Younis agrees to be captain

Well, the Yorkshire captain...

Maybe they should hire Mark Foley

A Dutch political party whose chances for electoral success aren't looking great.

Excerpts of the day

Every couple of months, I visit the Stimson Center's website. They usually have some pretty interesting analysis type stuff on South Asia, mainly due to the fact that they have Michael Krepon working there, who's one of the foremost experts on the region in the US. Today I happened upon a report, co-authored by Krepon, on the 10-month crisis in South Asia from the time the Indian Parliament was attacked (December 2001) to the time that troops were withdrawn (October 2002). During those months, as I'm sure you recall, we were a hair-trigger away from war, possibly nuclear war. This report proves it, and provides some chilling details of how close we really were. It also gives some interesting tidbits on the inner workings of diplomats and officials, like:

US Embassy Islamabad, preoccupied with the tasks associated with supporting OEF [Operation Enduring Freedom, the US military’s operation in Afghanistan], was more surprised than US Embassy Delhi by the December 13 [2001] attack on India’s Parliament. Colonel David Smith, the Army attaché, and Ambassador Chamberlin were in the office of the Inspector General of Pakistan’s Frontier Corps on December 13 when they learned of the attack. Their host had CNN on mute during the proceedings. As images of India’s parliament flashed onto the screen, he turned up the sound. Smith and Chamberlin asked for his reaction. “Oops,” the General replied.

And:

The situation from late May [2002] onward appeared sufficiently bleak for the Pentagon to reexamine the effects of nuclear weapons’ use on the Subcontinent. One official vividly remembers interagency discussions at the Pentagon on evacuating the embassies and US nationals in the event of a nuclear exchange. The Subcontinent’s seasonal “plumology” was studied, and evacuation planning discussed in an “oddly bloodless” and analytical way. One Pentagon official recalls how daunting evacuation planning was for India, where a large contingent of American citizens resided. With grim irony, he noted that the safe haven for US nationals residing in Pakistan was to relocate to war-torn Afghanistan.

I strongly urge you to read all 34 pages. And next time someone tells you that it was all a game of brinksmanship, forward them the link...no matter how smart that someone may be (yes, that includes you, Kenneth Waltz).

Oh Captain, My Captain

One thing I've realized very recently is that life can never be absolutely perfect, even for a day. Yesterday, I had one of those days where everything was going right. I somehow managed to read 150 pages of an extremely boring book in very quick time. I also managed to write a critical analysis of said book in next to no time. I made a great analogy in an IR class (Germany after WW2 agreeing to contain itself within the ECSC was like an alcoholic checking in to AA) that made everyone laugh. I never make everyone laugh, and somehow it happened yesterday. In short, yesterday was a perfect day.

I woke up to the news that Younis Khan said he doesn't want to be a "dummy captain" and the fact that resigned from the post for the Champions Trophy, throwing his future, at least as captain, in serious doubt. Like I said, life can never be completely perfect. So if you're having a really good day, be prepared to have read some pretty crappy news the next morning. It's just karma's (or God's, depending on your view) way of letting us know who's boss.

Obviously, there isn't much beyond the cricinfo report we have right now that can tell us what the hell happened. Bob Woolmer says there are "personal reasons". There are no fucking personal reasons, ok? At least not the Thorpe or Tresothick type of personal reasons, where someone is fucking his wife or his marriage is falling apart. Osman Samiuddin writes that reportedly it could be (a) the inclusion of Faisal Iqbal without his consent or (b) the fact that he was appointed captain only for the Champions Trophy. I would literally bet my life on the fact that it is not (b). It cannot be. He is too much of a team man, has way too much respect for Inzamam, and too badly wants the best for Pakistan cricket to be doing something daft like that. He knows (or knew) that his long-term chance was coming, and that it was only a matter of time. But that leaves (a), which is hardly a reason, at least in my opinion, to get up in a huff and resign the captaincy. But (a) is definitely more plausible than (b).

I don't think I can put in words my disappointment right now. Not about the immediate future, because like I said, I don't give a crap about the Champions Trophy. But what does this mean for our team going forward over the next 3-4 years? Can we discard our hopes of Younis becoming captain again? Will this somehow blow over, allowing Younis to become the greatest captain this country has ever had? (And yes, if he were to captain on any long-term basis, he would be the best captain this country, maybe any country, has ever had. I'll get to this in just a second).

Right now, it doesn't look great. The PCB said he should have gone to them, rather than the media, which is of course absolutely right. The cricinfo piece also quotes an unnamed PCB official as saying his chances of captaincy in the short-term are "extremely dim". This may or may not concern me, depending on your view of what constitutes "short-term". He wasn't going to be long-term captain before the end of the World Cup, at the earliest, anyway so if that's their definition of short-term, then fine. But I have serious fears here. What the hell could piss him off so much that he went straight to the media and essentially gave everyone, including the PCB and, yes, us fans the finger?

