Middle East Hate Crimes

"I don't think any American boys' lives are worth a barrel of oil," said Rob Moitoza, 57, who carried a sign that said: "Vets Against Bush."

Moitoza said he served two years in the Navy aboard an aircraft carrier during the Vietnam War and fears a much worse conflict if U.S. troops are sent to Iraq.

--From press coverage of the surprise, large and militant
antiwar protest that confronted Bush on his visit
to Portland. Demonstrators showed advanced consciousness by making "No war for oil!" their main chant. All this as a new USA Today poll shows a steep drop in popular backing for going to war with Iraq.

The straws are clearly in the wind.

The country is sharply divided.

Aggressing Iraq will tear America apart in a way that made
the turbulent '60s seem like childs' play.

Yes, dumb-ass conservative warmongers, let's give Osama EXACTLY what
he wants!

Dennis:

I addressed a post to you awhile back that I would really like to get your thoughts.

If you would like, respond at your leisure.

Naeem:

Help me out, here.

"BUT Pakistan has no intention to use nukes to change indian's hostile policies against Pakistan or we have no intention to use nukes to make india stop human right violations and brutality in indian occupied kashmir"

Kashmir may be disputed, but it is definately part of India, right?

So it is not, occupied, right? It was part of the British division. Pakistan just wants it.

I think the conflict earlier this year was probably not as tense as the rest of the world thought, but wasn't the presence of Pakistani militants in Kashmir the main dispute? So that would not make India the hostile nation?

If I'm incorrect, let me know.

Wow Rick, you seem to know a lot about history. For the rest of us, here is a good linkthat does a fair job of explaining what is going on and why.

Here's a sample:

Why is Kashmir disputed?

The territory of Kashmir was hotly contested even before India and Pakistan won their independence from Britain in August 1947.

Under the partition plan provided by the Indian Independence Act of 1947, Kashmir was free to accede to India or Pakistan.

The Maharaja, Hari Singh, wanted to stay independent but eventually decided to accede to India, signing over key powers to the Indian Government - in return for military aid and a promised referendum.

Since then, the territory has been the flashpoint for two of the three India-Pakistan wars: the first in 1947-8, the second in 1965.

In 1999, India fought a brief but bitter conflict with Pakistani-backed forces who had infiltrated Indian-controlled territory in the Kargil area.

In addition to the rival claims of Delhi and Islamabad to the territory, there has been a growing and often violent separatist movement fighting against Indian rule in Kashmir since 1989.

Rick:

My first awareness of anti-Americanism came when I was merely a child,
when both Nelson Rockefeller and Richard Nixon, in "good will tours"
of Latin America, barely escaped with their lives as angry mobs threw stones and tried to stop their vehicles.

It was baffling to me.

In the heart of the Cold War '50s, with glorifications of our
role and purpose in international affairs a daily, accepted occurence, I couldn't imagine why anyone in the world would want to hate us.

My thinking was totally not my own in that era. When U.S. Marines
invaded Lebanon in 1958, in one of many overt and covert actions
whereby our forces simply "decided" other nations' political direction, I was so infused with propaganda and a gung-ho sentiment that I wished I could enlist and be one of those Marines myself.

But I was only 12.

So I played with toy soldiers instead, acting out on a tabletop the
glory-dipped disinformation that was being spoonfed to the entire country.

Somewhat later, I read a book entitled "The Ugly American", which was a New York Times bestseller.

I guess my first reading was rather careless or superficial, since it
didn't seem to have had much of an impact.

I must have thought it was by someone who was trying to portray the U.S. in a bad light, for suspect reasons. In any case, I didn't read it again until Vietnam became a top
story. "Wait a minute. Where have I heard these names and places before?"

Going back to the book was a revelation. I almost instantly
saw the arrogance and folly in our Southeast Asia policy, and KNEW we couldn't possibly win. We'd antagonized the peoples of the region with our supremacism and selfishness, and with a stupid, crass insensitivity to their needs and aspirations.

Decades later, very little has changed. We've behaved similalrly all across the planet, inviting scorn from our European friends and
active, fiery hatred among our Third World enemies.

Perhaps not always evident at governmental level, or within the commercial classes (and their dependent minions)...but certainly within the ranks of the politicized sectors and the "street".

I wonder if any other country issues regular equivalents of our "State
Department advisories" warning their travelers of routine dangers
to its citizens from "volatility" and "unrest" rooted in a pervasive, intense dislike of simply who they are and what they represent.

And it's not really a hatred of our ideals. After all, Ho Chi Minh
modeled the Vietnamese constitution on our own.

No, the problem stems, as it does in our domestic affairs, from huge corporations and mammoth banks gaining operative control of what properly ought to be a people's democracy...and using the instruments of government as tools of exploitation and oppression.

Across the planet.

We do only what's lopsidedly good for "us", letting the Devil take the hindmost, and allowing flies to swarm on starving Third World
children.

That's THE central dynamic in the world today, and everything from the rise of the anti-globalization movement to the emergence of al-Qaida comes as a result.

Believe me, my friend...

With the likes of Bush and Cheney scouring Earth for wealth/hegemony -- and with the means they employ growing more intolerable right along -- we'll inevitably see a quantum leap in the already prevalent belief that we are the Great Satan.

And what is my "radical" answer?

The simple logic of the necessity for remedial change if we're to save ourselves from permanent, escalating, retaliatory harm.

"We do only what's lopsidedly good for "us", letting the Devil take the hindmost, and allowing flies to swarm on starving Third World children"

You're implying that in other nations globalization benefits absolutely no one. and is all about plunder and expolitation. You're not seeing the whole picture any more than the most libertarian free-trader.

