How could this be? Isn't Musharraf warring against the "extremists"? Hmmm. Could it be that these "extremists" are actually so mainstream that he can't possibly even get them out of his government, much less influence public opinion? "Pak 'most anti-US country': CRS," from Rediff.com, with thanks to Fanabba:
Notwithstanding its cooperation with the US in the war against terrorism, Pakistan is probably the "most anti-American country" in the world right now, according to the Congressional Research Service.The assessment of the depth of Pakistan's anti-Americanism is attributed by K Alan Kronstadt, who is in charge of analysing Asian affairs for the CRS, to a "senior expert."
Adding to US concerns about Pakistan's domestic political developments, Kronstadt says, are increasing signs of Islamisation and anti-American sentiments.
While Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf vowed in August 2003 to "finish off extremism," Kronstadt notes, Pakistan's Islamists routinely denounce Pakistani military operations in western tribal areas, resist government attempts to reform religious schools that teach militancy, and harshly criticise Islamabad's cooperation with the US government.
What a suprise. Remember, Pakistan was INVENTED as a Muslim reservation, against the wishes of Gandhi and on account of the violent blackmail of Jinnah and his followers. Without Islam, the country has no identity at all: its constituent parts - Punjab, Kashmir, Sindh, Baluchistan and NWFP - have nothing in common with each other and are always in danger of drifting apart. The only national institution of Pakistan is the army, that controls 45% of GDP and most of the productive activities, and the army was created to defend the Islamic reservation. What else does anyone expect? The partition of India is one of many crimes committed by the English as they abandoned their empire, and it was committed in the full knowledge that it would be paid for in blood. But the English Foreign and Commonwealth Office, like the American State Department, had long had a nasty affection for Islam; after all, they single-handedly kept the Ottoman Empire standing for about a century after it should have collapsed, incidentally making themselves accomplices in all the Turkish massacres of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Despite Pakistan's pious assertions to the contrary, fact is that in practice it turns out that islam was just a convenient tool and not the foundational basis for its creation.
The real foundational basis, it turns out, was punjabi feudal domination of army and polity (which're almost synonymous).
Pak lost Bangladesh, also muslim (but Bengali, not Punjabi), to a genocidal civil war and Indian intervention. By Democratic principles, Sheikh Mujibur Rehman of bangladesh should've become PM of United pakistan but no, the Punjabis of West Pakistan wouldn't have an *inferior* Bengali governing them. The rest, as they say, is history.
Gen. Musharraf, btw, is allied with the radical islamist alliance (called the MMA) to maintain his sham of Democracy. The mad mullahs, while sharing political bedsheets with Mush routinely trade their support for his sham for non-interference on their hardline islamization agenda. Go, figure.
Really? More than Saudia Arabia? Wasn't like 18 of the 19 hijackers from Saudi Arabia???
It's a tight race. But my view is that the increasingly extreme hold of Islam on Pakistan makes up for the lack of national cohesion - as I tried to explain. Saudi Arabia would have an identity even without religious extremism; Pakistan would not.
Paulo... you seem knowlegeable on many things...
My opinion is that ISLAM is a DISEASE.
What's your take?
Just Linda:
Islam is an Arab virus. It enters the mind and the victim becomes an Arab.
Even Christian Arabs see themselves as Arabs first,and don't forget one of the two founders of the Ba'ath (Renaissance) party was a Christian Arab, Michel Aflag.
Non Arab Muslims, like the Iranians, delude themselves that they aren't Arab,but instantaneously arise to the defense of Arabs and all things Arab, take on Arab names,use Arab words and salutations, and try to learn to read Arabic so they can read the Qur'an in Arabic.
Islam is Arab Imperialism
AS regards Pakistan. The Peshwar region (Northern Pakisan, virtually half of the country, is Taliban country, and Osama bin Laden's picture is publicly displayed as a hero, it has hundreds of Madrassas pumping out more Jihadi's, and the civil police are actually religious police (mutawain) in uniform, enforcing Taliban rules, dress codes, beards, confiscating video and audio tapes.
Throughout the country, Shari'a is the law, and it is administered by local mullahs. If a Muslim is covetous of a non muslims property all he has to do is denounce the non Muslim for blasphemy, and the property is forfeited and the poor guy winds up in jail or worse.
Pakistan is no ally of the US, and it is treasonous for the administration to pretend that it is, then again the war is against "terrorism", not the source of terrorism - Islamic ideology.
A never ending war which can never be won, just like the War on Drugs.
