The Dragon’s Teeth

Correction: It was Jason and Cadmus who sowed the dragon's teeth, not Ulyesses, although the reference is still Greek mythology.

Interesting interacts, as usual. I like Amit`s point in #37, about religion and nationalism. On a slightly different tack, wanted to share an email I got from Israel after my piece was published in The News, Pakistan, and my response to it, below. beena

---

Dear Mr. Sarwar (sic)
I am a daily reader of your excellent newspaper.
Permit me to make some remarks and corrections to your latest article “The dragon’s teeth” – 03-10-2004.
To quote:
In the occupied territories of Palestine, where a father tried in vain to protect his young son from Israeli bullets, and where an American-made bulldozer crushed the life out of young Rachel Corrie, daily indignities continue to feed resistance, contributing to a continuing spiral of violence.
a. If you observe the terrible picture of Mohammad al–Durra before being killed, you will see the father taking cover behind his son (between the wall and the young boy). May I suggest you to read the article published in the June 2003 edition of The Atlantic Monthly “Who shot Mohammad al–Durra (of course that is another Zionist propaganda).
b. Young Rachel Corrie should not be before a bulldozer (not in Israel, not in England, nor in Pakistan). Normally a bulldozer operates with a person “on the ground” directing the bulldozer’s movement, in this particular case this was not possible, since behind Ms. Corrie there were Palestinian gunmen using her as a “living shield” – we are sorry for an unnecessary life taken – but she can blame only herself.
You should not minimize what happened in Sialkot, by saying “a man carrying a briefcase walks into a mosque and blows himself up, killing “several” others in the process – the latest report was - 30 killed.
The so-called ‘war on terror’, a knee-jerk response initiated by the world’s sole superpower to the horrific attack on its soil on September 11, 2001- so was perhaps the Pakistani operation in Wana.
Quote –
The attack and the flawed logic of a ‘preemptive attack’ provided Washington with an excuse to flex its muscles and try out new weaponry, much of which would classify as weapons of mass destruction.
In every war - you try out new weaponry, organization and tactics – how about reading some articles on the Pakistani (and Israel) defence industries published in the Defence Journal (an excellent military monthly) – are the weapons produced for peace?
Quote –
They reflected the multiplicity that is ``‘murca``, they belonged to all faiths - including Judaism (notwithstanding the preposterous and widespread rumour about 4000 Jews not attending work in the twin towers that day).
I agree that we of Jewish fate have some warped minds too (Baruch Goldberg who killed 26 Palestinians at prayers in Hebron) - but nothing like what goes on in Pakistan – Quetta, Sialkot and the list is long.
Thank you for mentioning the widespread rumour – that was another lie from the Arabic (and vitriolic) mind.
Quote –
But it also gave a cue to other governments on how to deal with their own internal demons, from Moscow and New Delhi, to Jerusalem and Islamabad.
How true!
I more than agree with you when you stated -
They did not develop their warped mindsets overnight - nor will they be wiped out overnight by military means. Those who justify such actions sit entrenched in our assemblies.
They will be disarmed only with the rule of law, social justice, education and employment opportunities for all - and when governments themselves stop perpetuating violence.
The problem Sir is that you cannot discuss Shakespeare with a hungry harimao in the jungle – you MUST apply force both to punish and to make them think a second time that crime IS punished.
Otherwise I (and others, I am sure) enjoyed reading your open-minded article. THANK YOU.
David L. YARKONY
A citizen of Israel

