PAKISTAN
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Now what?
19-Nov-2007
Here are a few adages to help you get through this walk down memory lane. One who rules by the sword dies by the sword. Fear what you wish for. Those who forget history are bound to repeat it. Shit happens. Shit happens again. History repeats itself. Have had enough?
It is Friday, November 16, and I am watching the PBS NewsHour, followed by the McLaughlin Group and hear not a word about the turmoil that swallowed the Shah of Iran in 1978-1979. This morning, I unfolded The Boston Globe and saw no mention of the fateful events of 1978-79 that brought forth the theologians to power in Iran. There is nothing in the paper, not even in the editorial page, where often H.D.S. Greenway has an informed and historically grounded opinion piece about changes in the Middle East and Southwest Asia. But then I am expecting too much from a media and pundits who are living in 2007. Man, all that stuff back then in 1978-79 is now ancient history in the mind of a public that cannot remember who was president before Jimmy Carter.
You say, “Jimmy Carter?” “Yes, I do.” Not the Jimmy who builds houses, writes books and goes to other countries to make sure that the ignorant third world people are voting correctly, while someone’s election in the year 2000 here left a lot to be desired. I am talking about the Jimmy Carter who unleashed in 1976-77 the Kennedyesque human rights genie out of the bottle in a fit of American self-righteousness.
The friendly advice that the Kennedy Administration had given to the Shah, a staunch ally of the United States against Communism, was about modernizing the country, the reward for which was continuation of American economic and military aid. Well, the advice – like land reform, nationalization of forests land, profit-sharing for workers, women’s rights – flew in the face of traditional values of a staunch capitalist, feudal patriarchy that would not relent. On January 22, 1963, one Mr. Khomeini denounced the Shah and his reform package. The acrimony continued into June when, as I remember, hostilities broke out between the two camps and a curfew, or martial law, was declared in many cities, while scores upon scores were killed in the streets.
I digress. Back to Jimmy Carter.
A few months after Jimmy’s visit to Tehran, where he toasted the Shah and called Iran “an island of stability,” the country plunged into a sea of turmoil. Carter’s human rights agenda and coddling of the Iranian leftists in the U.S. had emboldened the anti-Shah people in Tehran to take to the streets and demand this and that and the other. Marches ensued. One month after another brought its own black this and black that and red this and red that, while the government kept up the talk about fighting against the unholy alliance of “the red and black.” Ah! Le Rouge and le Noir, now that is a story worth reading. Never mind, please! I digress!
The “black” in those days were the theocratic end of the Iranian political spectrum. The reference was inspired by the color of the black shirt worn in Shi’a religious festivals, the predominant color of women’s black Islamic hijab, the color of the head-kerchief worn by a certain Islamo-Marxist group, and the color of the beard of pseudo-revolutionaries, even of the secular stripe. The reference to “black” was also inspired by the modernists’ view that this lot was about to plunge the country into the Dark Ages. The “red” were the damned Commies who had been a thorn in the side of the Iranian kingship since the 1920s.
I digress.
It is all of 28 years from the fateful days of the Shah and here we are witnessing yet another debacle of a pro-US regime in Southwest Asia -- Pakistan. Whether he is or not, the “opposition” in Pakistan and the Moslem street views Pervez Musharraf as a stooge of the United States. Before I go on with the heavy political stuff, let me pause and point out to the non-Farsi/Persian readers that Pervez is the Persian name Parviz, which comes from parvaz, which means “opened wing, soaring.” Musharraf, on the other hand, means the “welcome one, bringer of honor” in Arabic and Urdu. Musharraf also sounds like it could be a derivative of sharaf, which means “honor, dignity” in Arabic and Urdu. Urdu, like Pakistan, is really Hindi or Indian with the added (or not) benefit of Persian/Iranian influence, wrapped up in the Arabic language of Islam.
Why this digression into Musharraf’s name? Because on Friday night’s NewsHour, the commentator Mark Shield said that Musharraf’s connection to or dependency on the Bush Administration has earned him the moniker “Busharraf.” “That may well be,” I thought to myself, but it is loaded with other implications. In Farsi/Persian and Urdu the term for dishonorable is “bisharaf” and this word easily can be made to sound like “besharraf” in chants – I so can hear it: “Msuharraf, bisharraf!”