The only ray of hope I have is that this current management team (i.e. Shahrayar Khan, Woolmer and Inzi) have always nipped conflict in the bud, unlike the Pakistani teams of the 90s, and have been good with ensuring harmony in the team. Remember how quickly the Afridi retirement thing blew away? Or the Younis-Afridi phadda in the Windies? Or, most of all, Shoaib's elevation from persona non grata to "just another one of us, yaar"? If they forgave Shoaib for all his bullshit, won't they forgive Younis? I guess the answer to that question depends on what the fuck persuaded him to do this in the first place.

Make no mistake, if Younis doesn't become captain after Inzi retires, it will be our loss, not his. Well, it will be his loss as well, but it'll be a much bigger loss for us. We were grooming the absolute perfect captain, the type you'd create in a lab if you could. Am I exaggerating his value as captain? I don't think so. As the Daily Times editorial board might say, consider:

There are, broadly speaking, two types of great captains. One is the inspirational/uniter/team spirit lifter guy. The guy who gives a team an identity, or a belief to win, or brings them all together for a common cause. Examples of these captains are Imran Khan, Ganguly (when he could still bat, that is), Allan Border and Nasser Hussain. What do all of these guys have in common? They all have exceptionally strong personalities, they all had the respect of everyone in the team and they all managed to change a culture of a team for the better. Let's call them the Braveheart captains, because you can imagine them on a horse using ridicuously bad Scottish accents giving inspirational speeches.

The other type of great captains are the ones who are tactically brilliant, the guys who see where the game is going before it does, the guys who always have the right hunches about bowling changes or field placings. They make their bowlers better than they really are by giving them fields and using tactics that they wouldn't otherwise use. Examples of these types of captains are Michael Vaughan, Javed Miandad, Stephen Fleming, and the best I ever saw, Mark Taylor. What do they all have in common? They're aggressive with their field placings (though not excessively so), are astute readers of the game and never let the game drift. If something's not working, they'll change it, and come up with a better idea, out there on the field. Let's call them the Michael Corleone captains, because you can imagine them being shrewd enough to put a gun behind the toilet flush in a restaurant.

Can you see where I am going with this? Can you imagine a captain who's a 9/10 on the Braveheart scale and a 9.5/10 on the Michael Corleone scale? That's Younis. THAT'S FUCKING YOUNIS! And it wasn't just his intrinstic qualities as captain that made (make?) me look forward to his tenure so much. There were two other issues. One, his batting has come on, as they say, leaps and bounds. In his last 15 matches, he's made 6 hundreds and averaged 70. He has become a reliable no.3, something which Pakistan has never had, with the possible exception of Zaheer. The second thing is the fact that he was being groomed for so long. Everything was going perfectly. He wasn't being rushed into the job, he was allowed to get comfortable with the role of vice-captain and earn the trust of his teammates and coach, and he was allowed to work on his batting while Inzi and Woolmer set up a regime for success. It's not just about being a great captain, it's also about being a great captain in the right circumstances. And the circumstances were playing out beautifully. The system around him was being put in place. Match-winning bowlers, a key to any captain, were coming up (Dani and Asif). And as Inzi, as honorable and loyal a servant Pakistan cricket has had, rode off into the sunset, Younis would take over and take us to the next level, like the Hussain-Vaughan or Taylor-Waugh transistions. Now? Everything's in doubt.

Like I said, we can only hope that this is one of those situations that seems a bigger deal right off the bat than it actually is. Maybe it dies down, with some sort of disciplinary action, a hearing of his grievances and a kiss-and-make-up session. But what if it doesn't? What if the PCB decides to be vindictive, and we never get the chance to see Kaneria and Asif bowling in tandem on the fifth day with Younis setting the field? Under Younis, we had the potential to be the best team in the world by 2008/09 (provided we found even a half decent replacement for Inzi at 5). Under Yousuf (or anybody else for that matter), all bets are off.

I have to go do some real work now, so that's it for me. This is definitely one issue I'm keeping my eye on. Oh, and by the way, I am almost 100% sure that we are now going to win the Champions Trophy. That's just how Pakistan cricket works.

Younis? Kya ho gaya bhai?

I have to run to class but rest assured, I am going to talk about this at considerable length in a couple of hours.

Whatever, dude

You know how you can use semicolons and commas and apostrophes to make smiley faces and sad faces and angry faces and whatever? Well, I wish there was a way to make a face in which the eyes rolled in a dismissive way, because then I'd use it to describe my feelings on this story.

I'll go with number 1

Six possible reasons Sheva doesn't look like the Milan Sheva.

Excerpt of the day

Wow, what a bitch-slap from the colonial era this is.

