reader-list-request
Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:27:25 -0800
Send reader-list mailing list submissions to
reader-l...@sarai.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
reader-list-requ...@sarai.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
reader-list-ow...@sarai.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of reader-list digest..."
Today's Topics: 1. Fwd: Solidarity to Chtralekha's resistence: (NUAIMAN) 2. Re: Taliban is the future (Kshmendra Kaul) 3. Re: Taliban is the future (Pawan Durani)
--- Begin Message ------------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dileep Raj <dileep.ra...@gmail.com> Date: 9 March 2010 16:07 Subject: Solidarity to Chtralekha's resistence: Vahanajatha Thudangi To: Karivelloor, March9, 10.15 am Despite last minte withdrawals from 'flux artist' and threats to vehicle driver, the jatha started today from Karivelloore. Reshma Bharadwaj welcomed the gathering (rather brought the gathering into being, typical of Vahanajatha methodlogy). *Reshma Bharadwaj* Though neither payyannur nor Karivelloore is a familiar place, the very name Payyannur evokes pride and thrill of late thanks to Chitralekha's persistent resistance. Even in penury she showed that swimming against all odds is possible.Her struggle to assert the right to work inspires every woman who want to live without compromising selfrespect. That is why women activists are coming forward in public supporting her. Even in government projects the ideal space defined for women is home.That is the reason why statistics shows constant decrease in the number of working women in this 'progressive' land.Chitralekha came out of this imposing defintion and dared riding and owning an autorickshaw. Its the duty of everyone to stand by her in this fight. *Rekha Raj* (inauguaral speech) Its a pity that after five years I am revisiting Payyannur in connection with Chitralekha's experiences. my first visit was for a convention protesting casiest discriminations and insults against Chitralekha. The situation is worsening, not showing any signs of democratising, indicating the castiest foundations of North Malabar society and politics. Chitralekha refused to do traditional jobs and entered into a profession which is normally an all male domain.This very act marked her as an 'unusual' or 'abnormal' woman'. Normal women are expected to become good housewives, looking after husbands and children.Chitralekha's body language (which defies submission) and her refusal to comply to caste hierachy further helped her qulaify as 'bad' woman. She lacks most of the 'virtues' of goodwomen. But we. women who stand by her find these very charecteristics and attitudes as 'virtues' very rare among women in Kerala. Experinces of Chitralekha when she entered the heart of male world should provoke all of us who boast of 'progressive' Kerala to think about the absence of dalits in public sphere and the castiest hierarchies prevailing in the heart of left bastions. Campaigna agnist Chiltralekha deploys typical and predicatble straegies. Complaints raised against her are - she abuses - she uses 'foul language' - she drinks - her character is shady What is thoughtprovoking is the fact that the moment such allegations are propagated, a woman looses whatever little support she enjoys in the neighbourhood. These are the ultimate crimes that could be ascribed to women in our society. Once depicted thus, society could legitimately kill them.We have seen the xeperience of shari and many women in past. *But then why and how Chitralekha decides to resist ?* Why she refuses to surrender even when she and her husband faces continuos threates and attacks? That is hoping that there exist a democartic space in the interstices of our society.That exactly is the spirit and hope propelling us when we do something like this. That exactly is the energy enebling us to organise a convention like this. If one is to lead a discilined life obeying the rules set for becoming a good woman it will become practically impossible to go out of home.Dali women are even otherwise assumed to be bad women who are 'available'. They are to be 'civilised', 'set right'. When Reshma and Jaseela went to police station for applying for mike sanction, they repeated all thses complaints aganist Chitralekha and urged them to 'straighten' her! What are the criteria for this straightening? Who formed them? Who are we to reform others? Why is it so that Chitrlekha is viewed as somebody to be 'reformed'? *Nattukar* There are other myths which feeds into the fascist savarna commonsense. take for instance terms like 'nattukar', 'thozhilalikal', 'janangal'etc. who are they? How many women are member of that classes? How many dalits are included in such sets? Can we see a single woman in the mobs who claim to be 'people' and abuse couples who stay legally in a room or house ? Chitralekha's struggle need to be taken up as one for docratisation of citizenship and public sphere. *Baby* (Convenor, Streevedi, Kasargode District ) All women should take Chitralekha as model and resist evry single problem faced by them. Covering up or keeping silence wont help solving the problem. Thus supporting chitralekha's resistnece is significant for the womens' movement in Kerala. Apart from Rekha, Reshma , Baby Jaseela and Usha are taking part in the jatha. Todays' jatha will end with a public meeting in Edat, Chitralekha's home town in which K . Ajitha, anweshi president will take part. -- Dileep Raj --
