Polemics, Politics and Problematizations (and me?)

I always find Foucault to be a hard read for an untrained and un-schooled reader like me, but this interview of Michel Foucault really caught my attention maybe because it is a conversation more than Foucault's mostly opaque (to me) lectures. Specifically because I think that Pakistani discourse, if there is such a thing, mainly consists of polemics. Our political discourse especially is mainly polemic in nature, and I think it emanates from the fact that we (as a people) take cues from the weekly barrage of sermons that are repeated ad-infinitum, contra everything that the sermoneer doesn't think is "cool with the world". This attitude then permeates the school, the parliament and the public sphere in general.

I think I myself have been guilty of polemicising, not to mention "vitriol", ... but mostly it has been exorcism (for me at least.) Perhaps others see this in me, but I see myself as the opposite of "the polemicist" as defined by Foucault. Simply because discourse (tinged with occasional or frequent vitriol) for me is search for truth, regardless of where it leads. While I see so many falling in the trap of being polemicists while leaving the search for truth (not necessarily 'solutions') on the back burner.

I guess it is because it "feels good". Search for truth is a arduous and difficult journey. Polemics on the other hand has all the trappings of mob rule and mob justice KKK style, but only in the intellectual domain.

Reading this passage reminded me of the way how discussions have been shaping up on the Pakistani Political forums, at least the ones I hang out at, and it probably says more about me than the forums:

Perhaps, someday, a long history will have to be written of polemics, polemics as a parasitic figure on discussion and an obstacle to the search for the truth. Very schematically, it seems to me that today we can recognize the presence in polemics of three models: the religious model, the judiciary model, and the political model. As in heresiology, polemics sets itself the task of determining the intangible point of dogma, the fundamental and necessary principle that the adversary has neglected, ignored or transgressed; and it denounces this negligence as a moral failing; at the root of the error, it finds passion, desire, interest, a whole series of weaknesses and inadmissible attachments that establish it as culpable. As in judiciary practice, polemics allows for no possibility of an equal discussion: it examines a case; it isn’t dealing with an interlocutor, it is processing a suspect; it collects the proofs of his guilt, designates the infraction he has committed, and pronounces the verdict and sentences him. In any case, what we have here is not on the order of a shared investigation; the polemicist tells the truth in the form of his judgment and by virtue of the authority he has conferred on himself. But it is the political model that is the most powerful today. Polemics defines alliances, recruits partisans, unites interests or opinions, represents a party; it establishes the other as an enemy, an upholder of opposed interests against which one must fight until the moment this enemy is defeated and either surrenders or disappears.

Regarding the finely balanced intercourse that is the search for truth:

In the serious play of questions and answers, in the work of reciprocal elucidation, the rights of each person are in some sense immanent in the discussion. They depend only on the dialogue situation. The person asking the questions is merely exercising the right that has been given him: to remain unconvinced, to perceive a contradiction, to require more information, to emphasize different postulates, to point out faulty reasoning, and so on. As for the person answering the questions, he too exercises a right that does not go beyond the discussion itself; by the logic of his own discourse, he is tied to what he has said earlier, and by the acceptance of dialogue he is tied to the questioning of other. Questions and answers depend on a game—a game that is at once pleasant and difficult—in which each of the two partners takes pains to use only the rights given him by the other and by the accepted form of dialogue.

And about the polemicist itself:

The polemicist , on the other hand, proceeds encased in privileges that he possesses in advance and will never agree to question. On principle, he possesses rights authorizing him to wage war and making that struggle a just undertaking; the person he confronts is not a partner in search for the truth but an adversary, an enemy who is wrong, who is armful, and whose very existence constitutes a threat. For him, then the game consists not of recognizing this person as a subject having the right to speak but of abolishing him as interlocutor, from any possible dialogue; and his final objective will be not to come as close as possible to a difficult truth but to bring about the triumph of the just cause he has been manifestly upholding from the beginning. The polemicist relies on a legitimacy that his adversary is by definition denied.

A Brief History of the Internet

Interesting animated video that explains the history and concepts of the global internet as we know it today, starting from the humble beginnings out of the nuclear holocaust paranoia of the post WWII fifties.

9 Life Lessions from Rock Climbing

1. Don't Let Go!
2. Hesitation is bad.
3. Have a plan.
4. The Move is the End.
5. Know how to rest.
6. Fear Sucks.
7. Opposites are good.
8. Strenght DOES NOT equal success
9. Know how to let go.

You're welcome. :)

How Balochistan was "won" ...

A fascinating history of the accession of Balochistan States Union to Pakistan after 1947. (Try finding this in Mutala-e-"pakistan") Oh wait... Balochistan is not really part of Pakistan proper... doesn't seem so given the way we've been treating them for the last 60 years!

