He requested a new thread in which we could further discuss the situation in Pakistan, so I am supplying it here by reproducing his comment in full. I have corrected the spelling, and regularized punctuation and idioms to reflect current American usage.
Here is what Afonso Henriques had to say:
I am no expert, but I will give you my contribution so that I may help you to form an independent opinion. I hope to elucidate you too, Baron, with my humble contribution.- - - - - - - - -
First we have to look to what Pakistan is. Pakistan is not a nation per se as the nation-states in Europe, nor a relatively successful bastard (USA, Argentina) or legitimate (Canada, Brazil) son of such nations.
Pakistan is a country born from a desire of some Muslim Indians to have their own Muslim land in order not to be ruled by the Hindu majority (which means in order for the Muslim elite to rule).
We also have to (sorry, I am a European, a Portuguese to be more accurate and as so I am sorry to offend your naïve ideals or your profound beliefs as Americans) look at the ethnic makeup of the country and realize that in that country, the loyalties are firstly within one’s tribe, and secondly within one’s ethnic group. The only “common ground” for that country is Islam but Islam can only unite people against a non-Islamic thing/person/nation/state, and not within an Islamic entity, because once the consensus of Islam is reached, other conflicts will arise, and those conflicts can not always be solved simply by addressing to Islam.
As I was saying, the ethnic composition of Pakistan is the following:
We have Indo-Aryans (Indian stock) in the West and in the East we have Aryan-Iranians. The latter are very tribalistic, and are the ones who are helping the Taliban in Afghanistan, mainly because they are the same ethnic group (the would-be nation). The power of the state is all in the hands of the Indo-Aryans.
So we reach an important consensus. Nothing is mingling the Pakistani people together except for Islam. That is why the country focuses so much on it. And these enormous ethnic groups I mentioned are like races, which can be divided into countless ethnic groups, which are divided into countless tribes, just to give an idea of how fragmented Pakistan is and of how Islam is so important there to blend the community.
Now I will strike with these: Benazir Bhutto would never made it to power and her death, despite being a drama, is a blessing to stabilize Pakistan.
Now you find yourself asking: Why?
Well, because Pakistan is (as is every Muslim country, especially the poorer and miserable ones like Pakistan) engaging in a fight between two versions of Islam. The same evil Islam. The Islam which was weakened by colonialism (Musharraf) and the Islam of the Taliban against the Superpower Soviet Union, of the (what the hell, I am going to say it) Turks against Europe (especially Serbia) in Bosnia and Kosovo, of Al-Qaeda against the Hyperpower, the United States of America of 9/11, the Islam of Hizbullah not losing a war against the almighty state of Israel.
Summarizing, the Islam which made Paris a Third World place in 2005, and simultaneously made the United Arab Emirates a thriving land after centuries of desert. A new and much too powerful Islam which has come to the World to conquer it. An Islam which it seems cannot be stopped. This is a new generation of Islam.
Returning to Pakistan, that country will inevitably fall to the second type of Islam, but the longer Musharraf has power the better for us, because the second type of Islam will not mind exporting the bomb, not only to Saudi Arabia but to every Muslim state, be it Indonesia or the gangster state of Kosovo or Greater Albania in the heart of Europe. It is an Islam that would help with all the resources (including terrorism en masse) the Chechens.So, and… who was Bhutto and who backed her?
Well, she a was a woman of an high caste, and she was backed up by a westernized elite which did not represent the Pakistani people at all. Or do you think that Muslims wanted a woman to rule their heads? A pro-Western, maybe feminist woman? Come on!
If we complain about the EUSSR, what kind of people are we when we try to impose on another people a leader which is not the one they want? It’s like Bush trading democracy for oil! They want Islam, let them live with it, but in their own lands!
Benazir Bhutto’s campaign would only favor the second type of Islam (which some call, I guess, fundamentalist) in a country where young women are already gang-raped for showing their legs in public. It would do no good.
So now Musharraf can breath a bit safer, knowing all too well both that the Western countries have not seen enough of Benazir to support her and to intervene for her and that the Islamists of the aforementioned second type (do you remember the Red Mosque in Islamabad?) will kill everybody who may be a candidate to the throne of Musharraf once they seem not to be capable of eliminating Musharraf himself. Which I am not so sure of in the long term (two, three years).
And that is it. We are safe with Musharraf; whoever succeeds him will either be a second type Islamist or will lead the country to a civil war which will open the path for that kind of Islamist to gain (even) more power, which means nothing less than a nuclear arsenal.
It’s a reminder that looking down the road, a conflict with India seems too plausible at any moment, and in that case, we have to somehow assure the victory of India and not permit a mobilization of the Muslim countries like we saw in the nineties against Serbia. Which would be difficult because such conflict could easily escalate to a conflict against Israel in the West.
This is the first time I have commented on this excellent blog and so I expose to you my humble opinions and visions about all this I talked about.
May I have the discernment to propose Baron (or Dymphna) to make another thread or compilation of all these comments to enlighten us all about what happened in Pakistan and its consequences? Keep the good work! And I kind of miss a Fjordman post folks!
P.S. Sorry for my English, but it is not my native language.
60 comments:
I fully agree. Good analysis.
I can only marvel at how stupid the State Dept. is, especially regarding Kosovo, but also pushing BB to return to Pak and seek the office.
I'm starting to realise my knowledge of this arena is far shallower than I thought. I'll be watching with my notebook.
I think your analysis is incorrect. The large numbers of Pakistani's who voted for Bhutto in her last election and were supporting her now believed in her as a messianic leader. Who knows why they like a woman? (Aren't we about to elect one here who is manafestly less qualified than her male competitors?)
India has Indira Ghandi and India and Pakistan, despite the religious difference, are cut from the same cloth.
So, my take is culturally the Pakistani's do not have a problem with a woman leader, and Bhutto is from a family that has ruled in the past. Think of her as the ultra-charasmatic Kennedy woman who runs to replace Ted in 2016 or whatever.
As for your contention that Pakistan must inevitably fall to the Taliban, why? Afghanistan seems to have rejected them, and they are a far more backwards country that Pakistan.
I know those protesting lawyers are not every Hamid Sixpack, but still you do have a large educated class in Pakistan. Something that I well know after 20 years of working with Pakistani engineeers, attending college with Paki kids, etc.
Of course they are matched by a large uneducated class. But even these are not uniformly Islmic fundamentalists ala Taliban.
In summary you give the jihadis WAY more credit than they deserve as a popular force. Bhutto, what ever her many sins, WAS the voice of the people in Pakistan.
The far-jihadi party only scores 3% in polls in Pakistan today.
Perhaps they can organize around some less corrupt person, but in societies with large uneducated and impovereshed class that is harder. Bhutto was a chance for a true popular government to peacefully take power. That' is a sad thing to lose.
Returning to Pakistan, that country will inevitably fall to the second type of Islam, but the longer Musharraf has power the better for us, because the second type of Islam will not mind exporting the bomb,
Again, way over stated in my opinion.
So, and… who was Bhutto and who backed her?
Well, she a was a woman of an high caste, and she was backed up by a westernized elite which did not represent the Pakistani people at all.
She was the daughter of a popular leader. She was elected twice by substantial majorities. To say she did not "represent the Pakistani people at all" is simply wrong.
Or do you think that Muslims wanted a woman to rule their heads?
Yes, apparently they did. People are not so simple as your sterotypes lead you to believe.
A pro-Western, maybe feminist woman? Come on!
You come on! Is it really so unbelievable that women would vote in large numbers for a woman who talked, in their own language, about raising them up. Doing away with the more barbarian laws. You say "feminist" like she was a gender-equality studies graduate student. But, actually, she was suggesting doing away with the sharia inspired laws, which are very anti-woman.
I believe many woman in Pakistan would obviously support her in that. And many men as well.
In summary I think your analysis is way off base. It is darkly clouded by basic mistaken assumptions, which seem to be derived from sterotypes.
Bhutto was as a legitimate a representative of the Pakistani peoples wishes as we have ever seen. Her western education and 'feminist' beliefs, that you so sarcastically put down were probably viewed as a Very Good Thing by many Pakistani's who associate the west and education with progress, and have little wish to be ruled by madrassa educated ayatollas like the Taliban, who they are all TOO familiar with.
Do you know many Pakistani's? Have you traveled there? Just curious?
Actually, I wrote a someting simliar at my blog yesterday. Article
Bhutto supported the Taliban during her term as PM in the 1990s.
She and her husband, known as "Mr. Ten Percent," were corrupt.
Her own niece describes her as interested in power rather governing.
She was a weak ruler in the past and she would have been a weak ruler now.
And on the day of her death, she backed away from previous statements where she welcomed NATO action in western Pakistan.
I'd be happier with a heavy handed dictator crushing the Islamists in Pakistan.
Who knows, maybe with Al-Qaeda taking credit for the assassination, Musharrif will know have the excuse he needs to confront his Islamic opponents.
Democracy in Islamic countries is highly overrated. Ten years from now, both Iraq and Afghanistan will be ruled by authoritarian rulers, with tacit American approval.
Mr. Henriques is full of his cultural superiority as a European, but his ignorance shows. Pakistan is a Muslim country, therefore it has no caste like neighboring India. Therefore, Ms. Bhutto cannot come from a high caste, as Mr. Henriques wrote, but from a prominent family, which is not the same thing. Then, who says Bush or anyone was trying to impose Bhutto on Pakistan? Supporting a candidate is not imposing them. Last but not least, to think that Musharraf's power is safer now that Bhutto is dead is naive to put it mildly. Nobody is going to save Pakistan from sinking into anarchy and Islamism at this stage, and the days of Musharraf and his rule are numbered. The best proof that Musharraf is not a solution to Pakistan's problems is the fact that he has been able to solve so few of them if any after years of being in charge. Ben Laden is probably still hiding in the tribal areas, Islamism is still rampant and possibly recruiting more and more supporters, poverty is crushing, corruption is everywhere and the rule of law is inexistent. Musharraf has little control over much of the country, and so Pakistan still is a problem to the rest of the world, not much less so than if a fanatical Islamist government were ruling it, in my humble opinion.
