Westerners who want to destroy our part of the world

[muse]

Take it easy. no one has suggested that is your opinon - and even if it was you are entitled. It's just one more opinion, that's all and it does not make sense and yes, it's absurd - maybe thats why no one else took notice of it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

^^^Well duh. Don't expect Indians to support the notion of a larger Pakistan. We obviously have no intention of upsetting the regional balance.

From the Indians , yes it was expected, given the mutual hostility.

As far as the west is concerned, again, nobody wants to see a non-western nuclear power grow larger and more powerful.

I don't see what's so surprising about it. Afghanistan is in western hands, and therfore the west would be quite happy to let it expand its territory.

This is the part that was interesting, and I am pointing out that there was indeed an irrational argument being promoted and supported - of breaking apart Pakistan, and what I was alluding to were the same underlying motivations (in some in the West) that you mentioned.

These kinds of attitudes are not limited to the fringes of Western intelligentsia or the Neo Cons (not all religious) however - Selig Harrison, a well respected Western intellectual, has been advocating for the breakup of Pakistan since the seventies I believe, even testifying in the US Congress to this effect.

Here is an interesting account from a 'US defense professional' on another forum about how the current global situation is being viewed as a 'war between the West and Islam':

Call it propaganda, but a lot of Americans think that this is absolutely what is going on, and they tend to strongly support it. I was at a political function yesterday evening, attended mostly by Republicans, with some Libertarians and a few anti-government types, and this attack was a topic of much conversation.

The consensus was that the US is in a war against Islam. The question wasn't "will the US invade another Muslim country," but "which will be first, Iran or Pakistan?"

A 'war between Islam and the US' - does color ones perceptions of what US intentions in the region are, doesn't it?

This is not to suggest that the US being involved in Pakistan indeed has exactly that motive currently, or that it was the motive for invasion, but I don't see why there should be any reason to trust her beyond what is necessary, or at all.

So long as our interests are served, to some extent, we are after all the weaker party at the table and it will be harder to for us to push for our interests all the time without a complete break from the US (which in the current situation would also be against our interests - how convoluted!), cooperation with the US should continue.

 

[Majnun]

Zyxius,

On the 'border realignment' of various states as argued by the various authors quoted here - I had an interesting encounter with a bunch of Western ex military people and some Indians on another forum, on a thread over the Ralph Peters 'realignment'.

There was the usual , "Pakistan created the taliban, Pakistan is an unnatural state coming apart at the seams blah blah blah", and I asked, "you know, why exactly has no one on this forum discussed the possibility of dividing Afghanistan, with the different ethnic regions being merged their ethnic cousins - Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, etc. and the Pashtun be given the same option, to stay independent or join Pakistan."

My goodness the vitriol that poured forth. Anything but that, instead Pakistan should be broken up and some of its various components merged with Afghanistan.

I pointed out that Pakistan was far more stable than Afghanistan, far stronger than Afghanistan, with much stronger (relatively) institutions, social structures and ethnic harmony, and no history of the sort of ethnic bloodshed and chaos that Afghanistan has seen, so how on earth would it make sense to break apart a relatively stable country, instead of one that had the history and present of Afghanistan?

No answers there of course, except more vitriol and misdirection towards Pakistan's proliferation, lack of cooperation on the WoT blah blah blah.

My option creates stronger, larger and possibly more stable (greater ethnic homogeneity) Muslim states - Peter's creates smaller and weaker Muslim states (with some ethnically homogeneous), and breaks apart one of the strongest and largest Muslim states.

Really makes one wonder doesn't it.

This made me laugh at how desperate they are not to give anything more to Pakistan.

But what you said about ethnic violence in Afghanistan, that is true for areas in the ME, in Afghanistan I don't think that has happened.
If you mean when a hundred or so Hazaras were killed in Mazar-e-Sharif, that was not based on ethnicity that was for those Hazaras, not just Hazaras in general.
I don't think Afghanistan has had ethnic violence.

 

[Flintlock]

This is the part that was interesting, and I am pointing out that there was indeed an irrational argument being promoted and supported - of breaking apart Pakistan, and what I was alluding to were the same underlying motivations (in some in the West) that you mentioned.

