The Taliban were born and bred in Pakistan during the Soviet war. Raised in the madrasas of Pakistan, subject to the religion that is always the old-time religion, those students ("talib" means "student")returned to bring Pure Islam from the Land of the Pure, Pakistan, to the slightly less-pure land of the assorted tribes that together make up a place called Afghanistan.

The Taliban continued to be supported by the Pakistani army's intelligence service, the I.S.I. And when the Taliban came to power, the only two states, aside from Pakistan, to recognize their regime were the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia.

Musharraff had better not expect the Americans to shell out money for this wall, and no American maker-of-policy should dare to make such a suggestion -- we've given, and given, and given at the office, with $750 billion for the Muslims of Iraq, and $60 billion for Egypt, and billions more for Jordan and the "Palestinians."

Posted by: Hugh at February 5, 2007 4:57 PM

Musharraf said he had ordered the action after western allies had failed to offer solutions to the problem

Ahhhh, yes....had to get the "blame-the-West" dig in again. Again, it was only after the West "failed to offer solutions" that the ummah was reluctantly forced (waah) to come up with "apartheid-like" solutions.

Which begs the question....if Allah's sharia is so divine and perfect, why wait at all on the infidel West for ANY kind of solution? Isn't the West, after all, the do-bidders of the Great Shaytan? Why doesn't Musharraf and his boys consult the religious texts they hold so dear for guidance on matters such as this?

Posted by: yadayada at February 5, 2007 5:10 PM

ISM will not protest *this* "apartheid" wall because. According to their (double) standards, they will protest only Israeli attempts at self-defense.

Posted by: Dave at February 5, 2007 5:12 PM

Hugh wrote: "we've given, and given, and given at the office, with $750 billion for the Muslims of Iraq, and $60 billion for Egypt, and billions more for Jordan and the "Palestinians."

You forgot the $6.72 billion we give to Israel YEARLY.

In the case of Iraq, the costs are justified. The US destroyed the infrastructure and allowed terrorists into the country to destroy it further. Bush's war will continue to cost the US in dollars and lives for at least a generation to come. Iraq is definitely the Vietnam of the new Millenium.

Back to the wall in Pakistan, I don't care who builds it. I think it's a good idea. Of course ALONG with the wall, you must change POLICY in the area as well, to ensure the powers that be (i.e. the autonomous tribal sheiks of the region as well as the local police force) do not find ways to circumvent the wall for the Taliban.

That's a lesson for all you militiamen whooping and hollering about the US-Mexico wall going up.

Posted by: Qualis Rex at February 5, 2007 5:55 PM

"Pakistan is to fence 35 kilometres (22 miles) of its northwestern border with Afghanistan to restrict the movement of Taliban militants, President Pervez Musharraf has said."

So, is this to keep the psychos in or the psychos out?

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 5, 2007 5:55 PM

"You forgot the $6.72 billion we give to Israel YEARLY."
-- from a posting above

Two comments:

1) What "$6.72 billion YEARLY" from the U.S. government is that? My figures show far less than that. Could you direct me to the information so I may revise my home data-bank? Post it right on this thread. I can wait.

2) But even if that were the true figure, or even if it were twice that, one would have to consider something else. Transfers of Infidel wealth to Dar al-Islam, by whomever made, are a bad idea, a self-damaging idea. Transfers of Infidel wealth to other Infidels, especially if those Infidels can always be counted on in a pinch, and a series of pinches is just what one has had, and is likely to have, for many years. It was Israel that destroyed the menace of Nasser, and Israel that destroyed the Iraqi reactor in 1981. It may well be Israel that will, in whole or in part, destroy the Iranian nuclear bomb project. That strikes me as a bargain (consider the $750 billion tossed down the Iraq rat-hole). Furthermore, it is essential that Jerusalem and the Holy Land remain in Infidel possession. If ever re-possessed by Muslims, you can be sure that Western access will be akin to that in the eleventh century, which began with Caliph al-Hakim's razing of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and went downhill from there (hence, of course, the Crusades). And there is also the matter of Islamic triumphalism, which must not be fed, for feeding it merely whets rather than sates the appetite.

