English Translation Yeh Daagh Daagh Ujala by Faiz Ahmed Faiz

On Youtube, I was listening to the popular poem of Faiz Ahmad Faiz. In the comments section, there was a very nice English translation of the poem by Anil Bajpai. I am posting the translation below.

DAWN This tattered raiment of darkness
This sputtering of dawn.
This is not the dawn that we had hoped for.
This is not the dawn we had set out for.
Through the darkness,
Towards the last station of the night stars;
Hoping to find the end of our journey,
Somewhere on the distant shore
Of the languishing sea of night,
Where our sorrow-laden ship
Would at last come home to anchor.
Through youth's warm blooded venues
As we traveled,
Many a hand tugged at our cloak
From beauty`s sleepless abode
Many arms and bodies beckoned us
But very dear was the blush of dawn,
And inviting was the glowing raiment
Of the maidens of light.
Brisk was then the desire
And suppressed entirely the thought of fatigue.
Darkness now has cleaved from light,
We hear.
The Journey has finally now ended,
We hear.
How changed are the rules
For those who have struggled painfully.
Permitted now only is the pleasure
From the delusion of attainment;
Forbidden is the persistent pain of struggle.
Alas!
Though the spark of vision,
The fire raging in the mind,
The heartache, none has dimmed.
From whither came the gust of dawn's breeze,
And where did it go?
The flickering lamp on the wayside,
Does not know.
The darkness of the night has not ended yet.
The moment of liberation of hearts and minds Has not come yet.
Keep going, for we have not come
To the end of our journey yet!

Actions and Responsibility

Taliban are attacking Afghan police and military forces in Afghanistan.
Tehreek e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) are attacking police and military force in Pakistan.
Police and military are usually for protection of common people. But when they are attacked regularly, they no longer remain able to protect common people. Then we see the rise of crimes and other social evils.
Any movement or force who considers fighting with police and military forces bears the responsibility of every crime and social evil after their arrival.
But one problem is that these militants probably don't understand these responsibilities things. They are very simple minded, like zombies who refuse to think and consider the situation.
Most of the time, they have their own agenda and they will do any thing in their power to fulfill the agenda, no matter how many people die. While other times they follow some leaders blindly and do every kind of good and bad works on behalf of those leaders. They don't care who bad their actions are, they just follow the leaders.

Possible Reasons for Innocent Killings by USA

American drone strikes are killing a large number of innocent people in a lot of countries. The reason of the drone strikes is to apparently kill those who are a threat to USA and its citizens. What the Americans don't want to know or acknowledge is that each innocent person that dies in American drone strike has family and friends and acquaintances. They become very upset on the illegal death of their innocent loved-one. And in the process, they stop loving America if they ever were loving it in the first place. They start hating America and Americans. They start to see America and Americans as a gateway of deaths to innocent people all around the world. They start to see that Americans are killing innocent people freely all around the world, because they can, and no one in the world can do nothing about it.

Some of the possible reasons that the American politicians, generals, and policy makers are so indifferent to innocent human lives of non-Americans can be as follows:

• They need to keep the American nation in a perpetual state of war with enemies all over world, to make their media to generate glorious stories of American bravery and heroism.
• They need people all around the world to hate USA so that USA can keep its defense budget high and gives huge orders to its weapon manufacturers.
• American political system is so corrupt that the politicians policy makers do not realize the dreadful situation on the ground due to their actions and policies in other countries.
• American political system is in strong grip of religious and racial extremists who want to conquer the world and are very short sighted to see the longer term consequences of their actions and policies towards their own people, good well, and economy.
• American policy makers see the perpetual war as the only practical way to keep the whole world in a long war and keep them busy and dependent on USA for their defense. 
• Americans see all kinds of long wars as a method to improve their aggressive and offensive military capabilities to maintain its hegemony for as long as possible.

There can be several other reasons the current behavior of American politicians and policy makers when it comes to the world outside USA.

Survival of the Weakest 02

Physical Health of Rich and Poor

Lives of Rich and Poor
Rich people lead their lives in safe and clean environments. They have all kind of protections and high tech medical treatment on their disposal.
On the other hand, poorer people live in relatively unclean environment and they face all kinds of pathogens and get sick all the time. They also lack all kinds of medicines and state of the art treatment.

Fatalities
But the fatality rate of poorer people due to health problems is not very high compare to the rich people.

Under the Hood
When the rich and clean people don't get sick and they are safe from all kinds of less and more dangerous pathogens, their immune systems remain weaker and inexperienced. They develop several kinds of allergies to benign things. Consequently, they become more prone to several kinds of illnesses from the ordinary things all around in natural environment.
On the other hand, the poor people immune systems develop and fight the dangerous pathogens and don't get easily sick, due to early repetitive exposures. They also have least number of allergies and are not threatened by substances commonly found in natural environment.

Struggle in Opposite Direction?
Humans regularly strive to collect as more resources as possible, which apparently increases their survival odds. Apparently, success in this struggle for richness should make people strong in almost all aspects, but on average physically rich people are weaker than the working class poorer people. This phenomena shows more visible drastic results related to survival of rich people compared to poorer people in cases of sudden catastrophes affecting everybody equally, like floods,storms, earthquakes, war, etc.

Wrong Support

Supporting Americans against Afghan Taliban proved strategically very bad for Pakistan. Reasons are as follows:

• During Taliban regime, first time the drugs were completely stopped but American occupation of Afghanistan took drugs production to its peak.
• Western border of Pakistan was safe and quite and there were hopes for peaceful resolution of the border issue during Taliban regime. Now the Western border is very insecure and the region is full of violence.
  
• Taliban had ended support for insurgency in Baluchistan from Afghanistan completely. Americans arrival in Afghanistan started it once again as the terrorists have safe haven in Afghanistan.
• Pakistan provided logistical support to Americans which resulted in the destruction of roads and bridges. Americans remain very reluctant to pay expenses, and even those expenses were named as aid. 
• During Taliban regime, at start when Americans were not too crazy about them, there were prospects of peace in Afghanistan and the return of Afghan refugees from Pakistan to their real homes. Now, situation looks dark again.

After Americans run away from Afghanistan, situation there is still not improved. Americans spent trillions of dollars and killed hundreds of thousands of Afghans. Taliban are still stronger even after death of thousands American soldiers died in action. Americans main focus was on defeating Taliban, not warfare of Afghans which might include cooperation with Taliban. Americans declared Taliban as absolute enemies and there were no compromise on that. Now Americans have learned after a decade of destruction in Afghanistan that talking with Taliban is not a bad idea.

