Posts Tagged ‘Afghanistan’

Red journalism or yellow journalism?

October 3, 2009

3 October 1996

The Editor, Mid-day, Mumbai                                                                            


Mr. Iqbal Masud, the prominent media critic, should know better than to follow the hackneyed line of all news media and describe Taliban’s take-over of Kabul as barbaric victory, ( Ref: his article: ‘History cycle’ — Mid-Day, 3/10).

President Rabbani, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Ahmed Shah Masud fled Kabul and the capital of Afghanistan fell to Taliban without a shot being fired.

How does this become a barbaric victory.

Just because they hanged ‘one’ Leftist stooge who had himself hanged and killed more than 20,000 Afghanis during his ruthless reign of terror?

Is this the new brand of red journalism to compete with yellow journalism?






September 13, 2009



Sunday, September 13, 2009

Those who ignore the lessons of history, come to grief. British experience in Afghanistan when out of 20,000 only one man survived, was repeatedly cited when both Russia and now US are bogged down in Afghanistan. Nobody paid heed. Taliban had brought peace to the country after Russia left. US had good relations with them. It is their arrogance of power that they had to suffer so much ignominy when they thought they can uproot Taliban and impose their cronies on the country.

It is still time for everybody that wishes to do business with Afghan to restore the country to their rightful owners and deal with them as equals.

Afghanistan should be brought into the mainstream of 21st century civilization, with its freedom, dignity and independence fully restored to its people. They are proud and talented people. They will make their mark in the comity of nations.

If the US and NATO leave now, there will be chaos, but the power that emerges will be able to ensure longer term stability, if the world learns the lessons from history and let Afghanistan be left to Afghans.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai


Why run away from the enemy?

Swapan Dasgupta

Sunday September 13, 2009
There are good reasons why the commemoration of the eighth anniversary of 9/11 was remarkably subdued in both the US and Europe. The initial fear, followed by outrage and a steely determination to cleanse terrorism from the world has given way to frustration, despondency and defeatism. Iraq may have got off the front pages but Afghanistan, where it all began, is now increasingly being perceived as a hopeless war. Both liberals and conservatives in the West seem agreed that there is little point losing more lives and pouring money down a bottomless pit if the Afghans themselves are not sensitive to the charms of democracy and development.

Predictably, the dreaded Taliban with their medieval fanaticism and warped values invite maximum derision. But Western scorn is being dished out in equal measure at president Hamid Karzai whose exotic elegance once induced the perfect multiculturalist wet dream. Karzai is today being cast as a ballot thief and linked to sinister drug barons and ugly warlords. The ethical commitment that galvanised the post 9/11 crusade against the new evil has been considerably blurred by the realisation that the home side also plays foul. In the framework of moral absolutes, “we” are seen to be as imperfect and sinful as “them”. The will to fight the “just” war in Afghanistan has evaporated.

The implication is obvious: If the West can’t carry the proverbial white man’s burden in Afghanistan and, in Kipling’s immortal words, “veil the threat of terror/ And check the show of pride”, it should concentrate on its own aam admi concerns – like addressing schoolkids, pushing for universal healthcare and coping with the recession. A century ago, empire-builders could take on the fanatical Mahadi and his “Fuzzy Wuzzies” in Sudan to avenge the murder of General Gordon. In those days, public opinion at home didn’t count. As former US president Lyndon Johnson discovered to his cost in 1968, today a spectacular domestic track record can be effortlessly nullified by an overseas misadventure.

In the past six months, the West has acknowledged that it no longer has the political and moral resolve to do what it takes to win the Afghan war. Britain can barely stomach the death of 200 soldiers; a reinvented Germany can’t get over the collective trauma of having ordered the bombing in Kunduz; and the US Congress is taking a dim view of General Stanley McChrystal’s request for a last ditch surge in ground forces.

The war aims of the US-led NATO forces have been dramatically modified. From mounting an assault on a global menace, the West now wants to merely safeguard itself from terror attacks. In other words, if the Taliban can guarantee that it won’t mount terror strikes against the West or help those crazies from Birmingham who want videographed martyrdom, they can earn themselves the uninhibited right to thrash every barber, every musician and every unveiled woman. Their pent-up jihadi impulses can be carefully redirected elsewhere, as long as it is not Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the ones who are likely to oversee the post-withdrawal arrangements.

For Pakistan, the departure of the US-led forces and its own assumption of peace-keeping duties (for a generous consideration, of course) in Afghanistan will be triumph comparable in scale to the recovery of East Pakistan. First, it would have recovered its lost “strategic depth” in Afghanistan, an enormous gain in the context of its hostility with India. Secondly, it would have inherited the entire military arsenal of the retreating army. Third, as a price for guaranteeing zero terrorism against the West, it would have a reserve army of motivated Islamists to work for the “liberation” of India, particularly Kashmir.

India was an unintended beneficiary of Osama bin Laden over-reaching himself and inviting US retribution after 9/11. With the West’s likely retreat from Afghanistan, these gains stand in danger of being nullified. With an assertive China in the east and a re-energised Pakistan in the west, India may have reason to be deeply worried. How long can New Delhi live in denial and continue to raise the threshold of tolerance?

Yet, it’s not India alone that should be alarmed. When the last helicopter departs from Kabul and Mullah Omar returns to reclaim his lost Emirate, the Islamists would have won a spectacular victory. In just two decades, jihad would have been seen to have vanquished two superpowers – first the Soviet Union and now the US. The inevitable triumphalism is bound to infect the entire Muslim world. In Iran, it will reaffirm the conviction that a self-absorbed, decadent Western civilisation doesn’t have the moral gumption to resist a resurgent Islam.

The West should realise that running away doesn’t solve a problem; it often emboldens the enemy.



Rated4.8/5 (39 Votes)1 2 3 4 5

Agree (5)
Disagree (14)
Ali Khan says:
September 13, 2009 at 04:04 AM IST
9/11 is one of the incident in the World which has so many Conspiracy Theories Associated with it. One can just go to YouTube and you find a lot of people talking about it. We have seen 9/11 Truth Demonstrations through out the world but the interesting point is US Government never comes with their explanation or more evidense to support their story. One of the common quesion which we can ask to ourselves is where did the Plane Gone after hitting the Pentagon, the pictures shown were just showing a small hole/crater on one of the wall of pentagon.
Another interesting thing the series of things happened soon after 9/11 shows that this tragedy has been Politically utilized to its Full Extent by the US Government!!!

