Pakistani jihadists slam Musharraf, US in Eid sermons

Ahmad also said an alleged US threat to bomb Pakistan “back to the Stone Age” unless it backed the invasion of Afghanistan following the September 11, 2001 attacks was itself “a threat amounting to terrorism”.

Then you better get with the program, O Pukistan!

Back to the bogs.

Contestant #1: "Alex, I'll take "World of Islam" for $200"

A. Tribec:“Misleading propaganda of those possessing negative tendencies”

Contestant #1: "And the question is; What is the Qur'an?"

Anybody else really scared by this? This is a clear call for Musharraf's assassination, and if he goes I'd bet Iran gets some of Pakistan's working nukes plus full plans to construct their own within a month of that happening. I give a year at most after Musharraf's ouster before a nuclear attack hits a European city. Sure they'd rather nuke Tel Aviv, but that's a much harder nut to crack, and Europe isn't quite submissive enough yet. The US is the real prize, but isolating it by taking out its allies first is the smart move, especially since that gets them France's nukes and Exocet missiles to defend against American air power. Plus there's that whole "awake a sleeping giant" thing, best to delay that as long as possible.

It's always like this in Islam.
No one is Islamic enough, even a double-faced terrorism promoting, West-fooling muslim like gen Musharraf.

Of course they'd be praying to their Moon God-apart from killing in Jihad,reproducing faster than rats and howling Allahu Akbar in the direction of Mecca what else have they got to do in their dreary brain dead lives?Other people on the planet want to live,take holidays,have a successful career-not this lot.It might be a kindness to put 'em out of their misery.ASAP.

aynrandgirl l dont think your future predictions will follow that way. Europeans countries might want to appear smug, but when the chips are down, they will unite with other democracies, ie US and go after rogue states ie, iran, pakistan. those two later countries are on borrowed time. oh btw, l am sure next time they get earthquakes, people from the west will not send them a barrel of anything.

"Aggression against Islam, of course, being any defense against the global jihad."

That Mankind's 5,000,000,000 non-Muslims have had so much difficulty appreciating this is surely one of the evil wonders of the world.

A villain character in an old television program once said to a woman foolishly in love with him, "Wake up...before you wake up dead." I'd call that sound and appropriate advice.

Nononono, they got it all wrong.

Im sure the US was going to bomb Pakistan *forward* to the stone age, not back!

Remember that pakistan is not exactly 'occupied', these people can run their own business, but is there anything going right there? Are these muslims behaving serenely,even when nobody in the west is interfering in their stuff? And now, on the occasion of Eid Ol Fitlr the only thing they can do is give threat-and-hate speeches,including against their own president..

In the weeks just after 9.11.2001, the American government, still did not understand Islam. It had spent the past fifty years not understanding Islam. It had spent the past fifty years thinking of Islam only as a "bulwark against Communism" and of attempting to curry favor with such "staunch allies" as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and by taking an indignant stand against its main allies at Suez (when Nasser might have been, and should have been, knocked right down), and constantly pressuring Israel, in 1956, to give up the Sinai for worthless guarantees, and later, in the post-1967 world, with all that Kissiner "shuttle diplomacy" and then the Rogers Plan, and then a dozen other plans and schemes, and not a single thing was done about the menace of OPEC in the one-third of a century since 1973, and nothing done to prevent, or even to study or wonder about, the mass settlement of Muslims within the Western countries, a policy of criminal negligence toward all Infdiel peoples by all Infidel governments, and based on sheer laziness, sheer unwillingness to learn enough about Islam, or listen to the diminishing number of real scholars -- as opposed to Muslim and non-Muslim apologists carefully intiltrating and rising in the ranks of academic and govenment "experts" and "advisers" on Islam (John Esposito was consulted by the Clinton Administration; Gilles Kepel and Olivier Roy by the French government; Tariq Ramadan was appointed to all sorts of E.U. commissions and is even now, in his pseudo-academic post at St. Antony's, "advising" the Blair regime that does not know where to put its feet and hands, but its opponents promise no better.