I don't think the murder of Benazir Bhutto stabilizes Pakistan. Pakistanis are seething. However, it probably does not destabilize it either. The Taliban may think they have scored a victory over a Muslim feminist, but that too is probably an illusion.
The assassination of Ms. Bhutto is a de facto declaration of war against the ethnicities that support her. To expect a lack of resentment by lowlanders against Pushtuns for supporting al-Qaeda is to expect a bit much.
The question is whether the January 8 elections are rigged. If they are not rigged, I expect the Pakistan People's Party to win in a landslide. This does not change Pakistan's essential problem, which is that the Pakistani military is losing battle after battle to the Taliban, with the effect that even symbolic Pakistani sovereignty over its tribal regions is a dead letter.
The one oddly stabilizing aspect of Ms. Bhutto's murder is that the PPP hierarchy will have the political advantage of a martyr without the governing disadvantage of answering to a narcissistic prima donna. For the time being, the Pakistan People's Party will likely be run by a de facto regency council with a higher level of maturity than Pakistanis are usually accustomed to. Sometimes a revolution is successful precisely because its narcissists have been conveniently martyred for the cause.
The best case scenario is if the Northwest Frontier either joins Afghanistan or becomes independent, for this would create a pretext for outside intervention. I think it may be possible for Pakistan to renounce its claim on its tribal regions, much as France gave up Algeria. It was not Arab terrorists who won a military victory in Algeria, but the pied noir (French settlers) who defeated themselves politically by undermining France's internal stability and posing as kingmakers (and kingbreakers) for Charles de Gaulle. Likewise, Pakistan's tribal regions have become a strategic liability for the economy of lowland Pakistan.
"and so I am sorry to offend your naive ideals or profound beliefs as Americans..."
I lost interest after that and only skimmed through the rest. While I'll cheerfully admit to not knowing a whole lot about anything outside the USA borders, having an elitist comment like that thrust on me discredits his whole argument.
This individual should take his gratuitous insults somewhere else.
But maybe that just shows what a lowbrow, uneducated American I am.
Noted.
subvet:
I took it as a ironic comment on the ridiculous which hunt we saw from the good folks of LGF recently.
Nevertheless, I agree with you - even if it wasn't the tedious European America-bashing that seems to be the only thing that sustains so many Europeans in their attempts to disperse the European inferiority complex, it was non the less entirely uncalled for, factually ignorant, and tactically stupid in the extreme.
You should not, however, let it detract from the meat of Mr. Henriques' analysis. He has some interesting things to offer us in these days of media sob sistering, even if, as previous comments have shown, much of his reasoning is faulty and badly researched.
First of all, it's always gutsy of a person to openly say what he or she thinks about this or that situation. The risk is great for either offending and/or subsequently becoming a target from those with opposing views, or even being made to "look the fool". It's a part of the game we freely signed on to, so I assume everyone here is mature enough to realize that.
Alfonso Henriques is very correct in his describing Pakistani society as extremely fractured, as well as how each ethnic group is broken down to a myriad of tribes and allegiances. I do believe as Henriques states, that Islam is the glue that holds the state together, outside of that, they are more concerned with tribal allegiances than the Pakistani state.
The complete understanding of what makes up Pakistan is a daunting task, even for the experts. Iraq, is one more prime example of how politicians, the MSM and political pundits misunderstand the regional social and political dynamics involved in an ad hoc state. Most still talk about Iraq in terms of Sunni, Shiia and Kurds (Kurds are every bit Sunni as the Arab Sunni) while it is the local villages, and their tribes that are the key to understanding the state as a whole. Pakistan is no different.
That said, some minor points can be understood and learned from both Henriques and Zeke. The former describes the ethnic make-up of Pakistan quite accurately, and as I stated earlier, he correctly defines the religion as the glue holding together the Pakistani state. The latter, (Zeke) is also correct in pointing out that a very large number of Pakistanis voted for her, but this is where I must differ in the understanding of that popular support.
The people voting for the party she represented, were doing so mostly out of promises for largesse, (not unlike western countries) but it's wrong to conclude that they (the male supporters) were doing so because they viewed the woman as an equal, it was out of loyalty to the Bhutto lineage and the power that the family was able to bring to bear, in terms of kleptocratic rule.
Benazir Bhutto was no democrat in the western sense, she was able to pull the wool over the West's eyes, just as much as she was able to appear to be willing to appease the religionists in her own state, as well as appear to be promoting women's rights, by here status as a female politician in a very misogynist part of the world.
She played the fiddle of the differing various tunes, both her countrymen and the West danced to, while she secured a financial legacy for her family. She was no more different than Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, corrupt to the umpteenth power, and used people like all other kleptocrat rulers do, and even managed to off her own brother when he became to much of a threat. She schmoozed with terrorists, approved of suicide bombings and loved the lime light.
It's my opinion then, that military rule in Pakistan is MUCH MORE of an attractive idea than allowing the state to succumb to the jihadists, from the extreme to the milder versions. Iran was certainly better off under the Shah than it is currently under the Mullahs, and the only thing holding Turkey from slipping into full blown Islamism is its army. The very same for Pakistan. If Musharraf goes, then it will only be a matter of time before a new Pakistani General takes power and saves the nukes from becoming a true Islamic bomb. Like it or not, the army cares more for the average Pakistani than their politicians do.
Zeke,
"Do you know many Pakistani's? Have you traveled there? Just curious?"
No, I do not know many Pakistanis. Only the owner of the shop round the corner and I do not talk with him much. I have never went to Pakistan also. And as so, I expressed only my opinions, I am not an expert.
"The large numbers of Pakistani's who voted for Bhutto in her last election and were supporting her now believed in her as a messianic leader"
I do not agree. I don't think they voted just for Butho. It was an all great package back then, not just Butho. The 9/11 changed the world a lot. The second type of Islam I mentioned has grown from a dream of Islamic supermacists to a dynamic political ideology. And we can not afford to let a country with 160 million people and a nuclear arsenal to follow that ideology.
"Aren't we about to elect one here who is manafestly less qualified than her male competitors?"
I do not think so, you Americans have shown you are much smarter than that.
But, comparing America to an Islamic society(?)...
"India and Pakistan, despite the religious difference, are cut from the same cloth."
No they aren't. Being Indian (that same cloth) is like being an European. It is plenty of sub divisions which are too important to be ignored.
And I think that a muslim Indian is way to different from an Hindu Indian. Seperate Civilisations, as Samuel Huntington puts it.
"culturally the Pakistani's do not have a problem with a woman leader"
More or less so. Pakistanis do not, but the 2nd type of Islam has (Do not ever forget Red Mosque where a GROUP OF STUDENTS gave their lives espontaneously for that 2nd type of Islam. Is that kind of people who are a danger, not Musharraf).
Sadly, I am not concearned about the 160 million Pakistanis, but with the rest of the world. Specially Europe (And the americas, of course), India and Israel.
"you do have a large educated class in Pakistan."
I am sorry but it is not true.
How many people in Pakistan are, what we here call, a middle educated person (I mean, someone who finished the high school)?
Do you have 10 million, 20 million Pakistanis like that?
I don't think so, but even if you had 50 million Pakistanis who graduated in high school, you would have 110 millions who didn't.
You may have 3 or 4 million as the high educated class but you will still have 150 millions middle or poorly educated. Maybe, you just know the elite of the Pakistani society.
"But even these are not uniformly Islmic fundamentalists ala Taliban."
Jugoslavia under Tito was a wonderful society, remember?
I am not saying that they are, I am stating that, if the apropriate conditions apear (and I see them on the horizon) they might become.
"In summary you give the jihadis WAY more credit than they deserve as a popular force"
Yes, it is true.
But just because I am talking about in what the EXISTANT forces can be transformed in a very, very near future.
A Pakistan today under Butho would be delightfull for the Western elites, no doubt. But... what about a Pakistan under Butho within two years?
Weather you have noticed or not, Turkey is atacking the Kurds in Northern Iraq, the Iranians are ok with it, so are the West and Russia. Would it be imaginable with Sadam? Of course not! Still, in schools all over the European Union (or at least in the West, far away from the devil), kids are taught that Turkey is a country we should all accept in the Union.
"Bhutto, what ever her many sins, WAS the voice of the people in Pakistan."
No she wasn't. The big problem is that Pakistan does not have a voice! Pakistan is such a fragile entity with such powerfull toys (may it be 160 million persons or the nuclear arsenal). The voice of the peoples of Pakistan scream a lot of things, the voice of Pakistan itself, has no strenght to say more than Islam. That is the real problem, in my view. Maybe I'll talk about politics with the local Pakistani (lol)...
"The far-jihadi party only scores 3% in polls in Pakistan today"
When it come, it will not be democratic. The ISI and the army have shown us who really "bosses" Pakistan.
"Perhaps they can organize around some less corrupt person"
Perhaps they could built a f***ing real country where people share more than some vague religion and they could stop playing that "who's going to rule the next caliphate" thing. Perhaps they should give their nuclear arsenal to India.
It simply will not happen.
"Bhutto was a chance for a true popular government to peacefully take power. That' is a sad thing to lose."
Indeed my friend. Though I think it is insignificant compared what WE (maybe I am too egocentric) will loose if Pakistan...
"Again, way over stated in my opinion."
Again, I say that Pakistan is not colapsing today or the day Butho wins the elections. The future looks darker than the present and the present is already black.