Oct 10, 2004
Dear Mr Yarkony
Thank you for your thoughtful and well informed response to my article “The dragon’s teeth”.
You are very correct in pointing out that Pakistan’s knee-jerk military response in Wana is much the same as that of the USA. That is a crucial point that I had meant to include, but which got inadvertently left out due to lack of time, and then space.
Regarding my use of the word ‘several’ instead of giving the number of those killed in Multan, at the time of writing the actual figure of the dead was disputed, with some sources putting it at 30 (official) and some at 49 (unofficial). Rather than get into that dispute, and with the view that even one life is precious, I chose the word several. I can see how that might be seen as minimizing the loss, but that was not the intention.
I disagree with your perception of the al-Durra and Rachel Corrie deaths, although of course you have the right to your opinion, as I have the right to mine.
Regarding your point about the imperative of trying out new organization, tactics and weaponry, I believe that it is wrong to use human beings as guinea pigs. We’ve seen the consequences of this in Vietnam and Japan where exposure to chemicals and nuclear radiation continues to contribute to a high rate of cancers and birth defects even today, when they are not at war. The long-term consequences of such exposure are visible even in countries that develop such weapons to use on other countries – the high rate of birth defects and cancers in areas where uranium is mined and near nuclear test sites, including in China, former USSR, the USA. There is little information on the effects of nuclear radiation near the nuclear test sites in India and Pakistan, but it will emerge.
I appreciate your point about there being warped minds among people of the Jewish faith (and agree that such violence is increasing in Pakistan), but would add that no faith has a monopoly on such minds. That is why I mentioned the absurd rumour about the 4000 Jews being absent from the WTC on Sept 11, which was widely believed around the world. Logic argues that that could not possibly have been the case, but then, logic has a tendency to fly out of the window when people get emotional – as they tend to do when religion is involved. However, to say that that “was another lie from the Arabic (and vitriolic) mind” is to negate and demonise all those Arabs (and Muslims like myself) who did NOT believe it and who have countered it publicly.
Yes, there are many who believe that force must be met with force, but I don’t believe that that method has shown results. On the contrary, there is increasing violence around the world due to the force used by armed states against their own citizens and other populations. You can’t have an intellectual discussion with those who hold innocent people to ransom for their governments’ actions, but if there is a will, there is a way. Dialogue is always preferable to tough-sounding statements which only serve to further reinforce respective positions – those of the militants as well as the states. Also, I believe it is important to apply the rule of law to all citizens equally (which does not happen in most countries around the world). Crime must be punished – but what do you do when the states themselves are committing crimes?
Secondly, it is clear that the policy of cultivating certain elements when they are needed (eg. the mujahideen and jehadis, Saddam Hussain and bin Laden), only to cast them aside later, as the USA & Pakistan have done, doesn’t work. Of course, these elements do need to be contained, and many of us have been arguing this for years – and yes, it’s better late than never. But using military might, bombing entire villages and demolishing homes only creates more militants out for revenge, whether in Gaza, Afghanistan, Iraq, or Wana (or Balochistan for that matter). See http://www.hrcp-web.org/ for the views especially on the last two areas, of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, an independent body.

With best wishes
Sincerely
Beena Sarwar (Ms.)
Karachi, Pakistan
p.s. The dragon’s teeth reference comes from Greek mythology, not Shakespeare

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

no worries, hindvi...keep asking pertinent questions...just like many do...on both sides of the hindu/muslim divide....using pakistani propaganda language isn`t a particularly effective strategy though while talking amongst indians.

I am sorry not 75000 killed by security forces, but in total including militants, i dont know what proportion was by security forces. but you would be incredibly naive to believe the 35000 figure, the govt. in gujarat as in other riots continues to give a few hundred as the total deaths.

But that is not the issue here why should the security forces of an organised govt which is proud of being a democracy indulge in torture, rape and custodial/extra judicial murder on a large scale? whatever be the number? is this right?

the militants are lawless, some are barbarians why must the govt behave so? dont you think this is a pertinent question? even if the morality is discounted is this a wise strategy?

hindvi first writes this...

[...security forces having killed more than 80,000 in Kashmir...]

then this...

[...On kashmir the indian govt used to quote 35000, the kashmiris and pakistanis around 90, outside third sources 75000 maybe its less or more...]

very interested in knowing which outside third sources quote 75000 `killled by security forces`...please give us some references. do they quote any number that were killed by `freedom fighters` also?

Amit

what I am saying is that all human beings are the same they all need to believe in something and identify with it. with those who are religous it is their religion, with others its their nation. How can one ask muslims to question their religion when we are not ready to question the other religion: that of nationalism, after all it should be easier considering that the former is holy and sacred while the latter is temporal and secular, but if you look at chowk that is not so. i love my land, but i have to acknowledge where it has gone wrong, India has had a centralisation problem which the people at India`s periphery resent. This has been their since independence and before. Bitta might be a terrorist, but are all the points he has raised to be just dismissed out of hand. how different is this atitude from those of muslims who refuse to acknowledge anything wrong with islam?