These kinds of attitudes are not limited to the fringes of Western intelligentsia or the Neo Cons (not all religious) however - Selig Harrison, a well respected Western intellectual, has been advocating for the breakup of Pakistan since the seventies I believe, even testifying in the US Congress to this effect.
Here is an interesting account from a 'US defense professional' on another forum about how the current global situation is being viewed as a 'war between the West and Islam':

A 'war between Islam and the US' - does color ones perceptions of what US intentions in the region are, doesn't it?

This is not to suggest that the US being involved in Pakistan indeed has exactly that motive currently, or that it was the motive for invasion, but I don't see why there should be any reason to trust her beyond what is necessary, or at all.

So long as our interests are served, to some extent, we are after all the weaker party at the table and it will be harder to for us to push for our interests all the time without a complete break from the US (which in the current situation would also be against our interests - how convoluted!), cooperation with the US should continue.

I think that what 'war between Islam and US' means, is what they call a 'clash of civilizations' rather than 'clash of religions'.

I.e. Islamic way of running a country versus Western way of running a country.

Think of it in terms of the Democracy versus Communism of the cold-war era.

Pakistan is an enigma actually. Its people are generally far less fundamentalist than in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq, but then its the only modern nation founded solely on the basis of Islam.
I think this dichotomy has destined it to be on the frontline of this war.

 

[Majnun]

So it appears that the opposition of the Pakistani members is not to the idea of the redrawing of the map. It is because this plan takes away land from Pakistan.

If Pakistan gains land on the other hand and other countries of the ME get divided, people are fine with it. Thats interesting. So it is not about Muslim brotherhood but about national interest.

A quote from a previous post:



Surprising that it evoked no response at all from any member.

What are the thoughts about the "primitives"? if you get more of them, isn't there a chance that the internal problems will multiply?

Several things:
1) I believe in national interest coming before religious interest
2) What I mind so much is that these foreigners (especially Americans) who don't know anything about the Muslim world (especially Americans) think it their right to do this.

 

[Majnun]

I think that what 'war between Islam and US' means, is what they call a 'clash of civilizations' rather than 'clash of religions'.

I.e. Islamic way of running a country versus Western way of running a country.

Think of it in terms of the Democracy versus Communism of the cold-war era.

Pakistan is an enigma actually. Its people are generally far less fundamentalist than in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq, but then its the only modern nation founded solely on the basis of Islam.
I think this dichotomy has destined it to be on the frontline of this war.

I find something interesting that people in Pakistan and Turkey are far more religious and have love for Islam than people in the ME, but Pakistan and Turkey, on a governmental level, are much more secular, while Arab countries are, on a governmental level, far more religious, but people don't care much for Islam.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think that what 'war between Islam and US' means, is what they call a 'clash of civilizations' rather than 'clash of religions'.

I.e. Islamic way of running a country versus Western way of running a country.

Think of it in terms of the Democracy versus Communism of the cold-war era.

Pakistan is an enigma actually. Its people are generally far less fundamentalist than in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq, but then its the only modern nation founded solely on the basis of Islam.
I think this dichotomy has destined it to be on the frontline of this war.

You are correct, but to fight ideology you need a tangible opponent, at least per the old perceptions, and just as the states with communist structures and institutions became the 'tangible targets', so too tangible targets are needed in this war.

Winning a war of ideas, while bandied about all over the place since the Iraq fiasco, has seen little actual movement or interest - physical struggles inherently more attractive and measurable than long term intellectual ones I suppose.

 

[Vinod2070]

Several things:
1) I believe in national interest coming before religious interest

Yes, I notice that and appreciate that.

2) What I mind so much is that these foreigners (especially Americans) who don't know anything about the Muslim world (especially Americans) think it their right to do this.

Well they are trying to learn about Islam, far more than is any attempt on the other side. I don't know if they are doing a good job of it.

I read that there has been a surge in sale of books on Islam after 9/11 and "experts" on Islam are in great demand.

You may well be right in their ignorance about the finer details of Islamic societies (well most of us in the region too are guilty of that), but they feel they are under attack and the current thinking is to "take the war to them" rather than fight the war on US soil.

 

[Zyxius]

The frequency with which such hate literature against us is popping up all over the place should raise alarms. For a group in the Muslim world to propose similar ideas of the West would get them labeled Al Qaeda.


