Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BubbaFred who wrote (41368)	11/1/2001 1:05:28 PM
From: BubbaFred	Respond to of 50167

"Quaid-e-Azam" Jinnah Mohammad Ali Jinnah was born on December 25th, 1876 in Karachi. He came from a family of Gujarati Khoja Muslims. His father was a small businessman, but he managed to go to England to study and was called to the bar at Lincoln's Inn. By the turn of the century he was a successful lawyer and built a lucrative practice in Bombay. An early member of the Congress Party and "Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity," he later parted ways with Gandhi and Nehru and worked for an independent homeland for the Muslims of British India. Jinnah served as President of the All-India Muslim League from 1934 onwards. At midnight between August 14th and 15th, 1947 he led Pakistan into simultaneous freedom with India from the British Empire. Pakistan then included an eastern half which became the independent nation of Bangladesh in 1971. In Pakistan, Jinnah is known as "Quaid-e-Azam," or Father of the Nation. He served as the nation's first Governor-General until he died in September, 1948. On August 15th, 1947 he addressed a country a few hours old over the radio from Lahore: "The creation of the new state has placed a tremendous responsibility on the the citizens of Pakistan. It gives them an opportunity to demonstrate to the world how a nation containing many elements can live in peace and amity and and work for the betterment of all its citizens irrespective of caste or creed. Our object should be peace within, and peace without. We want to live peacefully and maintain cordial friendly relations with our immediate neighbours and with the world at large." harappa.com

To: BubbaFred who wrote (41368)	11/1/2001 5:40:52 PM
From: BubbaFred	Respond to of 50167

The month of Ramazan is not a "holy" as it is made out. Only Eid Al Fitr, at the end of Ramazan, is the observed holy day. Here is a report suggesting that such "holy" month is questionable, as it was not observed as such by some Islamic countries. " Ramadan has hardly presented historically a strict ban on fighting. Egypt and Syria launched the 1973 war on Israel during Ramadan. " the.honoluluadvertiser.com Posted on: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 Editorial Why should U.S. honor Ramadan? President Bush is faced with a ticklish dilemma as the Muslim holy month of Ramadan nears. On the one hand, Bush is under pressure to begin to deliver, sooner rather than later, results in his war on terrorism. Moreover, the Pentagon is afraid that a bombing pause would give the Taliban and al-Qaida time to regroup. Other concerns are that the effectiveness of the air campaign after Ramadan will be diluted by bad winter weather, and perhaps most important in some quarters, food-delivery programs will be almost impossible. Humanitarian disaster would be blamed by many on the American campaign. On the other hand, Bush must consider the effects of his decision on whether to continue to bomb during Ramadan on his perilously fragile anti-terror coalition. Most broadly, the Muslim nations, tentative in their commitment at best, express a preference that the Americans not mar the holy month with warfare. This is partly disingenuous; Ramadan has hardly presented historically a strict ban on fighting. Egypt and Syria launched the 1973 war on Israel during Ramadan. But Bush must still consider the negative ramifications of proceeding too fast, thus giving the Northern Alliance a chance to capture the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif or even Kabul. Does Bush really want such an outcome? True, it would mark the defeat of the Taliban. But the more we learn about Afghanistan, the more simplistic thinking gives way to facts. One fact is that the last time the Northern Alliance captured Mazar-e-Sharif, it massacred an estimated 3,000 people. When the Taliban retook the city, it killed an estimated 2,000. Even now it reportedly is executing residents suspected of sympathizing with the Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance's leadership is sophisticated enough to understand how badly another massacre would reflect on Bush and imperil the coalition. But the Northern Alliance is a loose one, with little control over tribal commanders in the field. A bombing pause during Ramadan thus would not only provide cosmetic comfort to the shakier coalition members, but it would provide more time to attempt to cobble together an effective national government-in-exile. One cost of pausing for Ramadan is an appearance of weakness or indecision on the part of Bush and his coalition. But a benefit is that it may keep us from plunging blindly into a result that's little better than the status quo.