Agree (4)
Disagree (12)
Sameer says:
September 13, 2009 at 04:06 AM IST
9/11 is an Inside Job…

Agree (5)
Disagree (9)
September 13, 2009 at 05:10 AM IST
First Super Power USSR (now Russia) and now
Super Power America,together with other powerful
allies, are paying the price in fighting enemies
in primitive Afghanistan. Russia dug in for 10
years and left hiding the tail between the legs
incurring heavy losses in terms of human lives
and arms and ammunitions. America is in 7th year
and is finding the frustation of war in Afghanis-
-tan. Financially, all involved in Afghanistan
are now almost “bankrupt”. Very difficult to
pull on ? World is waiting to see who has the
last laugh !

Agree (11)
Disagree (2)
Rajat says:
September 13, 2009 at 06:49 AM IST
your whole article basically stands on the premise that Pakistan or some one there can guaranty that there wont be any strikes against the west post retreat from Afghanistan.
Americans might be foolish but they sure are not blind, they have seen what happened to the erstwhile USSR, and know that nothing could be more dangerous than giving the Jihadists the slightest chance to proclaim victory.
You should also know that there can be no end to this problem until either we are able to wipe out the jihadists or the whole world population turns to islam and we start moving back in time.

Agree (9)
Disagree (2)
Nitesh says:
September 13, 2009 at 08:09 AM IST
A very thoughtful article.
Once NATO forces go back and the dust settles in Afghanistan and adjoining area of Pakistan,Pakistan will turn the attention of taliban and other islamic fanatics towards India. And jammu & kashmir will again bleed and I shall wait for another terrorist attack in India though on a bigger scale.

Agree (2)
Disagree (20)
sam the man from pakistan says:
September 13, 2009 at 08:41 AM IST
untill the root causes of the terrorism is not dressed,their will never be a peace.greedyness of israel and india will keep the terrorism alive untill terrorism take them down.solve the palistine and kashmir problem according to the wishes of the people of kashmir and palistine,their will be no more terrorism.
fait of usa and other involve is going to be worse then rusia.mujahadins will humuliate these forces so bad that they will never dare to attack afghanistan again.

Agree (14)
Disagree (3)
Azharuddin Masood says:
September 13, 2009 at 10:22 AM IST
The world changed negatively after 9/11, but for Pakistan, it changed for better. Immediately after 9/11 it was well understood and conceived that Pakistani Government, Pakistan’s spy agency ISI was involved in the 9/11 attack. Since Pakistan have always been an ally of US right from the day of creation, Bush administration fully covered Pakistan and heralded as an ally of US and went after Al Qaida and Taliban, instead of waging a war campaign against Pakistan US included Pakistan as a frontline state in the war on terror but in reality Pakistan is the enemy of America, Afghanistan, India and humanity at large PATHOS!!! It was clearly indicated with proof that the then ISI chief General Mahmoud Ahmed instructed Omer Sheikh to transfer $100,000 before 9/11 attack to Atta the ring leader of 9/11. When the ISI chief was exposed of having send the money to the hijackers, the then President Musharraf now mentally retard, forced ISI general to retire immediately. Soon after the invasion of Afghanistan Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders went on run. Pakistan seems to be harboring Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists. Pakistan knows very well that until terrorists are with them they will continue to get monetary aid and military aid from US which they are accumulating it to use against India. After 9/11 many Pakistani journalists’ referred to Al Qaida as Al-Faeda such was the monetary benefit to Pakistan. 9/11 literally spawned a new industry named “terrorism” for Pakistan. This not at all surprises me; Pakistan is a devil in the face of an ally. The best suggestion is the US should send its military into Pakistan from the western borders from Afghanistan and at the same time India should attack Pakistan from the east. World will never be able to root out terrorism without dismantling Pakistan. 99.9 % of Pakistanis are heavily sympathetic to radicalism. Its enough now and we should stop daydreaming and take a strong stance and attack Pakistan to make this world free of terrorism.

Agree (4)
Disagree (1)
Gunjan says:
September 13, 2009 at 12:09 PM IST
Very well written article and analysis. But we must not forget that the west would not hesitate to use the nuclear option like it has done in the past to tilt the balance in its favour.
What can stop them from doing it ? World opinion. But then the world opinion of the powers that matter (Russia, China, Europe, India and even Israel) are themselves fed up of islamism and its dangers. So its not unlikely that after the NATO forces leave, one large attack occurs on the world and the west builds a consensus to nuke the troubled areas of pakistan/afghanistan.
@ Sam the man from pakistan – palestine and kashmir are excuses that islamists use to justify their inherent need for fighting a holy war at any cost. We have seen it in the past and the world wont be fooled by such excuses to vent your islamic frustration. The moment you get palestine and kashmir, you would find another excuse. Let me give you an example – you as a pakistani – what do you have to do with palestine really ? Just because the palestinians are majority muslims, right ? In the same line of thought, you would find chechnya next, philipines after that, Uighuir chinese next and so on and so forth.
The cause of islamism does not stop at palestine and kashmir – it extends into world domination. And it is this desire that makes the west their most hated enemy as they cant tolerate the prosperity and power of the western world. THAT is the root cause of islamism and not political issues in faraway lands like kashmir and palestine. They are mere symptoms of the disease.


Agree (2)
Disagree (0)
Jake says:
September 13, 2009 at 12:22 PM IST
A really well writen article…it shows u have a real concern and understanding of the situation…while there is a lot that i could write on, including the real reasons for these wars, i’m just going to state here that american departure from afghanistan is imminent. The problem that the (the americans) have is that their population is wonderful (though horribly uninformed), and they really won’t let this war go on for too long….
Unfotrunately for the brave afghan people, the taliban will eventually take over (unless there’s a sustained effort by the international community to finish them)….Pakistan will be a victim of a monster of its own creation…..and incursions into Indian territory will not cease…
Never underestimate the afghans….afhanistan is the “graveyard of empires”….

Agree (1)
Disagree (0)
abhishek says:
September 13, 2009 at 12:25 PM IST
india has to learn some lesson from these attack and take some measure steep to stop it happen again but gov of india loock like to take it easey.

