWill and join you...who needs Women in Black when you`ve got enough chutzpah and meshugana to open a can of whoop derrier on those ingrateful Palestinian insects...yes, that the answer; dialogue=no, death=yes....btw, have you seen the Hassidim Workout Video? This is no Balfour agreement talking, I read in yesterday`s fishwrapping paper that there is a video out to get the Hassidim hopping...and the part youre really going to oy vey over is that some of the moves are taken from Tai Chi and Yoga...
#252 Posted by shammi on December 19, 2001 7:41:46 pm
Re: sadna
``If India does nothing too long, we will next have planes flying into high rise buildings``
I concur. India will pay a very heavy price in the future if it refuses to take this matter up with the utmost seriousness with Pakistan. A noisy democracy is easily distracted with several issues, but this one needs to be pressed home fully. Inaction will cost us very dearly indeed.
``If India does nothing too long, we will next have planes flying into high rise buildings``
I concur. India will pay a very heavy price in the future if it refuses to take this matter up with the utmost seriousness with Pakistan. A noisy democracy is easily distracted with several issues, but this one needs to be pressed home fully. Inaction will cost us very dearly indeed.
#251 Posted by SameerJB on December 19, 2001 7:41:46 pm
Nasah #245: You asked: ``Now sameer, tell the Indians what India should do``.
Now that is a tough question that can put me in opposite corner easily. It is not easy for me to respond as objectively as I would have liked - mainly because some innocent Pakistanis may have to pay the price. Do I care about innocent Indians? Definitely! I deeply regret the loss of innocent lives of both Indians and Pakistanis. In the Parliament attack case as well as attack in Srinagar near Kashmir Assembly, I offer my condolences to the families of those killed by terrorists and not for terrorists.
A simple answer to your question would be to do whatever is necessary to punish the guilty party and make sure that such events do not happen again. The simple answer is very difficult to implement. India does not have the technology and kind of edge USA enjoyed over Afghanistan. I would be concerned on both accounts of a successfulness of the operation as well as the cost in terms of Indian casualties - with more doubtful of the success of rooting out the sources of terrorism from Pakistan or PK. Well, it took USA continuous bombing for more than a month and yet OBL evaded capture [unless you believe that it is another of Mushy`s smart move to lure OBL into Pakistan and then hand him over to USA, effectively adding another 25 million to one billion aid USA has promised. Add another 20 million for luring Mulla Omar to Pakistan as well. I am impressed with Mushy`s samrt moves. Now I understand why he wanted OBL to build his caves network so close to Pakistan....hehe...hehe].
No sensible Pakistani expects India to buckle under such terrorist attacks and present Kashmir to Pakistan on a golden platter. So what to do?
As I mentioned in my previous post to isolate and ignore and disregard Musharraf. It was just a reminder to Shammi and Stuka to look positively to the people of Pakistan and not Musharraf - not that I had any doubt that they do not. So in my opinion India should not have invited Musharraf to Agra and given him sort of legitimacy at home. India has to go to the source to cure cancer. Instead they chose to elevate the source to honorable position. India should have followed what Mohathir Mohammed said to him. You may visit Malaysia if you like but you are not invited. India did not even give him a lesson in democracy what MM told him on his face. Pakistani military and Mush saw it as another Indian weakness with the general feeling that Indians are cowards and would not like to fight Pakistani brave soldiers.
Pakistan has proposed discussion in the UN General Assembly. It would be better for India to call Security council meeting instead. I do not know the current make up of Security Council but a resolution condemning terrorism, JeM, HUM and LeT is possible through Security Council resolution. Second step is more important if BJP wants to win the next election and does not give ammunition to Congress for being inactive or weak. That is why, I believe a small scale operation is in the cards where a company or a battalion can take out even an abandoned training center or hide out in remote PK region and claim victory. The claim of victory is very important and that is why I do not think a large scale operation is in the cards.
It would be much better for India to invite and back Pakistani democracy movement and even inviting some members of Sharif clan from Saudi Arabia as well as Altaf Hussain and BB might be invited again. A large scale war will harden the public stance on both side making any rapprochement impossible.
Now that is a tough question that can put me in opposite corner easily. It is not easy for me to respond as objectively as I would have liked - mainly because some innocent Pakistanis may have to pay the price. Do I care about innocent Indians? Definitely! I deeply regret the loss of innocent lives of both Indians and Pakistanis. In the Parliament attack case as well as attack in Srinagar near Kashmir Assembly, I offer my condolences to the families of those killed by terrorists and not for terrorists.
