Welcome to Hassan and Habibah's Blog

The Egyptian Military regime, just like Muhsarraf's in Pakistan, has rigged elections to ensure it's stay in power, and after Israel, is the largest recipient of US military aid, which props up the client military rule. In 1990, the US "forgave" $7.1 billion in past Egyptian military debt in return for Egypt's support of the first Iraq war. Despite this "Aid" to the military government Egypt is still poor, with an estimated annua GDP per person of $3,600. Massive U.S. military support of Egypt has just bolstered a compliant regime, and coincided with 25 years of rule under Emergency Law, this continues despite regular reports of serious human rights abuses committed by the Egyptian government. Abuses include torture, arbitrary arrest without trial, prolonged pretrial detention, extrajudicial executions, post served sentence imprisonment (i.e. you serve your sentence but still aren't released) and "disappearances," all are often committed with impunity.  Years of abuse by national "anti-terrorist" "security" forces afflict common citizens; according to  Human Rights Watch's 2000 Report, in 1999 “evidence continued to mount that local police forces were employing similar torture techniques against ordinary citizens that elite security forces had used systematically against suspected armed militant rebels, their families, and supporters.”

The Military, supplied and propped up by US "Aid" is designed primarily to control the internal population, not against an external threat (as Egyptian state controlled media tells us). The United States sells Egypt a large amount of military equipment, which includes a significant number of small arms; such weaponry is both likely to be used for internal security and intentionally difficult to track once sold. These two factors easily enable such weaponry to find its way into the hands of abusive government security forces. In fact, during fiscal years 1996-1999, according to the U.S. government’s own “Section 655” reports, the United States delivered $10 million worth of small arms via the Pentagon’s Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program and authorized export licenses worth more than $4.8 million through State’s Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) channel. Small arms delivered or authorized included ammunition and raw materials for ammunition, grenades, a variety of pistols and rifles, and riot control equipment." US policy on Egypt for the last 30 years has uncanny parallels with it's new policy with Pakistan.

BBC:  Egypt 'fabricated terror group'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7137950.stm

A US-based human rights group has accused the Egyptian government of using torture and false confessions in a high-profile anti-terrorism case.

Twenty-two alleged members of an unknown Islamist group, the Victorious Sect, were charged for planning attacks on tourism sites and gas pipelines.

US-based Human Rights Watch says its investigation found the security forces may have fabricated the group's name.

It also reports claims the arrests were to justify renewing emergency laws.

Although the state prosecutor dismissed the charges against the suspects, 10 of them are still believed to be in detention.

The BBC's Ian Pannell in Cairo says this is just the latest in a run of accusations by human rights organisations against Egypt's police and state security.

The Egyptian government has consistently denied that torture is used routinely and rejected what it sees as foreign interference in its own affairs.

'Pattern of abuse'

The authorities' claims made headlines in April 2006 when they said they had smashed a previously unheard-of terrorist group plotting a series of attacks against soft targets including tourists and Coptic Christian clerics.

"Beyond coerced confessions, there appears to be no compelling evidence to support the government's dramatic claims," HRW says.

"Indeed, it appears that SSI (state security investigations) may have fabricated the allegations made against at least some and possibly all of the them," its report says.

Detainees quoted by HRW said they had been beaten and kicked by their interrogators, and some were given electric shocks on their bodies, including their genitals.

Most of the testimonies in the report come via third parties, as the detainees themselves were unwilling to talk directly to investigators, for fear of retribution, HRW says.

A spokesperson for the organisation said the case was not unusual, but was part of a pattern of detention and torture by the Egyptian security services in order to obtain false confessions.

The "Victorious Sect" arrests came to light shortly before Egypt renewed its enduring and controversial emergency laws, which give sweeping powers of detention to the security forces.

"State security needs to show that it's working, that it's useful, and cases like these are useful politically, around the renewal of the emergency law," lawyer Muhammad Hashim is quoted saying in the HRW report.