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Dear Pawan I would agree with Gen Hamid Gul that "Taliban is the future". Not only for Afghanistan, which has been explicitly mentioned by Gen Gul but also for Pakistan, which Gen Gul might be hesitant in mentioning but about which there is no ambiguity that Gen Gul would like to see that happen. Afghanistan is likely to see the dislodgement of the present (USA supported) government either, if Taliban agrees, by it being integrated with the Taliban (as Pakistan and USA also are attempting) , or by a takeover by the Taliban in case USA decides not to suffer any further losses in Afghanistan and vacates. It is also likely that such a Taliban-Run Afghanistan will be a smaller geographical entity carved out from the present one. Taliban is already integrated into Pakistan. The ideology of the Taliban is being furthered in Pakistan, not only by religious teaching and propagation but through clearly visible ideological expressions in the Politics, Military, Media, Education and Civil Society of Pakistan. If Afghanistan were to go the way projected by me, it would not be long before there is an openly Talibanised shift in the governance of Pakistan. I would term the currently seen actions by the Pakistan Military against TTP (Tehrik e Taliban Pakistan) as jostling for control between two different Talibanised entities. Whatever be the scenarios emerging in Afghanistan and Pakistan, I think it is downright stupid of India to be involved in any which way in Afghanistan in what appears to be India's vision of the grandeur of being termed a Regional Power. India is better advised to concentrate on improving the lives of the citizens of India and altering it's adventures to defending and insulating India from the religious and political adventurism of inimical neighbours. Kshmendra --- On Mon, 3/8/10, Pawan Durani <pawan.dur...@gmail.com> wrote: From: Pawan Durani <pawan.dur...@gmail.com> Subject: [Reader-list] Taliban is the future To: "reader-list" <reader-l...@sarai.net> Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 7:56 PM Dear Readers , Before I am being misinterpreted once again , i wish to clarify that the subject line is not mine . This is a statement by Gen Hamid Gul of Pakistan. The reason I am sharing his interview is for the reason that I found his thoughts very similar to Lashkar & Taliban. Just wanted to know if others feel the same ? Pawan Durani http://generalhamidgul.com/home “America is history, Karzai is history, the Taliban are the future” You recently said 'the Taliban is the future, the Americans are the past in Afghanistan'. Isn't that a little far-fetched? The Americans are defeated. It isn't necessarily because their firepower and their might has weakened, but it is because their own people are sick and tired [of engagement in Afghanistan]. There is fatigue now, fatigue is the threat and is the worst thing for a nation to suffer from. There is no way that the Americans can hold on to Afghanistan. Could that lead to [Afghanistan President] Hamid Karzai's government being toppled? Karzai is no more. He is now fighting for his life. They have already started telling him that by the end of this year he will have to shoulder the responsibility of security in Afghanistan. But what are they giving him for this? Nothing at all. In fact, more civilian casualties in military operations are going to weaken Karzai's position. Some in Afghanistan believe that the extent of civilian casualties has empowered the Taliban's resurgence. It is not only that. While the civilian casualties have certainly made the Taliban a popular movement in Afghanistan - some 80 per cent of the population support them - the people of Afghanistan are fed up with corruption. They are sick of the influence of warlords and drug barons, and the continued American occupation. If it was a shot stint - come in and get out after completing the job - the situation would have been different. But the Americans didn't do that. If they wanted to disperse al-Qaeda, they succeeded after the first year, and after that they should have pulled out. The fact they stayed on betrays their real intentions in Afghanistan until Barack Obama, the US president, came and started talking about withdrawal. It was only last December that Obama announced that the US will pull out of Afghanistan. Hillary Clinton said the same thing, but there is a dichotomy. On the one hand they say 'We are not here to stay in Afghanistan', but on the other hand they carry out surges and want to prop up and build the Afghan Army. However, they don't give the money to build the Afghan Army - just $140mn. Compare this to how much it costs the US to keep just one soldier in Afghanistan - $1mn dollars per soldier per year in Afghanistan. They have now about 68,000 US troops. It is currently costing them $65bn just to maintain these troops. There are another 30,000 US troops now coming, so it will cost the US $100bn a year to maintain its forces in Afghanistan. The US is a heavily indebted nation so how are they going to afford this? Some 57 per cent of Americans in the polls say they don't like this war and want their boys to return home. The Americans can't take casualties, that is their problem. To compensate, they started employing security contractors, some 104,000 security contractors currently in Afghanistan. What does this mean? Mercenaries to be used where troops cannot be deployed? We have already seen what mercenaries did in Iraq. The Americans are more and more inclined - because the US military cannot suffer