Journalism Then and Now

I am listening to a podcast 375  from The Skeptics Guide to the Universe. The skeptic rogues are talking about irresponsible journalism as some journalists had published news reports about published papers with very poor quality. Rebecca Watson at one point says:

The new job description of journalist is not doing journalism, it's selling newspapers.

 This and several other events shows how much unprofessional Western journalism has become. Eastern journalism is also going on the same path as the news outlets are struggling for funding and advertising.
But the sad point is that no more than a century ago, Western journalism was on its peak, and it defined a standard of professional journalism. Even today the textbooks of journalism written in that era heavily focus on ethics and quality of news reporting. Alas, the journalism is spiraling downward with time instead of progressing.

Looking in the Past with Starlight

Looking into the night sky stars is watching a live past, a past in action right now. What we see when we look at the stars is the past, several years, or thousands of years, ago from now. Obviously the reason is the huge distances between stars and us. The light travels those distances in several years, despite the incredible speed of light.

Photo from ScienceBlogs.com

When we look at the horrifyingly huge distances and wide open space, we are looking at how for can not we go. This is a huge wall or obstacle that has to be tackled if we wish to visit a star. And the most terrifying of this is time, the time required to physically travel through this huge space. Tragically, the duration of human life is very short which makes such travels impractical.
So, this makes this earth of ours a big prison which has several interesting things to occupy the short lives of human beings. But outside this earth, there is an unimaginably huge number of extremely interesting big worlds that we humans are wishing to go to, but we cannot, and so we are stuck in the earth.
I don't know what should I call it, but at the time of this writing, there are two stars in partially cloudy night sky. I can see only these two stars which I see every night when I go to sleep outside in summer nights.
A strange kind of feeling I have right now about vastness of the sky and the confinement of the earth, for a few nights. And right now I am looking into the past through my memory and imagination, not through the lights of stars.

Richard Dawkins and Razor Blade

Richard Dawkins gets into a comments war with feminists about every day sexual harassment western women face, and he writes that problems of western women are much less than the problems Muslim women face.
He presents several points and mentions that Muslim women get their genitals mutilated with a razor blade, according to him from Islamic teaching.
I grew up in Pakistan in a society of Muslims and have religious background. I had never listened about this female genitals mutilation tradition until I read the biography of Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Wikipedia. After some more research, on internet, I found on two English blog posts that in a backward community in Sindh in Pakistan. Although this is common practice in a few very backward countries in Africa, and even there in Africa the attribution of the female genital mutilation to only Islam is not clear. Their local customs have much more influence than Islam has on their daily lives.

When a scholar like Richard Dawkins attributes this to Islam and implicitly implies that this is a common practice in Muslim societies, probably around the world, then this shows that even a respected and knowledgeable scholar like him can be deceived by incorrect perceptions about other cultures. This can also be attributed to the propaganda or lazy journalism of Western media when they report about other countries.

The sad thing about British media is that they had colonized most of Muslim countries for more than a century and they have much more experience. In that time, they probably learned nothing about the local customs and traditions. British were probably too much busy in looting and killings.

When a knowledgeable scientist and activist like Richard Dawkins doesn't properly verify his arguments in debates, he is more likely presenting a bad face of science and logic to the third world countries, who will see it as an another weapon of western civilization.

Transformation of Western Media

In 2003, everyone saw how the Western media paved the path for attacks on Iraq by making repeatedly false accusations of Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction. They spread all kinds of false information and doubts about Saddam Hussein, and made him a non-negotiable person.
Western media eagerly played the dirty game of corrupt government officials in Western governments. One reason was that the media and/or the owners of the media had direct and indirect interests from attack on Iraq. Western media told a very huge amount of lies to their own people and to all of the world. The sad thing is, majority of well-respected and credible western journalists were also deliberately part of this lying game.
Western media has come to this stage of waging wars and be a part of killings of millions of innocent people.  This state is after the western media as being free and truly professional for several decades after WWII.

In the twentieth century, Western media showed to the world what it meant to be professional and provided good standards and examples. Now, it is crushing its own legacy of standards and professionalism.
Western media has been transformed into corporate media which now serves the interests of its corporate owners. They can publish any kind of false information if monetary interests are involved. They hide facts and mislead their own population in any direction they want. They have forgotten the investigative and journalistic professionalism of past. Western media is no longer a shining beacon to the newly freed media developing world.
The question is: Will this happen to newly freed media of Pakistan and the developing world as well?

Survival of the Weakest 01

Racial Survival of Powerful People 

Introduction: 
From the beginning, the human civilizations worked through a world systems. There are several criticisms on this theory, but it can properly describes our point.

People: 
The Core nations colonize and exploit the Peripheral nations. The people of the Peripheral nations face several hardships and they struggled for their survival. On the other hand, the people of the Core nations are leading easier and safe lives. According to human understanding and behavior, the people of the Core nations are powerful and fittest in the world, as they can develop their environment in many ways and advance their dominance. On the other hand, the people of the Peripheral nations are weaker and they struggle with everyday basic needs of life. Their lives of full of several kinds of crisis, including safety and survival.

Nature: 
In nature, each organism wants to transfer its genes to next generation, through reproduction. But they modify their behavior of genes transfer according to their environment. Here, we are talking about the organism of human beings, people.
If the environment is safe and food is readily available, then there is no major threat to the survival of individual and the offspring, as we have in Core nations. This makes people to have fewer kids and invest more resources on each kid. This reduces their population but makes each individual more powerful and resourceful.
On the other hand, if the environment is dangerous, like in the Peripheral nations, people worry about their own safety and survival and survival of offspring, then unintentionally they start to have as many kids as practical. This increases the chances of survival of their genes even if only a few kids survive longer. This makes the population of Peripheral nations to increase, as the deaths of kids are most of the time less than births. As the available resources are fewer, they can invest very little in each kid and his/her education. This exacerbate the situation for the future generations as the lack of education increases bad decisions and more crisis.

Movement of People:
Core nations usually don't want the people of Peripheral countries to migrate. Even if the migration is allowed, then there are several restrictions and conditions. The best people of Peripheral nations are allowed to migrate to Core nations, keeping Peripheral nations more poorer and Core nations stronger. This is called Brain Drain or Human capital flight.