Some expcerpts. The whole article, "THE ACCESSION OF KALAT: MYTH AND REALITY" is well worth the read:

A series of meetings between the Viceroy, as the Crown’s Representative, the Quaid and the Khan of Kalat followed, which resulted in a communiquéй on August 11, 1947. The communiquй stated that:

a. The Government of Pakistan recognizes Kalat as an independent sovereign state in treaty relations with the British Government with a status different from that of Indian States.

b. Legal opinion will be sought as to whether or not agreements of leases will be inherited by the Pakistan Government.

c. Meanwhile, a Standstill Agreement has been made between Pakistan and Kalat.

d. Discussions will take place between Pakistan and Kalat at Karachi at an early date with a view to reaching decisions on Defence, External Affairs and Communications.

...

On March 18, 1948, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan issued a press note that the States of Kharan, Las Bela and Mekran had applied for accession to Pakistan, which was granted to them. The press report also said that after the accession of these three states to Pakistan, Kalat’s territory had been reduced to half of its previous area, and had ceased to have any outlet to the sea.54 The UK High Commissioner in Pakistan reported that the offer of accession was accepted by the Pakistan Cabinet when Jam of Las Bela, Chief of Kharan and Nawab Bai Khan of Mekran met the Quaid on March 17, 1948 and told him that “if Pakistan was not prepared to accept their offers of accession immediately, they would be compelled to take other steps for their protection against Khan of Kalat’s aggressive actions.”55 This was seen as a blow to the Khan as head of the Confederacy, the Baluchistan States Union.

...

As this account makes amply clear, the story of the accession of Kalat was a long drawn out process. And although Pakistan came into being on August 14, 1947, the accession of Kalat did not take place till March 27, 1948. The three feudatories, two of which Las Bela and Kharan, which were recognized by the British as independent, played a key role in forcing the Khan of Kalat to accede to Pakistan.

The issue of the accession of Kalat has been clouded in controversy and mythology, because little or no research has been done on the subject. One scholar has described the annexation as, “a nine month tug of war that came to a climax in the forcible annexation of Kalat.”60 The reality is quite different. Khan of Kalat had no choice but to accede after Kharan, Las Bela and Mekran’s acceded to Pakistan, cutting off Kalat from the sea. The announcement on All India Radio that Kalat had been negotiating with India, which Nehru was at pains to deny in the Indian Parliament, caused such an outcry within Baluchistan and outside that the Khan acceded immediately to Pakistan.

The Curious Case of Ibn Saiyad

Volume 2, Book 23, Number 437:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

'Umar set out along with the Prophet (p.b.u.h) with a group of people to Ibn Saiyad till they saw him playing with the boys near the hillocks of Bani Mughala. Ibn Saiyad at that time was nearing his puberty and did not notice (us) until the Prophet stroked him with his hand and said to him, "Do you testify that I am Allah's Apostle?" Ibn Saiyad looked at him and said, "I testify that you are the Messenger of illiterates." Then Ibn Saiyad asked the Prophet (p.b.u.h), "Do you testify that I am Allah's Apostle?" The Prophet (p.b.u.h) refuted it and said, "I believe in Allah and His Apostles." Then he said (to Ibn Saiyad), "What do you think?" Ibn Saiyad answered, "True people and liars visit me." The Prophet said, "You have been confused as to this matter." Then the Prophet said to him, "I have kept something (in my mind) for you, (can you tell me that?)" Ibn Saiyad said, "It is Al-Dukh (the smoke)." (2) The Prophet said, "Let you be in ignominy. You cannot cross your limits." On that 'Umar, said, "O Allah's Apostle! Allow me to chop his head off." The Prophet (p.b.u.h) said, "If he is he (i.e. Dajjal), then you cannot over-power him, and if he is not, then there is no use of murdering him." (Ibn 'Umar added): Later on Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) once again went along with Ubai bin Ka'b to the date-palm trees (garden) where Ibn Saiyad was staying. The Prophet (p.b.u.h) wanted to hear something from Ibn Saiyad before Ibn Saiyad could see him, and the Prophet (p.b.u.h) saw him lying covered with a sheet and from where his murmurs were heard. Ibn Saiyad's mother saw Allah's Apostle while he was hiding himself behind the trunks of the date-palm trees. She addressed Ibn Saiyad, "O Saf ! (and this was the name of Ibn Saiyad) Here is Muhammad." And with that Ibn Saiyad got up. The Prophet said, "Had this woman left him (Had she not disturbed him), then Ibn Saiyad would have revealed the reality of his case.

