by Hugh Fitzgerald (September 2009)
The Pressler Amendment was passed in 1985. It was intended to ensure that the enormous amount of aid that was being given to Pakistan would not be used to further Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions, but would be used, as the State Department and successive administrations kept assuring Congress and the American public, in order to make Pakistan feel secure, so that it would not develop nuclear weapons.
Among those who had been most astute and most critical of the policy of continued ceaseless appeasement of Pakistan was Senator John Glenn of Ohio. It would be useful, I suspect, to remind people who have not been in government about that Pressler Amendment by quoting at length from what Senator Glenn said in Congress more>>>
I wonder if Mr. Fitzgerald has information about the 1981 to 1990 operation in the U.S. and Germany to assist A. Q. Kahn? It is not surprising that there would be one -- that is not the point. The collaboration with U. S. laboratories is a concern for an American like myself. Of course, for the investigation to be only interested in money laundering was a shock. To have no understanding of the technology involved was another shock. But mostly to see what other Americans will do for money is still extremely painful now that the events are long ago. It seems irrelvant now that most Americans believe our friend is Pakistan.
Carrying on further to what you are saying in your above response, let me that the architecture of the Kaaba is the only authentic piece of Islamic "art" left for us to evaluate. Even this piece of "art" has been altered for more than ten times to give it a better outlook. Even a closer observation of the present Kaaba is not impressive. In other words, what had been portrayed as great "Islamic Art" throughout history is in fact a conquered art from non-Islamic civilizations--after their total dismantling, their stolen art has been falsely projected as Islamic.
What are those fruits? In art, literature, music, science -- what are they? The first few centuries of Muslim conquest, when the conquered non-Muslims still far outnumbered the Muslim conquerors, and frucitfied their own, now Muslim-ruled, societies, and when even many Muslims were only a generation or two removed from being Christians or Jews or Zoroastrians (and had been raised in such a non-Muslim milieu, and affected by it), are those of High Islamic Civilization. When the number and power of those non-Muslims declined, so did that civilization. And it's been downhill all the way ever since.
NEIL D CHASE
My take on Islam is that is was a tremendous help after the Roman era but is worse than useless today. It did meet the social needs of the brutal past. Its leaders, however, do not have what it takes to unify people.
I would like to see more of an appreciation of of its fruits prior to the nineteenth century. Then, after rejecting the model for this day, let's look for a better one.