And not only have successive Administrations, and therefore the fates of the Americans whom they presume to protect and instruct, relied on all sorts of people, of both parties, equally ignorant of Islam or unwilling to consider the evidence of the their senses or of their minds (and how many people who have risen to the top of the Washington anthill have the time, have the leisure, for reading and taking in, and beginning to comprehend, entirely new subjects?) relying on all those who never understood it, such people as Brzezinski with Carter (not to mention that "Iran" specialist Gary Sick, and the disaster of abandoning the Shah when he might have been saved), or such people as Scowcroft the chocolate soldier and Baker the fixer, or Dennis Ross, merely the most earnestly comical, or comically earnest, of all those in Washington who spent their entire professional lives in the "peace process" (what a phrase, what an idea whose time never came, and never could come, had the Lesser Jihad against Israel been properly understood), with all their absurd and exhausting and frenetic "peace-making," ever figuring out that the Lesser Jihad against Israel had no solution based on "negotiations" and "treaties" that, supposedly, would bring "peace" and, of course, the latest avatar of silliness and ignorance, that "two-state solution" that Condoleeza Rice thinks would be a wonderful achievement for the United States, as her remarkable, or rather incredible, speech to some American group "for Palestine" a few weeks ago demonstrated for all who possessed minds that could still be properly horrified. There is still not a hint that anyone in official Washington has ever read a thing about the Law of War and Peace in Islam, has read read Majid Khadduri on the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, or a hundred others who could explain, carefully, the essential role of the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiiyya, and why all treaties between Muslims and Infidels are meant, on the Muslim side, purely as "truces" and never to be permanent "peace treaties" because that would go against all of Islam, implying that some parts of the world could forever remain free from Islam, free to remain Infidel -- and that, of course, goes against everything in Islam, a belief-system that springs from a desire by the already-conquering Arabs to possess their own faith, one that would both justify and promote their conquest of Christians and Jews (and then Zoroastrians, and then still later Buddhists and Hindus), non-Muslim peoples far more advanced, wealthy, and settled peoples than the primitive Arabs who by force seized their lands in the Middle East and North Africa, and that has not changed in this essential division, so obviously reflected in the terms Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. No, one doubts that the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, made by Muhammad with the Meccans in 628 A.D. and broken deliberately by him 18 months later (and this was later held to be an act of magnificent cleverness by Muslims, as Muhammad -- who said that "war is deception" -- proved a master at defeating, by any means, his enemies. "Pacta Sunt Servanda" is the basis of Western treaty-making, but not of treaty-making in Islam. Every "peace treaty" signed by Muslism with Infidels is meant only as a "truce treaty." But why should Dennis Ross, or Condoleeza Rice, be expected to know about that, any more than they should be expected to know about the concept and definition of the "dhimmi," much less to have read Antoine Fattal's full treatment of the status of non-Muslims according to the Shari'a, the Holy Law of Islam. Why take Islam seriously, when Prince Bandar, and now Prince Al-Turki, offer such generous hospitality at their lavish receptions, and speak so well, so "forthrightly," and when, after all, all kinds of Arab and Muslim leaders keep assuring us that all this business of Islam is just so much nonsense, and Islam -- look deep into their eyes, grasp their souls the way Bush grasped the soul of Vladimir Putin -- and see that what they say must be true.