Volume 3, Book 48, Number 806:

Narrated Abdullah bin Umar:

Allah's Apostle and Ubai bin Kab Al-Ansari went to the garden where Ibn Saiyad used to live. When Allah's Apostle entered (the garden), he (i.e. Allah's Apostle ) started hiding himself behind the datepalms as he wanted to hear secretly the talk of Ibn Saiyad before the latter saw him. Ibn Saiyad wrapped with a soft decorated sheet was lying on his bed murmuring. Ibn Saiyad's mother saw the Prophet hiding behind the stems of the date-palms. She addressed Ibn Saiyad saying, "O Saf, this is Muhammad." Hearing that Ibn Saiyad stopped murmuring (or got cautious), the Prophet said, "If she had left him undisturbed, he would have revealed his reality." (See Hadith No. 290, Vol 4 for details)

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 290d:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

Umar and a group of the companions of the Prophet set out with the Prophet to Ibn Saiyad. He found him playing with some boys near the hillocks of Bani Maghala. Ibn Saiyad at that time was nearing his puberty. He did not notice (the Prophet's presence) till the Prophet stroked him on the back with his hand and said, "Ibn Saiyad! Do you testify that I am Allah's Apostle?" Ibn Saiyad looked at him and said, "I testify that you are the Apostle of the illiterates."

Then Ibn Saiyad asked the Prophet. "Do you testify that I am the apostle of Allah?" The Prophet said to him, "I believe in Allah and His Apostles." Then the Prophet said (to Ibn Saiyad). "What do you see?" Ibn Saiyad replied, "True people and false ones visit me." The Prophet said, "Your mind is confused as to this matter." The Prophet added, " I have kept something (in my mind) for you." Ibn Saiyad said, "It is Ad-Dukh." The Prophet said (to him), "Shame be on you! You cannot cross your limits." On that 'Umar said, "O Allah's Apostle! Allow me to chop his head off." The Prophet said, "If he should be him (i.e. Ad-Dajjal) then you cannot overpower him, and should he not be him, then you are not going to benefit by murdering him."

Volume 8, Book 73, Number 194:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:

'Umar bin Al-Khattab set out with Allah's Apostle, and a group of his companions to Ibn Saiyad. They found him playing with the boys in the fort or near the Hillocks of Bani Maghala. Ibn Saiyad was nearing his puberty at that time, and he did not notice the arrival of the Prophet till Allah's Apostle stroked him on the back with his hand and said, "Do you testify that I am Allah's Apostle?" Ibn Saiyad looked at him and said, "I testify that you are the Apostle of the unlettered ones (illiterates)". Then Ibn Saiyad said to the Prophets . "Do you testify that I am Allah's Apostle?" The Prophet denied that, saying, "I believe in Allah and all His Apostles," and then said to Ibn Saiyad, "What do you see?" Ibn Saiyad said, "True people and liars visit me." The Prophet said, "You have been confused as to this matter." Allah's Apostle added, "I have kept something for you (in my mind)." Ibn Saiyad said, "Ad-Dukh." The Prophet said, "Ikhsa (you should be ashamed) for you can not cross your limits." 'Umar said, "O Allah's Apostle! Allow me to chop off h is neck." Allah's Apostle said (to Umar). "Should this person be him (i.e. Ad-Dajjal) then you cannot over-power him; and should he be someone else, then it will be no use your killing him." 'Abdullah bin 'Umar added: Later on Allah's Apostle and Ubai bin Ka'b Al-Ansari (once again) went to the garden in which Ibn Saiyad was present.

When Allah's Apostle entered the garden, he started hiding behind the trunks of the date-palms intending to hear something from Ibn Saiyad before the latter could see him. Ibn Saiyad was Lying on his bed, covered with a velvet sheet from where his mumur were heard. Ibn Saiyad's mother saw the Prophet and said, "O Saf (the nickname of Ibn Saiyad)! Here is Muhammad!" Ibn Saiyad stopped his murmuring. The Prophet said, "If his mother had kept quiet, then I would have learnt more about him." 'Abdullah added: Allah's Apostle stood up before the people (delivering a sermon), and after praising and glorifying Allah as He deserved, he mentioned the Ad-Dajjal saying, "I warn you against him, and there has been no prophet but warned his followers against him. Noah warned his followers against him but I am telling you about him, something which no prophet has told his people of, and that is: Know that he is blind in one eye where as Allah is not so."

Volume 8, Book 73, Number 193:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

Allah's Apostle said to Ibn Saiyad "I have hidden something for you in my mind; What is it?" He said, "Ad-Dukh." The Prophet said, "Ikhsa."

