Pakistan, a close U.S. ally in the war against terrorism, has rejected Washington's requests for access to Khan for questioning on nuclear black marketing.

What kind of ally does such a thing?

I do not think that Musharraf is an enemy of the United States, since I believe he is a Machiavellian by nature and possibly by education, but he is definitely under the constant pressure and threats of his fellow Pakistanis. So, we will never see complete cooperation from them on key and important issues. It also explains how we have never captured Bin Laden, who I firmly believe has been protected by insiders in every Muslim government from day one following 9/11.

Posted by: Foehammer at April 30, 2006 11:17 AM

Pakistan, a close U.S. ally in the war against terrorism, has rejected Washington's requests for access to Khan for questioning on nuclear black marketing.
++++++++++++++++

We should ask once, then tell them to turn him over or we will destroy every military base in Pakiland, then do it. Once we do this, the world will take note and understand that we will take to the war to all countries that stand aganist us, then do it.

Either fight this war or pull all of our troops back to America, round up all of the bastards that do not belong in America and defend our borders 100%.

Posted by: Texican at April 30, 2006 12:04 PM

The word "scientist" should be used here in quotation marks for both Muhammad Farooq and, especially, for A. Q. Khan. These people have nothing to do with Richard Feynmann, or Edward Teller, or Leo Szilard, or Emilio Segre, or Stanislaus Ulam. Whatever nuclear weaponry Pakistan possesses, or attempts to spread like confetti around the world, is the result not of "scientists" but of A. Q. Khan's theft of large amounts of information while working in Western (Dutch and German) laboratories. And this material, in turn, has bee used in Iran.

Why does this matter? It matters because access to Western universities and Western laboratories should be denied, as a matter of security, to "scientists" from all Muslim countries, or to individual Muslims.

There is no point in relying on soothing notions of regimes, or individuals, who can be "trusted" because the regime, or the individual, is blandly described as "moderate" or even "secular" Muslim:

1) the Muslim regime in question is now described as our "ally" or "staunch ally." Those Homeric epithets dangerously mislead. Were the year 1978, and the Shah still ruling Iran, and the Shah's regime -- those Hoveydas, those Tabatabais still in place, the French lycee in Teheran still admitting students -- and had the American government transferred nuclear secrets (and why not?) to "our staunch ally" Iran, those secrets would have fallen to that "staunch ally" Iran's successor, the Ayatollah Khomeini, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is not the "regime" but the fact that the people, or a great many of them, are Muslims, that should prevent any transfer of military technology that can harm Infidels -- and above all, ourselves.

2) individual Muslim students from Muslim countries, even if they give the appearance of being outwardly secular, and fine fellows, and even confide in you that their fondest hope is to remain in the United States, or Great Britain -- one cannot put faith either in that outward affability (which has been found to be comletely compatible with deep faith in the belief-system of Islam)

) one assumes that many of them will not return to those countries, will work in the Western world, can always decide to go back, perhaps having acquired a sudden "problem. Many Iraq weapons "scientists" studied in the Western world. Two of them were women -- walking exemplars of the "secularism" of the forward-looking Ba'athist regime. What could be better? Was not Iraq the place where those oil revenues had been used to expand (let's go into clche mode) "educational opportunities for women" and so it made sense to teach Dr. Germs all about biology and chemistry and Dr. Anthrax ditto, becuase what possible harm could there be in that?

3) individual Muslims who are citizens of Infidel countries do not, thereby, suddenly shed their possible present, or possible future, loyalty to Islam. If they insist, despite what Islam teaches, that the explanation for Muslim behavior must be found in "poverty" (see Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, for boys from the projects), or "American support of Israel" (a support of which the Muslims who kill Christians in the Sudan, Hindus in Bangladesh, and Buddhists in southern Thailand are unaware), that somehow there is something, anything, but the teachings, attitudes, atmospherics of Islam that explain Muslim support or defense of, acts by those directly participating in violent Jihad, and if they could at some point not merely defend, but themselves pariticpate in such acts, they remain a permanent worry. Why train them in nuclear engineering, or in fields where the knowledge acquired can be put to deadly use against Infidels? What sense does that make?

