Empty Vessels And All That Jazz

Zeemax:

I`ll limit myself to the economic poverty of the Muslim world described in the article. You seem to have a very simplistic view of the Far East crisis of 1997 and crooks and megalomaniacs like Mahatir and Agha Hasan Abedi. tAhmed321 has already touched on Abedi and his web of deceit woven by employing the kith and kin of the rich and poweful in third world countries. I`ll focus on your description of Indonesia and Malaysia and what happened to them in 1997.

Both countries were high on the list of donors and investors. The markets in both countries were zooming to new highs as the bubble grew bigger and bigger. I distinctly remember a Malaysian acquaintance of mine leaving her cushy life as a housewife to go and become a stockbroker in Kuala Lampur. Within a year she had more than 30 brokers working for her!! The currency traders on Wall St. realized pretty quickly(as they usually do) the structural defects in the economy hidden by the feeding frenzy fueled by the gambling culture of the far-east and the herd mentality of foreign investors. What happened with these fragile economies in the ensuing months was not a conspiracy mounted by outside agencies as you allege rather a proverbial run on the bank. If the 7th largest corporation in the US(Enron) cannot survive such an onslaught, how could the thoroughly corrupt and inefficient economies of the far east? The more these governments tried to defend their currencies(by raising overnight lending rates to ludicrously high levels), the sharks smelt more and more blood. While Indonesia leapt to the top of the list for dangerous places to invest(Pakistan is 3rd), Malaysia decided to shut the door completely for outside investors. It is a crazy country obsessed with breaking all sorts of crazy world records. Be it the world`s tallest building or the idiot with the longest eyebrows. I read somewhere that it is the only country in the world that is toying around seriously with the idea of reverting to the gold standard. How anyone can deem it a developed country and seriously consider investing his money there is beyond my comprehension.

You are right in that the global financial system is rigged in favor of the incumbents. But I disagree when you think that there is some underlying conspiracy(zionist or otherwise) to make it so. Strong leadership is not the answer. The solution starts with delinking of religion with politics and transfer of power to the true representatives of the people. The sole superpower loves to order around dictators like Musharraf because no matter how capable, it knows they have no constituency among the masses. The Muslim world needs to prove to the outside world that it can handle the demands of democratic governance and discourse before anyone takes it seriously. Till that point in time, happy theorizing and happy conspiracy mongering.

later

-sac

Nasah,

If you are ill directed comment was directed at me, mind telling me how what he says is different from what I say? Do you read the whole thing or do you just jump up and down after reading the first paragraph.

Please do read Ayaz Amir`s comments about Jinnah.

Zeemax #38
Thanks for your reply and welcome back.

``But it`s everyone`s first right to give their children the best. ``

Many people in the US cannot afford to send their children to college at all. Many American parents work 2-3 jobs simultaneously and save for a lifetime to send their kids to college. Many other kids take out student loans which they pay back when they get a job. Apparently, in the current recession, many American kids are affected because their parents are unable to pay their college tuition, or they are having to default on their college loans because jobs are not available after graduation.

But in contrast, many Pakistanis including the Jamaat-i-Islami chief Qazi Hussain are able to send their kids to good colleges in the US and UK. Hence its hard to be convinced that the Pakistanis who can afford foreign education for their children and live in a 98% Muslim country are really the typical victimised Muslims of an unfair anti-Islamic world order.

``I never mentioned the partition``

I didnot either. I meant independence from the British has released Pakistanis from the stranglehold of British colonial control over their economy and their internal public affairs which was stronger, IMO than the grip of global economics and politics now. If going 100% Islamic was not the solution then, why is it the best option for Pakistanis now(I assume you think it is).

Attn: Zeemax, tahmed, etc

REAL LEADERS :



From Dawn this Week

Back to Jinnah

By Ardeshir Cowasjee

When, on that rare occasion, we have heading this country a liberal man who preaches tolerance and who tells us that Pakistan was envisioned by its founder as a modern, free-thinking, liberal, secular state, in jump the mulla-maulvi faction, the obscurantists, the thesis writers, the great thinkers, some of whom were not even a gleam in their mother`s eye when Jinnah was around, who flail their arms and shriek `treason` at the word secular, and who with their narrow-minded thinking, intolerance and bigotry claim falsely that they are `Islamic`.

