You Failed Us Mr. President
Mubashir Butt October 12, 2004
#41 Posted by jang on October 18, 2004 7:49:14 am
#36 by hassansiddiqi
``....which is a good thing because we need to get rid of them to create a tolerant, democratic society. Musharraf was the one who took the initiative. We need to give him credit for that and support him for it. ``
well this is not as easy as ``left-right, Peeche Mud``. are we not forgetting about the root-cause thingy. remember, there is a root cause behing the radicals and therefore getting rid of them is not seen as constructive by about a billion people
``....which is a good thing because we need to get rid of them to create a tolerant, democratic society. Musharraf was the one who took the initiative. We need to give him credit for that and support him for it. ``
well this is not as easy as ``left-right, Peeche Mud``. are we not forgetting about the root-cause thingy. remember, there is a root cause behing the radicals and therefore getting rid of them is not seen as constructive by about a billion people
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#40 Posted by Siddiqua on October 17, 2004 7:53:33 am
For its own ends, then army will embrace anybody, anybody. . .
#39 Posted by Siddiqua on October 16, 2004 7:16:49 am
hassansiddiqi
You are enitled to your opinion and have as much right to defend it as I have to differ with it.
I differ.
That said, I still hold that the GHQ has no locus standi to rule Pakistan.
So far as Benazir and Nawaz Sharif are concerned, I am no friend of either.
You are enitled to your opinion and have as much right to defend it as I have to differ with it.
I differ.
That said, I still hold that the GHQ has no locus standi to rule Pakistan.
So far as Benazir and Nawaz Sharif are concerned, I am no friend of either.
#38 Posted by Abasyn on October 16, 2004 7:16:49 am
And it was the same Azam Tariq of Sipah-e-Sahaba , vehemently condemned and disowned by MMA, Musharraf tagged up with- just to gain a political advantage of one NA seat. what a demagouge!
Musharraf is same as he was in `99, infact we have got disillusioned.
#37 Posted by HaazirMoula on October 16, 2004 7:16:48 am
hassansiddiqui
Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif both have just had two ``turns`` each at ruling Pakistan. It is also common knowledge that they did not have a free hand.
The army has had four ``turns`` at it. And do remember, that it is the army which institutionalized corruption in the first instance, during the first Martial Law.
Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif both have just had two ``turns`` each at ruling Pakistan. It is also common knowledge that they did not have a free hand.
The army has had four ``turns`` at it. And do remember, that it is the army which institutionalized corruption in the first instance, during the first Martial Law.
#36 Posted by hassansiddiqi on October 15, 2004 8:07:16 pm
#35 Arjun, #34 &# 33 Siddiqua, #32 Harish
You all have basically one message and that is that the ISI and the military had a big role to play in creating radicals in Pakistan. This is what I agree with and I have said this in my very first interact message for this article.
Don`t get me wrong. I don`t think that the Pakistani army and ISI are all saints. Far from it. However, what is happening right now is that the same ISI and the same Pakistani army are fighting the radicals....which is a good thing because we need to get rid of them to create a tolerant, democratic society. Musharraf was the one who took the initiative. We need to give him credit for that and support him for it.
There is no way in which I can support democracy if Benazir or Nawaz Sharif come back into power. These two people have had their turn and they didn`t produce results.
Siddiqua, you asked the question that we all know this and what should we do? The answer in my opinion is that we need to support Musharraf because he is doing the right thing by eliminating radicals and shoring up support among the ulema for eliminating sectarianism. Sure the ISI created these monsters but now Musharraf is leading the way to eliminate them too. Hence he deserves our support.
You all have basically one message and that is that the ISI and the military had a big role to play in creating radicals in Pakistan. This is what I agree with and I have said this in my very first interact message for this article.
Don`t get me wrong. I don`t think that the Pakistani army and ISI are all saints. Far from it. However, what is happening right now is that the same ISI and the same Pakistani army are fighting the radicals....which is a good thing because we need to get rid of them to create a tolerant, democratic society. Musharraf was the one who took the initiative. We need to give him credit for that and support him for it.