Name-calling, especially if it can be made to rhyme like a Jesse Jackson tirade, is a very effective tool in any political chant. In the Middle East, it is a sublime art form: it packs a political jab as potent as a Daumier political cartoon. This is really spooky: Daumier’s first name? Honoré, very akin to Musharraf!
The Shah’s last appointed government was led by a career oppositionist named Shahpur Bakhtiar. Ironically, “shahpur” in Persian means “son of a king”) and “bakhtiar” means “one who brings good fortune.” The opposition that opposed this oppositionist’s national reconciliation (but really, caretaker) government turned his name into the melodic but derisive chant “Bakhtiar, nokar-e bi-ekhtiar,” meaning “Bakhtiar, the servant with no independence/power.” Ironically, the reference to Bakhtiar’s lack of power or independence was not as much a reference to his appointment to the premiership of the Iranian state, but to the perception that he was a lackey of the United States.
The chant of “Bakhtiar, nokar-e bi-ekhtiar” grew even louder and more meaningful after Jimmy Carter in January 1979 stated in a news conference that his Administration supported Bakhtiar’s appointment to head the government in Tehran. The chant of Bakhtiar’s status as a puppet of the U.S. Administration resounded even louder when it was learned in Tehran that one General Robert Huyser from the U.S. had arrived in the country to “stabilize the situation,” as if the country was in the midst of a cafeteria food fight! As Jimmy Carter’s envoy, General Huyser’s sole qualification for the mission to Tehran was that, as deputy commander of the U.S. European Command, he knew many of Iran's top military people. Ha!
Call it common wisdom, knowledge or anecdotal history – I happen to believe that Huyser’s mission to Tehran was not aimed to “stabilize” the country in favor of the Shah and Bakhtiar’s government but to neutralize the armed forces by telling it to stand down in favor of Mr. Khomeini, who was poised to fly from France to Iran any day.
Parenthetically, after the 1963 melee with the Shah, Mr. Khomeini was arrested and exiled to Iraq, whence he continued covertly with his anti-Shah activities. In 1978, on the Shah’s request, Saddam Hussein exiled Khomeini to France, where overnight he became the darling of every liberal and hyper-liberal coffee klatch in the Western Hemisphere. Even the Iranian singer-diva Gougoush belted out a tune in the honor of she seeing the reflection of Mr. Khomeini’s ponum on the face of the moon.
It is now some 28 years from Huyser’s mission to Tehran. On Friday, November 16, President Bush’s emissary, John Negroponte, arrived in Pakistan to tell Mr. Musharraf what to do in order to save his country from turmoil. Déjà vu allover again! The 1979 Huyser mission in Tehran was to get the Iranian army to stay in one piece by standing down. The fear at the time was that the sophisticated weaponry in the hands of the Iranian forces would find its way into the hands of “enemy” elements (read Palestinians). In Islamabad, Negroponte probably sought to ensure that the Pakistani army stays in one piece so the country’s nuclear arsenal does not end up in “enemy” hands (read, a militant Islamic regime).
Pakistan of 2007 looks a lot like Iran of 1978-79. On Friday night’s edition of NewsHour nothing was eerier that seeing one Benazir Bhutto, fresh from exile, declaring, “Musharraf must go!” On hearing this, I recalled Mr. Khomeini’s calm utterance to the international press gathered in his quarters in France “Shah bayad beravad,” the Shah must go! Like in 1979, when nobody was interested in asking “then what?,” nobody now is asking what would Musharraf’s departure accomplish?
Benazir Bhutto is not a U.S. puppet, be she is being coached an coaxed and used by the Bush Administration to egg on Musharraf either out of office or to force him to truly clamp down on the radical Islamists in Pakistan and in the border areas with Afghanistan. Like the rag-tag “oppositionists” that faced down the Shah in 1978-79, people who oppose Musharraf are secularist who want him to take a harsher stand with the Islamists, Islamists and nationalists who want him to take tougher stand against U.S. meddling in Pakistani (Islamic) affairs, hyper-liberals and pro-democracy opportunists who want more human rights, journalists, and the lawyers, who amazingly, and contrary to Shakespearean edicts and American popular disdain for attorneys, are revered for now as a force for good!