Businesses are formed, partnerships with local business men and women. Workers are paid more than the local economies could eversupport. It's not a zero-sum gamewith one group winning everything and the other losing everything. I've seen it personally, and I see it often.

"That's THE central dynamic in the world today, and everything from the rise of the anti-globalization movement to the emergence of al-Qaida comes as a result. "

That's THE central dynamic of the grossly uninformed and the dangerously suspicious and hateful. I don't think globalization is ever going to benefit every country equally so I guess your Spirit of Seattle types will always be able to riot for something.

But like you, they only seem to have one solution which is "the necessity for remedial change." Long on rhetoric, short on specifrics.

In other words: Let's raise some hell and see what happens. Why would a thinking person accept that as the alternative?

Check out the op-ed pages of your local newspaper.

Notice how many letters there are from good, patriotic, thoughtful
Americans speaking out strongly against Bush's prospective aggression of Iraq.

This is extremely heartening, since one of the prime lessons of the Vietnam era was that "the time to stop a war is before it starts".

This largely spontaneous outpouring is having an effect.

This week's USA Today poll is undoubtedly the first of several that will show a sharp drop in approval for the invade-Iraq notion.

If what Bush is proposing strikes you as madness, please speak out as well. Send in your own letter. Keep it short and to the point.
Here's just one example, but use your own thoughts and words:

"George Bush wants to take America into a bloody, illegal invasion against Iraq.

"We mustn't let a prominent oil man, with evident ties to his slippery cronies, sacrifice our precious sons...for oil.

"Especially since he didn't really win the 2000 election and was AWOL during a key period of his own highly dubious "military career" (see Boston Globe, 5/23/00).

"Dubya has no credible authority or justifiable, objective basis to plunge our forces, and the people of the entire Middle East, into a potential holocaust.

"Just to satisfy the Enron-style avarice of certain capitalists who want to rule the world, for their own, narrow gain.

"Peace before war -- and people before profit -- have to be our collective, loud, salvational demands as hierarchic selfishness threatens to trigger an unprecedented catastrophe."

The solution to the one-way profit outflow of First World controlled "free" trade -- which "gives" underdeveloped, colonial-legacy countries little more than interminable debt and permanent dependency (and therefore NO way to stop continuing, worsening poverty) is quite simple.

Empower the affected people themselves.

Via application of the broadest, populist democracy.

So that they themselves can act as "valves" on the profit pipelines that currently send their countries' stolen wealth swooshing into distant coffers, owned by crony capitalists of the Enron ilk.

They also need to be in an empowered position to STOP the often lethal pollution that routinely accompanies operations in their native lands, run by selfish foreigners who have scant concern for either proper labor or environmental standards.

The answer -- the "fairness" to existing trade that's so glaringly, destructively missing -- is for its fundamental nature and terms to ultimately be determined not from New York's Wall Street...but from the home turf of the planet's affected majority, based on THEIR imperative needs.

That includes American working people, from Main Street.

This isn't a radical notion.

Simply one that's just, and necessary.

One that will surely, eventually become reality...because there is a swelling awareness around the world that elitist greedheads will rob and kill us all if common people don't take charge.

Tina Rosenberg wrote this in last week's New York Times magazine in a cover story on the upsides and downsides of globalization. A good read if you can find it:

"The architects of globalization are right that international economic integration is not only good for the poor, it is essential. To embrace self-sufficiency or to deride growth, as some protestors do, is to glamorize poverty. No nation has ever developed over the long term without trade. East Asia is the most recent example. Since the mid-1970s, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China, and their neighbors have lifted 300 million out of poverty, chiefly through trade."

Rosenberg agrees with you, Dennis that global trade cries out for equitable rules and the need for more control down by the people. It's a complex maze, but solutions are there. Specific ones.

But that's not what globalization's biggest critics want. They employ scant understanding which seems to be more dangerous than knowing nothing at all. What job is the anarchist that tosses bottles and rocks going to create? How many will he lift out of poverty?

"Firefighter Thomas W. Kelly, 50 wasn't one for telephone chit-chat -- "Hihowareyo, here's Kitty" was his standard greeting as he turned a call over to his wife -- but his actions shouted.

"He quietly stuck by his friends, worked a second job to help his widowed mother, and at Ladder Company 15 in Manhattan was known as Mr. Dependable, a mentor to the probies. But his sister Maureen Paglia said "'Tommy never wanted praise for anything.'

"Something else in his actions shouted: this Sinatra fan and father of two sons had a big squishy sentimental streak. Raised in Brooklyn, he bled Dodger blue so truly that he paid $1,420 for an original seat from Ebbets Field. Firefighter Kelly, who lived in Staten Isand, collected bats, cards, statistics and baseball caps from special events. He was so proud of his little brother Dennis, that he saved his sports trophies and newspaper clippings and diplomas from grammar school on, and presented them after the birth of Dennis' second child.

"His wife saw that sentimental streak on their first date, in September 1971. Mr. Kelly, then a steamfitter, took her to his construction site, his grandest project: the 40th floor of 2 World Trade Center."

From the New York Times Portraits of Grief are these names:

Diana J. O'Connor, 37; Thomas H. Polhemus, 39; Luis Edwardo Torres, 31; Walter P. Travers, 44; Michael D D'Auria (Fireman), 25; Barbara A. Shaw; 57; Raymond Meisenheimer (Fireman) (No age listed); Mary Lou Langley, 53; Barry Kirshbaum (No age listed); Brian E. Sweeney (Fireman), 29; Angela Susan Perez, 35; Geoffrey Cloud, 36; Paul Joseph Simon, 54.