There is no way in which I can support democracy if Benazir or Nawaz Sharif come back into power. These two people have had their turn and they didn`t produce results.
Siddiqua, you asked the question that we all know this and what should we do? The answer in my opinion is that we need to support Musharraf because he is doing the right thing by eliminating radicals and shoring up support among the ulema for eliminating sectarianism. Sure the ISI created these monsters but now Musharraf is leading the way to eliminate them too. Hence he deserves our support.
#35 Posted by arjun_m on October 15, 2004 1:29:20 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#34 Posted by Siddiqua on October 15, 2004 7:15:04 am
hassansiddiqi
On a different plane:
You are trying put across a totally patent fallacy, that ``Suicide bombing, unfortunately, is very simple in procedural terms. You need a bomb, a fanatic and wires.``
Not all bombings in Pakistan have been suicide attacks. That said, even suicide attacks are the result of highly organised, coordinated effort. In the first instance, there is the recruiter; nowadays most often a mullah. As in the army, from the recruitment center down to the ``engagement`` zone, there is a sequence of events, and more important, a chain of command, that oversees and directs all activities.
The suicide attacker, it would appear, has almost nothing to do with the execution of the task, except of course blow himself up and as many others as he possiblcan to kingdom come.
The traget is staked out, identified and decided upon by others. The explovies and the means of detonation are provided by others. Almost everything, apart from the actual detonation of the device is done by forces external to the suicide attacker. This has been established by studies in criminology.
Recruiting such volunteers, training them in various acts of subversion, sabotage, and terror was taught by the army and the ISI to the mullahs during the so-called Afghan jihad. Having learnt well, they plied and still ply their trade against civilians in Pakistan today, and some of them even against the army, and its most prominent manifestation, Musharraf.
Considering Pakistan`s peculiar situation, it may even be possible that the attacks dubbed as ``suicide bombings`` may not be just so. They could very well be instances where unsuspecting people are simply used. It could be easy for someone to ask a trusting individual to ostensibly deliver a package to a nonexistent somebody at a pre-decfined target and remotely detonate that package.
This much we all know. The appropriate question is can something be done about it? What? How? Who ought to do it?
On a different plane:
You are trying put across a totally patent fallacy, that ``Suicide bombing, unfortunately, is very simple in procedural terms. You need a bomb, a fanatic and wires.``
Not all bombings in Pakistan have been suicide attacks. That said, even suicide attacks are the result of highly organised, coordinated effort. In the first instance, there is the recruiter; nowadays most often a mullah. As in the army, from the recruitment center down to the ``engagement`` zone, there is a sequence of events, and more important, a chain of command, that oversees and directs all activities.
The suicide attacker, it would appear, has almost nothing to do with the execution of the task, except of course blow himself up and as many others as he possiblcan to kingdom come.
The traget is staked out, identified and decided upon by others. The explovies and the means of detonation are provided by others. Almost everything, apart from the actual detonation of the device is done by forces external to the suicide attacker. This has been established by studies in criminology.
Recruiting such volunteers, training them in various acts of subversion, sabotage, and terror was taught by the army and the ISI to the mullahs during the so-called Afghan jihad. Having learnt well, they plied and still ply their trade against civilians in Pakistan today, and some of them even against the army, and its most prominent manifestation, Musharraf.
Considering Pakistan`s peculiar situation, it may even be possible that the attacks dubbed as ``suicide bombings`` may not be just so. They could very well be instances where unsuspecting people are simply used. It could be easy for someone to ask a trusting individual to ostensibly deliver a package to a nonexistent somebody at a pre-decfined target and remotely detonate that package.
This much we all know. The appropriate question is can something be done about it? What? How? Who ought to do it?
#33 Posted by harish_hyd on October 15, 2004 1:14:21 am
#31 by Hassan
[..... not just because of their intelligence agencies but also because they have democratic institutions and an excellent system of governance.]
And pray tell us, who has been responsible for the decay of democratic institutions in Pakistan? The Army and its baby, the ISI.
[We have armed people ready kill anyone if they don`t agree with their sect teachings or their tribal affiliations.]