casualties - to employ mercenaries, not just from the US but also from the local population. This is a very dangerous trend if we are to believe that mercenaries can win wars and carry forward the political objectives of the country. This means that whoever has more money can employ more mercenaries, win wars, win territories, etc. Given everything you have just said, how do you think the latest US and Nato offensive against the Taliban is going to play out? It is not going to work. I think it is an 'eye wash', it has political purpose back home. But there is no political purpose for Afghanistan. They are saying that they are protecting the civilian population, but they are dislodging the civilians from their homes in very harsh weather conditions in Afghanistan. The cold winds from the steppes of Central Asia sweep these regions. When you launch such military operations, the people are inevitably dislodged and their fields abandoned. In this situation, what are the Americans trying to achieve - I don't know. There is much ambiguity about their political objectives. Every military conflict must have a political purpose. I cannot discern that there is any political purpose. >From a strategic point of view, Pakistan's involvement in Afghanistan has been seen as setting up a buffer, or deterrent, to India. But now that Pakistan has nuclear capability, how important is Afghanistan to Islamabad? We want a friendly Afghanistan. We know India is playing havoc with us. The Pakistani Taliban are being sponsored by the Indian intelligence and the Mossad, by the way, to carry out their attacks in Pakistan. The Mossad is very active in Pakistan and they are providing all the guidance and technical support to the Indian intelligence. So, Pakistan has to have its back covered - no country can fight on two fronts. We have to have a friendly Afghanistan, this does not mean that we dominate Afghanistan. No one can dominate Afghanistan, a country which has already buried two superpowers and the third one is about to be buried there. No, that's not the purpose Pakistan has in Afghanistan. Is the failure to stabilise Afghanistan adversely affecting Pakistan's own security? Yes, indeed it is. The conflict is not just derivative of the failures of the Kabul government - that is a puppet government. The real cause of the conflict is the occupation of Afghanistan by the Americans. If they go out, and after such a time - post-US occupation, the OIC and the Muslim countries have to come in and play their part. Then Afghanistan can redeem itself. I do not think that Afghanistan will be another Vietnam for the Americans because they have said they will pull out. Obama is a president who is very clear. In his State of the Union address, I think it was clear he was not addressing terrorism but instead focusing on such internal issues as healthcare, unemployment and debt servicing. It appears he is more focused on the domestic front than foreign affairs. You can't focus on both at the same time. There has been a surge in violence in Pakistan since the exit of Pervez Musharraf, the former president. The Pakistani Taliban threaten towns and cities, and there are tensions between the PPP and MQM in key ports like Karachi. What is needed to stabilise Pakistan right now? Political cleaning up of the mess. The rule of law must take root in Pakistan. Unfortunately, the more powerful among the politicians and generals, when it comes to their turn - whether by martial law or civilian democracy - they want to run the affairs of the country according to their own predilections and propensities. And that is where we go wrong. The political institution has to be set right; the Supreme Court and Parliament must be empowered. Right now, all the power is vested under the 17th Amendment, which was an amendment to the constitution passed by the dictator Musharraf in 2003. This gave more power to the office of the president and the ability to bypass the constitution and remain in leadership irrespective of elections. Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani president, now has that power and he is refusing to budge. So, the 17th Amendment has to go, Parliament has to be empowered, rule of law by the Supreme Court has to be established and the army must not interfere. Then things will begin to fall in place and we will take the right direction. Do you think the US is helping Zardari stay in power because he is seen as co-operating in the so-called war on terror? I think there is ambivalence in their position and they sometimes do criticise him. The American press has in the past bashed Zardari, but it has gone quiet now. The Americans fear the return of the Supreme Court in Pakistan because it could rule that the US drone attacks are violations of the country's sovereignty. If that happens, Parliament would have to act on the Supreme Court's decision and reverse the policy. The Americans are sceptical and suspicious that if the Supreme Court is given free reign in Pakistan, it is likely to rule against their interests and agenda in Pakistan. Do you think the government will survive until the next national elections? The government will survive but I am almost certain Zardari will not. I do not want to appear to be clairvoyant, but I doubt Zardari has many days left in government. In recent years, US officials have accused you of having close ties with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. How do you respond to that? No, this is wrong, I have no such ties. As far as al-Qaeda is concerned, I simply