Volume 8, Book 73, Number 194:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:

'Umar bin Al-Khattab set out with Allah's Apostle, and a group of his companions to Ibn Saiyad. They found him playing with the boys in the fort or near the Hillocks of Bani Maghala. Ibn Saiyad was nearing his puberty at that time, and he did not notice the arrival of the Prophet till Allah's Apostle stroked him on the back with his hand and said, "Do you testify that I am Allah's Apostle?" Ibn Saiyad looked at him and said, "I testify that you are the Apostle of the unlettered ones (illiterates)". Then Ibn Saiyad said to the Prophets . "Do you testify that I am Allah's Apostle?" The Prophet denied that, saying, "I believe in Allah and all His Apostles," and then said to Ibn Saiyad, "What do you see?" Ibn Saiyad said, "True people and liars visit me." The Prophet said, "You have been confused as to this matter." Allah's Apostle added, "I have kept something for you (in my mind)." Ibn Saiyad said, "Ad-Dukh." The Prophet said, "Ikhsa (you should be ashamed) for you can not cross your limits." 'Umar said, "O Allah's Apostle! Allow me to chop off h is neck." Allah's Apostle said (to Umar). "Should this person be him (i.e. Ad-Dajjal) then you cannot over-power him; and should he be someone else, then it will be no use your killing him." 'Abdullah bin 'Umar added: Later on Allah's Apostle and Ubai bin Ka'b Al-Ansari (once again) went to the garden in which Ibn Saiyad was present.

When Allah's Apostle entered the garden, he started hiding behind the trunks of the date-palms intending to hear something from Ibn Saiyad before the latter could see him. Ibn Saiyad was Lying on his bed, covered with a velvet sheet from where his mumur were heard. Ibn Saiyad's mother saw the Prophet and said, "O Saf (the nickname of Ibn Saiyad)! Here is Muhammad!" Ibn Saiyad stopped his murmuring. The Prophet said, "If his mother had kept quiet, then I would have learnt more about him." 'Abdullah added: Allah's Apostle stood up before the people (delivering a sermon), and after praising and glorifying Allah as He deserved, he mentioned the Ad-Dajjal saying, "I warn you against him, and there has been no prophet but warned his followers against him. Noah warned his followers against him but I am telling you about him, something which no prophet has told his people of, and that is: Know that he is blind in one eye where as Allah is not so."

Volume 8, Book 77, Number 615:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

The Prophet said to Ibn Saiyad, "I have kept for you a secret." Ibn Saiyad said, "Ad-Dukh." The Prophet said, "Keep quiet, for you cannot go beyond your limits (or you cannot exceed what has been foreordained for you)." On that, 'Umar said (to the Prophet ), "Allow me to chop off his neck!" The Prophet said, "Leave him, for if he is he (i.e., Ad-Dajjal), then you will not be able to overcome him, and if he is not, then you gain no good by killing him."

This pretty much sums it up.

This, and the FP Editorial:

Simplifying complexity

One wishes fervently for a durable and lasting peace in Swat, though. But by consenting in haste to the ANP-led Frontier government's expedient accord with Maulana Sufi Mohammad of TNSM for Nizam-e-Adl in Malakand division, the legislators of the National Assembly have only smitten a gigantic complexity into just a simplicity untenably.

Whether for the extremists' death threats or for their own disinterest, they have not even bothered to grasp the Swat complexity. Nizam-e-Adl was the Swatis' compulsion, not a demand. They had voted predominantly for the ANP for its promise of security and development. Nizam-e-Adl was not even a plank of this self-styled secular party's electoral platform. But since the party failed in delivering them security or progress and ditched them to live under blood-soaked thuggery of Fazlullah's brigands, it was in desperation that they had asked for this nizam in the hope this could perhaps rescue them from their woeful distress and travails. But that hope is still a big question mark.

Peace in the beleaguered valley may be holding now, but nothing can be said for sure for the future. For, the party has not just practically abandoned the Swatis. So much so, while it should have been endeavouring to build upon the fragile peace for its durability by plunging robustly into rebuilding the valley's shattered administrative apparatus and embarking upon a massive development work, almost the whole lot of its mob in the government and the assembly took to days-long rest and recreation trip to the Emirates. Worse, the party has ceded the state writ in Swat to Maulana Sufi Mohammad. He has anointed himself it suzerain and a law unto himself. He has rolled up into himself the roles of judge, administrator and spiritual guide.

Still worse, neither has Fazlullah disarmed nor has dismantled his militia. It is his gun that rules in the valley. Not the state authority. Indeed, he has laid down instructions even for the state minions' movement in the valley and insists on and exacts compliance with his diktat on the pain of penalty. One thought the lawmakers of the National Assembly would look deep into the complexity of the Swat situation and grasp the grave implications entailed by the ANP's expedient accord. If the ANP had been inept, they didn't have to be, too. For the accord to be worth it, it had to have necessarily an inbuilt guaranteed stipulation that Fazlullah would demobilise and disarm his militia. That is not there. His private army is all intact, brandishing all the lethal weaponry it had had. And it is fanning out, to the great worry and utter desperation of the residents of the areas it is grabbing to put under its sway.