I have no knowledge of either Sanskrit or Arabic – but I have done what I could to form a correct estimate of their value. I have read translations of the most celebrated Arabic and Sanskrit works. I have conversed both here and at home with men distinguished by their proficiency in the Eastern tongues. I am quite ready to take the Oriental learning at the valuation of the Orientalists themselves. I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia.

Just a little background: the speech was given by Lord Macaulay, who was President of the Committee of Public Instruction, an advisory body to the British government on educational policy in India. It's from February 1835, when the question of what language was to be used to teach the natives - English or "native" tongues - came to a head. Read the whole thing, it's truly brilliant.

With friends like these...

A reader (by my reckoning, no.3) writes

while sarfraz may be a jackass - it's not fair to pick him apart for the 1000 yards comment which was clearly hyperbolic.

i've often heard you say that you'll kill yourself if such and such happens. such and such has happened many, many, many times.

and yet, here we are.

Funny, you almost say that last part in a regretful tone.

Someone with a Physics degree has to explain this one to me

How does a 13-seater collide with a Boeing 737 and be the one left standing?

The Mumbai blasts

Guess what? The Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad has nabbed another man, who luckily happens to be a mastermind of the July 11 attacks. If you're counting, that's three masterminds we've documented on fiverupees alone.

I made my skepticism of the evidence presented so far to the media by the Indian authorities fairly clear in an earlier post. Now, two days later, I'm still not convinced. I've been following this pretty closely, and things just don't add up. For example, the foreign secretaries of the two countries are due to talk in a few weeks. Now, this could be an indicator of two things: (a) the Indians don't actually believe we did it, and see no reason to stall the talks for political gain or (b) the Indians believe we did it, but think that the joint mechanism established was for this very reason, and want to continue with talks regardless. Which seems the more likely to you? No contest, right? I mean, if they really thought we did it, wouldn't Manmohan say something stronger than, "In our joint statement there is an explicit condemnation of the Mumbai blasts, following that there is also mention of cooperation that our two countries will undertake to control this menace. We will share that information with Pakistan and ascertain how sincere they are in carrying forward the commitment that I and President Musharraf have underlined in our joint statement"? I know Manmohan's a pretty chilled out dude, but this is ridiculous.

Like I said earlier, I'm no intelligence expert. But the lack of media coverage in the Indian press, the paucity of statements beyond the usual "We'll provide evidence to you/Ok, send us the evidence and then we'll see", and the fact that their case involves someone with the email address smellofflower@yahoo.com tells me it's not a slam dunk, as George Tenet would say. Let's see what happens when they actually send the evidence over to us.

Yeah, Sarfraz

The only man in Pakistan cricket given to more bullshit statements than Javed Miandad is, of course, Sarfraz Nawaz. The nonsense that comes out of this guy's mouth truly astounds me. Today, he says that he can catch a ball-tamperer from a distance of "1000 yards" (which, by the way, would mean that when Sarfaraz bhai is about three quarters of a mile away from a cricket ground, he'll be able to spot a man picking a ball with his nail). I wish there was a rule in Pakistan that allowed only Asif Iqbal and (I can't believe I'm saying this) Rameez Raja to speak to the media about anything. Everyone else just looks to further their own interests or reputations with their comments.

Quote of the day

We pray for the success of Taliban. If it is tantamount to helping someone, I do it everyday for the Afghan nation as I am a friend of the Afghan nation.

Hamid Gul, letting us all know where his priorities lie. Not that we needed any more evidence.

A reader writes...

Saeed Anwar remains my favorite player to watch, even compared to Brian Lara. Still, I hestitate from placing him in an all-time Pakistan 11. There WERE seasons when he was consistent, but he could be unreliable as well. He could be sketchy outside the offstump - in fact that was his weak area. Actually a LOT of good openers have problems with their off-stump, but coupled with Anwar's average record in pressure games, i was wondering who else would u choose in that opener's slot if not Anwar?
I have a feeling that if someone bowled the kind of line to Anwar as flintoff bowled to Gilchrist during the 05 Ashes (around the wicket tightly in the offstump channel).
So if you HAD to take out anwar, who would it be? Shoaib Mohammad is one who comes to my mind.

Good point, except one major difference. Gilchrist's main shots on the leg side are horizontal bat shots (the hook, the pull, the swivel pull/hook). Saeed Anwar played beautifully off the front foot through the leg side as well, so there would always be a danger of being clipped through mid-wicket/square leg if the line went even slightly wrong.

If I HAD to take out Anwar as you say, I would not put in Shoaib Mohammad. This is primarily because if Shoaib opened with his dad we would (a) face sledging about oedipal complexes and (b) never score a run...we would be 20/0 at lunch every test . I would go for one of my dad's favourite players, Majid Khan. Attacking player comes in for attacking player.