Agree (1)
Disagree (0)
anonymous says:
September 13, 2009 at 12:35 PM IST
The West must not abandon Afghanistan at this point in time.

Agree (0)
Disagree (0)
premji jairam says:
September 13, 2009 at 12:53 PM IST
It is strange that Indian dependence on US and western countries`stratagey regarding Af-Pak`terror agenda.This myopic view belittle political acumen of the Indian intellgentia who designed our policies.


Agree (4)

Disagree (0)

Nitesh says:
September 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM IST
@ sam the man from pakistan
So you want to say that till the time India and Pakistan doesn’t solve Pakistan problem, innocent kashmiri people will continue to die at the hands of the terrorist sent from your factories in Muzaffarabad and elsewhere which produce more terrorists than cotton produced in Pakistan. You see it’s a circle and you are seeing the circle anti-clockwise. Try to see it clockwise. Till the time Pakistan stops sponsoring terrorists across the boarder and planning attacks like 26-11 Mumbai attacks, the peace talks will never take off and bear fruits and remain hidden in the rusting files.
And don’t you worry about Afghanistan. Nothing will happen to terrorist’s hegemony over there. In some years USA will take it’s troops away and then you can always raise another powerful Taliban in Afghanistan and SWAT areas. This time ground Empire State building and Sears towers destroy statues of Buddha in India(World Trade Centre and Bamiyan statues are no more) and establish a rule of Islam whose meaning you fanatics don’t understand at all. Make Osama Bin Laden the Secretary General of UN if it at all exists in your Utopian world.

Agree (1)
Disagree (0)
Vikram says:
September 13, 2009 at 01:51 PM IST
The religious fundamentalist nut jobs should be fought with cold logic. There is no point in getting angry or emotional and making a lot of noise. It only makes them think that they have succeeded in upsetting others.
If they attack any civilized country, they should be systematically tracked down and eliminated. Also, destroy their irrational ideology with education and logic. Make them realize that there is no Jannat (Heaven) and that the only place they will end up if they become suicide bombers is six feet under the ground and decompose.

Agree (2)
Disagree (1)
Raj says:
September 13, 2009 at 02:05 PM IST
Whether one agrees or not ,the fact remains that Islam is fastest growing religion on the planet.
As I understand,in most of the arab countries unless a man has 4 wives and maintains 4 different homes to maintain them,he is considered to be not “strong enough”.The result is that muslims population is growing all over disproprtionately.
In India also Hindus,thanks to their adherence to family planning, are predicted to be minority in next 50 years and either there would be a civil war or another partition in such a case(even though I sincierly hope such things dont happen).
Even worldwide the these trends are being debated.For example a youtube video describes how Europe would be 30% Muslim in next 40-50 years and white Christian people may lose their liberal way of
life as Shariyat would implemented in such a case.
And if the strong leaders like Bush and Blair could not resolve this issue,who could?
Is it scaremongering and “communal” to raise such issues?I dont think so.
My suggestion is a frank and open dialoguse between various religions of the world so that consensus of peaceful co-existence could be arrived at.
Relions must encourage harmony amongst people and not create animosity between them.
Live and let live should be motto of everyone.


QUIT AFGHANISTAN – By Ghulam Muhammed

September 5, 2009

Friday, September 04, 2009


Today BBC’s security correspondent Frank Gardner has gone record with a clear admission that US/NATO operations in Afghanistan on Taliban and Afghan civilians has nothing directly or indirectly relates to US/NATO’s avowed claim to be fighting Al-Qaeda terrorism in Afghanistan. None of the terror attacks in the West that Frank Gardner rattles off in his BBC intervention, according to him, has any remote relations with Taliban in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Daily aerial bombings are a serial war- crime murders committed against civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Al-Qaeda is not necessarily based in these areas. They can operate from Yemen, Somalia and in future from North Africa. With each incident of wanton massacre of civilians, Obama, Gordon Brown and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen instantly go on TV and fool their people back home, that their bloody mission in Afghanistan is necessary to protect homeland from terrorism emanating from Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is patent lies. They cannot fool all the people all the time. Time has come for US/UK/NATO to quit Afghanistan forthwith, without committing more and more war crimes daily on the innocent hapless people of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

NATO forces yesterday shot an oil tanker, hijacked by Taliban in Kunduz province. The tanker was stuck while crossing a river and Taliban had asked local people to empty the tanker, by taking away the fuel for their private use. NATO did not find it necessary to find out if the crowd collected around the hijacked tanker was that of civilians or Taliban. Reconnaissance can easily make out. However, NATO forces directly undermined clear instructions from the High Command and in an enraged vindictive action blew up the tanker. The action resulted in over 90 killed. BBC in its first report clearly mentioned that all were civilians. But the NATO Chief later find it convenient to resort to blatantly lie and say that all killed were Taliban. An enquiry is promised. But all such enquiries are self-serving, bending backwards to prove the forces to be not guilty. However, the civilians in these cannot be fooled. This carnage is going on by the hour and the world seems to be sanitized to one of the most blatant and wanton criminal war inflicted on a UN member country.

Though India at some level seems to be involved in the conspiracy being played out in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Indian people are not fully taken into any confidence, if the criminal acts have any legal basis. Indian government should gather up moral courage and come out with open notice to the US and NATO forces to QUIT AFGHANISTAN. A moral India owes it to its people to oppose such horrendous carnage in its neighbourhood. Needless to say, the fire could spread into India‘s own territory, in one form or other.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

Are Obama, Hillary Clinton, Gates, Petraeus and Holbrooke ready to face an international war crimes trial if AFPAK war leads to genocide?

May 6, 2009

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

Are Obama, Hillary Clinton, Gates, Petraeus and Holbrooke ready to face an international war crime trial if AFPAK war leads to genocide?


Nobody doubts that the US/Nato has the firepower, especially, air fire power to destroy the entire 40 million population of Pakhtoonistan, populated in the area that straddles on both side of Afghanistan/Pakistan border.

The ‘enemy’ that the US —- not EU —- has identified is effectively the entire population of the area. No amount of drones or Pak armed efforts can subdue the rightful inspiration of the indigenous people of the area. The only alternative for the US to achieve its goal, however carefully defined by the present administration to fool its own people, in not the world at large, is to destroy the entire Pakhtoon people with a scorched to earth bombing spree.