"Or do you think that Muslims wanted a woman to rule their heads?
Yes, apparently they did. People are not so simple as your sterotypes lead you to believe."
Some did, others didn't.
Anyway, in the near future I guess it wouldn't be a bonus for her against the 2nd type Islamists.
"she was suggesting doing away with the sharia inspired laws"
And it would be good in Europe, in America, etc.
In an Islamic country, it would be suicidal, anti nature. And thus, would empower the 2nd type islamists, or at least foment such ideas to flourish.
You do not have to be a fanatic to be a 2nd type Islamist.
Saladin was a great man to islamic standards, I would consider him a 2nd type islamist, a jihadist, not a fanatic like you suggest "Talibans" are.
"I believe many woman in Pakistan would obviously support her in that. And many men as well."
Yes. But, even if she had 10 million supporters, it would be another 150 million Pakistanis left. A great part of them, ferocious oppositors.
"many Pakistani's (...) have little wish to be ruled by madrassa educated ayatollas like the Taliban, who they are all TOO familiar with."
If you are a frequent guest over Gates of Vienna, you should have alredy learnd that education plays a minor part in this. Remember that Scotland airport thing? They were well educated, westernized muslims, still...
"In summary I think your analysis is way off base. It is darkly clouded by basic mistaken assumptions, which seem to be derived from sterotypes"
I partly agree. It is "darkly clouded" as i am no expert and haven't made any kind of research. I was very surprised by, after posting the comment, seeing such an enormous aglomeration of people in her funeral.
I do disagree when you say I am stereotyping people. I did not do that and it is a bit frustrating to be acused of stereotyping Pakistanis after all I wrote.
Between ALEXIS and KGS I think they got it pretty well summed up.
There's only one piece missing :
The role (or rule) of muslim street-mob-hysterics.
Until you experience it on your own flesh (which I have,armed with a small wodden clubb and an explicit order NOT to shoot) it is wery difficult to comunicate what exactly this means :
You'we got a typical peacefully -relacsed arab street-scene with lots of street-wenders and bypassers. Along comes a car with 3-4 bearded fanatics ,they start shouting and dancing around ,and in a few minutes you'we got several hundred screeming maniacs capable of taring an elefant apart with their bare hands.
THIS you'we probably seen in TV.
What you might NOT have noticed, that the MOB, even while hysterical,obeys the fanatacs that started the whole thing because these know how to use certain muslim COMAND WORDS ,or maybee frases. To non-muslims this might seem abit like hypnotic comands.
All this means that sayings like "only 3-4 % fanatics" are meaningless . People can change "mode" in sekonds .
Mr. Henriques is full of his cultural superiority as a European
You sound like you have a chip on your shoulder.
I'm not convinced Musharraf has any desire to crack down on al-Qaeda. He's never shown any interest in the past. He spends all the aid $ on weapons to counter India. His procrastination worsened the Red Mosque incident considerably, leaving him to wait 'til the situation was almost spinning out of control.
Can I make a suggestion? I know my last few posts have been a little erratic but I have one very sound piece of advice, and that's to ignore anything that seems like it might be an insult. Please? We can't afford to fight over petty differences and perceived insults right now.
Come on, we're bigger than that.
AH,
Glad you've joined us. Please tell me, by your naïve ideals or your profound beliefs as Americans do you mean our belief that all people everywhere desire to live under democratically elected governments, and that all such governments are good while all others are bad? If that's what you mean, then I agree with you. It is naive and, when it becomes the basis of American foreign policy, dangerous as well.
We may have to learn the hard way that democracy like booze is only for adults. We need to stop serving it to minors.
I don't know anything about the late Bhutto; maybe she would have been useful to the USA, maybe not. We'll never know. But if anything can focus people's minds on practical realities and make them cease vaporing on about democracy it's that this particular unfortunate nation has nukes and through it run the supply lines to the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan.
I thought the analysis was very good.
The mystery of why so many pakis would vote for a woman was pretty clear, some would vote because they like the idea of having a choice, no matter how bad. Others hate Mushariff, others want her socialism. Many undoubtedly want their share of her crooked spoils, and they can have influence on others to vote for her.
The fact is, pushing for democracy now will result in an islamist nation. Therefore a dictatorship is better, for now. OTW we will end up nuking Pakistan, or India will.
"(sorry, I am a European, a Portuguese to be more accurate and as so I am sorry to offend your naïve ideals or your profound beliefs as Americans)"
I have to agree with Subvet. After getting slapped in the face with one ignorant generalization, it is tough to beleive the rest of the text isn't full of others.
However, it may be possible that some European schools teach their students to begin each discussion by insulting the other party.
I'll try it at my next social gathering and see how well it goes over. Perhaps my friends will take Archonix's advice and "ignore anything that seems like it might be an insult".
But I doubt it.
Sad to see that after 500 years of colonizing and decolonizing, too many Europeans are still arrogant and ignorant. And proud of it.
I think that the "I'm so offended" shpliel has run its course. How about getting back to the subject at hand...?
We are all adults here, and for the sake of argument, we can all manage to look past some things in order to get closer to an engaged debate about the subject at hand. That is the purpose of wanting to post here...right?
Bardhyl what does radical Christianity mean in this context?
Archonix, kgs. Yes I probably shouldn't have said anything. I'll resist that niggling temptation in the future.
Some of you regarded some of my words as arogant or offensive. I tried to make a brief text to explain why I said what I said and what I really meant but I wasn't able to do it.
As so, I will try to write such text in which I will be answering the questions aimed at me on the comment section. I will then send it via email to this blog and maybe Baron can post it, if he feels apropriate to do so.
I will enjoy the spotlight once more and pretend to be arrogant again:
Vinegar Joe, "Sad to see that after 500 years of colonizing and decolonizing, too many Europeans are still arrogant and ignorant. And proud of it."
Surffing the net recently, I found myself in a forum of the Portuguese military where they were talking about politics and weapons and such things. One of them had a slogan: "Quem teve o primeiro, mais longo e último Império da Europa, não tem necessariamente de ser humilde" which means "The ones (we) who had the first, longest (in time) and last (standing) European Empiere do not have necessarily to be humble"
It's a bad principle, but a great slogan!
I will, for now, just stuck on the Pakistani crisis:
KSG, I agree with you. I disagree only in two aspects, first, it is AFonso, not ALFonso, it's Portuguese, not Spanish Castillan. Second, I would love to see someone after Musharraf's death between the 2nd type of Islam and the nukes, but I am not that optimistic. Ole, I gues the fanatics you are refering to are not just crazy suicide bombers, I think they are the very elite of such societies, people following their own political agenda. Focus on that, it is true, people do change mode on seconds.
Alexis, I liked your comment, I just do not belive that Pakistan can really desintegrate because, whoever declares independence will have to face one of the most formidable armies in the world. It will not happen, besides, muslims have no loyalty to their countries only to their tribes and Islam acording to Samuel Huntington.
Islamophobe, do not spend time on Bardhyl, I did it for all of us here, I have elaborated a text to answer him because he spent all day insulting the Portuguese people, but Baron, kindly erased his stupid comments. By the way, he has some kind of a fetish with gypsies.
he's probably a muslim who likes to put his ass up in the air in front of cammels five times a day.
Henriques, thanks for an interesting analysis. It brings up a lot of relevant points. And, as in any good analysis, I still precieve that I have the freedom to disagree with the conclusion.
Pakistan was carved out of India in 1947, with the intention of making a country largely like India herself, just with a majority Muslim population. Basically secular, and democratic.
As we all know, that didn't work out. Not at all. Radical and violent Islam has been entrenched so deeply it is difficult to imagine a peaceful way out. As it stands now, it is tempting to just make it sink, but we have Afghanistan to worry about. That makes things much more complex.
Let me offer an alternative, one that would give people the option of identifying with their ethnicity, not with religion, and which just might make it easier to rule, as well as much less of a threat to its neighbours:
Let it fall apart.
Really. Divide up along ethnic borders, implement autonomy for the regions, reduce the power of the central government. If that works out reasonably, move ahead and create smaller, more manageable independent countries.
Pakistan is large enough to make the individual countries viable, make the politicians in each of these more reponsible towards their populations, and the reach of violent Islamists would be significantly reduced.
I agree with you completeley Henrik!
I don't belive you disagree with my conclusion. At least, I do not disagree with yours. If possible, I would even prefer to see Eastern Pakistan, of Indian Stock, be incorporated in India, just to contrabalance China.
The difference is that I pointed out as conclusion what I think is likely to happen and what I think we should do if it happens whereas you apointed in your conclusion what should be done. I agree with you 100%, I just, unfortunately can't see it comming, and you have to agree with me, it is very unlikely to happan. And I don't think morally correct or doable to atack Pakistan just because.
Thanks, Henriques :)
One of the great things of GoV is intelligent debate, where we respect mutual differences, learn, and change our viewpoints.
Clearly the understanding we have of the details of Pakistan is a much larger common ground than any differences in conclusion.
What could be done is that the US, India and others discreetly 'suggest' the option of greater autonomy in a country which is too large and diverse to be run by a central government, except by the application of excessive violence.
BTW, it is interesting that Al-Qaeda denies the attack. That doesn't, however, rule out that it is Islamist handywork anyway. A likely alternative is Laskhar-e-Toiba:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004990.php
Americans (and Canadians, Australians, and deracinated elites in Europe) are naive about ethnic and racial issues. They have a tendency to think in terms of ideas rather than blood. Politics in most countries is about ethnicity, race, and nationality. Religion often plays a part too but it is usually just a component part of 'ethnoracial' identity.