Competition in Core:
The people of Peripheral nations living in the Core nations are on average more hard working and they have more kids than the native people of Core nations. More, the slower continued stream of migration from Peripheral countries continue and never stops. On the other hand, the native people the Core countries have fewer and fewer kids which results in their reduced population.

Consequence:
With time, inside the Core nations, the people from the immigrant people demographically dominate the native people of the Core nations. More, the Peripheral nations population increase with time, and the flow of the immigration to the Core nations can also consequently increase. With time, the demographics lookout of the Core nations changes and their native races become minority, while the races of the Peripheral nations dominate.

Survival of the Weakest 00

In evolutionary theory, there is a concept: survival of the fittest. But when we see human society and civilization, we can observe the opposite trends in several cases. The next few posts will list examples and discussions about this point.
One can point out that the main issue is the definition of the fittest when it comes to human society. What humans want and consider right, and how the nature behaves, both are two different matters. But humans think that their actions are according to the nature, and nature doesn't care what humans think.

In the articles in the series, we might have some contradictory points, which is due to the complexity of the issue and situation. If we try to become too logical and correct in all aspects, then the discussion will become very complex and we might miss the whole point of the argument.

If US Iran Nuclear Deal Fails

American politicians and media are trying their best to derail the US Iran Nuclear Deal. There are several reasons, but the sense of American superiority is playing a major role, the sense that Americans do anything they want.
When we look at the concerns in speeches of American politicians and talks on American media, we can easily see that the deal is between Americans and Iran. The P5 + 1 is only a show.
Americans are dragging around the other nations only to show that it is supported by others as well. But the other nations are silent.
If the deal fails, then the Iranian people will suffer, and the responsibility will be on extremist politicians of USA and irresponsible propagandist American media. At this point, Iranians are ready to reduce nuclear enrichment capability but then they will be forced to increase it as there will be no point. Iranians will suffer because they have rectified NPT and they are not allowed to benefit from it in any way.
Americans are shouting that the world should not trust Iranians who say that nuclear weapons unethical. But should the world trust Americans who were making a lot of noise about Iraqi WMD in 2003 and then attacked Iraq and found nothing? Americans know that the world has no other choice but to comply with Americans.
The world already distrust Americans after the Snowden spying scandal, and how Americans handled that. It has already started to affect American economy as the world no longer trusts American technology companies and products. The failure of US Iran nuclear deal will make the Americans even less likable and trustworthy to the world. And the world will try to come back on Americans in future in any way they find practical.
USA is giving the world an impression that it doesn't care about anyone and anything as long as its interests are involved. USA is losing its status as a champion of democracy and human rights. USA is also destroying its soft power by playing in hands of extremist politicians, religiously and racially motivated Israeli Jewish government, and religious extremist Saudi government. Americans are losing a lot by playing in wrong hands but they don't realize it and it is becoming very expensive to recover.

Power Projection is Aggression in Polite Words

I am reading a comment on an article by Armchair Officer who say:

The US military invading countries like Iraq and Afghanistan isn't deterrence, it's basically just power projection.

We can see that Power Projection is a very nice little technical term, with no bad connotative meanings. Does this means that aggression is not a bad concept anymore? Or is attacking weaker nations is no longer morally questionable by the technical-policy makers of the Western world?

Good Human Nature

It is human nature to hate felony and love good deeds. In almost all movies made, novels written, and stories told, heroes are depicted as good doers and the antagonists as bad people.
In conflicts between groups of any size and structure (whether they are two individuals, families, teams, armies, states, countries, continents, or worlds), each party sees the other as bad, and therefore the war is to reduce the bad influence of the other party.
This shows that human nature by itself is good. It only needs to be properly guided and managed to resolve conflicts.
If each party in conflict thinks out of the box and considers the views, points and the reason behind the war of the opposing party, then the conflicts can easily be resolved peacefully.
For the resolving conflicts peacefully by considering the views of the other party, farsighted leaders and politicians are required. This also needs education in common people so that they can think for themselves and humanity, their present and their future.

Allegedly Sponsoring of Terrorism by Iran and USA

On the website of Republican Senator from Arkansas, Tom Cotton has released a statement on incoming US-Iran nuclear deal. The statement summary is here on his website.
In the statement, he calls Iran an adversary (enemy) while claiming: terror-sponsoring, Islamist Iranian regime. This statement seems to be far fetched when we see the role of Saudi-e-Arab, USE, and Qata in the region, all of which are very close allies of USA. They are the ones funding ISIS in Iraq which USA itself has described a terrorist organization. Even in Yemen, they are bombing Al-Houthis but are not touching Al-Qaeda there. And don't forget that Al-Qaeda was responsible for 911 attacks.
The Senator Tom Cotton is also presenting USA as an angel who has never supported any terrorist ever, or USA is currently not supporting any terrorists at this time either. It is USA who has been arming Syrian rebels against government which resulted in a bloody civil war. It was also USA who armed and supported Libyan rebels against government which has buried Libya in in a deep fog of civil war. And don't forget about dropped high-tech weapons to ISIS by US, Baloch rebels in Pakistan, and secret support of Jundallah against Iran, and open unconditional support of any Israeli action against Palestinians whether its new illegal settlements of foreign Jews or carpet bombing civilians.
On this point, the "honorable" Senator might say that every country has to support anyone for its interests. But when USA is doing it then it is ok, but when others are doing it while making USA unhappy, then it is not ok. This is called American logic. Anything that is good for Americans is ethical and anything that goes American interests is illegal.

Re-usability of Curiosity Landing Space Hardware

NASA landed Curiosity Rover on Mars on 6 August 2012. It has been still working with a long range of mission objectives.

Curiosity Hardware Locations. Photo taken from http://io9.com/5932592/see-all-the-landing-hardware-that-curiosity-scattered-on-the-surface-of-mars

During landing the Curiosity, first a heat-shield was used to slow it safely through thin Mars atmosphere, and then a parachute was used to low it further. Sky-Crane was then used to descend the Curiosity to Mars surface without blowing any dusts around.
The heat-shield and Sky-Crane are two very heavy equipments. They could be use to dig bigger holes in the Mars surface to be examined later by Curiosity.
The heat-shield has already done its double job, securing the Curiosity from intense heat and making a big fresh crater on Mars surface. Nothing special was needed in this case.
On the other hand, the Sky-Crane was a complex machinery with rockets involved. After descending the Curiosity to surface and going away to safe distance, it could be used to hit the Mars surface with a proper angle to dig a hole through the impact. The impact could be made more powerful by speeding the Sky-Crane through the remaining jet-fuel in its jets and making the impact point of the Sky Crane more like a sharper cone. This is very late to talk about the Sky Crane of Curiosity, but we still have Mars 2020 rover mission and changes can be made in that one.
The parachute can also act to collect dust particles for a long time to be examined later. More, it the Curiosity to visit it more than once after some time, to see how the parachute is changed with time. It can examine changes parachute material with time, through temperature and radiation.
Curiosity can be made to visit the impact points of the heat-shield and Sky-Crane on regular interval through its long life. As time goes by, the Curiosity speed can increase due to increased confidence about Mars surface.
 