Though it hardly matters if it is 3 or 6 or 10 billion dollars, given that Israel is an Infidel ally of greater military and intelligence assistance to the Untied States, in the Middle East, more than any individual NATO state at the moment (this might change if the governments of France and England change), it is still a good idea to find out just how much Israel receives in annual military and economic aid.

So as I said, please put the detailed breakdown of that "$6.72 billion YEARLY" in aid from the U.S. government to Israel right here, which I presume is based on figures for the last decade or so. Thank you.

Posted by: Hugh at February 5, 2007 6:20 PM

At this point, I don't believe anything Musharraf says.

Posted by: Unemployed Lawyer at February 5, 2007 6:40 PM

Hugh, if you're going to get pissy, please take 5 and drink small sips of water until you calm down. If you would like to speak rationally and calmly, then we can continue.

There are many figures on US aid to Israel, and a lot of it is "covered" in different areas. But you can go here http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm and get a full run-down of costs, which spiked in 1997 (the last decade as you said) in the billions.

Personally, I don't want the Holy Land run by Jews OR Muslims. It was just fine in the hands of the British. In my opinion it should be declared an "open city" such that EVERYONE has access to buy land, visit sites etc. Which is not the case now, as you know. And as you may have taken from my posts, I am not referring to the Muslims, about whom I couldn't care less. I am talking about the Christian residents. And I am writing this as someone who has stayed there (Jerusalem0 and have many Palestinian Christian friends living there still.

Posted by: Qualis Rex at February 5, 2007 6:40 PM

"Musharraff had better not expect the Americans to shell out money for this wall.."

I'll bet that is exactly what he will do. It will be for our benefit too of course.

Posted by: saggy at February 5, 2007 6:44 PM

If the "western allies" had been given a free hand, inside of Paki-Waziri-stan, they could have come up with a solution.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at February 5, 2007 6:44 PM

"In the case of Iraq, the costs are justified. The US destroyed the infrastructure and allowed terrorists into the country to destroy it further. Bush's war will continue to cost the US in dollars and lives for at least a generation to come."
-- from the same poster above

The "costs are justified"? $750 billion, at least, for this idiotic attempt to implant democracy among Muslims whose belief-system locates legitimacy not in the expressed will of the people, but in the will expressed by Allah? It is not merely that democracy is not easily transplantable. It is that it is essentially untransplantable, except insofar as it is reduced to mere head-counting, and then people march off to do as their leaders tell them, as happened in the case of Iraq. The Sunnis do not dislike democacy more than the Shi'a, and the Shi'a do not "embrace democracy" or, still worse, "love freedom" more than the Sunnis. It is only that the Sunni Arabs know that they constitute less than 20% of the population (even if, at the very same time, they also insist, and manage to deeply believe, that they constitute at least 42% of the population -- that's what the mind on a steady diet since birth of Islam can manage to do, and do with ease). The Shi'a did not march off as brave democrats, but as a group, doing what Al-Sistani told them to do (take part in the elections) and to vote, for various parties, as the leaders of SCIRI and Dawa and Moqtada al-Sadr told them to vote. The Kurds, while they took part in the national elections, voted in a Kurdistan-only referendum, with 98% voting for independence.

The American goal in Iraq, to transplant "democracy," did of course have one unintended consequence: it insured the victory of the Shi'a, and thus a transfer of power from Sunni Arabs to Shi'a Arabs. The Americans, who hardly knew the difference (certainly Bush didn't) between the two groups, and the list of differences is in any case largely silly, because it is the mere fact of that difference, and the depth and duration of that difference, and the long history of Sunni discrimination against, and persecution, and sometimes, as under Saddam Hussein, mass-murder of Shi'a by Sunnis, that matters. The Shi'a are never going to surrender power, and never going to institute the kind of compromises that might be possible among non-Muslim peoples. The Sunnis are never going to acquiesce, whether they are in or out of Iraq, in the Shi'a, those "Rafidite dogs," those quasi-"Persians" (just read the Cairo Press, for god's sake) taking control of the Land of the Two Rivers, the site of the Abbasid caliphate of Haroun al-Raschid, in the history and mythology of Sunni Arabs by far the most important place, and site of fabled Baghdad, the madinat al-salaam, that must never be given into the control of "Persian Rafidite dogs." What a humiliation, what an awful thing, that would be for Sunni Arabs ever to accept (you can ignore the silly prediction of Fouad Ajami that they will, in time, accept it -- it can't conceivably happen. But then, Fouad Ajami's Shi'a sympathies are clear, and they cloud, not for the first time, his judgment).