All-time XIs

Reading cricinfo's tribute to Ray Lindwall and how he was a "shoo-in" for any all-time Australian XI got me thinking. Me and a friend of mine (who doesn't read this blog) made a few all-time XIs this summer (because those conversations were a lot more interesting than watching Sami get thrashed around for five an over). Perhaps we could go over a few interesting ones over the new few days, with comments and suggestions from readers. We'll start, of course, with Pakistan. I think this one is fairly easy, because there's no real controversial selections. But tell me if you disagree. Ok, here goes:

1. Hanif Mohammad
2. Saeed Anwar
3. Zaheer Abbas
4. Javed Miandad
5. Inzamam-ul-Haq
6. Imran Khan (c)
7. Wasim Akram
8. Wasim Bari
9. Abdul Qadir
10. Waqar Younis
11. Fazal Mahmood
12th man: Younis Khan (to field in the slips once Saeed or Zaheer fakes an injury)

The batting is pretty strong, though Imran/Wasim/Bari at 6/7/8 might be a tad weak. But as always with Pakistan, the bowling is phenomenal. Fazal and Wasim with the new ball to exploit any early morning moisture, Imran first change zipping it all around, and then Waqar coming in with the old ball, just boomeranging it everywhere. And don't forget Qadir, with his wily leggies. The only problem would be the fielding, as usual. Only Wasim and Imran (and I guess Inzi in the slips) can be counted as good fielders. Not even great, just good. But overall, a strong team, yes? The best thing about this team would be it's versatility depending on the pitch. If it's a difficult pitch to bat on, we have Hanif and Javed to bat ALL DAY. But if it's a 4.5 an over type pitch, let Zaheer and Saeed go to work. How many cover drives would a Zaheer/Saeed partnership produce? And of course, don't forget the ultimate versatile batsman, Inzi, who can do whatever we need, whether its block all day or go ballistic. None of the bowlers, except for Fazal I guess, really need a helpful pitch so the pitch won't matter to them.

By the way, can you imagine this team if they scrapped the ball-tampering law? Would any opposition pass 100?

Update: Javed Miandad is the best fielder on this team. The fact that I didn't mention him when talking about good fielders doesn't reflect his true abilities in the field. More likely, it reflects my severe distaste for him and his attitude.

Not sure, but I'm glad its over

My thanks to Ahsan for the post below. For my part I admit that it was wrong for me to state that Ahsan fundamentaly lacked humilty. I was incorrect, and I should have restricted that point to his post. I have amended my prior post accordingly. Now, I am going to sleep because its 2:30 in the morning.

Damn...what the hell just happened?

You know this blog has gotten interesting when reader no.3 (we'll just call him NL for now) decides he has to opine. NL doesn't think much of blogs, and only reads ours because he's a very good friend of mine. NL is DEFINITELY not the type to write to people at websites (except if its a chance to make money off basketball but thats another story). So if NL is writing in, then things have obviously gotten out of hand. So let's put things back in hand, so to speak, shall we?

So to no.5, I haven't changed my opinion of your opinion. I still think pretty much every sentence you wrote either contained some errors or expressed an opinion that I simply could not take seriously. However, I was wrong to (a) misquote you when I should have made clear I was paraphrasing and (b) be more than abrasive when making my rebuttal. As NB (or Alien Panda or NL or reader no.1 or reader no.2) will tell you, this is not new. However, I should temper my aggressiveness, since (a) we are in a public forum and (b) I only personally know 3 of our 5 readers.

And to NB and anonymous, who called me "an arrogant jackass" and an "asshole" respectively, please refrain from name-calling. Shit on my arguments/opinions all you want, but don't take the extra step. We're not important enough for tempers to be flaring to such an extent.

I have now procrastinated for about 4 hours today. I had to read 200 pages of a book called "The Tragedy of Political Science: Politics, Scholarship and Democracy". I've gotten to page 29. At this rate, I'll be done some time in 2011. So, please, no more provocative posts today, otherwise I won't be able to help myself.

Sorry about the colours

My last post was coming out really wierd, so I ended up messing around to try to make all the text show up. Sorry for there being white where they should be grey and orange where there should be white. I have a feeling NB intentionally sabotaged our blog so as to render me hapless the next time I wished to post. Well, NB, you doubt my resolve. Never have I admitted defeat in the face of technological terror! Never!

Welcome back, NB!

And nice to see you jumped straight on your horse, which I might add, seems nice and high.

I really shouldn't be getting into this, simply because I don't have time and this is going to bite me in the ass later on in the week. But onwards we march.

First of all, let's keep the blog about the blog. If we're going to bring up issues, which as you mention, you, Alien Panda and I "have debated for years", well, I might as well drop out of school right now. So I'll only tackle the substantive issues you and no. 5 have brought up, and not go into what you think of my methods of argument, which was a cheap-shot by the way. If you think I'm given to hyperbole, then please provide examples on fiverupees. Our endless bullshit arguments over the last 5 years don't count.

Secondly , I didn't bully anyone, at least on fiverupees. Bullying would be "Shut up xyz, you're talking crap, and I'm not talking about this anymore." That's Bill O'Reilly. I, on the other hand, spent a considerable amount of time researching and writing the post you mention, and dismantled each of no.5's arguments. I literally went sentence by sentence, and backed up each of my assetions with valid and veriable facts, rather than generalized statements, which no.5 often used. You're welcome to re-read my post and tell me if you disagree.

Let's talk about the nitty-gritty of both the posts. Allow me to paraphrase, because I'm short on time. No.5 and you say, it's unreasonable to expect Christians to protest acts by unaffiliated Christians and therefore, it is unreasonable to expect Muslims to protest acts by unaffiliated Muslims. That would be fair enough, except it completely misses point. The point is, Muslim terrorists act in the name of Islam. "Christian" terrorists (like the IRA) or overly aggressive governments, such as those of Bush and Blair, do NOT act in the name of Christianity. They act either in the name of a Western identity or their nationality. Therefore, other people who share their nationalities or Western identities (such as those in London, New York and Melbourne) feel the need to protest their actions and distance themselves from it. So, Bush says, "America feels this way about Iraq, and that's why we're going in." A number of Americans in response say, "No, America does not feel this way, he does not speak for us." On the other hand, Muslim terrorists, who blow things up in the name of Islam (I really can't emphasize this enough), are met with silence by all but a few people. Of course, not all Muslims agree with OBL and the Zarqawi types. But then they should say so, instead of sitting at home, especially when they are acting violent in our name.

It's funny that neither you nor no.5 dealt with the crux of my original post, which was hypocrisy. I'm going to lay this all out very simply, and hope you don't mistake it for my being condescending. But I feel I need to speak this way because clearly I am not getting through to you or no.5. So, here goes: Bad America and Bad Israel kill Good Muslims. People come out on ths street. Destroy houses and petrol stations. Write letters to newspapers. Organize marches and protests. Everyone in a generate state of pissed-offedness. Why? "Because they killed innocent Muslims". Ok, fine.

Now, Muslims kill other Muslims. Blow up mosques on the first day of Ramazan. Please re-read that sentence. Blow up mosques on the first day of Ramazan. Kill innocent Muslims. Kill more innocent Muslims than America or Israel have ever done. Please re-read that sentence as well. In the last 25 years, more Muslims have died at the hands of other Muslims than at the hands of any Western power. As Kevin Bacon said in A Few Good Men, these are the facts, and they are indisputable. Now, if innocent Muslims being killed is such a bad thing, then why aren't more protests and marches and angry letters seen? Could it be that Muslims killing other Muslims is ok, but white people killing Muslims is not? If this is not the explanation, then please provide me with one, because I truly wish to understand this.

You and no. 5 are right about the misquoting. But it was an error of punctuation marks, rather than any diabolical attempt to malign the argument. In other words, my only mistake was putting quotation marks around the two quotes because I didn't quote no.5; I paraphrased him/her. Let's see how off the mark I was, shall we?
No.5's statements:

It's like Christians being expected to protest against the imperial actions of Bush and his government and Blair and his government based on the fact that both presidents identify themselves as Christian...

and

Forget all those years of indoctrination- the reason why you're living on a dollar a day isn't because of corporations exploiting your labour (because did you know, you're sub-human?)

My paraphrasing:

"Christians don't protest murders by other Christians"

and

"Muslims live on $1 a day because of evil Western corporations"

Now, you tell me, NB, that I misquoted no.5. Fine, I agree. But did I misrepresent him/her? I don't think so.

By the way, great end note. Telling me I lack humility and respect for others' opinions, is, as I said, a cheap-shot. I'm not going to respect someone's opinion just because you think I should. I will respect someone's opinion if it is worthy of respect, and by that I mean, backed by valid and veriable facts and not generalized statements. For instance, if someone came to you, and said "Hi, NB, the world is flat", would you respect that opinion? No, you would not. Yes, that's somewhat of an extreme example, but I honestly can't respect an opinion which tells me that Muslim people are poor because corporations want them to be poor. It's funny that no.5 either chose to ignore or did not read the part about the universitiy numbers and standards which as I said, is the infinitely more likely explanation for Muslim countries, in general, not being among the world's largest economies.

So in the future, (a) attack my arguments with the harshest language you deem fit, but stay away from personal shots, like "you lack humility" and "you are an arrogant jackass"; and (b) keep our discussions fixed on things that happen on fiverupees.

Happy Birthday, you pricks!

Everyone's favourite channel, Fox News, is celebrating its tenth birthday this week. Don't forget to send cards and presents!

The Duty to Listen

Let me start by apologizing for not posting for ages. Normally I’m a student, and have all the time in the world. For the last month however, I’ve had 12 hours workdays, and a couple of weekends at the office too, so I haven’t really had a chance to contribute at all.