Bhutto is talking to the former prime minister and the other oppositionist in Pakistan in order to forge a grand anti-Musharraf coalition. These forms of coalitions of convenience do not bode well. Once the common enemy is removed the coalition begins to implode, as one faction rises against the other, each thinking it deserves more than the other as if it were the indispensable part of the mass uprising that brought down the leader. In Tehran of 1978-79 the alliance of the un-holies against the Shah also included the mosque and secularist street. At the end, with the army neutralized, the Shah was forced out and in the aftermath internecine struggles the clergy prevailed.
If history has any value as a lesson is because it enables predictions of things to come. A Pakistan without Musharraf has two choices: A takeover by anti-Musharraf forces which will then give way to a radical Islamic regime, or a military coup that will “oust” Musharraf, very much like Turkey’s military when it ousts the civilian government that has gone bad. Mr. Negroponte would have been best advised to have encouraged the latter as an exit strategy for Musharraf.
The question that nags me the most is “Who is behind all this Islamist turmoil in Pakistan?” To answer it, I must ask, “Whom does this situation in Pakistan benefit?” I can think only of Saudi Arabia, who may want to tell Mr. Bush that all this talk about democracy and human rights and “McPolitics” shall cause greater mess, especially in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, than anyone can possibly control locally, much less from afar.
The nightmare scenario for Washington will be for Pakistan to fall into the hands of a radical Islamic regime. That regime will not be like the Taleban regime that briefly governed Afghanistan with the help of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. An Islamic regime in Pakistan, by its very Sunni nature, will command much greater empathy than Iran’s 1979 Shi’a revolutionaries ever could. As a non-Arab Islamic country, Pakistan will challenge Saudi Arabia for the soul of Islam (Note: the majority of Moslems are non-Arab and Sunni).
Do you think India will sit idly by so Pakistan can become a mouse that roars?
If this world is far too complicated for the U.S. to order, then the U.S. should butt out of Musharraf’s and Pakistan’s business. Hajji Bush, I say, please cultivate your own garden! As they say in Southwest Asia, there is a limit to khar-kosdeh-bazi, which in Urdu means, I think, “mind your own sister.”
| Recently by Guive Mirfendereski | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Obama’s “Flexibility” Gaffe | 3 | Mar 28, 2012 |
| Thou Shall Not Attack Nuclear Sites | 23 | Feb 25, 2012 |
| Tale of Two Mahmouds | 12 | Sep 22, 2011 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Jahanshah Javid, Hezbollah in Disguise!
by Justice (not verified) on Wed Nov 28, 2007 06:18 AM PSTJahanshah Javid, Hezbollah in Disguise!
Hezbollah's Front Businesses in America!
Part one
//iranpoliticsclub.net/politics/shiite-season...
part two
//iranpoliticsclub.net/politics/shiite-season...
regarding comment's ref to milani article
by female seeking male (not verified) on Sun Nov 25, 2007 07:45 AM PST"The only solution to Iran’s dire economic problems is a large infusion of foreign resources" ... and "only democracy can insure stability" ...
He was doing so well up to this point, until he pulled these tired formulations of the International Bankers.
this was a bore ... but I
by male seeking female (not verified) on Sun Nov 25, 2007 01:04 AM PSTthis was a bore ... but I digress: let him lick american bhutto
Guive: what about the risk(S)- flaws in your article
by yekIrani (not verified) on Thu Nov 22, 2007 07:34 AM PSTGuive, as you know Musharraf relies heavily on its secret service (ISI) to survive. You are aware that ISI is infested with the radical Islamists. That is why Americans want the change, otherwise they would give him the free hand that you are apparently advocating.
If I want to use your terminology I would say that US has to continue its khad-kosdeh-bazi. The current khad-kosdeh-bazi of Musharraf et all is becoming too risky for his masters, even for those as rootless as W.
Teach, right on the money,
by Farhad Kashani (not verified) on Wed Nov 21, 2007 09:42 PM PSTTeach, right on the money, great observation.
Addendum to GM's Article
by Anonymous327 (not verified) on Wed Nov 21, 2007 04:02 PM PSTGM, one imprtant point of similarity you forgot tomention is the following:
Musharaf, Bhutto, Khomeini, Yazdi, Bani Sadr, the Shah, Rajavi, Saudi Royal Family, etc. all have this in common, they are all puppets with strings coming out of their butts, the other end of that sring is held by: Her Majesty QE II, Rothchilds, Gubinos, Rockefellers, Exxon, Shell, BP, and the other bastards !
