nonanon1 @ gl1977 15h ago
Yes, there are too many tortured analysis about how liberal democracy can better accommodate and adjust to medieval religion and not enough questions asked of medieval religion to adjust to liberal democracy within which it has elected to live.
6:38 PM EST [Edited]
While on CNN the other day, Ayaan Hirsi Ali said that it is necessary for Muslims to admit that violence is embedded in Islam, and that the prophet can not be a moral guide for good.
The Arab Spring/Thirty Years War has the potential to be as destructive to the world as it was to Germany through the means of precision-guided munitions and weapons of mass destruction.
Islam is so embedded in Western society and virulent that it can not be extricated.
Perhaps a tipping point has been reached or soon will be: MI-5, George Parker.
Political leaders in the United States can not play God and recreate the world in America’s image: democratic capitalism in theory, or something else in practice.
Gen. Jack Keane said on Fox News that we defeated communism with better ideas.
John Miller said on Charlie Rose that there has to be a new Muslim narrative.
Who will author this new narrative? Where will it originate? Is it possible?
There are good people who are Muslims but Islam is not good: it’s a cruise to nowhere and incompatible with 21st cen. global culture. What kind of people slaughter children, kidnap school girls and murder journalists?
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called ‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.
The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God, however this can work both ways. Most of today’s Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book’s call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.
Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad’s own martial legacy – and that of his companions – along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.
“Training [for jihad] is one thing and [inculcating] craving, ideology and preparing the mind is another. Our work is that we inculcate in them the ideology, thought and passion for jihad. And the Koran tells us that.”
Cruelty is Simply a Part of Islam, Says Expert
Islamic State’s head-chopping barbarity is not different from everyday Islamic cruelty, says Prof. Rafi Israeli.
First Publish: 9/14/2014, 9:21 PM
By Shimon Cohen, Gil Ronen
ISIS fighters parade in the northern Syrian city of Tel Abayd, Jan. 2, 2014 Reuters
Professor Rafi Israeli, an expert on Islam and the Arab world, told Arutz Sheva Sunday that while the world is appalled by Islamic State’s decapitation murders of western journalists, we must not forget that Islam kills hundreds of people daily in various hotspots throughout the globe.
“We ignore this cruelty which is an everyday occurrence,” said Israeli. In the genocide at Dafur, for instance, “Muslims killed other Muslims. They do it to their own people by the thousands. There is nothing new here.”
Prof. Israeli said that the basis for these acts is the fact that Islam has a basic disregard for human life. “For them it is not sacred, like it is for us.”
The Koran, he noted, calls on Muslims to spread terror among their enemies without specifying who they are. In effect, this statement commands a Muslim to kill and terrorize all those he perceives as enemies, including fellow Muslims. The Muslims who act upon this are fanatics who are convinced that only their beliefs are true, and everyone else is wrong – and can therefore be killed.
“Every day in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Darfur, Iraq or Yemen, they kill hundreds,” explained Israeli. “Nowhere is there such disregard for human life, like in Islam. For the Sunnis, Shiites are worse than the Jews.”
Muslim law determines that a person who was a Muslim and left the faithshould be killed. Thieves’ hands are cut off, and disrespect for the prophet Mohammed is a cause for mass murder.
At the core, he added, Islam is a religious faith that lacks self confidence. Because of this, any offense to it can rattle the faith of the Muslim and therefore requires a harsh, violent and cruel reaction.
This, too, he explained, is the core reason for the demand by 57 UN member countries to pass a universal law forbidding any attack upon Islam. “This is a fanatic perception rooted in lack of confidence and a lackof conviction regarding faith.”
Prof. Israeli does not think that the problem lies only with extremist Muslims. While it is the extremists who carry out the murders, they enjoy the support of the general population. This, he added, is why the US is having such trouble cobbling together a coalition against the Islamic State. Muslims are not interested in fighting fellow Muslims and would prefer to leave the task for the West.
In this state of affairs, the expert said, there is no way to defeat Islamic State and the radical Islamic movements at present. Israel must make clear that whoever touches it will feel the great wrath of the IDF, and just as Hamas and Hezbollah understood this, so will Islamic State, he stated.
Losers of the world are no longer isolated
…Recently the Middle East Media Research Institute posted transcripts from Facebook and Twitter conversations among various French and British supporters of the Islamic State. They enthusiastically chatted about the exciting news that you can buy slave women in areas controlled by the Islamic State. The terrorist group reportedly captured an unknown number of women from the ethnic minority called Yazidis. They aren’t Muslims, so they can be used as chattel.
The men in the discussions asked all sorts of questions about the rules for sexually abusing (i.e. raping) the women. One British Muslim asked, “I have 3,500 dollars to spare, I am going to buy 10, who wants one?” A French one joked that 180 dollars must be the “price for the ugly ones.” There were plenty of “LOLs” in the thread. Because, you know, collecting the female survivors of mass murder and raping them is just so Laugh-Out-Loud funny to cretins who can only bed women at sword-point.
Many of the Westerners flocking to Syria and Iraq for “Jihad tourism” don’t have any of the usual excuses one hears for terrorism. Just like the 9/11 hijackers, they are often middle class, educated and technologically adept.
What they are not is assimilated. They may have passports identifying them as American, French or British, but they are not American, French or British in their hearts. These labels do not give them the meaning and mission in life they crave. And Western democratic capitalism bores them. Often the children of immigrants, they are literally misfits; they don’t fit in with their parents’ native culture but they also haven’t connected to the society in which they now live.
And that is nothing new. The French intellectual Olivier Roy observed over a decade ago that many of the violent Islamists in Europe were in fact “born-again Muslims” who adopted Islam not so much as a sincere religious conversion but as a radical pose against the West. In previous generations, they might have joined Marxist terror groups.
In other words, the ideology of radical Islamists is a convenient uniform in their crusade for power, sex, vengeance, excitement, whatever. The Telegraph’s Tim Stanley notes that one poll in France finds that more people in France support the Islamic State than residents of the Gaza Strip.
NBC News reports that since the release of the video showing the beheading of American journalist James Foley, some 28,000 pro-Islamic State Twitter accounts were created.
There have always been isolated losers. But that isolation often inspired its own remedy. People want to belong to a community. That desire fuels assimilation and civilization. The horrifying challenge of today is that thanks to the digital age and an ideology and a culture that often sees assimilation as incompatible with ”multiculturalism,” the losers no longer have to stop being losers to cure their sense of isolation. They can join a huge virtual rape gang on the Web and have their evil desires confirmed and celebrated. And some of them, weary of puncturing their masturbatory reveries by pecking out LOL on a keyboard, have the option of hopping on a plane.
Video: ‘We Will Fly the Islamic Flag Over the White House’
But there is one thing everyone must realize in the anti-ISIS crusade: Given the momentum that ISIS has built over the past two years in Syria and Iraq, it would be very difficult to dislodge them from the region. To actually do it would require a full-scale war.
Gen. Allen: Destroy the
Islamic State Now
Gen. John Allen (Ret.) August 20, 2014
The brutal murder of the brave American journalist James Foley is meant to directly terrorize the world’s media, the international community, and the United States. If all the actions of the Islamic State, or IS, to date weren’t sufficiently reprehensible, this act and the potential for other similar acts will snap American attention with laser-like focus onto the real danger IS poses to the existence of Iraq, the order of the region and to the homelands of Europe and America.
Make no mistake, the abomination of IS is a clear and present danger to the U.S.The only question really is whether theU.S. and its allies and partners will act decisively now while they can still shape events to destroy IS, an act that seems increasingly self-obvious.