In a recent interview with Newsweek, Musharraf spelt out his vision of what Pakistan`s founder had in mind for his country, a vision he intended to bring to material form. Naturally, editorials were written expressing horror, protests poured in from all sides, and then entered his obsequious spokespeople with the inevitable `clarification`. And so it will continue, for much time to come, for as long as this nation is kept illiterate and uneducated and unable to reason, think, look around at the world it inhabits, and comprehend what it must do to fit into it. But we must never give up; we must continue to press home the points pressed by the man who gave this nation a homeland.

Three months before the partition of the subcontinent, in an interview with Doon Campbell of Reuters, Jinnah firmly stated: ``The new state will be a modern democratic state with sovereignty resting in the people and the members of the new nation having equal rights of citizenship regardless of religion, caste or creed.`` He repeated this on August 11, 1947, whilst addressing the members of his Constituent Assembly, making it doubly clear to them that religion is not the business of the state. He told them: ``You are free, free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State.`` He could not have been more explicit.

Our learned men have it that the first steps taken in the Republic of Pakistan towards the framing of a constitution was the moving of the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly on March 7, 1949, by the prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan. The view is that this Resolution was intended to be a mish-mash of the general principles of an `Islamic` state and the accepted concepts of a modern `democratic` state. What the mish-mash has resulted in is a variety of conflicting interpretations, the orthodox and the obscurantists claiming that the Islamic tenets dominate and the more progressive, forward-looking plumbing for the democratic parliamentary way of governance.

When it was moved, the non-Muslim members of the Assembly expressed their fears that were the Resolution to be passed maulanas would gain the upper hand, and some questioned the phrase stipulating that the ``state will exercise authority within the limits provided by Him.`` What are the limits proscribed by God, they asked, and who will define those limits? Will it be the mullas or the gentlemen of a more liberal bent of mind? Could a non-Muslim become the head of state, for example? Liaquat Ali Khan`s response was rather ambivalent--in an Islamic state, he said, it would be ``absolutely wrong to say that a non-Muslim cannot be the head of administration under a constitutional government.`` Maulanas held differently and firmly : ``The Islamic state means a state which is run on the exalted and excellent principles of Islam [and it] can be run only by those who believe in those principles....``.

Dispute and divergence of view, disagreement and differences from day one. Yet, the honourable gentlemen of the Assembly, most of whom must have been present on August 11, 1947, when Mohammad Ali Jinnah laid down for them the principles which he wished to be embodied in the constitution of his country, took it upon themselves that day to repudiate the man responsible for putting them where they were.

Hasan Zaheer, of the erstwhile all-powerful CSP, in his book `The Separation of East Pakistan`, writing on constitution making, has this to say on the contentious Resolution: ``Liaquat Ali Khan, while moving the Objectives Resolution, claimed that since it provided for the exercise of power and authority of the state `through the chosen representatives of the people`, the Resolution naturally eliminates any danger of the establishment of a theocracy.

Little did he realize the opening that the Resolution was giving to the obscurantists and what the Munir Report called `political brigands and adventurers, even nonentities` to exploit the name of Islam in mundane political affairs and jolt the foundations of the state from time to time. None of the three covenants of the Muslims of the subcontinent, which spelled out the unanimous demand for a separate Muslim homeland, or homelands--the Lahore Resolution of 1940, the Madras Resolution of 1941, and the Pakistan Resolution of the Legislators` Convention of 1946--or the debates leading to these resolutions had mentioned anything about an Islamic state. Over the years, the Resolution proved a perennially divisive point of reference in the polity of Pakistan.``

It is this Resolution which forms the preamble to the Constitution of 1973, and it is this Resolution which, as Article 2A, is a substantive part of the Constitution, and which has more than proven that it is indeed not only highly divisive but also destructive. And, to boot, our great makers, breakers and amenders cannot even get it right. In the preamble, in one sentence, the original resolution has been adhered to: ``Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures;`` whereas in Article 2A which forms the Annex to the Constitution in the very same sentence the word ``freely`` has been omitted. Whether this was done wittingly or unwittingly is not known, but the question is that after the passage of 16 years since 2A was inserted by PO No.14 of 1985 why has it not been corrected? Is there a motive behind the omission of the highly pertinent and important word? Were our amenders plain sloppy, or were they wicked?

Musharraf rode in on horseback, and now is riding high. So far he is on the right track. His reflexes are sound. He has not yet heard messages from on high. But he does need to shun the oleaginous perennial sycophants who equate being with him as being in the presence of greatness, or who praise him fulsomely for his penetrating mind, his iron resolve, his calm demeanour. He does not need to be glorified or exalted. He needs to be supported.