When for the major part of 57 years, the Army has ruled Pakistan, naturally it has to take the major share of the blame. And don`t forget that Islamization and the arming of radicals was undertaken by the ISI under Gen. Zia`s rule.
[Pakistan is facing more attacks than other nations, not because they have poor intelligence or defence capabilities but because there are fanatics and radicals that don`t want democracy and justice to prosper.]
More than the radicals, I think it is the Army and feudals who wouldn`t want to see democracy prosper in Pakistan.
[..... not just because of their intelligence agencies but also because they have democratic institutions and an excellent system of governance.]
And pray tell us, who has been responsible for the decay of democratic institutions in Pakistan? The Army and its baby, the ISI.
[We have armed people ready kill anyone if they don`t agree with their sect teachings or their tribal affiliations.]
When for the major part of 57 years, the Army has ruled Pakistan, naturally it has to take the major share of the blame. And don`t forget that Islamization and the arming of radicals was undertaken by the ISI under Gen. Zia`s rule.
[Pakistan is facing more attacks than other nations, not because they have poor intelligence or defence capabilities but because there are fanatics and radicals that don`t want democracy and justice to prosper.]
More than the radicals, I think it is the Army and feudals who wouldn`t want to see democracy prosper in Pakistan.
#32 Posted by Siddiqua on October 15, 2004 1:14:21 am
First, let us not lump lemons and melons together.
Broadly speaking Pakistan is facing two very distinct types of terrorist situations.
On the one hand are the politically motivated attacks, such as those on the Sheraton that killed many guest French Naval Engineers, the bombing outside the US Consulate in Karachi, the attacks of Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz.
On the other hand there are the targetted sectarian killings and attacks on Mosques, Imambarghas, churches and religious observances/congregations etc.
There have been instances where a few politically motivated attacks have been prevented, and there are cases where perpetrators [real or alleged] of some such attacks have been apprehended and/or killed.
In the case of the sectrain terrorism, the numbers of cases where investigations have yielded and suspects, arrests and/or convictions is far too few as compared to the total number of attacks that have happened.
In Pakistan it is a very widely held view that at least sectarian organization, the Anjuman Sipahe Sahaba, which later changed its named to Sipahe Sahaba Pakistan [due probably to the acronym thrown up by the initials of its former name] was created by Pakistan`s intelligence agencies, chief among them the ISI, during the army rule fronted by Zia.
It is also a substantiated fact, substantiated by no less personages than intelligence chiefs and army generals themselves, on solemn oath, in courts of law, that tPakistan`s inteligence agencies have been dishing out money to and coercing various groups and parties to join hands and present a united electoral front against Benazir Bhutto`s Pakistan People Party.
The Sipahe Sahaba later spawned Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, which, still later spawned at least three other splinter groups.
The slogan ``Shia Kafir hain`` is perhaps the Sipahe Sahaba`s greatest contribution to Pakistan society. It is teresting that such organizations can function and are part and parcel of Pakistan`s mainstream politics.
Broadly speaking Pakistan is facing two very distinct types of terrorist situations.
On the one hand are the politically motivated attacks, such as those on the Sheraton that killed many guest French Naval Engineers, the bombing outside the US Consulate in Karachi, the attacks of Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz.
On the other hand there are the targetted sectarian killings and attacks on Mosques, Imambarghas, churches and religious observances/congregations etc.
There have been instances where a few politically motivated attacks have been prevented, and there are cases where perpetrators [real or alleged] of some such attacks have been apprehended and/or killed.
In the case of the sectrain terrorism, the numbers of cases where investigations have yielded and suspects, arrests and/or convictions is far too few as compared to the total number of attacks that have happened.
In Pakistan it is a very widely held view that at least sectarian organization, the Anjuman Sipahe Sahaba, which later changed its named to Sipahe Sahaba Pakistan [due probably to the acronym thrown up by the initials of its former name] was created by Pakistan`s intelligence agencies, chief among them the ISI, during the army rule fronted by Zia.