A simple answer to your question would be to do whatever is necessary to punish the guilty party and make sure that such events do not happen again. The simple answer is very difficult to implement. India does not have the technology and kind of edge USA enjoyed over Afghanistan. I would be concerned on both accounts of a successfulness of the operation as well as the cost in terms of Indian casualties - with more doubtful of the success of rooting out the sources of terrorism from Pakistan or PK. Well, it took USA continuous bombing for more than a month and yet OBL evaded capture [unless you believe that it is another of Mushy`s smart move to lure OBL into Pakistan and then hand him over to USA, effectively adding another 25 million to one billion aid USA has promised. Add another 20 million for luring Mulla Omar to Pakistan as well. I am impressed with Mushy`s samrt moves. Now I understand why he wanted OBL to build his caves network so close to Pakistan....hehe...hehe].
No sensible Pakistani expects India to buckle under such terrorist attacks and present Kashmir to Pakistan on a golden platter. So what to do?
As I mentioned in my previous post to isolate and ignore and disregard Musharraf. It was just a reminder to Shammi and Stuka to look positively to the people of Pakistan and not Musharraf - not that I had any doubt that they do not. So in my opinion India should not have invited Musharraf to Agra and given him sort of legitimacy at home. India has to go to the source to cure cancer. Instead they chose to elevate the source to honorable position. India should have followed what Mohathir Mohammed said to him. You may visit Malaysia if you like but you are not invited. India did not even give him a lesson in democracy what MM told him on his face. Pakistani military and Mush saw it as another Indian weakness with the general feeling that Indians are cowards and would not like to fight Pakistani brave soldiers.
Pakistan has proposed discussion in the UN General Assembly. It would be better for India to call Security council meeting instead. I do not know the current make up of Security Council but a resolution condemning terrorism, JeM, HUM and LeT is possible through Security Council resolution. Second step is more important if BJP wants to win the next election and does not give ammunition to Congress for being inactive or weak. That is why, I believe a small scale operation is in the cards where a company or a battalion can take out even an abandoned training center or hide out in remote PK region and claim victory. The claim of victory is very important and that is why I do not think a large scale operation is in the cards.
It would be much better for India to invite and back Pakistani democracy movement and even inviting some members of Sharif clan from Saudi Arabia as well as Altaf Hussain and BB might be invited again. A large scale war will harden the public stance on both side making any rapprochement impossible.
#250 Posted by sherdil on December 19, 2001 7:41:46 pm
Addition to my previous post: I did not mean to imply there were only three (!) clear-thinking Indians on chowk - my apologies if I seemed rude. In particular, Sadna, I`ve found your posts well thought out - but I`m a little puzzled by your disagreement with Stuka`s post on the terrorist attack. Did I miss something?
#249 Posted by sherdil on December 19, 2001 7:41:46 pm
There are some very good interacts taking place here - I`ve missed participating here.
Feroze, 1. if ``Realpolitik is the ability to realistically adjust to the various changes in international balance of power arrangements by keeping the political interests of the state supreme at all times`` then it looks like Musharraf has done exactly that re: Afghanistan.
And 2. if ``(per) Richelieu, national interest must never be subordinated to a religious goal and national interest must be realistically pursued without any paeans to an ideological fanaticism or a religious zeal``, then the recent actions of President Musharraf against the madrassas and the Maulanas/religious extremists also show a move by him along these lines.
And 3. ``The creation of Pakistani foreign policy...is influenced not only by the foreign office in Islamabad; it is also created by the Inter-Services-Intelligence; the various militant/Islamic jehadi groups, which operate from the soil of Pakistan; domestic political considerations of exiled and discredited politicians (like Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif and Altaf Hussain) to advance their own domestic interests in Pakistan.`` It looks like it is this that Musharraf was preparing to tackle when the latest brouhaha broke over the terrorist attack in the Indian Parliament. There was a recent Iftar dinner in Islamabad and among the guests were (Rtd) Air Marshall Asghar Khan, Imran Khan, Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi, Mumtaz Bhutto, Leghari, Hayat. These look like effective moves against the likes of Benazir and Nawaz on their home turf.