The group says the Egyptian authorities ignored requests for information about the case and there was no immediate response to publication of the report.
Earlier this year, another human rights group released a highly critical report on Egypt's record on torture and illegal detention.

READ THE REPORT
Anatomy of a State Security Case [431KB]: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/11_12_07_hrw_egypt.pdf

Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader

The Egyptian Military regime, just like Muhsarraf's in Pakistan, has rigged elections to ensure it's stay in power, and after Israel, is the largest recipient of US military aid, which props up the client military rule. In 1990, the US "forgave" $7.1 billion in past Egyptian military debt in return for Egypt's support of the first Iraq war. Despite this "Aid" to the military government Egypt is still poor, with an estimated annua GDP per person of $3,600. Massive U.S. military support of Egypt has just bolstered a compliant regime, and coincided with 25 years of rule under Emergency Law, this continues despite regular reports of serious human rights abuses committed by the Egyptian government. Abuses include torture, arbitrary arrest without trial, prolonged pretrial detention, extrajudicial executions, post served sentence imprisonment (i.e. you serve your sentence but still aren't released) and "disappearances," all are often committed with impunity.  Years of abuse by national "anti-terrorist" "security" forces afflict common citizens; according to  Human Rights Watch's 2000 Report, in 1999 “evidence continued to mount that local police forces were employing similar torture techniques against ordinary citizens that elite security forces had used systematically against suspected armed militant rebels, their families, and supporters.”

The Military, supplied and propped up by US "Aid" is designed primarily to control the internal population, not against an external threat (as Egyptian state controlled media tells us). The United States sells Egypt a large amount of military equipment, which includes a significant number of small arms; such weaponry is both likely to be used for internal security and intentionally difficult to track once sold. These two factors easily enable such weaponry to find its way into the hands of abusive government security forces. In fact, during fiscal years 1996-1999, according to the U.S. government’s own “Section 655” reports, the United States delivered $10 million worth of small arms via the Pentagon’s Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program and authorized export licenses worth more than $4.8 million through State’s Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) channel. Small arms delivered or authorized included ammunition and raw materials for ammunition, grenades, a variety of pistols and rifles, and riot control equipment." US policy on Egypt for the last 30 years has uncanny parallels with it's new policy with Pakistan.

BBC:  Egypt 'fabricated terror group'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7137950.stm

A US-based human rights group has accused the Egyptian government of using torture and false confessions in a high-profile anti-terrorism case.

Twenty-two alleged members of an unknown Islamist group, the Victorious Sect, were charged for planning attacks on tourism sites and gas pipelines.

US-based Human Rights Watch says its investigation found the security forces may have fabricated the group's name.

It also reports claims the arrests were to justify renewing emergency laws.

Although the state prosecutor dismissed the charges against the suspects, 10 of them are still believed to be in detention.

The BBC's Ian Pannell in Cairo says this is just the latest in a run of accusations by human rights organisations against Egypt's police and state security.

The Egyptian government has consistently denied that torture is used routinely and rejected what it sees as foreign interference in its own affairs.

'Pattern of abuse'

The authorities' claims made headlines in April 2006 when they said they had smashed a previously unheard-of terrorist group plotting a series of attacks against soft targets including tourists and Coptic Christian clerics.

"Beyond coerced confessions, there appears to be no compelling evidence to support the government's dramatic claims," HRW says.

"Indeed, it appears that SSI (state security investigations) may have fabricated the allegations made against at least some and possibly all of the them," its report says.

Detainees quoted by HRW said they had been beaten and kicked by their interrogators, and some were given electric shocks on their bodies, including their genitals.

Most of the testimonies in the report come via third parties, as the detainees themselves were unwilling to talk directly to investigators, for fear of retribution, HRW says.

A spokesperson for the organisation said the case was not unusual, but was part of a pattern of detention and torture by the Egyptian security services in order to obtain false confessions.

The "Victorious Sect" arrests came to light shortly before Egypt renewed its enduring and controversial emergency laws, which give sweeping powers of detention to the security forces.