The very idea of creating Iraq the Model, which would inevitably be a state in which once the Sunni despotism of Saddam Hussein was removed would become a Shi'a-ruled state, and then having all the other Arab states, every single one of which is ruled by Sunnis, admire or wish to emulate, or somehow be inspired by that Shi'a-ruled model, is crazed beyond belief.

Finally, rpeeated for the thousandth time since February 2004: it makes no sense to try to patch up the sectarian and ethnic fissures in Iraq, which long predate the American invasion, predate by a thousand years, in fact, the very existence of the American republic. It makes sense, rather, to see the war being fought as a war against the Jihad, and not a "war on terror" (an idiotic phrase), and further,

Not only is "Iraq" not worth, as you maintain, the squandering of $750 billion, but that money might have been much better spent had it all gone into, for example, energy projects -- solar, wind, coal, nuclear, and subsidies to mass transit. We could, with that kind of money, have hastened the end of the great and continuing transfer of wealth from the Infidels to the Muslim oil states, states that have received, without doing a thing, without having merited a sou or a cent, and that have been the beneficiares of some ten trillion dollars since 1973. (Look up OPEC figures from 1973 to 2007. Figure out the take of all the Muslim states, that is, forget Venezuela and Nigeria, even if the latter is largely Muslim-ruled. Put all the amounts in 2007 dollars.). That money, or many tens of billions of it, has gone to pay for mosques, madrasas, and Da'wa propaganda all over the world. And it has gone as well to pay for an army of Western hirelings, who have been trained to protect and defend with their words and their influence the malevolent Saudis, and Islam. And at the same time, by hiding from Western publics what the Saudis do with their oil money, or some of it, those Westeern hirelings -- former diplomats to Arab countries, academics directly or indirectly in the pay of Arabs, who endow their centers (see John Esposito), or their indivdual chairs (King Abdul Azis this, Guardians of the Two Holy Places that, and so on), businessmen eager to curry favor and win Saudi contracts, journalists who like a little something extra, all those who set out their shingle as "international business consultants wtih special exptertise in the MIddle East" and who have a habit of writing Op/Eds and giving lectures that appear remarkably similar to the latest Saudi or Arab League propaganda line.

No, with that $750 billion or the $700 billion, say, that has been spent since the initial invasion and scouring of Iraq for major weaponry -- that was the only sensible or rational reason for the invasion of Iraq, the only thing that made sense -- a great deal could have been done to re-create those conditions which existed before the rise of OPEC, and to deprive the Muslims of much of the "money weapon" that has been so important in the permanent duty of Jihad that as a matter of doctrine is permanent, but as a practical matter will depend on the perceived strength of Muslims, the perceived weakness of Infidels, and of course on the effectiveness of the various instruments of Jihad that are available at any particular time.

Iraq was not worth $750 billion. And if the Administration could sit and stop trying to protect itself, or cover itself, and think clearly for a bit about the advantages of withdrawal and leaving the sectarian and ethnic divisions within Iraq not only to simmer, but to boil over, and not only to boil over within Iraq, but to spill over into other countries, throughout Dar al-Islam, they might -- if their innate stupidity, bolstered by cupidity (those Western hirelings have had their effect) and timidity (they just don't dare admit that Islam, Islam itself, is the menace), then we might not have to endure the spectacle of the squandering that we see all about us.

And meanwhile, to pay for this idiotic Iraq venture, a proposed budget, full of cruel and stupid measures, such as cutting Medicare and Medicaid, are presented to us.

What a failure of mind. What a failure of analysis. What a spectactular failure, all way round.

Posted by: Hugh at February 5, 2007 6:53 PM

"Qualis rex"--

I asked not for a link but for detailed information, and over the past decade. And the link you did suuply is to the well-known Arab propaganda sheet (possibly the best known after the old Aramco publications), the transparent pro-"Palestinian" and of course pro-Muslim Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs. For god's sake. Give me the real figures, from the American government, not from Arab propaganda (is that the one Andrew Kilgore runs? The one that every other week runs a story on the U.S.S. Liberty, or on how Israeli agents secretly run everything? That one? The one that has nothing at all to say about Islam or the world-wide Jihad, and has never met a mullah or an imam it didn't like? That one?).