I find it curious that Americans are not more aware of ethnoracial issues as the US is fractured by them. One can usually predict the party that gets elected in an area just by knowing its demographics. Even among those of British heritage there are differences: those of East Anglian backgrounds who settled initially in the northeast then spread out west use to be reliable Republicans, now they are mostly Democrats; those identified as 'Scotch-Irish' went the opposite way. Even their churches, views on gun rights, foreign policy, and many other issues are noticeably different. Gangsters in the US, like every where else, organise along ethnoracial lines. People, especially those with children, usually end up living in areas with people of similar backgrounds. (I know exactly what an American or Canadian means when they say they moved from the city because of crime, etc.)
Of all the reports I've seen on the news about Bhutto's assasination only one made mention of her ethnicity and its connection to her powerbase. The rest emphasise her sex, religious views, Western education and (alleged) pro-Western outlook.
Maybe Americans are naive about the role of ethnicity in political conflicts because they have an Anglo-Saxon outlook. As Australian professor Andrew Fraser has put it: individualism and a de-emphasisis on extended ethnic kinship are characteristics of the Anglo-Saxon phenotype. So it's not an exclusively American characteristic - though the lofty idealism of the USA's founding certainly doesn't help.
This characteristic of Anglo-Saxons makes it easier to form and maintain a working civil society with conflicts resolved peacefully rather than by clan warfare. The problem comes when less individualistic ethnic groups arrive in large enough numbers that they are not forced to adapt to the native culture. That's where we are at today.
This is a nice article you should read:
Why Hezbollah LOST the War in Lebanon!
And the Current 'Present' Situation in Southern Lebanon
By Gabriel al-Amin
Beirut, Lebanon
http://www.lebanonwire.com/0709MLN/07092429MN.asp
On July 12, 2006 Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers that led to Israel's war with them and, by extension, Lebanon itself. Hezbollah has been on Israel's fence since the latter's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000. Israel always requested from the international community and from the Lebanese government to deploy its Lebanese Army there instead of Hezbollah militants. Hezbollah, quite naturally, refused! Hezbollah vowed to NEVER allow any other force other than itself to occupy southern Lebanon. Even during the conflict, Hezbollah said it would never agree to allow either the Lebanese army nor international monitors to patrol southern Lebanon.
Then finally, when two IDF (Israeli Defense Force) soldiers were kidnapped, Israel found the perfect excuse it was looking for to go into Lebanon and push Hezbollah well away from the Lebanese-Israel border. Israel pursued a limited invasion and killed over 500-600 Hezbollah members during the one month war. Additionally, Israel took over every single village in southern Lebanon. During the conflict even though Hezbollah received such a blow and all its members were freaked out and on the run. Yet when the hostilities ended, Hezbollah claimed victory! But did it really win?
Firstly, Israel agreed to a cessation of hostilities NOT because it surrendered and defeated militarily, but because of international pressure from the European Union and the United States. During this conflict Israel endured more international pressure, than it ever did in the past 10 years. Israel was put forth conditions and international agreements, such as the deployment of 15,000 Lebanese soldiers and 15,000 United Nations peace keepers into southern Lebanon, and arms embargo on Hezbollah. "This" proposal which was presented to Israel which EVEN Hezbollah agreed to accept, was something Israel was yearning for for many decades and was a once in a life time opportunity, it was a REAL "golden opportunity," even the far right in Israel said "this is an excellent proposal, so give it a shot." This cessation of hostilities, known as "The August Ceasefire", was initiated by the United Nations and International Community, and was put forward before both parties, Israel and Hezbollah, Hezbollah JUMPED right on the wagon to accept, because they saw it as the only way out of the mess they got themselves into. While at the same time, Israel was more stubborn on accept this ceasefire-agreement, since they were on a winning streak. Ever since then Hezbollah has not been seen or heard from in Southern Lebanon! At long last the frail Lebanese Government has finally had a degree of sovereignty over all of its state and is finally monitoring and guarding its own borders.
Not too long ago, nearly all television and print media images coming out of southern Lebanon were that of armed Hezbollah fighters with their guns, outposts, and banners. Not anymore! Hezbollah is now hiding under rocks in Southern Lebanon, its military might having received a substantial blow. In addition, Hezbollah is no longer enjoying the freedom and luxury of easily transferring Syrian/Iranian weaponry across the Lebanese-Syrian border or via the Beirut seaport. Much of this due to the combined efforts of a stronger Lebanese army and U.N. forces keeping a lid on such transferals.
But even though the International Troops and the Lebanese Army keep Hezbollah in check, isn't there still Hezbollah presence in Southern Lebanon, EVEN THOUGH they are hiding "under rocks?" The same could be said for Al Qaeda presence in the United States, who are also hiding under rocks.
Hezbollah may portray themselves as fearsome "militants" but they are in fact cowards cowering behind Lebanese civilians. Yet, through mostly pin-point targeting, the IDF dealt a heavy blow to Hezbollah. Five to six hundred Hezbollah terrorists were killed and nearly all of their bases, headquarters and tactical infrastructure destroyed.
Some might say, "But didn’t Hezbollah manage to shoot over one hundred rockets into Israel every single day? AND why, during the war, didn't the Israel army/air-force ever manage to stop the Katyusha fire?" Well the answer to that would be "What's so impressive about groups of one or two rag heads pointing and setting off an unguided Katyusha southward into Israel?" In addition to the fact that Hezbollah only needed 1% of their military might in order to shoot Katyushas from their scattered fields and caves, into Israel every day. Plus, the only way to have completely stopped the Katyusha fire would have been to occupy every square inch of South Lebanon, including 20 miles north of the Litani, and to stay there for a few months.
Israel 'BADLY' miscalculated Hezbollah, those past 6 years since it withdrew from Lebanon. Why? Because in 2004, it was estimated that if Israel was to engage in war with Hezbollah, their Katyusha arsenal would result in 100 deaths per day on the Israeli side, but instead only 2 people per day were killed by those rockets. But during the war, Israel came to the realization that 99.9% of all those rocket attacks, mostly result in a lot of noise and broken windows. Prior to the war it was also estimated that if Israel launched a ground invasion, it would result in the deaths of over 70 Israeli soldiers per day, which would have left over 2000 dead on the IDF side at the end of the 34 day conflict. But only 120 soldiers were killed in total, which makes it 3-4 soldiers per day. Also, prior to the war AND during the war, both the ‘poor’ Israeli intelligence and Hezbollah itself even claimed, that the “Mighty Hezbollah Rocket Arsenal” would hit Tel-Aviv, but ‘no rocket ever made it to Tel-Aviv!’ Instead, Hezbollah, tried to send little remote controlled ‘toy’ planes there.
The reason 120 soldiers were killed in the first place, is because what would someone expect if an army deployed 30,000 soldiers squashed together in a small, tight, open space (South Lebanon)! It was amazing that after the war, those soldier didn't all suffer from cluster phobia. But even though Israel deployed so many soldiers in the open, Hezbollah didn't manage to deliver that harsh blow as was estimated before the ground invasion. But after all, Hezbollah didn't fight as courageous as the Egyptians during the Suez Canal invasion, nor as the Syrians during the war in the Golan heights.
It shouldn’t shock the world that Hezbollah bombed a couple Israeli Merkava Tanks, because even the Palestinians have done it in the past too. Blowing up a Merkava Tank is NOT an ‘uncommon’ operation. But at the same time Israel was still advancing and still taking over every village in South Lebanon, bombing every headquarter and outpost, all Hezbollah members were on the run. Even though Israel lost a couple of tanks and didn’t destroy Hezbollah, it still doesn’t mean they (Israel) were defeated militarily. The definition of military defeat, mean: to crush the other side, force it to flee and or be on the run, or force it into surrender. Israel was not defeated militarily!
The same can be said about the Israeli naval ship that was bombed by Hezbollah of the coast of Lebanon, during the first week of the conflict, which caused a tiny bit of damage to the ship and which resulted in the deaths of 4 Israeli naval soldiers. Once again this wasn’t a military defeat, but it was an internal flaw, which meant that; Israel needed a better anti missile naval detector radar, a better anti missile interceptor, and better armor for its ship. But did Hezbollah succeed in sinking the ship and destroying it completely, did they destroy all the Israeli naval ships of the Lebanon Coast, did Israel scurry away with all its ships with its tail in between its legs, or did Israel ask for a cease-fire? NO! Instead, Israel simultaneously the same day, brought the damaged ship back into Israel for repair and sent another ship to the Lebanon Coast to replace it.
During and after the war, Hezbollah regretted starting the war in the first place, by kidnapped the two Israeli soldiers. But Israel on the other hand, didn’t regret going to war with Hezbollah, not even 1%. In fact Israel was ready to go for round two, but Hezbollah, will not dare even consider thinking about it.
During the fighting, many people (both inside and outside Lebanon) finally saw Hezbollah as they really are... a terrorist group. It's strategy had little or no military value. The rockets they launched were intended to cause terror among Israel's citizenry. They were not aimed at Israel military targets.
Israel never managed to destroy Hezbollah. As much as the IDF might have wanted to, the wiping out of Hezbollah was not Israel's goal. Nor could it ever be its goal. It is against the laws of physics to destroy a guerilla/terrorist group (America is learning it the hard way with Al Qaeda) since their operatives and members are always blending in and out of the civilian populations from which they so cowardly operate. In fact NEVER in history has a guerilla group ever been destroyed.
Additionally, rescuing the kidnapped IDF soldiers without a strong intelligence as to exactly where they were hidden, would have been a nearly impossible mission.. assuming they had not already been secreted out of Lebanon into Syria or Iran!
We constantly hear phrases such "Hezbollah emerged stronger," "Hezbollah is now stronger than ever," or "Hezbollah is now seen stronger than before!" There is some truth to that. Since before the Israeli withdrawal of 2000, Hezbollah was seen as more of a small arms, home made explosive, cut and run group, but during this conflict they were able to show off their Iranian made weapons. But they were no match for the Israeli army, whom they bowed down to at the end, by feeling too threatened to attack and provoke ever again.