"State security needs to show that it's working, that it's useful, and cases like these are useful politically, around the renewal of the emergency law," lawyer Muhammad Hashim is quoted saying in the HRW report.

The group says the Egyptian authorities ignored requests for information about the case and there was no immediate response to publication of the report.
Earlier this year, another human rights group released a highly critical report on Egypt's record on torture and illegal detention.

READ THE REPORT
Anatomy of a State Security Case [431KB]: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/11_12_07_hrw_egypt.pdf

Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader

Neocon policies designed to promote liberal opinion in the Middle East have in fact played into the hands of the religious parties

By William Dalrymple
Friday September 21, 2007
The Guardian

Six years after 9/11, throughout the Muslim world political Islam is on the march; the surprise is that its rise is happening democratically - not through the bomb, but the ballot box. Democracy is not the antidote to the Islamists the neocons once fondly believed it would be. Since the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, there has been a consistent response from voters wherever Muslims have had the right to vote. In Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey and Algeria they have voted en masse for religious parties in a way they have never done before. Where governments have been most closely linked to the US, political Islam's rise has been most marked.

Much western journalism in the six years since 9/11 has concentrated on terrorist groups, jihadis and suicide bombers. But while the threat of violence remains very real, those commentators who have compared what they ignorantly call "Islamofascism" to the Nazis are guilty of hysteria: the differences in relative power and military capability are too great for the comparison to be valid, and the analogies that the neocons draw with the second world war are demonstrably false. As long as the west interferes in the Muslim world, bombs will go off; and as long as Britain lines up behind George Bush's illegal wars, British innocents will die in jihadi atrocities. But that does not mean we are about to be invaded, nor is Europe about to be demographically swamped, as North American commentators such as Mark Steyn claim: Muslims will make up no more than 10% of the European population by 2020.

Yet in concentrating on the violent jihadi fringe, we may have missed the main story. For if the imminent Islamist takeover of western Europe is a myth, the same cannot be said for the Islamic world. Clumsy and brutal US policies in the Middle East have generated revolutionary changes, radicalising even the most moderate opinion, with the result that the status quo in place since the 1950s has been broken.

Egypt is typical: at the last election in 2005 members of the nominally banned Muslim Brotherhood, standing as independents, saw their representation rise from 17 seats to 88 in the 444-seat people's assembly - a five-fold increase, despite reports of vote-rigging by President Mubarak's ruling National Democratic Alliance. The Brothers, who have long abjured violence, are now the main opposition.

The figures in Pakistan are strikingly similar. Traditionally, the religious parties there have won only a fraction of the vote. That began to change after the US invasion of Afghanistan. In October 2002 a rightwing alliance of religious parties - the Muttahida Majlis Amal or MMA - won 11.6% of the vote, more than doubling its share, and sweeping the polls in the two provinces bordering Afghanistan - Baluchistan and the North West Frontier Province - where it formed ultra-conservative and pro-Islamist provincial governments. If the last election turned the MMA into a serious electoral force, there are now fears that it could yet be the principle beneficiary of the current standoff in Pakistan.

The Bush administration proclaimed in 2004 that the promotion of democracy in the Middle East would be a major foreign policy theme in its second term. It has been widely perceived, not least in Washington, that this policy has failed. Yet in many ways US foreign policy has succeeded in turning Muslim opinion against the corrupt monarchies and decaying nationalist parties who have ruled the region for 50 years. The irony is that rather than turning to liberal secular parties, as the neocons assumed, Muslims have lined up behind parties most clearly seen to stand up against aggressive US intervention.

Religious parties, in other words, have come to power for reasons largely unconnected to religion. As clear and unambiguous opponents of US policy in the Middle East - in a way that, say, Musharraf, Mubarak and Mahmoud Abbas are not - religious parties have benefited from legitimate Muslim anger: anger at the thousands of lives lost in Afghanistan and Iraq; at the blind eye the US turns to Israel's nuclear arsenal and colonisation of the West Bank; at the horrors of Abu Ghraib and the incarceration of thousands of Muslims without trial in the licensed network of torture centres that the US operates across the globe; and at the Islamophobic rhetoric that still flows from Bush and his circle in Washington.