President Barack Obama, our commander-in-chief, was right to order airstrikes on IS elements in northern Iraq. He was also right to order humanitarian relief for the Yazidis and other desperate Iraqi minority elements fleeing the onslaught of IS elements, but until the grisly death of James Foley much of the American public was only beginning to awaken to what IS is and the enormity of the threat it represents.
The U.S. is now firmly in the game and remains the only nation on the planet capable of exerting the kind of strategic leadership, influence and strike capacity to deal with IS. It is also the only power capable of organizing a coalition’s reaction to this regional and international threat. As a general officer commanding at several levels in the region, I can say with certainty that what we’re facing in northern Iraq is only partly a crisis about Iraq. It is about the region and potentially the world as we know it.
Weeks ago I called for this group to be attacked in the manner only the U.S. can undertake – suddenly, swiftly, surgically – to deal it a setback and to begin the systematic dismantlement of this scourge. As we consider this threat there are some important points to consider that give urgency to the imperative to act:
The Islamic State is executing a well-thought-out campaign design intended to dismantle both Syria and Iraq and install in their place an Islamic Caliphate. Though we’re keyed into it now, we missed it initially.
IS is a well-organized entity, almost certainly supported by former Saddamist regime elements whose hand can be seen in the campaign design now unfolding. This group is not a flash in the pan that will go away of its own accord or if we don’t poke at it. It is not benign. IS is reinforced by Sunni tribal elements from Syria and Iraq, and most alarmingly, is aided by a witch’s brew of foreign fighters from Chechens to Uighurs to Pashtuns, but also including Europeans and Americans. The Caliphate’s Western recruits will be felt in the European and American homelands for years to come regardless of the fate IS and its cause.
IS is quite well heeled. It is flush with recently captured American and Iraqi ordnance and armored vehicles, and awash with dollars lifted from Iraqi banks along its route of advance. It is demonstrating an alarming ability to absorb heavier and more complex military capabilities and put them to work against their erstwhile opponents. IS is able to demonstrate substantial battlefield innovation and agility — two qualities none of us can afford as IS continues its forward movement and attempts to consolidate.
So how should we “see” IS and what is this terrorist group up to?
Within its means, IS is waging total war on the region and its “unbelieving and apostate” populations. Just ask the Christians, Yazidis, Kurds, Shi’a and some Sunni populations who’ve been unlucky enough to be along the IS axis of advance. Before our very eyes, it is transitioning from being a non-state actor into a state-like entity. The leadership of the so-called Caliphate has been clear that it will focus on Western and American targets if given the chance to consolidate its holdings into the so-called Caliphate. It’s worth remembering the Taliban provided the perfect platform from which al-Qaeda attacked the U.S., and the Taliban were and remain as cavemen in comparison to IS. As well, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, has attacked the U.S. at least twice, and they are a mere shadow of IS. Worse, the IS foot soldiers holding U.K., European, and American passports number in the hundreds. We need to prepare ourselves for what this will mean. Foley’s executioner spoke with a British accent.
So what now?
IS must be destroyed and we must move quickly to pressure its entire “nervous system,” break it up, and destroy its pieces. As I said, the president was absolutely right to strike IS, to send advisors to Iraq, to arm the Kurds, to relieve the suffering of the poor benighted people of the region, to seek to rebuild functional and non-sectarian Iraqi Security Forces and to call for profound change in the political equation and relationships in Baghdad.
The whole questionable debate on American war weariness aside, the U.S. military is not war weary and is fully capable of attacking and reducing IS throughout the depth of its holdings, and we should do it now, but supported substantially by our traditional allies and partners, especially by those in the region who have the most to give – and the most to lose – if the Islamic State’s march continues. It’s their fight as much as ours, for the effects of IS terror will certainly spread in the region with ISseeking soft spots for exploitation.
American and allied efforts must operate against IS from Mosul in the east across its entire depth to western Syria. In that regard, “sovereignty” in the context of its airspace and territory is not something we should grant President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. Syria is a failed state neither capable of acting as a sovereign entity nor deserving the respect of one. We cannot leave IS a safe haven anywhere or a secure support platform from which to regroup or enjoy sanctuary across the now-irrelevant frontier between Syria and Iraq.
The tentative successes of the Kurds in rolling back IS from the Mosul Dam should offer a clear signal that this formula of employing indigenous forces coupled with American and allied firepower can be undertaken with effect. Accelerating the refurbishment of the Iraqi security force through a focused advise and assist program can open fronts against IS to the north along the Tigris and west into Anbar Province and along the Euphrates River. To that end, Iraq and Syria’s Sunni tribes and the Free Syrian Resistance can also play a central role in dismantling IS. Many of the tribes are fighting now and many others, ready to fight IS, are begging for U.S. and international support. Their advisory and military support should be a high priority. The Kurds, the Sunnis and the Free Syrian resistance elements of the region are the “boots on the ground” necessary to the success of this campaign, and the attack on IS must comprehensively orchestrate these diverse forces across the entire region. We’ve done this before, but we must view this crisis regionally and cannot fall victim to segmented thinking, approaches and policies that leave any potential allies out of the game or give IS any safe havens or maneuver space.
Bottom line: The president deserves great credit in attacking IS. It was the gravest of decisions for him. But a comprehensive American and international response now — NOW — is vital to the destruction of this threat. The execution of James Foley is an act we should not forgive nor should we forget, it embodies and brings home to us all what this group represents. The Islamic State is an entity beyond the pale of humanity and it must be eradicated. If we delay now, we will pay later.
Gen. John R. Allen, USMC (Ret.) led Marines in Anbar Province and was commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. He is a distinguished fellow of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution.
3,000 Gaza teens graduate Hamas terror school
Islamist PM hails first products of high school course as ‘generation that will liberate the land’
Palestinian students hold rifle-shaped wooden sticks during a graduation ceremony for the first group of schoolchildren’s military training organized by the Hamas education ministry in Gaza City, Thursday, January 24 (photo
To Shape Young Palestinians, Hamas Creates Its Own Textbooks
At government schools it runs in Gaza, Hamas has introduced changes to the approved Palestinian Authority curriculum.
By FARES AKRAM and JODI RUDOREN
GAZA CITY — When a class of Palestinian ninth graders in Gaza recently discussed the deadly 1929 riots over access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem, it was guided by a new textbook, introduced this fall by the Islamist Hamas movement.
Asked the lesson of the uprising, one of the 40 boys in class promptly answered, “Al Buraq Wall is an Islamic property,” using the Muslim name for the site, one of the holiest in Judaism. Pleased, the teacher then inquired whether the students would boycott Israeli products, as Arabs had boycotted Jewish businesses in 1929. A resounding chorus of “Yes!” came back from the class.
For the first time since taking control of the Gaza Strip in 2007, the Hamas movement is deviating from the approved Palestinian Authority curriculum, using the new texts as part of a broader push to infuse the next generation with its militant ideology.
Among other points, the books, used by 55,000 children in the eighth, ninth and 10th grades as part of a required “national education” course of study in government schools, do not recognize modern Israel, or even mention the Oslo Peace Accords the country signed with the Palestine Liberation Organization in the 1990s.
Textbooks have long been a point of contention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which dueling historical narratives and cultural clashes underpin a territorial fight. And they are central examples of what Israeli leaders call Palestinian “incitement” against Jews, held up as an obstacle to peace talks newly resumed under American pressure.
Beyond their take on Israel, the new texts are also a salvo in the war for influence between the rival Palestinian factions: Gaza-based Hamas and Fatah, which dominates the Palestinian Authority and the West Bank. They reflect a growing gulf between the 1.7 million Palestinians living in the densely populated Gaza Strip and the 2.5 million spread among the West Bank’s cities and villages.
