Readers’ Responses to Our Question (52)

The carnage of Mumbai should be remembered in history of terrorism .The mumbaite faced this heat from the hands of terrorist.The question of finding the real hand is main concenr for all peace loving countires around the world.But due to communal mentality from both side of the goverment making the culprit to go free.Whenever there should be done that both countries worked out for mechanism and find out the hidden hand.If both cannot trust to each other,then UNO should be given to enquire into this murder like the case of Benazir Bhutto.This is very tragic case and very threatening to world peace as both the countries are nuclear owned nations.
The basic problem with both these countries is that they donot trust each other.India is saying and giving evidenc to Pakistani involvement while the Goverment denying it.In that case we cannot find out the real culprit.Then solution lies in handing the entire procedure in the hands of UNO,in which both countries trust.
so in that case nothing can be done.
In case of India's retriliation,she has very limited option.being a country of peacful orientation india will never would take responsibility to start such a war.The growing indian economic power cannot allow india to go for USA like adventure in present time.The USA economic slump will not allow to go for war with a nation which is going to collapse.Indian political establishment is not matured enough to hand such a crisis when the election is round the corner and communal parties creating communal hatred to replace the secular parties.The fear of India how to handle the caase of such with the Muslims nations in the central and middle east where indias vital energy resources are lying.India cannot go for war for such issue untill pakistan can be brought into line of guilty before the islamic world and USa.
The ongoing war in Afghanistan by USA with Pakistan against the strategic assest of pakistan itself would not allow India to go against the will of USA.The USA power in this region with pakistan is still a matter of concern for India.
As far as international law is concerned then that is nothing to worry.The history of last century and in present time there has been only one language"MIGHT IS RIGHT".If you have power you can do any thing like USA and ISreal and if you have not power then suffer like Palestine and Iraq.What international laws did of America and Israel.UNO just can pass the resolution .UNO passed more than 1360 resolution but how many implemented?It is duty of UNO to pass resolution,let passed it.So for India the time has not come .At this moment going to war will be end of long term dream of super power and far behind than china.If India would be weak than India cannot defend the case of Himachal region and Tibet.so wisdom not lies at this moment to go for war to spoil the long term gain.At this moment the time is to let International communities to to do something against pakistan.In my opinion India has to uproot to communal cadre for long term gain.Otherwise the nation will pay heavy price for their rehetoric of communalism.Nehru and Indira worked hard to controll them and push the nation on path of development,the present goverment has to uproot the communal cadre to be superpower.India as a nation cannot be a responsible and long term super power with HITLER type policies of commual forces.And in present time this force wants India should go for war.In future they will also do the same thing.so with external threar internal dearest enemy should be also uprooted.

India should be brave enough to confess the corruption of its politicians and businessmen and the Venture Capital Funds and the IT mismanagement and corruption that was also announced by Chairman of Microsoft Bill Gates ...

To cover this corruption the violence takes place..Ordinary families are being supported for these purposes and are being tagged Islamists.So which Islamist attacked Islamabad Marriot?And what Message did the Deccan Tigers hold up read out to The World! Everything has a charachter..The Regime Govts of India and Pakistan have no character except authority and this is the moment to use it ....

PAW

First of all, India is fiercely independent which is reflected by her "policy of balanced and non-aligned relations" in their foreign policy. Her closest allies - according to Wikipedia - are Russia, Israel, Iran, Nepal, Bhutan and Tajikistan, so its highly unlikely India will serve as a proxy for the US (its possible, however, given Cheney’s neoconservative philosophy, that the US has threatened to cut of exporting technical support jobs to India, so India may be forced to fight for the US).

Second, a war between India and Pakistan does not benefit the US because it diverts Pakistan’s military away from the border with Afghanistan where the US is convinced that Pakistan is fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters (OK, our leadership is not that bright).

Pakistan and India probably will fight to a standoff, anyway (as they have in the past) - and it could be a protracted conflict. If one country gains an advantage, then nuclear weapons will deter a complete military victory, however, a miscalculation could lead to a nuclear war. How does any of this benefit the US?

Third, the connection between the ISI and terrorist attacks in India is the main problem. As you know, the ISI is an official government agency. These are absolutely acts of war. The fault lies with Pakistan. When is the last time you read about a terrorist attack in Pakistan carried out by Indian trained and funded Hindu terrorist? Forget that any single Islamic terrorist attack inside of India was Pakistan sanctioned or not. It’s the perception. Pakistan’s state support of terrorist organizations is well known.

Fourth, what does Viet Nam have to do with Pakistan and India? Regional conflicts are always a threat when two countries go to war because (usually) the surrounding countries have a stake in the results politically. By the way, the Palestinian-Israel conflict started out as a regional war. When Israel declared independence, Israel was attacked by several Arab countries. However, I am open to any ideas you have relating Viet Nam to the Mumbai terrorist attacks.

Fifth, I agree that “war on terror” is a bad term, it should read “war on Islamic terror” - for obvious reasons.

World depression, permanent conflict and perpetual war. That is the current political legacy left behind by the worst creatures humanity has had to offer in recent years.

While fidgeting on their chairs, they still believe that if only they continue to curse loud enough in front of the whole world, hopefully India will soon conveniently serve as US proxy against Pakistan, in that so-called “war on terror”, an expression Zbigniew Brzezinski has rightly denounced as simply “meaningless”.

Were not the conflicts in Vietnam and Palestine turned into regional conflicts? Why not now turn the conflict in Afghanistan into a more regional one as well?

Depleted uranium did not produce enough shock and awe; let us now see the real thing glow like a thousand suns. Every man is a poet, after all...

Even more than last time, we desperately need a way out of that US generated deepening depression. The hungry military-industrial complex must be fed some more. Dead Indians and Pakistanis will do, at least for now.

Bob

From the Washington Post today:

"The United States urged the countries to cooperate in fighting terrorism."

That's precisely why Pakistan and India are at the brink of war - because Pakistan will not cooperate with India (or Afghanistan for that matter).

At any rate, as they concentrate troops at the border, just a miscalculation or mistake could lead to a border skirmish and a further escalation. Of course - as you suggest - India may have a planned retaliation as well?

Tom,

20 minutes ago Pakistan just put their military on high alert. How long do you think it will be before India retaliates for the attack on their country?

its not pakistan but india which is terrorist state where hindu fanatic terrorist have killed 58000 people in kashmir and thousand of muslims in mumbai, gujrat, dehli they have also commited mass genocide of christians who have converted from hinduism to christianity

TO ALL

LET US PUT ASIDE ALL THE UGLINESS WE NOW EXPERIENCE AND INTRODUCE - EVEN UTOPICALLY - HOPE THAT HUMANITY WILL BE WISER THE FUTURE.

Shiveh

Happy holidays to you as well.

Bob

Yea, but its further evidence that Pakistan has not committed to eradicating the Taliban and foreign fighters in their own country. I would give anything (but my head) to listen to all the high lites of the upper level meetings in Pakistan over the past 8 years.

Merry Christmas to you and your family as well.

none whatsoever.
listen to what the chief justice of india has to say on this.
just because the US has acted in violation of international laws doesn't mean that other countries follow suit (notwithstanding the fact whether they can afford to do it).

Tom,

First, Merry Christmas to you and your family.

Second, it appears India is seriously considering air strikes against selected terrorist camp targets in Pakistan. Do you find it odd India knows where they are and Pakistani officals don't?

Daho,

OK.

Tom W,

Iran before the Islamic revolution was a safe and for most parts a civilized place to live in and enjoy life. The revolution brought the worst and the ugliest among Iranian society from the bottom to the top and exposed all the fanaticism that was berried and almost forgotten for ages.

The ugliness of the early years of the revolution is much more than you can imagine; for every story that you can find, I know of 10 that are uglier and more inhumane. My only hope is that rationality is slowly finding its way back and what started in the latter part of 20th century won’t last past the early years of 21st.

According to the Islamic law an 8 yr. old boy can not be punished for any crime. This fact makes your opinion that the country is capable of punishing the kid, an uninformed comment. That is simply what I pointed out.