Short of that solution, the US forces will be engaged in a prolonged operation in this area that will destroy the peace and potential prosperity of the region for decades to come. And if the gradual increment in US war aims finally leads to indiscriminate bombing of Pakistan, even Pakistani civilian casualties will be involved. That is a sure case of attempting the genocide of the people of the region.

In case of carnage on such a scale, US administration leaders from Obama down to Holbrooke should better be prepared for a war crime trial, either by their own courts or an international court. This is besides the anger of the Muslim world. Obama had repeatedly declared that Bush has done a blunder in getting involved in Iraq war and neglecting Afghanistan is the US war against terror. Now that he is in charge, he should get another set of analysts, other than the neo-con infested or rather impregnated thinkers that had taken the US to a path to disaster in the Bush years, in every meaning of the word. He has been given a rarest of rare opportunity to set the course to a more peaceful, more prosperous and equitable world. He should not lose this opportunity by being handicapped by Bush era foreign policy dead ends. It’s absurd to hope that either Zardari of Pak army, or even Indian army, if US has any such designs in future, to subdue the enraged people of Pakhtoon. History is on their side. They can be bought, but they cannot be fought. Unless, by invading Afghanistan and indulging in hot pursuit, the neo-con designated strategy is to take over the entire subcontinent in a neo-colonial upsurge, Obama should stick to diplomacy to solve the problem.

Let there be a regional conference of all neighbours, to propose peaceful means to pacify Pakhtoon and start building up the subcontinent in a larger economic zone, setting a invigorated pace to integration at all levels. The future of 2 billion people, a third of the world population is at stake. War or peace; the choice remains with Obama, as the buck stops at his Oval Office table.


Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

Europe overwhelmingly against US persistence with armed solution to Afghanistan

March 28, 2009

Saturday, March 28, 2009


Europe overwhelmingly against US persistence with armed solution to Afghanistan


In a internationally televised BBC Live debate at Brussels Forum, speaker after speaker hedged their full support to US over its continued reliance on armed solution to AF-APK problems. This follows immediately after US President Obama’s new policy announcements where he laid out that the US focus will be on fighting the ephemeral ghost of Al Qaida on the eve of dispatching of further 17000 troops and a contingent of another 4000 to train Afghan police and military personnel. State Department’s Anne Marie Slaughter had come over pressing Europeans in the name of the transatlantic share destiny, to do more to take the joint challenges of global environment, terrorism and economic issues. British, Swedish officials did confirm their full commitment to transatlantic alliance, but debate again and again veered towards the frustrated hope that Obama will come out with new soft options rather than get overwhelmed by his military commanders and their department of defence supporters. As New York Times reported about a long session of top level internal debate in White House situation room, which was participated by Vice- President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary, Robert Gates and Chairman of Joint Chief of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, US president Obama took a full week to come to his ‘signature foreign policy’ decision to continue with the Bush policies, though with renewed vigour. It is apparent to observers, that Obama has felt cornered and could not come out with any new initiative to change the course in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as he had scant support from his own administration, which is barely able to come to grips with the continued crisis at various levels. For all practical purposes, he appeared to rubber stamp what ever his war cabinet dictated. That was the easy way out for him at this juncture. He has so many problems and he felt it will take the burden off his head, if his military team is given what they are asking. In contrast, it had alarmed his European partners, that instead of expecting a change for soft option, they are being now pressed for further active involvement both in troops, civilian technical support as well as funding.


European issue of differences in strategic thinking did come out and it was a big change that US representatives did not appear to be as haughty and arrogant as those in Bush era. But the message was clear to the European that US expect them to sign on the dotted line.


BBC anchor brought in an Indian journalist, Shekhar Gupta, in to the discussion as a courtesy to India now being part of the greater western alliance. Shekhar Gupta ill-prepared for the moment, could only come out with a less than serious comments about he is enjoying the whole debate as an observer. In fact, India is being pressed in so many ways to go of its way to join US efforts to ‘fight terrorism’ in the neighbourhood. Indian officials are now a bit lukewarm in fully supporting US efforts, as they find, they whole focus of strategic partnership between US and them, is totally geared to US interests and has no space for Indian concerns.


A fleeting observation could not be suppressed that Obama presidency may be under some mixed feeling in European circles, who have yet to find any enthusiasm for the US public’s open embrace of an Afro-American President. It is rather too much to expect old Europe to shed its old prejudices so soon. If this trend is not countered, US will be at a vast disadvantage to get as full cooperation from Europe that its Anglo-Saxon presidents could command in the past.


All through the debate, US Senator John McCain, who lost to President Obama in last presidential elections, sat it out in the front rows, trying to add the weight of his neo-con inspired war arguments to prop up US pressure on Europe.


It did not appear to have worked.


Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai







Obama orchestrating from the same old Bush music sheet – By Ghulam Muhammed

March 27, 2009

Friday, March 27, 2009

Obama orchestrating from the same old Bush music sheet

The adage that the more things change, they remain the same, is holding true with the US. With lot of fanfare about Change and We Can Change, Obama ignited hope not only in his own nation, but all around the world. Bush warmongering had touched raw nerves all around the world. America and Bush were the most hated words in world vocabulary. However, Obama’s public address today over his plans for Afghanistan and Pakistan, have dampened the hope for any change for the better. Obama asked a question: why US was in Afghanistan? His own answer to that simple question was as convincing about the presence of Al Qaida in Afghanistan and Tribal areas of Pakistan as Bush allegation of WMD in Iraq. Bush was not able to fool the world over his simplistic harangue over Sadaam’s non existent Weapons of Mass Destruction. Obama himself does not appear to be convinced of the Al Qaida menace, while enunciating his plan to tackle terrorism that ‘threatens’ US and its allied countries in the world. The whole warmongering rationale is pat and stale. When he says: “I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda.” This is like chasing a mirage.

Of course, there are radicals in the targeted area. But Obama fails to understand that the radicals are radicalized mainly over US presence in the Muslim world and this presence is imperialistic, imposed and apparently unending. The more Obama will introduce and activate foreign presence in this quagmire, the more he will sink, possibly never to ever come out.