As regards the attack on the Indian Parliament - I think Stuka, you have written clearly and without prejudice in your post. And I get the feeling that most clear-thinking Indians (Shankar, Dost-Mittar, Zafar among others - (?)) will agree with you that it is not Musharraf who is to blame here. This attack is almost certainly an act of desperation, by those who wish to put President Musharraf and Pakistan in a corner. What else could they have possibly hoped to achieve? Very obviously the hope was to put pressure on President Musharraf and Pakistan, and not to give Musharraf time to move against the extremist groups. That is exactly what Musharraf needs - time to purge Pakistan of them. The response from India so far is not helpful, nor is it very well thought out. Regardless of that, whoever it was, this terrorist act may backfire on the terrorists and may have done Pakistan (and Musharraf) a favor: He can now move a lot faster against the extremist elements in the militant groups and that will leave the genuine freedom fighters in the forefront, which could work out far better for the Kashmiri struggle. The legitimacy of the Kashmiri struggle won`t be made hazy by the extremists. It looks like most international analysts are urging India to cool it (International Herald Tribune, Boston Herald, South Asia Times, Far East Economic Review, Gulf Times) - (especially since Pakistan offered cooperation in the investigation and also suggested that the FBI assist - both of which were rejected by the Indian government). This episode again has brought into focus the general support Pakistanis have for Musharraf. A previous post here mentioned a 9% support for Musharraf. The 9% support numbers were quoted in Dawn and referred to a poll in Sindh villages and were numbers from PPP commissioners in Sindh - just those guys. Sindh is in a battle for water rights these days and some of the dissatisfaction is due to this issue. Some of the PPP are quite obviously Benazir supporters. What is interesting is that in the same poll, the PML commisioners overwhelmingly supported Musharraf (Numbers in the same poll). I`ve travelled from Peshawar to Islamabad/Rawalpindi to Murree to Nathiagali to Skardu to Faisalabad to Lahore to Sukker to Jacobabad to Larkana to Quetta to Hyderabad to Thatta to Karachi and am back in Peshawar: this is from the Pakistanis IN Pakistan: They are overwhelmingly supportive of President Musharraf. They think what he is doing for Pakistan will bring back the years of progress in the fifties/sixties. I`ve heard this time and again. A reporter from the Christian Science Monitor in Lahore made an interesting comment. He said that during the previous 10-15 years he found Pakistan to be a dour and depressing place. No one smiled, and he could not wait to get back to India (he was based in Mumbai) where he could see smiling faces again. He said: ``It looks like Pakistanis have found their smiles again``. Larkana and Jacobabad were where I found strong support for Benazir (not surprisingly). Karachi is very much for President Musharraf. Benazir is reduced to making appearances in the Indian media and though she is trying to make President Musharraf look like a unpopular dictator, his popularity aggravates her mightily. So far she remains strong in her traditional Sindh areas only.
P.S. Hope everyone had a great Eid.
Feroze, 1. if ``Realpolitik is the ability to realistically adjust to the various changes in international balance of power arrangements by keeping the political interests of the state supreme at all times`` then it looks like Musharraf has done exactly that re: Afghanistan.
And 2. if ``(per) Richelieu, national interest must never be subordinated to a religious goal and national interest must be realistically pursued without any paeans to an ideological fanaticism or a religious zeal``, then the recent actions of President Musharraf against the madrassas and the Maulanas/religious extremists also show a move by him along these lines.
And 3. ``The creation of Pakistani foreign policy...is influenced not only by the foreign office in Islamabad; it is also created by the Inter-Services-Intelligence; the various militant/Islamic jehadi groups, which operate from the soil of Pakistan; domestic political considerations of exiled and discredited politicians (like Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif and Altaf Hussain) to advance their own domestic interests in Pakistan.`` It looks like it is this that Musharraf was preparing to tackle when the latest brouhaha broke over the terrorist attack in the Indian Parliament. There was a recent Iftar dinner in Islamabad and among the guests were (Rtd) Air Marshall Asghar Khan, Imran Khan, Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi, Mumtaz Bhutto, Leghari, Hayat. These look like effective moves against the likes of Benazir and Nawaz on their home turf.