“Textbooks are always and everywhere a very important means of representing a national ethos,” said Daniel Bar-Tal, a Tel Aviv University professor who helped lead a comprehensive recent study of Israeli and Palestinian textbooks.
“When a leader says something, not everyone is listening. But when we talk about textbooks, all the children, all of a particular peer group, will be exposed to a particular material,” he added. “This is the strongest card.”
What Gaza teenagers are reading in their 50-page hardcover texts this fall includes references to the Jewish Torah and Talmud as “fabricated,” and a description of Zionism as a racist movement whose goals include driving Arabs out of all of the area between the Nile in Africa and the Euphrates in Iraq, Syria and Turkey.
“Palestine,” in turn, is defined as a state for Muslims stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. A list of Palestinian cities includes Haifa, Beersheba and Acre — all within Israel’s 1948 borders. And the books rebut Jewish historical claims to the territory by saying, “The Jews and the Zionist movement are not related to Israel, because the sons of Israel are a nation which had been annihilated.”
For contemporary history, there is a recounting of Hamas’s battle with Israel last fall that exaggerates: The books say that rockets from Gaza sent “three million Zionists underground for eight days” (somewhat fewer Israelis were in and out of shelters sporadically), that Tel Aviv was hit (one missile landed in the sea, and another fell well short) and that an attempted strike on Israel’s Parliament building “forced the Zionists to beg for cease-fire.”
Yosef Kuperwasser, a senior Israeli official who has led the charge against the incitement, said the new texts were blunter expressions of a dangerous message spread throughout Palestinian schools and news media.
“Palestinians have developed a system of deception — to English-speaking people they sell one story, and to themselves they have a different story,” Mr. Kuperwasser said. “Textbooks are one of the tools with which they tell their children what is the truth.” He added, “If you want real peace, it has to be based on a real change in the culture of hatred.”
The study that Professor Bar-Tal co-led found that Palestinian Authority books generally contained more negative characterizations of Israel and less self-criticism than Israeli books do of Palestinians, but that both sides presented the other as the enemy, failed to properly mark most maps and lacked information about each other’s religion, culture and daily life.
Hamas officials said they had introduced the new textbooks, and doubled the time devoted to the national education course to two sessions per week, because they believed that the Palestinian Authority was under pressure from Israel to sanitize its curriculum. “We need to make sure generations stick to the national rights,” said one Hamas lawmaker, Huda Naim.
The Gaza Strip is home to 465,000 students. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which supports Palestinian refugee families, runs 250 schools for grades one to nine, and the Hamas government controls 400 schools serving all grades (there are also 46 private schools). Both Hamas and the refugee agency use the Palestinian Authority curriculum also taught throughout the West Bank, but Hamas has added programs, like a military training elective introduced in high schools last year that focuses on resistance to Israel.
In April, Hamas approved a law requiring gender-segregated schools from age 9, and making criminal any contact between educational institutions and Israel. Hamas has also recently increased modesty patrols to check clothing on college campuses and to stop young unmarried men and women from fraternizing in public.
Abdel-Hakim Abu Jamous, a spokesman for the Palestinian Authority’s Education Ministry in Ramallah in the West Bank, said no national education textbooks were used in West Bank schools, leaving individual teachers to run lessons as they wish. Jehad Zakarna, a senior official in the ministry, said he had not seen the Hamas textbooks, which were introduced at the start of school on Aug. 20, and therefore could not comment on them.
The new books, written by a Hamas committee, feature cover pictures of Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, a West Bank city, both sites of continuing clashes between Muslim and Jewish worshipers.
Besides their questionable treatment of Israel and Jews, the textbooks present a decidedly Hamas spin on Palestinian politics and recent history. For example, Ahmed Yassin, a Hamas founder, is given equal billing with Yasir Arafat, the former Palestinian president, who remains the definitive national hero in the West Bank.
Anound Ali, a 10th grader at another Gaza City school, expressed concern that the new books could further divide Palestinians. “School textbooks were the last thing uniting us with the West Bank — now we study something different,” she said one recent day after class.
She added: “The book has nothing about Oslo. It’s our right to know about Oslo because it’s a fact in our life.”
At Suliman Sultan School here in Gaza City, a three-story L-shaped building overlooking the rubble of a stadium destroyed by an Israeli F-16 airstrike last November, many students and teachers were thrilled to have the new textbooks.
“It shows the cruelty of the occupation,” said Ahmed Bessisso, a 15-year-old student in the class that discussed the 1929 uprising. “It encourages students to participate in national activities.”
Ahmed’s classmate Mohamed Ajour, also 15, said that he preferred “to study the history of Palestine instead of the history of Egypt or Jordan,” and that the books present the “Palestine I want to learn about — I don’t recognize that Palestine is only Gaza and West Bank.”
Munir Qatayef, who teaches another national education section in the school, said the book had been “big for students.”
“It’s highly politicized,” Mr. Qatayef said. “It’s a lesson of nationalism and belonging.
Fares Akram reported from Gaza, and Jodi Rudoren from Jerusalem.
11:28 PM EST
In my country, Thailand, we have a Muslim uprising. Every day 4-6 people die. People are killed, even old monks and farmers and their heads left by the road. Teachers are murdered, schools burned, restaurants blown up, busses machinegunned–you know–the usual.
The reason the Muslims do this is because in 1780 the Sultanate of Pattanie, southern Thailand was absorbed. The Muslims want it back to create their own state.
They particularly like killing teachers. They beat a 20-year old woman teacher until she was brain-dead. They do this because they do not want the people to learn Thai, which would lead to good jobs and opportunities. they want them to speak only Yala, an unwritten language of Malaysia, which is used in the Madrases.
There are many countries under attack by Muslims and all of them have good, solid reasons, like losing their Sultanate 230 years ago.
Muslim Prof. Says Islamic Immigration ‘Threatens West’
Debate over Muslim immigration in Canada takes unique turn as Canadian non-Muslim columnist defends Islamization.
By Dalit Halevi, Tova Dvorin
First Publish: 3/7/2014, 10:37 AM
The MacDonald-Laurier Institute and the Globe and Mail held a public conference recently on the phenomenon of Muslim immigration to the West, which debated whether or not the influx is bringing a culture of violence to Canada and other Western countries.
The debate was conducted between Doug Saunders, journalist for Foreign Affairs for the Globe and Mail, and Salim Mansur, a Political Science professor at the University of Western Ontario, reports Shalom Toronto.
The two addressed the following questions: Are immigrants from Muslim countries bringing violence and values that are inconsistent with Western values? Are Muslim immigrants integrating into Western society in the same ways that other ethnic minorities do? And, is Muslim immigration a threat to Canada or West?
Interestingly, it was the political science professor – who is, himself, Muslim – who maintained that Islam remains a threat to Canadian society.
Jihadist Terrorism: Not a Religious Movement, but a Political One
Saunders maintained throughout the debate that Muslim immigration presents no threat to Canadian society whatsoever, and stated that claims that the influx had led to a rise in extremism and violence were misleading.
To prove this, Saunders cited a study by British intelligence agencies on criminals and terrorists, which demonstrated that personal trauma, criminal activity, jail time, and especially political beliefs, are more likely to cause crime than Muslim religious beliefs in and of themselves. The study also concluded that religious education protected against – rather than fueled – violent tendencies.
“Jihadist terrorism is a violent political movement, based on territorial claims and religious separatism – a ‘clash of civilizations’ belief based on political extremism, not religious faith,” Saunders noted. “Islam does not draw people into extremism; rather, political extremism draws its members into Islam.”