And what does this have to do with Pakistan, and its meretriciousness? Had the American government been properly prepared, had it contained a sufficient number of people well-versed in Islam, who therefore would have remained serenely and calmly comprehending of what had past, was passing, and was to come, had such people on 9.12.2001 been much in evidence, then thinking clearly, the American government might, not merely with anger but with anger that had behind it well-prepared minds lucidly planning, have made the government of Pakistan an offer it couldn't refuse not about helping to find Osama Bin Laden, but rather on handing over, lest its entire economy and country be destroyed (and the Americans, together with India, could do that), those nuclear weapons it managed to acquire through the thefts, and ISI funding, of A. Q. Khan (about whose nuclear aid to North Korea and Iran, the Pakistani government announces this past week, it is "truly sorry" and it won't happen again, and by the way, why shouldn't Pakistan now get the same nuclear deal as India? I'll tell you why: because Pakistan is a Muslim state, with Muslim people in control, that's why. Might as well ask why we would not object if Australia acquired nuclear weapons but do when North Korea does, or why it is necessary, and proper, for Israel to acquire such weaponry, which is the only thng that will ensure its survival and threatens no Infidel state, but on the other hand, neither "our ally" Egypt, nor "our ally" Saudi Arabia, nor any other Muslim state, can be allowed to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Might as well make that clear, if not say expressly say it aloud.

Given the sensational nature of the whole Bin Laden business -- the caves, the Saudi plutocrat who becomes a kind of J. Worthwington Foulfellow with his sidekick Ayman al-Zawahiri, and all those solemn "terrorism experts" who, like Peter Bergen, still keep far away from the larger and more important questions, but apparently can dine out, in the American media and even elsewhere, on the fact that they "met Bin Laden" or "travelled in Afghanistan" or "have studied Al Qaeda for years."

That should be seen as part of the sensational, quasi-yellow press, and the lowering of standards, all way round. Suppose someone knew every detail of Bin Laden's life? Or suppose the American government kills Bin Laden? So what? What does this have to do with the menace of islmamization in Western Europe? How does this stop the Saudi-financed campaigns of Da'wa everywhere in the world, both among those who are Muslims (as in Niger, where the syncretistic local version of Islam, with its marabouts and unhijabbed women, has with Saudi money and influence been completely transfomred, and so as the practice of Islam in many sub-Saharan states), and those who are Infidels but, out of their economic or psychic unsteadiness, been correctly identified as ready (the readiness is all) for efforts to convert them, and thus to acquire more recruits, deep behind Infidel -- i.e., enemy -- lines, to the Army of Islam.

The "Hunt for Bin Laden" business, and the perceived need to obtain the coooperation of the government of Pakistan by cancelling billions of dollars in debts and offering new billions in aid of all kinds, and in not reading Pakistan the riot act about A. Q. Khan (he should be in American custody, subject to American grilling) and in not threatening complete economic destruction unless those nuclear weapons were given to the Americans "for safe-keeping" (and the Pakistani government did not have to announce it; it might have simply pretended that it still had them, to keep the primitive Muslim masses calm, or as calm as they can be), has been a disaster for it has allowed Musharraf to present himself as something he is not, and Pakistan as something it is not, and in that misrepresentation, to continue to play on long-established innocences and dreams about "Islam" as essentially okay and unworrisome, if only the "moderates" can keep control.

And thus we have the fiascos we see all around us, including the fiasco of Iraq, where
Bush, who once had an idea, and now that idea has him, still will not relent on his foolish squandering of men's lives, of money, of war material, will not exploit, and certainly is incapable of welcoming, the ethnic and sectarian diviisions that sooner or later will explode, and for our sake should explode, and what's more, will have consequences for Shi'a-Sunni relations outside of Iraq, and possibly, if the Kurds get their state, for the relations between non-Arab and Arab Muslims (as with the Berbers in Algeria and in France), and all this internecine warfare can only weaken the Camp of Islam, and have it put on a display useful for Europeans to observe, and to draw the necesssary conclusions from.

For within the Bilad al-Kufr, the Lands of the Infidels, there are still so few who comprehend the permanent menace of Islam to most forms of art, to the free and skeptical inquiry necessary for the enterprise of science, to individual rights and to mental freedom, to all the legal and political institutions and social arrangements and understandings and assumptions upon which the advanced West is based, and which others in that Western world, over several millennia of thought and effort, managed to achieve, and all the artifacts they produced, and which those who today call themselves "English" or "French" or "Italians" or "Americans" hold merely in trust, as a legacy for which they have a life estate, and which they have a duty to learn about, and then having learned about to appreciate, and then having learned to appreciate, to defend intelligently, and especially now, when it can be done at very little human cost, because the most effective weapons of the Jihad are the "wealth weapon," campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest.