Obama’s cosmetic improvement in his laid out plan, stresses the addition of more reconstructive focus on US efforts to help common people in the region enjoy better living condition, so that they would realise how benevolent and well-meaning US stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan is. However, the more visual part that affects the psyche of the Afpak people is America’s high-handed hunting of Al Qaida, that not only kills innocent people, but is highly damaging to their self-respect, their pride, their national sovereignty. The time lag between US aggression and any future development that the measly 1.5 billion per year as promised will bring to the civilians is so pronounced that prima facie, the whole US effort is a non-starter. Besides, US aggression is planned to sow seeds of civil war in the region. That has its own dynamics. The US is digging a new hole to fill up the old hole. This brings out the un-tenability of Obama’s new plan.  Obama must strive to pacify both countries first. The more stress is on peace, the more distant will be the days of war on much larger scale.

Obama can and should change both Afghanistan and Pakistan in a new Marshall Plan like grand strategy but it can only be successful, if its forces disappear from the visible horizon and both nation’s national pride is restored. America’s constant obsession to identify its adversaries in terms of Islam and radicalized Islamism is most counterproductive and must be checked in real-time. America must make peace with Islam and make it an ally in bringing peace to the region. Islam is here to stay, and the sooner Obama can convince his adviser to change their strategies that has been focused through neo-con influences on fighting Islam and Islamists, the sooner he will win the hearts and mind of the people of the region.

Obama must change his music sheet.


Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai



Comments posted on Washington Post article: Our Must-Win War By John McCain and Joseph Lieberman

March 21, 2009
Add to Technorati Favorites

Comments posted on Washington Post article: Our Must-Win War By John McCain and Joseph Lieberman

Your Comments On…

Our Must-Win War

The senators offer an alternative to the ‘minimalist’ path. 

 By John McCain and Joseph Lieberman

Both McCain and Lieberman are suffering from the same delusion that did Bush in. Bush wrongly surmised that US will be welcomed by Iraqi people as liberators. He got the shock of his life in Iraq. The parting shoe was the last straw to remind him how welcome US was and is in Iraq. Both McCain/Lieberman feel the people of Afghanistan are so enamored of the US and NATO forces, that they will feel dejected, if US even so much as mention leaving Afghanistan. Far from it! Afghan people are fiercely freedom loving. They will never rest till the last of occupier is gone. US made the biggest mistake of not pursuing persuasive diplomacy with Mullah Omar, whose Taliban had brought a rare interlude of peace in Afghanistan. Mullah Omar was even amenable to handing over Osama on condition. Dumb witted US policymakers always think in terms of hammer and nails. Refined diplomacy is not their cup of tea. Obama is bringing a new approach to apply tools other than guns and predators. He should not pay any heed to these old warmongers who had chewed up America during Bush years. A settlement on Taliban terms will save the whole south east Asia, from untold misery of turmoil and tribulations.
Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai
3/21/2009 8:22:14 AM

Our Must-Win War

The ‘Minimalist’ Path Is Wrong for Afghanistan

U.S. soldiers on patrol this month outside Bagram, Afghanistan.

U.S. soldiers on patrol this month outside Bagram, Afghanistan. (By Rafiq Maqbool — Associated Press)

By John McCain and Joseph Lieberman

Thursday, March 19, 2009; Page A15 

Later this month, the Obama administration will unveil a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan. This comes as most important indicators in Afghanistan are pointing in the wrong direction. President Obama’s decision last month to deploy an additional 17,000 U.S. troops was an important step in the right direction, but a comprehensive overhaul of our war plan is needed, and quickly.


As the administration finalizes its policy review, we are troubled by calls in some quarters for the president to adopt a “minimalist” approach toward Afghanistan. Supporters of this course caution that the American people are tired of war and that an ambitious, long-term commitment to Afghanistan may be politically unfeasible. They warn that Afghanistan has always been a “graveyard of empires” and has never been governable. Instead, they suggest, we can protect our vital national interests in Afghanistan even while lowering our objectives and accepting more “realistic” goals there — for instance, by scaling back our long-term commitment to helping the Afghan people build a better future in favor of a short-term focus on fighting terrorists.

The political allure of such a reductionist approach is obvious. But it is also dangerously and fundamentally wrong, and the president should unambiguously reject it. Let there be no doubt: The war in Afghanistan can be won. Success — a stable, secure, self-governing Afghanistan that is not a terrorist sanctuary — can be achieved. Just as in Iraq, there is no shortcut to success, no clever “middle way” that allows us to achieve more by doing less. A minimalist approach in Afghanistan is a recipe not for winning smarter but for losing slowly at tremendous cost in American lives, treasure and security.

Yes, our vital national interest in Afghanistan is to prevent it from once again becoming a haven for terrorists to plan attacks against America and U.S. allies. But achieving this narrow counterterrorism objective requires us to carry out a far broader set of tasks, the foremost of which are protecting the population, nurturing legitimate and effective governance, and fostering development. In short, we need a comprehensive civil-military counterinsurgency approach backed by greatly increased resources and an unambiguous U.S. political commitment to success in Afghanistan over the long haul.

A narrow, short-term focus on counterterrorism, by contrast, would repeat the mistakes made for years in Iraq before the troop surge, with the same catastrophic consequences. Before 2007 in Iraq, U.S. Special Forces had complete freedom of action to strike at terrorist leaders, backed by more than 120,000 conventional American forces and overwhelming air power. Although we succeeded in killing countless terrorists — including the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — the insurgency continued to grow in strength and violence. It was not until we changed course and applied a new approach — a counterinsurgency strategy focused on providing basic security for the people and improving their lives — that the cycle of violence was at last broken.

Those who argue for simply conducting targeted counterterrorist strikes in Afghanistan also fail to grasp that by far the best way to generate the intelligence necessary for such strikes is from Afghan civilians, who will risk their lives to help us only if they believe we are committed to staying and protecting them from the insurgents and helping to improve their lives.

Loose rhetoric about a minimal commitment in Afghanistan is counterproductive for another reason: It exacerbates suspicions, already widespread in South Asia, that the United States will tire of this war and retreat. These doubts about our staying power deter ordinary Afghans from siding with our coalition against the insurgency. Also important is that these suspicions are a major reason some in Pakistan are reluctant to break decisively with insurgent groups, which, in a hedging strategy, they view as integral to positioning Pakistan for influence “the day after” the United States gives up and leaves Afghanistan. That is why it is so important for the president to reject the temptations of minimalism in Afghanistan and instead adopt a fully resourced, comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy, backed by an unambiguous American commitment to success over the long term. In doing so, he must invest the political capital to remind Americans why this fight is necessary for our national security, speak openly and frankly to our nation about the difficult path ahead, and — most of all — explain clearly to our fellow citizens why he is confident that we can prevail.