Muslims Concept of Heaven

He says that he doesn't want to go as a Muslim to the heaven where there will be Muslim murderers and no non-Muslim saviors of lives and humanity.

A crazy man told me some very strange things about Islamic heaven (jannah or jannat). He told me that it is not a place where only morally pure people will go. The people there will not necessarily be all good. Anyone who has said some specific Arabic words by tongue will go there, regardless of his/her characters and behavior towards his/her fellow creatures. He said that a murderer, a thief, deceiver, and any type of corrupt and bad person can go there, as long as he has said those Arabic words. All this doesn't make heaven an all-good place. The funny thing is, no matter how good a person is to fellow creatures in the world, and no matter how selfless s/he is in being a good person, s/he will not go to heaven unless s/he says the given Arabic words. Isn't it strange?

I told him that according to Muslims believe bad Muslims will go to hell first and then after spending a lot of time there as a punishment, they will go the heaven in the end. But he responded that a time will come when all bad Muslims will be in heaven, and all good people will be in hell due to not saying those Arabic (kind of magic) words.

This made me speechless.

China in Afghanistan after USA

I just read an article China’s power play in Afghanistan written by Ahmed Rashid.
Ahmad Rashid talks about the retreat of USA from and Chinese entry into Afghanistan.
It talks that China is trying to bring peace in Afghanistan by pulling different parties in the conflict together. The parties are Taliban, Afghan Government, and Pakistan. China wants to do investment in Afghanistan in minerals.

China is trying to bring peace to a region destroyed by USSR, and then again by USA. USA first came to Afghanistan with no homework about the Afghan culture and mindset and failed miserably.

This time, the Afghan discussion has parties of Taliban, Afghan Government, Pakistan who has influence on Taliban and a long spurious border with Afghanistan and has millions of Afghan refugees for more then three decades, and China.

In past USA tried bringing India into the equation and Pakistan out while knowing that India has even no border with Afghanistan, but failed. Its purpose was to reduce Pakistani influence. Now even USA is not in the Afghan discussions.

USA also refused to negotiate with Taliban, and tried to completely destroy them. They failed and now Taliban is still a force and USA is flying out. On the contrary, Chinese are considering Taliban as a major player and think that there will be no peace in Afghanistan and the region without Taliban agreement.
USA played the game of guns and refused to bring everybody to tables and now China is doing the table bringing.

USA focus was on security while economy and social issues were not in its main policy. On the other hand, China wants peace and security for economic and social well-being of everyone in the region. If China succeeds in bringing peace and prosperity to Afghanistan, then it will show that the world is going into a positive direction after USA decline as a super power.

Chinese approach for the region is very different from that of USA. China wants peace at its west and trade with the region, and a trade route to adjacent regions. On the other hand, USA wanted to show to the region its power and superiority. Chinese approach has good news for everyone in the region, while the American approach brought only misery and destruction.

One other point about Chinese approach is that it is not intervention in the internal issues of other countries. It is a dialog for asking others to get their things together and work for welfare of the people in the region. Chinese even don't care who rules the Afghanistan. On the other hand, USA approach was direct and indirect intervention in internal affairs of every country in the region. If any country talked against Americans actions in the region, bad consequences were waiting for them. Americans acted like bullies from outside. If anyone who Americans didn't like had government in a region, then Americans tried very hard to oust them, even if it meant military invasion and economic destruction in the region.

Lets hope that Chinese struggle in the region for peace are successful.

Cultural Privileges and Responsibilities

The current western culture is considered more advanced and civilized. One major factor is mass education and tolerance for opposite opinions.
When western intellectuals talk about other cultures and nations, they emphasize the two points. When a culture is considered superior, then there is also a need for the other cultures to embrace the values of the superior culture.
Western politicians and intellectuals are talking to spread the good values of western culture all over the world. It was the Bush Senior New World Order, export of democracy by Bush Junior, defeating evils of communism and the current war on terror: all are the spread of good values of western culture.

In the mean times, Western politicians and intellectuals ignore a few thing:

• With privilege comes responsibilities.Any wrong step on Western side reduces good perception of the their cultural values.
• Wrong decisions of current politicians and good decisions of past politicians in West points to the decline of the good values in western culture itself with time.
• Most of the time, Western countries sacrifice the good western values on their national economic and political interests. This leads to the perception that western cultural values can't pragmatically guide a country in their political and foreign policies.
• The above point also tell the world that Western nations usually don't care much about the good Western values when it comes to political and economic interests.
• One can also say from the previous points that the Western cultural values are in danger not from competition from other cultures but from the policies of West itself.

Killing without a Fuss

Americans kill people of different nationalities through drone strikes and apparently nothing happens. There are no major discussions and debates about the legal issues of killing others without a due process.
But during that killing spree, when they kill an American citizen, then something happens. A legal debate starts about the procedure through which they kill Americans. Still no proper debate about killing non-Americans.
I am a non-American and I fear that some day Americans will kill me and then they will synthesize some story about me and prove me a bad guy, possibly dangerous to Americans interests. The current blog post can also serve a starting point for Americans to start with.

Struggle for Corrupt Person

Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, photo from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iftikhar_Muhammad_Chaudhry

A friend of mine, who affiliates with Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) once said to me that former Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was a corrupt person. My reply to him through mobile sms was as follows:

You message some time ago raised several questions in my mind. I am listing my questions and points as follows.

• At the end of the message, you said that our (former) Chief Justice is very corrupt person. 
• I remember one such claim was made by former President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf. 
• Lets consider Chief Justice is corrupt, then PPP used to struggle for restoring a corrupt Chief Justice in 2007-2008. 
• Barrister Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan, a prominent leader of PPP, was the leading role in the movement for restoring a corrupt Chief Justice.
• Shaheed e Jamhuriat, Benazir Bhutto said to put a Pakistani flag on his house. Had she no moral boldness and confidence to talk against a corrupt person?