say come up with the evidence for 911. You haven't even charged Osama bin Laden so far, that means you don't have hard evidence against him. The full story is yet to come out. In my opinion, all this is a gimmick, an inside job. In regards to the Taliban, I support their cause of Afghan resistance. I lend them my moral support because I have in the past had strong connections with them. Incidentally, I maintained strong connections with both sides. Many in the Afghan government are my good friends. But since the Taliban are representing the national spirit of resistance, I have given them my voice. The Americans sent my name to the UN Security Council to put me on a sanctions list and declare me an international terrorist. But they failed because the Chinese knew the truth well and blocked that move. Basically, the Americans have nothing against me. I saw the charges and I replied to them in the English-language press in Pakistan. I said if they have anything against me to bring it forward, put me on trial. Tell me what wrong I have done. I have been taking moral stands. The Americans talk of freedom of speech, but apparently my speech hurts them because it counters their excesses. I won't use the word 'interests' because what US policy-makers are doing runs against the interests of the American people. If I say this is right and this is wrong, I am exercising my right and ultimately, this is to the benefit of the American people. But Zardari once told a western journal that you are a "political ideologue of terror". I wrote a letter to Zardari that I am an ideologue of jihad, which is common between us. He is a Muslim like me and believes in the Quran. Terror is a totally different thing. I do not support terror at all, but jihad is our right when a nation is oppressed. According to the United Nations Charter, national resistance for liberation is a right. We call this a jihad. Source: Al-Jazeera _________________________________________ reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city. Critiques & Collaborations To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-requ...@sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header. To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Dear Mr Kaul , My view on this is different . I believe that if we do not fight Taliban in Afghanisatn now , we would be fighting them in India 3 years from now. Choice is ours. Pawan On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2...@yahoo.com>wrote: > Dear Pawan > > I would agree with Gen Hamid Gul that "Taliban is the future". Not only for > Afghanistan, which has been explicitly mentioned by Gen Gul but also for > Pakistan, which Gen Gul might be hesitant in mentioning but about which > there is no ambiguity that Gen Gul would like to see that happen. > > Afghanistan is likely to see the dislodgement of the present (USA > supported) government either, if Taliban agrees, by it being integrated with > the Taliban (as Pakistan and USA also are attempting) , or by a takeover by > the Taliban in case USA decides not to suffer any further losses in > Afghanistan and vacates. > > It is also likely that such a Taliban-Run Afghanistan will be a smaller > geographical entity carved out from the present one. > > Taliban is already integrated into Pakistan. The ideology of the Taliban > is being furthered in Pakistan, not only by religious teaching and > propagation but through clearly visible ideological expressions in the > Politics, Military, Media, Education and Civil Society of Pakistan. > > If Afghanistan were to go the way projected by me, it would not be long > before there is an openly Talibanised shift in the governance of Pakistan. > > I would term the currently seen actions by the Pakistan Military against > TTP (Tehrik e Taliban Pakistan) as jostling for control between two > different Talibanised entities. > > Whatever be the scenarios emerging in Afghanistan and Pakistan, I think it > is downright stupid of India to be involved in any which way in Afghanistan > in what appears to be India's vision of the grandeur of being termed a > Regional Power. > > India is better advised to concentrate on improving the lives of the > citizens of India and altering it's adventures to defending and insulating > India from the religious and political adventurism of inimical neighbours. > > Kshmendra > > > --- On *Mon, 3/8/10, Pawan Durani <pawan.dur...@gmail.com>* wrote: > > > From: Pawan Durani <pawan.dur...@gmail.com> > Subject: [Reader-list] Taliban is the future > To: "reader-list" <reader-l...@sarai.net> > Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 7:56 PM > > Dear Readers , > > Before I am being misinterpreted once again , i wish to clarify that the > subject line is not mine . This is a statement by Gen Hamid Gul of > Pakistan. > > The reason I am sharing his interview is for the reason that I found his > thoughts very similar to Lashkar & Taliban. Just wanted to know if others > feel the same ? > > Pawan Durani > > > http://generalhamidgul.com/home > > “America is history, Karzai is history, the Taliban are the future” > > You recently said 'the Taliban is the future, the Americans are the past in > Afghanistan'. Isn't that a little far-fetched? > > The Americans are defeated. It isn't necessarily because their firepower > and > their might has weakened, but it is because their own people are sick and > tired [of engagement in Afghanistan]. There is fatigue now, fatigue is the > threat and is the worst thing for a nation to suffer from. There is no way > that the Americans can hold on to Afghanistan. > > Could that lead to [Afghanistan President] Hamid Karzai's government being > toppled? > > Karzai is no more. He is now fighting for his life. They have already > started telling him that by the end of this year he will have to shoulder > the responsibility of security in Afghanistan. But what are they giving him > for this? Nothing at all. In fact, more civilian casualties in military > operations are going to weaken Karzai's position. > > Some in Afghanistan believe that the extent of civilian casualties has > empowered the Taliban's resurgence. > > It is not only that. While the civilian casualties have certainly made the > Taliban a popular movement in Afghanistan - some 80 per cent of the > population support them - the people of Afghanistan are fed up with > corruption. > > They are sick of the influence of warlords and drug barons, and the > continued American occupation. > If it was a shot stint - come in and get out after completing the job - the > situation would have been different. But the Americans didn't do that. If > they wanted to disperse al-Qaeda, they succeeded after the first year, and > after that they should have pulled out. The fact they stayed on betrays > their real intentions in Afghanistan until Barack Obama, the US president, > came and started talking about withdrawal. > > It was only last December that Obama announced that the US will pull out of > Afghanistan. Hillary Clinton said the same thing, but there is a dichotomy. > > On the one hand they say 'We are not here to stay in Afghanistan', but on > the other hand they carry out surges and want to prop up and build the > Afghan Army. > > However, they don't give the money to build the Afghan Army - just $140mn. > Compare this to how much it costs the US to keep just one soldier in > Afghanistan - $1mn dollars per soldier per year in Afghanistan. They have > now about 68,000 US troops. It is currently costing them $65bn just to > maintain these troops. There are another 30,000 US troops now coming, so it > will cost the US $100bn a year to maintain its forces in Afghanistan. > > The US is a heavily indebted nation so how are they going to afford this? > Some 57 per cent of Americans in the polls say they don't like this war and > want their boys to return home. The Americans can't take casualties, that > is > their problem. To compensate, they started employing security contractors, > some 104,000 security contractors currently in Afghanistan. > > What does this mean? Mercenaries to be used where troops cannot be > deployed? > We have already seen what mercenaries did in Iraq. The Americans are more > and more inclined - because the US military cannot suffer casualties - to > employ mercenaries, not just from the US but also from the local > population. > > This is a very dangerous trend if we are to believe that mercenaries can > win > wars and carry forward the political objectives of the country. This means > that whoever has more money can employ more mercenaries, win wars, win > territories, etc. > > Given everything you have just said, how do you think the latest US and > Nato > offensive against the Taliban is going to play out? > > It is not going to work. I think it is an 'eye wash', it has political > purpose back home. But there is no political purpose for Afghanistan. They > are saying that they are protecting the civilian population, but they are > dislodging the civilians from their homes in very harsh weather conditions > in Afghanistan. > The cold winds from the steppes of Central Asia sweep these regions. When > you launch such military operations, the people are inevitably dislodged > and > their fields abandoned. In this situation, what are the Americans trying to > achieve - I don't know. > > There is much ambiguity about their political objectives. Every military > conflict must have a political purpose. I cannot discern that there is any > political purpose. > > From a strategic point of view, Pakistan's involvement in Afghanistan has > been seen as setting up a buffer, or deterrent, to India. But now that > Pakistan has nuclear capability, how important is Afghanistan to Islamabad? > > We want a friendly Afghanistan. We know India is playing havoc with us. The > Pakistani Taliban are being sponsored by the Indian intelligence and the > Mossad, by the way, to carry out their attacks in Pakistan. The Mossad is > very active in Pakistan and they are providing all the guidance and > technical support to the Indian intelligence. So, Pakistan has to have its > back covered - no country can fight on two fronts. > > We have to have a friendly Afghanistan, this does not mean that we dominate > Afghanistan. No one can dominate Afghanistan, a country which has already > buried two superpowers and the third one is about to be buried there. > > No, that's not the purpose Pakistan has in Afghanistan. > > Is the failure to stabilise Afghanistan adversely affecting Pakistan's own > security? > > Yes, indeed it is. The conflict is not just derivative of the failures of > the Kabul government - that is a puppet government. The real cause of the > conflict is the occupation of Afghanistan by the Americans. If they go out, > and after such a time - post-US occupation, the OIC and the Muslim > countries > have to come in and play their part. Then Afghanistan can redeem itself. > > I do not think that Afghanistan will be another Vietnam for the Americans > because they have said they will pull out. Obama is a president who is very > clear. In