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama called Afghanistan “the war we must win.” He was absolutely right. Now it is time to win it — and we and many other members of both political parties stand ready to give him our full support in this crucial fight.

John McCain, a Republican senator from Arizona, was the 2008 Republican nominee for president. Joe Lieberman, an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut, was the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2000.

» THIS STORY:READ +| Comments

August 18, 2008

Monday, August 18, 2008




RAW: An Instrument of Indian Imperialism


By Isha Khan   13 October, 2007


The Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), created in 1968, has assumed a significant status in the formulation of India’s domestic and foreign policies, particularly the later. Working directly under the Prime Minister, it has over the years become an effective instrument of India’s national power. In consonance with Kautilya’s precepts, RAW’s espionage doctrine is based on the principle of waging a continuous series of battles of intrigues and secret wars.


RAW, ever since its creation, has always been a vital, though unobtrusive, actor in Indian policy-making apparatus. But it is the massive international dimensions of RAW operations that merit a closer examination. To the credit of this organization, it has in very short span of time mastered the art of spy warfare. Credit must go to Indira Gandhi who in the late 1970s gave it a changed and much more dynamic role. To suit her much publicized Indira Doctrine, (actually India Doctrine) Mrs. Gandhi specifically asked RAW to create a powerful organ within the organization which could undertake covert operations in neighboring countries. It is this capability that makes RAW a more fearsome agency than its superior KGB, CIA, MI-6, BND and the Mossad.


Its internal role is confined only in monitoring events having bearing on the external threat. RAW’s boss works directly under the Prime Minister. An Additional Secretary to the Government of India, under the Director RAW, is responsible for the Office of Special Operations (OSO), intelligence collected from different countries, internal security (under the Director General of Security), the electronic/technical section and general administration. The Additional Secretary as well as the Director General of Security is also under the Director of RAW. DG Security has two important sections: the Aviation Research Center (ARC) and the Special Services Bureau (SSB). The joint Director has specified desks with different regional divisions/areas (countries):


Area one. Pakistan: Area two, China and South East Asia: Area three, the Middle East and Africa: and Area four, other countries. Aviation Research Center (ARC) is responsible for interception, monitoring and jamming of target country’s communication systems. It has the most sophisticated electronic equipment and also a substantial number of aircraft equipped with state-of- the art eavesdropping devices. ARC was strengthened in mid-1987 by the addition of three new aircraft, the Gulf Stream-3. These aircraft can reportedly fly at an altitude of 52,000 ft and has an operating range of 5000 kms. ARC also controls a number of radar stations located close to India’s borders. Its aircraft also carry out oblique reconnaissance, along the border with Bangladesh, China, Nepal and Pakistan.


RAW having been given a virtual carte blanche to conduct destabilization operations in neighboring countries inimical to India had to seriously undertook restructuring of its organization accordingly. RAW was given a list of seven countries (Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, Pakistan and Maldives) whom India considered its principal regional protagonists. It very soon systematically and brilliantly crafted covert operations in all these countries to coerce, destabilize and subvert them in consonance with the foreign policy objectives of the Indian Government.


RAW’s operations against the regional countries were conducted with great professional skill and expertise. Central to the operations was the establishment of a huge network inside the target countries. It used and targeted political dissent, ethnic divisions, economic backwardness and criminal elements within these states to foment subversion, terrorism and sabotage. Having thus created the conducive environments, RAW stage-managed future events in these countries in such a way that military intervention appears a natural concomitant of the events. In most cases, RAW’s hand remained hidden, but more often that not target countries soon began unearthing those “hidden hand”. A brief expose of RAW’s operations in neighboring countries would reveal the full expanse of its regional ambitions to suit India Doctrine (Open Secrets. India’s Intelligence Unveiled by M K Dhar. Manas Publications, New Delhi, 2005).




Indian intelligence agencies were involved in erstwhile East Pakistan, now Bangladesh since early 1960s. Its operatives were in touch with Sheikh Mujib for quite some time. Sheikh Mujib went to Agartala in 1965. The famous Agartala case was unearthed in 1967. In fact, the main purpose of raising RAW in 1968 was to organise covert operations in Bangladesh. As early as in 1968, RAW was given a green signal to begin mobilising all its resources for the impending surgical intervention in erstwhile East Pakistan. When in July 1971 General Manekshaw told Prime Minister Indira Gandhi that the army would not be ready till December to intervene in Bangladesh, she quickly turned to RAW for help. RAW was ready. Its officers used Bengali refugees to set up Mukti Bahini. Using this outfit as a cover, Indian military has sneaked deep into Bangladesh. The story of Mukti Bahini and RAW’s role in its creation and training is now well-known. RAW never concealed its Bangladesh operations.


Interested readers may have details in Asoka Raina’s Inside RAW: the story of India’s secret service published by Vikas Publishing House of New Delhi. The creation of Bangladesh was masterminded by RAW in complicity with KGB under the covert clauses of Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Co-operation (adopted as 25-year Indo-Bangladesh Treaty of Friendship and Co-operation in 1972).


RAW retained a keen interest in Bangladesh even after its independence. Mr. Subramaniam Swamy, Janata Dal MP, a close associate of Morarji Desai said that Rameswar Nath Kao, former Chief of RAW, and Shankaran Nair upset about Sheikh Mujib’s assassination chalked a plot to kill General Ziaur Rahman. However, when Morarji Desai came into power in 1977 he was indignant at RAW’s role in Bangladesh and ordered operations in Bangladesh to be called off; but by then RAW had already gone too far. General Zia continued to be in power for quite some time but he was assassinated after Indira Gandhi returned to power, though she denied her involvement in his assassination (Weekly Sunday, Calcutta, 18 September, 1988).


RAW was involved in training of Chakma tribals and Shanti Bahini who carry out subversive activities in Bangladesh. It has also unleashed a well-organized plan of psychological warfare, creation of polarisation among the armed forces, propaganda by false allegations of use of Bangladesh territory by ISI, creation of dissension’s among the political parties and religious sects, control of media, denial of river waters, and propping up a host of disputes in order to keep Bangladesh under a constant political and socio-economic pressure ( “ RAW and Bangladesh” by Mohammad Zainal Abedin, November 1995, RAW In Bangladesh: Portrait of an Aggressive Intelligence, written and published by Abu Rushd, Dhaka).