As regards the attack on the Indian Parliament - I think Stuka, you have written clearly and without prejudice in your post. And I get the feeling that most clear-thinking Indians (Shankar, Dost-Mittar, Zafar among others - (?)) will agree with you that it is not Musharraf who is to blame here. This attack is almost certainly an act of desperation, by those who wish to put President Musharraf and Pakistan in a corner. What else could they have possibly hoped to achieve? Very obviously the hope was to put pressure on President Musharraf and Pakistan, and not to give Musharraf time to move against the extremist groups. That is exactly what Musharraf needs - time to purge Pakistan of them. The response from India so far is not helpful, nor is it very well thought out. Regardless of that, whoever it was, this terrorist act may backfire on the terrorists and may have done Pakistan (and Musharraf) a favor: He can now move a lot faster against the extremist elements in the militant groups and that will leave the genuine freedom fighters in the forefront, which could work out far better for the Kashmiri struggle. The legitimacy of the Kashmiri struggle won`t be made hazy by the extremists. It looks like most international analysts are urging India to cool it (International Herald Tribune, Boston Herald, South Asia Times, Far East Economic Review, Gulf Times) - (especially since Pakistan offered cooperation in the investigation and also suggested that the FBI assist - both of which were rejected by the Indian government). This episode again has brought into focus the general support Pakistanis have for Musharraf. A previous post here mentioned a 9% support for Musharraf. The 9% support numbers were quoted in Dawn and referred to a poll in Sindh villages and were numbers from PPP commissioners in Sindh - just those guys. Sindh is in a battle for water rights these days and some of the dissatisfaction is due to this issue. Some of the PPP are quite obviously Benazir supporters. What is interesting is that in the same poll, the PML commisioners overwhelmingly supported Musharraf (Numbers in the same poll). I`ve travelled from Peshawar to Islamabad/Rawalpindi to Murree to Nathiagali to Skardu to Faisalabad to Lahore to Sukker to Jacobabad to Larkana to Quetta to Hyderabad to Thatta to Karachi and am back in Peshawar: this is from the Pakistanis IN Pakistan: They are overwhelmingly supportive of President Musharraf. They think what he is doing for Pakistan will bring back the years of progress in the fifties/sixties. I`ve heard this time and again. A reporter from the Christian Science Monitor in Lahore made an interesting comment. He said that during the previous 10-15 years he found Pakistan to be a dour and depressing place. No one smiled, and he could not wait to get back to India (he was based in Mumbai) where he could see smiling faces again. He said: ``It looks like Pakistanis have found their smiles again``. Larkana and Jacobabad were where I found strong support for Benazir (not surprisingly). Karachi is very much for President Musharraf. Benazir is reduced to making appearances in the Indian media and though she is trying to make President Musharraf look like a unpopular dictator, his popularity aggravates her mightily. So far she remains strong in her traditional Sindh areas only.
P.S. Hope everyone had a great Eid.
#248 Posted by harimau on December 19, 2001 7:41:46 pm
Ref Ferozk #: 241
[The reason that comparsion is flawed as you have mentioned the poor classes of India had the right to vote, but more importantly had their votes count for something. The poor classes in Pakistan never had that right and even if they did cast a ballot, it was not worth the paper it was printed upon.]
After the Nov 2000 Presidential elections, Mike Savage, a right-wing radio talk-show host, kept saying that it is not who votes that is important in an election but who counts the votes. Supposedly this was a statement by Stalin and he kept repeating it in his support of Dubya`s teetering victory in Florida.
Nevertheless, the way you make elections count is by having sealed ballot boxes, representatives of all contestants at the polling booths to ensure that no one is turned away from voting, and security of the ballot boxes until they are opened and the votes are counted. It has been done with remarkable success with paper ballots in India despite the occasional incident of capturing a polling booth or snatching away a ballot box in recent years, in which case the Election Commission has stepped in and ordered a re-poll.
The last elections in India were conducted with electronic voting machines. The integrity of the voting process has withstood scrutiny and a challenge that went all the way to the Supreme Court. In fact, the IT minister Pramod Mahajan jokingly told an American audience last May that India was able to tabulate and announce results hours after the closing of polls as opposed to the drama that was played out in Florida.
There ARE technical means to overcome the problem. As people start believing in the electoral process, you will find that your landless haris will not be taking instructions on how to vote from your feudals. The reason their votes will count is that they are more numerous than any number of feudals, bureaucrats, military types and urban dwellers. When their representatives run on a platform of land reform and get elected in large numbers to your National Assembly, you can expect legislation regarding land reform. Until then, unless you have idealistic leaders with socialist tendencies and a large and obedient parliamentary group -- I am referring to Nehru here -- you can`t get land reforms or any other type of reforms passed through your legislatures.