Posted by: Hugh at April 30, 2006 12:55 PM

The word "scientist" should be used here in quotation marks for both Muhammad Farooq and, especially, for A. Q. Khan. These people have nothing to do with Richard Feynmann, or Edward Teller, or Leo Szilard, or Emilio Segre, or Stanislaus Ulam. Whatever nuclear weaponry Pakistan possesses, or attempts to spread like confetti around the world, is the result not of "scientists" but of A. Q. Khan's theft of large amounts of information while working in Western (Dutch and German) laboratories.

Hugh, very astute observation. Somehow, that never struck me. Abdul Kalaam, India's president was more of a scientist - something that is possible when a Muslim avoids the 5 pillars of Islam, and instead reads the Bhagvad Gita every morning (something that even I don't do)

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 30, 2006 3:14 PM

Hugh said

Why train them in nuclear engineering, or in fields where the knowledge acquired can be put to deadly use against Infidels? What sense does that make?

Absolutely none. And consider the flip side: once Pakistan, ahem, "acquired" nuclear technology from the Dutch, to whom did they share it? Did they share it with India? No, that would be suicidal. No, it was Iraq, Iran, Libya, and if reports are to be believed, Saudi Arabia who enjoyed the benefits of being a "trusted" customer of A.Q. Khan. Blackmarket arms dealers are not known for scruples, but even they have their limits. So why are we Westerners so suicidal nowadays? We sure weren't churning out Soviet nuclear scientists from our universities during the Cold War. The Rosenbergs weren't feted as enlightened humanitarians, they were executed as traitors. So, when exactly did we lose our survival instinct?

Posted by: special_guest at April 30, 2006 4:35 PM

special_guest-

The top layer in the West got so financially-inter-twined with global Amoralites (the biggest unnamed tribe there is) in the oil and banking strata, that their desire was to not offend the paymasters/ tip the gravy boats.

This "educational reform" then pitched a generation into the cushioned abyss.

Freed of the callousing effects of hard history, the results of this daydream period (1975-1995) are coming back to bite our culture on the ass.

With their amazing ignorance of the physical basics, like "enlightened self-interest" AKA the "survival instinct", and by allowing these central Needs to be shifted out of mainstream of scholastic/business/political thought, these civilizational Illiterati have invited Islam's thin wedge into the West.

Mosques are like any other epi-phenomenon- they signal something occurring beyond -or beneath- their mere occurance.

The ground must be prepared. (Usually with a lot of manure.)

Or the host must be made unaware.

Lamprey eels, leeches and cuckoos need to be more commonly known life symbols for kids, through zoo visits, childrens' stories, Aesop's fables, etc.

If you have a metaphor, you may have a cure.

The teaching of hard history needs to begin again.

And a new subject distilled:

Koran-alysis.

A subset of The Art of War.

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 30, 2006 9:31 PM

"Pakistan, a close U.S. ally in the war against terrorism" Or was that "Pakistan, a STAUNCH U.S. ally in the war against terrorism" This garbage is wearing me down... Who wants to take bets on what the next adjective will be? Can I have "Long Standing" and parlay that with "Long Time" ten times please?

Posted by: WIDEAWAKE at May 1, 2006 1:16 AM

WIDEAWAKE, please put me down for 50 each on "trusted U.S. ally" and "reliable partner in the war on terror".

profitsbeard said

Lamprey eels, leeches and cuckoos need to be more commonly known life symbols for kids, through zoo visits, childrens' stories, Aesop's fables, etc.

I like your idea alot. Can you imagine the look of terror on kids' faces if you read them Quranic quotes at bedtime? They'd lie awake all night with the covers up to their eyes, shaking and wimpering. But at least the next generation would be more prepared than we were.

PS- Thank you for being the first person to reply to me without mentioning that I belong on the "special bus"...

Posted by: special_guest at May 1, 2006 2:33 AM

If Khan stole the stuff, what could possibly prevent them from hiring Russian scientists, those who have the knowhow and plans, are they somehow prevented from traveling and working in Mohammedan countries?

Money talks, and where there's a will there is usually a way.
This nightmare is happening now, and democracy is not equipped to deal with it. Neither is our PC culture.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 1, 2006 6:29 AM