As has been steadily insisted here for nearly three years, the "wealth weapon" can be countered by taxes on gasoline in the United States that rise in steady increments to far higher, possibly European levels, in taxes on all usess of oil, on subsidies to mass transit, on subsidies and all kinds of encouragement for solar, wind, and other forms of energy, including new ways to burn or to transform coal, and of course nuclear energy which should be seen, following the French example, as one of the best ways to dimiinish reliance on oil. Everything conceivable should be done, and because of the costs involved (and insurance for nuclear plants) governments, including the American government, should participate fully, eagerly. Nonsense about "letting the marketplace" decide will not do. No one said during World War II that the government should not fund the Manhattan Project. The diminshment of the Muslim "oil weapon" is essential. So too is the endinig of all the transfers of wealth, through hundreds of billions of dollars overall, from Infidel peoples (unwillingly) by their govenments (all too willing), to Muslim states and groups, such as Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and the ineffable "Palestinians" about whom a veritable cult of aid has developed, no doubt mainly not because the "Palestianians" themselves are worthy, but because unexpungable animus toward Israel, an animus that has been carefully cultivated by the Islamintern International and its supporters in the world press, is used to encourage aid for the "Palestinians" and their quite unnecessary, and utterly phony, "plight."

As for campaigns of Da'wa -- they can be constrained at every step, beginning with careful monitoring in prisons, aid to Christian missionary efforts, the segregating of Muslim prisoners in sepaarate buildings (for "security and administrative -- i.e., halal food and other observances-- purposes). Since it is clear that black prisoners are a special target, why not employ black African refugess such as Sudanese "lost boys" to speak frequently in prisons about their experiences, why not make the subject of the Arab slave trade, and the use of Islam as a vehicle for Arab imperialism (the most successful imperialism in history, as yet not fully comprehended save, so far, by a few). Why not discuss how the inshallah-fatalism of Islam encourages economic paralysis, and that only the false manna of oil managed to provide any prosperity for Muslims once they no longer had large numbers of non-Muslims within their lands upon which to batten).

As for demographic conquest, that can be halted, and as the Infidel peoples wake up, they can not only halt, but reverse the immigration of the past three or four heedless decades, and undo much of what they stupidly permitted to be done. Just as the parents of young children try to "child-proof" their house, by all sorts of measures, so the Lands of the Infidels can be made, not welcoming, but unwelcoming, for the continued practice of Islam. We need not make allowances, we need not yield in the slightest to Muslim demands. We can deny our custom for goods and services to Muslim-owned businesses. We can be quick to detect the campaigns in the press to render us more susceptible to Islam, to focus only on the most inoffensive of the rituals (i.e., Ramadan) and not on what is written in Qur'an and hadith, and certainlly the press has failed completely to deal with the figure of Muhammad, and what he did, and what Muslims revere him for --which is everything he said, and everything he did.

There has as yet been as little action by the American govnement, paralyzed by Iraq, over all this, as there has been in dealing with its false allies -- such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and of course Pakistan.

But it will change. It will change because whatever Bush clings to, in 2008 a new President will have to promise, as Eisenhower promised to "go to Korea" and end thaet war, to end promptly the now clearly misguided and wasteful effort (misguided by March 2004, when the country had been thoroughly scoured for weapons of mass destruction) in Iraq -- misguided if the goal is to weaken the Camp of Islam. And that should be the goal, whatever vague description of "victory," a "victory" never clearly defined by our confused and confusing and largely incoherent President, who cannot allow himself even the possibility of lucidity, for if he did, then his whole edifice built to date would come tumbling down, and in public.