When the United Nations wanted to impose a 48-hour ceasefire, it was Hezbollah which rushed to accept while Israel had to be pressured. Obviously this was because Israel had the military momentum in her favor. And when the month-long conflict ended, Hezbollah leader, Nasrallah, remained in an underground bunker, no longer enjoying frequent visits to central Beirut, giving daily "Hate Israel" speeches, driving down to his home town of southern Lebanon or enjoying first class flights to Damascus and Tehran. Nasrallah even admitted that had he known that even one percent of this war would have gone as it had, he would have NEVER kidnapped the soldiers and thus started the war!
"We did not think, even 1 percent, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11 ... that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not.” - Hezbollah Leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, August 27, 2006
In February 2007, there was a skirmish between Israeli troops and the Lebanese army on the Israel/Lebanon border, even though this skirmish that resulted in a shoot out and was unfortunate, the ray of light from all this, was that Israel was confronted and attacked by the Lebanese army and not by Hezbollah. This was one of the first signs that showed that the Lebanese army was doing its job. This was mostly due to the fact that Hezbollah lost its kingdom in Southern Lebanon, and is NOW in constant check by UNIFL, Lebanese Army, and International Troops. At least the Lebanese army was able to stand its ground and take control, unlike BEFORE the August 11 ceasefire! At least Israel finally got its wish, after 40 years, to FINALLY have the Lebanese army in control of the border. Since August 11, 2006 when the Lebanese army began its deployment in Southern Lebanon, not a single Katuysha, let alone a singe bullet was fired toward the Israeli side of the fence by Hezbollah. Unlike after the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000, when Hezbollah would look for any excuse to shoot Katyushas into Israel at least once every three months, but not anymore. No longer will the Israeli citizens of Northern Israel will ever live in fear once again!
People in the Lebanese Government now hate Hezbollah, for bringing destruction to Lebanon. All of Hezbollah's southern Beirut strong posts were destroyed by Israel. Even after the cease fire, Israel stayed in Lebanon for two more months in order to destroy all remaining Hezbollah outposts and bunkers while Hezbollah stood by and did nothing. During the conflict some of the Israel/Lebanon border fence was destroyed and torn down, and Israel was in no rush to fix it, since what's the point? Hezbollah will not want to mess with the IDF again! Even until today some of that fence has not been fixed yet, since the only threat of infiltration, now, is from drug dealers smuggling Hashish across that border.
But what about the Winograd Commission, "which is an independent Israeli government-appointed commission of inquiry, chaired by retired Israeli chief judge Eliyahu Winograd, which is set out to investigate and draw lessons from the failures experienced by Israel during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Which resulted in a war panel, and even the resignation of high figures such as the Israeli chief of staff Dan Halutz." The reason THIS is currently taking place in Israel, is it goes to show that Israel is a democratic country! If a "Lebanese-Winograd Commission" would be done to Hezbollah; for launching an illogical irresponsible attack on Israel, by kidnapping the two soldiers which led to the war and the destruction of Lebanon. And if a Lebanese Winograd Commission would be done to the Lebanese government; for not controlling its southern border by allowing thuggish armed militias (Hezbollah) to roam free there, allowing illegal weapon shipments via the Lebanese seaport, air port, and Syrian Lebanese border to those armed "non-governmental" militias, and allowing Syria and Iran to meddle in its politics, then Lebanon would crumble to dust! But after all, Lebanon is not a Democracy.
Worst case scenario, the Winograd Commission and some of the failures of this war, prove, that Israel might have been defeated from within, but not militarily.
Furthermore there hasn't been one complaint filed against Hezbollah on behalf of UNIFL and the International Troops since last year's August cease-fire, the only complaint filed, was against the Israeli army for their over flights over Lebanese territory. Speaking about Israeli over flights, even the Israeli army itself, hasn't complained even once, about hostile enemy fire against its planes by Hezbollah. Since Israel withdrew from Lebanon in May 2000, up until the war last summer, they continued their daily over flight and breaches over Lebanese territory, only to find themselves being confronted by Hezbollah anti-aircraft artillery. But after the August cease-fire Israel 'STILL' continued its breaches over Lebanese airspace, but this time, Hezbollah hasn't even shot one pellet at them! Maybe because they are deterred and maybe because UNIFL and the Lebanese army are now in control.
After the war, Hezbollah saw that it could no longer push around and bully Israel, and are therefore now trying to bully the "weak" Lebanese government by; their mass demonstration, camping out in front of the Lebanese Parliament, and political assassinations.
Israel did loose the war last summer, but not in Lebanon, but instead in Gaza. After Gilad Shalit was kidnapped, Israel began a massive military campaign in Gaza, destroying infrastructure, entering towns and cities, going after terrorists, and also trying to stop the Qassam rocket fire. But instead, all it achieved was nothing, and the results of it were, that now, the Palestinians saw even more of a weakness in Israel. After the Israeli military campaign in Lebanon, deterrence was at least achieved, BUT unlike in Gaza, after the massive military campaign took place there (Gaza), the Israeli deterrence was lost for good, and now, the Palestinians are, even, more UNDETERRED from Israel that ever! And therefore have increased their rocket fire into Israel. In addition to the fact that as soon as Israel stopped its military campaign, Hamas and other groups said, "They are now even more determined than ever to kidnap another Israeli Soldier." In April of 2007, they acted on their promise, under the cover of intense rocket fire on the Israel town of Sderot, Hamas terrorists again attempted to infiltrate Israel in order to abduct another soldier, but failed. A month later the militant group Islamic Jihad successfully infiltrated Israel, to also try to kidnap an Israeli soldier, but also failed. At least they weren't afraid to try!
After the war some Arab Governments, including the Palestinians, claimed Hezbollah achieved a divine victory! But hey, lets not forget, that some of those Arab governments and Palestinians which claimed Hezbollah won that "divine victory," are some of those "same" Arab governments who "STILL" until today claim that Syria, Egypt, and the rest of the Arab World won the 1967 War and the 1973 War! That is why after this war Israel lost its deterrence against the Palestinians, Iran, and Syria. BUT gained heavily, its deterrence, against Hezbollah.
Conclusion:
People from around the world, before the August cease-fire, would have never believed nor imagined that the Lebanese army would EVER be in control of its southern border. Nor, people would have never believed Lebanon would EVER be able to establish control over "illegal" arms shipments across its Lebanese/Syrian border, sea ports, and airports, and, well, it finally is!
Hezbollah will most likely never dare kidnap IDF soldiers because they saw the might and strength of the Israeli army, and they now feel threatened. Sure, some Hezbollah sympathizers may throw rocks, wave Hezbollah flags or scream "Allah Akbar" at the Lebanese-Israeli border fence but Hezbollah rank and file are laying low. Very low! And Hezbollah is no longer the imminent threat at that very same border.
Since the 'moment' the two soldiers were kidnapped and even during the war, Israel knew, they would not succeed in getting them back, in addition to the fact that destroying a guerilla group is against the laws of physics! Once people will get those two facts into their heads, then THEY will realize that, the outcomes that were achieved as a result of this conflict, were the best possible "REALISTIC" outcomes that Israel could have achieved.
Obviously this past year, the Northern Israeli border has been the quietest it has ever been over the past 40 years.
By, Gabriel al-Amin
Beirut, Lebanon
Articles and Refernces:
UNIFL: Not 'ONE' complaint filed against Hezbollah since last years cease-fire
(Jerusalem Post 6/14/2007)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813036239&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Again, Israeli gloom is misplaced (First Post - 4/17/2007)
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=688&WT.srch=1
Lebanese army, UNIFIL are keeping Hezbollah in check (Haaretz - 2/21/2007)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/828765.html
Hezbollah's 'Victory'? (Washington Post 9/1/2006)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101444_pf.html
The Lebanese Winnograd Commission (Thomas Friedman, New York Times 5/10/2007)
http://www.theolympian.com/109/story/104847.html
The Egyptian, 1973 October Victory (Egyptian State Information Service)
http://www.sis.gov.eg/VR/october/english/7.htm
Lebanon’s Army Chief “the Lebanese Army is properly controlling its borders with Syria” (Moqwama.net [Hizbollah’s Official Website])
http://www.moqawama.org/english/_nos.php?filename=20070330111424153
Avery Bullard said...
I find it curious that Americans are not more aware of ethnoracial issues as the US is fractured by them. One can usually predict the party that gets elected in an area just by knowing its demographics. Even among those of British heritage there are differences: those of East Anglian backgrounds who settled initially in the northeast then spread out west use to be reliable Republicans, now they are mostly Democrats; those identified as 'Scotch-Irish' went the opposite way.
Your analysis doesn't agree with my experience or my understanding of the situation. For one thing, you fail to mention the waves of immigrations that came, settled in, and became members of the factions seeking to have a say in the political process.
Nor do you differentiate the federal and state alliances that various groups -- whether ethnic, racial, or religious -- seek to influence.
The politicians lusting after votes fine-tune their messages in ways that are meant to attract particular segments of the population. There are not many uncommitted voters (not potential voters, but those who actually show up to vote)and, in the end, it is that thin slice than carries the day. That is why the federal popular vote has been so evenly divided over these last years. That nearly even divide has caused a great deal of contention.
You also fail to mention the still-relevant aftermath of the Civil War. It was not until the Republicans shoved Equality thru the python of Congress that the Democrats were able to take that defeat and turn it into a victory.
It was Lyndon Johnson's political acumen that allowed the Dems to steal the virtue of what the Repbulicans have done for African American equality. Once the Dems accepted the reality on the ground, they quickly came up with socialist programs and a message of victimhood that was too attractive to resist. Previous to that, the idea of a black Democrat was an oxymoron --it was the Democrats who drove the Civil War in the South and their oppressive rule was omni-present. In some ways, it still is.
