Pakistan-Afghanistan Relations: The Choice Between Alliance and Acrimony
Her blog is linked via antiwar.com
Please donate to antiwar.com if you feel like it. It`s a shoestring operation and they are ahead of everyone else in linking to news items related to the middle east and to a lesser extent, asia.
Posted by
soysauce
Dec 30, 2006 10:33 am
Many of you may be familiar with Riverbend, a female Iraqi blogger. Her take on the new developments (written before Saddam`s hanging) are very interesting. She claims Saddam had some shia supporters as well.Her blog is linked via antiwar.com
Please donate to antiwar.com if you feel like it. It`s a shoestring operation and they are ahead of everyone else in linking to news items related to the middle east and to a lesser extent, asia.
Pakistan-Afghanistan Relations: The Choice Between Alliance and Acrimony
Saddam came to power by killing and having killed some of his political enemies. No point in shedding tears for a MURDERER. Besides death is probably what he prefered anyway to being locked up with no future. He must have known, despite his courtroom rants and apparent delusion that he was no longer the president of anything. Death was merciful. Killing him without a trial as his sons were killed would have preserved the myth of a powerful man who went down fighting. The trial was designed to render him impotent and have him killed anyway. Ultimately his IRAQI enemies took revenge, abetted by the US.
There are war criminals in the US in powerful positions - such as Bob Kerry - who massacred dozens of vietnamese villagers in a fit of rage - who would never be tried anywhere, not even in the court of public opinion. It does seem hypocritical that this be so, but the important distinction is that the war criminals of the west perpetrated their crimes against foreign populations whereas our criminals take it out on our own populations. When your own people are turned against you, you have undercut your position. What Bush did in fallujah and what Saddam did in dujail are roughly comparable. But Bush`s crime is against an enemy country and Saddam`s was against his own people. Hence, in the eyes of the world there is no moral equivalence between the two.
Posted by
soysauce
Dec 30, 2006 10:29 am
zeemax, you say iran hanged Saddam and you also claim it`s the ``mussalmans`` who are the target. So which is it?Saddam came to power by killing and having killed some of his political enemies. No point in shedding tears for a MURDERER. Besides death is probably what he prefered anyway to being locked up with no future. He must have known, despite his courtroom rants and apparent delusion that he was no longer the president of anything. Death was merciful. Killing him without a trial as his sons were killed would have preserved the myth of a powerful man who went down fighting. The trial was designed to render him impotent and have him killed anyway. Ultimately his IRAQI enemies took revenge, abetted by the US.
There are war criminals in the US in powerful positions - such as Bob Kerry - who massacred dozens of vietnamese villagers in a fit of rage - who would never be tried anywhere, not even in the court of public opinion. It does seem hypocritical that this be so, but the important distinction is that the war criminals of the west perpetrated their crimes against foreign populations whereas our criminals take it out on our own populations. When your own people are turned against you, you have undercut your position. What Bush did in fallujah and what Saddam did in dujail are roughly comparable. But Bush`s crime is against an enemy country and Saddam`s was against his own people. Hence, in the eyes of the world there is no moral equivalence between the two.
Imran Khan the Politician
Posted by
soysauce
Dec 29, 2006 09:19 pm
#184 masadi, now you`re going off on tangents - i was responding to your pointed comments about the attitude of the whites towards indians & pakistanis. Please be specific if you wish to address that and stop patronizing. Thank you.
Imran Khan the Politician
Doesn`t an average person from pindi look down on an average person from peshawar? Is the attitude of the average white person towards an average brown-skinned foreigner any worse?
You have to realize that a very powerful senator lost his reelection mostly because he refered to a brown-skinned guy a macaca.. In our ``civilized`` part of the world, porotestors would have burned down a few buildings and killed a few people as an ineffectual reaction. The ``white man`` spoke against prejudice nonviolently and very effectively.
Posted by
soysauce
Dec 28, 2006 11:13 am
#148 masadiDoesn`t an average person from pindi look down on an average person from peshawar? Is the attitude of the average white person towards an average brown-skinned foreigner any worse?