Moreover, the religious parties tend to be seen by the poor, rightly or wrongly, as representing justice, integrity and equitable distribution of resources. Hence the strong showing, for example, of Hamas against the blatantly corrupt Fatah in the 2006 elections in Palestine. Equally, the dramatic rise of Hizbullah in Lebanon has not been because of a sudden fondness for sharia law, but because of the status of Hassan Nasrallah, Hizbullah's leader, as the man who gave the Israelis a bloody nose, and who provides medical and social services for the people of South Lebanon, just as Hamas does in Gaza.

The usual US response has been to retreat from its push for democracy when the "wrong" parties win. This was the case not just with the electoral victory of Hamas, but also in Egypt: since the Brothers' strong showing in the elections, the US has stopped pressing Mubarak to make democratic reforms, and many of the Brothers' leading activists and business backers, as well as Mubarak's opponent in the presidential election, are in prison, all without a word of censure from Washington.

Yet on a recent visit to Egypt I found everywhere a strong feeling that political Islam was there to stay, and that this was something everyone was going to have to learn to live with; the US response had become almost irrelevant. Even the Copts were making overtures to the Brothers. As Youssef Sidhom, who edits the leading Coptic newspaper, put it: "They are not going away. We need to enter into dialogue, to clarify their policies, and end mutual mistrust."

The reality is that, like the Copts, we are going to have to find some modus vivendi with political Islam. Pretending that the Islamists do not exist, and that we will not talk to them, is no answer. Only by opening dialogue are we likely to find those with whom we can work, and to begin to repair the damage that self-defeating Anglo-American policies have done to the region, and to western influence there, since 9/11.

· William Dalrymple is the author of The Last Mughal: The Fall of a Dynasty, Delhi 1857.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2173919,00.html

www.williamdalrymple.com

There is a growing worldwide trend for women-only spaces on trains, beaches and in hotels. But do they make women any safer?

By Jessica Valenti

Friday August 3, 2007
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,,2140903,00.html

Growing up in New York City, I took the subway to school like most of my peers. I remember not quite understanding, as a 13-year-old, the looks I received from men my father's age - or why they kept "accidentally" brushing up against me. What was all that about? As the years went by, of course, it all became clear, and now, in my late 20s, when the topic comes up, I have yet to speak to a woman who hasn't had some experience of being groped on a train.

So I wasn't surprised by a recent report that showed that two out of every three subway riders in New York has been sexually harassed (the survey was of a mixed group, with almost 70% of respondents being women). In Tokyo, the problem is just as bad - 64% of women in their 20s and 30s reported being groped on the train or in transit stations. In fact, the problem is so well recognised in Japan, that there's even a specific name for subway harassment: chikan. And the city's answer to such large-scale harassment? Establishing a woman-only train carriage aimed at protecting potential victims.

Japan isn't the only country where a separate space has been set aside for women's safety. There are women-only train carriages in Rio de Janeiro, Moscow and Cairo. Italy has just established a women-only beach. And in the US a hotel recently announced that it is building a separate floor for female guests. All of which raises the question: is this the latest in "girl power" or a sexist solution to a much bigger problem?

There's no doubt the harassment women face in public spaces needs to be addressed - whether it is on the street, the train, or even the internet. We've been subjected to regular catcalls and groping for far too long. But while the idea of a safe space is compelling, this international trend - which often comes couched in paternalistic rhetoric about "protecting" women - raises questions of just how equal the sexes are if women's safety relies on us being separated. After all, shouldn't we be targeting the gropers and harassers? The onus should be on men to stop harassing women, not on women to escape them.