RE: Muslims and Pakis
by aguy (not verified) on Wed Nov 21, 2007 09:38 AM PSTCome on now! I am not a Muslim, but that is not fair to insult a religion or a nation based on such an event. Do you know of some of the ways that south American drug dealers transport their cargo ... Are you going to insult Christianity and south Americans for that?
Muslims and Pakis are subhuman for the following reason
by EX_Muslim (not verified) on Wed Nov 21, 2007 08:35 AM PST//www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312410,00.html
good points Ajam, and ZAE (GM can you clarify?)
by yekIrani (not verified) on Wed Nov 21, 2007 07:31 AM PSTIt seems that this article sends mixed signals! Maybe GM can clarify. I tried to look at it optimistically, specially from his last paragraph, I thought the writer advocates that US should stop these dirty games which Seymour Hersh also had an article about.
How?!
by Ajam (not verified) on Tue Nov 20, 2007 05:52 PM PSTUpon reading the title, I was intrigued as to what kind of delving into the characteristics of Pakistani society compels the writer, Mr. Mirfendereski, to draw such an unlikely comparison to that of 1979 Iran! Alas, by reading the text further and further, I could not help but feel confused and eventually disappointed! Rather than basing the comparison on such adolescent notion of namesakes of the entities involved and their connotations, it could not hurt too, albeit briefly, to take into consideration the socio-political dynamics of the two societies.
Pakistan's existence is based on the Islamic indentity -- as a distinguishing factor, since its independance as a breakaway, fuedal society from India. Whereas, having experienced a consitituional revolution at the turn of the 20th century and numerous attempts at reaching a viable civil society, Iranian masses' resorting to the Islamic identity as a political alternative was a direct result of the political vaccum (as noted by another poster below) created by the shah's dictatorial aproach to political descent, hence leaving Khomeini as a the sole leader of the opposition. On the other hand, in the absence of a consensus over the leadership of the Pakistani opposition -- consisting of Islamists, secularists and leftists -- the notion of "unholly alliance" and therefore prediction of its outcomes seem ludicrous!
Furthermore, I could not make sense of the use of such cliches as "history repeats itself..." and the proverb "those who rule by the sword die by the sword" either! I'm not sure what the writer implies here! Is general Musharaf (wo apparently is the one ruling by the sword...) supposed to die by the sword, or should he be supported by the Americans and continue to rule by the sword?!
This is a surprisingly
by Anonymous-toady (not verified) on Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:56 AM PSTThis is a surprisingly superficial analysis from the usually insightful GM. Isn't GM aware that Islamization from above has been state policy in Pakistan since its foundation in the late Forties? That's a basic difference between Iran and Pakistan. The Genreal and his army and intelligence were instrumental in fomenting the Taliban troubles in the region (well, Musharraf wasn't the president back then but...). The General and his cohorts have crushed pro-democracy movement, grassroots, the women's rights advocates, over and over again all to the benefit of Islmaic militancy. Musharraf wants his cake and eat it too. How is this similar to what happened in Iran? Well,the Shah did some of the same things too. He didn't allow any democratic dissent so when it came time to pay the piper only Isamic militants had the resources and the connection to organize the masses. But this doesn't fit GM's analysis. He seems worried that Musharraf doesn't have cart blanch to kill, maime, bomb, torture and generally pull a Pinoche. This is sad from a so-called intellectual. All the soft liberals have turned pro brute force. All have become Francists at the end. Kill, kill, kill... for a good cause. How pathentic!
Go Donee
by Dr. Abol Danesh (not verified) on Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:47 AM PST... rest assure that those unruly who refuse to go to till the wheat farm in bondage they will be fed molten lead until they kneel in surrender. I will vanquish each and everyone of them into submission.
There will be no compromise!
//www.caroun.com/Museums/IranMuseum/TehranMus...
Genuine opposition has done it now
by Afraid of GM (not verified) on Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:43 AM PSTZeinol Abedin you have gone and done it. His hoity-toity sleight of pen etymologist does not allow contrary opinions from the mere peasants. Only adulations and where have you been(s) are allowed by sycophantic subjects. Even eminent professor Yarshater of Iranica was dismissed by his highness for his insistence on using Persian as the name of the language for non Persian speakers. So as right as you are in every point you make about his crownless, you are going to get it now.