But one has to admire the alacrity with which Johnson & Co. seized the moment and accomplished the 180 degree turn of the black electorate.
This is too long. I haven't even covered the Catholic vote (which crosses ethnic boundaries), the fundamentalist Christian vote (ditto -- these are not just Southerners. They're evangelicals), the union vote -- Reagan captured them and the Pubs held on to some after he left office.
Or the indirect effects of the anti-ethnic vote. Colorado, once safely red, is now purple due to all the blue Californians fleeing the Mexican tide. I don't think we even can even estimate accurately anymore the demographics of a given place.
For me, if I could find a candidate who used as a plank in his platform the idea that he'd put John Bolton in charge of the State Dept., I'd vote for him no matter what else he had to say. Foggy Bottom grows more dangerous for us as a nation with each passing year.
Compared to the State Dept., Europeans love us.
"One of the great things of GoV is intelligent debate, where we respect mutual differences, learn, and change our viewpoints."
Yes indeed Henrik. And we do not simply change, we evolve.
Adressing to the Pakistani thing Henrik, it is a bit dangerous touch there because of the "nukes". Can you imagine a Baluchistan or Tribalistan with a nuke? That is why it is so sensitive right now.
Al Qaeda denies it but it could have been just one mad man who follows the line of Al-Qaeda. But despite our guesses, denying it may be part of the 2nd type Islamist strategy. Blame Musharraf will only be good to diminish his power. And I think that after Musharraf, it's the Islam time, next generation version.
Avery Bullard,
I agree with you a way to well. You're right in everything you said but one thing. That Anglo-Saxon thing. If you remember History, wasn't the Anglo-Saxons the ones who didn't wanted Irish, Italians and even Germans in the US of A because thy weren't white enough?
The problem is multiculturalism. You have it in all European derivated societies except the Orthodox and the former comunist countries of Eastern Europe (yet). I mean, the Orthodox have ben the guardians of the South Eastern and Eastern border of Europe for more than 1000 years they have seen what DIEversity can do, but Poland, Chech Rupublic may soon have new guests. Multiculturalism, as this site descredits, is a leftist evil ideology... (I guess you know the rest) which is up only in European derivated societies. Even in Portugal and Spain, which up until the MIDDLE SEVENTIES HAVE BOTH been under fascist like regimes of that kind that became extint in the rest of Europe since 1945 starting since the late eighties embracing DIEversty. It will have a heavy price soon. Look at Lebanon cause it is our future if we don't act fast. And what is more stupid is that it is one of that things that the E.U. does, just to imitate America. If America have blacks, we can not be a superpower without having non-whites here. They suddenly forgot that this Europe has been ethnically clean since ever and that, despite the friendly gypsies, all the others who made their way to here made it with their hands full of European blood. (And I am not talking of imigrants).
Cedars, are you Lebanese? Christian, perhaps. You talk like an American or an Israeli.
Well, Hezbolah won more that war than France won the WWII. There were support for them in all muslim states, the average European was sympathethic to him, in Portugal, a lider of a leftist partywith more than 5% of the votes went to the streets screaming "We are all Hezblah". I guess it happen all over Western Europe. But most importantly the non-jihadist lebanese people (the most non-jihadist of muslims) became jihadist, just because the defensless people were atacked by a foreign army and the people's supposed army did not help them. Were hezbolah fighters who died to save the people. That's what the Southern lebanese saw and I don't think they are sympathetich to the atackers (Israel) or the traitors (their army/government). You say there are no arms dealing in the border Lebanon-Syria. Of course there are! We are dealing with governments, not with kids!
Cedar1559, that comment is a bit to the long side...
Anyway, this analysis and debate on Pakistan prompted me to write to newspapers about it. After this disaster, every relevant idea needs to be circulated.
Sure, I know about the nukes. A shitty situation if we ever had one.
My line of thinking, when we are talking about a possible division of Pakistan, is that it just might be easier to keep track of one smaller sub-Pakistani country than try to keep the entire thing together. Make a clear deal about the nukes, who gets to keep them, and what kind of international support and guarantee will be connected to that.
I know it's risky. But the age of risk-avoidance is over, we need to take real risks, now.
We need to isolate the nukes from the tribal areas. Making one, relatively civilized sub-nation responsible for them is probably a lot easier than trying to keep this unruly giant of a failed state acting responsibly.
Just speculating...
You're right in everything you said but one thing. That Anglo-Saxon thing. If you remember History, wasn't the Anglo-Saxons the ones who didn't wanted Irish, Italians and even Germans in the US of A because thy weren't white enough?
Some Anglo-Saxons resisted but others did not. After all if the Anglo-Saxons had been united in opposing the mid-19th century invasion they would still be on top today instead of being the main targets of politcal correctness everywhere from the media to the universities.
eatyourbeans: We may have to learn the hard way that democracy like booze is only for adults. We need to stop serving it to minors.
This may be one of the most important observations in this entire series of comments. If Afghanistan and Iraq are any indication, wishing for democracy to take root in the parched political soil of the MME (Muslim Middle East) may well be entirely futile. Consider how both countries—newly liberated from the very worst sorts of brutal Islamic tyrannies—immediately proceded to reinstall shari'a law, their signatures to the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) notwithstanding.
I am largely convinced that every Muslim majority nation the West is forced to pacify should be subsequently governed by a stringent (American) military dictatorship. Most likely for one or two generations, in order to counteract any lingering fascination with Islamic theocracy. That Afghanistan and Iraq were allowed to reinstall shari'a law was a total catastrophe for the West.
The same largely applies to Pakistan as well. As others here have observed, Pakistan is a failed experiment in Islamic governance and needs to be dismantled. Divide it into two or three parts. Everything East of the Indus goes to India, the western part to Afghanistan with a potential third southern region being annexed to a similarly fragmented Iran, which is also in desperate need of dismantling.
The overarching issue still remains that political Islam—in the form of shari'a based theocracy—must be scrubbed from the face of this earth. It is one massive violation of human rights and represents the most barbaric, Neanderthal sort of oppression imaginable.
As to the current situation in Pakistan: Someone needs to offer Musharraf a billion or two dollars plus a mansion on the Riviera in exchange for the nuclear weapons and bring this farce to an end. Barring that, Pakistan's future is extremely grim. Any takeover by the Islamists almost guarantees that the entire nation will be obliterated after one of its nuclear weapons is handed off to terrorist proxies. I, for one, shall not mourn Pakistan's passing. It is disturbing in the extreme that such a despotic and ghoulish entity even exists in our modern world.
Well, if we're opining on such things, I happen to believe that at least some of this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. My experience of America, whilst limited, has given me a great many reasons to believe that the high legal age for alcohol consumption actually exacerbates the problem, and that lowering the age removes the cachet associated with drinking.
Lets look at this democracy thing from a different angle, and use another country as a model. Rhodesia. There, in order to bring the majority black population into their new democratic state, the minority white rulers instituted a constitution that required at least high-school level education before a person could vote. They implemented democracy in that way and it was working quite nicely until the rest of the world started to interfere. That's the sort of model we should look at. The current adult generation in most of these countries is a lost cause, yes, but, assuming the "military dictatorship" idea is implemented, then the best precedure would be to start immediately educating the next generation in western, conservative thought. Teach them the rule of law, liberty, justice, all that stuff. Educate them and introduce them to democratic thought from a very early age where possible. Get them used to solving their problems through representation. Divorce them from the old culture and implement a new one that takes any good parts of the old and replaced the rest with a viable, democratic mode of thinking. If you do this for two generations then the old ways will die out.
It sounds quite vile when I write it down. It's an option. Personally I think it's one of the better options. Simply implementing a military dictatorship for a while just delays the inevitable return to sharia law and adds a layer possibly justified resentment on top of everything else. They need to be educated and convinced of the rightness of our way of life, not bullied. Two generations educating their children in western ideas of justice, that's what it'll take.
Oh now it works after I've lost my entire post!
I second the notion about booze & democracy. It's important.
Adding to the notion of simply installing a straight dictator would be an obligation to install systematic (and secular) education of the population. This will put seeds for future democracy.
My long response to dympha's strange remarks has disappeared. Every time I make a long post at this site this seems to happen. Vanishing American and other bloggers have made similar comments about disappearing post at GOV. Since I do not know how to save a post on this mini screen that comes up when trying to comment there's not much point in bothering again. Suffice to say Ellis Island immigrants and the US Civil War (both mentioned by dympha) are more examples of ethnicity driving US politics.
Let's see if this post works.
YOu might have more luck if you open up notepad and use that to compose your post, then copy and paste it into the little box when you're done. That way, if anything happens, you still have it open in notepad and can try again. Works wonders for me. :)
Avery Bullard, I've noticed that the verification letters tend to become outdated after a few minutes. Meaning that if you write a long commment, the letters you have to enter are not accepted.
You can see that at the top of the posting window, in that it doesn't say 'Comment submitted, wait a few minutes for it to appear' as it does when a post is accepted.
I'm wondering if this time period can be extended? It happens a lot to me, too, and I'd like it to be less.
Baron?
yes, blooger does eat posts. I've learned to copy mine before I hit "publish" to avoid the frustration. It doesn't happen just here -- Belmont Club is just one other comment-eating machine. It's become *almost* automatic now to save a comment before I try to put it up.
----
Avery Bullard said:
After all if the Anglo-Saxons had been united in opposing the mid-19th century invasion they would still be on top today instead of being the main targets of politcal correctness everywhere from the media to the universities.
Sure you would have still been on top. And you WASPs would be winning all those Nobel Science prizes too.