It is also a substantiated fact, substantiated by no less personages than intelligence chiefs and army generals themselves, on solemn oath, in courts of law, that tPakistan`s inteligence agencies have been dishing out money to and coercing various groups and parties to join hands and present a united electoral front against Benazir Bhutto`s Pakistan People Party.
The Sipahe Sahaba later spawned Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, which, still later spawned at least three other splinter groups.
The slogan ``Shia Kafir hain`` is perhaps the Sipahe Sahaba`s greatest contribution to Pakistan society. It is teresting that such organizations can function and are part and parcel of Pakistan`s mainstream politics.
#31 Posted by hassansiddiqi on October 14, 2004 4:34:48 pm
Harish #19
``Except for the Oklahoma bombing and 9/11, when have you ever seen a terrorist attack on US soil? I bet never. That, my friend is what a good intelligence serivce can do. It is next to impossible to prevent 100% of attacks, for terrorists will always find newer/better ways of doing their thing, but with better intelligence, you can always reduce their chances of succeeding.``
The United States has maintained not just good intelligence agencies. They also have an excellent law and order situation where justice is served not by corrupt officials but by public servants. In other words, United States has not had a lot of terrorist attacks..... not just because of their intelligence agencies but also because they have democratic institutions and an excellent system of governance. By having all these things, they help eliminate reasons for people to terrorize the nation.
The trouble with Pakistan, is that we have never had sustainable democracy, we don`t have corruption free institutions and we dont have a good judiciary. By not having all of this, we have frustrated people, who can`t get justice unless they have connections. We have armed people ready kill anyone if they don`t agree with their sect teachings or their tribal affiliations.
The point is that in order to maintain a terrorism free environment, not only you need good intelligence agencies, you also need the elimination of reasons for people to do anything violent.
In conclusion, I still think Pakistan has excellent intelligence agencies. Suicide bombing, unfortunately, is very simple in procedural terms. You need a bomb, a fanatic and wires. So it is extremely difficult for any intelligence agency to prevent such attacks. Pakistan is facing more attacks than other nations, not because they have poor intelligence or defence capabilities but because there are fanatics and radicals that don`t want democracy and justice to prosper. That, my friend is the real reason for so many attacks in Pakistan.
``Except for the Oklahoma bombing and 9/11, when have you ever seen a terrorist attack on US soil? I bet never. That, my friend is what a good intelligence serivce can do. It is next to impossible to prevent 100% of attacks, for terrorists will always find newer/better ways of doing their thing, but with better intelligence, you can always reduce their chances of succeeding.``
The United States has maintained not just good intelligence agencies. They also have an excellent law and order situation where justice is served not by corrupt officials but by public servants. In other words, United States has not had a lot of terrorist attacks..... not just because of their intelligence agencies but also because they have democratic institutions and an excellent system of governance. By having all these things, they help eliminate reasons for people to terrorize the nation.
The trouble with Pakistan, is that we have never had sustainable democracy, we don`t have corruption free institutions and we dont have a good judiciary. By not having all of this, we have frustrated people, who can`t get justice unless they have connections. We have armed people ready kill anyone if they don`t agree with their sect teachings or their tribal affiliations.
The point is that in order to maintain a terrorism free environment, not only you need good intelligence agencies, you also need the elimination of reasons for people to do anything violent.
In conclusion, I still think Pakistan has excellent intelligence agencies. Suicide bombing, unfortunately, is very simple in procedural terms. You need a bomb, a fanatic and wires. So it is extremely difficult for any intelligence agency to prevent such attacks. Pakistan is facing more attacks than other nations, not because they have poor intelligence or defence capabilities but because there are fanatics and radicals that don`t want democracy and justice to prosper. That, my friend is the real reason for so many attacks in Pakistan.
#30 Posted by nikki7777 on October 14, 2004 11:31:40 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#29 Posted by MantoLives on October 14, 2004 11:15:58 am
http://www.naseeb.com/naseebvibes/peace-detail.php?aid=2335&pg=1
John Kerry talks to Vibes Editor-in-Chief Aisha F. Sarwari about the Patriot Act, the change in policy his administration intends to enforce and his sentiments about the larger Muslim world.