Thus, according to Saunders, “eliminating Muslim immigration wouldn’t eliminate Islamic extremism from the West or even reduce it significantly.”
The Globe and Mail columnist also addressed concerns that Muslim immigrants will eventually attempt to impose Sharia law in Canada, enacting edicts that oppose secular values, oppress women’s rights, and discriminate against homosexuals. In response, Saunders noted that the possibility of the Muslim community in Canada gaining enough ground to become a political power was unlikely; demographically, he argued the birthrate among Muslim immigrants shrinks after several generations.
“This narrative is built on a basic fallacy,” Saunders stated. “Why would any family endure the trouble and expense of immigrating to a faraway country because they hate its ways? People generally immigrate to places whose values and institutions they find agreeable.” He added that 94% of Muslim immigrants hold they are “proud to be Canadian” and 81% are satisfied with Canada’s political leadership – compared to just 61% of the native Canadian population.
Muslim Immigration: A Threat to the West
Professor Salim Mansur begged to differ.
“Canadians’ mistaken notion that all cultures are equal has disarmed this nation in the confrontation with the illiberal demands of radical Islam,” he fired, noting he was “drawing upon – as an immigrant, as a person of color and as a Muslim – inside knowledge of and lived experience in the cultures of both liberal democracy and Islam.”
“A liberal-democratic society based on individual rights, freedom, and the rule of law cannot indefinitely accommodate non-liberal or illiberal demands from immigrant groups without subverting its own culture,” Mansur noted. He then identified three risk factors: the rise in birthrates among the Muslim community, the nature of Muslim culture and its relationship to non-Muslim cultures, and the West’s multiculturalism.
Statistics cited by the professor include proof that the foreign-born population in Canada has become predominantly non-Western since 1967, especially in major city centers, and that the Muslim immigrant population is growing four times faster than other immigrant populations.
As a culture, Mansur stressed, Islam became a “rigid, closed system” during the 14th century, as a result of a heavy Bedouin influence. Mansur maintains that early Islam found Bedouin culture “savage” – but it nonetheless prevailed.
“The full face of this Bedouin-ized Islamic culture that has wrecked the diversity of the Muslim world from within is to be seen in the bigotry, violence, vulgarity and misogyny of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Khomeini followers,” Mansur noted. “It is the nature of mainstream contemporary Muslim politics – or Islamism – to conform to the Bedouin disposition.”
This disposition, Mansur claimed, characterizes contemporary Islamic values – even in immigrant communities. The things heard in Canadian mosques are “intractably opposed to liberal democracy,” and aim to “ruin from within” Canadian and Western values, according to the Professor.
Multiculturalism, meanwhile, threatens to allow this attitude to rear its ugly head in the political sphere, according to Mansur.
“In having swallowed the toxin of official multiculturalism, Canada has disarmed itself of the ability to discriminate between immigrant groups which are importing cultural baggage that is harmless, and those that are toxic to the values of liberal democracy,” Mansur concludes.
October 2, 2011
Former ISI Chief Hamid Gul: ‘As Muslims, We Are Militant by Nature’; ‘Afghanistan and Pakistan, With China At Their Back, Will Be Too Powerful a Bloc [Against U.S./India]‘; ‘Islamic Forces Are Also Moving to Confront India’
In a recent interview, Lt.-Gen. (retired) Hamid Gul, former chief of Pakistani military’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), argued that it is not in Pakistan’s interest to be part of the U.S. efforts for peace talks with the Taliban. “It is good if Pakistan is not involved in the talks [with the Taliban] because the goals that the U.S. wants to achieve are not in Pakistan’s interest. The U.S. wants Indian supremacy in Afghanistan,” he added.
In the interview, conducted after the May 2, 2011 Abbottabad operation, Gul noted that the situation began shifting in favor of Pakistan after the Pakistani military began confronting the U.S. He stated: “If the U.S. wants Pakistani assistance, it should come with its issues, but it should keep it in mind that American goals cannot be achieved because the Taliban are not defeated, but it is the U.S. [which has been defeated in Afghanistan].” The interview was published by the right-wing Urdu-language dailyRoznama Ummat.
On the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Gul granted another interview to the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat. In it, he said that the “9/11 was basically a pretext for the Americans to establish a permanent presence in Afghanistan, as this is a central strategic location. From here, the Americans can contain China, control the Middle East and South Asia, and keep an eye on Central Asia. Pakistan represents their central target.”
Accusing the U.S. and India of aiding the Taliban and trying todestablize Karachi so that the Pakistan Army could be embroiled in a security operation in Karachi, Pakistan’s largest commercial city, the former ISI chief said Pakistan has found an important ally in China, which could enable Pakistan to confront the U.S. “Our problem was that we didn’t have any alternative [to the U.S.]. Luckily we now have an alternative in the form of China,” he said. He added: “China will become an economic superpower without firing a single bullet. China will be the biggest beneficiary when U.S. troops leave the region.”
He also noted, “The U.S. divided the Pakistani nation and has asked India to provide weapons to Tehreek-e-Taliban in Pakistan. They are the ones responsible for destabilizing Karachi. In addition to this, India is fragmenting. Take it from me, their democracy is falling apart and voices of revolution are coming out of India.”
Following are excerpts from the Roznama Ummat interview,1 and from the Al-Sharq Al-Awsat interview:2
Roznama Ummat Interview
“It Is the U.S.’s Misunderstanding That It Will Be Able to Hold Talks With the Taliban… By Keeping Pakistan Out”
Question: “U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has confirmed that they are holding talks with the Taliban. Announcements regarding talks with the Taliban are being made and humiliation of Pakistan is also continuing. What would the role of Pakistan be in this backdrop, for the U.S. is holding direct talks with Taliban?”
Hamid Gul: “It is the U.S.’s misunderstanding that it will be able to hold talks with the Taliban on its own, by keeping Pakistan out; it is altogether impossible. The Taliban have grievances against us but not as much as they have against the U.S. The Taliban are asking the U.S. to first give a deadline of their exit from Afghanistan, only then the talks would be held.
“Americans have three major goals: one, The Taliban should join Karzai government; two, [the Taliban should] accept the constitution [of Afghanistan] made by them [the U.S.]; and third, the [Taliban should accept] establishment of their military bases. This is the same scenario as when the U.S., at the time of Soviet troop withdrawal, wanted the Mujahideen to include [Afghan leader] Najibullah in the government…”
“The whole scenario of that period is before me; and the U.S. is merely repeating that case. Today only we can say what would be the next step of the U.S.; despite all these troubles Allah is again kind to Pakistan and the key to the resolution of this issue lies with Pakistan. American goals have come to the fore and they are just groping in the dark. The real opposition is the Taliban; and [Hizb-e-Islami of Gulbuddin] Hekmatyar is of the same view… [Hekmatyar] is not as powerful as Mullah Omar…”
“The Taliban had Set Three Conditions for Direct Talks: First, Give a Date of [Troop] Withdrawal; Second, Release Our Prisoners; And Third, Drop the Allegation of Terrorism on the Taliban”
Question: “But why does the U.S. want to keep Pakistan out?”
Hamid Gul: “The Taliban are not ready to accept the conditions which the U.S. is putting before them. While the U.S. wants Pakistan to get these conditions met, Pakistan could not do that. The Americans are pressuring Pakistan instead of holding talks. The Americans are used to taking the course of pressuring, assaulting and sometimes cajoling to get their work done by Pakistan. [Former Pakistani President] Pervez Musharraf made them habitual of keeping Pakistan suppressed; and now they want to get every work done through pressure and ‘do more’ [demands].