Ahmad also said an alleged US threat to bomb Pakistan “back to the Stone Age” unless it backed the invasion of Afghanistan following the September 11, 2001 attacks was itself “a threat amounting to terrorism”.

What the hell is Ahmad talking about? Pakistan has been in the Stone Age since its founding!

As for Iraq and Afghanistan who"d want them anyway? The Islamaniacs can have them to do as they please if they vow to stay there. But then again such a vow would be about at useful as someone's used toilet paper.

I am not suprised that the Pakastan president had the book of his memorirs published last month because he knows he is living to the fullest on borrowed time.

I have to believe, for the sake of my sanity, that this administration, no matter how incompetent it has shown itself to be, how absolutely, totally fouled up it is, has a plan, a good credible plan, to secure Pakistan's nukes in the event of a coup.

And, yes, I know how that this belief probably qualifies me for a quick trip to the nearest mental health care facility.

And that should be the goal, whatever vague description of "victory," a "victory" never clearly defined by our confused and confusing and largely incoherent President, who cannot allow himself even the possibility of lucidity, for if he did, then his whole edifice built to date would come tumbling down, and in public.

Posted by: Hugh at October 26, 2006 07:24 AM

Since Bush obviously has no idea what victory in Iraq is today here's what I think Bush was thinking in 2003 in terms of victory:

1)Topple Saddam-Done.

2)Capture Saddam and his henchmen-Done.

3)Provide an arena to attract jihadist scum to be killed by the military (as opposed to them killing civilians in the US)-Done.

4)Find weapons of mass destruction-Not Done. However, it would not surprise me if Saddam transferred such weapons to Iran or Syria even if they were his enemies (they are all Allah's minions, after all).

5)Create a democratic and secure Iraq-Not Done. Creating a nation for the unwilling or imposing democracy on another country are foolish ideas doomed to fail.

I favored the war in 2003 for the first four reasons. I do not favor it anymore because reason number five is impossible to achieve and that should have been anticipated at the start. Plus that fifth reason has overshadowed the others. It's up to the Iraqis to either build their nation or destroy one another-there's no sense in keeping our troops there much longer because the Iraqis will do what they wish one way or another.

I am not a Bush fan anymore but I'd have to say since the first three goals were accomplished and those WMD"s might be found one day the hard way the scorecard shows more wins than losses. I'm sure I'll be attacked for saying this but technically Iraq is a victory. The jihadists will claim otherwise (in their feeble minds they've never lost in 1400 years) but then who cares what that rabble says?

Bush on the cause of Islamo-fascist violence: "If it's not the Crusades, it's the cartoons."
I think the Pres. is more enlightened than some are giving him credit for. Few in history have stood up to these thugs, he has done more than most. And I’m not validating his mistakes.

Thank God Ramadan comes only once a year.
We'd probably all be dead by now if they had any more "holy" months on their calendar judging from these Eid sermons.

l am sure next time they get earthquakes, people from the west will not send them a barrel of anything.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at October 26, 2006 04:28 AM

I'll bet they will, as usual. Stupid is as stupid does as far as the West in concerned.

Great post Hugh, "but rather on (Pakistan's) handing over, those nuclear weapons it managed to acquire"

Battle phase deaths in Iraq were 200, occupation deaths are 70 per month. We should invade Iran and get our army in Iraq to the Pakistan border. Then we impose a naval blockade.

If we also invade and occupy Saudi Arabia, that will cut off Pakistan's outside financial aid.

Was 9-11 extortion?

Do Iran or Pakistan have kompromat on Clinton or Bush?

India and Pakistan did their nuclear tests in spring 1998 during various Clinton investigations.It is possible that not all information was disclosed in all of them. India, Pakistan may have known that at the time. That might have given them an opportunity to do their tests.

Washington insiders, rather than disclose this may have used it for intramural point scoring and that may then have caught up with the administration on 9-12 when Pakistan may have known or suspected that. This may be what got the argument with Armitage so heated.