Kerry as US President?
We will work with allies in Arab and Muslim countries and across the globe. Our administration will never, ever wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake - but we will not alienate those whose support we should have, and must enlist, to help make America more secure.
Naseeb Vibes is committed to bringing information and analysis to its readers though a consortium of articles in our Voting Kit (link) for the US Election 2004 which is now updated with a Vibes Exclusive of John Kerry`s Interview. John Kerry is running for President to make America stronger at home and more respected in the world. He has a plan to restore the values that have always made America a leader in the world.
VIBES: Do you still feel the war on Iraq was justified? Has it served the policy objectives as stated by the United States Government i.e. dismantling of the WMDs, a free Iraq, and democratization of the region? If not what will you do differently?
JOHN KERRY: Iraq was not even close to the center of the war on terror before the president invaded it. The president made the judgment to divert forces from under General Tommy Franks from Afghanistan before the Congress even approved it to begin to prepare to go to war in Iraq. And he rushed the war in Iraq without a plan to win the peace.
Now, that is not the judgment that a president of the United States ought to make. You don`t take America to war unless have the plan to win the peace. The President also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort. Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. ``Last resort.`` You`ve got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, ``I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter. I don`t believe the United States did that.
VIBES: American Muslims feel betrayed by the Republican Party after the announcement of the Patriot Act, the succession of cluster bombs on Afghanistan and Iraq, the violation of the Geneva
As a former prosecutor, I know that racial, ethnic, and religious profiling is wrong as well as ineffective. It must be ended.
conventions in Guantanamo Bay, and the recent Abu Gharaib Prison scandal. What reasons do they have to trust that your party can give them the security they deserve as patriotic Americans who happen to be Muslims?
JOHN KERRY: As a former prosecutor, I know that racial, ethnic, and religious profiling is wrong as well as ineffective. It must be ended. Diversity is one of America`s greatest strengths and respect for it - one of our most important values.
My Administration will safeguard civil rights and defend civil liberties. We will not tolerate targeting of Americans for threats, violence or discrimination based on their race, ethnicity, or religion. We cannot fight the war on terrorism at the expense of our principles and the rule of law.
VIBES: What will be your level of engagement in the Muslim world, especially those countries that have at great peril to themselves come out on the American side in the war on terrorism i.e. Pakistan, Turkey, Jordan and Egypt etc. Will you engage the democratic forces in these countries who may differ with your policies or will you continue to back the despots as long as they are loyal to you?
JOHN KERRY: Edwards and I understand that fighting terrorism in America and abroad is not a fight against Muslims and it is not a fight against Arabs. It is a fight against fanaticism. It is a fight of the majority for progress against the primitive fears of the few.
As president, I will put in place a strong and smart strategy to win the war on terror - an approach that recognizes the complexity of the challenge and uses all the tools at our disposal. I understand that the path to victory will be found in the company of others, not walking alone.
We will work with allies in Arab and Muslim countries and across the globe. Our administration will never,
We will not tolerate the targeting of Muslim Americans or Arab Americans for threats, violence or discrimination based on their religion.
ever wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake - but we will not alienate those whose support we should have, and must enlist, to help make America more secure.
We recognize that victory in the war on terror requires a combination of American might, diplomacy, skill, and determination. We must also maximize international cooperation.
VIBES: The Bush Administration has made ads that insinuate your party has a racial bias against people from Middle Eastern origin. What effect would this have on your Muslim supporters, and how crucial is the American Muslim vote for your election as President?
JOHN KERRY: We recognize the many contributions that Muslim Americans and Arab Americans have made to our nation and will work to protect and defend the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans, including Muslim Americans and Arab Americans.
They support rigorous enforcement of our nation’s civil rights laws so that all Americans, including Muslims and Arabs, can live, work, learn, worship, and gather without fear or discrimination. We will not tolerate the targeting of Muslim Americans or Arab Americans for threats, violence or discrimination based on their religion.
