NYTimes.com Article: This Is a Religious War

[meadow]

I was working in my garden, still thinking without thinking about the Islamic etc conflict.
Two spading hoes (forked kind) were tangled up.  No matter what I did to get them apart, no
luck.  So I just released them to their resting place, and lo they fell apart.

That was my higher consciousness saying, "There is a way.  It is natural.  Just let it find
itself."

So I gather we will go through our posturing, one side against the other, and when we're all
done the resolution will fall into place.

That's the view from here.
Dian

Roger Baker wrote:

> Don Laird's post of the NYT piece that proposed that this was a religious war is
> interesting because I suspect that it is largely true.
>
> On the US good-patriotic-American side we have a new religious crusade against
> the forces of evil that threaten those who do not wave the flag.
>
> Bush makes this very plain; "President George Bush said yesterday that the
> eradication of global terrorism was "our calling". He added: "Now is the time
> to draw the line in the sand against the evil ones."
>
> On the other side of this debate or war or whatever, we have the Arab world
> as seen through al-Jazeera, which I suppose is as near as you get to the
> prevailing satellite and web media of the modern Arab world. Here's the link.
>
> http://www.al-jazeera.net/special_coverages/war_against_terrorism/
>
> I can't read Arabic, but I do understand the language of Muslims burning
> flags and US bombers. I suspect that since al-Jazeera gives bin Laden coverage but
> since the Bush administration has declined the invitation to submit the
> US side to al-Jazeera for balance, the end result is necessarily to make bin
> Laden's point of view prevail by comparison in influencing mainstream Arabs.
> Or maybe the CIA doesn't have any spare agents to respond on al-Jazeera?
>
> If this is a religious war, and assuming our religion side represents freedom
> and modernity as Sullivan claims, then our religious foe is an Islamic sect
> from hell cultured and nutured by billions in CIA support for the most militant
> Islamic factions to be found in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
>
> They may not like it when we bring in the grandson of the king and try to have
> him rule from the ruins of Kabul. The guys coming across the border from Pakistan
> with guns may not not be feminists and may not want US troops defending a feminist
> government in coalition with the Uzbeks, the brutal Pashtun-hating Tajic warlords
> of the north, and whomever we can manage to assemble and announce as the new rulers
> for our side in Bush's religious war, retitled "Enduring Freedom".
>
> In reality the religious basis for our side in this war, once you strip away all
> the layers of flags, closely resembles US corporate nationalism without much regard
> for world opinion, or else we would call in the United Nations. The first guys
> to show up in the cporporate welfare line were the airlines, but everywhere the
> are other corporate victims of terrorism facing sagging sales and profits that also
> need our help.
>
> As soon as these corporate victims of terror get paid off, we can deal with propping
> up whatever coalition of Afghans we can convince to stay in Kabul with our "enduring
> freedom" of military protection.
>
> If there is any cash left over, then we must next consider the cost of winning hearts
> and minds of the Pakistani's keeping Pakistan's nuclear domino from toppling, as
> described below in today's New York Times.
>
> Along with the priviledge of domestic security for the home base of our global
> empire -- goes a responsibility of paying for the military side of the process.
> We have British troops fighting by our side, but the true test is to see how many
> other countries are willing to adopt Bush's side in this new religious crusade
> against evil:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,567395,00.html
>
> "President George Bush said yesterday that the eradication of global terrorism was
> "our calling". He added: "Now is the time to draw the line in the sand against the
> evil ones." However, there were signs of uneasiness from the allies at the White House's
> apparent return to the boundless bellicosity of the early days of the crisis. Nato
> insisted yesterday that it would need more evidence before it could support attacks
> anywhere other than Afghanistan. The secretary general, Lord Robertson, said Nato's
> endorsement for anti-terrorist action was based on "dealing with those connected with
> and responsible for the attacks of September 11"..."
>
> Then when we make the world safe for global expansion, we can THEN go on to win the
> drug war, house the homeless, feed our huddled teeming masses, free from prison those
> yearning to breathe free, and all that stuff in the fine print on the goddam Statue of
> motherfuckin' Liberty.
>
> Meanwhile, beam me up, please.  -- Roger
>
>           *******************************************************
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/11/opinion/11HUSS.html
>
> Can Pakistan's Leader Hold On?
>
> By MUSHAHID HUSSAIN
>
> ISLAMABAD, Pakistan
>
> With Pakistan's pro-Taliban policy buried in the wreckage of the World Trade Center,
> President Pervez Musharraf has struggled to put Pakistan back on track and restore the
> badly bruised relationship with the United States. Joining the antiterrorist coalition
> may prove to be a fateful choice, one that opens onto a future of more difficult
> choices...
>
> In this campaign against terrorism, the prospects for Pakistan are as hazardous as
> those for Afghanistan. Pakistan's real nightmare concerns the war's aftermath. Once
> the Americans are done with Afghanistan and depart, will Pakistan again be left to
> clear the debris? Refugees and a sprawling culture of Kalashnikovs, narcotics, sectarian
> terrorism: all these were the unwelcome gifts of the last Pakistani-American effort
> in Afghanistan...
>
> Serving as the frontline state from 1979 to 1989, Pakistan helped engineer an American
> triumph in the last battle of the cold war. But with the mission accomplished, the
> United States left in an unseemly hurry. The 1990 sanctions — intended to prevent Pakistan
> from acquiring a nuclear capability — were the parting kick. Mr. Musharraf hopes, as
> do most Pakistanis, that America's rediscovery of Pakistan will be different, resulting
> in a resilient relationship...
>
> Pakistan's change of direction needs sustained international support if the country is
> to be an effective defender of Muslim moderation. The American-led coalition can help
> in various ways: by providing economic relief, particularly a debt write-off, to help
> stabilize the country; by brokering a compromise with India over Kashmir; and by holding
> Mr. Musharraf to his promise of elections...
>
> Mushahid Hussain, a former editor and legislator, was Pakistan's information minister
> from 1997 to 1999.