Friends at Gunpoint and Fair Game

Friends at Gunpoint and Fair Game

Americans are strange. They make friends at gun point and then expect a fair game. How can Americans expect Pakistanis to be their true friends when the only options for Pakistanis are to either comply or going to stone-age.

Photo modified after obtained from http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/05/22/restaurant-with-no-weapons-no-concealed-firearms-sign-robbed-at-gunpoint/

Pakistan agreed to comply with Americans and agreed to provide logistics, airspace, airbases, and other supports. Pakistanis demanded expenses in providing the supports as it was difficult to bear all the load on its own. Strangely, Americans called the expenses paid to Pakistan as aid.
Americans provided aid in past but the channels were not clear and the American aid money ended in American and European banks by corrupt administrators. And this is the case with almost all developing countries.
Americans were going to leave Afghanistan behind with all its problems and run away, like in all Americans wars after WWII. Pakistan was the country supporting several million Afghans for several decades and Pakistan is the country to deal with the future Afghanistan. Americans would run away and leave everything to Pakistan. Pakistan has to keep relations with all parties in Afghanistan intact in order to deal with them properly in future, when America is gone from Afghanistan.
Americans are asking Pakistan to deal with Afghans as Americans want, while Americans are not going to be here for long. They wanted Pakistan to stop negotiations with militants and blaming it for double game, while Americans were later trying to bring Taliban to negotiations table themselves in Qatar. Americans were asking Pakistan to forget about the past history and deal with Afghans as short-sighted Americans want.
Americans were in Afghanistan to finish Taliban and they failed. You can't completely destroy by weapons and wars a big organization motivated by ideology and possessing large support of local population. Americans were failed and they lost trillion dollars war. They had to blame someone for their failures. And they found Pakistan an easier scapegoat. That is why Pakistan was blamed as playing double game and is responsible for failed for American war in Afghanistan.

Contradicting own Ideologies

Separation between church and state: this means keeping religion as a private matter of a person and not involve the state in religious matter, and not letting religion involved in state matters.
USA constitution is very clear about this.
There are several measures to ensure this.
But when we look at the Israel and USA policies to each other, we see a stark contradiction in the policy of keeping state and religion separate.
The very existence of Israel is based on a combination of religion and racism.
Israeli policies to its neighbors and other minorities have a major impact from Judaism. 
The unconditional support of Israel by USA is solely based on care for religion and race.

But one can say that the above contradiction is due to the problematic politics in USA.
This explanation raises another question:
USA is a preacher of democracy and good governance and transparency.
When its own politics leads it against its own ideology, then how credible is the USA own democracy.
If its own democracy is not so good, then why preach to others and even trying to export the democratic system to other countries, like into Iraq and Afghanistan?

Losing Mojo in a Bad Way

Almost all USA allies joined China in development of Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), despite intensive diplomatic pressure from USA. This event hints to some points:

• USA declares China as a rival and enemy openly.
• USA most allies don't like dictation from USA on most issues, particularly China issue.
• China is winning the game of attracting USA allies despite US struggle against it.
• When UK joined the AIIB, it was a very strange event, because it never took any major step or agreement without USA permission since the WWII.
• China apparently doesn't want to confront USA on any major issues, but USA wants and trying to find ways to engage China.
• China states that the AIIB is for development of infrastructure in developing countries, in which task the major USA led organizations like IMF, World Bank, and Asian Development Bank have failed.
• Unintentionally, USA also delivered a message to the developing world that it is not interested in development in other countries if it is not in support of direct US financial interests.
• The above point will damage the soft power of USA in all over the world.

To improve the soft power, USA needs to reverse the side-effects of its behavior regarding the Chinese AIIB. For this,

• USA can endorse the AIIB openly.
• USA can also provide some funding to AIIB, and some guidance and technical help for its proper operations.
• It can find out some scapegoats in its government and blame them on destroying the good image of USA in front of the whole world.

Natural Alliances

Natural and Perfect Alliance based on Genocide of Local Population

In thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, Europeans got into Americas and Australia.
They performed a perfect genocide of the local population.
The genocide was so perfect that within a two to three centuries, the indigenous people became a very weak minority.

Fast forward to current age:
Immediately after second world war, extremist and racist Jew (not all Jews) all around the world came together in Palestine in a very systematic way.
With the help of European powers, they established the state of Israel.
They tried to perform genocide of the local population, but geology and geopolitics didn't allow it.
The remaining local population escaped from the genocide to the neighboring countries.
After one decade of Israel creation, the European powers backed off a little.
USA from North America, which is the region of a perfect genocide, became an unconditional ally of the state of Israel.
USA is an unconditional ally of Israel, but Israel is not an unconditional ally of USA. Isn't it strange?
Now a days, in USA, the white supremacists, mostly Republicans, are the main supporters of Israel. One can say that the failed genocide of the local population by Israeli Jews attracts sympathy from the white supremacists of USA whose forefathers had performed a perfect genocide. And this makes USA and Israel natural and perfect allies.

Are Western Courts Free

Rule of Law in Civilized and Democratic USA and UK and Poor Pakistan

 
The Point: Most of the countries in the world have leaders and rulers who wrongfully exploit the power bestowed upon them. They violate the human rights of their own people and put their country in harm's way. In a few of these countries, the countrymen start a movement and try to remove the bad rulers. After succeeding in removal of the bad rulers, in a fewer cases, the judiciary system starts a trial of the past rulers for their bad behavior. If this happens in a country, then we can say that the judiciary and rule of law has some good prospects in that country.

More Info Here

One Example: Pakistan is a developing country with a long history of  dictatorship and weaker democratic governments. Pervez Musharraf removed elected Prime Minister Nawaz Shareef in 1999 from government and enforced a state of emergency. During his one decade of rule, he took several controversial decisions which were perceived to be against the interests of Pakistan and its people. He was then toppled down after a long peaceful struggle of Pakistani people. Now, Government of Pakistan and Judiciary are trying to charge him for treason and violation of constitution and the rights of Pakistani people.
Remember, Pakistan is not an advanced democracy and it is blamed to have a very weak rule of law.
Moral: Does Pakistan has a good future in rule of law and democracy?