Pretentious nonsense
by Zeinol Abedin Eslaminia (not verified) on Tue Nov 20, 2007 09:57 AM PSTThis was one of the most nonsensical analyses that I had read for a long while. There are so many literary, factual and historic errors, in this Op-Ed that makes you wonder if the author, GM, is a satirical writer as opposed to a political analyst. Lets see:
Black: this has always been the color of grief in Islam and if there were men or women who wore black in 1963, it was out of sympathy with the Islamic martyrs.
Musharraf: means “the honored one” and not the bringer of honor as the writer wants us to believe.
Parviz: means Victorious and has nothing to do with Parvaz as GM suggests.
Bakhtiar: means “the one who is aided by good fortune” and not “the bringer of fortune” as GM insists.
So much for GM’s manufactured etymology. Now on to factual errors:
Benazir Bhutto’s stance is diametrically opposite of what Ayatollah Khomeni’s was back in 1978/79. Where Aytollah Khomeini spoke of unification of mosque and state, BB speaks of their separation. BB went to the US admittedly to seek American approval of her pact with the General. If this doesn’t suggest that she is an American “stooge”, then perhaps GM should manufacture an etymology for this word too.
Robert Huyser’s trip to Iran was a secret mission that was kept secret even from the Shah (as admitted in his memoir) whereas Negroponte has openly met with Musharraf and the opposition leaders.
GM’s analysis carries no more weight than that of a spoiled brat-now-grown-up son of a Shah’s minister whose credibility was no better than that of his former paymaster.
RE: Shalom Goldman.....
by rahaii (not verified) on Tue Nov 20, 2007 09:13 AM PSTShalom, says:
“The best America can do is to provide weapons to both sides ans stay out.”
Shalom,
I have good news for you, US, and Israeli arm dealers have been doing that for many years (watch Lord of War: l//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_War). As Guive says in his last paragraph US has been doing this khar-kosdeh-bazi in the region for quite sometime. Remember $billions that were pumped to the so called Mojahedin freedom fighters during the afghan war.
There is only one problem with this way of thinking, ‘what goes around comes around’ sums up the problem (remember Sep. 11).
Go Doonee
by Dr. Abol Danesh (not verified) on Tue Nov 20, 2007 07:05 AM PSTExactly!
Good old times when a mosque was about to be built then it really a mosque was to be built several continuous decades of work to make sure glory remains supreme not a shit hole built in hurry in each and every street and dead end back alley to sell coupans for meat and cigarette by a bastard who has just finished his pilgrimage to become "haji"...
Yah! pakistan and the republic has moved in the same shitty exact direction...
Get these bastards and send them to wheat farms in bondage until they die ...
//www.turkeytravelcompany.com/images/blue-mos...
Paying atttention
by not an expert.. (not verified) on Tue Nov 20, 2007 04:43 AM PSTI have been reading the news on the net and watching analysis of the Pakistan situation for years. The better "experts" seem to think that the Pakistani 2007 and Iran 1979 events are very different. Musharaff released his opponents (3,000) recently. The Mullahs murdered everyone who opposed them. Those Iranians who fled into exile were not allowed to return as Bhutto has returned. Squads of Iranians were sent to murder those in excile all over the world. I haven't found an article that claimed Musharaff has done this.
I don't know what is going to happen in Pakistan, but I do know that this contributor is rarely correct.
Javad Agha/Atthentus -- please enlighten...
by Rosie T. on Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:56 AM PSTwhere did the author go wrong with his etymologies?
We have our own problems. . .
by Javad agha (not verified) on Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:01 PM PSTIran’s revolution had its own characteristics much different than Pakistan. Islam was respected by many, but one cannot compare it to Pakistan because of our country’s wealth. Pakistan is relatively a poor country with very limited resources and historical artifacts to steal so that they could be displayed in Western musuems.
-
In my trip to Karachi and Islamabad many moons ago, I found the people to be more religious than us. They had and still do have many more religious Waco’s than us.
-
Pakistani’s are very poor than us in both pre-revolution and present time. Maybe an Imam will promise the people free water, gas, and what not. How did many of our people believe these non-senses?
-
I agree with another person, leave Persian words to linguistic experts to define.
-
Our history is full of vatanfoorshs. These vatanfoorshs hurt us both before and after revolution. Will Pakistan’s vatanfoorshs hurt Pakistan as our MKOs and other groups did?