VIBES: The readers of Vibes will like to know your vision for the Mid East. While looking for a viable and defensible Israel, will you see to it that the Palestinians find an equally viable state of their own?
JOHN KERRY: Both of us believe that bringing security and stability to the Middle East is vital to American national security, to the security of Israel and other countries in the region, and to the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a viable Palestinian state.
In our administration, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not be an afterthought, but a priority that will always get the consistent, high-level attention it deserves. We will bring determined leadership to ending the violence and developing a new Palestinian leadership - one that
Bi-lateral engagement between India and Pakistan is important to resolving the dispute in Kashmir, and to combating terrorism.
is committed in word and deed to fighting terror and meeting the needs of its people.
We will also work tirelessly to achieve a stable, lasting peace with security in the Middle East and ensure that American leadership is a source of hope in the region.
VIBES: It was an American President from the Democrat party who gave the world the idea of the right of self determination through his famous 14 points. Do you believe that the people have the right to determine their own future? What is your position on the UN Security council Resolutions asking for the right of self determination of the Kashmiri people which has been constantly and consistently denied to them?
JOHN KERRY: Bi-lateral engagement between India and Pakistan is important to resolving the dispute in Kashmir, and to combating terrorism. I believe the United States has the unique ability to help this process along, and as President I intend to take full advantage of the opportunity to do so.
Pakistan’s support is important to operations in Afghanistan. Yet it is my hope that Pakistan will always remember that our goal is to have free nations with open societies in which there is no place for terror or the support of terror. Pakistan has much to gain from internal reform, and I stand eager to foster and support this process.
VIBES: What is your vision for America? Where do you want to see it stand 10 years from now?
JOHN KERRY: We will stand up for America`s values and have a plan to build an America that is strong at home and respected in the world. We believe we can have a strong economy focused on good-paying jobs, a health care plan that reduces costs, an energy plan that frees us from Mideast oil, and they believe we can strengthen our military and lead strong alliances that keep America safe and secure.
The opinions expressed in this article are of the author and not necessarily of Naseeb Vibes
John Kerry talks to Vibes Editor-in-Chief Aisha F. Sarwari about the Patriot Act, the change in policy his administration intends to enforce and his sentiments about the larger Muslim world.
Kerry as US President?
We will work with allies in Arab and Muslim countries and across the globe. Our administration will never, ever wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake - but we will not alienate those whose support we should have, and must enlist, to help make America more secure.
Naseeb Vibes is committed to bringing information and analysis to its readers though a consortium of articles in our Voting Kit (link) for the US Election 2004 which is now updated with a Vibes Exclusive of John Kerry`s Interview. John Kerry is running for President to make America stronger at home and more respected in the world. He has a plan to restore the values that have always made America a leader in the world.
VIBES: Do you still feel the war on Iraq was justified? Has it served the policy objectives as stated by the United States Government i.e. dismantling of the WMDs, a free Iraq, and democratization of the region? If not what will you do differently?
JOHN KERRY: Iraq was not even close to the center of the war on terror before the president invaded it. The president made the judgment to divert forces from under General Tommy Franks from Afghanistan before the Congress even approved it to begin to prepare to go to war in Iraq. And he rushed the war in Iraq without a plan to win the peace.
Now, that is not the judgment that a president of the United States ought to make. You don`t take America to war unless have the plan to win the peace. The President also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort. Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. ``Last resort.`` You`ve got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, ``I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter. I don`t believe the United States did that.
VIBES: American Muslims feel betrayed by the Republican Party after the announcement of the Patriot Act, the succession of cluster bombs on Afghanistan and Iraq, the violation of the Geneva
As a former prosecutor, I know that racial, ethnic, and religious profiling is wrong as well as ineffective. It must be ended.
conventions in Guantanamo Bay, and the recent Abu Gharaib Prison scandal. What reasons do they have to trust that your party can give them the security they deserve as patriotic Americans who happen to be Muslims?
JOHN KERRY: As a former prosecutor, I know that racial, ethnic, and religious profiling is wrong as well as ineffective. It must be ended. Diversity is one of America`s greatest strengths and respect for it - one of our most important values.