This is just pure speculation and a hypothesis. However, if the Saudis and UAE also knew this, and Russia and China, it would explain why Bush lets Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Russia and China get away with anything they want.

The following is a link to the hypothesis, which is speculation, that there was info withheld from the 1997 to 2005 investigation of Harvard's HIID project in Russia:

" Issues: US v. Harvard, Bush v. Gore, Russia's Files on Plagiarism"

" TOC: US v. Harvard, Bush v. Gore, Russia's files on Plagiarism"

The following link has a comment from Treci Lotha that this hypothesis is nuts.

"You're nuts comment"

In sum, the USAO Mass investigation of the Harvard grant to Russia may not have been told that Russia has files back to the 1920's on possible academic misconduct, or what some might see as that, and that this may have been a factor in loans to Russia in the 1990's from IMF. Bush's team may have known that by 1998, along with India, Pakistan, and others.

This may be common gossip at IMF and World Bank, and Wolfowitz may have been appointed at World Bank as President to keep a lid on it. Pakistan has a former PM who was a VP at World Bank. The current PM and Finance Minister of Pakistan was an Executive VP at Citigroup up to 1999. So Pakistan may know about IMF and World Bank issues and personal details of Americans assigned there or at US Treasury going back decades.

The Bush group may have had this info during the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act hearings, which Clinton signed in Oct 98 during hearings on loans to Russia by Congress and the investigation by USAO Mass of Harvard, which started in 1997. This may also have been Pakistan and India's opening to do their nuclear tests in May 98.

During Bush v. Gore, this might have been available to use as leverage. Pakistan may have known or guessed this and used it after 9-11 to pressure Armitage and the other members of Bush's team. Armitage signed the PNAC letter in Jan 98 and might have known about the hypothetical info withheld from the USAO Mass Harvard investigation and Congress in its loans to Russia hearings.

This may be why their conversation became so personal and heated, Armitage had a stake in it. The head of Pakistan's ISI's job is to know these things and use them at the right time. September 12 and 13 2001 was the right time.

Pakistan joined IMF and World Bank in 1950. Saudi Arabia, UAE, China, Russia, Iran all are members and most have high level people there. This may be why Iran's President is allowed to mouth off against Israel, because he isn't allowed to talk about this, he is allowed to talk about Israel and deny the Holocaust as a consolation prize.

This is all speculation.

Mr. Hay, and to a much lesser extent, Prof. Schleifer got their comeuppance for their financial carryings-on in Russia, and Harvard, for failing to oversee properly (where are those Overseers, as Harvard descends?) a bit of one too.

The conspiracy theory given above about the World Bank and the IMF and all that is impossible to take seriously.

I can understood it seeming that way. To give some background, is the following link on the Fock Letter in 1947 published in Physical Review.

Corson Fock

You can read the snippets. To see the Fock Letter in full requires a subscription to Physical Review, you can go to a university library.

The letter basically says that Corson duplicated the work of Fock. The letter was in 1947 from the Soviet Union to Physical Review and Princeton University.

Pais in his autobiography comments on this episode and says that Corson plagiarized Fock. Corson was an atomic scientist and friend of Klaus Fuchs. Corson and Fuchs were both assistants to Max Born.

Max Born was plagiarized by Dirac with Fowler's asistance in 1925. In the spring of 1926, Niels Bohr was made a Fellow of the Royal Society. Fowler was married to Rutherford's daughter who headed the Cavendish Lab. In the spring of 1926, Rutherford made Bohr a Fellow of the Royal Society.

During WWII, Kapitza sent a letter to Bohr at the Russian embassy in London. Bohr showed the letter to the British. Kapitza had this as leverage over Bohr. The Soviets used this for decades and the Russians even in the 1990's.

The Russians got Klaus Fuchs into Los Alamos despite it being known he was a security risk in part because of this leverage. That is why Corson thought he could get away with plagiarizing Fock. Corson knew this because he was a friend of Fuchs and a former student of Max Born.