Pakistanis have another way of resolving the issue: the Naxalites in India and more recently in Nepal have decided that Mao`s armed struggle is the way to go and they go about killing abusive landlords and other local petty tyrants. The same situation obtains in South American countries such as Colombia and Peru. The rich Colombians of course have their US green cards and their condos in Miami so that in case the rebels actually succeed in controlling large areas of territory in their country, they have the escape hatch. Maybe that is what the Pakistanis are also doing.
If you don`t have a relief valve for the pressures that are building up in a society, the only result one can expect is a violent explosion as happened in Russia in 1917 and in China.
[The reason that comparsion is flawed as you have mentioned the poor classes of India had the right to vote, but more importantly had their votes count for something. The poor classes in Pakistan never had that right and even if they did cast a ballot, it was not worth the paper it was printed upon.]
After the Nov 2000 Presidential elections, Mike Savage, a right-wing radio talk-show host, kept saying that it is not who votes that is important in an election but who counts the votes. Supposedly this was a statement by Stalin and he kept repeating it in his support of Dubya`s teetering victory in Florida.
Nevertheless, the way you make elections count is by having sealed ballot boxes, representatives of all contestants at the polling booths to ensure that no one is turned away from voting, and security of the ballot boxes until they are opened and the votes are counted. It has been done with remarkable success with paper ballots in India despite the occasional incident of capturing a polling booth or snatching away a ballot box in recent years, in which case the Election Commission has stepped in and ordered a re-poll.
The last elections in India were conducted with electronic voting machines. The integrity of the voting process has withstood scrutiny and a challenge that went all the way to the Supreme Court. In fact, the IT minister Pramod Mahajan jokingly told an American audience last May that India was able to tabulate and announce results hours after the closing of polls as opposed to the drama that was played out in Florida.
There ARE technical means to overcome the problem. As people start believing in the electoral process, you will find that your landless haris will not be taking instructions on how to vote from your feudals. The reason their votes will count is that they are more numerous than any number of feudals, bureaucrats, military types and urban dwellers. When their representatives run on a platform of land reform and get elected in large numbers to your National Assembly, you can expect legislation regarding land reform. Until then, unless you have idealistic leaders with socialist tendencies and a large and obedient parliamentary group -- I am referring to Nehru here -- you can`t get land reforms or any other type of reforms passed through your legislatures.
Pakistanis have another way of resolving the issue: the Naxalites in India and more recently in Nepal have decided that Mao`s armed struggle is the way to go and they go about killing abusive landlords and other local petty tyrants. The same situation obtains in South American countries such as Colombia and Peru. The rich Colombians of course have their US green cards and their condos in Miami so that in case the rebels actually succeed in controlling large areas of territory in their country, they have the escape hatch. Maybe that is what the Pakistanis are also doing.
If you don`t have a relief valve for the pressures that are building up in a society, the only result one can expect is a violent explosion as happened in Russia in 1917 and in China.
#247 Posted by Brad Cruise on December 19, 2001 7:41:46 pm
Reply #: 247
Yahuda Goldsteen
Army reserve have been put on alert in Israel. I am expected to join my unit just twenty eight miles south of Haifa. I am not looking forward to it, I must confess. I hate Palestine who have brought so much misery to themselves and other nations, including Arabs such as Jordan, Egypt, syria, Iraq and Kuwait. I knoe some Arabs who hate Palestine. I am expected to defend my homeland and kill. Salom from Tel Aviv
Behuda Steen!
AS WE CAre what u do or where u go he..he...he...he
Another U.S. Double Standard
In a blatant move, openly declaring its total support for Israeli
terrorism against innocent Palestinians, the U.S. representative to the
United Nations Security Council vetoed a UN resolution which aimed at
sending peacekeeping forces to the region.
Although the U.S. move has been met with severe criticisms from all
countries except Israel, the U.S. representative John Negroponte showed
the world through his veto, the emptiness of the current U.S. slogans
about fighting terrorism.
The UN Security Council resolution condemned all acts of terror, in
particular, those targeting civilians.
There is no doubt that exercising its veto power on a sensitive issue
such as the Palestinian conflict would encourage Israel to step up its
attacks and widen its aggression against the Palestinian people which is
causing death and destruction on a daily basis.
On the day of the U.S. veto, the Israelis killed five Palestinians during
several clashes, demonstrating the immediate effect of receiving the green
light for instigating more violence.
The action of the U.S. Administration in vetoing the UN resolution which
has been considered by many nations to be a ``balanced resolution`` was
clearly designed to incite the Zionist regime to continue its ruthless war
against defenseless Palestinian people.