“If the U.S. wants Pakistani assistance, it should come with its issues but it should keep in mind that American goals cannot be achieved because the Taliban were not defeated, rather it is the U.S. [which has been defeated in Afghanistan]. Even if the U.S. includes Pakistan in its talks with Taliban, even then their conditions will not be acceptable to the Taliban. That is why it is a good thing, in my view, that Pakistan is not included in the talks. Unless the U.S. makes amendments in its demands, unless the establishment of an interim government takes place in Afghanistan, this problem will not be resolved.”
Question: “But they are inviting the Taliban to join the government?”
Hamid Gul: “[There is a need for] an interim government which could make arrangements for American retreat or hold talks either through [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai or directly. The Taliban had set three conditions for direct talks: first, give a date of [troop] withdrawal; second, release our prisoners; and third, drop the allegation of terrorism on the Taliban. The Taliban have put these three basic conditions for talks [but] Americans are not ready for that. However, time for being beaten by onions and shoes has come for the Americans. It will happen but till that time they must suffer lots of beating. That is why the Taliban are maintaining the strategy of not holding talks with the U.S. now.
“Now the U.S. is offering dollars for holding talks with the Taliban. Earlier, a person named Akhtar Mansoor made $5 million [by promising to broker talks]. The Americans are being looted by many such Afghans but there are no talks with the Taliban because talks could not be held with those U.S. goals. That is why I find it better if they themselves keep Pakistan out. If they involve Pakistan in it – then they would ask Pakistan to force the Taliban to hold talks by putting the arms down and this would be a ridiculous condition.
“Pakistan should in no way accept any such U.S. conditions. Afghans take their decision after lots of considerations. When our help was continuing for the Afghan jihad [in the 1980s], General Ziaul Haq [the Pakistani military ruler] had suggested to them to make a three-party government in which Najibullah should also be included. The Mujahideen did not accept that. I had also asked General Ziaul Haq not to try to make the Afghan Mujahideen accept such things. In this perspective, it is better for Pakistan not to be included in the talks. Nothing could be achieved through dialogues unless the U.S. cuts down its conditions. That is why it is better to keep away from the talks.”
“It is Good If Pakistan is Not Involved in the Talks [With the Taliban] Because the Goals that the U.S. Wants to Achieve are Not in Pakistan’s Interest”
Question: “Were Americans going to hold talks with the Haqqani Network?”
Hamid Gul: “The U.S. always wants to divide the Taliban. [Jalaluddin] Haqqani had taken an oath of allegiance on the hands of Mullah Omar; the Haqqani Network is not independent… Jalaluddin Haqqani cannot hold any dialogue on his own, and he will not do so. They had tried to hold talks with Hekmatyar. [Afghan government representatives] Arsalan Rahmani and Burhanuddin Rabbani had started this process but when Rabbani came to visit me I told him that the path they are taking will not make headway…”
“The U.S. is putting the condition [that the Talban] accept the constitution. How will they accept the constitution prepared by an occupying nation? I had a detailed meeting with him [Jalaluddin Haqqani]. I said that the Sharia system would be implemented in Afghanistan in any case. The Americans think that some solution might come out. Many of their spies come to me disguised as American journalists; when I say that the Taliban would not agree to any system other than the Sharia, those Americans say that the Sharia system will not be acceptable to them. Then my answer to them is: stay 20 more years in Afghanistan because Sharia would surely be implemented in Afghanistan. The situation will change when the occupation’s U.S. forces’ first contingent leaves Afghanistan…”
Question: “[The Pakistani military] says that they are under both internal and external pressure [to act against the militants]. Which pressure should be accepted…?”
Hamid Gul: “My suggestion is that we should talk by standing up with full confidence and tell the Americans that this will not go anymore. Neither do they fund our… [military operations] nor do they share intelligence in accordance with their promise; they hold us responsible instead [for not acting against militants]. Therefore, if we stand up, the U.S. will retreat. It needs Pakistan very much and it cannot do without Pakistan.
“It is good if Pakistan is not involved in the talks [with the Taliban] because the goals that the U.S. wants to achieve are not in Pakistan’s interest. The U.S. wants Indian supremacy in Afghanistan; that is why the U.S. has put Afghanistan in South Asia, taking it out from West Asia [i.e. Middle East on world map]. The second condition is that Pakistan and Afghanistan should accept Israel… Then a coalition government could be established and then the constitution prepared by the U.S. could be accepted and permanent bases for the U.S. could be established [in Afghanistan]. These all are impossible.”
“There Have Been Internal Reports Issued by the U.S. Administration That the Real Threat to American Influence in the Coming Decades Will Be From Muslims and China”
Question: “Now, one decade after the terrible events of 9/11, what is the security situation in the region? Do you think Pakistan and Afghanistan are safer than they were before? Is America safer?”
Hamid Gul: “Firstly, we must understand that 9/11 was basically a pretext for the Americans to establish a permanent presence in Afghanistan, as this is a central strategic location. From here, the Americans can contain China, control the Middle East and South Asia, and keep an eye on Central Asia. Pakistan represents their central target. I could put forward a lot of arguments of a technical nature to the effect that 9/11 was an inside job. I could go into detail, but this will divert from the subject of your interview.
“There have been internal reports issued by the U.S. administration that the real threat to American influence in the coming decades will be from Muslims and China. The Russians killed 1.3 million Afghans; however so far the Americans have only killed 50,000 Afghans. Historians are in agreement that America is a declining power… In my opinion, the Americans have now lost in the [Afghan] battlefield.
“As far as Pakistan is concerned, there were security concerns [before 9/11], there are security concerns today, and there will be security concerns in the near future. However we have not left the danger zone. The situation where the Americans could have pressured us is no more.”
“China will Be the Biggest Beneficiary When U.S. Troops Leave the Region; On the Other Hand, Islamic Forces Are Also Moving to Confront India”
Question: “You have always been a strong critic of U.S. military presence in the region. If the U.S. forces withdraw from Afghanistan on schedule in 2014, how will this impact the regional security situation?”
Hamid Gul: “China will become an economic superpower without firing a single bullet. China will be the biggest beneficiary when U.S. troops leave the region. This will mean that China will emerge as the most important power in the region, particularly as China enjoys naturally strong relations with Pakistan. As far as India is concerned, I have always said that India is on the wrong side of history.”
Question: “However isn’t India also an emerging economic power?”
Hamid Gul: “No, it is not. Their economic strength is false. In India, 300 million people have joined the middle class and they are enjoying urban elite status, but this does not mean that the 900 million deprived Indians will not rise up one day. There is the so-called ‘red corridor’ in India where Maoist movements are present. On the other hand, Islamic forces are also moving to confront India. India was with the capitalist forces in this war against Islamic forces, and the Islamic forces are winning.
“As for China, it is not merely an economic power; it is also a strategic ally of Pakistan. Recently China has taken very strong positions in support of Pakistan and has criticized India. In the wake of the Abbottabad operation (that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden), the Chinese [also] took a strong position in support of Pakistan.”
“The U.S. … Asked India to Provide Weapons to Tehreek-e-Taliban; They Are… Responsible for Destabilizing Karachi; India is Fragmenting; The Combination of Afghanistan And Pakistan, with China at Their Back, will Be Too Powerful a Bloc [Against the U.S. and India]“
Question: “Do you believe that the Pakistani government and military will be able to stabilize Pakistan in the event that U.S. forces withdraw from Afghanistan?”
Hamid Gul: “Yes, Pakistan can definitely stabilize itself. [In fact] U.S. influence has been a destabilizing factor. Look at Karachi, for example; who is responsible for the massacre in Karachi? The U.S. divided the Pakistani nation and has asked India to provide weapons to Tehreek-e-Taliban in Pakistan. They are the ones responsible for destabilizing Karachi. In addition to this, India is fragmenting. Take it from me, their democracy is falling apart and voices of revolution are coming out of India.