Happy holidays.

Interesting points, Bob. Some authors such as Robert Spencer (“Jihad Watch” and “Dhimmi Watch” on the net) make the case that Islam (itself) is a violent religion. However, if there is a call to arms by Islam, then most Muslims are not paying attention to it. Islam seems to have a larger role, in my opinion, in the development of their backward societies (like Sharia law) - discrimination, gender inequality, lack of democratic values, a poorly educated population and (economically) poor societies.

I think that their radical elements are in control today in some locations, but certainly not everywhere. The argument has always been that radical Islam is only a very small percentage of people, but a well organized small population is capable of controlling a much larger population. In China, 60 million members of the Chinese communist party control 1.5 billion people (approx. 3%), and the KKK, although relatively small in numbers, was capable of large scale intimidation. Fortunately, most modern Islamists are anything but well organized.

None the less, Islamists are running a very strong campaign of intimidation and propaganda. They kill more Muslims than infidels, and they rely on the existence of Israel, US support of Israel and Arab dictatorships, and of course, colonialism to build their case. I find it interesting that the Saudis export the same basic philosophy that is used by Islamists who are trying to overthrow them.

Anyway, bookstores are filled with books on this subject.

Shiveh

First of all, a moratorium was placed on death by stoning in 2002 by Iran. Last time I checked, that’s the 21st century - a mere six years ago. Secondly, according to the story below, at least three have been executed by stoning since 2002. Yes, you are right. Boys cannot be punished under Islamic law until they reach 15, but girls only have to be 9. Apparently two gay people were hanged in Iran in 2005. Their crime Shiveh? Simply put, some of their laws are barbaric and savage.

This story from the BBC, July 20, 2008:

“At least eight women and one man are reported to have been sentenced to death by stoning in Iran. The group, convicted of adultery and sex offences, could be executed at any time, lawyers defending them say…The last officially reported stoning in Iran last year drew strong criticism from human rights groups and the European Union…Under Iran's Islamic law, stoning to death is the punishment for the crime of adultery. In 2002 Iranian judiciary chief Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi imposed a moratorium on stoning, but at least three people are reported to have been executed by stoning since then…”

And from Amnesty International, July 7, 2007:

Amnesty International has issued an 'urgent action' appeal on behalf of a woman in Iran who is facing imminent death by stoning for adultery. This comes days after a man, described as the woman's partner, was reportedly stoned to death last week…Mokarrameh Ebrahimi and Ja'far Kiani were convicted under article 83 of Iran's penal code, which prescribes execution by stoning as punishment for adultery committed by a married man or a married woman. In this case the judge's "knowledge" that the adultery had taken place was deemed to be proof of the offence…recently reported that Ja'far Kiani has already been stoned to death in Aghche-kand on 5 July, with local government and judiciary officials and members of the public taking part in the killing. On 8 July the newspaper E'temad-e Melli also reported that local people and a source close to a local parliamentary representative had confirmed the execution…Amnesty International UK Director Kate Allen said: 'To execute anyone by stoning is barbaric and disgraceful; to execute a woman for adultery in this cruel way simply beggars belief.”…Execution by stoning is particularly cruel, being specifically designed to increase the victim's suffering since the stones are deliberately chosen to be large enough to cause pain, but not so large as to kill the victim immediately.”

(Zohreh Arshadi, date unknown, “Islamic Republic of Iran and Penal Codes”):

“Article 49 exempts children from punishment. Addendum 1 to this article defines a child as someone before puberty. But in the civil law puberty for boys is 15 and for  girls 9 lunar years (article 1210, addendum 1). So girls come of age for punishments six years before boys…One can imagine a situation where a boy of 14 and a girl of 9 steal. According to the law she would lose four fingers of her right hand for first offence (article 201), her left foot for the second offence, prison for third and execution for the fourth! He would go scott free…”

To Shiveh
Exchanging arguments by people who may have different views and opinions is always constructive and positive, as long as the the views and opinions submitted are honest and sincere. Mistakes can be made, but they should be admitted when proved wrong.
Humanity has not been able to improve its behaviour across millenaries and religions have failed in their message of 'love your neighbour'.
Before the monotheistic religions, each region or tribe had its personal 'G.d', and everyone seemed to respect the 'G.d' of the other. At that time, there were wars, but never because of religion. The wars were for gaining territories, slaves and/or riches, and often the victors adopted the 'G.d' of the vanquished.
Jewish monotheism introduced a TRUTH. So when Christianity declared they had the real TRUTH, it could not accept another truth, and tried to eradicate the first truth. Finally, when Islam came with the declared ultimaate TRUTH they could not accept the two other truths. That created the antagonisms which are living with to this day. Whilst everyone could believe in the religion of his choice, the basic human approach, which may solve all problems, would be THE RESPECT OF THE OTHER. Education should be based on the respect of the other, rather than explain that we have different color of skins, origins and creeds. As soon as a child, at home or at school, is told about a difference, he becomes diffident or afraid of the other who is not like him.
World societies have slowly been drawn to selfish material interests and did not heed the extremely rapid evolution. In about 40000 years Homo Sapiens Sapiens developed to about one and half billion people in January 1st 1900. In just one hundred years, in January 1st 2000, the demographic increase was exponential, and the world population was about six and half billion - now about more than 7 billion. Normally, increases of population should be accompanied by adequate measures to allow a smooth development. Selfish interests ignored this important problem, and we are now faced with the consequences. In the last 50 years, progress has been so rapid that the world has directed all its interests to economic success. The last 20 years we had an artificial prosperity based on increasing wealth out of artificial elements. Money was made out money without creating concrete elements. We are now all suffering of the consequences.
It is important to wake up, as we are have advance too far on the wrong track and it requires immense effort to try to correct the situation. Therefore, only the respect of the other and solidarity may be the solution.

Daho,

I saw these pictures a year ago. I suspected that the incident is what you were referring to and wanted to clear the record. Sorry for the problem I caused you! In addition to what Citizen mentioned, I also read that the show was stopped and the man was arrested.

Although most people in the west (myself included) think that Iran is trying to learn how the bomb is made and may build a few, it should be noted that they are denying it and so far they have acted within their rights regarding their UN obligations.

Yes, there has been enormous waste of money and lives in Iran by a government that ranks high among worst dictatorships on this planet. But it does not mean that every decision they make is a wrong one. Ordinary Iranians are the first victims of this theocracy and they are the ones that should change it.

I’m confident that Iranians are not planning to attack Israel because I think I know their psychology. They have their eyes on the golden days of the Persian Empire. They do not want to see their country devastated by Israeli and American atomic bombs; they want to survive and rule the Middle East! Have you noticed that not even a single Iranian suicide bomber has existed in this conflict? No. they are not foolish enough to attack. They are just either ignorant of, or do not care about, the fact that Israel needs these conflicts to survive as an apartheid democracy! (But that is a different story!!)

I agree with you that “prejudice and fanaticism are indicative of ignorance.” To stay fair-minded can be a good remedy!

Tom W

As you mentioned, there have been incidents of stoning in Iran. If you investigate them, you’ll know that they were ordered by ignorant local mullahs before the practice was stopped by Iran’s judiciary. I expect you to know what you write about because you usually do. In this case, there were incidents of stoning in Iran because it is part of Islamic law (It originated in Jewish law and was adopted by Mohammed.) Knowing that these Moslem clerics practice Islamic law (religiously!!), before you find them capable of punishing an 8 yr. old kid, you should know what is the age that boys become responsible for what they do in Islamic law? Well it is not eight, it’s almost double that!!

In a broader note Tom, savagery is not limited to certain locations or people. In different shades and colors, it is found everywhere. It’s just easier to notice when it is done locally to an individual than it is, when it falls discriminately from the sky or by pushing a single button.

I can’t find anybody suited to throw “the first stone”!!

TomW,

I'm not convinced a case that Muslim cultures are violent by nature can't be made. On one hand we have restrictive societies who seem to control just about everything but their radical elements. It makes one wonder who is actually pulling the strings. We know Pakistan was willing to take 10's of billions of our dollars supposedly to help against radical elements within their borders only to use one excuse after another why little to no head way has ever been made. In Afghanistan we know the previous government not only condoned BinLaden, but aided his cause. We're also aware the Saudi's have provided funding through several means to support radical elements throughout the ME.

No, I think one could make a strong case Mumbai was an act of state sponsored or condoned terrorism.

Citizen of the Post - Ottoman world

Your comments were appreciated.
The world is indeed managed by a lot of prejudice, economic and political interests, and äll sorts of opinions, correct or not will always exist, and are helped by the technology which, as Thomas Friedman said, the world is flat.
Unfortunately, the wrong opinions predominate repeatedly, following what Goebbels used to say 'The more you repeat a lie, it becomes a 'truth'.

Citizen of the Post American World

Lighten up a little. I'm sure if Daho's mistake had been from the left side of the political spectrum, you probably wouldn't have said anything. Also, I would like to add one to your list of spreading false information (and I am sure there are plenty more):

Al-Durra

Although French 2 television stands by their story, all evidence points to a possible hoax. The Al-Durra incident inflamed Palestinian - Israeli tensions and contributed significantly to the 2000 Palestinian Intifada.

The left is certainly as capable as the right when it comes to lying.

Also, any country capable of the barbaric practice of stoning a woman to death (or executing homosexuals) surely is capable of running over the arm of an 8 year old for theft, in my opinion.

Citizen of the Post Ottoman World

Daho, assuming that your latest is the only comment you can come up with after misleading quality people on a respectable blog such as PostGlobal (Ignatius, Zakaria and their panelists deserve, after all, better than the lies you so flippantly posted), I will then dot my i's and cross my t's.

You have simply lost all your credibility today, Daho. In fact, you deserve neither that people read what you post here, nor that they waste their time having any conversation with you.

The kind of despicable exercise you have indulged in is in the same category as those exercises that led to deceiving the world by spreading false information in the following cases:

1. the Gulf of Tonkin incident (Vietnam) that never existed and at the time served as the so-called "justification" for the failed US military adventure in Vietnam;

2. the Rajmonda story, from Kosovo, by Canadian journalist Nancy Durham, an imposture that has served ever since as a case study in basic journalism at some Canadian universities;

3. the Kuwaiti Incubator Baby Hoax, invented by an American PR firm that would have some of us believe, at the time, that Iraqi soldiers had thrown babies out of the incubators, thus dooming them to death.

4. the May 19, 2006 National Post of Canada's Iran Yellow Star Hoax: pieces by Amir Taheri and Chris Wattie then falsely claimed that the Iranian parliament had passed a sumptuary law mandating a national dress code whereby Jews would be required to wear "special yellow insignia".

I could go on but will leave it to that: I am confident you must understand by now the gist of what I am writing here.

To sum up, Daho, what you posted here and your subsequent comment are an insult to the intelligence of all readers of the Washington Post.

Please don't bother: at this stage, I don't expect you even have what it takes to apologize.

To Citizen of the Post - American World

You are right, I did not read the comments. However the number of sharia law executions or punishments in Iran which were officially announced speak for themselves.

To DAHO, attention SHIVEH

1. "Shari'a Punishment" Photos Misattributed

Wed, Nov 2, 2005 at 8:36:57 am PST

8-Year-Old Iranian Child Caught Stealing Bread
Part 3: Analysis

Comments: The preceding images are apparently authentic -- they were published as such in 2005 on the Iranian news Web site Peyke Iran, at any rate -- but THE ACCOMPANYING CAPTION DOESN'T JIBE WITH THE ORIGINAL REPORT AND WAS CLEARLY FABRICATED AFTER THE FACT. (my emphasis)

According to a Peyke Iran spokesperson who corrected the record last November in a note posted on Little Green Footballs, the young boy whose arm was run over was not being punished for a crime. He was part of a "Maareke giry" or street magic act and allegedly performed the stunt for money (note the gentleman speaking into a microphone in image #1). THE SEVENTH AND EIGHTH PICTURES IN THE SERIES, WHICH APPEAR TO SHOW THE CHILD SHAKEN BUT OTHERWISE UNHARMED AFTER THE ORDEAL, WERE OMITTED from the email flier but can still be viewed on Peykeiran.com (where all the images are attributed to photographer Siamak Yari).(my emphasis)*

2. "Shari'a Punishment" Photos Misattributed

Wed, Nov 2, 2005 at 8:36:57 am PST

LGF reader Baikal emailed about these upsetting pictures posted by Bareknucklepolitics.com with the title: 8 Year Old Iranian Boy Caught Stealing Bread. THOSE READERS WHO WERE SKEPTICAL OF THE TITLE, IT TURNS OUT, WERE CORRECT (my emphasis); Baikal contacted the publisher, Peykeiran, and after a confusing exchange received the following reply:

Hi!
It seems you have not read the text that came with the pictures.
In irna
there some who earn their bread by Maareke giry. In our case one
of these
maarke gir _ha had hired a kid to do those unhuman show.
You read the text that came with photos.
bye

*

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_caught_stealing_bread3.htm

**

http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/%3Fentry=18085%5FSharia%5FPunishment%5FPhotos%5FMisattributed

I'm not impressed. Beyond that, I would rather not comment. After all, you yourself wrote it:

"Prejudice and fanaticism are indicative of ignorance".

SHIVEH
If you click on the site below, you will find all the information and pictures on this brutal event :
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_caught_stealing_bread.htm
Everybody agrees that Iran is entitled to have its atomic power plant, as long as they respect the UN Atomic agency requirement that it cannot try to produce an atomic bomb. Iran had signed the UN Atomic agency to this effect, but never respected its obligation in allowing the visit of the sites by the agency.

I may agree that Iran should not attack Israel, but the verbal attacks by M. Ahmedinejad are dangerous enough to let anyone think that he may act foolishly.

The people of Iran's economic situation is so bad, that there are priorities to take in consideration before spending billions of dollars.

Prejudice and fanaticism are indicative of ignorance.

DAHO,

Where did you get your info regarding the 8 yr. old kid in Iran? Is there a credible reference you can point to? In any language?

Iran does not produce enough electrical power for the population. There are frequent black-outs that hurt the economy. Building the Boshehr nuclear power plant that started during the Shah’s rein can remedy this shortcoming. Why is this not a legitimate addition to Iranian infrastructure?

Three of the Iranian neighbors (in the broader sense), U.S., Israel and Pakistan are nuclear countries. 2 of these countries have prepared plans for an attack on Iran. Why should a patriotic Iranian stop looking for a powerful deterrent?

Iran has used the Arab-Israeli conflict to get closer to Arab streets and also to deter a U.S. invasion, unwisely in my view, but there is no benefit for Iran to actually attack Israel. Do you really think that Iran might one day attack Israel knowing they and Americans can retaliate with numerous atomic bombs? Have they ever shown any tendency for such foolishness?

It is not easy to write without any prejudicism. But it shouldn't stop anybody from trying!

ALL I HAVE READ APPEARS VERY STERILE&ROBOTIC WITH NO COMPASSION FOR HUMANITY AT ALL.THIS ARGUMENT OF BLAME & CONSEQUENCES BELIES THE FUNDEMENTAL QUESTION OF 1]INNOCENT LIVES KILLED BY GUNMEN IS IT RIGHT OR WRONG,2]OBVIOUS CHOICE OF ANY LIVING EDUCATED SANE PERSON BEING WRONG,THEY WHY THESE PERPETRATORS ARE ALLOWED TO DO THIS? 3]ROLE OF COUNTRIES WHO ALLOW THIS TO BE HATCHED ON THEIR SOIL SHOULD BE--WHAT?4]ARE RELIGIOUS PLAYERS RIGHT TO PREACH KILLING INNOCENT LIVES?
WHY ALL THE VINDICTIVE ANGRY OUTBURST AMONG EDUCATED CIVIL HUMANS INSPITE OF EXPRESSIONS IN CYBERSPACE?

One must realize that we live in world where injustices, material greed and religious fanaticism rule the world. To ask a question about India, following the Mumbai massacre by Muslim fanatics, may apply to too many countries who have no respect for human rights and still are accepted as members of the United Nations. It would be too long to talk of all the countries which deserve to be punished, but I will choose two : Iran and Zimbabwe.
Iran : Although the Shah was crticized for the his secret police brutalities, the country lived closer to the 20th century than most moslem countries. When the Shah was ousted and the world hailed the arrival of Ayatollah Khomeini, no one dared to think that his rule would prove much worse and deadly, not speaking about helping moslem terrorists. Lately, an 8 years old boy was arrested for stealing some bread because he was hungry. The authorities cut his arm by having a car run over it.
Instead of improving the country's population, the governement decided to build an atomic plant, suspected to be able to create an atomic bomb, thus spending billions of dollars which sould have better spent for the improvement of the country in all sectors.
Although their prime minister, Ahmedinajad, declared publicly that another UN member should be wiped off the map, against the UN charter. yet nothing was done to correct such impudence.
Zimbabwe : a country which was wealthy, self-sufficient agriculturally and possessing lots of raw materials to export, was ruled by its sadistic and brutal ruler, Mugabe. The country is now one of poorest in the world, inflation is out of control, infrastructures completely destroyed and famine and disease killing the population. Some protests were made but no concrete measures taken to correct this untenable situation. Democracy has been trampled by Mugabe when he refused to admit his lost election. Today he can declare that he 'OWNS ZIMBABWE'.
The world^s responsible countries need to put aside material interests and find unanimous decisions to correct all the world's infamous situations.
Until, a consensus is found, the world will ask questions, receive lots of answers but no solutions.

Hey Bob

Radical Islam, Bob. Radical Islam.

Here is what I said:

"The Taliban (while in power in Afghanistan) practiced one of the most restrictive interpretations of Islam."

Doesn't really say anything about Islam, in general, however. Note that the Saudis also practice one of the most restrictive interpretations of Islam (Wahabism).

Remember that Pakistan elected Benazir Bhutto to lead their country - twice. Ms. Bhutto is a Muslim. Islam, like all religions, has a variety of interpretations. Do I have to post a qualifier every time I criticize Islam (of course, that might have saved Van Gogh)?

However, cultural relativism does not make stoning to death adulterous women right. On the contrary, democratic countries need to pressure the Saudis to end enforcement of some of their brutal Islamic laws. OK, maybe after their oil runs dry.

International law? What in the world does international law have to do with India/Pakistan?

India has a population of around 1.2 billion with 80% of their citizens being Hindu. Pakistan has about 175 million people with 95% of them being Muslim. The Hindu's don't care much for the Muslims (look at Kashmir) and we all know a large faction of Muslims hate Hindu's. Interestingly about 14% of India's population is also Muslim. This gives the Hindu's about a 3 to 1 advantage over the Muslims between the 2 countries.

In the US we've witnessed Pakistan's woeful attempts at intervening in extremist elements within their society. India has also witnessed this. India can not and should not feel like the government of Pakistan will do anything to thwart future attacks against India. In fact the government of India should plan on Pakistan's government supporting continued attacks against them.

What India should do about this situation is the tough part of this question. India's options are limited. They can beef up security. They can plan limited strategic reprisals for attacks. Although, this option could escalate into a war. Finally, they could just go to war again with Pakistan. These are all no win choices with ugly consequences. However, beefing up security and attempting to limit the damage while at the same time rebuking the Pakistan government is probably their only viable option. The thought of 2 nuclear powers fighting an all out war isn't something I would like to watch.

TomW: Unless you are making the case Islam as a religion and Islamic Law leads to etremist Muslim groups you need to lighten up on their religion and teachings. We are all aware traditional Muslims view women much differently then Western Societies do. We are also aware forms of punishment are different. They also stone people to death in Saudi Arabi and still cut off hands. However, if you are attempting to make the case Islam by nature is violent and unjust then you need to follow this premise to a conclusion.

MIBROOKS27, your passion for representing the Pakistani point of view is appreciated.

Pakistan has many positives (and its smart and courageous people are only a part of it).

However, as well-meaning as you might be, the truth may be more difficult, complete and even different from what you have said.

For example, terrorism is much more varied than the so-called pro-Kashmiri, anti-Indian kind that you describe.

Consider the article "Pakistan’s New Generation of Terrorists" on the Council on Foreign Relations web site at http://www.cfr.org/publication/15422/ for more details.

Pakistan-based terror groups are many and varied and typically fall into one of at least 5 categories (yes, because there are that many). Here's an excerpt from the article:

" * Sectarian: Groups such as the Sunni Sipah-e-Sahaba and the Shia Tehrik-e-Jafria, which are engaged in violence within Pakistan;

" * Anti-Indian: Terrorist groups that operate with the alleged support of the Pakistani military and the intelligence agency Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM), and the Harakat ul-Mujahedeen (HuM). This Backgrounder profiles these organizations which have been active in Kashmir;

" * Afghan Taliban: The original Taliban movement and especially its Kandahari leadership centered around Mullah Mohammad Omar, believed to be now living in Quetta;

" * Al-Qaeda and its affiliates: The organization led by Osama bin Laden and other non-South Asian terrorists believed to be ensconced in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). Rohan Gunaratna of the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research in Singapore says other foreign militant groups such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Islamic Jihad group, the Libyan Islamic Fighters Group and the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement are also located in FATA;

" * The Pakistani 'Taliban': Groups consisting of extremist outfits in the FATA, led by individuals such as Baitullah Mehsud, the chieftain of the Mehsud tribe in South Waziristan, Maulana Faqir Muhammad and Maulana Qazi Fazlullah of the Tehrik-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (TSNM), and Mangal Bagh Afridi of the Lashkar-e-Islami in the Khyber Agency. "

With regard to India, I sense an immense amount of hatred or ill-will. I could be wrong, but it appears that you might (presently, at least) have no desire to learn about the real India (which, I believe and other people more familiar with India know, is far different from everything you have said so far).

Perhaps you might find it in your heart to try and make some genuine Indian friends (hopefully "Indians" -- Sikh, Hindu, Christian, Jain, Buddhist, etc -- who have not grown up here so as to get a better perspective)? Or maybe consider a legitimate non-Pakistani or non-Muslim source, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica?

Let us seek truth -- even if it doesn't always "jive" with our perceptions.

Mike

Thanks for the insights into the Pashtun people and their motivation for revenge in Kashmir.

The Taliban (while in power in Afghanistan) practiced one of the most restrictive interpretations of Islam. From an old article with an unknown author:

“In 1996 they imposed a form of Islamic holy law, or Shari’a, in controlled areas. Under Shari’a all citizens are entitled to five rights: life, intellect, family, property and religion. The Taliban took these rights mainly from women by making it so that women could not be educated over the age of eight, could not work at all, could not reveal more than their eyes and palms and could not leave the house without a male relative. Other restrictions upon the general population were the banning of television, photography, movies, kite-flying and chess. Punishments of breaking these laws are harsh, for example, the public amputation of the hand if you steal, stoning to death if you commit adultery or imprisonment if your beard was not the required length.”

The Taliban probably came very close to the type of society that Bin Laden envisions under the Caliphate

The Taliban imposed a “one size fits all” form of Islam in a very diverse Islamic culture with strong tribal ties and customs. They roused a strong following during their early years, but lost much of their support by the time the US invaded.

TOMW2 - You will need to pardon my (sometimes) one sided view of Pakistan and it's people. My family lived in Sweden for a long while and we had many friends (still do!) from Pakistan who influenced us with their view. All we seem to get here, is the Indian view, and that is so one sided and bigoted against Pakistan that it makes me sick. That ignorance is, I think, purposefully perpetuated by Indian partisans and I would like to take a few minutes to clear some of the misunderstanding up. I'd bet, if he would chime in here, that Mr. Zakari could contribute even more.

The Taliban are a mixed bunch. The "Northern Tribal Area" of Pakistan is the homeland of the Pashto people. This is the same group that lives in Kashmir and most of western Afghanistan. Whole families have been separated by the Indian occupation of Kashmir. It was Pashtun *relatives* who attacked the Indian occupation troops in 1947 and it has been them ever since then, NOT the government of Pakistan nor most other Pakistani people. The "Pakistani based terrorists" you read about in U.S. newspapers are almost always Pashtun *relatives* bent on revenge for something that happened to their **relatives** in Kashmir. They may or may not be Taliban. While it is true that virtually all Taliban are Pashto, not all Pashun are Taliban. The family ties determine that and those same family ties are more important than ANYTHING – government, politics, even religion.

I keep emphasizing the family ties here because they are the key; it is more important than government, even more important than religion - and that is usually Wahabi Islam, a conservative branch of Islam, or an offshoot of it. Now, Wahabism isn’t composed of fanatics or hate filled monsters. They aren’t much different than our own Evangelical Christian’s. Most are decent people who love God, care for the poor, are very moral, and are zealous missionaries. And, just like our own Evangelical movement, there are a few nut cases that shoot up abortion clinics, beat up homosexuals, and would gladly bomb the World Trade Center if they saw it as the headquarters for Satan, Inc. The Wahabism does explain the Saudi influence, however, and if you miss that connection, you will miss why they gave Osama Bin Laudin a safe haven, why their madrassas can be (sometimes) radical. It also is key to a fundamental difference between the Taliban, the Pashtun, and virtually even other tribal group in the area --- it isn’t a closed system; they are forever looking for converts. Make friends with these people and the first thing you will get is a very nicely done American English tract explaining Wahabism. That’s Sweden, too! They have those in virtually every language, in every cultural context, they are even remotely likely to encounter.

While on the topic of madrassas, again, here is an incredible amount of misunderstanding. All these are private schools, run by churches. The vast majority are just that, plain schools no different than Saint Agatius Elementary School is your own town. Using the Evangelical comparison, again, they will usually teach that evolution is nonsense, teach the core religious beliefs of their brand of Islam, teach morality, too, but most of the curriculum is good old fashioned reading, writing, and mathematics; and they do a darn good job of teaching those subjects, usually far better than the public school counterpart.

Okay, to tie this in with India, you need to understand that India is every bit as tribal as Pakistan. Moreover, they have their own religious schools – Hindu madrassas, if you will. Likewise, tribal ties (and each little tribal area has it’s own version of Hinduism) that takes precedence over government or any other ties. The main difference between the Indian and Pashtun tribes that has struck me over the years is that the Indian tribes are closed off, have a blood relative requirement that is fundamental too and an outgrowth of Hinduism, have a fundamental belief in their superiority, whereas the Pashtun groups are looking for converts, are open. It is the fundamental bigotry, of being closed off, that makes India and it’s tribes far more dangerous than the Pashtun (or any other Pakistani tribal group). If we spent a bit of time understanding them, Pakistan, he entire entire Islamic world, would be both friends and loyal allies of the U.S. India, on the other hand, is so alien, so smugly self centered, that I don’t see us every having anything in common and I think our policies towards India are dangerous and delusional.

Mike

No doubt that Indians have committed some atrocities - and not all in Kashmir, and some against Christians as well as Muslims. Human rights organizations are not thrilled by some of their policies in Kashmir, but the potential for the greater good in India far outweighs the negatives.

Maybe some time in the future, the people of Kashmir will be granted the right to self determination by India, but for now, there is absolutely nothing to negotiate with Pakistan. The fist step toward peace must be a commitment by Pakistan to end their proxy war against India (you‘ll know that has happened when Pakistan warns India of an impending terrorist attack).

After the first step, Pakistan simply needs to exterminate the radicals - the Taliban and foreign fighters that occupy the northern part of Pakistan (and I mean go to war, not negotiate a settlement).

Thirdly, Pakistan needs to confront the madrassas, the breeding ground for hate and the brainwashing of Pakistani children that begins at a very early age. The Red Mosque is but one example.

I doubt that Zardari has the power to pull this off, so expect the confrontations to continue between India and Pakistan - always with the possibility of war.

Worldwatch1

You have put together some interesting posts. Some comments on India.

India is culturally one of the most diverse countries bringing together an estimated 1600 dialects under one flag. India is also the largest liberal democracy on the planet (albeit with some problems). As you know, it was formed in the mid twentieth century and has been a democracy since it's formation.

It's one thing to be a democratic society when you have a relatively homogeneous population such as Japan, but when you form a democratic society with such a diverse population, that is truly amazing. For comparison, look at China (and Tibet), or tribal Afghanistan, the military dictatorship of Pakistan (Zardari works for the military, in my opinion), or for that matter, the entire Middle East. India is surrounded by totalitarian regimes yet remains democratic. I guarantee you that Indians take great pride in their democracy because in that part of the world, they are a rarity.

From the Times of India (Editorial regarding the terrorist attack in Hyderabad, India - maybe a year ago):

"...It is time to stand up to extremism of all shades. It is not enough for the government, after every act of terror, to proclaim that national security is of prime importance. It must be seen to do what it takes to secure life and liberty for citizens of this great democratic republic. It may be hard to predict terrorist strikes, but the administration — in the states as well as at the Centre — must be seen to be resolute in a fight to vanquish those who repeatedly attack the foundations of our society. Dealing with terror requires collective effort and apportioning blame can be self-destructive. While it is important to hold a government to question, it is crucial for citizens to recognise that civil society as a whole, and not just specific sections of the people, is a prime target of extremist violence. It is, therefore, imperative that we unequivocally speak up in defence of liberal values, irrespective of our political inclinations, and openly oppose every ideology that seeks to reclaim an imaginary utopia or wants revenge for fanciful past wrongs. Dissent has place as well as several legitimate forums for expression in any civilised society. Violence does not."

Globalization has lifted millions of Indians out of poverty. Most people see India rising toward the status of a world superpower in the not to distant future. More importantly, they set an example for people (especially in their region) that a democracy is possible even with a very diverse population.

To citizen of the post American world from Daniel:

I voted for Obama. I do not watch fox news. I believe left wing ideas have triumphed worlwide, but to the detriment of left wing ideas paradoxically because the left wing ideas will lead to only chaos and there will be a right wing backlash and not only will nations become more right wing, the worldwide institutions of the future will be more authoritarian than now and be forced to deal with the well meaning chaos of left wing ideas and hopes.

I concede that I am a nostalgic and gloomy man, but this is because (one reason anyway) I am haunted by memories of girls I liked in high school but never took up with...

As for India in its dealings with Pakistan, I doubt India can influence Pakistan. I think the only possible course of action India can take is the one suggested by a poster here on postglobal who said India needs to beef up its internal security.

And yes mister post american, I believe your postname is suggestive of nonsense. At best it is premature. How can you say you are postamerican when america is still the greatest superpower and worldwide institutions such as the U.N. are largely ineffective? You dream my friend, but I hope your dreams come true. Just because I am pessimistic does not mean I do not dream or hope the optimistic are wrong. I in fact hope I am wrong.

To Tom Wonacott. Thanks for feedback to my rambling, largely intuitive outburst...I might be getting a little nervous about the U.S.'s economical situation. I do hope Obama can help with the economy, and of course I hope his left wing dreams for the world are more true than not. But...Well, I guess we all will find out what happens. I just like to take chances with writing and predict the future. Must be all my science fiction reading...

Thanks again,

Dan

Whether getting India (or Pakistan or China) out of Kashmir is part of the discussion or not, terrorism should not be an acceptable tool to achieve this political end.

If India needs to get out of Kashmir, then we need to have honest, practical discussions about about Pakistan getting out of Kashmir (yes, they've also occupied a part of Kashmir) and -- furthermore -- discussions about China getting out of Kashmir too (it may be a surprise to some but China has occupied part of Kashmir too).

India has its problems, including ethnic and religious violence, but the freedoms enjoyed by minority religions and its practitioners, including a vibrant and strong Christan and Muslim population (notwithstanding fringe, radical Hindu elements) far, far outstrips anything that Pakistan or many other Asian countries, including China, offers to its minorities.

On a related note, I don't believe there is a single bit of legal foundation for human sacrifice (as a recent poster noted); however, if you find any evidence of something like this, I'm sure that many U.S. media, American (and Indian!) politicians would love to see some evidence of this so that something is done about. Do you think the Indian media wouldn't love to get fame and glory for exposing a "human sacrifice" ring or cult within India?

Furthermore, India's getting out of Kashmir would lend further power to the several other separatist movements within India. I would be curious to see how forcibly destabilizing India, one of the few successful, stable democracies in all of Asia, along with Japan and Israel, would be helpful to the U.S. interests (or democratic interests). Would it serve Fundamentalist Islamist interests? Maybe. China's interests? Maybe. Pakistan's interests? Maybe. But not American interests, not democratic interests.

American and Indian (and Pakistani) interests will be best served by a sincere friendship between India and Pakistan -- something I hope will eventually happen. But Pakistan, I'm sure, understands that terror camps based on its own soil need to be destroyed too.

As another poster here (YOUSUFHASHMI1) said: Pakistan "should also investigate the problem prior getting any information from India. The simple logic is that if there is a fire then we should extinguish before it start(s) burning our own home."

India needs to get out of Kashmir. The horror visited upon the Muslim (an Christian) minorities by Indian mobs an soldiers are what brought all of this down upon India and the world. Earlier this year, in reaction to rapes and killings by Hindu mobs, Muslim leaders held protest marches, peaceful protest marches! They Indian government responsible was to send in troops that shot the leaders of those marches dead an indiscriminately machine gunned hundreds of people dead. The presence of India in Kashmir is an illegal *occupation*. That occupation has fostered most of the radical Islamic movements that haunt the rest of the world today. Those movements will end when India is forced to join the community of civilized nations.

As for the nut jobs Indian's here calling for the bombing of Pakistan, if India attacks Pakistan, especially in light of the wrong done to those people by India, I can only stand back and comment about how typical this is of a corrupt culture that still has legal religions that practice human sacrifice. India needs to either be forced to join the community of civilized nations or it needs to be exterminated.

Hi, Daniel, this is Nonsense here.

Could it be that the latest US presidential election has left you nostalgic and a gloomy man?

“The left wingers have triumphed …. for the left wing has won… we just drift with events… All the nations are drifting… Countries just drift… All nations are dissolving before our eyes… dissolution into a left wing mob taking shape over the world”. And “as nations become more left wing within and with respect to other nations the gifted will have to hide”?

Cheer up, Daniel! The field of geopolitics extends far beyond the US horizon revealed by the CNN-Fox News fraternity.

Believe me, the Empire is still very much alive and kicking, Daniel, and the right is winning! Just look at “the larger picture please, the larger picture”. Read Swiss sociologist Jean Ziegler’s recent: « Les nouveaux maîtres du monde et ceux qui leur résistent », « L’empire de la honte » and his latest « La haine de l’Occident » *. University of Geneva’s Professor Ziegler was United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food from 2000 to April 2008. On can read also much of what professor Ziegler has to say, in English, on the Web.

Ziegler is a no nonsense, jolly good fellow. You’ll see: the right is still winning big. Furthermore, as you say, “considering the effect president Obama will have, I believe his effect will be exactly nothing.”

Now it being so, Daniel, need it be that “there is nothing India can do short of having a war with Pakistan”?

Yours, Nonsense.

* "The New Masters of the World and those who resist them", "The Empire of Shame" and "Hatred of the West".

Daniel

Big picture, indeed.

"My belief is that the world will become a multicultural riot, that there will many ethnic, religious and nationalistic conflicts, that resources will be fought for, that the world will become more polluted, and that we will have weapons of mass destruction events."

Viewing the world today, the future everyone would like to avoid is the one most likely to become reality, in my opinion.

I think you are skeptical of the human race to find solutions to the problems we face - whether we adopt left-wing or right-wing policies. Anyway, very interesting post.

If India discovers!

How discovers? naturally by the intelligence resources.

this is the problem. the nations today are becoming the hostage of the agenda of intelligence agencies and terrorists.

Apparently it looks absurd to compare good people and the bad people. But this is a complex situation.

As long as we will keep on differentiating between a good terrorist and a bad terrorist then we will not be able to find the solution.

for example Jamat Al Dawa which is the prime suspect of Bombay crisis not long ago was working hand to hand with western NGOs and even NATO forces. Although its past record is known to every body.

But then every body thought that even what ever is said about this organization is correct, then its project is for eastern side so we should not have any fear.

What India should do is to enhance its internal security. Keep vigilance on its entrance and exit points, investigate the problem and if it is convinced that some foreign elements are suspected then it should share its knowledge either bilaterally or in international forums.

If we accept the doctrine of preemptive strikes then any nation can have a bad dream at any time and fire a missile at any destination.

then no need for U N O

we will be going back to the ages of Genghis Khan.

For Pakistan it should also investigate the problem prior getting any information from India. the simple logic is that if there is a fire then we should extinguish before it start burning our own home.

I have no idea what India should do. I can only offer my perspective on the world. Take America. I firmly believe at this point that there is no American foreign policy. Right wing unilateral ideas cannot be implemented and all the left wing has to offer is the belief that it is a good thing all nations are achieving parity, that multiculturalism is the way of the future.

We shall see if the left wing is right. The left wingers have triumphed and now we shall see the result of their ideas. My belief is that the world will become a multicultural riot, that there will many ethnic, religious and nationalistic conflicts, that resources will be fought for, that the world will become more polluted, and that we will have weapons of mass destruction events.

We shall see if the left wing ideas of nurture over nature make any sense. We shall see if education can make a difference. We shall see if rising powers can be integrated into a new world order. My belief is that nations have no control over affairs, that we just drift with events.

The only hope I can see is if the U.S., Russia, the European union, China and Japan work together to face and overcome the many problems. But I doubt these nations will get together before problems explode. And if you want some words about India in relationship with Pakistan, there is nothing India can do short of having a war with Pakistan. All the nations are drifting, unable to be right wing with respect to nations and just hoping a left wing stance will overcome problems. In fact left wingers everywhere are cocksure they are right. We hear such nonsense as "citizen of the post American world".

There are no viable overriding mechanisms which can stave off conflicts as nations achieve parity. The U.N., NATO--all useless. The Spanish writer Ortega y Gasset was a hundred years too early when he spoke of the revolt of the masses. We are headed for true mob events only now. Canettis' "crowds and power" too should be contemplated. What a century this will be. A make or break century for the human race.

My belief as conflicts explode and the U.S., Russia, China, etc. get together to confront problems, we will have mechanisms above nations which are more authoritarian than not. A worldwide authority born of the most powerful nations will take shape and all thoughts of democracy worldwide will be put on hold. Probably even democracy within nations will be put on hold. As far as the present day is concerned and considering the effect president Obama will have, I believe his effect will be exactly nothing. All that will prevail for the next couple of decades is the hope left wing ideas take shape everywhere and therefore become the solution to problems. But I believe these left wing ideas are nothing but a wild hope. If you want me to speak of India again, I believe India to be as paralyzed as the United States. India cannot be right wing with respect to Pakistan, and left wing ideas with respect to Pakistan are nonsense.

But people talk about how nice it will be to have all the rising powers equal to the United States, that everyone will be free and with universal healthcare, that all children will become intellectually equal if only they get an education, etc. etc. Well, we will find out, for the left wing has won. Countries just drift in the faith that all will become equal and everyone will get along. A revolt of the masses indeed. Gifted persons (those with true talents above the average) will have to hide out. Certainly as nations become more left wing within and with respect to other nations the gifted will have to hide, for the left wing mantra is that all are equal and in fact all deserve a gifted level of education--or the contrary: that no one is really gifted and all should be massed in the same classroom.

What a fated world we live in! Certainly no one should believe the U.S. has any foreign policy worth speaking about. Nor does India. India will take terrorist events on the nose without being able to get at the source of terrorists whether with right wing or left wing ideas. All nations are dissolving before our eyes, their sovereignty worth nothing. The only nations capable of preventing dissolution into a left wing mob taking shape over the world are the authoritarian nations. That is the reaction. And India and the U.S. are not exempt.

Once again, the only hope is that the most powerful nations begin working together now. If they cannot integrate with one another then the major problems of climate change, pollution, possible scarcity of resources, WMD proliferation, etc. will not be overcome. The problem is greater than the problems India or the U.S. or whatever nation are having now. The larger picture please, the larger picture.

I do not belong to Nicolas Sarkozy's fan club.

I nonetheless find his recent reply to Cohn-Bendit, at the European Parliament, quite pertinent, and worth repeating here.

Cohn-Bendit (shouting with rage): «Vous n'avez pas voulu humilier les Chinois, mais ce sont les Chinois qui vous ont humilié ! Ils vous ont marché dessus. Les Chinois, qui quotidiennement mettent en taule, piétinent les droits de l'homme ! Même chose pour la Russie de Poutine ! Vous vous êtes couché devant les grands !» ("You did not want to humiliate the Chinese, so it is the Chinese who humiliated you! They walked all over you. The Chinese who, every day, imprison and trample human rights! Same thing with Putin's Russia. You grovelled before the greats.")

Sarkozy: «Il faut beaucoup plus de courage pour faire un pas vers l'autre que pour s'agiter sur sa chaise en faisant l'imprécateur." ("It takes much more courage to make one step toward others than to fidget on one's chair, cursing.")

While fidgeting on their chairs, too many these days seem to believe that if only they could curse loud enough in front of the whole world, hopefully India would soon conveniently serve as our proxy against Pakistan, in our so-called “war on terror”, an expression Zbigniew Brzezinski rightly denounced as simply “meaningless”. Were not the conflicts in Vietnam and Palestine regionalized? Why not now regionalize the conflict in Afghanistan as well? Depleted uranium is not enough by far; let us now see the real thing glow like a thousand suns. Every man is a poet, after all…

http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2008/12/17/01003-20081217ARTFIG00056-vif-echange-entre-sarkozy-et-le-leader-vert-cohn-bendit-.php

PG

There is nearly a 100 percent probability that Pakistani Islamic terrorist are currently hatching a plot to kill hundreds of Indians in a terror attack somewhere in India. With nearly as much certainty, the ISI - an official Pakistani government agency - is funding the terrorist. Pakistan considers India their most dire enemy and therefore the priority in their “war on terror“. No doubt, India is discussing the very same question posed by Zakaria and Ignatius. How do you respond to war by proxy?

One area of deep concern for India must be the amount of aid that has been pumped into Pakistan by the US. The US has provided billions to the Pakistan government since 911 to help prosecute the war on terror. In turn the Pakistan government has funded the ISI which funneled some of the money to the Taliban and terrorist organizations such as the Lashkar-i-Taiba - the primary suspect in the Mumbai Massacre. Thus our aid to Pakistan - meant to help the Pakistan military fight the Taliban and al-Qaeda - has been used, in part, to kill innocent Indians and ironically enough, to kill NATO troops (the ones allowed in combat zones, anyway).

Corroborating intelligence by the US, Afghanistan and India “fingered” the ISI in the attack on the Indian embassy this past July in Afghanistan in which 41 people were killed. This is an act of war committed by the government of Pakistan against India. Plain and simple. It’s no longer defensible to call elements within the ISI “rogue” or “out of control“. The government created the ISI and the Pakistan military provides “oversight” of the ISI. The ISI functions only under the direction of the military.

Furthermore, the election of Zardari is meaningless to the “war on terror“ which is focused in two primary locations - Pakistan and Iran. Both these countries are funding and directing international terrorist organizations in proxy wars. Pakistan is the epicenter of world-wide terrorist planning and training (not all of it associated with the government, however). Soon Iran will join Pakistan as a nuclear power.

Zardari is nothing more than a fundraiser for the military who clearly are in control of the country. In an article published by the New York Times (12-8-2008), Zardari assured Americans (and Indians) that we are fighting the same enemy. He pleaded for (more) aid:

“The world must act to strengthen Pakistan’s economy and democracy, help us build civil society and provide us with the law enforcement and counterterrorism capacities that will enable us to fight the terrorists effectively .”

India knows better. Simply too many terrorist attacks in India have been tied to Pakistan. Leaders of the outlawed terrorist organization, Lashkar-i-Taiba, traveled around Pakistan with impunity before Mumbai. In addition, Pakistan has not cooperated fully with India since the most recent attacks in Mumbai. Although Pakistan has rounded up quite a few terrorist, they refuse to turn over any to India . The Pakistan foreign minister initially offered to conduct a joint investigation with India, but the offer was withdrawn - presumably at the request of Pakistan’s military.

There are limited options for India if they discover that the ISI has dispatched a terrorist “team” to kill as many Indians as possible. No doubt Condi was sent by Bush to India to inform their leadership that Pakistan is on our side (now), and taking steps to stop the scourge of terrorism that threatens Pakistan as well as India. India should remain skeptical.

Does India have the right of unilateral anticipatory self-defense against an imminent terrorist attack? I maintain they do. There must be consequences to state-sponsored terrorism - including war. If credible intelligence pinpoints a terrorist attack, then India’s options include destroying the training facilities of the terrorists. If a high level (wanted) terror suspect is pinpointed in Pakistan, then India also has the right to kill the terrorist in an air strike (much like Obama proposed awhile back). However, the consequences could be dire.

Finally, Pakistan announced the arrest of bunches of terrorist. They won’t turn the terrorist over to Pakistan for obvious reasons. It wouldn’t take long for the Indian Secret Service (playing loud Christmas tunes) to implicate the Pakistan government. No, for those terrorist, a short stay at Club Med (Red Mosque) and back out on the streets. That’s Pakistan’s pension plan for retired government workers.

If ...

Then, India should BOMB Pakistan. Period.

I am sure no country will blame India for taking this extreme step unilaterally for self-defense. Rather, all civilized nations of the world will unite together and will ensure that Pakistan is not in a position to do an encore of cross-border and global terrorism ever - in India or elsewhere.

I am also sure that Pakistan will not behave so foolishly again as it knows only too well that India and the world has already proclaimed: enough is enough.

If India discovers!

How discovers? by intelligence resources of course

This is the problem that the nations are being made hostage to intelligence agencies and the terrorists.

Apparently it looks absurd linking good people and bad people. but real situation is more complex.

Same Jamat Al Dawah who is being named as prime terror suspect not very long ago working hand to hand with western NGOs and even NATO forces. Their past was well known to every body but again every body knows that even all said is true then their project is for eastern wing so westerns have nothing to fear.

As long as we can keep differentiating between good terrorist and bad terrorist then we will not be able to find a solution.

If India discovers then naturally it is in his best interest to protect itself by increasing vigilance, and practicing normal security precautions at entrance and exit points. If necessary it may take world nations in confidence.

This is not a fast track solution but for lasting peace in the world this is the only option available

And when some terrorist is caught up then it should be presented for free trial. And if it has some clues that a foreign national is suspected then it should proceed through international channels

But if the doctrine of preemptive strike is accepted then any nation can have a bad dream any time day or night and fire a missile on any destination.

Then no need for UNO

We will again be living in the age of Genghis Khan

Citizenofthepost-Americanworld: thank you for your thoughts. I'm not sure what the allusion to "Who's Who" is all about, but never mind.

FYI: If diplomacy could have caused the U.S. to get the Taliban to give up Bin Laden, it would have been a wonderful thing indeed and the U.S. certainly did try (see http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/19/taliban.documents/index.html or http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml) but the Taliban refused (despite their normally great "trading mentality"); apparently, among other reasons, they wanted more "evidence."