We need to clean up our own horrendous act before hypocritically accusing others.
  

Dennis R---no truer words have been stated here. The Bible states that God Himself COMMANDED mankind that "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Now---the way I see it, ANY person who would go as far as supoporting ANY act of war, or joining any branch of the military --- as the military's number 1 purpose is to engage in acts of war out of "protection" or "security" or whatever other line of bullshit they will use to justify their existence---and then say they are a man of that very same God, or are doing it in the name of that god, is a filthy---dyed in the wool---hands down---immoral HYPOCRITE. No ifs, and, or buts. If you don't worship this God, or any god for that matter, it's a different scenario in this instance. But if you support war, or are willing to engage in it --- you support killing. If you support killing, and claim to live in the light of Christ, you are supporting that which goes against the word of your own God. Therefore, your words contradict your deeds, hence---hypocrisy.

Make your decision. War or God. DuaneBarry over and out.

http://www.antiwar.com/bidwai/bidwai-col.html

This is interesting...

A month ago I wrote an article entitled "Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a
9/11 Context", which was published by Liberal Slant and America Held Hostile.

Now, out of India, comes a piece by a noted journalist from that country that bears a strikingly similar title, "Hiroshima Under the Shadow of 9/11".

Undoubtedly a whole slew of similar commentaries have appeared around the world in recent weeks, all reaching generally similar conclusions.

It feels good to be part of a New Global Consciousness Arising.

Eight Iraqis die in US-British airstrikes

http://www.dawn.com/2002/08/26/top15.htm

BAGHDAD, Aug 25: Eight Iraqis were killed and nine others wounded Sunday in US and British air strikes on civilian installations in Basra in southern Iraq, an Iraqi military spokesman said.

Naeem.

I was hoping you'd respond to even just one of the posts that people including myself posed to you. To no avail, you simply ignored it either because you couldn't refute it or didn't want to bolster your posistion, or you agreed with them. Instead you changed the subject and post some propoganda. That's fine another poster here does it constantly and it makes it easy to write someones opinion off when they don't have the common courtesy to respond back to you. You reap what you sew.

BAGHDAD FIRST?

There's something more than a little galling about Bush going on a one-month vacation right after he has a meeting on whether to go to war against Iraq.

This is the height of imperial arrogance, something Louis XVI
would do.

According to the papers, Bush, before jetting off, met with his
national security team, which briefed him on the so-called Baghdad-first strategy. Here's the thinking: The U.S. military can go straight to the capital and topple Saddam Hussein right away, and hopefully interrupt his command structure so that Iraq couldn't use any biological or chemical weapons it might have.

Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

First, Saddam's forces could hunker down in buildings throughout the city, which could turn any assault into nasty door-to-door combat.

And second, by now with all the bluster from Washington, it
seems implausible that Saddam would not have devised some chain of command that could survive him and inflict damage on the invading Americans.

But what bugs me even more than these dubious military
calculations is the lack of consideration for the civilian casualties that such a strategy would entail.

Baghdad is a city of more than three million people. If Bush
intends to wage war there, what is to become of those three million people?

They are not all named Saddam Hussein.

How many more innocent Iraqis is Bush prepared to slay in order to settle scores with Saddam?...

The Bush-Blair war is much harder to defend than the war on
Afghanistan or even the Gulf War, for that matter.

What is the cause of war now?

Saddam Hussein has not attacked the United States, he's not about to attack the United States. And he has not just invaded another country.

Actually, under international law, Saddam Hussein is more
justified in attacking the United States than Bush is in attacking Iraq, since Bush is posing an imminent threat to invade Iraq.

Don't get me wrong. Saddam Hussein is as brutal as they come.
His gassing of Iranians and Kurds was one of the grossest acts in modern warfare -- but that's when he was a friend of ours, remember.

Now he is alleged to be doing what fourteen other countries,
including the United States, have been doing: acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

Does that give the United States the right to attack any or all of
those who are not U.S. allies, including North Korea, Syria, Libya, and Iran? If so, the United States will be waging one war after another in a bizarre attempt at arms control that is unjustified by international law...

-- Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive

Dennis,

Don't get me wrong. Saddam Hussein is as brutal as they come. His gassing of Iranians and Kurds was one of the grossest acts in modern warfare -- but that's when he was a friend of ours, remember.
  

So do we let history repaet itself? Should we wait until he is stronger and does more killing to even his own people ? Seems to me you have brought up the late 30's very often in reagrds to people being silent on the opression of the German people living under Hitler's growing boot. (Hell you even accused me of standing idly by if I was alive then or sympathizong with those pricks) The Neville Chamberlains of the world wanted to negotiate with Hitler because he really hadn't done anything to them (YET) Yet being the operative word. Today as then there were people who wanted to defer doing something about an evil person willing to kill his own people because it hadn't affected them yet.

Wether you want to believe it I am still conflicted. I am not 100% sure if it's the best idea. I was there and have zero desire to see anyone have to go back to that wasteland. War is a horrid thing, it's beyond words, there's no way to explain it. On the other hand I know what he's capable of too. I say get the U.N to force weapons inspectors in for actual tests in accordance with the original resolution. (something they're still in violatoin of) Not Iraq's idea of letting the inspectors only near "sanitized and prepared sites" ie: see it's just a baby milk factory. i'm talking about unfettered inspections and an inspector saying i want to look in that warehouse or underground bunker and being able to immediatley enter. If so, fine let them do a thorough job and take it from there. If not. Well I don't know, seems we have tried everything and it hasn't worked.

One thing I never do hear from the pundits that is par for the course is this. What are your solutions ? The silence will be stunning.

I'm sure that the Iraqi people, based on what they've endured under our staggeringly presumptive, interfering, terribly destructive actions (the embargo, the no-fly zones, the ongoing bombing) look upon US as being a weapons-of-mass-destruction equipped, utterly evil power.

Maybe they should be inspecting America!

For brevity's sake, I deleted a portion of Rothschild's piece:

"...there's lots of evidence that the most useful thing the West has done to limit his stockpile of weapons is to get UN inspectors in there. Now Donald Rumsfeld can laugh this off as much as he wants, but those inspectors managed to locate and destroy almost all of Saddam's menacing weapons programs.

"Instead of dismissing the idea, the Bush Administration should
do whatever it can to get those inspectors back to Baghdad.

"That's a far saner--and far more humane and far more just--
approach than sending the Army and Air Force to Baghdad."

Even though I personally feel we're imperious in an intolerable extreme to be treating Iraq the way we have, THE issue at hand is preventing a catastrophic war.

Getting inspectors back in IS far preferable to triggering a potential apocalypse.

If they do go back in -- and they find nothing -- then Bush's
Baghdad bashing will be revealed as bogus.

And that the whole matter IS really about getting at their oil, countless American and Middle Eastern casualties be damned.

So, I welcome your constructive view.

Bullshit man. Based upoin what they have been TOLD to believe and say and because of the tyranical leadership they are FORCED to live under--Bill

The same can be said for you american, you people think what u were told to think by your media (whose main mission is to sell the news rather then telling the news, that means news based on public demand) and Gov. you ppl say what u have been told to say and beleive only what and how they show the facts to you!

Iraqi Troops that were only TOO willing to surrender and claim that "Saddam Made Me Do It".---Bill

If american would be surendering they will also be claiming something similar like "Bush made me do it" OR "Saddam is the greatest person in the world"

:-))

So do we let history repaet itself? Should we wait until he is stronger and does more killing to even his own people ?---Luv2Fly

Let people sort their problems themselves, you shd intrude only when something bothers you! you cannot sort the problems of others espacially issues regarding leadership and country's social and political system. and if you will try to intrude you will only complicate the situation not only for the concerning people but also for yourselves!

But I suspect as long as American are super power they can never understand this natural fact. :-)

War with Iraq.

What an inviting prospect.

A generation of young Americans raised on Beavis and Butthead values and will, commanded by a presidential equivalent of Patrick Starfish (but without the magnanimous nature), just up and invading a sovereign country half a world away, defended by unyielding patriots fighting for every street corner -- every house (their houses!) -- with a Kalashnikov in one hand and the Koran in the other!

What happened in Vietnam when our troops saw that reality didn't even remotely mesh with what they'd been propagandized to believe?

They turned to drugs.

And some tossed hand grenades at their own officers, giving dictionaries the new term, "fragging".

And let's quit all this bullshit talk of "stopping Saddam" as analagous to moving to thwart Hitler.

It's the U.S., not Iraq, that's the aggressive, truly reactionarily-ruled, territory-and-resource desiring party in all this.

We're the ones with an unprecedented record of using weapons of mass destruction for the most un-Godly of purposes, i.e., killing foreigners to implement friendly regimes amenable to our corporate and financial predation.

Saddam was our useful asset when his stance corresponded with that overall American policy objective -- during the Reagan years, when Don Rumsfeld was special envoy to Baghdad and didn't say a peep about our ally's use of poison gas.

Yes, Iraq invaded Kuwait in an unacceptable, illegal attack.

But Kuwait was once an actual part of Iraq (and ancient Mesopatamia),
having been artificially created by arbitrary British whim, to facilitate getting at regional oil reserves.

Plus, Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil via slant drilling in the period immediately before Iraq acted.

So their case for doing what they did was substantially more compelling than our rationale for invading Grenada or Panama, or sending Marines into the Dominican Republic or Lebanon, to name just two of our myriad overt and covert, forceful buttings into others'
national affairs.

Nobody was talking about going to war with Iraq before 9/11.

What's changed? Where's the NEW, REAL, PROVEN threat?!

If you can't see that Bush is just manipulating the emotionalism of last September to unscrupulously advance longstanding monopoly ambitions and profit lust...you're more in the dark than Ronnie Milsap and Ray Charles in a coal mine at midnight.

Don't be a brainwashed, foolish pawn who'll "gladly" send your precious child off to slaughter for The Man's greedy salivation over
Mideast oil -- just because Old Glory is prettily waving and someone's singing patriotic songs!

You have a lot to learn, kid.---Bonnie Verwer

So!!!???

I second JT's thoughts. Good stuff Bill.

The far left is SOOOOO predictable.

A generation of young Americans raised on Beavis and Butthead values and will, commanded by a presidential equivalent of Patrick Starfish (but without the magnanimous nature), just up and invading a sovereign country half a world away, defended by unyielding patriots fighting for every street corner -- every house (their houses!) -- with a Kalashnikov in one hand and the Koran in the other!

What happened in Vietnam when our troops saw that reality didn't even remotely mesh with what they'd been propagandized to believe?

They turned to drugs.

No The lefty wacko socialists are the ones on drugs. So was half the youth in the 60's (some outgrew it, others,,well,,,,,) The generation now engaged in this battle is doing a great job, most of them get what their parents never did. The funny part is that you are the same as your parents were when they saw you as pot smoking hippies. You have become the old man who sees the generation as somehow not up to the task. As far as frredom fighters on the street corner with Kalishnikovs or A.K's. I guess we'll see how happy they are with Saddink when the shit starts flying.