Kindly post the accurate information, from published American government figures, here.

Posted by: Hugh at February 5, 2007 6:54 PM

I have just re-read the comment. Please post as well the laws pertaining to the sale of land in Israel, in the "Palestine Authority" lands, and in Jordan. Tell me, for example, if there is any legal reason why, say, Jews cannot sell to Arabs in Israel, or any legal reason why, say, Arabs cannot sell to Jews in Jordan or the "Palestine Authority." Please cite the exact laws. You can find them.

Posted by: Hugh at February 5, 2007 6:56 PM

Similar intentions from Thailand:

Thai leader calls for a security wall along Malaysia border

Ummah News Links

Posted by: ummahnewslinks at February 5, 2007 6:59 PM

What is Russia built a wall too all along the Muslim countries? It would be pretty long suppose but no need they made peace they are helping Iran out now with Nuclear Technology.

They built walls in the ancient times because there was no system to keep invaders out, and today there is no system to keep the invaders out so you resort to ancient methods all is well.

Temple mount had walls round it once.
Scotland too built a wall. I think America should make one for the Mexican boarder one made from concrete. Not because people want to but because sometimes you have to.

Posted by: jesusisthelamb at February 5, 2007 7:01 PM

A wall 22 miles long? The Afghan-Pakistan border is over a thousand miles long. It's good to see the Pakis making such a major effort.

Posted by: ebonystone at February 5, 2007 7:33 PM

Hugh, sorry, I refuse to read posts that can't succinctly and consisely get their point across. That old tactic of burrying the truth in BS doesn't work with me.

Anyway, I agree that the US is currently throwing money down a well in Iraq. But once again, that's Bush's fault for causing this war to begin with. Too many mindless goose-steppers were willing to invade Iraq without just cause. And this is the tangible and foreseen result.

I didn't want to go into Iraq and was dead set against it. But now that the US has invaded and the damage is done, the responsibility (fiscally and otherwise) rests squarely with the US government. Bush pulled out the lynch-pin, now he needs to clean up after the explosion.

Posted by: Qualis Rex at February 5, 2007 8:02 PM

Aaaamen ! Good Luck Pakistan; now, if they'd only do that here, south of the U.S. ?

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2007 8:09 PM

That is not the information, backing up your doubtful-sounding assertions, that I was justified in requesting. It was reasonable for me as well to assume that you might have at least some shred of such evidence readily available, or at least retrievable from the ether. It is not I who am guilty of that "old tactic" you mention, in a transparent attempt to deflect attention from your failure to produce the evidence requested.

So that's it.

Posted by: Hugh at February 5, 2007 8:24 PM

Is there any chance they could build a wall around the whole of Pakistan? If so, could the Army Corp of Engineers fill that with water?

Posted by: thestudent10048 at February 5, 2007 8:34 PM

"Pakistan is to fence 35 kilometres (22 miles) of its northwestern border with Afghanistan to restrict the movement of Taliban militants, President Pervez Musharraf has said."

So, is this to keep the psychos in or the psychos out?
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 5,:55 PM

LoL!

Posted by: Razdan at February 5, 2007 8:40 PM

"I didn't want to go into Iraq and was dead set against it. But now that the US has invaded and the damage is done, the responsibility (fiscally and otherwise) rests squarely with the US government. Bush pulled out the lynch-pin, now he needs to clean up after the explosion."
-- from a posting above

This theme -- that "we owe the Iraqis all kinds of things" -- was both predictable and long ago predicted here. It was bound to become the theme song of those who don't really wish for the Americans or other Infidels to win, who have a mixture of confused motives and attitudes that sometimes causes them to echo, or mimic, the right views, but in the end reveals them as gullible, vulnerable to sappy-sentimental appeals.

The American forces, at great cost, and with the assurances of all kinds of Shi'as in exile -- Ahmed Chalabi, Kanan Makiya, Rend al-Rahim Francke, and many others, that they would be greated as "liberators" (of course they would, for about a week, and for those on the receiving end of American largesse that temporary and feigned gratitude could last even a bit longer) -- removed a mass-murdering despot, who had ruled for 35 years and was prepared to have his sons, even worse than he, rule for another 35 years. He has killed 182,000 Kurds and hundreds of thousands of Shi'a. He had also terrorized many of the least servile Sunnis. But he was removed.