Sikkim and Bhutan


Sikkim was the easiest and most docile prey for RAW. Indira Gandhi annexed the Kingdom of Sikkim in mid-1970s, to be an integral part of India. The deposed King Chogyal Tenzig Wangehuck was closely followed by RAW’s agents until his death in 1992.


Bhutan, like Nepal and Sikkim, is a land-locked country, totally dependent on India. RAW has developed links with members of the royal family as well as top bureaucrats to implements its policies. It has cultivated its agents amongst Nepalese settlers and is in a position to create difficulties for the Government of Bhutan. In fact, the King of Bhutan has been reduced to the position of merely acquiescing into New Delhi’s decisions and go by its dictates in the international arena.


Sri Lanka


Post- independence Sri Lanka, inspite of having a multi-sectoral population was a peaceful country till 1971 and was following independent foreign policy. During 1971 Indo-Pakistan war despite of heavy pressure from India, Sri Lanka allowed Pakistan’s civil and military aircraft and ships to stage through its air and sea ports with unhindered re-fueling facilities. It also had permitted Israel to establish a nominal presence in its intelligence training set up. It permitted the installation of high powered transmitter by Voice of America (VOA) on its territory, which was resented by India.


It was because of these ‘irritants’ in the Indo-Sri Lanka relations that Mrs Indira Gandhi planned to bring Sri Lanka into the fold of the so-called Indira Doctrine (India Doctrine) Kao was told by Gandhi to repeat their Bangladesh success. RAW went looking for militants it could train to destabilize the regime. Camps were set up in Tamil Nadu and old RAW guerrillas’ trainers were dug out of retirement. RAW began arming the Tamil Tigers and training them at centers such as Gunda and Gorakhpur. As a sequel to this ploy, Sri Lanka was forced into Indian power-web when Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987 was singed and Indian Peace-Keeping-Force (IPKF) landed in Sri Lanka.


The Ministry of External Affairs was also upset at RAW’s role in Sri Lanka as they felt that RAW was still continuing negotiations with the Tamil Tiger leader Parabhakran in contravention to the Indian government’s foreign policy. According to R Swaminathan, (former Special Secretary of RAW) it was this outfit which was used as the intermediary between Rajiv Gandhi and Tamil leader Parabhakaran. The former Indian High Commissioner in Sri Lanka, J.N. Dixit even accused RAW of having given Rs. five Crore to the LTTE. At a later stage, RAW built up the EPRLF and ENDLF to fight against the LTTE which turned the situation in Sri Lanka highly volatile and uncertain later on.




Under a well-orchestrated RAW plan, on November 30 1988 a 300 to 400-strong well trained force of mercenaries, armed with automatic weapons, initially said to be of unknown origin, infiltrated in boats and stormed the capital of Maldives. They resorted to indiscriminate shooting and took high-level government officials as hostages. At the Presidential Palace, the small contingent of loyal national guards offered stiff resistance, which enabled President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom to shift to a safe place from where he issued urgent appeals for help from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Britain and the United States.


The Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi reacted promptly and about 1600 combat troops belonging to 50 Independent Para-Brigade in conjunction with Indian Naval units landed at Male under the code-name Operation Cactus. A number of IAF transport aircraft, escorted by fighters, were used for landing personnel, heavy equipment and supplies. Within hours of landing, the Indian troops flushed out the attackers form the streets and hideouts. Some of them surrendered to Indian troops, and many were captured by Indian Naval units while trying to escape along with their hostages in a Maldivian ship, Progress Light. Most of the 30 hostages including Ahmed Majtaba, Maldives Minister of Transport, were released. The Indian Government announced the success of the Operation Cactus and complimented the armed forces for a good job done.


The Indian Defense Minister while addressing IAF personnel at Bangalore claimed that the country’s prestige has gone high because of the peace-keeping role played by the Indian forces in Maldives. The International Community in general and the South Asian states in particular, however, viewed with suspicious the over-all concept and motives of the operation. The western media described it as a display of newly-acquired military muscle by India and its growing role as a regional police. Although the apparent identification of the two Maldivian nationals could be a sufficient reason, at its face value, to link it with the previous such attempts by the mercenaries, yet other converging factors, indicative of involvement of external hand, could hardly be ignored. Sailing of the mercenaries from Manar and Kankasanturai in Sri Lanka, which were in complete control of IPKF, and the timing and speed of the Indian intervention proved their involvement beyond any doubt.




Ever since the partition of the sub-continent India has been openly meddling in Nepal’s internal affairs by contriving internal strife and conflicts through RAW to destabilize the successive legitimate governments and prop up puppet regimes which would be more amenable Indian machinations. Armed insurrections were sponsored and abetted by RAW and later requests for military assistance to control these were managed through pro-India leaders. India has been aiding and inciting the Nepalese dissidents to collaborate with the Nepali Congress. For this they were supplied arms whenever the King or the Nepalese Government appeared to be drifting away from the Indian dictates and impinging on Indian hegemonic designs in the region. In fact, under the garb of the so-called democratization measures, the Maoists were actively encouraged to collect arms to resort to open rebellion against the legitimate Nepalese governments. The contrived rebellions provided India an opportunity to intervene militarily in Nepal, ostensibly to control the insurrections which were masterminded by the RAW itself. It was an active replay of the Indian performance in Sri Lanka and Maldives a few years earlier. RAW is particularly aiding the people of the Indian-origin and has been providing them with arms and ammunition. RAW has also infiltrated the ethnic Nepali refugees who have been extradited by Bhutan and have taken refuge in the eastern Nepal. RAW can exploit its links with these refugees in either that are against the Indian interest. Besides the Nepalese economy is totally controlled by the Indian money lenders, financiers and business mafia ( RAW’s Machination In South Asia by Shastra Dutta Pant, Kathmandu, 2003).