And let's quit all this bullshit talk of "stopping Saddam" as analagous to moving to thwart Hitler.

See no evil hear no evil.

and here it comes, the look how bad we are rant.......ta da!

It's the U.S., not Iraq, that's the aggressive, truly reactionarily-ruled, territory-and-resource desiring party in all this.

Ahh and more of how bad we are in case you forgot......

We're the ones with an unprecedented record of using weapons of mass destruction for the most un-Godly of purposes, i.e., killing foreigners to implement friendly regimes amenable to our corporate and financial predation.

Good you remebered to throw corporate America in there always gotta do that.

And here it comes, the highhinsight rant.

Saddam was our useful asset when his stance corresponded with that overall American policy objective -- during the Reagan years, when Don Rumsfeld was special envoy to Baghdad and didn't say a peep about our ally's use of poison gas.

Yes, Iraq invaded Kuwait in an unacceptable, illegal attack.

And the "but" we're worse......

But Kuwait was once an actual part of Iraq (and ancient Mesopatamia), having been artificially created by arbitrary British whim, to facilitate getting at regional oil reserves.
  

Ahh yes let's go back to biblical times too.

Plus, Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil via slant drilling in the period immediately before Iraq acted.

Yea so the bastards deserved to be attacked just like we did.

And more of how naughty we are.

So their case for doing what they did was substantially more compelling than our rationale for invading Grenada or Panama, or sending Marines into the Dominican Republic or Lebanon, to name just two of our myriad overt and covert, forceful buttings into others' national affairs.
  

Nobody was talking about going to war with Iraq before 9/11.

Umm lefty,,,,there was a war going on and still is, Ever hear of the no fly zone, weekly they would lock on or fire missles.

What's changed? Where's the NEW, REAL, PROVEN threat?!

Tough to say considering he's thumbed his nose at weapons inspectors.

More rants and as ususal, no solutions,,,,gotta love those fringe lefties...

Naeem,

Let people sort their problems themselves, you shd intrude only when something bothers you! you cannot sort the problems of others espacially issues regarding leadership and country's social and political system. and if you will try to intrude you will only complicate the situation not only for the concerning people but also for yourselves!

There's an old saying that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Your govenment was a close ally of the Taliban (great people) only when they were evicted did you disown them. I appreciate your govenrments help and thank you for that. Many AlQueida and Taliban headed to your country, I wonder why ? Perhaps they felt they had kindered spirits. Your country is ruled much differently than ours as Bill pointed out. You have also been fighting over Kashmir and rattling nuclear sabres with India for years. So clean your own house before you worry about ours.

Bill,

Half the time the blame game crowd doesn't respond either out of rudeness or having no facts and never any solutions. I hope he does.

Naeem,

"I often read about the Madrassas schools in Pakistan. Do you know anything about them and what's being taught there now?"

Rick asked you this question a while back and I didn't see a reply. I did some checking, perhaps you could shed some light on it.
here's some of what's out there.

A madrassa is an Islamic religious school. Many of the Taliban were educated in Saudi-financed madrassas in Pakistan that teach Wahhabism, a particularly austere and rigid form of Islam which is rooted in Saudi Arabia. Around the world, Saudi wealth and charities contributed to an explosive growth of madrassas during the Afghan jihad against the Soviets. During that war (1979-1989), a new kind of madrassa emerged in the Pakistan-Afghanistan region -- not so much concerned about scholarship as making war on infidels. The enemy then was the Soviet Union, today it's America. Here are analyses of the madrassas from interviews with Vali Nasr, an authority on Islamic fundamentalism, and Richard Holbrooke, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. (For more on the role of madrassas in producing militant Islamists, see the story

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/madrassas.html

Today, that same legacy of religious extremism persists in the majority of the madrassas. The government recognizes their role in numerous acts of terrorism and religiously motivated killings around the nation.2 Many are funded by extremists groups both within Pakistan and in other countries, like Saudi Arabia and Iran. This funding makes it possible for them to provide free or inexpensive room, board, and tuition to students, most of who are from the poorest families in Pakistan. This form of welfare that the madrassas provide is an attractive economic incentive in a country where the per capita income is about $500. In addition, a viable public education system that could provide an alternative does not exist; only about 2% of the GDP is spent on education (and up to 40% is spent on maintaining the military). While the government does provide some of the madrassas with grants, many refuse them because they want to maintain their independence from the government and its agenda.

http://www.globalengagement.org/issues/2002/02/pakistan.htm

Pakistan 'weak' on religious schools Pakistan's efforts at regulating religious schools or madrassas have been criticised by an international conflict prevention group as inadequate.
The non-government International Crisis Group says in a report that the military government has "acted weakly" in dealing with the madrassas.
  

Pakistan has been under pressure to crackdown on the schools which are viewed as training grounds for Islamic militants.

Last month, the Pakistani Government ordered all religious schools in the country to register within the next six months, but the report says the measures do not go far enough .

Foreign governments, especially those from the Middle East, are known to be unhappy about their nationals, usually Islamic dissidents, attending madrassas in Pakistan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/south_asia/2160856.stm

Hmm, interesting.

http://www.counterpunch.org/blum0820.html

BIOLOGICAL AGENTS FOUND BY UN INSPECTORS IN
IRAQ CAME FROM U.S. SOURCES...

Hitler invades Poland.

Bush attacks Iraq.