And then the Americans went around and convinced the Western creditor nations -- but, though no one apparently wishes to remind James Baker about this -- not the other Arab nations, to cancel nearly $100 billion in Iraqi debts. That was a usuing up of American political credit, for Iraq's sake.

Then, on top of that, the Americans built schools, repaired oilfields, built power grids, outfitted hospitals. Much of the work done by Iraqi contractors was shoddy. Much of the work done was blown up by "the Iraqis" themselves. But so far the Americans have spent $38 billion not in "re-constructing" but in constructing an Iraq that should not be forgotten -- an Iraq that under Saddam Hussein had gone completely to rack and ruin.

And then there were the hundreds of billions spent in what may be seen as an idealistic -- I see it as a naive and stupid thing to do, but many would call it "idealistic" -- attempt to make Iraq semi-civliized, with "democracy" and so on, on the theory that "ordinary moms and dads in the Middle East" want "freedom" just like we all do. It was nonsense, but "the Iraqis" were free to demonstrate that they were not the primitives, Islam-formed, as all of them are, and Islam-maddened, as so many of the are, with their susceptibility to violence, to conpsiracy theories, to a complete absence of loyalty to the idea of the nation-state, or to any of the guarantees for individual rights that are the basis of advanced Western democracies. Sunni or Shi'a Arab, they shared the ideas of Arab Muslims about the Kurds, whom they regard as being endowed not with inalienable rights but only with such rights as the Arabs, the best of peoples, choose to give them, and so far they have chosen over the history of modern Iraq to give them exactly nothing, but to kill them whenever the Kurds make a peep about their own autonomy, or their own claim to the oil in the north.

American soldiers have repeatedly fought, been wounded, and some have died (3,100 so far), because "the Iraqi" soldiers collect their pay, then run away, or never show up in the first place, or show up, and then whine constantly or laugh as they watch the Americans actually do the real searching, the real fighting, the real risking of life. The "Iraqis" take whatever they can -- gimmee, gimmee, gimmie is the refrain with the Americans, we need this, and we need that, and now the most insistent refrain, now that the big money is gone for all that contracting work, is "we need the weapons you have" (for god's sake, even our allies the British have nothing like the arms the Americans in Iraq possess, and the British officers are furious not only about the level of support they get from their government, but also furious about the requests from the Iraqis made to the ever-naive Americans).

$750 billion for ungrateful people is quite enough. These people who have been freed of a tyrant, who were given every chance not to behave in the primitive and murderous fashion they have behaved, who have never shown the slightest real gratitude, and whose behavior, by and large, has disgusted, and with reason, the American troops (save for an officer here or there who becomes unduly impressed with a particular Iraqi officer, and from one or two unusual exceptions, extrapolates so inaccurately about the behavior, and real attitudes, which can easily be hidden from Infidels unused to the constant deception that comes naturally to those raised in a society suffused with Islam, are owed not a cent more. They owe us.

But you can expect to hear this kind of sentiment, from the assorted Kosses of this world, as they attempt to deflect attention from the awful behavior of the Iraqis, and the splendid behavior of the American soldiers and Marines, and the idiotic and criminally negligent behavior of so many, in both parties, who haven't had the decency or the mental statmina to study up on both the doctrine and practice of Islam -- it's not a choice, it is now a requirement for office or for commenting on policy -- as they should. As they must.

Posted by: Hugh at February 5, 2007 8:51 PM

"Pakistan to build apartheid wall!" From the headline above.

Is the fence separating some parts of Mexico from USA, also an "apartheid wall"?

Sensational....

Posted by: payingattention at February 5, 2007 9:21 PM

US approves aid to Israel, Egypt

Yitzhak Benhorin Published: 05.26.06,

WASHINGTON - The United States Congress budget committee has approved the US foreign aid budget for 2007 of USD 21.3 billion. The budget includes aid for Israel (USD 2.4 billion) and Egypt (USD 1.7 billion).

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3255291,00.html

That is a far cry from 6.75 billion.