You have to realize that a very powerful senator lost his reelection mostly because he refered to a brown-skinned guy a macaca.. In our ``civilized`` part of the world, porotestors would have burned down a few buildings and killed a few people as an ineffectual reaction. The ``white man`` spoke against prejudice nonviolently and very effectively.
Imran Khan the Politician
What matters is what was accomplished not what was said..
Posted by
soysauce
Dec 28, 2006 11:07 am
#157 zeemax, ``sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me..``What matters is what was accomplished not what was said..
An Untouchable Apology
``Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh says his government must do more to combat discrimination against lower castes and minorities.
He told an international conference in Delhi the steps were necessary for the disadvantaged to benefit from the country`s economic growth. ``
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6212131.stm
Posted by
soysauce
Dec 28, 2006 11:03 am
Here`s something very relevant:``Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh says his government must do more to combat discrimination against lower castes and minorities.
He told an international conference in Delhi the steps were necessary for the disadvantaged to benefit from the country`s economic growth. ``
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6212131.stm
Baby Doll
Posted by
soysauce
Dec 24, 2006 07:15 pm
You are going to be published in english? Amazing!
India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute
Posted by
soysauce
Dec 24, 2006 06:09 pm
It appears that the definitive book on partition is yet to be written - there`s quite a few PhDs waiting to be written on how the agitation for pakistan was really a ploy by smarter, braver, richer, fairer, taller, stronger, more handsome, more cultured and cleaner men with bigger penises to get away from the inferior hordes by pretending that it was all about religion.
India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute
Posted by
soysauce
Dec 24, 2006 01:29 pm
#290 it won`t do to make fun of people`s names, mr. BJ (snicker) Kumar!
India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute
Posted by
soysauce
Dec 24, 2006 11:42 am
#278 sadna - there`s also the fact that the older generation, regardless of nationality, is more sexist - look at harimau.
India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute
Posted by
soysauce
Dec 24, 2006 11:15 am
#275 And no thanks to you for helping to elect the worst president in US history. He`s also proving to be dangerous to global climate. I hope you`ll repent and vote for Al Gore `08 even if it means detroit will become more of a 3rd world city.
India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute
Who knows whether india and pak are going to be around in a few decades to fight over kashmir or anything else. Glaciers are disappearing and the dal lake would be gone. Merry Christmas!
PS: you must have some well-traveled kashmiri peddlers in rawalpindi who must have been to lake geneva..
Posted by
soysauce
Dec 24, 2006 11:11 am
#275 hamidm2Who knows whether india and pak are going to be around in a few decades to fight over kashmir or anything else. Glaciers are disappearing and the dal lake would be gone. Merry Christmas!
PS: you must have some well-traveled kashmiri peddlers in rawalpindi who must have been to lake geneva..
India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute
Merry christmas!
Posted by
soysauce
Dec 24, 2006 11:02 am
#273 mullahji, I don`t think you are obtuse or reading challenged. You are just a self-righteous twit (thanks hamidm2!) who assumes the worst about ``hindus.``Merry christmas!
An Untouchable Apology
Posted by
soysauce
Dec 24, 2006 11:00 am
I have a feeling paulose is a troll. He appears to be someone who has read something about india but hasn`t actually lived there.
India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute
But wasn`t the great thing about the coup that you, along with other chowk pak luminaries, were cheerleading that the dictator could cut thru crap and get things done? Isn`t that what he`s doing?
The problem with dictators is they don`t have to listen to you.
Posted by
soysauce
Dec 23, 2006 10:39 am
#221 hamidm2But wasn`t the great thing about the coup that you, along with other chowk pak luminaries, were cheerleading that the dictator could cut thru crap and get things done? Isn`t that what he`s doing?
The problem with dictators is they don`t have to listen to you.
India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute
Posted by
soysauce
Dec 23, 2006 10:36 am
This ``unfinished business of partition`` must be like repressed memory syndrome. It could mean whatever one wants it to. - soysauce
- Interacts: 1374
- iLogs: 0
- Gallery: 0
- Page views: 3068
- Last visitor: guest
- Member since: Jul 1 2001
- Last signin: Mar 4 2007
- Send a message
- Add as friend
- Add to ignore list
- Add to block list