My Jinnah resource Page: majinnah.cjb.net



The Muslim World needs to learn to choose Jeffersons over Napoleons and/or saints,

Sincerely

YLH

It looks like Ayaz Amir reads Chowk -- some of his comments appear to be directed at the Niagra of delusional vebiage that some of the Chowkis have been flooding the Chowk with.

A banana republic without the bananas

By Ayaz Amir

What`s a banana republic? A state without a spine of its own, dependent on foreign capital, subject to foreign influence and politically unstable. A state where, typically, the predominant influence is that of the United States.

This term originated from the Caribbean where small island states grew bananas, robbed and oppressed their people and listened carefully to the American ambassador. To the present set-up in Pakistan belongs the credit of transporting the concept from afar and giving it a wholly new, South Asian meaning.

For all the brave talk of turning Pakistan into a modern state, Pakistan, because of the role it has performed since September 11, is fast acquiring the characteristics of a state in which the ghosts of Trujillo and the other legendary Central American dictators would feel at home.

American planes and helicopters fly from Pakistan airbases in Sindh and Balochistan. Parts of Karachi airport have been handed over to `coalition` forces for carrying men and materiel to Afghanistan.

Pakistani troops are strung along the Pak-Afghan border to help catch fleeing Al Qaida fighters and hand them over to the Americans without any questions asked.

The hapless Zaeef, the Taliban`s former ambassador in Islamabad, was handed over to the US military even though, misguided soul, he had asked for political asylum in Pakistan.

When Gen Tommy Franks, the Centcom commander, visits Islamabad the fawning attention he gets from his hosts is a treat to watch on television.

Pakistan`s military chiefs hang on his every word, smiling effusively as he makes his points. The US ambassador here gets the kind of press reserved for royalty or screen personalities in other countries.

In the extended exercise in arrogance which was President Bush`s State-of-the-Union address to the US Congress, only two foreign leaders came in for mention and praise: Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan and General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan.

In a different era, say in the 1950s and `60s when the fires of national liberation burnt bright, such American endorsement would have been seen as a kiss of death, a confirmation of the client status of the leader concerned.

In today`s climate hands are no doubt being rubbed in glee at such a testimonial.

Pakistan`s singular achievement since being press-ganged into service for the American assault on Afghanistan is to turn ingratiating behaviour into an art form.

Even the US could be forgiven for feeling slightly bemused. It is used to willing behaviour. But willingness stretched beyond the limits of loyalty?

And consider the region in which this parade of loyalty is taking place.

India does not speak with a client-tongue to the US.

Iran is on the list of America`s enemies. Bush in his Union address has said no less.

Even Saudi Arabia, the most loyal of allies, is getting restive under America`s shadow, chafing at the double standards the US applies across the Middle East: one thing for Israel, another for the Arab states.

Along this arc of restiveness Pakistan stands out for its readiness to accede, at whatever price, to American wishes.

With our `jihadi` policies we were at one extreme. Averse to any half-way house, we have now swung completely in the other direction.

What is the justification being given for this dramatic shift from super-truculence to super-loyalty? That we are leaving the past behind and entering the modern world.

Since we never spare Jinnah even in our most audacious ideological leaps, his figure is again being invoked: that it is to his vision of modernism that Pakistan is returning.

No one is asking whether we needed the US, and on its heels India, to kick us in the right direction.

In its `jihadi` mode the military enjoyed the hosannas of the religious parties who were all for `jihad` east and west.

In its modern, post-Jinnah phase the military`s praises, for its smart turnaround, are being sung by the English-speaking classes.

Whatever else may be lacking in Pakistan, the spirit of collaboration is not. Nor the spirit of gullibility.

The military still at centre-stage, only its Greek chorus replaced, the battalions of so-called liberalism taking the place of the discomfited mullas.

The irony is delicious but lost on Pakistan`s English-speaking literati.

What has Pakistan received for its pains?

General Musharraf finds himself a strengthened figure, his former isolation transmuted into international approval, his Afghan and Kashmir clothes cast aside for the robes of statesmanship.

Forget Bush`s endorsement.

In recent days one English language columnist at home has said that being with him was being in ``the presence of greatness`` (the Nation). Another, that behind his calm demeanour lay an iron resolve and a penetrating mind (the News).