Ultimately, it seems to me that we both want India and Pakistan to get along. However, all I hoped for and hoped to add to the conversation, essentially, was that Pakistan needed to go through the essential, critical step of weeding out terror groups within its borders.

worldwatch1,

Just so you know (you seem to want more information from the "Who is Who?"), I have written what I wrote precisely because:

1. I am all too familiar with what you call "the ground realities of Indian and Pakistani relationships";

2. I have repeatedly posed my thoughts, as you put it, "to both the average Indian and Pakistani" and know all too well "how each of them responds";

3. I am fully aware that, as you say, "idealism must work hand in hand with reality, the hard reality".

As an aside, had the U.S. "forced itself to get along with the Taliban re: Osama Bin Laden"... it is most likely the man would not, assuming he still does (!), "continue to operate with impunity in Afghanistan". There are good reasons to believe the man would have been handed over by the Taliban to the US and, one would assume, brought to justice through due process of law... That goes to show, once again, how powerful and advantageous realism may sometimes be, in international relations, as opposed to crude, fanatical ideology.

Now if you will allow me, for a while I shall let others enjoy the opportunity they have to join this conversation.

Citizenofthepost-Americanworld, my comments weren't directed at you -- although, there were elements therein that were akin to what was mentioned by one or two other people. So consider my response as a general response to the tiny patchwork of media posts and replies that had, in parts, general ideas that resembled yours.

I'm not sure how much exposure you've had to the Indian or Pakistani countries or the cultures, but I can assure you that your general thesis that India and Pakistan should force themselves to get along regardless of the situation on the ground will be perceived as ignorant of the ground realities of Indian and Pakistani relationships. If you are familiar with both (even if you are neither), then I suggest you pose your thoughts to both the average Indian and Pakistani and see how each of them respond.

Furthermore, suggestions such as yours inadvertently (or otherwise) helps to reduce the necessary pressure on Pakistan in terms of directly and effectively dealing with terrorist-training camps (a fact acknowledge by all major powers) within its borders.

Idealism must work hand in hand with reality -- and the hard reality is that Pakistan harbors terror camps.

Are there are other differences between India and Pakistan? Absolutely (more than most people would care to know). Should Pakistan and India get along? Absolutely. Should one get have a great relationship with rival family members whose relations intend to kill us? Maybe I'm a simple-minded person, but I would say that this should be so ONLY if those rival family members can ensure that those dysfunctional relations of theirs don't kill us or our family members. I think, Bible-quoting aside, this is something most healthy relationships (on a macro- or micro-level) would agree to.

Otherwise, I don't see any reason why the U.S. shouldn't have forced itself to get along with the Taliban and let Osama Bin Laden continue to operate with impunity in Afghanistan.

Terrorism is the great human scourge of our times and one should not let it find safe haven (in Pakistan or elsewhere).

India MUST bridge differences with Pakistan. In fact, I would even love to see a genuine rapprochement and friendship between the countries (as is the case between many members of both countries). However, no one should expect India (or any other country) to normalize relations with another -- especially when its own security and survival is at stake for doing so.

If there is an “International Law”, it is not clear to me that what entity is formulating it and who is enforcing it. There is a European world court that U.S. does not recognize and a U.N. that is hostage to the wishes and desires of 5 Security Council permanent members. Neither of these 2 organizations is in the business of “allowing” unilateral self-defense actions.

If we are to move from a world run by military conflicts and the concept of “might is right” to a world of law and order, first we need to establish a world order that favors security of all nations over neo-colonialism of the poor; an order that sees the strongest of the nations and the weakest among us with the same eye and has the teeth to follow through.

Such an order (organization) does not exist. Without it, India is free to evaluate any national security situation on the basis of the lesser of two evils. If attacking a terrorist base inside Pakistan increases the possibility of a nuclear conflict or even a considerable economic downfall, India may want to put her emphasis on a more responsive security apparatus inside her borders.

worldwatch1 asks: "So for the so-called impartial or independent onlookers, the question would be "Can I simply force myself to 'get along' with someone whose family members intend to kill me?""

worldwatch1, I don't know about you, but assuming you are asking "Can one simply force onself...?", the answer is "yes". Examples can be found throughout history. -- People who, like you, pray and can quote the Bible ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.") ought to know that better than I do.

Yet let us forget the Christian tradition a moment.

Suffice to say here that even primitive Africans and primitive First Nations people, in America, were civilized enough to have found quite sophisticated ways not only to try, but even to manage to 'get along' with people whose family members intended to kill them. That is why their communities knew not only war but peace as well.

One can always find reasons that appear to justify permanent conflict and perpetual war. That is the easy part. The difficult one is to find reasons that justify seeking peace: not with those we are in peace with, of course, but first with our hereditary archenemy.

PS -- Just in case your remarks were directed at me (my comment was after all the only one on the thread at the time you posted...) I did not mean I was impartial or independent, when I wrote I was "FROM neither side". I simply meant I was neither Indian nor Pakistani. I was then assuming readers generally like, if at all possible, to have that part of the "Who is Who?", on people taking part in these conversations... I know I do.

I would certainly hope for a full settlement of differences between India and Pakistan; this would be most welcome and hoped for (even yearned for).

However, it is also most disappointing when I hear people in the media (and general onlookers) merely state the solution as something along the lines of "India and Pakistan should get along...period."

Such people should, I think, get off their high horses and look at the mote in their own eyes. To paraphrase another famous Bible verse, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

So for the so-called impartial or independent onlookers, the question would be "Can I simply force myself to 'get along' with someone whose family members intend to kill me?"

For this indeed the case with Pakistan. There may be several friendly elements within Pakistan, including its President Zardari, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there are people filled with hate that have and will run operations within Pakistan with the intent of attacking India (these attackers, needless to say, have had the backing of Pakistan's infamous ISI intelligence agency).

I believe this great country (the U.S.) would never have stood idly by (and rightly so) and just resolve differences because that was good for the world. The U.S. would have done something (maybe not to the degree that has been done in Afghanistan or Iraq), but it would certainly have done something (regardless of which country hosted the terrorists, whether it is the former U.S.S.R, China or Pakistan.)

The absolute minimum that the U.S. would have done is insistence on nothing less than the dismantling of the terror infrastructure that led to 9/11.

In case one hasn't being paying attention, that is absolutely what India is asking for now: the bare minimum nothing less that the complete dismantling of the terror camps based in Pakistan, regardless of whether the Pakistani government is complicit or not.

So one would be well-advised to avoid the temptation of viewing terror-related acts of Indo-Pakistani differences. To do so would minimize the horrors of terrorism that have been committed against India.

Pakistan, in a certain sense, can claim to be a victim of terrorism too, but it is their responsibility to clean up the Islamist terrorist camps within their own borders before, ostensibly or seriously, hoping bridge other outstanding issues with India. Otherwise, that the threats that exist within Pakistan stand to threaten not only India, but the world at large.

So let us pray that the government of Pakistan stops the games of denial and decisively act against the terror within its borders before India ceases to care less about how it is perceived in the world (much less Pakistan) and decisively acts protect its own self-interests.

Sincerely,
A person who wishes the best for the world

Your assumptive question is most disappointing.

Looking at the situation from outside and being myself from neither side, I would say that before the situation you envisage even arises, India and Pakistan need to make it their first priority to work urgently and seriously at settling their differences. They are many, and extremely serious. By the smell of it all, some are like open wounds that have been left virtually unattended for much too long.

That cannot wait and requires both the cooperation and support of the international community of nations. I would therefore recommend intense, formal, bilateral talks and negotiations, under the sponsorship of the United Nations, leading necessarily to international accords between the two countries and to their full implementation under international supervision.

For such talks and negotiations to be successful, the will to settle differences needs to exist, be strongly advocated publicly in each country, and by exceptional leaders who see clearly the benefits of peaceful coexistence and of international cooperation over permanent conflict and perpetual war, as we see prevail in Palestine and in the Middle East.

Such leaders exist in every country. The trick is, rather than murdering them, to put them to good use for humanity's sake.