A Double Not Example: In the start of 21st century, President of USA and Prime Minister of UK took several controversial decisions and deceived their own people and the whole world. They started wars in other countries based on lies which results in deaths of nearly one million people and thousands of their own soldiers. They both violated their countrymen constitutional rights and tainted the concept of their countries as democratic and civilized nations.
There is a little problem: Those two were not dictators. They were elected by their countrymen. So, one can say that they violated the trust of their voters.
Long after their removal from power, there is no significant criticism about their actions and the resultant bad consequences. There is no case in their courts against their lawless behavior and their deceptive actions. The American and British people are not even planing to drag those two elected-tyrants into courts and charge them for murder of about one million people.
Questions: Does the judiciary of USA and UK handle such cases?


The Irony: 
The Irony is that the Britain and USA are considered of the most civilized and lawful countries in the world. They are the leaders of civilized world and are trying to export their democracy and social advancement and rule of law to other countries all over the world.

Why does Iranian People not Matter to USA

USA had been helping its puppet Shah of Iran for decades as a tyrant in suppressing Iranian people while forwarding American interests. Iranian people were hating Shah of Iran and also USA for the atrocities. This is no secret.
After Iranian revolution, there was a harsh response which resulted in the American Embassy Crisis. Americans loath Iranians for the Embassy Crisis but they never acknowledge their own mistake of supporting a tyrant Shah of Iran against Iranian peoples wishes, rights, and interests.
I was talking with someone more familiar with American politics and foreign policy. He said that when USA was supporting Shah of Iran, it was because of American interests. In that matter, Iranian people didn't matter at all. Iranian people didn't matter to USA when it was supporting Shah of Iran. Because American financial and strategic interests were involved.
Iranian people didn't matter to Americans. Human rights of Iranian people didn't matter to Americans because American interests were involved. 
Even today, Americans don't care about Iranian people. They are forwarding their own agenda. In American capitalism and democracy, non-American people don't matter at all.

If USA government was a dictatorship or kingship, then it was an act and a policy of a few individuals. But USA was and still is a democracy. USA is a long-time and civilized democracy with one of the world's best constitutions and several democratic institutions. It has a free media for a long time.
Isn't this strange for a democracy like USA to violate human rights of another country for several decades?
Isn't it strange for a land-of-free to enslave people of other countries through dictators and tyrants? 
Isn't it strange for a civilized country to help a tyrant and dictator to suppress his countrymen for decades?
Isn't even more strange for a democratic country to not acknowledge its undemocratic and inhuman behavior against another country people even after several decades?

What a strange nation....

Pre and Post Iranian Revolution Perceptions

Before Iranian Revolution of late 1970s, Shah of Iran had complete authority over almost every aspect of Iranian government. He had suppressed the Iranian people in almost every aspect.
But USA and Iran were great allies. USA was major supporter of Shah of Iran, and rarely objected about his any undemocratic acts of suppression of Iranian people.
Shah of Iran had given several kinds of facilities to Americans to do whatever they wanted to do in Iran. In Shahs Iran, there were least number of problems for Americans, but Iranian people were facing all kinds of problems.
The Shah of Iran had subjected Iranian people through secret and securities agencies and Americans where happy with that. Americans where very dear friends of Shah.
In short, Americans were best and dearest friends of Shah of Iran, while the same Shah was the worst enemy in the eyes of Iranian people.
After revolution, the Iranian hostage crisis occurred. It was a very complicated and long event. This event made Americans very surprised and angry. Their anger was natural but their surprise and claiming a moral higher ground was strange.
As mentioned at the start about the dirty romance of Americans with Shah of Iran, similar event should have been expected by Americans. What Iranian people viewed of the American embassy was not of as a source of diplomacy but a gateway of strength of Shah of Iran and the gateway of troubles of Iranian people, and the home of Shahs dearest friends. And Iranian people hated Shah a lot for his cruelty, while Americans loved him just for his money and power. Naturally, Iranian people considered Americans has a major source of their suffering.
I am making a simpler assumption here: A democratic government is from the people, and its any acts put strong responsibility on the people.
So, when American government was a dearest friend of Shah of Iran in suppressing Iranian people in very cruel manner, then American people were also very  responsible for the suffering of Iranian people by hands of Shah.
After the crisis, American people didn't thought about their past behavior and romance with the Iranian Shah. They didn't transcend about their active support of undemocratic behavior of Shah of Iran. American people and American intellectuals and American media just blamed Iranians for everything and declared them their enemies.
If American people and intellectuals had thought about their past mistakes,and acknowledged them, then the intensity of the enmity with Iran would have been very low. Both parties might have recognized their own mistakes and very soon people of both countries might have been in good relations.
But Americans didn't do this. They didn't thought about their mistakes and didn't acknowledge their wrong behavior in dealing with Iranians from the beginning.They acted like psychos with no guilt and dead conscience.
We can say that Iranians were uneducated, religious extremists, so we can't expect the thinking from them.
But Americans were not like Iranians. They were educated and intellectuals and had free media and democratic government. Why didn't they think about and acknowledge their mistakes and try to compensate for them, while improving the situation with the Iranians?
This is a big why?

Several reasons and factors can be  presented. I have the following ones:

• There is a very powerful lobby of weapon manufacturers in American government. Declaring Iran as an enemy would brighten their prospects.
• They knew that Iranians were Shia and there were historical religious disputes with Arabs.So, they needed an enemy in the middle of Arabs to sell them weapons, a lot of weapons.
• Israeli Jews have a huge influence in American politics and policy making. They felt threatened by Iranians and they wanted Americans to contain it.
• The free median in American is not as free as it seems. When it comes to government plus money plus powerful lobbies of weapons manufacturers and Israeli Jews, they just go with in any direction they are directed.
• Some very few American intellectuals tried to talk about it, but median blocked them out, so no one got a clue of the matter at all.