This new mood in Pakistan has rubbed off on other things.

On Jan 30 in the main TV news I heard Pakistan`s first lady being referred to as Begum Sahiba Musharraf. My initial astonishment turned to admiration at Pakistan Television`s winning ways. But what`s the national advantage been?

First and foremost, Pakistan`s handout economy has been rescued, fresh credit coming in and old loans being extended. While no doubt a triumph in the short-term, how does it lead to economic robustness in the future? When was the last time a hand-out economy prospered or laid the foundations of long-term growth?

For real growth the key precondition is not capital but the work ethic. Also, a rational allocation of resources. A handout economy is no encourager of hard work while huge spending on defence and debt servicing hardly qualifies as rational. So, despite the bailout, the basics of Pakistan`s economic predicament remain the same.

Second comes the putative shift to modernism. How does this make any sense when the military refuses to let democracy grow?

______________________________________________

Modernism is not simply about restricting the space around the mosque and the pulpit. It is more about participatory democracy.

_______________________________________________

Except Iran where the ayatollahs hold sway, no Muslim country, from Morocco to Indonesia, is ruled by a priesthood. All have temporal or secular rulers. So if we are finally getting rid of our mulla aberration, and exorcising the religious ghosts of the earlier Afghan war (of the 1980s), we are getting rid of a frenzy, not breaking revolutionary ground.

The problem with our polity is not the dominance of the mulla - who has always been a creature of one thing or the other - but the dark shadows of military rule.

_______________________________________________

Unless the man in khaki returns to his rightful place, and allows the rest of the nation space to breathe - and unless, let it also be said, the political class improves its hitherto depressing performance - we`ll be no closer to Jinnah`s vision now than under General Zia 20 years ago.

_________________________________________________

In any event, having mocked so many other things, let`s not turn Jinnah into a joke and cite him as an example only when it suits our convenience.

If he was against clericalism and a priesthood of the sanctimonious, was he in favour of the suppression of democracy which has been Pakistan`s favourite pastime since the country`s birth? Jinnah denounced clericalism because in his mind that represented a danger for the new state.

He never spoke out against dictatorship because the thought never crossed his mind that in the country he was creating democracy would ever wear a widow`s weeds.

Imagine Jinnah saying that he would be president for five years, as General Musharraf has, regardless of any election.

Imagine Jinnah countenancing the shenanigans of the National Reconstruction Bureau. Reconstructed so many times at the hands of the military, the nation has had enough of reconstruction.

It is the military mind which needs changing (reconstruction) but for that who`ll set up the appropriate bureau? (Dawn)

)

Zeemax (I assume this is Zeenat): Interesting format, thought provoking issues and some good answers. Here are some of my thoughts as provoked by the article:

Article: ``The religious parties were created by the military itself ... Now all that has changed and you must have heard Musharraf`s speech.`` That may have changed. What is even more important is: have the reasons the military created (or at least lent teeth to) the religious parties also changed?

(these reasons of course being for the military to gain control of the country).

Article: ``Also, our embassies are pathetic and too incompetent to exercise influence over the media.`` I dont like even the idea of an embassy - it is an expensive, unnecessary anachronism in today`s age of the internet and video conferencing. Having said that, I think the Pakistani ambassador (whom I dont know personally) has done a fine job of representing Pakistan on tv (which is about the best place to represent Pakistan, not in closed door meetings between bureaucrats who are working within political constraints already set for them).

Article: ``I think 9/11 changed the melting-pot character of USA. Now there are no Arab-Americans, Pakistani-Americans and so forth. Now they are Arabs and Pakistanis - Period.`` Wrong. Now there are only Americans. Your statement is grossly unfair to the wonderful manner in which the American-born and the public officials (from President Bush on down) in the US have made it a point to make the recent muslim immigrants feel secure and part of the community after 9/11. And it is grossly unfair to the many recent immigrants - muslim and non-muslim - who have made it clear that culprits behind the savagery inflicted on innocent people on 9/11 are the ones who planned that attack, not the people of the US who were victimized as a result.



Article: ``ZA Bhutto was the main person behind the Oil embargo and made the Muslim presence felt emphatically. Others behind the oil embargo led by ZA Bhutto were King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, Qaddafi of Libya, President Bomadean of Algeria, Idi Amin of Uganda and ex-President Sukarno of Indonesia.``

If this collection of dictators, waderas, murderers, and despots are your ``leaders`` then you have no clue of what leadership is about. The real leaders that the third world has produced are people like Gandhi, Edhi, Mohammed Younus, Ho Chi Minh, Nelson Mandela.