My Administration will safeguard civil rights and defend civil liberties. We will not tolerate targeting of Americans for threats, violence or discrimination based on their race, ethnicity, or religion. We cannot fight the war on terrorism at the expense of our principles and the rule of law.
VIBES: What will be your level of engagement in the Muslim world, especially those countries that have at great peril to themselves come out on the American side in the war on terrorism i.e. Pakistan, Turkey, Jordan and Egypt etc. Will you engage the democratic forces in these countries who may differ with your policies or will you continue to back the despots as long as they are loyal to you?
JOHN KERRY: Edwards and I understand that fighting terrorism in America and abroad is not a fight against Muslims and it is not a fight against Arabs. It is a fight against fanaticism. It is a fight of the majority for progress against the primitive fears of the few.
As president, I will put in place a strong and smart strategy to win the war on terror - an approach that recognizes the complexity of the challenge and uses all the tools at our disposal. I understand that the path to victory will be found in the company of others, not walking alone.
We will work with allies in Arab and Muslim countries and across the globe. Our administration will never,
We will not tolerate the targeting of Muslim Americans or Arab Americans for threats, violence or discrimination based on their religion.
ever wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake - but we will not alienate those whose support we should have, and must enlist, to help make America more secure.
We recognize that victory in the war on terror requires a combination of American might, diplomacy, skill, and determination. We must also maximize international cooperation.
VIBES: The Bush Administration has made ads that insinuate your party has a racial bias against people from Middle Eastern origin. What effect would this have on your Muslim supporters, and how crucial is the American Muslim vote for your election as President?
JOHN KERRY: We recognize the many contributions that Muslim Americans and Arab Americans have made to our nation and will work to protect and defend the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans, including Muslim Americans and Arab Americans.
They support rigorous enforcement of our nation’s civil rights laws so that all Americans, including Muslims and Arabs, can live, work, learn, worship, and gather without fear or discrimination. We will not tolerate the targeting of Muslim Americans or Arab Americans for threats, violence or discrimination based on their religion.
VIBES: The readers of Vibes will like to know your vision for the Mid East. While looking for a viable and defensible Israel, will you see to it that the Palestinians find an equally viable state of their own?
JOHN KERRY: Both of us believe that bringing security and stability to the Middle East is vital to American national security, to the security of Israel and other countries in the region, and to the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a viable Palestinian state.
In our administration, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not be an afterthought, but a priority that will always get the consistent, high-level attention it deserves. We will bring determined leadership to ending the violence and developing a new Palestinian leadership - one that
Bi-lateral engagement between India and Pakistan is important to resolving the dispute in Kashmir, and to combating terrorism.
is committed in word and deed to fighting terror and meeting the needs of its people.
We will also work tirelessly to achieve a stable, lasting peace with security in the Middle East and ensure that American leadership is a source of hope in the region.
VIBES: It was an American President from the Democrat party who gave the world the idea of the right of self determination through his famous 14 points. Do you believe that the people have the right to determine their own future? What is your position on the UN Security council Resolutions asking for the right of self determination of the Kashmiri people which has been constantly and consistently denied to them?
JOHN KERRY: Bi-lateral engagement between India and Pakistan is important to resolving the dispute in Kashmir, and to combating terrorism. I believe the United States has the unique ability to help this process along, and as President I intend to take full advantage of the opportunity to do so.
Pakistan’s support is important to operations in Afghanistan. Yet it is my hope that Pakistan will always remember that our goal is to have free nations with open societies in which there is no place for terror or the support of terror. Pakistan has much to gain from internal reform, and I stand eager to foster and support this process.
VIBES: What is your vision for America? Where do you want to see it stand 10 years from now?
JOHN KERRY: We will stand up for America`s values and have a plan to build an America that is strong at home and respected in the world. We believe we can have a strong economy focused on good-paying jobs, a health care plan that reduces costs, an energy plan that frees us from Mideast oil, and they believe we can strengthen our military and lead strong alliances that keep America safe and secure.