-
Pakistan is our neighbor and its problems will affect us, but we should not worry too much about their problems. We have our problems which require our attention.
-
The lesson I learned is that we took many things for granted and let our vatanfoorshs sell our history, heritage, and wealth for peanuts in return to have better life in the U.S. and Canada.
-
Thanks for taking time to write and engage us.
Spot On
by The Fair Judge (not verified) on Mon Nov 19, 2007 07:07 PM PSTThanks for this article which is spot on and I look forward to reading more of your writings in the future.
With regards to the Islamists in Pakistan, they are relatively inactive at the moment but it seems to me that they are waiting and they are sure their time is near. When they do come out of the woodwork, it will be with a massive show of force with deep rooted teachings and followings which I doubt if the likes of Bhutto or Imran Khan or even the US can do an awful lot about.
The Pakistanis are deeply religious and when the polarisation of religious forces take place, even the seculars will follow the religious lines or they will get washed away.
Pakistan is not Turkey. It is a very conservative and religious country with a lot of influence and of course Nukes.
What is happening now was going to happen and it was just a matter of time but it is amazing that the US and the West that have so much vested interest in the region seem a little unprepared for it.
Do we really think that the West has learnt the lessons of the Iranian revolution?? I think not!!!
Please stop this garbage about origins of words
by David Atthentus (not verified) on Mon Nov 19, 2007 07:04 PM PSTJust about every single article you wrote in the past was loaded with stupid, wrong and melancholic interpretation of Persian words. Who the hell has given you the authority to so wrongly interpret origins of words? Especially when it's done on a guessing and based on one's emotional disruptions.
There are plenty of references available and please do not misguide poor Iranians.
Just stick with your basic opinion about politics and we will glance at it from time to time. But do not venture into the semantics of words as you have absolutely no authority in that area.
No American blood should be shed on improving lives in the
by Shalom Goldman (not verified) on Mon Nov 19, 2007 05:28 PM PSTmiddle east! America should stay out of it and let the Shiites and sunnies duke it out to the point that the entire region is depleted from the Muslims. Imagine, the sunnies of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia fighting the Shiite mullahs of the Islamic Republic! The best America can do is to provide weapons to both sides ans stay out.
The Approach Is Wrong...
by tinoush on Mon Nov 19, 2007 04:34 PM PSTI write this as a secularist who thinks that church, mosque, synagogue, temple, etc. should all be separate from politics. I think history shows that the approach to the fundamentalism is wrong. The more they are suppressed by force, the stronger they become. It's the old Chinese finger trap. One has to let it slide off, not force it.
Like it or not, Islam will always be part of some people's lives in that region. And, that needs to be taken into account, while at the same time fundamentalist should be disarmed of their chief weapon: mayhem and chaos. For example, that whole incident at the Red Mosque was utterly stupid. That was when I thought Musharaf must not be a good student of history. All that it did was to arm the fundamentalist.
Unfortunately, this kind of fire once started will have to burn itself out. Iran is still burning. It was beginning to take a turn ten years ago, but Clinton's ISLA act of 1996 poured more fuel on the fire.
A Lunatic Will Make The Same Mistake "Twice"
by Shae'r (not verified) on Mon Nov 19, 2007 04:26 PM PSTU.S. In Its Pomp and Glory ..
Not Learning From Its Mistake In IRAN ..
...
On The One Hand "Preaching" Democracy To The Masses ..
On The Other, Propping "Weasels" With No Aspiration For One ..
...
Pakistan In Its Youth As A Nation ..
Dictated By a Group Of Thugs in Uniform ..
...
Under The "Guise" of Extremism ..
Depriving The Masses of a Voice ..
...
America, When Will You Learn? ..
Wasn't Mossadeq Enough? ..
How about Lumumba? ..
Was Allende' Not Enough?
Hasn't The Voices of All Those Masses That You Have Interfered with in the Past 50 Years Not Enough? ..
...
America, Let Me Tell You this:
You May Think You Are Smart, But "Idiocy" is But a Step Away ..
You May Think You Are Wise, But A "Fool" Can See Thru You ..
You may Think That You Have Been called By Gods ..
But The Demons Can feel Right At Home With You ..
And Finally,
You May Think That The Masses are "Idiots" ..