The continuation of the current iron-fisted policy exercised by the White
House in every corner of the world under the pretext of fight against
terrorism is in direct contrast to its strong and blind support of the
state terrorism of Israel.
The U.S. stand and subsequent statements made by American leaders will do
nothing but contribute to increasing the tension and the violence in the
Palestinian occupied lands.
Even some of America`s allies have shown dismay and frustration at the
evenhandedness of the U.S. Administration regarding world problems and
trouble spots.
Although the U.S. officials had originally accepted such a draft proposal
at the G8 meeting in Genoa(NW Italy) last July, it becomes more
incomprehensible to understand why it should now veto the same idea
presented through a reasonable UN draft resolution of the Security Council
which foresaw an impartial mechanism for establishing a Middle East
surveillance for the sole purpose of bringing to an end the atrocities and
genocide inflicted by the illegitimate Zionist regime against innocent
people in their homes and lands.
It seems that the U.S. Administration wishes to instill its own version
of a so-called peace process in the world and is adamant at sidestepping
any involvement of the United Nations in the process.
With the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks dead and buried, Sharon and his
regime, being assured of a comprehensive U.S. support, have escalated
their killing process in the occupied lands. The Muslim countries and
governments can no longer afford to remain inactive observers. Announcing
regrets and verbal show of support will not help the Palestinians in their
plight. The whole Islamic world should come together in a united front
against the Israeli atrocities and in full support of the Palestinian
cause. The various Palestinian factions must also put aside all existing
policy differences and unite within a `cohesive front` against the Zionist
enemy.
Israel has become aggressively petulant due to the blind support it
receives from its chief ally, the American Administration. It must find to
its detriment that the policy it pursues is doomed to failure. Palestine
belongs to all Muslims in the world and all Muslims must now come together
to save it from the clutches of a mad butcher who has brought shame and
sorrow even to his own people through committing unparalleled crimes
against humanity.
Yahuda Goldsteen
Army reserve have been put on alert in Israel. I am expected to join my unit just twenty eight miles south of Haifa. I am not looking forward to it, I must confess. I hate Palestine who have brought so much misery to themselves and other nations, including Arabs such as Jordan, Egypt, syria, Iraq and Kuwait. I knoe some Arabs who hate Palestine. I am expected to defend my homeland and kill. Salom from Tel Aviv
Behuda Steen!
AS WE CAre what u do or where u go he..he...he...he
Another U.S. Double Standard
In a blatant move, openly declaring its total support for Israeli
terrorism against innocent Palestinians, the U.S. representative to the
United Nations Security Council vetoed a UN resolution which aimed at
sending peacekeeping forces to the region.
Although the U.S. move has been met with severe criticisms from all
countries except Israel, the U.S. representative John Negroponte showed
the world through his veto, the emptiness of the current U.S. slogans
about fighting terrorism.
The UN Security Council resolution condemned all acts of terror, in
particular, those targeting civilians.
There is no doubt that exercising its veto power on a sensitive issue
such as the Palestinian conflict would encourage Israel to step up its
attacks and widen its aggression against the Palestinian people which is
causing death and destruction on a daily basis.
On the day of the U.S. veto, the Israelis killed five Palestinians during
several clashes, demonstrating the immediate effect of receiving the green
light for instigating more violence.
The action of the U.S. Administration in vetoing the UN resolution which
has been considered by many nations to be a ``balanced resolution`` was
clearly designed to incite the Zionist regime to continue its ruthless war
against defenseless Palestinian people.
The continuation of the current iron-fisted policy exercised by the White
House in every corner of the world under the pretext of fight against
terrorism is in direct contrast to its strong and blind support of the
state terrorism of Israel.
The U.S. stand and subsequent statements made by American leaders will do
nothing but contribute to increasing the tension and the violence in the
Palestinian occupied lands.
Even some of America`s allies have shown dismay and frustration at the
evenhandedness of the U.S. Administration regarding world problems and
trouble spots.
Although the U.S. officials had originally accepted such a draft proposal
at the G8 meeting in Genoa(NW Italy) last July, it becomes more
incomprehensible to understand why it should now veto the same idea
presented through a reasonable UN draft resolution of the Security Council
which foresaw an impartial mechanism for establishing a Middle East
surveillance for the sole purpose of bringing to an end the atrocities and
genocide inflicted by the illegitimate Zionist regime against innocent
people in their homes and lands.