Who would've built the railroads, pushed West, populated the country if it had depended on the Puritans in New England, the Raleigh Co in Vifginia and the petty criminals dumped in Georgia?
Without the cannon fodder to hold them off, Spain would still own Florida and much of our southwest, France would still have all the land we acquired in the Louisiana Purchase, and we'd still be eating (oxymoron coming) English cuisine. And the on-going war with England through the late 18th-mid 19th century could have had an entirely different outcome. The Brits burned Washington in 1812 and we were fortunate not to have been back in harness by 1813, just another commonwealth country.
America needed the immigrants for their cheap labor and their essential mass of peoples as much as the immigrants needed a place to go.
Without Australia and the US where would England have shipped her Irish criminals? Without the Chinese and Irish, you'd still be building the plank roads, never mind the railroads...
Without the Jews...well, you can imagine.
The p.c. nonsense did not happen, could not happen, before Marx and Co. infected the world with the socialist virus after cobbling its silly theses together in London.
And if you go all the way back to the beginnings of the Abolition Movement (in New England), you have WASPS creating and leading it. Combine those threads with the politics of grievance and voila! here we are.
Archonix: The current adult generation in most of these countries is a lost cause, yes, but, assuming the "military dictatorship" idea is implemented, then the best precedure would be to start immediately educating the next generation in western, conservative thought. Teach them the rule of law, liberty, justice, all that stuff. Educate them and introduce them to democratic thought from a very early age where possible. Get them used to solving their problems through representation. Divorce them from the old culture and implement a new one that takes any good parts of the old and replaced the rest with a viable, democratic mode of thinking. If you do this for two generations then the old ways will die out.
My point entirely and there is nothing in the least vile about it. In fact, I would wager that this is one of the few ways to avoid a nuclear holocaust in the MME (Muslim Middle East). Islam will not abandon its quest for a global caliphate, save at gunpoint. Either the West surrenders all of its hard won progress of the last several centuries or steels itself with the resolve to crush political Islam for once and all time.
One simple question: Does Islam have any redeeming qualities? I challenge anybody to name even one.
Henrik --
Dymphna's right. It's not the verification letters. If those are out of date, the window should pop back in with your text intact. At least, that's the way it used to work.
We call it "Blooger" when it behaves like this.
NOTE: Make sure you are completely signed in and that your screen name is showing beneath the "Choose an identity" text line before composing a submission. Attempting to submit text and signing up at the same time is usually a no-go.
I'm always logged in before posting, and the comment box indeed does hold my text for a retry regarding the verification code. But at the top of the page (at least in Firefox), and then one doesn't necessarily notice the mishap.
That did cost me a few posts before I realized what was going on.
It's just an annoyance. If it can be adjusted, great. Otherwise it's no big deal, really. Just might explain some botched posts.
My point entirely and there is nothing in the least vile about it.
You're right, there isn't, but it sounds vile to the modern liberal mindset. My first instict on reading what I'd just written was to delete it and run away because it sounds, to the sort of mind produced by modern western education, imperialist. It's a technique that has been used by bad people in an attempt to pacify conquered populations and so, to that same mindset, it is ruled out by simple association with guilty parties.
The thing is, it works! It was working on Zimbabwe, perfectly, until the UN forced them to hand over to an unqualified leader simply because he was black. Look where that got them...
The guilt-by-association angle will be a big part of any accusations leveled against a plan like this. Images of re-education camps, mass indoctrination and "the white man's burden" will be conjured up out of nothing when the plan is simply to insert a modern, secular educational system into a country to train up a new generation for the responsibility of a truly democratic system. I personally like the plan. I want to see it implemented somehow, but I'm well aware that anyone who proposes it in a public sphere will be accused of being a nazi imperialist, or words to that effect.
Dymphna,
"America needed the immigrants for their cheap labor and their essential mass of peoples as much as the immigrants needed a place to go."
I like history but unfortunately, one can not study American History because it is too mystified (ex. The Civil War happend just because the Northerners went over to save the poor blacks from the evil Southerners).
But, the impression I get is that the division is just cut white/black and now the Native Americans (from Latin America) are putting themselves in the middle.
But didn't all the real problems started in the 60s when de facto citizenship was granted to blacks and it got worst when Americans stopped importing European migrants and now, when the South West is being reclaimed, without opposition, by the "sons of the land"?
Is there really that Anglo not-Anglo devide?
"it got worst when Americans stopped importing European migrants". And when was that? America is full of European-born immigrants these days. Did you ever go to school, Mr. Henriques, or are Portuguese schools really that bad?
Avery Bullard- things besides ethnicity are more important in determining politics. My older brother is a screaming LLL lib, I vote solidly Republican. I still attend church every Sunday, he is quite the cafeteria Catholic. The same ethnic groups vote quite differently based on geography.
BTW, bastardization of the races is a wonderful thing. Jennifer Tilly uses her mother's maiden name. She was born Jennifer Chan. Soledad O'Brien has an Irish father and a Venezuelan-African mother, and has won awards as a Black, Irish and Latina journalist. I worked at a Subway with a mega-hottie when I was at UT. American dad, Korean mother. She looked completely Asian, except she had blue eyes.
That is America's strength, ethnicity has always been very secondary. The danger now of unlimited immigration is that we may wind up taking more people than can assimilate, and worse, a people not interested in assimilation. While most immigrants to the US were primarily motivated by economic factors, they realized that to enjoy the American dream they had to learn the language and assimilate.
White people of all skin tone/ethnicity and Asians pretty much completely assimilate. My wife's family, some born in Mexico and here legally, others multi-generation Americans of Mexican ancestry, have assimilated well.
Black folks had a century of Jim Crow, and just as that was ended, they were cursed by the good intentions of Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society', which encouraged laziness and birth out of wedlock. Even among Black people, many are fully integrated into the American dream, I have middle class Black people with normal middle class values in my neighborhood. The successful Blacks in America are not as news-worthy as the urban and criminal underclass.
The Democrat party has made a policy of trying to revive ethnic fault lines, to pit groups against each other for their gain. Will it work, is unknown. When George W Bush ran for re-election as governor of Texas, he won a majority in El Paso county, with a 90% Latino population. That is why Republican minorities like Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas and Alberto Gonzales are such targets of Democrat wrath, as they are ethnic minorities integrating into the cultural mainstream.
Ted Kennedy, as a very junior senator, before he commited vehicular homicide at Chappaquidick, realizing that a successful middle class, would not vote Democratic, wrote a new immigration law that sharply decreased European immigration, and made family ties more important than skills and ability to integrate.
European immigration isn't good for America because they had pale skin, it was good for America because in the last century most Europeans were skilled and educated.
If our immigration policy openly favored Filipina nurses and Indian engineers, and Nigerians with college degrees, it would be good for America.
Unfrench,,
" And when was that? America is full of European-born immigrants these days. Did you ever go to school, Mr. Henriques, or are Portuguese schools really that bad?"
Yes, I did. Despie that, Portuguese schools are really, but really, worse than you can possible imagine. Apart from some private schools, of course.
In what concearn the European immigrants in the U.S., it's undenyable that European Immigrants are not a preference as they allways were and should be. And belive me, you could easily assimilate great numbers of high qualified Easter Europeans, they are so desperate that they come to here, one of the poorest countries of Western Europe, do under payed heavy work.
It's funny that you mention European-born immigrants, what about European families? Do they still go there as they did, or is the actual European Migration to the USA that of the adventurous persons who want to know the world or earn a bit mor money? It's a quiet complex question and I don't want to go there, at least for now.
"European immigration isn't good for America because they had pale skin, it was good for America because in the last century most Europeans were skilled and educated."
Ed Mahmoud they weren't that educated. The african immigrant to the USA today is more educated than the average Europeam who arrive there in the XIX century.
It is true that Europeans are no good to the US because of skin colour. What you, and many Americans, miss to understand is that the phenomenon is way more cultural than it. Race equals culture. If you forget the New World, race and culture is highly coorelated. You can not dismiss that the Civilized World and the Christendom are CULTURAL spaces, where people share the same vallues. And that those peoples have more or less the same fisical caractheristics is just an extra.
We could also divide Western Europe in the predominant blond Protestant Celtic-Germanic North and the predominant dark-haired Catholic Celtic-Latin South.
I share more vallues with an Italian than with a Sweede, thouh, when compaired with a Moroccon, a Sweede would look like a brother to me.
Afonso: "I like history but unfortunately, one can not study American History because it is too mystified " explains the bigotry some Europeans feel toward Americans. The U.S. is so complex and diverse that it can not be easily understood. Better to insult it than try to take the effort to understand it.
We as a nation try to avoid this but I am now going to prove your point that we are arrogant. We have the best and brightest and/or hardest working) people from nearly every other nation on the planet, each with differing plans and goals.
We speak a multitude of languages but are branded unilingual for using one for common discussion. We were able to travel farther and to more countries (until recently) without a passport, which lableled us untravelled by the Euros, who now exclaim they can travel to more countries than ever without a passport!
We have more immigrants than nearly any other nation but are labeled ignorant of geography. We excede (to use Mr. Henriques's home nation of Portugal as an unfortunate example) in everything from Nobel prizes to technological advances to GDP (almost double)to standards of living, to health and even heighth.
I'm not sorry, you asked for this; I've been to your country, mine is better. Better educated, less racist, and with cleaner teeth and armpits, for God's sake.
To lecture us on the rest of the world really demonstrates how little you know about our country.
I meet more people of Paki and Indian descent in one week than you have admitted to meeting in your life. My sister and more than half of my nieces and nephews come from (or still live in) the Middle East. My best friend is a Mexican national. On my street are first generation German, Paki's, Spainish, Hispanics and Swedes. My General Practitioner is Italian, my Internist Irish. All left their home countries to escape ignorance, superstition and/or hate, most which you aptly demonstrate.