Since December 1979, throughout Afghan War, KGB, KHAD (WAD) (former Afghan intelligence outfit) and RAW stepped up their efforts to concentrate on influencing and covert exploitation of the tribes on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. There was intimate co-ordination between the three intelligence agencies not only in Afghanistan but in destabilization of Pakistan through subversion and sabotage plan related to Afghan refugees and mujahideen, the tribal belt and inside Pakistan. They jointly organized spotting and recruitment of hostile tribesmen and their training in guerrilla warfare, infiltration, subversion, sabotage and establishment of saboteur force/terrorist organizations in the pro-Afghan tribes of Pakistan in order to carry out bomb explosions in Afghan refugee camps in NWFP and Baluchistan to threaten and pressurize them to return to Afghanistan. They also carried out bomb blasts in populated areas deep inside Pakistan to create panic and hatred in the minds of locals against Afghan refugee mujahideen for pressurizing Pakistan to change its policies on Afghanistan.




Pakistan’s size, strength and potential have always overawed the Indians. It, therefore, always considers her main opponent in her expansionist doctrine. India’s animosity towards Pakistan is psychologically and ideologically deep-rooted and unassailable. India’s war with Pakistan in 1965 over Kashmir and in 1971 which resulted in the dismemberment of Pakistan and creation of Bangladesh are just two examples.


Raw considers Sindh as Pakistan’s soft under-belly. It has, therefore, made it the prime target for sabotage and subversion. RAW has enrolled and extensive network of agents and anti-government elements, and is convinced that with a little push restless Sindh will revolt. Taking fullest advantage of the agitation in Sindh in 1983 and the ethnic riots, which have continued till today, RAW has deeply penetrated and cultivated dissidents and secessionists, thereby creating hard-liners unlikely to allow peace to return to Sindh. Raw is also involved similarly in Balochistan.


RAW is also being blamed for confusing the ground situation is Kashmir so as to keep the world attention away from the gross human rights violations by India in India occupied Kashmir. ISI being almost 20 years older than RAW and having acquired much higher standard of efficiency in its functioning , has become the prime target of RAW’s designs, ISI is considered to be a stumbling block in RAW’s operations, and has, therefore, been made a target of all kinds of massive misinformation and propaganda campaign. The tirade against ISI continues unabated. The idea is to keep ISI on the defensive by fictionalising and alleging its hand is supporting Kashmiri Mujahideen and Sikhs in Punjab. RAW’S fixation against ISI has taken the shape of ISI-phobia, as in India everyone traces down the origin of all happenings and shortcomings to the ISI . Be it an abduction at Bangalore or a student’s kidnapping at Cochin, be it a bank robbery at Calcutta or a financial scandal in Bombay, be it a bomb blast at Bombay or Bangladesh, they find an ISI hand in it ( “RAW :GLOBAL AND REGIONAL AMBITIONS” Edited by Rashid Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Saleem, Published by Islamabad Policy Research Institute, Asia Printers, Islamabad, 2005).


RAW over the years has admirably fulfilled its tasks of destabilising target states through unbridled export of terrorism. The India Doctrine spelt out a difficult and onerous role for RAW. It goes to its credit that it has accomplished its assigned objectives due to the endemic weakness in the state apparatus of those nations and failure of their leaders.




July 24, 2008

Thursday, July 24, 2008





According to MINT, The New York Times, noted in 900-word story that “even after the tortuous road to the nuclear agreement, Indian strategic relationship with the United State remains troubled by several major disagreement, including Indian policy on Iran and Myanmar.”


Will the day ever dawn, when The Times of India, runs a similar story, reporting the real sentiment of the people of India with words like:


“Even after the tortuous road to the nuclear agreement, Indian strategic relationship with the United State remains troubled by several major disagreement, including US policy on Iran, Myanmar, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Sudan among several issue centering on war and peace, the role of United Nation, the reshaping of International Monetary Fund and World Bank, the issues of Human Rights of Guantanamo Bay captives and their torture in captivity, et al.”


Not till the present oligarchs are roundly defeated and India freed from their stranglehold.



Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai



Further comments posted on Pipes article: The enemy has a name

June 21, 2008




Thank you, Ghulam


Reader comment on article: The Enemy Has a Name

in response to reader comment: Two different world views


Submitted by Anne Julienne (Australia), Jun 20, 2008 at 18:12



You’ve expressed the truth as seen by a Muslim in a few well chosen words.


To me, as a non-Muslim, your view fails to explain sep 11 and fails to acknowledge that Bush’s wars were a response to that unprovoked attack. Through incidents like the Rushdie novel and the Danish cartoons, we now know that Muslims feel threatened or “subjected to stress and trauma” at the very slightest of slights.


We in the West will not continue to tread carefully as if on egg shells. We in the West might be more capable of uniting against Islam than you give us credit for. Good clear statements disclosing the Muslim mentality are useful to us.


So, thank you for your comment.






Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited, before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but not hostile, libelous, or otherwise objectionable statements. Original writing only, please.




GM responds to the comments of Anne Julienne (Australia):


Dear Julienne, You are correct when you write that I have completely ignored 9/11.


Personally, I with other millions across the globe and across the great divide of communities are yet to be convinced that any organised Muslim group had the capacity to carry out such a scale of terror act and that too on US soil, and without internal help. There are any numbers of discrepancies and the debate on technical level is still on.


On a personal basis, I found two events reported while I watched the live telecast of 9/11 attack, that were completely ignored by media and investigating agencies.


One: dancing of some Jewish persons on the terrace of a building overlooking the twin towers while the carnage was in progress. Second, the possibility of advance knowledge of the attack by Israeli sources, who were able to caution Jewish people working in different firms in the Twin Towers and make sure they do not report for their duties on that fateful days.


As for Bush’s war on terrorism, on the pretext of 9/11, Bush has undertaken so many aggressive steps, that have clearly focused more on controlling and holding territories to exploit them for their resources (IRAQ) or their strategic position on world map (AFGHANISTAN), rather than to address the possible dangers of 9/11.


For Bush himself, in fact, 9/11 and even Osama is just a sideshow. So, I should be excused for taking up the lead from Bush over 9/11 and Osama.


Your contention: “We in the West might be more capable of uniting against Islam than you give us credit for” — is not tenable in the present context, as Bush had to invade Iraq, without UN, much less other Christian countries’ support for his illegal invasion. Even though the world mourned the death of innocents in 9/11 terror attack, Bush could not convince them to unite against Iraq or Afghanistan, much less against Islam. Media propaganda is just that.

Good clear thinking and good clear actions based on good clear thinking is welcome by all sides in the global conflict scenario.


Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai