[nukkad] you reap what you sow

[Goyal Nitin <>]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tip of the day:  To get today's listing of the NIFTY (NSE stock index), send 
an email to get-nse@mumbai-central.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

the attacks on US of yesterday are a reaction to US's foreign policy over
the years. US was supplying arms to pakistan for decades, for onward supply
to taliban. the US built up the taliban with funds and arms so taliban would
fight the USSR in afganistan. now that USSR is out of afganistan, and
taliban has turned its back on the US and is threatening it, the US wants to
dis-arm the taliban. 

US has built up militant forces (and so terrorists) for its own political
use in various countries: afganistan, pakistan, libya, iraq, ....... . it
has encouraged weaponisation to keep its defense industry well oiled and
profitable.

US attacked iraq when it captured kuwait, because US's cheap oil supply from
kuwait got threatened. where was the US when bosnia was breaking up? too bad
bosnia didn't have oil. the US has always involved itself only if it is
affected directly, even if it calls itself the global policeman. the
terrorist strikes across the world were not awakening the "policeman." this
would.

it will definitely try and pin the responsibility on a nation, then few
organised terrorist bands and will seek retribution, which is very logical.
these nations could be iraq, afghanistan, lebanon, syria etc, and not openly
now but definitely pakistan. 

it is definitely going to strike back & hard, and with global support. it
has been wounded where it hurts most - US pride (with the hits on economy,
government, and the loss of human life.) they are going to strike on the
islamic fundamentalists - afganistan definitely, pakistan also. the
pakistani madrasas have been established and funded by bin laden. they have
been training terrorists for kashmir and other "jehads." the pakistan
establishment has supported laden for long, and US knows it. the coldness of
US towards pakistan in the recent years has been brought on 'cos of two
reasons - 
*	with USSR out of afganistan, US doesn't need pakistan anymore, and 
*	pakistan's involvement with laden and islamic fundamentalist
terrorists.

i think the strikes would not be in form of large-scale open military
action, as in war. the actions would be more scaled down. espionage-like
activities might be used more widely to weed out the fundamentalists,
diplomatic and economic tools would be used to the utmost. and yes,
afganistan & iraq, libya & lebanon, and pakistan would feel the heat.

and if this act is seen by the muslim world as being supportive of the
zionist cause then things might become polarised. if america carries out
strikes on these nations there could be protest about the sovereignty of
nation states from other non NATO nations. then god help us, the situation
could result in anything...........

~~~

is a superpower justified to make and destroy groups on their will and in
the process destroying the human race? are politicians justified in building
up criminals and militants? indra gandhi patronised bhinderawala for her
political goals. he later turned a terrorist and then ended up killing her.

as my dad always tells me - bure admi ka saath hamesha bura hi hota hai
(company of a bad person is bad.)

~~~

nitingoyal72@yahoo.com
(with inputs & ideas from indranil & abhinav, with thanks.)

~~~


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Subscribe [Unsubscribe] send a blank message to 
        nukkad-list-request@mumbai-central.com 
with the word 'subscribe' ['unsubscribe'] (without quotes) in the Subject 
of your message.
The list is archived at  http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/archive.html