My inability to post or respond has been very frustrating. That’s because I’ll occasionally come across a post on this blog that really irks me. Most of them have been by Ahsan, though one in particular (some time ago) was posted by Alien Panda.

I should add that my opinion as posted below is not based on any single post or even the time we’ve all spent on this blog. It relates to issues that he and I (and to an extent Alien Panda) have debated for years, i.e. the questions surrounding the best (and the worst) ways to build ones opinion, and discuss it with others.

The rest of this post is addressed specifically to Ahsan:

Leaving other issues aside for the moment, my biggest problem is how you bully others away from disagreeing with you. The most recent and obvious example is what just happened in your post titled "We have a fifth reader!" with the anonymous contributor you referred to as “No: 5”.

For those of you who have'nt read it, that post was a response to a comment posted by No: 5 to an earlier post by Ahsan, titled “What does Islam stand for today?”.

You conjure up arguments which are easy to rebut

With respect to the issue of Christian protesters, this is what was actually said by No 5 :

“an idea... maybe it's because Muslims don't identify themselves with people who blow up mosques but they do identify themselves by their religion and its reputation.

It's like Christians being expected to protest against the imperial actions of Bush and his government and Blair and his government based on the fact that both presidents identify themselves as Christian...

and at least there you can also say they represent the Christian demographic because of democracy and so are somehow answerable. Still, it would be weird to expect Christians to do it based on that fact alone... that other Christians do unconscienable things. I don't understand why there is one rule for Muslims and one for Christians in these matters."

(I have added the italics for emphasis.)

What No 5 is saying is perfectly simple, provided you even took two minutes to understand what was written. It is contended that it would be odd for anyone to actually expect Christians to protest random acts of violence by unaffiliated, unconnected and unrepresentative groups of individuals, simply because those groups arbitrarily claimed to represent Christianity. Instead, it is proposed that the reason people in the West protest (and it is made clear that they do) is attributable to the fact that the actions they were protesting were being committed by a body which they democratically elected to represent them.

Personally I think that’s a sensible and insightful point to make. Moreover, it’s an important distinction to understand if you’re serious about answering the question you yourself were asking in the title of the post.

Unfortunately, rather than taking the time to understand what No 5 was saying, your response was a bizarre reaction to something that No: 5 never argued. After a paragraph about why the term "Christian" was not particularly astute (once again you would have understood why the term was used if you had bothered to read No: 5's comments), you wrote this:

“Secondly, the notion that "Christians" don't protest crimes by other Christians is laughable. Perhaps no.5 missed the million march in London, before the Iraq war even started. Or the one in New York. Or the one in Melbourne. But that's ok. Thanks to the internet, and specifically wikipedia, at the click of a button you can see for yourself exactly how many protests there have been by "Christians" against the Iraq war, both before and after March 2003. By the way, I stopped adding up the number of people attending these once I crossed 2.5 million.”

No: 5 never argued to the contrary. I should add that such condescension is totally gratuitous. Don’t accuse others of being “petty and immature” if that is how you choose to respond.

Lets misquote, and then make fun

Anyways. If putting your own spin wasn’t enough, you then go on to actually misquote No 5! I checked No 5’s post, and as they themselves noted (to deaf ears and no apology from you), they never wrote either sentence:

"Christians don't protest murders by other Christians"
"Muslims live on $1 a day because of evil Western corporations"

In fact, despite your quotation marks, you paraphrased those sentences simply so that it was easier for you to make fun of them. This reminds me of an earlier post you made, making fun of Bill O’Reilly whom you quoted as saying:

“A hyper-partisan is a person who does not seek the truth;rather, he or she tailors information to fit a preconceived political viewpoint. What is actually happening in the world is not important to these ideological zombies; it's all about reinforcing their core beliefs.”

Much as it saddens me to say this, it seems that you’re in no position to point out the irony of Bill O’Reilly making such comments.

Your complete lack of respect for a dissenting opinion was evident from the time you spent understanding it. But you also made your contempt explicit when you said:

"Luckily for me, these arguments have more holes than swiss- cheese- if- it-
was- actually- wood- and- infected- by-termites so dismantling them one by
one shouldn't be too difficult."

What’s obvious is that you made it as easy for yourself as possible, by misquoting and misrepresenting arguments, and by focussing on what suited you the most i.e. through you’re $1 tirade. Even if you disagreed, and your misunderstanding about the Christian protestor issue was an honest one, was there any need to be so offensive and insulting?

Holier than thou…

I agree that the $1 a day thing No 5 said was inaccurate and constituted rhetoric, something which I really hate. However given you’re own propensity for rhetoric and hyperbole it is beyond me as to how you feel you have any right to criticize. If you'd like, maybe I could “start spelling hypocrisy with a capital H.” Moreover, it was unfair to pretend as though her mention of the specific value of $1 a day was really an essential component of her argument simply because it was easy to refute.