Already, it is embedded critically at strategic points in Buner, from where it can expand and advance into crucial regions of the Frontier province and beyond. It is also making inroads into Dir to the local populace's deeply troubling concern. Reports also abound that Fazlullah's private army has arrogated to itself the veto power as to who from amongst the displaced Swatis can return to their homes and who cannot. And statedly they do not want to see the face of anyone whose kith and kin had they slain or maimed for fear of revenge. The lawmakers should have taken all these factors into account before affixing the stamp of their assent on this ANP-effected deal, euphemistically eulogised as a peace accord, which is just a deceitful misnomer.

It is no peace accord. It, at best, is a deal to strip the state of its legal power and invest it in an obscurant, who indeed is mincing no words in declaring that he has become the ultimate law authority not just in Swat but the whole of Malakand region. With their consent, the lawmakers have in fact opened up the floodgates for spiritual charlatans and gun-wielding warlords to make similar forays to throw out the state writ and create their own fiefdoms. Make no mistake, sooner than later, the nation will witness not just in FATA or other tribal regions but also in settled areas trigger-happy gunmen with imposters posturing to be blessed spiritual lights as their cohorts, making bids for carving out their own sultanates and caliphates. Just forget about attracting foreign investments and enterprise. Who on earth would be the stupid to put his money in such a crumbling fanatical place? Keeping a mere semblance of statehood would then be just a feat. Couldn't the lawmakers be a bit incisive, farsighted - and brave?

Courtesy: The Frontier Post

Swat deal! BITCHES!!

Muslim Khan Khush Huaa!!

Why Buner? Or Why I Should Stop Worrying and Learn to Love the Taliban.

I've been wondering out loud: Why Buner?

I mean, what is the point of the Talibs moving into Buner? Is is it because they just can't handle the thought of a few "pir parast mushrikeen" hanging around at the local sufi saint's mausoleum? Or is it because they just had to show the people of buner as to who was boss? Was this an 'invitation' by the disgruntled JI, who after having been defeated in the election, wouldn't mind a little local dada-geeri in the name of Islam? (Muft haath aa'ay to kehtay haiN keh maal achchaa hai!)

Then it hit me! Like an unsuspecting electrician hits the outer walls of manawan police training center alarming the fuck out of underpaid, over-criticised "heroes" of our nation. Heroes who can't be bothered with such terms of endearment (and the obligations of an honorable death that such honorifics bring with themselves) and proceed to run around like scared little chickens. Meanwhile, the hapless electrician escapes the bursts of automatic gunfire aimed at him by those "commandos" who were sitting there waiting for exactly this kind of eventuality, and who manage miss him anyway, and all is quiet once more.

Anyways, so it hit me, let's just say "like a ton of bricks"!

Buner puts the Taliban in direct strategic control of various areas for future operations, most troubling of which is Islamabad itself. There is a little tributary that flows by Buner, right into the Tarbela reservoir. They can start off in Buner and end up right at the head of Tarbela Dam. It would be nice if they got caught way before or that they didn't bring a 1000kg of plastic explosives, but knowing the Taliban, and knowing the FUCKWITS that we have handling the civil & military affairs, we can be sure that both these things will come to pass.

Now, if they attacked the Tarbela dam by sinking a 1000kg explosive to the base of Tarbela Dam ... Wouldn't that be a hell of an attack?

I wonder what the scions of the Pakistani state, i.e., ISPR/Kayani, and/or Rehman Malik or Zardari will have to say about it then? "We DIDANT GAT EEVUN WAN DAY NOTAASS FRUM DEE TAALIBAAAN" ???

Another option for the talibs could be major attacks on Wah Cantt., and Islamabad even. If you type in "Buner Pakistan" in Google Maps and look around a bit, you would know why I'm getting so paranoid about the Talibs Taking over Buner.

Ulmai Soo kay Naam.

The biggest mistake that we have made is to equate these religious vultures with Islam! The Mullah Class is just as predatory, craven, and disgusting as our ever incompetent sockpuppet kleptocracy.

We must, somehow, make this realization CLICK in the minds of the Public. Mullacracy IS NOT Islam! Nuff said!

Here is some Jalib.

Interview with Shahabuddin Yaqub Qureishi (Election Commissioner of India)

An interesting interview with S.Y.Qureishi, on of the 3 election commissioners of India. It is interesting to note that India has implemented an all electronic voting system. I don't know if something like this would work in Pakistan given that here, with the state structures of administration dissolving rapidly, it is kind of hard to stop a couple gunmen who take over a booth, kick everyone out and vote as they please.