Article: ``Agha Hasan Abedi was another such leader, with the difference that he wanted to unite not only the Muslims but the whole of the Southern Hemisphere nations which of-course includes the Muslim world, and align the resources of Muslims with resources of Africa as well as entire South America.``

Rubbish. The bank gained it`s fortunes by helping some rogue elite in the third world funnel the wealth stolen from those nations out of the country. The managers of this Bank lived a lifestyle of kings. Pakistan has produced some world class bankers (before your ``leader`` Bhutto chased them out of the country by nationalizing commercial banks in order to consolidate his wadera rule of Pakistan) but Abdi is not one of them. Sorry.

I have not gone over the rest of your article, and will be interested in your response.

Reply #: 33 sadna

Sadna, I have seen your responses on Chowk. And I know you have a most rational mind, without bias or prejudice, and very deep thought. So I respond accordingly.

[I read somewhere, 2000 families own more than half the cultivable land in Pakistan, 1000 bureacrats wield control on administration, 50 industrialists have control over the industrial sector and 10 corp commanders wield control over the Army(and its fiefdoms). Is this true?]

Yes it`s true. However there were only 22 families controlling all of the country till 1968. Now there are thousands. The wealth was filtered down and new entrepeneaurs were given the chance. The Lakhani`s and the Shafi`s would never have emerged. But they turned out to be rent-seekers as well. Although they paid the taxes, they manipulated the country for their interests. Corps commanders, yes there `re only ten. But that`s the Army. The only disciplined institution left in Pakistan.

[Well now, most of these people are apparently doing well enough to be able to send their children abroad to study, though they say they are subjects of victimisation as Muslims and Third World inhabitants. If only the other Third World inhabitants were so lucky to be such victims.]

Yes. But it`s everyone`s first right to give their children the best. They did that sure. Everyone loves their kids. But doesn`t mean they forgot other`s kids. Muslims are fighting and sacrificing on behalf of everyone else.

[And its amazing if you think that before Independence, people in the same class, were surely even more in the grip of global power/capital and they had even fewer political rights and sovereignty over their public affairs. What has been the benefit of Independence as a whole?]

Sadna, I never mentioned the partition. you floor me completely. I think you`re jumping the gun. The benefit of partition was that we chose our own destiny. We Muslims, will not go to Heaven if pushed. We will gladly go to Hell if that`s to be.

This is Muslim Psyche`. It`s difficult to explain.

Regards.

Reply #: 29 urstru1y,Reply #: 32 Urstruly

Re: YLH on Jinnah

[Quit boring us with the details of a man dead for 50+ years. He ruined the S. Asian Muslim nation, and caused great economic, political harm. Look at the destruction his politics have left behind. That is why we in Pakistan are still struggling with our identity - should it be secular or religious? Go take a hike.]

Ok. Whoever wrote this, please continue. This is Chowk and we must express what we feel.

Reply #: 10 nasah

Sorry this response was delayed.

[What`s the deal -- can you elaborate further?]

Ok. We can only analyse the facts and come to a plausible conclusion. Noone has a crystal ball.

The facts are Karzai got Kandhar without a fight. In any event he had no forces to do that, was not a commander, doesn`t have any troops, and had never played a part in the struggle against the Soviets. The real man was Abdul Haq as you rightly pointed out who was dangled from a crane. Who double-crossed him ? Make your own guesses. Abdul-Haq was not as naive to have crossed into Afghanistan in the thick of it unless he felt he had US support. He had been battle-wounded many times and had only one foot, the other one blown up by a mine. He was a battle hardened Hero and not that easy to take down.

However, Abdul Haq was not a person to be made incharge of Afghanistan, as he would not have taken the dictates from anyone. He was on Zahir Shah`s side who had given stability to the country after centuries of treacherous games one after another. You might have noticed Zahir Shah is totally out of the picture. I visited Kabul during Zahir Shah`s time when the Afghani was in today`s terms AF`s 120 to a Dollar. Now it`s 35,000-50,000 depending upon the news.

Abdul Haq`s route was cut off by Taliban and he used his satellite phone for the US helicopters. That very phone which was given to him by US gave away his exact location. Taliban ambushed and Abdul Haq was dangled from the crane. End of the story.