It seems that the U.S. Administration wishes to instill its own version
of a so-called peace process in the world and is adamant at sidestepping
any involvement of the United Nations in the process.
With the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks dead and buried, Sharon and his
regime, being assured of a comprehensive U.S. support, have escalated
their killing process in the occupied lands. The Muslim countries and
governments can no longer afford to remain inactive observers. Announcing
regrets and verbal show of support will not help the Palestinians in their
plight. The whole Islamic world should come together in a united front
against the Israeli atrocities and in full support of the Palestinian
cause. The various Palestinian factions must also put aside all existing
policy differences and unite within a `cohesive front` against the Zionist
enemy.
Israel has become aggressively petulant due to the blind support it
receives from its chief ally, the American Administration. It must find to
its detriment that the policy it pursues is doomed to failure. Palestine
belongs to all Muslims in the world and all Muslims must now come together
to save it from the clutches of a mad butcher who has brought shame and
sorrow even to his own people through committing unparalleled crimes
against humanity.
#246 Posted by Trojan Horse on December 19, 2001 7:41:46 pm
#: 247
Yahuda Goldsteen
Army reserve have been put on alert in Israel. I am expected to join my unit just twenty eight miles south of Haifa. I am not looking forward to it, I must confess. I hate Palestine who have brought so much misery to themselves and other nations, including Arabs such as Jordan, Egypt, syria, Iraq and Kuwait. I knoe some Arabs whohate Palestine.
I am expected to defend my homeland and kill.
Salom from Tel Aviv``
Pathetic Steen.
Our forefathers were smarter.
They didnt build a house on someone elses property .
As they sow ,so shall they reap :old testament
NOT TORAH)
Yahuda Goldsteen
Army reserve have been put on alert in Israel. I am expected to join my unit just twenty eight miles south of Haifa. I am not looking forward to it, I must confess. I hate Palestine who have brought so much misery to themselves and other nations, including Arabs such as Jordan, Egypt, syria, Iraq and Kuwait. I knoe some Arabs whohate Palestine.
I am expected to defend my homeland and kill.
Salom from Tel Aviv``
Pathetic Steen.
Our forefathers were smarter.
They didnt build a house on someone elses property .
As they sow ,so shall they reap :old testament
NOT TORAH)
#245 Posted by Bijli on December 19, 2001 7:41:46 pm
Reply #: 248
audio-video-radio
You bothersome irritating avr,LISTEN ,& you listen hard Mothers blood is not sons DNA O.K. arts student....And Osamas Dna is all over Afghanistan ,Khandar & tora Bora .You dont worryu about the scientific advantagebeing used against OBL.There wont be any failure if he is found dead or alive.
audio-video-radio
You bothersome irritating avr,LISTEN ,& you listen hard Mothers blood is not sons DNA O.K. arts student....And Osamas Dna is all over Afghanistan ,Khandar & tora Bora .You dont worryu about the scientific advantagebeing used against OBL.There wont be any failure if he is found dead or alive.
#244 Posted by narain on December 19, 2001 7:41:46 pm
I think that anyone who places too much belief in Gen Musharraf`s ability to move Pakistan away from sponsoring terrorism in India is expecting too much. Pre Sept. 11, he was so scared of the religious groups in his country, that even when they openly incited the army to revolt against him, he could do little except plead with them. Again it was only when America applied unprecedented pressure on him that the General reluctantly took half steps against the ISI. So left to himselves, one can hardly expect Pres. Musharraf to have a change of heart and move against either the jehadis or the ISI, especially when it comes to India.
The army and terrorism are so interlinked in Pakistan now, that India can hope for an end to cross-border terrorism only when somebody can control the military there. But who is going to do this? The US is certainly not going to do this on India`s behalf. The people of Pakistan have shown themselves totally unwilling and/or unable to do so. I think the only option remaining is for India to do whatever it can on its own.
But what can India do? IMO war should be the last resort. This is likely to be too costly, and it would most likely strengthen the military rather than weaken it. This is not what India wants. But there are other options open to us.
For starters, India should unilaterally withdraw from the Indus water treaty and use water as a strategic lever over Pakistan. This treaty is heavily biased in favor of that nation, and witdrawal from it would hurt Pakistan severely. The resulting water shortages would also heighten nascent inter-state disputes there. India should also prevent (legal) trade with Pakistan, thereby hurting that part of its industry which is dependent on Indian markets or raw materials. At the same time India should also covertly encouraging smuggling to destabilize the Pakistani economy. In the medium term India could also create another south-asian body like SAARC BUT minus Pakistan (and including AFghanistan), and move towards closer collaboration with our other neighbours. Once the benefits of regional collaboration become apparent, Pakistan would be hard pressed to try and seek entry into the group, but it would be on India`s terms.