Still, in hopes of better days to come, it might be something that we should do as well.

Blurb about S.Y.Qureishi:

Shahubiddin Yakub Quraishi is one of India's three election commissioners. A career official, he is keen to throw off the dusty image of his bureaucratic profession.
He reveals that he plays guitar and keyboards in a rock band, a pursuit he says he finds most therapeutic. And it could be the perfect antidote to organising the hundreds of millions of voters who go to the polls this month in the world's biggest elections.

The Interview site is here if the above link doesn't work.

The "Post Ottomon Islamist": Ever the Foreigners' Bitch! (CIA and the "Muslim" Brotherhood)

1954-1970: CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood Ally to Oppose Egyptian President Nasser

In 1954, Egyptian President Gamal Abddul Nasser’s nationalist policies in Egypt come to be viewed as completely unacceptable by Britain and the US. MI6 and the CIA jointly hatch plans for his assassination. According to Miles Copeland, a CIA operative based in Egypt, the opposition to Nasser is driven by the commercial community—the oil companies and the banks. At the same time, the Muslim Brotherhood’s resentment of Nasser’s secular government also comes to a head. In one incident, Islamist militants attack pro-Nasser students at Cairo University. Following an attempt on his own life by the Brotherhood, Nasser responds immediately by outlawing the group, which he denounces as a tool of Britain. The following years see a long and complex struggle pitting Nasser against the Muslim Brotherhood, the US, and Britain. The CIA funnels support to the Muslim Brotherhood because of “the Brotherhood’s commendable capability to overthrow Nasser.” [BAER, 2003, PP. 99; DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 101-108] The Islamist regime in Saudi Arabia becomes an ally of the United States in the conflict with Nasser. They offer financial backing and sanctuary to Muslim Brotherhood militants during Nasser’s crackdown. Nasser dies of natural causes in 1970. [DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 90-91, 126-131, 150]
Entity Tags: UK Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), Saudi Arabia, Central Intelligence Agency, Gamal Abddul Nasser, Muslim Brotherhood
Timeline Tags: Alleged Use of False Flag Attacks

1967-2001: Israel Provides Support to Militant Islamic Groups in the West Bank and Gaza
Following the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel takes over the administration of the West Bank and Gaza. Whereas Egyptian President Gamal Abddul Nasser had been tough on Islamist militants (see 1954-1970), Israel is much more permissive. One of their first actions is to release Sheikh Ahmed Yassin from prison. Yassin, a charismatic radical Islamist and the future founder of Hamas had been jailed in 1965 during one of Nasser’s crackdowns. [DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 195] David Shipler, a former New York Times reporter, later recounts that he was told by the military governor of the Gaza Strip, Brigadier General Yitzhak Segev, that the Israeli government had financed the Islamic movement to couteract the PLO and the communists. According to Martha Kessler, a senior analyst for the CIA, “we saw Israel cultivate Islam as a counterweight to Palestinian nationalism.” In the 1970s, Yassin is able to form some Islamic organizations (see 1973-1978). In the 1980s, he forms Hamas as the military arm of his organizations (see 1987). [DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 195, 197, 198]
Entity Tags: Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Palestinian Liberation Organization, Hamas
Timeline Tags: Alleged Use of False Flag Attacks

October 1970-1981: After Nasser’s Death, Egyptian President Sadat Brings Back the Muslim Brotherhood and the CIA
After Egyptian President Gamal Abddul Nasser dies in October 1970, he is succeded as president of Egypt by his former Vice President, Anwar Sadat. Sadat is also a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and he promptly reinstates the group as a legal organization and welcomes them back into Egypt. Sadat also has a very close relationship with the head of Saudi intelligence, Kamal Adham. Through Adham, Sadat also develops close working relationships not only with the Saudis, but with the CIA and Henry Kissinger. Sadat uses the power of the religious right, and the Muslim Brothers in particular to contain the Nasserites and their resistance to the radical changes he introduces. During Sadat’s tenure in the 1970’s Egypt becomes a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism, and figures like Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman and Ayman al-Zawahiri gain great power in Egypt during this period. Ironically Sadat himself is assassinated in 1981 by Islamic Jihad, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, in 1981, because of his accomodation with Israel. [DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 147-162, 165]
Entity Tags: Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Central Intelligence Agency, Anwar Sadat, Henry A. Kissinger, Gamal Abddul Nasser
Timeline Tags: Alleged Use of False Flag Attacks