Same wicked thing.

TRUE PATRIOTISM MEANS KEEPING OUR VALUES SAFE

This administration has lost sight of true patriotism. President Bush's "first strike" policy is un-American. It is contrary to what we as Americans stand for. America doesn't make first attacks on other countries. Since our beginning, our war policy has been defensive, not offensive. Recent events have not altered the soundness of that policy.

A first strike does not ensure positive outcomes. We always have positive outcomes, however, when we step up to help other people when disaster or hardships strike them. Humanitarian aid, technical assistance, food and cultural exchanges lift up oppressed people where wars retard the very basic civic fiber and economic stability that democracy requires. We always win when we continue to hold to a high standard for economic and political justice and for basic human rights in the world. We stand for peace in the world, not for aggression. At least we like to think so.

As a nation we have not always lived up to our own highest aspirations, but as a people we have not abandoned these values. It is in our national interest now, as it always has been, to hold to the values that make us great. Let us be vigilant in protecting those values from any threat from any quarter, within or without. That is true patriotism.

--NANCY BRATRUD, Duluth

I am told by NOBODY, kid--bill

you are told by your media and your Gov.

You are young, dumb and full of cum---bill

Admin: I don't know whether abuses and personal attack are allowed in this forum or not!!?? and If yes then I have much bigger stock to deliver for bill, just wanna confirm!

I have a hope that someday your people will have HALF the freedoms---Bill

We are FULLY free and independant. whatever musharraf is doing have full support by the people otherwise he could have not done all these things. people of pakistan want him to stay to make sure the continuance of his economical and political reforms. the constitutional amendments he is making is the need of the country. Presidential right to dissolve PM and his/her cabnet is not a new low it was already there since 1985 he just restored it. National security councile and minor presence of army within NSC is not new in Pakistan its successfully working in Turkey.

twelve years democratic rule before Oct. 1999 failed b'coz of the flaws within constitution. it gave chance to politician to hide their curruption and push the country towards economical disaster. which is now being corrected by Mushrraf.

WE have the truest form or Democracy that exists.--Bill

:-)) Really! Thats why Bush was declared president by your judiciary after fake counting of votes.

So clean your own house before you worry about ours.--Luv2Fly

We are cleaning our house. current economical, political and constitutional reforms by Musharraf is a step forward towards it. BUT American are worried for the whole world except their own
country terrorist used american planes, american airports, american buildings, american people to hit America despite all the mights of American defense, inteligence, technology and wealth. most of the
people in this world have no concern what the hell happening in that geography isolated country called US. BUT its America who is not ready to keep itself within its skin

Many AlQueida and Taliban headed to your country, I wonder why ? Perhaps they felt they had kindered spirits---Luv2Fly

Most of the world's bigger crimnals were initially brought up by american themselves including Osama bin laden. CIA supported, funded Osama during afghan war against cumunist Russia. :-)

There are 8000 Madrassas in Pakistan and most of them give free education and boarding to poor students, lots of them teach other subjects Like Pakistan studies, Mathematics, Physics and computer sciences e.t.c as well as Quran and Hadisth. previously these madrassas were not registered with provincial ministries of education. now Gov is trying to register these madrassas so that Gov can monitor the activities of these madrassas.

Majority of these madrassas are not involved in any suspicious activity like training militancy and terrorism they just give education to the students. I have seen many madrassas in my city but I never saw any wrong activities by those students and Ulemas. offcourse they don't like American and blame US for all the miseries of muslims throughout the world (I personally don't agree with this foolish idea) But its does not mean they wanna kill american civilian or they are being trained for this.

There are some madrassas on the tribal border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan who are involved in terrorism and sectarian violence within Pakistan and may be out side pakistan Gov is asking them to be registered and give the complete audit of their funds and annual activites If they will resist they will have to face harsh action by the low enforcing agencies like closing of madrassas and arrest of administrative body.

full-size AD--bill

what is the need of this!!!. there are lots of jurnalists who don't like musharraf's policies in Afghanistan or they had sympathy with taliban keep writing column and editorial against musharraf on almost all major news paper and give their views on Pakistani news channels. and these people are not in jails they are at their home and may be preparing for another column or interview.:)

We're all adults here so you're free to respond however you wish.---THX 1138

Ok, so i m much relexed, actually i was thrown out from a similar kind of discussion when i retaliated to person :-))

Bill and other older people! I still cannot understand whats wrong if I am younger then you people!!?? are younger people are not allowed in your society to participate in any serious descussion!!!

http://jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2002-daily/28-08-2002/world/w12.htm

CRAWFORD, Texas: US President George W Bush welcomes Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar to his ranch here on Tuesday to mend ties sorely frayed by the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist strikes and splits over Iraq and the Middle East.

"The president enjoys his time with Prince Bandar. He's a very affable fellow, very good humor, speaks English better than most Americans," said Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer, who insisted "relations are strong." But strained ties appeared to be the meeting's marquee topic: A Saudi newspaper, citing unnamed officials, reported Sunday that Bandar would bring Bush a letter from Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz on the subject.

Look Like Bush has lost all his hopes regarding Iraq. previously they were claiming that US doesn't need the support of Arab countries for any aggression against Iraq :-)))

Naeem:

Help me out, here.

"BUT Pakistan has no intention to use nukes to change indian's hostile policies against Pakistan or we have no intention to use nukes to make india stop human right violations and brutality in indian occupied kashmir"

Kashmir may be disputed, but it is definately part of India, right?

So it is not, occupied, right? It was part of the British division. Pakistan just wants it.