his State of the Union address, I think it was clear he was not > addressing terrorism but instead focusing on such internal issues as > healthcare, unemployment and debt servicing. > > It appears he is more focused on the domestic front than foreign affairs. > You can't focus on both at the same time. > > There has been a surge in violence in Pakistan since the exit of Pervez > Musharraf, the former president. The Pakistani Taliban threaten towns and > cities, and there are tensions between the PPP and MQM in key ports like > Karachi. What is needed to stabilise Pakistan right now? > > Political cleaning up of the mess. The rule of law must take root in > Pakistan. Unfortunately, the more powerful among the politicians and > generals, when it comes to their turn - whether by martial law or civilian > democracy - they want to run the affairs of the country according to their > own predilections and propensities. And that is where we go wrong. > > The political institution has to be set right; the Supreme Court and > Parliament must be empowered. Right now, all the power is vested under the > 17th Amendment, which was an amendment to the constitution passed by the > dictator Musharraf in 2003. This gave more power to the office of the > president and the ability to bypass the constitution and remain in > leadership irrespective of elections. > Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani president, now has that power and he is > refusing to budge. So, the 17th Amendment has to go, Parliament has to be > empowered, rule of law by the Supreme Court has to be established and the > army must not interfere. Then things will begin to fall in place and we > will > take the right direction. > > Do you think the US is helping Zardari stay in power because he is seen as > co-operating in the so-called war on terror? > I think there is ambivalence in their position and they sometimes do > criticise him. The American press has in the past bashed Zardari, but it > has > gone quiet now. The Americans fear the return of the Supreme Court in > Pakistan because it could rule that the US drone attacks are violations of > the country's sovereignty. > > If that happens, Parliament would have to act on the Supreme Court's > decision and reverse the policy. The Americans are sceptical and suspicious > that if the Supreme Court is given free reign in Pakistan, it is likely to > rule against their interests and agenda in Pakistan. > > Do you think the government will survive until the next national elections? > > The government will survive but I am almost certain Zardari will not. I do > not want to appear to be clairvoyant, but I doubt Zardari has many days > left > in government. > > In recent years, US officials have accused you of having close ties with > the > Taliban and al-Qaeda. How do you respond to that? > > No, this is wrong, I have no such ties. As far as al-Qaeda is concerned, I > simply say come up with the evidence for 911. You haven't even charged > Osama > bin Laden so far, that means you don't have hard evidence against him. The > full story is yet to come out. > In my opinion, all this is a gimmick, an inside job. > > In regards to the Taliban, I support their cause of Afghan resistance. I > lend them my moral support because I have in the past had strong > connections > with them. Incidentally, I maintained strong connections with both sides. > Many in the Afghan government are my good friends. > > But since the Taliban are representing the national spirit of resistance, I > have given them my voice. The Americans sent my name to the UN Security > Council to put me on a sanctions list and declare me an international > terrorist. But they failed because the Chinese knew the truth well and > blocked that move. > Basically, the Americans have nothing against me. I saw the charges and I > replied to them in the English-language press in Pakistan. I said if they > have anything against me to bring it forward, put me on trial. Tell me what > wrong I have done. I have been taking moral stands. The Americans talk of > freedom of speech, but apparently my speech hurts them because it counters > their excesses. > > I won't use the word 'interests' because what US policy-makers are doing > runs against the interests of the American people. If I say this is right > and this is wrong, I am exercising my right and ultimately, this is to the > benefit of the American people. > > But Zardari once told a western journal that you are a "political ideologue > of terror". > > I wrote a letter to Zardari that I am an ideologue of jihad, which is > common > between us. He is a Muslim like me and believes in the Quran. Terror is a > totally different thing. I do not support terror at all, but jihad is our > right when a nation is oppressed. According to the United Nations Charter, > national resistance for liberation is a right. We call this a jihad. > > > Source: Al-Jazeera > _________________________________________ > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city. > Critiques & Collaborations > To subscribe: send an email to > reader-list-requ...@sarai.net<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=reader-list-requ...@sarai.net>with > subscribe in the subject header. > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list > List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/> > > >
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________ reader-list mailing list reader-l...@sarai.net https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list