WoJ – Why Iran fuels the Balouch uprising in Pakistan

Is it merely a coincidence that as the US rhetoric against Iraq has increased in belligerency, the acts of sabotage in Balochistan have increased in frequency and intensity? Given the growing unrest nothing would suit the US better than to aggravate Pakistan-Iran relations -- by planting rumours that somehow Iran was involved in the Balochistan violence, thereby compelling Pakistan to seal the Pakistan-Iran border in a fashion similar to the Pakistan-Afghan border in October �December 2001. Also, given that the US continues to develop the idea of a military strike against Iran, the US thinking, seems to be that somehow if suspicion and animosity is created between Pakistan and Iran, its actions against Iran will have no fallout in Pakistan.

But in many Pakistani eyes, especially in those of the MMM, the Jihadi elements in the Pakistani army, this logic does not hold The US should realize that no matter what the state of the Pakistan-Iran relationship, any military attack against Iran will be seen as a precursor to an attack against Pakistan's nuclear assets. After Iran is knocked out, it is Pakistan that goes into the "Finals" for an American take over, is what many Pakistanis, including President Musharraf thinks. Musharraf had once made a loose comment to this effect, before Iraq was liberated.

Destabilizing Baluchistan - Iran has short term gains, but long term gains will accrue to the US

We need to note that the Iranian interests in destabilizing the region are short term in order to complicate an American assault, and prevent America from using Baluchistan as a springboard into Iran. But for the US there is also a much wider and long term context to the unrest in Balochistan, beyond the assault on Iran in the near future.

But the American long term plan is linked to its efforts to redraw the map of the Muslim World in the Middle East and West Asia -- what is now being referred to as the "Broader Middle East". Breaking up larger Muslim states, redrawing borders between some of them, creating new political entities -- all these are part of the new strategic game plan. A plan that will be put into action after the American action on Pakistan, but that will have to wait till Iran is dealt with sometime by the late autumn of this year.

A similar plan is already unfolding in the subtle American nudging that is taking Iraq towards smaller manageable states of Kurdistan, Turkomenistan, Shiastan and Sunnistan. The haranguing of Iraq's newly elected legislators is a symptom of the coming balkanization of Iraq.

Story Credits : Washington Times

 

[Always Neutral]

The frequency with which such hate literature against us is popping up all over the place should raise alarms. For a group in the Muslim world to propose similar ideas of the West would get them labeled Al Qaeda.

Story Credits : Washington Times

Dear Zy,

Please get out of this west vs muslim phobia. You sound pathetic and a bigot.

The West has got bigger issues to solve than make Pakistan and Iran fight.

Look inwards and see how easily radical Shias and Sunnis slit each other throats to know why Iran distrusts Pakistan and vice versa.

Regards

 

[Keysersoze]

Dear Zy,

Please get out of this west vs muslim phobia. You sound pathetic and a bigot.

The West has got bigger issues to solve than make Pakistan and Iran fight.

Look inwards and see how easily radical Shias and Sunnis slit each other throats to know why Iran distrusts Pakistan and vice versa.

Regards

Wasting your time there AM ole Zyxius has a track record of this stuff. He's rabid .........

 

[Zyxius]

Wasting your time there AM ole Zyxius has a track record of this stuff. He's rabid .........

Hmmm...you guys are laughable. You mean to say that if we discuss SOME westerners who advocate these fanatic ideas against us....for us to discuss them would be fanatic and anti-western?

What do you suggest? That we should not read Ralph Peters article, and that we should ignore that there are people in the West who advocate such ideas? It seems that you are saying that mere discussion of these issues is anti-western.

 

[vish]

Hmmm...you guys are laughable. You mean to say that if we discuss SOME westerners who advocate these fanatic ideas against us....for us to discuss them would be fanatic and anti-western?

What do you suggest? That we should not read Ralph Peters article, and that we should ignore that there are people in the West who advocate such ideas? It seems that you are saying that mere discussion of these issues is anti-western.

Relax... read and ignore... be logical in your counter-argument.

 

[Majnun]

Dear Zy,

Please get out of this west vs muslim phobia. You sound pathetic and a bigot.

The West has got bigger issues to solve than make Pakistan and Iran fight.

Look inwards and see how easily radical Shias and Sunnis slit each other throats to know why Iran distrusts Pakistan and vice versa.

Regards

Pakistan is different from a place like Iraq.
Look at Afghanistan, there isn't such a record of killings there, as there is in Iraq of ethnic killings.
Arabs seem to be more caught up in these sect violences.

 

[Majnun]

Actually, I don't consider it a war of religions (that's what made the Crusades stand out in the Middle Ages). I consider it a war of nations (as most wars are).
Pakistan seems an important player in all this.