Stupidity of Indians Regarding China

How Stupid are Indians Declaring Chinese as Their Enemies

If you look at the Indian media news regarding China, you will see that China is India's biggest enemy.
On the other hand, if you look at the Chinese media news regarding India, you will see that India is a potential trade partner of the future.
Why are Indians so obsessed with enmity with Chinese? While Chinese have displayed several gestures of friendship and partnership with Indians. Last time, Chinese president visited India on his first foreign tour and signed several trade and industrial agreements with Indians.
One major reason is Indian and Western media. They talk to Indians that they are the next Asian superpower and that they are better than Chinese. Therefore, Indians should prepare their military for Chinese. Obviously, this means, completely ignoring domestic problems of the poor Indians whether it is poverty, economy, education, health, energy, infrastructure, social unrest in several regions, economic inequality, corruption, etc.
Indians apparently don't want see how Chinese handled their most problems. Chinese first focused on economy and poverty reduction with education and health, then they recently developed their infrastructure, and are now they are focusing on environment, corruption, and economic inequality. In the mean time, Chinese are slowly introducing social and governmental reforms to make people more free.
One other fascinating behavior of Chinese: They do trade with everyone, even their historical enemies, like Japan and Taiwan. Chinese say to them: We have some problems and issues which will not be solved very soon. By the way, do you want to trade? We can provide you this and this kind of economic services and you provide us that and that economic services. This will benefit people on both sides.
Now, compare that to Western nations: They will bomb everyone which is weak and disagree with them. If it is powerful, then they will refuse to establish any kind of relationships, and will continuously conspire to destabilize the enemies. Off course, this is bad for the people of the target enemy nation, but who cares.
Lets hope Indians see the opportunities in links with Chinese and risks in links with Western world which once looted Asians.

West and China and Free Market

A question is asked: Why US and the West have kept pouring money and high technologies in into China to boost it to become the world 2nd largest economy and military although USSR collapsed in 1989? The question is asked by SONTRAN on The Economist.

First opinion on the above question is:
Why not pour money into the China? Has China clearly threaten West or declare it its enemy?

Next I will try to answer the question indirectly in the following discussion.
In a democratic capitalist nation, the government has very little control over the financial decisions of individuals and private organizations, the decisions involving foreign countries, organizations, and individuals. If a private organization is involved in a critical military contract with government, then government can influence its economic decisions involving foreign countries and organizations. But in other non-critical industries and contracts, the organizations are free in their decisions.

Initially, Western nations tried to improve relations with China probably to counter USSR, as implied by the question asked. The start of improving relations was in government control because it involved a lot of diplomacy. But when the Western governments agreed on trade with China, then private companies and organizations started to do most of the business.

Contrary to governments, private companies and organizations are concerned mainly with their reduced costs and expenses and increased profit margin. They rarely think about the social and long term economic impacts of their financial decisions. Governments are there to control the freedom of the private organizations through regulations when the impacts of private organizations decisions are not good for the country, society or other public goods. But, in case of USA, the private organizations have powerful lobbies in government that prevent the government from imposing any regulations that can affect the profit of private organizations.
And this is the reason, the USA and Western countries are pouring money and high technologies into China.
One side point is: The money and high technologies are poured in China not by USA and Western governments, but private organizations in those countries.The government then can't object because the trade with China also brings costs savings, more taxes, and environmental improvements as the dirty industries are shifted to China.

One can also say that the reason is the the ideologies of capitalism (which involves free movement of goods and services and capital) and democracy (in which governments can't force individuals and private organizations without proper reasons). But when we look at the past and current active policies of Western nations and USA, we can see that they don't care at all about ideology and morality when money is involved.

At the end, we can say that in the presence of free market and trade and monetary profit, geopolitics and ideologies become irrelevant.

Taking Risks in Others Wars

 Blaming American Soldiers and Officers for Avoiding Risks

Thomas E. Ricks

Thomas E. Ricks from foreignpolicy.com writes in this article that American soldiers and officers were not willing to take risk in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that is the reason Americans lost the wars.
Thomas E. Ricks is probably from rich white elite class with no child in military.

Almost everybody will take a risk if own homeland is attacked. That is why Iraqis and Afghans didn't let the USA succeed in the war, because they were taking a lot of risks, because America had attacked their countries.

And no body will take risks in wars whose main beneficiaries are blood-sucking elites. When Americans attacked and captured Iraq and Afghanistan, it was not that Iraqis and Afghans had attacked USA. No. Americans were talking about attacking them for several years and at last they captured and invented some excuses to carry out the long wished attacks. Americans were very eager to test their new weapon systems and powerful army.

But, we can all see now that the attacks didn't gained for Americans what they wished. Because the motive of the attacks were false. They American solders and officers were deceived by American politicians, journalists, intellectuals and elites. American soldiers and officers were pushed into two wars with no clear moral justifications and objectives. And clear moral justifications and objectives makes everybody to take huge risks.

Americans spent hundreds of billions of dollars on weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan. They used very little on destroyed infrastructure construction and public welfare of the war struck people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the very little resources USA used on the people of subjected countries, it was consumed in corruption while Americans were watching.

Iraqi and Afghan people knew that Americans were there for destruction only and for no good reason and intentions. American soldiers and officers also knew this. So, this guilt was enough for the soldiers and officers to avoid taking risks, because they are also human and they also have families.

Should America be Trusted

Should the World Trust USA

America conducts drone strikes through its secret intelligence agencies in several countries killing score of innocent people along with the extra-judicial killing of the ones they want. America don't care what UNO and the world says about this.
Americans tried to export democracy to Iraq and Afhganistan and they are now in worst civil war.
Americans spy on all the world, even its closest allies, and don't intend to stop this.
They steel business secrets from companies in their friendly nations in Europe to advance their own industry and blame others repeatedly for doing the same act.
Americans support religious extremists in Saudi-e-Arab because of money while preaching secularism and liberalism and democracy to the world.
Americans support Israel unconditionally based on race and religion and money and talk to the world about secularism and multiculturalism and civilization only to attract brain-drainage.
Americans support every dictator who suppresses his people and provide financial incentives to Americans. Americans close its eyes on any human-rights violation if money is involved.
Americans produce the biggest per-capita green-house gases and pollution in the world, and their politicians claim that the global warming is a hoax.
Americans have the most advanced nuclear weapon program in the world, and their nuclear weapons annual budget is not reducing with time. They have dedicated their biggest super computers to nuclear weapons program. In the mean time, they impose their policies on any country they want. Then at the end, they tell the other countries that nuclear weapons are bad and no country should try to get them. And if they try, America will bomb them.
USA is a bully. It will tell you to be either his ally in a specific task or get ready to be bombed to the stone age.
USA has its hundreds of thousands of military personal in several countries around the world, to secure its interests. But it has minimum forces as part of UN Peacekeeping  force.

American people are good people but they are brainwashed and kept in dark. They claim to not trust Iran with nuclear technology while it is saying to be not interested in nuclear weapons. It needs nuclear technology for energy production to reduce pollution due to oil burning for electricity. But Americans are ready to bomb them if they don't give up.