Why cant provinces be given autonomy and still be part of the Indian Union? why does one have to number ones identities? why cant one be an indian and a muslim at the same time, or a bodo/naga and an indian at the same time, or a punjabi and an indian at the same time? why does one have to say i am an indian first and then a muslim/christian naga/animist bodo? why cant I be both simultaneously without having to denigrate the other? is this not the definition of liberalism, all identities are allowed to exist without being questioned, for ex in the UK one can be a britisher and a scot at the same time, or a muslim and a britisher simultaneously. after all we all have multiple identities and emotionally we might be attached to each one more/less than the other.

This has been a central problem of the congress, indira gandhi was paranoid about anybody coming to power other than the congress or any demand for autonomy, she feared the akalis for that, she always suspected the kashmiris and north easterners (may be it was her bangladesh complex, or it was Partition i dont know) she fueled tamils in sri lanka.
But this problem isnt restricted to her it was common to nehru and is common to the indian establishment as such, (just observe Chowk).

At Independence India had a chance to survive as a united country with the cabinet mission plan the british had put forward. It would have meant one centre with three groups of provinces, block A would be pakistan of today with east punjab, block B would have been India of today (without east Punjab and west bengal), and block C would have been Assam and Bengal. there would have been a common center with defence, communications and foreign affairs. The province if they wished could give other powers to there group centers or the all india center. the congress objected saying the provinces should have option to choose their region, the british agreed they said in the first general election after the constituion is formed, the provinces will have the option to choose their group, i.e parties can campaign on the basis of which group they want to go to. jinnah agreed to this plan.

But gandhi did not he kept insisting on the right of provinces to choose right away, before the legislature sat to make the constitution, but as Stafford Cripps pointed out there has to be some common understanding between the League and the congress before the members go into the legislature or the league will not agree because it will be simply outvoted in the house since it had 73 seats to the congress` 2 hundred odd. Gandhi told the assam members to walk away from the bengal group when the assembly sits and since the muslim league had 37 seats to the congresses 34 it could not have ensured otherwise. maybe he also thought that the Ghaffar Khan govt in NWFP would also opt out of group A. jinnah understood all this and hence feared it.

nehru himself was unhappy with this compromise, he was for a strong center from which he wanted to launch 5 year plans for centralised development, having been impressed by the achievements of Bukanin, Lenin and Stalin. and was also for land reforms. On being asked by the press whether he had agreed to the plan after he had signed it as the congress president, he said it doesnt matter we will go into parliament unconstrained. Of these it was patel who was ready to compromise the most. he was a realist. even within this scheme the 5 year plans could have been implemnented but only in part B, which is almost the india of today, since provinces could devolve their powers to the center, just as they eventually did anyway because they all had congress ministries.

i am not saying jinnah was right, or for that matter nehru or gandhi, what matters is what power they wield in parliament. as dost mittar said in a different context, a Nader can take idealist positions he doesnt have to govern but a Kerry cant because a politician who has to govern has to make compromises. balance of power is a fundamental tenet of domestic and international politics. nehru showed an incapacity for this, as did Jinnah and to some extent gandhi.

Even in 1937 when the congress ministries had come to power in 11 out of 13 provinces including UP, nehru and the congress rejected the muslim leagues`s desire for a coalition govt. since they had a comfortable majority. that was allright but then they started implementing many of the congress`s right agenda, ban on cow slaughter, imposition of hindi, the muslim salariat felt it would loose out to hindu middle class in govt jobs in which they were any way behind. again I am not saying these feelings are right or wrong, justified or unjustified, but in politics as long as a demand does not violate human rights it comes withing the ambit of the negotiable. these fears were picked on and played up by the league, since every one knew the days of empire were limited and then the congress would come to power in the center.

Similarly with gandhi`s overt religousity and symbolism it scared the muslims, (just imagine it the other way round) was it right or wrong no one knows, this was the way he thought of involving the masses. Jinnah to build up a quick base took on the twin roles of a fearful minority representative and a spokesman for non congress provinces which feared the erosion of their powers in a centralising congress which was led by a socialist Nehru intent on Land reforms.

Same with Jinnah, infact he is to be blamed more squarely since he harmed the interests of his own constituents in the end game (which the others were probably not betting on), he could have compromised too but did not. he could have agreed to a modified plan or proposed some modifications of his own, but did not.