For you to write "sorry, I am a European, a Portuguese to be more accurate and as so I am sorry to offend your naïve ideals or your profound beliefs as Americans" and for others to tell me to ignore it speaks volumes about your character and upbringing.
You have no idea of the "profound beliefs" of nearly 300,000,000 souls. To think that you do is breathtakingly ignorant and self-centered.
And now a demonstration of the ad hominen attack that is your favorite form of conversation:
"Dear Kenyans: Although the Potuguese are backward and smelly, it will be minus 3 degrees celcius in Moscow today."
Were you taught to speak that way, Afonso, or did you learn it on your own?
Thanks to Henrik and others for the posting advice.
Dymphna - Sure you would have still been on top. And you WASPs would be winning all those Nobel Science prizes too.
Who would've built the railroads, pushed West, populated the country if it had depended on the Puritans in New England, the Raleigh Co in Vifginia and the petty criminals dumped in Georgia?
You sound rather hostile to WASPs. It was they who designed the country and despite what you think they were well represented in the expansion westward, especially the Scotch-Irish who are inclduded in the 'Anglo-Saxon' (and Celtic)label and most certainly were Protestant.
But lets leave that aside for now.
An argument has also been made that the US Civil War was a replay of the English Civil War. Virginia was a refuge for Cavaliers and as their descendants spread out over the South they were often the elite of Southern society. Their allies, just like in the English CW, were Celts, fighting against the East Anglian Puritan descendants based in New England and the upper MidWest. I wouldn't go so far as to call it an ethnic dispute but clearly ethnicity played a part.
Graham,
"It sounds quite vile when I write it down."
It only sounds vile if you think that British rule of India was a catastrophe for that place, rather than being (as it truly was, warts and all) a wonderful bootstrap into the modern world.
Without the Jews...well, you can imagine.
The p.c. nonsense did not happen, could not happen, before Marx and Co. infected the world with the socialist virus after cobbling its silly theses together in London.
And do you seriously think it is just some accident that PC and Marxism spread throughout America's elite universities (and on down from there) only after they started letting in non-Anglo-Saxons in large numbers?
The Anglo-Saxons, being naive about the importance of ethnic interests, seemed to believe that the newcomers would just accept the old America and its values - including individualism.
Instead what America got was JFK 'Nation of Immigrants'. That book, published by the ADL and influenced by the anti-WASP hatred coming out of universities was nothing more than an attack on America's founding ethnic group. The legacy is that even today it is difficult for American politicians to justify sanity on the border or restricting Muslim immigration because the 'nation of immigrants' idea is now so entrenched.
Don't want to import 5 million Arab Muslims into the US? Well, how do you explain that without rejecting the 'nation of immigrants' propaganda and being classed as a bigot? Oppose Muslim immigration and you will be compared to the (Anglo-Saxon) Know Nothings who thought of Catholics the same way you think of Muslims. As long as Americans hang onto the self-serving propaganda of the Ellis Island descendants (which even WASPs have now bought into) it'll be difficult to resist continuing Muslim immigration.
The failure of Americans (and other Anglos) to understand that principles like 'freedom', 'democracy', and 'human rights' have been used in the past to undermine their own rule is not very reassuring. These principles will continue to be used by more ethnocentric (many of them Muslim) groups to pursue their own agendas. The Anglo-Saxon, unable to appeal to ethnic, racial, or religious solidarity, due to his own liberal principles, is an easy target for less scrupulous political actors who will pay lip service to those same principles until they are no longer useful.
"That's the sort of model we should look at. The current adult generation in most of these countries is a lost cause, yes, but, assuming the "military dictatorship" idea is implemented, then the best precedure would be to start immediately educating the next generation in western, conservative thought. Teach them the rule of law, liberty, justice, all that stuff. Educate them and introduce them to democratic thought from a very early age where possible. Get them used to solving their problems through representation."
Somehow I like this text but I do not like it in its context.
I like it because I tend to read it as a comment on western societies like the Dutch (my homecountry) GB or Sweden.
To suggest that what is left of western civilization is capable of implementing this "strategy" in many countries outside the west does not sound very realistic in my ears.
Talnik,
""I like history but unfortunately, one can not study American History because it is too mystified " explains the bigotry some Europeans feel toward Americans. The U.S. is so complex and diverse that it can not be easily understood. Better to insult it than try to take the effort to understand it."
First of all, I did not insult anybody. If you found some words "chalenging" it is your problem, get over it.
Second,it is true that the US are far more complex than usually portarayed but they are not as you suggest so complex that we have to analyse 300 million people to understand it. It IS a nation. It may have different ethnic groups but unlike Pakistan the USA have voices and a dominant voice represented for the group who blend the Nation, the rest is bullshit.
Third, Europeans who insult America are usually leftist anti-americans. It has nothing to do with lack of understanding.
Fourth, all the others do not insult the US, there is a difference between insult and criticising. If you do not tolerate critics it is your problem. Though some americans, as Bush demonstrates, have indeed a problem with criticism.
"We as a nation try to avoid this but I am now going to prove your point that we are arrogant"
What point? Please, can you be more explicit? Despite all, I think that sometimes Americans are arrogant towards Europe but it is a normal trait in a Super Power.
"We have more immigrants than nearly any other nation but are labeled ignorant of geography."
You make a lot of sense here...
"We excede (to use Mr. Henriques's home nation of Portugal as an unfortunate example) in everything from Nobel prizes to technological advances to GDP (almost double)to standards of living, to health and even heighth."
Do you want to compare a decaying country since 1580 with 10 million people against a 300 million people country which has seen unstopable growth in its power since 1776? Well, if it makes you happy...
I am just going to say that when your beloved country was born, Portugal was recovering from the earthquake of 1755 which had devastated Lisbon. It was rapidly reconstructed and it continued to be one of the beautiest European capitals. How many European Capitals have been devestated by earthquakes followed by tsunamis?
I could remind you that in the XV and XVI century, while NATIVE AMERICANS were living happily in your beloved country, Portugal was one of the World's main Powers.
I could compare the Lisbon 1755 event to New Orleans but I won't for respect for the Americans who suffer there and because XXI century New Orleans was to insignificant when compared to XVI century Lisbon. It is like comparing Lisbon now to New York or Los Angeles.
"I've been to your country, mine is better."
I would say I prefer Europe to America always but it could be considered arrogant. You can not look to a 700 year old monument through your window, you can not understand how priceless it is and you can not, therefore understand why Europeans are so attached to theirs land, culture, history and yes, those who made it, the Nation or ethnicity. That is why you say race does not matter and it is why you can not understand that Europe is not race, it is culture.
(...)
I know many "minoritarians" too. So... Portugal has suffered mass imigration too. So...
"Dear Kenyans: Although the Potuguese are backward and smelly, it will be minus 3 degrees celcius in Moscow today."
And I am the one who insults?
Grow up! If you can not deal with critics, that is your problem and you will soon suffer the consequences.
What speaks volumes about our characters is that I do not belive we should wage a war between Europeans and Americans at these curent time.
You do not obviously think the same, as you have demonstrated by your pseudo-nationalistic comment.
Archonix: I'm well aware that anyone who proposes it in a public sphere will be accused of being a nazi imperialist, or words to that effect.
No small irony, that. Especially considering how the exact culture that we are talking about subduing continues to make "Mein Kampf" a best-seller, wants to "finish Hitler's work" and has many terror groups that frequently use the Nazi salute. None of this even begins to touch upon the nearly direct connection between Yasser Arafat and Adolph Hitler.
The "modern liberal mindset" reels at such a notion only because it is thoroughly incapable of comprehending the nearly alien thought processes of an Islamic mind. I'll once again invite others here at GoV to please examine my, admittedly lengthy, multi-post that ends the Explosive Banlieus thread. The yawning chasm that separates Western low context culture and the high context societies of Islam cannot be defined in any other terms. Cultural relativism's artificially imposed homogeneity attempts to dismiss this fundamental difference by intellectual fiat when no such thing can be done. It is only this delusional attempt by liberals at "leveling"—by force—the conspicuous peaks and troughs of cross-cultural disparity that renders the West's need to subjugate and abolish Islam as something "imperialistic" or—by far more ironic—"Nazi”. We already have a new breed of Nazis and they must be put down using all the determination and force of arms that their predecessors were defeated with over half a century ago.
Afonso Henriques: while NATIVE AMERICANS were living happily in your beloved country
Wrong! Life for North America's ingdigenous populations was not some Edenic experience. Infant mortality was most likely quite high, as it is today in so many Third World countries and many tribes lived hand-to-mouth in a subsistence style hunter-gatherer way of life.
Without even the most rudimentary inventions, like the wheel, long distance trade was sharply constrained. The exchange of goods was limited to what a single person could carry and technology stagnated almost totally. It is only modern liberal notions of "The Noble Savage" that can possibly lend any splendor to what was, far more likely, a "poor, brutish, nasty and short" existence.
That's true. The natives didn't even have horses until they were re-introduced by spanish colonists, having killed off the local species several thousand years earlier. The only reason they lived in "harmony" with the land was because they had no other choice. They knew nothing of animal husbandry or sustainable use of resources. An arable lifestyle would never have developed in their society because it was completely alien to their way of thinking, which was essentially to strip the land bare whenever they got the chance. Something of a vicious downward spiral, methinks, since it was this attitude that got them into that predicament in the first place.
@ Zenster and Archonix,
I know the Native Americans did not have an advanced Civilisation as Europe, East Asia, India or even Islam. Though, you know how bad it sounds to say that Africans and Native Americans, as well as many others, had inferior Civilisations so, I am not saying it.
I was beeing ironical to Talnik, hoping that he might think twice before writing that kind of commentaries again.
Post a Comment