The opinions expressed in this article are of the author and not necessarily of Naseeb Vibes
#28 Posted by HaazirMoula on October 13, 2004 11:03:31 pm
Gullibility seems to be a national trait among us Pakistanis, and even more so in the post 70s generation.
Youth, particularly urban, educated youth, bear the burden of guiding nations to higher levels of achievement. Talking about Pakistan, this translates into righting wrongs done by preceding generations of rulers.
The history of Pakistan is replete with wrongs, and the majority of these wrongs can trace their paternity to the army.
Then how come, we attach expectations to an armyman to right things for us.
Saeen aabaad rakhkay!
Youth, particularly urban, educated youth, bear the burden of guiding nations to higher levels of achievement. Talking about Pakistan, this translates into righting wrongs done by preceding generations of rulers.
The history of Pakistan is replete with wrongs, and the majority of these wrongs can trace their paternity to the army.
Then how come, we attach expectations to an armyman to right things for us.
Saeen aabaad rakhkay!
#27 Posted by nasah on October 13, 2004 9:50:55 pm
Kerry vs Bush
Which candidate was better on the issues?
10.8%
Bush (2022 responses)
89.2%
Kerry (16637 responses)
18659 total responses
Which candidate handled the audience the best?
11.9%
Bush (2223 responses)
88.1%
Kerry (16402 responses)
18625 total responses
Which candidate came across as a better leader?
11.1%
Bush (2069 responses)
88.9%
Kerry (16559 responses)
18628 total responses
Regardless of your thoughts about the issues, which candidate do you think performed better during the debate?
10.9%
Bush (2027 responses)
89.1%
Kerry (16629 responses)
18656 total responses
Which candidate was the most credible?
11.0%
Bush (2062 responses)
89.0%
Kerry (16647 responses)
18709 total responses
(Newsday)
#26 Posted by mubakr on October 13, 2004 12:41:19 pm
# 20 Kaurasach:
sir/ma`am: my response was NOT about the functioning of democracy and its strength. it was about the usually over emphasized ``people`s power`` to do things miraculously and quick. i thoroughly understand and appreciate your point but i think it was slightly out of the context to what i earlier wrote.
summarizing it in one sentence: a few of the very people who elected modi might not have liked wha happened in gujrat but they were ``powerless`` during the process.
# 17 Jang:
thanks for calling me pompous and conceited. i already said that the personality remarks speak about a certain intellectual level. rest; i better leave it uncommented.
sir/ma`am: my response was NOT about the functioning of democracy and its strength. it was about the usually over emphasized ``people`s power`` to do things miraculously and quick. i thoroughly understand and appreciate your point but i think it was slightly out of the context to what i earlier wrote.
summarizing it in one sentence: a few of the very people who elected modi might not have liked wha happened in gujrat but they were ``powerless`` during the process.
# 17 Jang:
thanks for calling me pompous and conceited. i already said that the personality remarks speak about a certain intellectual level. rest; i better leave it uncommented.
Interact Index
Also by Mubashir Butt
Similar Articles
- Is this Amnesia or Dementia? Tahir Javaid
- Musharraf's Resignation and Beyond Beena Sarwar
- Long Live the King: Musharraf’s Controversial Legacy Karamatullah K Ghori
- Love him or hate him: Musharraf not a tyrant Shujaat Wasty
- The Aftermath of Musharraf’s Departure saeed qureshi
US Elections 2008 Primaries
Get Chowk RSS FeedLatest Interacts
- masadi: HP writes "were large... There is no ‘honour’
- tahmed32: #72 hamidm: i grew... Why Zardari Should Be
- hamidm2: Re: # 70 tahmed, .... so... Why Zardari Should Be
- tahmed32: hamidm: actually, i think... Why Zardari Should Be
- tahmed32: hamidm: as for "falling... Why Zardari Should Be
- tahmed32: hamidm: i am neither... Why Zardari Should Be
- hamidm2: Re: # 80 bubba, .... this... US Commando Strike in
- anil: #67: Hamidm sahib: "...would put bill... Why Zardari Should Be