So with gandhi or Nehru the plan kept lying on the table till june of 47, but in the end they preffered seperation to sharing power. the british felt from the early 40s that there was enough nationalist sentiment in India to leave a single entity behind and continued to do so until they sent mounbatten in may of 47, because of which they sent the missions.

there was a chance at compromise, why it was not taken i dont know enough to say either way. But this trend has continued. Kashmir came to india willingly the Kashmiris despite the anti muslim genocide in jammu by the dogra forces and local hindus and sikh along with Refugees, did not rise in support of pathan invaders in 47. the autonomy under which it came was progressively reduced by the center with the approval of rigged state legislatures.

India could have kept its peripheral countries and its present perephiry peaceful had more autonomy been delegated without the right to secede. this is important because the periphery was distinct from the center, even in the north east the states are Christian and animist, leave aside the north west.

As a result of partition all suffered, as ayesha jalal says worst than partition was the rivalry that followed, pakistan being smaller had to seek outside help and this was harmful for india as well since the superpowers entered the region and so did Wahabi money. can one imagine the soviet union invading afghanistan with one Indian Union or the US supplying arms to the mujahideen? or an indian union (hindus and muslims) allowing Saudi money to flow in freely radicalising the muslim population? or for that matter the rise of the RSS in a joint electorate democracy?


harish
i got the 50,000 figure from the NY times article as a total since the 50s/60s. On kashmir the indian govt used to quote 35000, the kashmiris and pakistanis around 90, outside third sources 75000 maybe its less or more i dont know, in any case its a significant no.

#30 by hindvi

[you have a problem with sikhs who take up arms but not against the security forces having killed more than 80,000 in Kashmir and over 50,000 in the north east.]

Man, I respect you for your insightful analyses as also for your faith in India. However, this has to rank as the mother of all exaggerations. Where did you arrive at the figure of 80,000 and 50,000 from? I have heard the figure 80 K mentioned only in Paki newspapers or in statements by J&K terrorist leaders like Syed Salahuddin. The other figure I haven`t heard of at all.

hindvi,

[...dude look inward first...]

you are a funny guy, i have to say... countless posts you have written on various boards blaming hindus, indian govt, indian army, india, etc, but not a single one which `looks inward first` at your own community within india, and what negative roles it plays.

Amit

If you look at the bigger picture, the attack on sunni gathering only strenghens my thesis and not weakens it.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re:hindvi#30

What are you talking about? I have participated in chowk off and on for many years and commented on many different boards. I have always spoken out against religious fundamentalism of all types and I am certainly no fan of the BJP by any stretch. In fact, I wanted the Congress and other secular parties to kick out Sonia and bring in a stronger leader so that it could take on the BJP. At least in India, the people can boot out governments which is exactly what happened in the past elections.

I am a staunch nationalist who is proud of India and want it to become one of the great nations in this world that is secular to the core and has a dynamic world-beating economy. In general, my belief is that the subcontinent has people with amazing potential if only they will pull together, share power and move away from destructive impulses. The separatist movements in Punjab and north-east were destructive in nature because they would have destroyed India as we know it. You bet, I support their elimination. That does not mean I don`t want to share power with Sikhs or anyone else. Heck, I want Sikhs to be in the forefront of everything in India.

You also bring up partition, which has already happened and is futile to argue about. Some muslims thought they would be better off outside India. Good for them. I actually want muslims in India today to become so successful and prosperous that their per capita income becomes higher than the per capita income of Pakistan. Then no one from Pakistan can ever point fingers at our society and capability to create a country that belongs to everyone. You just wait and see. We will do that in India. We have already got rid of all the religious BS and our economy is on a roll. Nothing can stop us now.

amit

i am impressed that mejority sunnis have not gone raping and plundering minority shia homes (unless i speak too soon) inspite of this bombing.

amit

since this board is less busy, i want to give you some advice, first pay attention to your own failings then point fingers at others other wise you are not going to be credible. the only people you find problems with are the sikhs and muslims there is not a peep out of you on the gujarat board or the rapes, extra judicial murders and torture tha Indian army is conducting in the north east and kashmir and has been conducting for the last 45 and 15 years respectively.

You like most ignore the repressive nature of your state aside from the fact that a fascist party like the BJP operates in Gujarat and until recently in the center. you have a problem with sikhs who take up arms but not against the security forces having killed more than 80,000 in Kashmir and over 50,000 in the north east.