“An alternative to the democratic system has to emerge, and that can come from Islamic sources. Religion is a very powerful sentiment. Islam is even more powerful because it is in a resurgent state. It is a comprehensive system; that is why it is so dominant. Therefore Pakistan can emerge as a model on three issues; religion, nationalism, and democracy. This is because we are constitutionally committed to all these dominant trends of the 21st century. The combination of Afghanistan and Pakistan, with China at their back, will be too powerful a bloc [against the U.S. and India]. This represents a potential emerging giant in the world, not through territorial expansions, but by acting as a role model.”
Question: “Following the 9/11 attacks, the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan witnessed a steep rise in religious militancy. What, in your opinion, were the causes for this, and how do you see the situation developing in Pakistan and Afghanistan over the coming years?”
Hamid Gul: “The primary cause is the presence of such a large number of foreign occupation troops in Afghanistan. This is such a huge conflict and it certainly had its repercussions. When a bomb falls on the ground, the shrapnel flies in all direction and become very harmful [to everybody]. This was not our fight; this was the fight of the Americans who [former Pakistani President] General Musharraf brought to our homeland.
“General Musharraf first divided the Pakistani nation through his policies. He pitted enlightened moderates against extremists. Have you ever seen a leader who divides his own nation in this manner? General Musharraf’s policies created a reaction in the people who name themselves Islamists. They thought that both their own government and the American government were against them. This reaction led to an upheaval within Pakistani society.”
“Americans are Asking Pakistan to Accept Indian Hegemony in the Region; Our Problem Was That We Had No Alternative [to the U.S.]; Luckily We Now Have An Alternative, In the Form of China”
Question: “You previously claimed that Pakistan and Afghanistan, supported by China, will emerge as a powerful international bloc; however the Pakistani ruling elite today are pro-U.S. So how is this possible?”
Hamid Gul: “We have to take the new situation in Pakistan into account. The Pakistani military has now started taking firmer positions on different issues regarding our national interests. What they are saying [to Washington] is ‘friends not masters.’ This explains the whole history of Pakistan’s relations with the U.S. They start by making Pakistan a friend but in the end we realize that in fact they are our masters… and that they are treating us like subordinates. This is something that begins to fester in the mind, and so Pakistan has now started to take a stand against Washington.
“Now they (the U.S.) are desperately asking Pakistani army to start an operation in North Waziristan. They want to create a situation in Karachi to embroil the Pakistani army in. In fact, there a tussle taking place between the will of the Pakistani people and the U.S. agenda in the region. In addition to this, the Americans are asking Pakistan to accept Indian hegemony in the region. Our problem was that we had no alternative [to the U.S.]. Luckily we now have an alternative, in the form of China.”
“If We [Pakistan] Play a Role in Afghanistan, Then Iran will Demand to Play a Role; If Iran Plays a Role, Then Many in the Arab World Will Also Demand a Role in This Situation”
Question: “How can Pakistan help to stabilize Afghanistan following the U.S. withdrawal?”
Hamid Gul:“The Afghans are quite capable of handling their own affairs. Pakistan should not even try to poke its nose in the affairs of the Afghans. Look at history; they [the Afghans] have repeatedly defeated superpowers on their own territory. Nobody has ever succeeded in controlling Afghanistan. They defeated the British three times; the Russians once; and now they are on the verge of defeating the Americans. History tells us that they are capable of resolving their own disputes, so what advice can we give them?”
Question: “But surely Pakistan will play some future political role in Afghanistan?”
Hamid Gul: “This is a very complex situation, because if we play a role in Afghanistan, then Iran will demand to play a role. If Iran plays a role, then many in the Arab world will also demand a role in this situation. So in my opinion nobody should play any role in Afghanistan’s situation.
“Americans want to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. They are demanding that they be given bases in Afghanistan. Let me tell you, even [Afghan President] Hamid Karzai will not be prepared to give them [permanent] bases in Afghanistan. When they asked for this, he told them that this was not his decision; it is the decision of the [Afghan] parliament.
“Secondly he presented three conditions to the Americans; firstly, that U.S. bases will be under Afghan law; secondly, that U.S. bases will not be used as a base for an invasion of any kind against a third country; and thirdly that the Americans will provide weapons to Afghan troops. The Americans have lost; they will never to be able to achieve their objectives. But yes, I still say that the people of Afghanistan are ready to declare that they will not allow their territory to be used against any other country, whilst they also require additional time for the reconstructing of their country.”
Question: “What about the fears that Afghanistan may be transformed into a battleground between Pakistan and India?”
Hamid Gul: “India has played a very negative role in Afghanistan. If India is assigned any role in Afghanistan, then Pakistan will definitely get involved in Afghanistan [as well]. It will be a very bad situation. I think nobody should have any role in Afghanistan. If Pakistan doesn’t have any role, than Indian[s] should also similarly not have any role.”
“Al-Qaeda Trapped the Americans in Afghanistan And Now They Have Shifted Their Interest to the Middle East; A Broad-Based Government in Afghanistan is a Possibility Only After the U.S. Withdraws from the Country”
Question: “Will the attempts for reconciliation [with Taliban] in Afghanistan succeed?”
Hamid Gul: “The Americans are working towards the Taliban joining the coalition government. I think it is impossible. The Americans want the Taliban to distance themselves from Al-Qaeda; however that is a misconception. Al-Qaeda has a different objective from the Taliban. Al-Qaeda trapped the Americans in Afghanistan and now they have shifted their interest to the Middle East. A broad-based government in Afghanistan is a possibility only after the U.S. withdraws from the country.”
Question: “Do you think that there are details about the Abbottabad operation, which resulted in the death of Osama Bin Laden, still to come to light?”
Hamid Gul: “Yes, definitely. Osama Bin Laden died. However the CIA had [previously] shut down the hunt for Osama Bin Laden in 2005, and during the next three years of his presidential term, George W. Bush didn’t even once mention Osama bin Laden in his speeches. When Obama came to power he wanted to bring the war to an end. He wanted to be a president of peace and after it was discovered that some members of Osama bin Laden were living near Abbottabad they [the U.S. and Pakistan] planned this operation.
“However during this period, the issue of Raymond Davis (the American CIA contractor who killed two Pakistani citizens in Lahore) occurred. This led to tensions between CIA chief [Leon] Panetta and ISI chief Lt.-General [Ahmed Shuja] Pasha. This resulted in the CIA announcing that they didn’t trust the ISI, and the Americans then carried out this operation unilaterally.
“I Think… [Al-Zawahiri] Has Gone to Yemen; I Don’t Think He Is in Pakistan; He Did Get Married in Bajaur [in Pakistan] But I Think Al-Qaeda’s Center of Gravity Has Shifted to the Middle East”
Question: “Have you read the statements by Osama Bin Laden’s wives and daughters regarding this operation? These statements were made by the bin Laden family members to Pakistani intelligence officers, and were later leaked to the media. What is your opinion of these statements?”
Hamid Gul: “These reports are not worth commenting on. I don’t trust these reports.”
Question: “Do you believe new Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri is hiding out in the Pakistani tribal area?”
Hamid Gul: No, I think he has gone to Yemen. I don’t think he is in Pakistan. He did get married in Bajaur [in the Pakistani tribal area] but I think Al-Qaeda’s center of gravity has shifted to the Middle East. There is not a heavy Al-Qaeda presence in Pakistan; there are only a couple of dozen [Al-Qaeda] members here only.”