Now Karzai, there were news of his dealings with Taliban to give him Kandhar. The terms were also anounced that Taliban wanted no one to even touch them after their retreat into Kandhar. Mullah Omar was right there in Kandhar, Bin Laden was in Tora Bora. And they together had thousands of troops and weaponry. Karzai had to become the leader of Afghanistan as it had been decided, so the deal went through. No one touched Taliban`s leadership or even ordinary troops, though the non-Arab `Tourists` were massacred. Osama Bin Laden exercises more influence over Afghanistan than even Taliban, so he perhaps lives in Karzai`s back yard. Thing is, Karzai was placed there by the Americans thinking he`ll do his part, but Afghanistan has always been anarchic and will remain so. Karzai knows that very well. He needs Mullah Omar and Bin Laden in the long term if he`s to survive after the Americans leave. Thus the deal. Taliban remains as does the Al-Qaida within the power structure of Afghanistan.

Regards.

One thing that needs repetition is the fact that the famous Fatwa to migrate was given by none other than the Mullah Azad, who is considered a great Indian Nationalist leader by the Indian revisionists.

Revisionism is a disease not uncommon to many other countries... but we should strike it down in our own Pakistan.. because it has impeded our progress. Once again, I must thankyou Mr.Khar for so eloquently expressing my deepest feelings :)

Sincerely

YLH

Urstruly

That is obvious. I have come to know Indian tricks very well now. Thanks for pointing it out though.

Sincerely

Yasser

Zeemax
I read somewhere, 2000 families own more than half the cultivable land in Pakistan, 1000 bureacrats wield control on administration, 50 industrialists have control over the industrial sector and 10 corp commanders wield control over the Army(and its fiefdoms). Is this true?

Well now, most of these people are apparently doing well enough to be able to send their children abroad to study, though they say they are subjects of victimisation as Muslims and Third World inhabitants. If only the other Third World inhabitants were so lucky to be such victims.

And its amazing if you think that before Independence, people in the same class, were surely even more in the grip of global power/capital and they had even fewer political rights and sovereignty over their public affairs. What has been the benefit of Independence as a whole?

YLH

# 29 is some Ganesha head transplant. I did not write the nonsense.

Zeemax

Thank you for your gol mol jawab. Your article is excellent. I do not want to extend the bhutto argument since it drives the discussion away from the basic premise of your write up. I agree with some negligible reservations on what you have written.

Will contribute in the discussion as it will proceed.

SameerJB #24
http://www.markazdawa.org/English/index.html
The 200-acre complex near Lahore maybe funded by Indians to embarrass innocent Pakistanis.

Reply #: 18 hobbyty (contd...)

I agree with you. Feudals will automatically disappear with industrialisation. Reply #: 22 from Bina states feudalism is a dead concept. What remains is a horse that is being flogged over and over again long after it went to its grave. I fully agree. It`s only being flogged to keep attention away from the real issues which will end feudalism anyway. It can`t be ended with slogans. But that is not the focus of my article. That is an entirely different subject.

Reply #: 19 semipreciousme

[…..or maybe when muslim terrorists attack, they attack massively and globally .. the worst terrorist attack by the ira was carried out in ireland (omagh?) and killed 30 people…]

The aim of terrorism is to terrorize. If the objective is met by killing thirty, or a hundred, or a thousand, that is what these organisations aim for. The numbers are irrelevant.

In my personal opinion, the end objective of the tower attacks was not aimless bloodshed, it must have been bringing about economic collapse of US. US economy was already in recession, and this pushed it to the brink. People stopped travelling, stores were empty, and workers were worried about their jobs because orders were being cancelled. Airlines and businesses went bust. Consumer spending dropped to unsustainable levels and the administration had to spend billions in tax cuts and subsidies and continues to do that. Then there`s the war bill. This time US has to pick up the entire bill unlike the Gulf war.

You may recall there was an attack on a Greyhound Bus in Tennessee days after 9/11. Details of that were never published but it`s obvious the two were connected.

I have however said in the article that I do not condone attacks on civilians under any circumstances.

Reply #: 20 Lajwanti

[Polease do dnot angryt – I am friend. You write like FrangiKhush. Are you? If so walcomebacke]

Why would I be angry ? I respect your opinions.

No I`m not Farangi Kush, though I have great respect for him.

Regards