Now, a few questions should be asked from Americans and the world:

• Can America be trusted?
• Should the world trust USA?
• Is world safe from USA?

Media Brainwashing and Polls

Media Brainwashing and Polls in American Population

Almost all America media outlets repeatedly tell Americans that Iran is bad, Iran is deceiving, Iran is untrustworthy, Iran is terror-sponsor, Iran is dangerous, Iran is this and Iran is that. American people hear this from so-called scholars and experts who take huge sum from the media to tell the people that Iran is bad. By the way, is Iran really bad? Who knows and who cares?
At the end, American media conduct polls: Do you trust Iran?
Obviously, answer will be No.
By the way, in the poll, those people are asked who will not be able to locate Iran in the world map. 
There is only one image of Iran in Americans mind, and that is what the media tells them. So, they don't trust Iran.
Isn't this brainwashing? 

China American Enemy

Is China American Enemy?

I have been asking myself this question for a long time. Most of Americans say that China is their enemy. But I don't see any major steps from Chinese which confirms the claim. On the contrary, Chinese are doing a lot of trade with USA and they have invested a lot in USA. Calling USA enemy or acting on it will be very bad for the Chinese. 
Anyway, why do Americans consider Chinese as their enemy?
There can be several reasons. I have sorted out a few as follows:

• Americans feel that they can no longer stare down China which they consider dangerous.
• China is building trade relationship with most of the countries all over the world, which decreases their dependence on America and free them from American blackmailing.
• China is economically growing rapidly and it is changing its social and government system slowly to accommodate the growth.On the other hand, USA is economically going down. This is making Americans very jealous.
• China is improving relations with all of its neighbors, including India. This fears American to lose their major weapons market.
• Americans need someone to chide to prove their moral and cultural superiority. Before Muslims, it was USSR, and after Muslims it will be China. 
• China grew and developed despite their non-liberal government, which is against American thinking. This is making them very angry.
• Weapon industries in USA has a big power and they control American politicians, media, and policies. Declaring China as an enemy will provide long term weapon contracts.

Academic Politics and Political Academics

Claim: Political science is not compatible with real world and research carried out in universities and colleges and other educational institutions is mostly about modeling events happened in past.

Arguments:

• There is a huge gape between theory and practice of political science. Scholars of political science have very little influence in everyday politics and on political parties.
• Political science departments of universities of a country provide very small input or influence on the everyday politics of the country.
• No matter how older and mature the political science departments of universities are, the country politics get nothing from this.
• There is no such thing as political maturity or political advancement, like we say scientific and technological advancement. 
• New generation politics in real world show very little maturity when compared to older generations politics.
• Sometimes, the politics of newer generations are immature and stupid than the older generations politics.

For a case study, I can provide the example of USA politics, specially when it comes to wars and foreign policies. 
From the above points, it can be concluded that political science is just an intellectual luxury and brain-itching for some old professors which has very little to do with real world.
Most of the time, the theory of political science is rarely applied even in the office politics among the academic staff of the political science departments.
Isn't this strange or stupid?

War of Drugs in Afghanistan

Taliban had completely stopped opium cultivation and product in their time, but when USA and NATO arrived, the opium cultivation and production started again, and now Afghanistan is the biggest opium producer. USA and NATO couldn't stop even the opium production, while Taliban were successful in stopping the ugly drug production. Some people say that it was USA which restarted opium production to handle the re-rising Russia by infecting its population. And it is not a big secret that the biggest victim of Afghan opium is Russian population.

So, a few questions arise:

• Why couldn't USA successfully stop opium production?
• USA spends hundreds of billions of dollars each year on fighting Taliban, but couldn't' provide economic incentive and alternatives to Afghan population to not cultivate opium. Why?
• Taliban were successful in stopping opium production, but USA arrival restarted it. Was this happening with USA consent? 
• The biggest victim of Afghan opium is Russian population. Isn't it provide a strong argument that it was USA to stop Russia from rising by infecting its population with drugs?
• Why westerns media thinks that USA is an angel and can't be the drugs producer?
• Even if the USA is not the drug producer in Afghanistan, can it be completely cleared from the blame?

Pakistani Double Game with USA

USA had threatened Pakistan to send it to stone age if it didn't comply with specific demands from USA at start of the so called War on Terror in 2001. To USA amazement, Pakistan agreed to every demand. A few years later, USA started complaining about double game from Pakistan by helping some Taliban groups in secret.
Some questions arise:

• Was Pakistan really playing a double game?

• Pakistan was forced in the war it didn't want. Wasn't a double game expected from Pakistan?

• Pakistan was held at gun point, why would USA not expect a double game, or stab-in-back from Pakistan?

• Why USA didn't do anything major to stop Pakistan from the double game?

The double game costed USA the whole mulit-trillion dollar war in Afghanistan. The Taliban, who were fighting with primitive weapons, could not be properly defeated in more than 13 years of war. USA and NATO forces fought in Afghanistan for more than 13 years, and spent trillions of tax-payers dollars, but didn't got much.
USA and NATO couldn't even stop the opium production in Afghanistan which had restarted after their arrival.
So, the whole war on terror in Afghanistan was a complete failure. And apparently, USA didn't tried to save the war at all.

Selective Nuclear Proliferation 2

There a big debate about proliferation of nuclear technology by Pakistan with different countries. I am not saying that this is incorrect. Pakistan may have shared nuclear technology with other countries.
But why only Pakistan?
Have not other countries also shared nuclear technology and materials with other countries?
Have not USA and European countries transferred nuclear know-how to Israel
From where did India got its nuclear technology?
Why USA signed a civilian nuclear deal with India which has a very poor safety record in nuclear reactors?
Why don't the major nuclear powers significantly reduce nuclear arsenals at the same time?
Why is nuclear bombs safe in hands of Israeli religious extremists while even nuclear reactors in Iranians are not safe or secure?
Why even NPT can't provide proper benefits for Iranians to have benefits of peaceful nuclear power production?
USA can't trust Iranians in any way, but was it trusting USSR during cold war?

Selective Nuclear Proliferation

I was reading an old news paper on Google-news about Israeli nuclear arsenal. I took a snapshot and I am sharing it above.
This is a bit strange. American politicians are too much worried about safety of Pakistani and Chinese nuclear materials, while whole ships full of uranium go disappeared from Europe.
Isn't this a little extra-ordinary or selective?