Posted by: Bar at February 5, 2007 9:22 PM

I cannot understand why Egypt, a world center of anti-Americanism, a country that furthermore should be soaking up the extra income of the rich Arabs (so that they have less to spend on funding mosques, madrasas, and Da'wa campaigns), should be given anything either by the United States or any Infidel country. I repeat: make the poorer Arabs and Muslims depend not on a disguised Jizyah, but on aid from rich Arabs. It's long past time. It is needed, to change the psychological equation. No more expected or assumed or presumed handouts or support, from Infidels to Muslims. It's a simple and useful idea. One can easily keep it in mind.

Posted by: Hugh at February 5, 2007 9:50 PM

Has any bone considered that that area is hardli the flat land of the Rio Grande? Isn't it mountainous?

I suppose the dear old boy is going to relocate nomad tribes?

Posted by: allat at February 5, 2007 11:20 PM

"The US destroyed the infrastructure and allowed terrorists into the country to destroy it further"

Comment posted above. Ludicrous.

Destroying the infrastructure of evil regime(s) is one of the most sacred acts and we the Infidels ought to be grateful towards Western Allies. (That includes Israel) And indebted too.

Even assuming what he claims is true, I would not rue for a moment ,even in my dreams, money and empowerment in all forms flowing into the hands of Israel and Western Allies.

"...allowing terrorists..." Lol.Waste your ire, if you have any, on terrorists for being spawned, suckled , nurtured and condoned by terrorists of the world. Your lugubrious knowledge about Hindu ethos did not surprise me. However your willingness to be an apologist for jihadists , your inherent animosity towards Jews only evoke CONTEMPT.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at February 6, 2007 12:12 AM

Qualis Rex said

But now that the US has invaded and the damage is done, the responsibility (fiscally and otherwise) rests squarely with the US government.

Based on the latest poll numbers, the message that we should no longer stay in Iraq has gotten through to the public. That argument is over, except for the few people in the White House who blindly, stubbornly, continue with "surges" and "augmentations". Except for those few fanatics, that horse has been flogged to death. It's over. Done. Finito. Kaput.

But now, phase two begins. The next step that is required, based on a number of books coming out, is to refute the argument that "we broke it, so we have to fix it". We didn't break anything, we got rid of an evil dictator. We helped the Iraqi people at great expense to ourselves. If they subsequently chose, against our advice and against our firm pressure, to choose tribal warfare over building a pluralistic society, that is not our responsibility. We have no obligation to stick around until their society looks and acts like ours (that is to say, forever).

In this next phase, apparently, we have to spell out that although the current and past Administrations have made many mistakes with regards to Islam, we are not responsible for what the Muslims have done to us and to each other. Bush did not cause (either by commission or by ommission) 9/11. Nor did he cause Sunni-on-Shiah-on-Kurdish violence in Iraq. Carter did not cause the Iranians to overwhelmingly support Ayatolla Khomeini over Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Clinton did not cause the Khobar Towers to be bombed. Reagan did not cause the Marine barracks in Lebanon to be bombed. Robert Kennedy did not cause a "Palestinian" to assassinate him. And so on.

Those Presidents didn't cause the jihad, Britney Spears didn't cause the jihad, Robert Spencer didn't cause the jihad, Pepsi and Coke and McDonalds and KFC didn't cause the jihad, bikinis and baggy jeans and tongue-piercings didn't cause the jihad. The jihadists caused the jihad, the Qur'an caused the jihad, 1400 years of Islamic jurisprudence caused the jihad.

We owe the Muslims of the world: nothing. And that figure is precise to the last penny.

Posted by: special_guest at February 6, 2007 1:21 AM

special_guest,

Absolutely agree with your post above. Enough of suicidal self flagellation.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at February 6, 2007 1:32 AM

Crows&Cows said

Enough of suicidal self flagellation.

Without firsthand knowledge of Qualis Rex's or Dean Esmay's or Dinesh D'Souza's or Barry Lando's personal beliefs, it's hard to say if it is suicidal hari kiri, or homicidal swordsmanship. But I agree with you that it has to be stopped.

Posted by: special_guest at February 6, 2007 1:43 AM

And the purpose of the wall ...

exercise, climbing up and over, or walking around.