But Your "Duplicity" Is All But "Self-Evident" ..
what goes around comes around!
by rahaii (not verified) on Mon Nov 19, 2007 03:37 PM PSTthese guys thought they were teaching the Soviets some lessons when they created those madressahs during the Reagan era. They were unaware of tofe-sar-bala! nice article Guive.
GM, one thing is for sure.
by alimostofi on Mon Nov 19, 2007 02:28 PM PSTGM, one thing is for sure. The world will see for the first time, that most of the problems of the area stem from the Islamists in Waziristan, and Helmand provinces. The drug and gun trades are what fuel all the troubles. People wonder why the Iraq has gone quiet? Well look at Pakistan. The troubles there have gotten the Islamists well and truely occupied. So it is good that this export of Pakistan has been stopped. But the worst export is the liberal chic like Dilip Hiro and the like, who think that they are Gods. I remember in 1979 when Khomeini was back, DH and his cronies were all over the media praising him. Now what do they have to say? The fact that the radical chic of Pakistan is lost for words is good. They and the Islamist-Marxists in Lucknow, India need to understand that they cannot use anti-Americanism forever. And US uses their anti-Americanism to be in the area. So the Islamist neocons fight the US neocons, or play into their each other's hands. The US right now has plans to get into Pakistan and seal off the nuclear sites, if the nukes get threatened. Once that is done, then Mozakhraff is finished. His job was to stop the proliferation of nukes and drugs, which he has not done very well. Why hasn't he done such a great job? The man has been trying to do a balancing act between being a buddy of both US and Islamists. The US has successfully managed after all these years to show up China, Pakistan, Russia, and India. All these countries have helped the Seyyeds in Iran, and Pakistan and China are being seriously scrutinized at the moment. Either they shut up with loads of money from the US, or they sink. It is hard to see China sinking, but just think what would happen if Wal-Mart pulls out of China. So the US knows that it can do a lot, and it holds all the cards. But it wants to be in the area, so any trouble in Pakistan is good. It is better than trouble in Iran, and Pakistan has no oil. It just has a lot of useless radical chics who hate Americans. So the Americans will eventually leave Iraq, and go to Pakistan, and get to the root of the problem. Our Iranian problems stem from Pakistan and not from anywhere else.
.
Ali Mostofi
//www.alimostofi.com
Great to have you back...
by 2 + 2 = 4 (not verified) on Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:47 AM PSTWhat is going to happen to the Nukes in Pakistan?
General Huyser was instrumental in establishing Islamic Regime
by Hue (not verified) on Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:37 AM PSTWhat you said it was very true that General Huyser’s mission to Tehran was not aimed to “stabilize” the country in favor of the Shah and Bakhtiar’s government but to neutralize the armed forces by telling it to stand down in favor of Khomeini, who was poised to fly from France to Iran.
Right after General Huyser secret overnight trip to Tehran, being there during uprising wittnessing, the entire Arm forces from all Padagans stayed put and became lame duck. Few padagans were looted by mobs and in short few days, arms were collected by force by searching cars, suspected homes and shops by new organized Islamists unknown where they were put together! General Huyser was instrumental in establishing Islamic Regime in Iran.
This is also a great article by Abbas Milani:
//bostonreview.net/BR32.6/milani.php
Mush and Shah very similar - they took too long to step aside
by Ahnonymous (not verified) on Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:22 AM PSTBoth men faced assasination and other clear signals from the people to step aside and let the people have political hold on the nation, rather than a dictatorship. Their lack of understanding and caring caused people to move toward radicals. MOVE OVER MUSHY time. Of course, the US will have learned from Iran how to suppress radicals which it couldnt do in Iran because Shah and US had no understanding of. Pakistan is actually lucky. Hopefully they'll learn from Iran's example on how to overthrow a dictator and avoid further dictatorship.
Impressed by Paki's
by Teach (not verified) on Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:52 AM PSTThere are major difference between pakistan and '79 iran: (1) Shah was far more progressive than Mush is, and people still got rid of him in favor of rotten mullas (2) Paki's are not following fanatic mullas to get rid of Mush - impressed by quality of opposition, specially lawyers and journalists (3) Paki's are not following mullas and have far more desire for democracy as opposed to fanaticism, theocracy, and dictatorship which were at the core of I.R. that 98% of iranians supported in '79. Mullas have not been gaining any traction in Pakistan at all. But gullible iranians fell for islamic gangsters so easily in '79, and have been pretty much obedient of them since then.