We have seen it before and we'll see it again, the Shi'ite holiday of Ashoura. Is there anything in this religion (Sunni or Shia) that doesn't commemorate blood and gore, revenge and reprisal, death and destruction?
Or am I, like billions of others on this planet, just misunderstanding this peaceful religion?
AUTHOR: Moe's Foe
EMAIL: eschwapp@yahoo.com
IP: 208.3.11.114
URL:
DATE: 02/19/2005 02:06:43 PM
Sorry about that. Here is the link:
http://www.foxnews.com/images/154741/0_26_shiite_ashoura.jpg
Just_Linda:
Islam is many things to many people. I have had many dear Muslim friends, real friends I mean, to whom Islam simply meant a collection of teachings and sayings most of which anyone would find unexceptionable. But Islam as a whole, Islam as a phenomenon stretched across history in time and space, is a disaster. It is the evidence that such a thing as a bad philosophy, a philosophy that is both wrong and damaging, can and does exist. Islam has seized the core of Old World civilization from the former Carthage to the Indus valley, places where the energy and imagination of mankind had first been given full rein, and has slowly sunk them into a morass of ignorance and backwardness, both unable to cope with the modern world and intrinsically arrogant. And as the Islamic territory lies across the communication lines of the civilized world, between Europe and India, Europe and China, even India and China (Indonesia) it has consistently been, and still is, and would be even without oil, a presence that can neither be ignored nor tamed. As a culture, as a civilization, it must be broken; it must suffer an alteration so deep as to destroy some of its chief values, not, as some people on this site seem to fear, because it has any real chance of overwhelming the rest of the world, but because it can and does make the whole international scene chaotic, violent, and unmanageable. It is not capable of winning any war, but it is perfectly capable of extending a permanent state of blackmail by violence. Across the world. And this simply must be dealt with.
Islam is an Arab virus
Only 20% of all Moslems are of Arabic descent!
Wow Paolo, great read.
Moose
"And this simply must be dealt with," concludes Paolo.
And who better to deal with it than the sons of William Walker?
What better goal than the American triumphalism of Walker's filibustering?
It's not only worthwhile in terms of prudence to defeat and destroy Islam it's morally imperative that we do so. Those ideas don't sell very well in the marketplace of ideas these days, so let me try this:
Arabs realize that the rest of the world needs their oil. Arabs do not realize that the rest of the world does not need Arabs;
According to Sandra Mackay, Saudi Arabia: The Desert Kingdom, 60 per cent of the Saudi public sector is in the hands of non-Saudis, and 90 per cent of the private sector is run by foreigners while 50 per cent of the local male population is studying religion, i.e. Islam nad 50 percent(ish) of the population, i.e. females, are imprisoned;
And the Saudis are waging direct war on the West as we type.
It's phantasy at this time to think that Westerners will collect in foreign ports and focus on over-throwing the parasites of Saudi Arabia to rule it as a Western nation. But such things have happened before, and I type in the hope of American triumphalism and manifest destiny once again becoming the norm in our minds.
Some people refer to me as a right-wing religious bigot. I think of myself as a humanitarian who would save the majority of Moslems from their own suicide. I would do that by organizing an army of private citizens who would take over complete control of Moslem lands, enslave the locals, and raise them to be Americans--and part of America, not simply some far off colonies.
The idea of Americans incorporating other lands, it's ordinary, a part of our history, and it is the destiny of the world to be America itself. The only significant question is what kind of America? there is nothing right-wing, religious or bigoted about that. America is the future, and it is the role of every moral man and woman to bring that about for the benefit of Humanity. That task requires men like William Walker and the Immortals who followed him. It's right good sense, and it is morally imperative that we act on behalf of the Moslem world. It's good for us; it's essential for them. This problem must be dealt with actively: We must deal with it.
I always remember when that two condemned to death penalty in pakistan wanted like his last will their conversion to catholicism, is a very fanatical society and have 150 million people, well it´s frighting.
Pakistan is certainly the most Jihadi society in the world, which of course makes it the most anti-American and anti-West "nation" as a natural consequence. But that does not stop us from giving them vast amounts of our tax dollars every year.
And yet, despite virulent anti-Americanism, Pakistanis are desperate to get to the US or the UK. So in a way I agree with SonofWalker. If they are so desperate to get to the US, why not take America to Pakistan?
Paolo:The partition of India is one of many crimes committed by the English as they abandoned their empire, and it was committed in the full knowledge that it would be paid for in blood.