Of course it's our money paying for this.

Who else is that stupid!

Posted by: LoneRanger at February 6, 2007 2:04 AM

Personally, I don't want the Holy Land run by Jews OR Muslims. Posted by: Qualis Rex

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 6, 2007 2:15 AM

Read what a Hindu (KR Phanda in Daily Pioneer) has to say:

"...took me back to the day in 1947 when the dismembered heads of our kin were stuck on spears and paraded in the village fields of the just-formed West Pakistan. All Hindus in the village left for India because the options given by Muslims were either embrace Islam or leave for Hindustan. This is the face of Islam I have seen and it still haunts me....... Nehru...asked the Assembly to provide superior fundamental rights for Muslims... Hindus were reduced to second-class citizens. Under the garb of constitutional provisions, exploited Hindus and paid Haj subsidies, besides doling out other benefits to Muslims. Is this equity?

Government's proposal to allocate national resources first to Muslims amounts to a re-introduction of jizya. This was first imposed by Mohammed-bin Qasim in 712 AD. Hindus continued to pay this tax till the end of the Mughal era in 1858. There was no jizya during the British rule of almost 200 years".

The dhimmified Hindus adamantly refuse to identify their enemies. Dabur, ayurvedic drug company is going to set up a plant in pukistan.

Why bother about the 'tridoshas' and health of our enemies? Terrorists will relentlessly continue with their infiltration and bombing. And Hindus will continue with their festivals celebration with eyes wide shut. Who is stupid?

Posted by: Crows&Cows at February 6, 2007 2:19 AM

Hugh wrote: "Finally, rpeeated for the thousandth time since February 2004: it makes no sense to try to patch up the sectarian and ethnic fissures in Iraq, which long predate the American invasion, predate by a thousand years, in fact, the very existence of the American republic. It makes sense, rather, to see the war being fought as a war against the Jihad, and not a "war on terror" (an idiotic phrase), and further,"

Wouldn't that be nice Hugh. How utopian. I long to see the day that America wages a "war on jihad" and not just a "war on terror."

I don't have a crystal ball and can't predict what the future holds for jihad around the world. But it is obvious to me that America simply doesn't have enough resources or the strength to defeat jihad on her own. Destroying the Islamic jihad beast which lumbers across the world requires a group effort to confront Islam as well as a shared interest in re-shaping the world on a massive scale.

America is not want for lack of courage to confront and re-shape the world, especially when democracy and liberty are encroached by Islamic jihad. But I am afraid that most other countries, including nearly all the European ones, are quite apathetic and unwilling to confront a muscular jihad/Islam.

Yes, Europeans occasionally muster enough courage and willpower to say a few nasty things to Islamic regimes behind America's cover and protection every now and then. But don't count on the fickle European powers to lead the world in fighting Islamic jihad.

Europeans are barely strong and united enough to confront a bellicose Iran. They would rather throw their strength around and intimidate Israel all the while talking down to the Americans about how naive they are in believing that they believe that they have the power to change the world for the better.

As an American, I can tell you that Americans are fed up with Muslim crazed suicide bombers blowing up American troops and destroying American reconstruction projects.

President Bush's resurgence plan isn't a popular plan across the nation.

Watching American money fly out the door to nation build in Iraq when have we such a great national deficit and, for lack of better words, a tremendous amount of nation building of our own to accomplish- in our own borders- doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

But for goodness sake, what other nation on earth is willing to send hundreds of thousands of troops and resources into harms way- all in an effort to improve the lives of ordinary Iraqis and make the Middle East more stable and less likely to support jihadi ideology?

I don't know what the future holds for Iraq, but if by some chance Iraq is somehow a more democratic nation and becomes an instrument of change in the Middle East by confronting the dark abyss of Islamic jihad and restoring civility, then you have the Americans to thank, not the arrogant and cynical Europeans.

Posted by: Johnathan at February 6, 2007 3:08 AM

"A wall 22 miles long? The Afghan-Pakistan border is over a thousand miles long. It's good to see the Pakis making such a major effort."

That 22 miles is supposedly in a most vulnerable area. Don't think they'll wall the entire border.

Posted by: Short, fat, and a double chin at February 6, 2007 3:34 AM

"Musharraf said he had ordered the action after western allies had failed to offer solutions to the problem, but added that Pakistan had deferred a plan to mine the frontier due to international concerns."