1973-1978: With Israel’s support, Ahmed Yassin Forms Islamist Organizations in the West Bank and Gaza
In 1973 Israeli military authorities in charge of the West Bank and Gaza allow Sheikh Ahmed Yassin to establish the Islamic Center, an Islamic fundamentalist organization. With Israel’s support, Yassin’s organization soon gains control of hundreds of mosques, charities, and schools which serve as recruiting centers for militant Islamic fundamentalism. In 1976 Yassin creates another organization called the Islamic Association that forms hundreds of branches in Gaza. In 1978 the Islamic Association is licensed by the government of Menachem Begin over the objections of moderate Palesinians including the Commissioner of the Muslim Waqf in the Gaza Strip, Rafat Abu Shaban. Yassin also recieves funding from business leaders in Saudi Arabia who are also hostile to the secular PLO for religious reasons. The Saudi government, however, steps in and attempts to halt the private funds going to Yassin, because they view him as a tool of Israel. [UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL, 2/24/2001; COUNTERPUNCH, 1/18/2003; DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 195 - 197] Yassin will go on to form Hamas in the 1980s, which is created with the help of Israeli intelligence (see 1987).
Entity Tags: Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Saudi Arabia, Rafat Abu Shaban, Islamic Center, Islamic Association, Israel
Timeline Tags: Alleged Use of False Flag Attacks

1987: Hamas Forms with the Support of Israeli Intelligence
Sheikh Ahmed Yassin forms Hamas as the military arm of his Islamic Association, which had been licensed by Israel ten years earlier (see 1973-1978). According to Charles Freeman, a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, “Israel started Hamas. It was a project of Shin Bet, which had a feeling that they could use it to hem in the PLO.” [COUNTERPUNCH, 1/18/2003; DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 191, 208] Anthony Cordesman, a Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies, states that Israel “aided Hamas directly—the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO.” A former senior CIA official speaking to UPI describes Israel’s support for Hamas as “a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative.” Further, according to an unnamed US government official, “the thinking on the part of some of the right-wing Israeli establishment was that Hamas and the other groups, if they gained control, would refuse to have anything to do with the peace process and would torpedo any agreements put in place.” Larry Johnson, a counterterrorism official at the State Department, states: “The Israelis are their own worst enemies when it comes to fighting terrorism. They are like a guy who sets fire to his hair and then tries to put it out by hitting it with a hammer. They do more to incite and sustain terrorism than curb it.” [UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL, 2/24/2001 SOURCES: LARRY C. JOHNSON, UNNAMED FORMER CIA OFFICIAL]
Entity Tags: Israel, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Bin Laden Family
Timeline Tags: Alleged Use of False Flag Attacks, Complete 911 Timeline

1988: Al Taqwa Bank Co-Founder Is Long-time CIA Asset

Artist’s sketch of Said Ramadan. [Source: Wall Street Journal]
In 1988, the Al Taqwa Bank is founded in Switzerland, and it quickly becomes one of the major funders for radical Islamic groups, including al-Qaeda (see 1988). The Al Taqwa Bank is closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, and one of its key founders, Said Ramadan, is one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s top leaders, and also the son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Ramadan helped Saudi Arabia found the Muslim World League in 1962; the charity will go on to fund al-Qaeda and many other radical groups. But there is strong evidence that Ramadan also was a long-time CIA asset. [DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 136] Declassified Swiss documents reveal that in the 1960s, the Swiss government considered him to be, “among other things, an intelligence agent of the British and the Americans.” The Wall Street Journal will report in 2005, “Historical evidence suggests Mr. Ramadan worked with the CIA.” For instance, he traveled on a Jordanian diplomatic passport given to him by the CIA, “his expenditures are financed by the American side,” and he worked closely with CIA supported propaganda fronts. [MOTHER JONES, 1/1/2006] The Egyptian government apparently also believed Ramadan worked with the US, and that he may have had a role in a plot against Egyptian President Abddul Nasser in the 1960s. Ramadan even met with President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Oval Office in 1953. [DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 135-138] Ramadan will die in 1995 at the age of 69. It is not known how long his ties to the CIA and possibly other intelligence agencies lasted. Journalist Robert Dreyfuss will later comment: “It’s no exaggeration to say that Ramadan is the ideological grandfather of Osama bin Laden. But Ramadan, the Muslim Brotherhood, and their Islamist allies might never have been able to plant the seeds that sprouted into al-Qaeda had they not been treated as US allies during the Cold War and had they not received both overt and covert support from Washington.” [MOTHER JONES, 1/1/2006]
Entity Tags: Al Taqwa Bank, Muslim Brotherhood, Said Ramadan, Central Intelligence Agency
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

Ref: Context of '1954-1970: CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood Ally to Oppose Egyptian President Nasser'

Secret Lives of Bacteria

This reinforces my view that simple rules of thumb can be used to dissolve and overcome complex systems. It IS possible to dissolve complex systems like "states" using "bacterial approaches". Petraeus used the "oil patch" technique in Iraq to the point that they are able to now relocate forces to Afghanistan.