State rights have been suppresed in India for the past 50 years and were in part the cause of partition, and all you can see is Sikh terrorism.

On top of that you buy the propoganda that palestinians were being given a full and complete state, this is US-Israeli propoganda, what they were giving were permanently partitioned islands with no defence forces.

dude look inward first.

Re:urstruly

Sirjee, did you see the latest CIA/RAW/ISI act? This time it is 39 sunni muslims dead in Multan from car bomb/motor cycle bomb blast. How long are you going to keep blaming everyone else, when your social fabric is tearing apart due to sectrian hatred?

arjunm

Since then GOP has changed its position several times. I think at that time they put the blame on JeM etc. to please Americans and Indians hinting that they were actually doing something against the Jihadi orgs and hence the backlash. Everytime GOP announces that they have apprehended someone they publicize that the person under apprehension is ``the mastermind`` or ``the number one`` of something. The most interesting thing was the capture of ``Al-Qaida`s computer expert`` a couple of months ago. It was announced immediately after by US government that they have found footage of important places in NY city on his computer where the record was kept as to the traffic conditions around those buildings etc. The NY City was put under high alert immediately with machine gun totting police officers searching every worker enetering the offices of world bank etc. Meanwhile, using this scare tactic they got the legislation passed in haste which sanctions the appointment of one single intelligence czar. As soon as it was done, US governemnt changed its position and said that Pakistani government has informed them that the footage is a year older than the 9/11; that was done in order to prevent critics from questioning that if government (of US) is spending so much effort and money on fighting `terra` then how come terrorists are living in NY city shooting footages of important places. That would have made US government look stupid and incompetent. So the story was changed. Sometimes Americans look like a sad joke to me. Even the story on who actually killed Danial Perle changes everyday even though the perpetrators of the act have been sentenced to die at the time when even the dead body hadn`t been discovered. At that time the Briton (forgetting his name) was the mastermind and the number one. Either way it indicates one of the two things i.e. people in GOP are either idoits and incompetent or they are charlatans, trying to play everyone. In either case they are bad for Pakistan. Well I understand that it is important that we skim as much money from Americans as we can, because it is our money anyway but there are relatively honourable ways to do that too. What current regime is doing actually makes Pakistan lose any credibility in the world community. And inspite of all that, Musharaf`s nomination for the Noble prize only indicate that how desperate the West is; and how low they can go, which means that we do not have to go that low. We have a choice.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Arjum

Excellent question. As the new geopolitical situation has emerged on the Western front of Pakistan after the occupation of Afghanistan by US and Iran`s nuclear ambitions as well as political aspirations in Iraq, US desperately needs Pakistan`s military presence on its Western front. This objective cannot be achieved unless a modicum of peace is enacted between India and Pakistan even if it is just an artificial facade. India wins in this case because it gets relatively less intervention from Pakistan which enables it to buy time while it crushes the freedom movement in Kashmir with brute power; Pakistan wins because military regime gets its prize/price to keep its military industrial complex running. It is a win-win situation albiet a temporary one. The fact of the matter, however, is that with a nuclear detente established between India and Pakistan, military regime is even more desperate to depend on the militias such as JeM etc. because military brass understands it perfectly well that this manna from heaven (i.e. US aid) is temporary. It is just matter of time that they will have to evacuate Afghanistan; even if we add another 4 years of Bush, still it is a very short time. So there is an understanding between militias and the military establishment. If there is anything happening to memebers of militias even after assassination attempt on Musharaf, it is superficial. In other words, military establishment is walking on razor edge to satisfy not only domestic as well as international audiences. All the ``masterminds`` and all the ``number ones`` who had planned to kill Mushsraf and army has apprehended are always alleged to be memebers of al-qaida and not JeM. Take for example, the case of Amjad Farooqi, recently.

The thread did not suddenly appear on Sep 11, 2001 although it provided a theoretical underpinning to justify most of what had already been happening. The tall afghans were wiping out entire towns (remember mazar-e-shariff?) with help from their pakistani cousins. Also the noise generated by the ``war on terror`` drowned out the noise from other wars such as intifada so the organized state apparatus can proceed without hindrance.
The cynical manipulation of the events of Sep 11, 2001 has taken the edge away from those events. When hundreds of civilians are bombed as collective punishment, the concept of ``innocent civilians`` recedes into abstraction and there are no innocent civilians any more, especially in a democracy. Even those who are outraged that a commercial building was attacked, may not be so outraged that the seat of military power was attacked.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Conspiracy theories? Hardly.