Betsy Eudey, director of gender studies at California State University, says that while some single-sex environments could be beneficial - locker rooms where people are expected to be naked are an obvious example - she finds that "segregated spaces only enhance division by sex, and prevent the necessary actions needed to make public spaces safe and welcoming to all".

Not all feminists are so sceptical though. American writer, Katha Pollitt, says she doesn't think that the rise of women-only spaces will excuse society from confronting harassment and violence. Instead, she believes they simply offer a small respite for women in a male-dominated world.

"Obviously, there would never be enough women-only space to accommodate all women all the time - half the subway cars or half the hotels," says Pollitt. "Women-only space is just a little breathing place for a few women every now and then." Pollitt also notes that women-only spaces aren't just about escaping harassment. "Men just take up too much space. They judge women's bodies. They flaunt their own. This is not going to change in our lifetime, or possibly ever."

For some women, single-sex areas can be a way to expand movement in public spaces, rather than limit it. A women-only taxi service in Tehran, for example, has been touted as giving women more travel options, while, around the globe, women-only gyms provide a welcome space for religious women who wouldn't otherwise be able to work out.

Religious concerns aside though, I'm wary of how the governments and companies that have created many of these spaces are promoting them. Further evidence that this isn't so much about a feminist vision of women's safety as a short-sighted solution is the reliance on sexist staples to drive home the "women-only" point. Brazil's train cars are pink striped, for instance, as is the sign declaring "No Men" on Italy's beach - which is known as the "pink beach". In fact, the only man allowed on the Italian beach is a lifeguard - beach owner Fausto Ravaglia has said, "You clearly need a man to save women in the sea. It's a question of muscles." A women-only taxi service in Mumbai, India, features larger-than-normal mirrors, a makeup kit and a magazine rack; the soon-to-be-opened US hotel will have chenille throw blankets and special bath products (you know, stuff that girls like) on its women-only floor.

Of course, there are more serious concerns than complaints about the sugar-and-spice of it all. In cities that offer women-only train carriages, what happens if a woman is groped - or worse - in a carriage that isn't women-only? Will she be blamed for not taking advantage of the "safe" space provided? After all, women are all too used to being blamed when it comes to assault, questioned as to why they were out on their own/wearing a short skirt/drinking.

Not all women-only venues are mired in paternalism. Girls' schools, for example, are touted as places where pupils have the confidence to speak more openly than they would in a mixed class. Women-only networking events - designed to build an "old girls' club" in industries where golf trips and other male-centric networking is the norm - are gaining popularity in cities from New York to London. Even my publisher, Seal Press, devotes itself solely to publishing female authors.

The difference between these spaces and designated "no harassment" zones, however, is that all-girl schools and networking are positively supporting women and their endeavours rather than hiding us behind closed (or sliding) doors.

When I take the subway now, a bit older and certainly more jaded, I do my best to avoid crowded train cars and instead of silently rolling my eyes when someone brushes up against me, I make a fuss. (Grabbing the offending hand and holding it up, declaring, "Why was this hand on my ass?" seems to do the trick.) If New York City was to create a woman-only carriage, I might use it occasionally, just for some breathing space. But I certainly wouldn't stop using the others. After all, women should have the right to be safe anywhere and everywhere.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,,2140903,00.html

Really Sherlock?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7093390.stm

BBC NEWS

Muslims are being "demonised" by the British media, with 91% of reports being negative, research commissioned by London's mayor has found.

Ken Livingstone said the survey, by consultancy firm Insted, studied a week's news reports and found Islam was portrayed as a "threat to the West".

Another poll published on Tuesday found that at least 35% of Londoners held Islam responsible for the 7/7 attacks.

The YouGov poll, commissioned by the Evening Standard, spoke to 701 people.

'Creates alarm'

Mr Livingstone said the research by Insted - a consultancy firm which deals with issues of diversity and equality - found the national media had a "hostile and scaremongering attitude" towards the community.

Mr Livingstone said: "The overall picture presented by the media is that Islam is profoundly different from and a threat to the West.