1 Roznama Ummat (Pakistan), June 21, 2011.
2 Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), September 11, 2011. The text of the interview has been lightly edited for clarity.
In Tweets, Pakistani Nuclear Scientist Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan Legitimates Attacks On America, Advocates Global Islamism And Arming The Taliban to Shoot Down U.S. Drones
By: Tufail Ahmad*
Using the micro-blogging website Twitter, former Pakistani nuclear scientist Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan glorifies the advancement of the Pakistani nuclear program, inculcates global Islamism among his followers, and seeks to legitimize attacks against the West.Khan is chairperson of the Tehreek-e-Tahafuz-e-Pakistan (TTP or the Movement for the Defense of Pakistan), a new political party. Using the handle @DrAQ_Khan, he has published more than 1,000 tweets as of February 11, 2013 and has over 18,800 followers. His tweets are aimed at a nationalistic audience of Pakistanis. The tweets comment on issues and events in Pakistani life; for example, sending greetings on Prophet Muhammad’s birthday or when Pakistan’s cricket team wins matches, steps for electoral reforms in Pakistan, activities of Pakistani government, endorsing tweets and websites that promote Shi’ite-Sunni unity in Pakistan, justifying Pakistan’s nuclear program, supporting freedom for Kashmir, and criticizing India and the Amn ki Ashapeace initiative launched jointly by Pakistani and Indian media groups, among others.
Khan’s tweets also link to his columns in Roznama Jang and The News, major Pakistani dailies. A November 12, 2012 tweet linked to a column in which he favors a system of religious schools in Pakistan so that “students coming [out] of these schools would then not only have religious knowledge (Koran, Seerat-un-Nabi, Ahadees [personality and sayings of the prophet])… but also knowledge of Urdu, mathematics, science, history, geography….” A September 21, 2012 post he retweeted reveals his ideological stance on Pakistani politics and society: “Come forward as servants of Islam, organize the people economically, socially, educationally and politically.” Advocating an international Islamism, he tweeted on October 2, 2012: “Pakistan is bound to become the headquarters of the world Islamic government in future!”
Khan, who was forced under U.S. pressure by Pakistani military ruler General Pervez Musharraf to go on television in 2004 to admit his role in international nuclear proliferation, is being watched for his possible participation in the 2013 elections in Pakistan, though his party is unlikely to win. On February 3, he tweeted an announcement: “We’ll contest these elections along with Jamaat-e-Islami.” A tweet dated January 28 noted that a “missile” will be the symbol of Tehreek-e-Tahafuz-e-Pakistan in the upcoming elections. On February 2, he expressed a desire to be a caretaker prime minister of Pakistan during the 2013 elections, stating: “If I were given the chance to become the caretaker prime minister, I’d accept it with impartiality and justice.” Earlier, in a tweet dated December 4, 2012, Khan noted that he “personally wouldn’t run [in] elections” but would run a campaign in favor of his Tehreek-e-Tahafuz-e-Pakistan party.
Through his tweets in mid-January 2013, Dr. Khan endorsed a failed bid by Pakistani religious scholar Tahir-ul-Qadri to unseat the elected Pakistani government through an uprising, ruing in a January 17 tweet that cricketer-turned politician Imran Khan rescued the government by not joining Qadri’s mass rally in Islamabad. In other posts, the former nuclear scientist has stated that he disagrees with Qadri in many respects. His hopes for a revolutionary change in Pakistan were dashed when Qadri’s march failed. Khan, who is seen as the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program, is aware that the 2013 general elections in Pakistan may test his popularity, as expressed in a December 14, 2012 tweet: “Elections 2013 shall make it clear how much my nation loves me and how much respect I earned. My last test as a patriot.”
Tweets On Kashmir And India: “It Should Be Clear That India Would’ve Thrown Acid A Thousand Times On Pakistan And Kashmir If We Weren’t A Nuclear Power”
On the occasion of Kashmir Solidarity Day on February 5 this year, he tweeted that “our people can bring freedom for Kashmir this year, by using their votes rightly in elections 2013 [i.e. by voting for Khan's allies].” A day earlier, his tweet noted in Urdu: “India you do not have that line [of destiny] on your palm, Kashmir is not the fiefdom of your father…” On February 2, he outlined a national agenda for Pakistan, stating: “#FreeKashmir is a trend which should top not only Pakistan but the world as well.”
A January 24, 2013 tweet defended his role in making Pakistan a nuclear-armed state, noting: “If Pakistan weren’t a nuclear state, India would’ve gone too far in its quest for gaining power and destroyed Asian peace and stability.” He is routinely criticized by Indian Twitterati, to which he responded in a tweet dated December 8, 2012: “All the hate coming in my timeline from Twitter users of India proves my point. Hinduism isn’t a religion. It’s an ideology as well.”
In December 2012, Zeeshan Abbas, the captain of Pakistan’s “blind” cricket team, accidently consumed phenyl, a cleaning fluid, apparently mistaking it for mineral water in his Bangalore hotel. He was hospitalized and cleared to play by Indian doctors in Bangalore. However, the incident was presented by some groups in Pakistan as an acid attack on Pakistani cricketers. On December 8, Khan posted several tweets: “It should be clear that India would’ve thrown acid a thousand times on Pakistan and Kashmir if we weren’t a nuclear power”; “The attack on our blind cricket team captain is a slap on face of those so-called [Pakistani] liberals who favor Hinduism and deny two-nation theory [a movement that Hindus and Muslims could not live together that led to the creation of Pakistan in 1947].”
A series of his tweets dated September 8, 2012 sought to justify the Pakistani nuclear program. He noted in his tweets that Pakistani leader Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto had the foresight to see the emerging nuclear challenge from India, stating: “After fall of Dhaka [in the 1971 war leading to the creation of Bangladesh] India was working on nuclear bomb; Bhutto could foresee the coming challenges and he started thinking of a nuclear state [of Pakistan];” “You see no major war by India after attaining nuclear bomb [in 1998]; so it is evident that Pakistan is much safer than non-nuclear Pakistan.” To mark Pakistan’s Defense Day, he noted in a tweet dated September 6, 2012: “Praise be to Allah I am sure … that by virtue of our nuclear program we don’t suffer external threats, only minor internal ones.”
In tweets dated August 22, 2012, he observed: “After 1971, India became a tiger and tried to wage wars in 1987 and 1999…”; “After our nuclear explosions [in 1998], India never even dared to look at Pakistan with dirty eyes….”; “Today Pakistan stands tall and looks into the world eye to eye [i.e. confrontationally – in South Asian English]! No matter how much problems we suffer, we’re alive and filled with pride”; “Our nuclear program helped to establish equilibrium in this region [of South Asia], causing peace and stability with no chance of war in near or far future”; “Why did not India again wage a war against Pakistan after Mumbai [terror] attacks in 2008…”; “Reason being this time India knew Pakistan can pay them back in the same coin!”
On December 26, 2012, Khan retweeted a post in his honor by the Shi’ite group Jaferia News Network – @JNNsms – that noted in Urdu: “No Muslim can make an atomic bomb unless he enjoys the patronage of Muhammad and his family members.”
Apparently endorsing a likely North Korean nuclear design against America, he tweeted two days earlier that Pyongyang “may have nuclear missile technology that could hit the U.S. West Coast” – which was linked to a news report by the British newspaper Daily Mail. On September 27, 2012, he praised Pakistani military leader Ziaul Haq saying he “was a dictator but he was a patriotic ruler” and in another tweet the same day stressed the strength of the nuclear-capable state of Pakistan with regard to its foreign policy relations with the West: “[With Pakistan] even having nuclear capability, it is wrong perception that we cannot take action against the United States, England or France.” On September 12, 2012, his tweet stated: “It’s high time America explains to the world the big question mark [regarding nuclear security] now raised on its own nuclear program….”