The Soviets had this sort of leverage before every nomination for the Nobel Prize in physics and economics. They have kept using this entire history as a lever over US profs.

In 1969, in the journal Matekon, Soviet prof Vainshtein accused Leontief of Harvard of plagiarizing input output economics.

In economics there is a long list of cases from 1952 to the present that the Russians know of.

In physics, the above incidents were widely known. There is a letter by Fermi to Dirac from the 1920's where Fermi points out Dirac duplicated Fermi's published work. India had top scientists in physics including Bhabba who knew of this. They also have top people in economics.

Some more detail at
More detail

In 1994, Sudoplatov published his memoirs. There is a footnote where he refers to Kapitza as a manager under Rutherford. There were publications by the Russia in the 1990's to remind the US profs of this history.

The big IMF loans to Russia started in spring 1995. In the fall, loans to shares gave Russia's oil to oligarchs. Boris Berezovsky was one of them. He got his Ph.D. in math at Moscow State University and was a manager at the institute of Control Sciences, Academy of Sciences USSR. That was a unit that analyzed the papers in math econ that raised issues involving the econ profs in charge of loans to Russia in the 1990's at IMF and US Treasury.

Chubais was on the payroll of HIID briefly. In the summer of 1998, Russia got 4.8 billion more dollars but it was reported stolen by the oligarchs and Yeltsin.

Kapitza in his 1937/38 obit for Rutherford said that Rutherford couldn't tolerate any man who would use the work of others. This was intended to needle Fowler and Dirac who were still alive.

Kapitza sent a letter to Bohr to set up the Terletsky meeting in late 1945 with Bohr that the Russians used to try to get Bohr to give them info on the atomic bomb.

In 1955, in a Soviet physics journal, in a celebration of Igor Tamm, they make strong comments implying that Dancoff, an Oppenheimer student was not independent. Tamm published a paper in 1945, and Dancoff duplicated that in part in 1950. Its called Tamm Dancoff. But the Russians pointedly called it the Tammm method in this paper even though the Americans at Princeton were already calling it Tamm Dancoff.

This is just speculation. Statements in the positive should be restated as questions or hypothetical.

A note on previous. In 1947, Fuchs was still not outed as a spy. Corson was a close friend of Fuchs, you can look at the biographies of Fuchs that hint he may have been very close.

Corson sent a telegram to Fuchs in jail in 1950 when Fuchs was arrested. Corson had his passport suspended then.

But in 1947, that was all in the future. So the Soviets were publishing this letter exposing Corson as a plagiarist even while Corson's close friend was an unouted spy. You can think about why they would do that.

ISLAMSFORLOSERS;
Your list is good up to #5. It could, and still can work. It is never going to happen as long as Islam, and it's law, is the base of the countrys "freedom".

I do not feel we imposed a government ,or steered them with any force, on where to go, what to do. Elections do not make a free country, only a truly free people will. Follow islam, and you are a slave.

Islofob IS-1:

It might indeed work, but there's no hope that those people WILL drop Islam and free themselves from mental slavery. Freeing them from their dictator has seemed to give them the freedom to kill one another. Unless they come to their senses the Iraqi people seem doomed to either complete destruction, or if they're "lucky", another dictator to control their murderous frenzy.

ISLAMSFORLOSERS;
I also agree, and perhaps that is where the U.S. has gone south, allowing islam as the control base for Iraq. They won't give this up, it must be removed from their law, through force if need be. If sucess is the goal, while we are still there, we can steer this, with needed force, on where to go, what to do.

But, once we leave, we get what it makes itself , tommorow and in the future.

Pathologicalstan was one reason why I was never enthusiastic about civilizing Afghanistan in order to grab OBL. Any campaign in Afghanistan would have had to have depended on Pakistani goodwill, which simply could not have been expected.

Re Musharaf's baldfaced lie that he was blackmailed, it was simply proof that dictatorships really aren't as strong as they claim to be. Sooner or later, the prejudices and expectations of the populations they govern will have to be taken into account.