"I think there is a demonisation of Islam going on which damages community relations and creates alarm among Muslims," he said.

Mr Livingstone urged editors to be balanced in their coverage saying out of 352 articles studied by researchers last year just 4% were positive.

The Evening Standard poll asked 701 people about issues and attitudes towards Islam, wearing the veil and faith schools.

The poll found about a third of those questioned wanted political groups "promoting fundamentalist Islamic agendas" banned.

While more than half of those interviewed said Muslims in London were "isolated" from others, about 50% thought Islam was a "generally intolerant faith".

Regarding veils, at least eight out of 10 people said neither students nor teachers should be allowed to wear the veil in school.

On faith schools, some 20% of the respondents wanted faith schools to be "encouraged", 10% wanted their numbers to be reduced and one in three wanted them banned.

Another poll, carried out by Ipsos-Mori on behalf of the Greater London Authority (GLA) and published on Monday, found 86% of Muslims in the city and 91% of other Londoners strongly felt that the police needed to work closely with the community.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/london/7093390.stm

This article appeared in the Telegraph, before Benazir's death, after the last attempt on her life:

Benazir Bhutto has only herself to blame

By Imran Khan
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/10/21/do2101.xml

I'm sorry to say this, but the bombing of Benazir Bhutto's cavalcade as she paraded through Karachi on Thursday night was a tragedy almost waiting to happen. You could argue it was inevitable.

Everyone here knew there was going to be a huge crowd turning up to see her return after eight years in self-imposed exile. Everyone also knows that there has been a spate of suicide bombings in Pakistan lately, especially in the frontier region where I am campaigning at the moment.

How was it ever going to be possible to monitor such a large crowd and guarantee that no suicide bombers would infiltrate it?

This may sound equally harsh, but she has only herself to blame. By making a deal with Musharraf's government  — a deal brokered by the British as well as the Americans, by the way — she was hoping to get herself off the (substantial) corruption charges that have been levelled against her. (And Already convicted by Swiss Banks)

What she hadn't taken into account was Musharraf's unpopularity. He is regarded in Pakistan as an American stooge. And the US war on terror, which he supports, is now perceived as a war against Islam.

That is why there is no shortage of recruits for the fundamentalist cause here. By siding with him, Benazir was making herself a target for assassination.

The sad thing is, she didn't need to do it. Musharraf was sinking and isolated. He was on the point of declaring a state of emergency. Just when it looked as if he had no lifelines left, Benazir came back and bailed him out.

Worse, by publicly siding with a dictator, she has deliberately sabotaged the democratic process. We have an election coming up in January. As leader of the Justice Party, I am running in it but it will not be a free and fair election if Musharraf is still in charge.

He has dismantled state institutions, such as an independent judiciary and an election commission, and has introduced a controlled assembly, a controlled prime minister and a controlled media.

The polls show he can only win this next election if he massively rigs it. That is what he did in 2002, as confirmed by the EU monitoring team.

Given the way that she has undermined democracy by siding with Musharraf, I don't know how Benazir has the nerve to say that the 130 people killed in those bomb blasts sacrificed their lives for the sake of democracy in Pakistan.

Meanwhile, you can take your pick as to who was responsible for the two bombs that went off. At least three jihad groups linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban were plotting suicide attacks — but one thing is for sure, there is no shortage of candidates.

The war on terror is turning everyone in the tribal border regions into potential guerrillas. Not militants necessarily but disparate groups who are becoming united by their suspicion of America. A coalition is forming, and al-Qaeda is going to be only a small part of it.

Benazir has made enemies for herself in this respect also. She alone among Pakistan's political party leaders has given public support to the massacre of women and children that Musharraf caused when he ordered his troops to attack the Red Mosque in Islamabad.

She also backed his attacks on civilians in the tribal regions. Note that Musharraf has called the civilian deaths there "collateral damage" — an American euphemism.