In a tweet dated November 10, 2012, he noted the United Nations declaration of Malala Day, after liberal Pakistani activist Malala Yousafzai, who was shot and wounded by Taliban militants in Pakistan. But he used the occasion to demand that the UN announce such a day for the victims of U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan, noting: “I hope UN will one day announce drone attack victims day too…” Earlier, in an October 12, 2012 tweet, three days after the Taliban attack on Malala, he noted: “We must also raise our voice for thousands of our daughters who’re becoming orphans because of drone attacks…” On the same day, he condemned the Pakistani Taliban for “degrading Islam.”
But a few weeks earlier, in a tweet on September 27, 2012, he suggested that Pakistan’s Hamza series of missiles could be given to the Pakistani Taliban without Pakistani army involvement in order to target the U.S. drones, stating: “By even giving Hamza missile to our brothers [i.e. the Taliban] in FATA [federally administered tribal areas of Pakistan], we can destroy drones in Pakistan without army assistance.” On September 22, 2012, his tweets stressed that following the paths shown by the Koran and Sunnah (deeds and sayings of Prophet Muhammad) is the best way to hurt the West, stating: “The act of Muslims that hurts the West the most is the following [of] Koran and Sunnah. We must follow them to give them an answer”; “One who is a servant of the prophet, he is our leader…” On August 29, 2012, he tweeted: “Pakistan has the technology to destroy American drones! If our government used it rightly, America would have never dared to kill our innocent people.”
In numerous tweets, he has expressed love for Prophet Muhammad, an issue of emotional religious significance in Pakistani society conflicted over liberal demands to reform the country’s controversial blasphemy laws, stating in a September 17, 2012 post: “Nothing more precious than the love of our prophet…” Commenting about an anti-Islam movie on YouTube that enraged Muslim sensibilities worldwide, Khan posted several tweets on September 17, 2012, noting the following: “[The] government of Pakistan should block NATO supply too until the blasphemous material is removed from internet by these Western search engines”; “I am certainly in favor of permanent ban on YouTube if they are not willing to remove the disgraceful material from their site…” On the same day, his tweet greeted the entire team of Pakistan’s Babur cruise missile Hatf-VII.
In tweets on September 19, 2012 about the controversy over the anti-Islam movie on YouTube, Khan said: “Western nations are trying to test our patience by going into blasphemy beginning from statements, cartoons to directly hitting us”; “Behind these blasphemous acts are Western states which are using these individuals as their state tools. #America.” The controversial anti-Islam film, Innocence of Muslims, was made by Mark Basseley, an Egyptian-born U.S.-based Christian, but Khan dubbed it as a Jewish film released to attack Islam. In a tweet on September 17, 2012, he urged Pakistan and Muslims around the globe to boycott YouTube on September 20-22, 2012 “to record protest against Jewish film about Islam.” A day earlier, his tweet noted: “All Muslim countries should strive for an international blasphemy law which will include all faiths and religions. It’s the only way forward.”
“Einstein Has Been Regard[ed] As Father Of Science And Physics For Supporting America Destroying The World”; “Only Reason Western World Finds Our Nuclear Program A Threat Is They Can’t Figure Out How Did We Succeed In Beating Them In Technology” [They stole it.]
Although his tweets are generally about Pakistan, Khan sees an Islamic – rather than secular democratic – future for Pakistan and believes in global Islamism. In a tweet dated September 13, 2012, he urged Muslim nations not to destabilize other Muslim countries such as Syria, stating: “Muslim countries shouldn’t try to destabilize other Muslim countries by supporting Western propaganda #Syria #FakeRevolution.” On August 22, 2012, he tweeted: “If we didn’t initiate our nuclear program, Pakistan would have been no different than Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Syria today!”
In a tweet dated September 9, 2012 he rejected the idea that Pakistan’s founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah advocated a secular future for Pakistan, noting: “If… [his] dream was a secular Pakistan, he’d have never supported the idea of formation of a separate nation for Muslims.” On the same day, his tweet stressed that he cannot be dubbed a nuclear proliferator because he did not do so for money, stating: “Nuclear proliferation is a baseless allegation and if it was true then my priority would have been money making. But where is the money?”
On September 9, 2012, Khan posted several tweets, revealing his ideological standpoint regarding the West. In two of the tweets, he stated: “Einstein has been regard[ed] as father of science and physics for supporting America destroying the world”; “Was Einstein not a nuclear proliferator when he handed over all German nuclear research and centrifuge processing to America?” On the same day, he tweeted: “Only reason Western world finds our nuclear program a threat is they can’t figure out how did we succeed in beating them in technology!”
“Pakistan’s Nuclear Program Is Far Advanced Than Any Other Nation”; “Today We’ve Surpassed Even America (Founders Of Nuclear Warfare) In Terms Of Nuclear Advancement”
In some tweets, he has blamed the West for calling Pakistan’s nuclear bomb an “Islamic bomb.” However, in tweets dated August 23, 2012, he stated: “I have no problem if they call it an Islamic bomb. We admit it’s an Islamic bomb and just like Islam (which means peace) it’ll maintain peace”; “The Western world is united in Muslim-bashing and ridiculing Islam and its golden values.” On August 24, 2012, his tweets noted: “The Americans themselves sold us all kinds of computers for use in Kahuta [nuclear laboratory] as well as electronic components and other nuclear-specific things”; “The Afghan war [of the 1980s] was a blessing for our nuclear program since Western countries were too scared with the Russian invasion of Afghanistan [and needed Pakistani assistance].”
Writing about the current state of the Pakistani nuclear program, Khan tweeted on August 21, 2012: “Pakistan’s nuclear program is far advanced than any other nation even when we’re competing any highly developed nation”; “Atom bomb wasn’t called Pakistan bomb; it was named Islamic bomb as it has showed the world we can still do better than what you do”; “Our nation has never learnt to live under fear; we’re brave people and we’ll stay strong no matter, how much you’ll try to suppress us!” A tweet dated August 22, 2012 noted: “Today we’ve surpassed even America (founders of nuclear warfare) in terms of nuclear advancement….”
When he began tweeting on August 6, 2012, Khan talked about the security of Pakistani nuclear weapons, stating: “Truth is our warheads can’t get destroyed by any missile once they’ve been launched! They’re not projectiles”; “We’ve almost 95% uranium enrichment and almost 80 to 90% fission during the nuclear bomb blasts! Unachievable for others”; “In America’s nuclear bomb only 60% fission is possible and in India only 40 to 50%. Pakistan is far advanced.” Khan sees himself as interested in application of technologies. In a September 1, 2012 tweet, he stated: “As a scientist I have always been interested in all important, applied scientific disciplines.”
* Tufail Ahmad is Director of MEMRI’s South Asia Studies Project (www.memri.org/sasp)
 The original English of all tweets used in this dispatch has been mildly edited for clarity and standardization.
 Twitter.com/DrAQ_Khan, accessed February 11, 2013. The authenticity of the account is verified by a January 4, 2013 tweet that links to the “official website” of Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan’s Tehreek-e
-Tahafuz Pakistan party, Tehreek.pk. In a tweet dated October 18, 2012, Khan noted that his tweets are sometimes written by himself, but “mostly” by his secretary.
 The News (Pakistan), November 12, 2012.
 For the full text of his apology, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/feb/05/pakistanhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/feb/05/pakistan, February 5, 2004.
Top-secret U.S. intelligence files show new levels of distrust of Pakistan