....The US wanted to actively patrol the area on the land and by aerial reconnaisance, but the Pakistani government objected. Hidden mines are very effective and will be still killing and maiming 20 years after they are placed... The problem with mines is that once they are placed, the records with the locations are lost and no one clears them out.. THey become even harder to find with the passage of time...

.....I would heavily mine the area, in effect, turning it into a no mans land...cross at your own risk...such action would not stop infiltration, but it certainly would slow it down..

....I would also place electronic sensors everywhere...these sensors transmit movement which could be monitored...

.....I would also use the unmanned reconnaisance drones to photograph and attack Muslim terrorists.....

.....I would tell the Pakistani government to stay out of the way.....

.....I think Musharraf plays both sides of the fence...when he dies, it will probably be at the hands of the Muslims...

....The only way to stop the Taliban is to actively attack them and eliminate them...

....I you catch 200 or more attending a fallen comrades funeral....kill em all...Muslims have certainly attacked funeral processions and wedding parties, they have set the rules...(basically there are no rules)...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at February 6, 2007 6:10 AM

We owe the Muslims of the world: nothing. And that figure is precise to the last penny.
Posted by: special_guest on February 6, 2007 01:21 AM

Now that would make both a meaningful and potent campaign slogan! Any political figures reading these blogs???

Posted by: Razdan at February 6, 2007 8:35 AM

They must have got the idea for a wall from the Israeli's and their massive Wall carving up the Holy Land.

Posted by: maryam at February 6, 2007 4:15 PM

Hugh; "1) What "$6.72 billion YEARLY" from the U.S. government is that? My figures show far less than that. Could you direct me to the information so I may revise my home data-bank? Post it right on this thread. I can wait."

Since 1973 Israel has cost the US about $1.6 trillion.
In 2004 the US provided Israel with $2.3 billion in military aid and 500 million in economic assistance.
In addition to nearly $3 billion a year in direct aid Israel usually gets another $3 billion or so in indirect aid, such as military support, forgiven loans and special grants.
Israel receives approximately one third of the entire US foreign aid budget, despite the fact that it comprises less that 0.001 of the world's population, and has one of the world's higher per capita incomes.
Why do you do it America? It's a country of only 6 million people, and the death and destruction they perpetrate is only made possible by US aid. What have they promised you? What have they threatened you? What do you get that's worth $6 billion a year? You wouldn't happen to have high-ranking Israeli officials in your government would you?
Relocate Israel to America: it'd be cheaper!!

Posted by: maryam at February 6, 2007 4:45 PM

The propaganda about Israel's "They must have got the idea for a wall from the Israeli's and their massive Wall carving up the Holy Land" is a bit misleading. Interesting that you should call it a "wall", when in fact it is actually a fence..not a wall...over 95% of its length. So..why call it a wall...I would imagine its an attempt at taqiyya...to mislead readers.

The mere 5% that is an actual wall is a wall for a reason-- in those areas the Arabs fire on Israelis..a wall was needed to stop the shelling.

What would you do if you lived next to Gaza or the West Bank... some sort of barrier is necessary.

Posted by: Krishna109 at February 7, 2007 7:52 AM

Here's an example of the difficulties presented by building a so-called "Apartheid Wall"--

"Villagers on the...border say the fence will cut them from their homeland...to reach the baked earth of his...field each day, Mohammed Safiqual Biswas must pass coils of barbed wire and armed guards and show his identity card at a security check..."

Of course the people who built it claim the purpose is to stop Islamic terrorism.

Can you guess what country built it...? If you can't guess, here' a hint...the name of the country starts with the letter "I".

Which country will build an "Apartheid Wall"...just to make innocent farmer's lives miserable...and then claim it was to stop Islamic crazies from coming in and murdering innocent people?

See if you guessed correctly-- here's the article

Posted by: Krishna109 at February 7, 2007 8:21 AM

This article has lots of links to articles that clear up some of the common misconceptions about Israel's security barrier, as well as information about other countries' security barriers: Update

Here's a campaign to remove ALL the fences in the world-- a truly noble project.

Posted by: Krishna109 at February 7, 2007 9:48 AM