-narain
The army and terrorism are so interlinked in Pakistan now, that India can hope for an end to cross-border terrorism only when somebody can control the military there. But who is going to do this? The US is certainly not going to do this on India`s behalf. The people of Pakistan have shown themselves totally unwilling and/or unable to do so. I think the only option remaining is for India to do whatever it can on its own.
But what can India do? IMO war should be the last resort. This is likely to be too costly, and it would most likely strengthen the military rather than weaken it. This is not what India wants. But there are other options open to us.
For starters, India should unilaterally withdraw from the Indus water treaty and use water as a strategic lever over Pakistan. This treaty is heavily biased in favor of that nation, and witdrawal from it would hurt Pakistan severely. The resulting water shortages would also heighten nascent inter-state disputes there. India should also prevent (legal) trade with Pakistan, thereby hurting that part of its industry which is dependent on Indian markets or raw materials. At the same time India should also covertly encouraging smuggling to destabilize the Pakistani economy. In the medium term India could also create another south-asian body like SAARC BUT minus Pakistan (and including AFghanistan), and move towards closer collaboration with our other neighbours. Once the benefits of regional collaboration become apparent, Pakistan would be hard pressed to try and seek entry into the group, but it would be on India`s terms.
-narain
#243 Posted by sadna on December 19, 2001 3:33:47 pm
This is the sort of guy to whom is entrusted the job of handling Pakistan`s most important foreign relationship :
http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/191201/dlnat27.asp
http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/191201/dlnat27.asp
#242 Posted by sadna on December 19, 2001 11:22:55 am
Mansoor Ejaz, nuclear physicist advises the US on MSNBC, ``instead of worrying about day-to-day location and activities of Bin Laden, pay attention to the squeeze play by Indian/Pakistani reinforcements on the border, this is more important``
US fought a war to catch Bin Laden, and now they should forget all about him and attend to other business?? When its obvious that the only reason there are no jihadi training camps and hiding places for international terrorists for the US to worry about on the Indian side of Kashmir is because its the Indian side of Kashmir..
Foreing Minister? Abdus Sattar said on CNN yesterday something like ``India has a elemental hostily toward Pakistan. Moreover they jump to conclusions very fast and make accusations without a `proper` enquiry``
Haha. Statements have to have some credibility and not merely be assertions. Lying never pays when it can be caught out.
And lookit, heres what a LeT brochure says,
ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_865000/865818.stm
``.. Lashkar`s professed ideology goes beyond merely challenging Indian rule in the northern state of Jammu and Kashmir.
In a pamphlet entitled Why Are We Waging Jihad, the group defines its agenda as the restoration of Islamic rule over all parts of India...``
Now with stuff like that lying around..? To deny that you have an elephant in the house when its trumpeting loudly and sticking its tail out the back door..Sheesh
(No disrespect to elephants, who are gentle and wise creatures most of the time)
#241 Posted by sadna on December 19, 2001 1:41:09 am
http://paknews.com/top.php?id=1&date1=2001-12-17
``...Pakistan`s proactive response has made Indian minsiters to stop giving any further statements against Pakistan. Indian Home Minister L.K. Advani sidestepping a hot pursuit against Pakistan has denied complete intelligence failure behind the brazen terrorist attack on Parliament, and instead blamed Indian citizens` attitude for New Delhi`s inability to crush terrorism...``
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/19/international/asia/19INDI.html
``...NEW DELHI, Dec. 18 — On the first full day of business since a suicide squad attacked India`s Parliament last week, the country`s home minister, L. K. Advani, today acc
``...Pakistan`s proactive response has made Indian minsiters to stop giving any further statements against Pakistan. Indian Home Minister L.K. Advani sidestepping a hot pursuit against Pakistan has denied complete intelligence failure behind the brazen terrorist attack on Parliament, and instead blamed Indian citizens` attitude for New Delhi`s inability to crush terrorism...``
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/19/international/asia/19INDI.html
``...NEW DELHI, Dec. 18 — On the first full day of business since a suicide squad attacked India`s Parliament last week, the country`s home minister, L. K. Advani, today acc