Britain did try its best to maintain the unity of India, but it was not possible, given the intransigence of Jinnah.
As for Gandhi, he was the greatest appeaser of the Muslim League and muslims in general. Gandhi was the one who advised Hindus to die quietly at the hands of muslim fanatics in Bengal, rather then defend themselves. Very much I believe, the same advise he gave the Jews in their predicament in Germany. My view is that Gandhi was more concerned about his own sainthood, rather then the future of India.
In retrospect, partition has proved a blessing. If it had not occurred, then there would be an additional 350 million muslims in India. Combined with those who are already there, India would not be the constitutional parliamentary democracy it has been for the last 50 years, but the largest muslim theocracy in the world; in fact a Greater Pakistan. A nation moreover, full of ongoing massacres, going nowhere but downhill, and possibly armed with nukes.
Most of my Indian Hindu friends are of the same opinion - partition has proved a blessing.
Well what do you expect, where do you think the Taliban came out of? Who's giving sanctuary to Bin Laden?
Maryatexitzero just put me onto a quotation that I love, and that is appropriate to any discussion of how we should deal with our Islamic opponents and their friends:
"There is no reason why good cannot triumph as often as evil. The triumph of anything is a matter of organization. If there are such things as angels, I hope that they are organized along the lines of the mafia."
Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan.
For those of us who are interested in doing more than worry, may I invite you to join the debate at our site organized daily by Susan_b:
http://www.co-jet.org.
DP111, apart from what you say about Gandhi - which I decline to answer - the fact is that a united India would have, at present, about 300 million Muslims as against nearly 900 million Hindus and others. There is no way that the Muslims would ever have been more than a minority. And what India did in 1948 to the Nizam of Hyderabad shows that, without the intervention of the colonial power, it would well have been able to deal with stroppy Muslims. The idea of partition is a vicious English invention. It began with Ireland, where they roused up the Protestant minority in the north and ended up with a gerrymandered statelet, the long hostility of Eire, and no peace. Then they had the same bright idea in India and in Palestine. No, sir. The poisonous point of this is that they imagined they were being fair to everybody, when they were denying everybody their basic goals, and thus setting up a recipe for permanent insecurity. Compromise never works: it only postpones and extends confrontations and wars.
pakistans creation was indeed good for India.
The moslems wanted their own country and now they have it. and what a disaster it is.
This just proves that islam leads to disaster.
Logically it is pakistan that should be growing. It has a smaller population, therefore less mouths to feed. It should have thrived, but just look at the state.
Still who cares ? it will hopefully fall apart and be governed by India.
I have attached some links below to show just how much India is thriving.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4283733.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4268887.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4269845.stm
http://in.rediff.com/money/2005/feb/21japan.htm
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=1509
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=1467
Paolo
I have to disagree with your figures.
If there was no partition then the figures I get are
(CIA figures - 1994 estimates)
Add up the muslim populations in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, and one gets about 420m. Hindus in India number about 800m.
With such a large number and fraction of muslims, and the the generally docile nature of Hindus, I do not think that democracy would have survived in India.
What you also fail to consider is that parliamentary democracy in India would not even exist were it not for Britain.
apostate_islam
If Pakistan falls apart, the US will continue to maintain it as a state. It serves as a useful counterbalance to India's growing power and ambition.
Pakistan as well as Bangladesh, are likely to collapse as nation states ,and if they were to come back to India's fold, it would be a disaster for India - for sooner or later, the muslim population of the "unified" India will match that of the Hindus, and the process of collapse will start - if not well before, as muslims set about to undermine what they regard as a nation of idolators, particularly as India is seen as rightfully dar al islam. Surely we in Jihad Watch should know this by now.
Paolo: Compromise never works: it only postpones and extends confrontations and wars.
That is a highy tendentuous remark. The whole basis of the British constitution (unwritten), is compromise. It is what gives the Bill of Rights and the US constitution. It works perfectly well when a group of people are rational and are able to see other viewpoints. The basis of democracy and democratic government.
What in effect you are accusing Britain of, is that it failed to see, that at the time, muslim cultures were unable to accept compromise. Well hindsight is wonderful, but atleast, Britain tried. Then again if that is the case, why is the US trying to bring about a democracy in the ME? I mean democracy, and not just an election.
I think partition is the only feasible solution when two cultures are unable to live with each other and if they claim the same territory. Such was the case in India, Israel and others, and will soon shown to be the case in the West as well. We will then be given the choice of partition in the heart of the West, as in the Balkans, or expulsion of muslims.