Benazir also gave her backing to Musharraf's plan to allow Nato troops to hunt down maybe 200 or 300 Taliban and al-Qaeda supporters in the border region, but in doing that they have merely recruited a million potential supporters for the terrorists.

No one in the West understands that the tribal regions of Pakistan have always been an independent entity. They have never been conquered. Every man is a warrior and carries a gun. Even a superpower like the British Empire could not control that terrain. It had to bribe the tribes.

I have known Benazir since we were at Oxford together, but we have drifted apart politically since then. Perhaps I could have warned her that her life would be in danger if she returned to Pakistan and had a parade, but I doubt she would have listened.

After all, there has been no shortage of warnings from other quarters. But I can tell her this: it is not going to get any easier for her. Whenever she goes out campaigning in public, her life is going to be threatened.

It is different for me campaigning in public, even in the frontier region, because I am not perceived as an America stooge, or a supporter of the war on terror.

The British do not have clean hands in this latest suicide bombing outrage. Britain is providing a safe haven for Altaf Hussain, the Musharraf-supporting MQM political party leader who currently lives in London.

He's been living in London for 15 years and from there he controls Karachi with an iron will through his mafia-like party. It was this political gangster who persuaded Benazir that he could ensure her safety if she returned.

The only positive thing that might come out of this horrific bombing is that it will force everyone in Pakistani politics to sit down together at a big table and review our strategy on terror. We have to accept that it is not working, that, in fact, it is making matters worse.

It is an idiotic policy because the Americans are pushing people who are in favour of democracy at the moment towards extremism. Pakistan is in danger of turning into Algeria, a country where you had government forces firing on their own civilians.

Once the Pakistani army started its latest operation at the behest of the US, the whole border area rose up against it. And because the US has also bombed the area, killing many tribesmen, anyone who opposes the US becomes a hero.

The tribesman's culture is a revenge culture. When one is killed another takes his place. That is where the war on terror has been so misguided. It has benefited the people who caused 9/11. And it has made Musharraf — and now his ally Benazir Bhutto — look even more like puppets of America.

Below is anecdotal evidence that (v.s. simply having a natural desire) being sex obsessed even in secret is not universal, nor "natural" nor necessarily caused by societies that hold traditional values (which 'sexual repression' is sometimes a euphemism). Rather if you look at google search statistics it is the most sexually liberal countries that are privately most sex obsessed, (probably as a result of public bombardments of sexual imagery and innuendo). This should not negate evidence that those cultures which have monastic attitudes to sex, severely shun all talk about sex, view it as inherently "evil", or "worldly", or not praiseworthy even within any form marriage, and strictly utilitarian for breeding purposes have sexual abuse problems (Saudi/Indian/Pakistani/Bengalis take note!).
2 little articles entitled "Islam says sex is good for you" and "Sex is Sadaqa (rewarded by God)" are here: http://www.themodernreligion.com/misc/sex/sex_good.htm
http://www.zawaj.com/articles/sex_sadaqa.html

Google.cn word search results: Chinese shun sex search for a good, old-fashioned bank

The Chinese appear to have dismally failed to grasp the primary use of Google, with searches on the word "sex" ranking way down the list of most-Googled terms in the country last year.

Leading the overall searches list was "QQ", apparently an "instant message service and a brand of car", according to Reuters. Next up was the China Merchants Bank, closely followed by the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. Fourth place went to "stock" (as in "and shares", etc).

What merited fifth spot is not noted, but we suspect it might have been "anti-corruption". In keeping with the locals' evident love of banking, China Construction Bank came sixth.

All of which left "sex" out in the cold with an unspecified placing, much to the delight of China Daily, which was quick to point out that it was the "most popular keyword for Google users in some other countries".

In further revelations, Google.cn said that "China's Central Bank, the Ministry of Finance and Banking Regulatory Commission ranked first, third and fifth in the 'Most Popular Departments' list", while "what is a blue chip" and "how to invest in the stock market" topped the "seeking knowledge" category.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/03/google_china_searches/