Just ask yourself this question - the way the war on `terra` is going on in Pakistan and the way the Pakistani authorities have killed, captured and handed over the alleged Al-Qaida operatives to US, Pakistan should have been the prime Al-Qaida target. In a country where corruption and lawlessness has seeped to the core of the bones, pulling off something like Bali Bombing or something at the scale of Madrid Bombing is a piece of cake for AQ. The people of Pakistan are safe from a clamity of such a scale, only and only because they are Muslims. So far Al-Qaida has only targetted the officials, as it is alleged. The fact of the matter is that Government of Pakistan (an oxymoron) is fighting an absolutely unpopular foreign war on behest of rogue international states. Even if people disagree with the methods used by al-qaida that it uses to fight its war, there is no disagreement on the reasons why they are fighting this war. In order, to demonize and discredit their foe (a necessary component of modern warfare) ISI & CIA have to pull-off murderous stunts like Imambargah bombings. These two organizations can even pull-off something at the scale of Madrid Bombing to sway the public opinion in their favor, but such a shananigan may backfire for an unrepresentative government whose very legitmacy is questionable under the constitution of own country and international norms. So they resort to targetting voiceless minorities like Shias or even more voiceless christians who have nothing to do with anything. In case of targeting shias they kill two birds in one stone - on homefront they give disenfranchised people an impression that a stern government is the need of the day even if it is illegitimate and second it helps isolate Iran as discussed below.

Dismissing every thing on the Basis of Conspiracy theories.....does not helps....

Too many questions remains unanswered..... Unless the Official Spokes Man from

the Pentagon/CiA/USA preach the word of God......Or on a Devine Mission......

Look at the straight Face with Bush .... unashamedly ....Tells all the Lies about....

His former Bussiness Partner aka OBL and WMD and the need to get-rid of terror...

or is it... Rid Terror on the world....

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

so CIA is funding saudis, who are funding sipah e sahaba so as to neutralise Iran and ISI has just entered the Mujrah, yaar yeh kis na deeda insaan ne khabar di hai?

Re:#13

Check out this link on dawn

http://www.dawn.com/2004/10/02/top1.htm

It mentions that it was a suicide bomber who detonated the blast in Sialkot

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Usrtruly:
Let me nibble the bait and ask: ``Then why a bomb blast in an Imambargah and not in a mosque?``

#13 Urstruely

Are you saying that there was no bomb either?

So the plan is keep attacking shias hoping that iran starts getting interested, then use isi to cause trouble in iran. This is brilliant. Did not see this possibility. How big is isi, and how is it indoctrinated? Or is it simply like a mafia organization, works for money. Is it not a hierarchy? in which case, a policy has to be inplace, no?

Amit

where did you get the info that it was an act of a suicide bomber. I rest my case.

The so called toxic elements have been funded by CIA for atleast 25 years since Iranian revolution mostly thru Saudis. They work for those who fund them. Stop the funding, and they will stop too. But currently they are needed more than ever before to corner Iran. ISI has just begun to be a major player in this game - the new middle man if you will.

Re:urstruly

Are you actually suggesting that the CIA and ISI are hiring suicide bombers in Pakistan? Why not blame RAW while you are at it? This is totally ludicrous. If the CIA wanted to create shia-sunni hatred, at worst they might organize a bomb blast, but hiring suicide bombers is a typical jihadi tactic. You are in serious denial that this is the work of sunni extremists, the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi types who have a venomous hatred against shias. These elements have become a toxic component of your society and it is high time you recognize the threat and start eliminating it.

Pathetic at the best!

Beena,
You wrote:
``It is hardly a coincidence that in this atmosphere, those who had been waiting in the wings in Gujarat were able to butcher, rape and loot Muslims with impunity, aided and encouraged by government functionaries. ``

The whole world knows that the Godhra Muslims attacked innocent womans and children in the train, some of whom were still sleeping and died while sleeping.