Do you think that Kashmir should be part of the Pakistan?

I think the conflict earlier this year was probably not as tense as the rest of the world thought, but wasn't the presence of Pakistani militants in Kashmir the main dispute (and the small matter of Indian Parliament being blown up)? So that would not make India the hostile nation, at least not right now?

If I'm incorrect, let me know.

these are the coments by the people on musharraf's constitutional amendments in a major pakistani news paper

http://jang.com.pk/thenews/vf/right.htm

Kashmir may be disputed, but it is definately part of India, right?--Rick

Kashmir is not the part of India, UN security councile resolutions on 1948 and 1951 declared this region a disputed territory whose future is yet to be defined by the plebiscite in which people of kashmir will decide whether they wanna be with Pakistan or India. on the basis of this UN resolution India and pakistan gave the special status to their respective part of Kashmir and promissed for plebiscite as soon as possible. therefore india cannot claim that Kashmir is the part of india neighter on bases of UN resolution nor its own constitution.

wasn't the presence of Pakistani militants in Kashmir the main dispute---Rick

The main dispute is presence of india's 600,000 malitry who are commiting human rights violations there. The main issue is that india is not ready to implement UN resolution claiming kashmir is its part. Kashmir is not a new issue its pending at UN since last 55 years
people who are fighting indian occupation are not Pakistanis they are kashmiris whether they are from Paksiatn side or indian side.

and the small matter of Indian Parliament being blown up--rick

Two prominant indian PM were murdered due to their own internal political conflicts and the father of indian nation Gandhi was murdered by the Hindu fundamentalist. therefore they have full internal tendancy for any such kind of incident. :-)

"Two prominant indian PM were murdered due to their own internal political conflicts and the father of indian nation Gandhi was murdered by the Hindu fundamentalist. therefore they have full internal tendancy for any such kind of incident. :-) "

Have they arrested anyone for the bombing of Indian Parliament?

If they haven't arrested anyone are you saying there is no possibility Islamic militants from Pakistan were involved?

What do you think of of Indians and(or) Hindus, Naeem?

Should Kashmir be part of Pakistan?

Naeem,

people in this world have no concern what the hell happening in that geography isolated country called US. BUT its America who is not ready to keep itself within its skin

Apparently some do because they are posting on boards and discussing it including you. You and others don't seem to have any qualms about asking for help. Then it's o.k to "come out of our skin" as you say. If the checkbook is open or they need help then they are silent. hypocrites. Your country seems to be making alot of progress but you have enough of your own problems to worry about and have plenty of wrongs as well. But of course you don't see that or discuss it because it's your nation.

Many AlQueida and Taliban headed to your country, I wonder why ? Perhaps they felt they had kindered spirits---Luv2Fly

Most of the world's bigger crimnals were initially brought up by american themselves including Osama bin laden. CIA supported, funded Osama during afghan war against cumunist Russia. :-)

You should be glad that communism was defeated.
The difference is that we arrest criminals. Some countries give them haven or turn a blind eye to their actions. Ie: Saudi Arabia, Syria etc.

Look Like Bush has lost all his hopes regarding Iraq. previously they were claiming that US doesn't need the support of Arab countries for any aggression against Iraq.

THX said it well but to add to it. It seems that no matter what there is no reasoning with your ilk. The fact is we DON'T need arab approval to act we could do it alone just fine. The difference is that we do value our allies so we take thier views into consideration due to the domino effect. If we were the hegemonistic monolith that you and others like to point to then we already would have invaded and our allies opinion be dammed. The last I checked the papers we haven't invaded Iraq yet. We are talking to our allies and weghing options and other points of view. So if we acted alone we'd be criticized if we consult with our allies it's derided as well.

SEEING THROUGH DICK CHENEY

Hey, Mr. Halliburton,
the one thing certain
about your bad war is this:

Your kind will see a rise
in the price of their supplies
while our sons and daughters get Death's Kiss

GENERAL ZINNI RAPS INVASION PLAN

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration distanced itself yesterday from a White House envoy's bitter critique of U.S. policy on Iraq that questioned the experience of those advocating war.

In little-noted remarks to the Economic Club of Florida on Friday, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni listed retired generals such as Norman Schwarzkopf and Bush family adviser Brent Scowcroft as among those who were urging caution on Iraq.

"All the generals see this the same way, and all those that never fired a shot in anger are really hell-bent to go to war," Zinni said.

He did not identify the war advocates who never served in the military, but Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) has singled out Pentagon adviser Richard Perle and suggested that he be in "the first wave into Baghdad" to back up his convictions.

VIETNAM VET

Zinni, a Purple Heart veteran of Vietnam and former head of the U.S. Central Command, was appointed this year as a special envoy to mediate the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.

"It's not surprising" that Zinni would issue the broadside, said a U.S. official who spoke on grounds of anonymity.

He has been critical of U.S. policy on Iraq in the past, the official asserted. Zinni also "was not brought in as an adviser on Iraq," the official said.

'BAY OF GOATS'

The retired general said that attacking Iraq would derail the war on terrorism, jeopardize the U.S. presence in Afghanistan and terminate prospects for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement.

He also said that U.S. forces already are "stretched too tight all over the world" to focus on Iraq.

Zinni dismissed U.S. plans to back Iraqi opposition groups in overthrowing dictator Saddam Hussein.

The plan risked a "Bay of Goats" in Iraq, Zinni said in a reference to the failed Bay of Pigs mission to overthrow Cuba's Fidel Castro.