I’d like to point the self righteousness evident in the fact that after skimming over your opponent’s arguments solely to pick up buzz words/phrases you could heap contempt upon, you had the gall to represent your arguments as being made "carefully and systematically".

End Note

This is not ‘engagement’ as you claim Ahsan. It is bullying, Bill O’Reilly style. It is nothing more than the ‘hackery’ that Jon Stewart referred to when he blasted the hosts of Crossfire.

I am certain that a constructive discussion cannot take place when all that the participants wish to do is put forward their positions and defend them at all costs. Contrary to the incident discussed above, the parties should actually look to ‘engage’ in the true sense of the word, disarmed of their respective presumptions, and bearing the added intention of learning from the contrasting perspectives and experiences of others. This is something that you have repeatedly failed to do, which is unfortunate because I’m pretty confident that it’s the best and perhaps the only way to reach consensus as far as such partisan issues are concerned.

What your post fundamentally lacks is humility, and respect for the person whos opinion you refute. Both respect and humility are flip sides of the same coin, and are essential components of the integrity required of someone who insists on commenting on controversial issues within a public forum.

Unfortunately, regardless of what I may say today, it seems that dissenting opinions will continue to be subjected to scorn, disrespect and contempt, unless of course they are issued from a pre-approved source deemed by you as credible. Those not pre-approved will continue to be presumed as dead wrong, and shouted down accordingly.

I’m not suggesting that everyone should be presumed right until proven wrong; I’m simply saying that it’s best to scrap the application of those presumptions, and the consequent acrimony, altogether. I made a similar point in my post concerning Hezbollah, in the final paragraph.

Sadly, I predict with some confidence that the usual rolling eyes and ‘whatevers’ will ensue as a result of my post today. They end up proving my point, but they frustrate my hopes for a better blog.

Finally, in the tradition of Ahsan I’d like to misquote Ahsan, who said:

"Yeah dude I agree. I’m an arrogant jackass who needs to listen more.”

The Mumbai blasts, continued

The more I've thought about it, the more I realize that what I wrote yesterday was wrong. Well, half wrong. The three possibilities I laid out aren't mutually exclusive, and that's an important point. I do think that everything the ISI does is not under the purview of Musharraf and the top brass of the military. But the more I think about it, the more I doubt Pakistan, or any Pakistan-based group, could be directly responsible for the attacks.

First, let's talk about the ISI. I think most people in Pakistan regard it as a pretty shadowy organization, even allowing for the fact that it's a spy agency. I for one do not believe that the government exerts 100% control over its activities. For instance, not too long ago, a kid got into a fight with another kid, who happened to be the son of a bigshot in the ISI. You can guess what happened. Some ISI thugs went over to the other kid's place, beat his grandfather up, messed around with his mother, kidnapped him, kicked him around for a bit, and left him on a road. Usually, that would be the end of the story, because the ISI is answerable to no one. Slight problem this time, though. The grandfather happened to be a retired brigadier and the mother was married to an air force officer. Musharraf had to personally call and apologize to the brigadier.

Fine, you say. That's a regular PUBU (pick-up-and-beat-up...yes, I will invent terms when I feel like it), something completely routine for the ISI. But a terrorist attack is a much bigger deal. Musharraf not knowing about little things like PUBUs does not preclude him from knowing about bigger things, like 7 bombs in 15 minutes. That would be a completely valid point. Except, I remember reading a Herald cover story a few months ago (it might have been last summer, but don't quote me on that). It talked about these terrorist training camps being set up in Punjab, under the watchful eye of the ISI. Let's remember, Musharraf banned all of these organizations (let's assume for the time being he meant to ban them, and that it wasn't just a PR stunt). So if Musharraf banned them, and the ISI is helping them, something is amiss, yes? I really don't buy the notion that Musharraf is not serious about combatting terrorism. Let's remember, they tried to kill him, on more than one occasion. So the argument that Musharraf is somehow "in on it", and that it's all big one conspiracy to fool the West and the Indians, it's just one I don't buy. Ergo, if these organizations are receving help from the ISI, then Musharraf (a) doesn't know about it or (b) can't do anything to stop it. Either way, I think the ISI is way too powerful for both its own, and our, good. I think it is perfectly plausible that they were involved but Musharraf didn't know about it. That doesn't mean I think they were involved, I just think it's plausible.

That said, let's look at the details of this case. The Indian police say 15 people have been arrested in the case, 11 of whom are Pakistanis. One of the other four, the alleged "mastermind", repaired shoes for a living in Calcutta. His family had lived there for four generations. He used to hang out with the cops in his area, joking around with them. His brother (fine, not the most reliable source) said that he hadn't even visited Mumbai this year. But apparently he confessed to helping people cross the border (not the one you think...the Banladeshi border). Another one of the main men (just one question: have you ever heard of anyone involved in a terrorist operation not being referred to as the "main culprit" or the "mastermind"? Is there ever a non-essential person involved?) was apparently dating - and from the sounds of it, fucking - a bartender. A Hindu bartender. So to recap, we have a guy who fixes kolapuris in Calcutta and an Islamic extremist fucking a Hindu bartender masterminding one of the deadliest terrorist attacks in recent history. Does any of this make any sense?