So, it is indeed possible to fight fire with fire. Simple rule of thumb with simple rule of thumb.

The Trouble With Pakistan

Or... "What's the Problem With Pakistan" -- Foreign Affairs.


An interesting piece well worth a read. The "Sumit Ganguly" guy can't help himself but be an un-abashed advocate for the Indian interests but still it's a good piece and Stephen Cohen poked his ass a little in part III ! lol.

Another reason why we need Pakistani intellectuals in influential Think Tanks and in positions of influence in western capitals (and eastern capitals for that matter). How long are the crazy citizen blogger-journalists going to try to fight a losing battle for a state ruled by an exceedingly incompetent 'ruling class' ??

I will quote two passages by Aqil Shah, for the rest, run over to ForreignAffairs.Org and help yerself!

Aqil Shah: Recent events in Swat show only that the military-dominated Pakistani state is either unwilling or unable to perform its basic function: enforcing the legitimate monopoly over the means of coercion and administration in its own territory. Even if we concede that striking a cease-fire agreement with the Taliban was the only feasible option in the face of abject military failure and the rising human costs of the military campaign, how is the government going to make sure that the Taliban have made a credible commitment? What is to stop the Taliban from reneging on their promises? Press reports suggest that they have already violated the terms of the cease-fire agreement by attacking and kidnapping security personnel, just as they did in all of the previous "peace deals" in the FATA. The cease-fire agreement basically gives the Taliban a pass on their crimes against the state. They have terrorized the population, burnt down hundreds of girls' schools in Swat, and murdered civilians and military personnel. As Shaun says, it's déjà vu all over again.

and

Aqil Shah: The transition to democracy has done little to change the dynamics of political power. The politicians appear too busy protecting their flanks to realize the gravity of the situation. Opinion polls show a sharp downslide in public confidence in the government's performance. The Sharif-Zardari showdown may not have been unexpected, but it has certainly disappointed Pakistanis who perceived the 2008 elections and their results as a first step toward extricating Pakistan from its authoritarian trap. The political, economic, and security problems faced by the elected government are largely legacies of Musharraf's military rule. But the PPP [Pakistan People's Party] government cannot hide behind that excuse to mask its own incompetence. Power in Pakistan, as in any other aspiring democracy, needs to be restrained by the rule of law. This, in turn, requires the supremacy of the constitution, enforced by an autonomous judiciary. But the PPP-led government has used paltry subterfuges to subvert judicial independence and has held over other anti-democratic measures from the Musharraf era, such as the presidential power to arbitrarily sack elected governments. The PPP and other parties may find it inconvenient to be restrained by constitutional checks and balances, but without them democracy is likely to remain feeble and vulnerable to authoritarian backsliding. If that happens, civilian politicians will have to share a good part of the blame for squandering the democratic gains of the last few years.

And for the kicker, Shaun Gregory, uses the appropriate term for the Pakistani "ruling elite" ie; Kleptocratic ... yup! You heard it bitches! he said "KLEPTOCRATIC ELITE"

Shaun Gregory: I've just been re-reading Tariq Ali's (admittedly leftist) analysis of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, The Duel. The basic thesis is that since 1958 the major Western powers have put their own short-term interests first, propping up one military dictatorship after another and paying only lip service to support for democracy. If such a course had achieved U.S. and Western objectives, it could perhaps be countenanced. But it hasn't. For decades, Washington and others have put the interests of the Pakistan army and the country's tiny kleptocratic elite first while neglecting the Pakistani people. This is a basic error that cannot be repeated if Pakistan is to be turned around. I can't help thinking that if the same resources and intellectual energy that have been put into the Pakistani military had been put into genuine support for democracy, social progress, and development, we'd be in a very different place today. Over the past ten years, Washington has spent almost six billion dollars on the FATA, 96 percent of them on military activity and just 1 percent on development. This is a sterile, failed policy, and there surely have to be other ideas worth trying. The Obama administration says it wants to change course. We'll see if it does.

Fujimori gets his come uppance! When will Musharraf?

Former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori has been sentenced to 25 years in jail for ordering killings and kidnappings by security forces.
At the end of a 15-month trial, judges found him guilty of two death-squad killings of 25 people during the conflict with guerrillas in the 1990s.
After being sentenced, Mr Fujimori said he would appeal against the verdict.
Human rights group Amnesty International described the verdict as "a milestone in the fight for justice".

Ref: BBC News

I hope we in Pakistan can also set an example like this and get Musharraf and his cronies tried and convicted for his crimes against the Pakistani People.

A new world is being born

When will be the next world war which will make official the Next World Order?

More at: The Big Picture (Boston Globe)