--N.Y. Daily News

Have they arrested anyone for the bombing of Indian Parliament?---Rick

No b'coz they had a plan to blame pakistan for this :-) it has become their national habbit to blame Pakistan for all their miseries!.

What do you think of of Indians and(or) Hindus, Naeem?--Rick

Nothing :-))

Should Kashmir be part of Pakistan?---Rick

Its the decision of kashmiris not mine or anyone else who is not a Kashmiri. But one can have its own view and in my view kashmir is a natural part of Pakistan.

Here's the problem with ending support. If we did, Israel would have no reason to listen to the U.S' many calls to work for peace, or restrain them.--Luv2Fly,

Israel is committing state terrorism and brutality against innocent palestinian women and children b'coz of US support, protection and encouragement not by its own b'coz they know the world super power is behind them and no one can dare to stop them.!

US is again bringing up terrorism and this time its not a group or a person like al-qaeda or OBL but a state called Israel

Hey, kids, put away your hacky sacks and skateboards and DIE for these guys:

"I have never felt such fear and revulsion of any political body as I do for the current misadministration that occupies our nation’s capital. I have watched in horror as my fellow citizens have died, been imprisoned and stripped of their constitutional rights, and been required to serve in our military forces under the leadership of a person whose own military record shows him to have been AWOL. It is acutely ironic that the shrillest voices calling for the certain deaths of many of these service men and women have never faced military service. Dick Cheney “had other priorities in the 60s than military service," John Ashcroft decided that his teaching career was more important, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Andrew Card, Karl Rove, Tommy Thompson, Trent Lott and Tom DeLay, all had other things to do during the time that our nation was fighting and dying in the jungles of Southeast Asia. I guess now that they are older, they have decided that they need to make up for their lack of courage and conviction by calling the loudest for the deaths of others..."

--Bridget Nelson

Here's why we can never win the war on terrorism:

It ISN'T terrorism that's being employed against us.

That's just a decoy.

A provocative opening for the actual tactic.

What the perpetrators of 9/11 are really using to
lethally entrap us into bogged overextension and self-defeating folly is a studied appreciation of how our myths and biases -- our insular inability to appreciate objective worldwide reality -- and our predictable bellicosity...will combine to ultimately bring us down.

They know that Americans who call the shots can't think past the
barbed wire-topped walls of their own jingoistic prejudice, and can be counted on to react in a constant, invariable way.

I.e., shoot first, and NEVER ask the right questions.

Not later, not ever.

They're playing our nationalistic excess, our smug piety, and our practiced world-bully proclivity...like a Stradivarius violin.

As if pushing buttons on a machine, they get exactly the results they envison.

Because we just don't KNOW how to respond in alternative ways.

Always bombs and troops, and global-control interventionism.

Wall Street's will before the international Main Street's need.

All of which is leading multitudes of people on this planet to become absolutely convinced that WE are the TERRORISTS and they HAVE to WIN against US.

The inalterable nature of our systemic, standard operating procedure
is being levered like a crow bar against our very soul.

It would take a response rooted in the precepts of Christ, Ghandi
or King -- not Patton and Rockefeller -- to save us.

But we don't have it in us...

many nations depend on us, not only Israel, but your country too---Bill

Israel and some arab countries like Egypt, Jordon are certainly depands on US for their peace, security and economy BUT not my country. Pakistan's peace and security depands on pakistan's own geo-political strategy and our effective and powerfull defense, pakistan is situated in a very dengerous area of the world where two powers (China and Russia) are very keen to protect their interest thats why
Pakistan has to keep balence b/w them offcourse Pakistan is much closer to china but we also have satisfactory working relations with russia. Afghanistan which has now become a chessboard for world politics is in our west as well as Iran. and the most important and our first enemy India who has now become a regional bully we also have to tackle them. thats why we cannot depands on US b'coz US has its own interests in this region sometimes it matches with pakistan and sometimes it collides also Pakistan will never sacrifice its Ideal relations with China for US. China is more trustworthy friend for us then USA.

Who gave Pakistan the ability to produce Nukes?---bill

who gave!!?? Bill its all by our scientists and engineers offcourse we have cooperation in this field with many friendly countries like China, France, Netherland and Canada but its does not mean someone gave us prepared bombs and nuclear plants :-) Pakistan made a neuclear power plant in karachi with the help of Canada and one in punjab with the help of China and third one is under construction which will be completly by our Own Scientists and Engineers that means a 100% Pakistani neuclear power plant.

Bill! I have no bad perception for American people may be i am not fully aware of you people but I also don't agree with that stupid idea of our religiously fanatic people that american are mother
of all evils! american are also human and human in general are generous and problem solving species. people like Osama and other who claim themselves as Holy warior or Jihadi are actually do not know the meaning of Jihad, killing innocnet civilians of enemies is not Jihad its just a murder and crime. these people are giving no benefit to Islam, muslims and Isalmic causes But actually they are harming the just causes of muslims around the world and people are now comparing the freedom struggles in Palestine and Kashmir with terrorism. terrorism is the issue of last 10 years But Kashmir and palestine issues were there since last 50 years. These people are giving bad name to these honest and just freedom struggles.

Thanks for inviting me to US, I beleive i will be treated well But i am reading something different stories on press in these days about the treatment of American law enforcement agencies with Pakistanis in US! they are being arrested and tortured by FBI and other agencies after 911.

In Pakistan foreigner are welcomed we are very hospitable nation But unfortunatly terrorist are targeting foreigner just to show their anger after Gov. crackdown on these groups but it doesn't mean the whole nation or common people don't like American and western we want them to come to this beautifull country and enjoy our hospitality as they use to come beofore.