Wait, there's more. The police apparently used electronic surveillance during the investigation. That's great, you say. How high-tech. The two email addresses under scrutiny? Ibn_chand@yahoo.com and smellofflower@yahoo.com. Smellofflower? Really? Are these terrorists 7 year-old girls? And here's the kicker - the password for the account was Jannat. For both accounts. Jannat. Does this strike anyone else as slightly contrived?

Look, I'll be the first to tell you that I don't know the first thing about intelligence. But just like the alleged airplane attacks this summer (you know, the one where almost none of the perpretrators had tickets or even passports), something doesn't smell right here. Again, that doesn't mean that the Indian police is wrong. It could well be that they're 100% on the mark, and that terrorists routinely use usernames like smellofflower. I really wouldn't know. All I'm saying is, it sounds strange, that's all.

For our part, we're of course denying it to the tilt, saying the allegations are baseless and all that jazz. That, in and of itself, doesn't mean anything of course. We've denied our role even when we have been involved, like the attack on the Indian parliament a few years ago. The Indian government is saying they're going to give us proof, and then expect us to act. I guess we'll just have to wait and see on this one. So, loyal readers, I hope that was worth waiting with bated breath for 24 hours for. "I guess we'll just have to wait and see" is truly brilliant analysis, of the type you simply cannot get elsewhere, which is why I know all 5 of you will keep coming back for more.

Update: As per a request from a reader, here is a link detailing the lack of real evidence for the British airliner "attacks". You can find them in most newspapers, but this guy has nicely summarized everything. Former UK ambassador, by the way.

Quote of the day

Sometimes I have arrived at the ground in the morning in a bad mood - you're not always going to be in the best of moods are you? - but by the time you get into the ground and you have a brew then it's normally fine.

Andrew Flintoff. Someone who's more familiar with British slang might have to help me out here. Did England's captain just say that when he's in a bad mood, he has a beer before the start of play?

Thank God (or the PTA, whichever you prefer)

I know our loyal 5 readers can't wait to hear from me on the Mumbai blasts, but I'll tackle those questions this evening. For now, a quick post on the news that the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority has implemented a cell phone jamming system, designed to halt the industry that is cell phone theft. According to the CPLC, some 40000 phones were stolen in Karachi this year, up to September. If my math is correct, that's something like 150 phones a day. Hopefully, this will be a big step towards stopping this menace. I know people have been pushing for this for a long time now, but better late than never.

The Mumbai blasts

I'm still trying to wrap my head around today's revelation by the Indian police that there was Pakistani involvement in the Mumbai blasts in the summer. Specifically, they claim that the ISI and Laskhar-e-Taiba planned and executed the attack, respectively. There are a number of issues to think about here, and frankly my thoughts on the matter aren't clear at this point.

Let's start from the beginning. July 11, horrific attack on Mumbai's transport system - 7 bombs going off in something like 10-20 minutes. Immediate condemnation by Musharraf and the Pakistani government. Reserved reaction from the Indian government. Typically vociferous and accusatory one from the Indian media. Dumb statement from Kasuri. Louder reaction from Indian media. Governments play it cool. Days go by. Weeks even. No evidence linking Pakistan to the attacks. Indian media begins to chill. Some innuendo that the Naxalites may have been the culprits, though nothing is said for certain. And then the Musharraf-Manmohan meeting in Havana in mid-September, resulting in a joint mechanism to tackle terrorism.

As I see it, there is no way in hell the Pakistan government (and by government, I mean Musharraf) could have either known or countenanced the attacks. His entire legacy depends on the peace process with India. Think about it. What other tangible, long lasting achievement can this man possibly walk away with? Women's rights reform? Nope. Quelling of the Balochistan insurgency? Uh, no. Kalabagh? Not last time I checked. Madrassah/education reform? Don't think so. Clearing NWFP of the Taliban types? Definitely not. So what's left? India, India, India. The man wants a long-lasting peace with India, both for his legacy and for the fact that he genuinely thinks it's in our interest. Think about all the proposals he's made on Kashmir, all his "out-of-the-box" solutions, his ideas on road and rail links. The man complimented M.S. Dhoni's hair for God's sake, when in actual fact, Dhoni's hair is disgusting.

So if we accept the premise that Musharraf didn't know about the attacks, then there are 3 possibilities in my mind: (a) the Indian police is wrong, (b) the Indian police is lying, or (c) Musharraf doesn't have complete control over the ISI and its activities. I'll try to think about each of these, and which one is most likely (early bet is on c), and write about it tomorrow. For now, sleep beckons.