Why is it that you can`t see anything wrong done by Muslims, and always try to find an excuse in someone else` actions?

Stop jerking and get a life!

The snake that you breed by supplying it with milk daily may one day just bite your hand.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

````when tomorrow Iran will be militarily isolated, sanctioned, and ready to be invaded, would Pakistan provide ``logistical`` support to facilitate that invasion?`` if the answer to this question is ``yes`` then the next question is `` what must be done now, politically, in Pakistan so that when the time comes there is least political resistance inside Pakistan against such invasion``. Would a shia-sunni rift help? would the establishment of military installations in Baluchistan help? and so on and so forth. ``

That is the problem with Urstruly`s theorems. They are just a bit plausible. :)

Soulkeeper

If you subtract the wars from the Muslim equation, that have been forced upon Muslims like that in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Checheneya, Philipines, Darfur, Palestine, Wana, Baluchistan, Yemen, occupation of several Arab countries, Pakistan, and puppet despots whose strings are played from you know where, the Muslims are pretty decent and normal people like any other in the world. Yes rehmat-ullilalamin`s teachings will help us look inside but what to do with what is threatening from outside? We have to place the blame where it belongs - both inside and outside.

arjun

It is not a Muslim issue to begin with. Muslims can do worst attrocities to each other than what hindus did in Gujrat; trust me I have witnessed them doing it with my own eyes, but not everytime a bad thing happens in the world means that it must have been done by Muslims. The truth of the matter is Americans are fighting an imperialistic crusade to dominate the world. This is a unique phenomenon, which has no precedence in history where a sigle power stives to dominate the world economically and militarily. Muslims were the easiest prey in American assessment, so they started from them, but eventually the glut for power on their part and discontent of humanity triggered by the unjust distribution of wealth that have already resulted from it will trigger the global insurgency. Americans are working overtime around the globe to crush any such insurgency before it happens thru a brute military and political oppression. Keeping this background in mind, one must ask this question ``when tomorrow Iran will be militarily isolated, sanctioned, and ready to be invaded, would Pakistan provide ``logistical`` support to facilitate that invasion?`` if the answer to this question is ``yes`` then the next question is `` what must be done now, politically, in Pakistan so that when the time comes there is least political resistance inside Pakistan against such invasion``. Would a shia-sunni rift help? would the establishment of military installations in Baluchistan help? and so on and so forth.

Another despicable act of violence by the self proclaimed ‘thekedars’ of my faith. These people should be brought to justice and should be imprisoned for life (Yes, I am against capital punishment, so hang me).

And Urstruly:

Own up to the fact that Musalman, in this day and age, is primarily a savage society; the present times for the Islamic world are equivalent to the dark ages in Europe. Whose fault is it? Go figure.

What we need is to educate our masses and not blame the West for all our evils. A lesson in preservation of life as a premier value, at the school level should do the trick.

Whatever happened to the love for all human kind? It is hard to believe that this is the Ummat that was supposed to uphold the teachings of Rehmat-ul-lilAalimeen.

Good article Beena but you seem to propose that military action is not viable for Pakistan and only bringing about ``law and order, social justice, etc`` will help eliminate extremist elements.

I know that these extremists were in part nurtured by the CIA and the previous governments but the fact remains that the ``political mullahs`` dominated certain regions and provided a training ground for illiterate zealots. Hence a two pronged strategy for overcoming terrorism within Pakistan, in my opinion will be something like this...


1. We need to neutralize and disarm all those extremist forces which are staging such attacks. A military action against these forces will help us manage short term security concerns. I know that we have experienced more attacks after the war on terror but we need to understand that this is a phase that has to be countered to ensure short term security in the country.

2. For long term security I completely agree with you when you say that the rule of law, social justice and education will prevail. For this Musharraf and Pakistani administration needs to create policies that create interprovincial harmony, better understanding of other cultures and absolute adherence to law and order. Without it there is no hope for Pakistan.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the attack on Imam Bargah was planned and executed by ISi and CIA. It is getting too perdictable - whenever these two rogue organizations kill someone in cold blood who has nothing to do with shia-sunni dispute, an attack on an imam Bargah happens - just to give an impression that the the political opponents they are eliminating were bad people.. Unless shias and sunnis don`t act and work together this alliance of satans will keep on unleeshing untold misery upon the people of Pakistan.