The Wiki conspiracy that wasn’t

Published: December 13, 2010
SHARES
Email
fasi.zaka@tribune.com.pk

[email protected]

When the WikiLeaks story initially broke, a journalist I knew said to me, “so, it looks like the mad conspiracy theorists were right all along”. I had to agree with him — the world view of the conspiracy theorist that avoided facts and played with fancy was somehow right.

At that time, the only cables that had been processed were ones that showed the unbelievable extent to which Pakistani politicians took their cue from the Americans and that the only country that really cared about the massive corruption in Pakistan was Saudi Arabia.

But, the conspiracy theorists in the press have not championed these cables. That may sound strange, since part of their bread and butter is celebrating ‘Muslim & Magic Kingdoms’, decrying democracy and lauding the military at the expense of Pakistani politicians and representative institutions.

What explains this? Nothing more than the fact that, as more and more cables come to light, several myths are being broken. The Jamiat-i-Islami protest the leaked cables themselves as a conspiracy because it has come to bear just how much their beloved Saudi Arabia cooperates with the Americans, and just how much they feed into the possible attack on Iran.

The PML-N has been exposed for its exile deal, the PPP for protecting a dictator. So much for never cooperating with illegal authoritarians. And then our true parasites: the intelligence agency “sponsored” small-time columnists and anchors whose specialty is throwing mud and misleading the public. They haven’t taken to WikiLeaks at all. It’s because their “Islamic Army” has been busy in trying to help Israeli nationals in India cooperate with the Indians, and are hand-in-pocket with the Americans.

Aasim Sajjad Akhtar put it nicely in the political economy section of The News on Sunday when he described the effect of WikiLeaks, saying that it puts an end to the pious posturing of the army at the expense of democratic players.

And so how do “intelligence” agencies react? Incompetently, through the bad advice of the hacks at their disposal, ultimately embarrassing them by creating an easily disproved fake cable.

But the thought behind the fake cable that took in The News, this newspaper and some Urdu ones is truly mindboggling when one considers how perversely the institution that authored it sees the world. Indian generals are geeks (‘na mard’ from a military perspective) and secret fundamentalists (secularism is hogwash) and India isn’t united (look at how great ours is). Add to that a mix of the Freudian slip of a desire for approval; the fake cable also mentions that the ISI had nothing to do with the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

From the naysayer’s perspective, Pakistan is the centre of the world’s universe. They clearly ignore the extent of the effect WikiLeaks has had on so many other countries, from petty to major issues. Take the one from Azerbaijan, where the US embassy has an unflattering opinion of the first lady’s excess of plastic surgery and inability to create a range of facial expressions. And her husband is still president.

Or take a cable on the Vatican and how it’s uninterested in tackling paedophilia. Maybe most damaging is the release of the secret desire of the Pope to keep out Turkey from the EU because it’s a Muslim country. That’s scandalous.

But these are just a few of many. I find it incomprehensible that most people do not seem to realise the true beauty of WikiLeaks. It exposes the Americans, British and Arabs with their incessant meddling, “secret governments”, the lies told to the populace (that the army and government have nothing to do with the drone attacks), mythical narratives (we are independent, we will never have foreign troops work with us), etc. Hopefully, this exposure will make it far more difficult in the future for anyone to take everyone for a ride under false pretences.

But the best reaction has to be Ahmad Quraishi’s — a sometime-blogger for this newspaper’s website — in “Guardian Uses WikiLeaks For Propaganda, Pakistani Media Can’t?” (or, it’s ok for us to lie to our own people and take their trust for a ride because I think others do it too), and then, inexplicably, state he is not an ISI mouthpiece.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 14th, 2010.

Facebook Conversations

Reader Comments (38)

  • Dec 14, 2010 - 12:57AM

    Sometimes I wonder if west doesnt have anything better to do but to conspire against Islam.Recommend

  • Waleed Khan
    Dec 14, 2010 - 1:03AM

    Islamic Republic of Sazishtan.

    You forgot to mention AAs name. The guy who criticizes the govt. in place the most , terming WIKILEAKS which laid bare the the banana democracy that this country has , as a conspiracy for the Muslim Ummeh.

    This shows how naive and stupid ,Hukmarans of this land think, the people are. Recommend

  • Wiki
    Dec 14, 2010 - 1:04AM

    The worst part of this fake leak is it has done a part of what it is supposed to do.. put these fakes in the mind of those who want to believe it. Most of the times this kind of news travels through small talks in chai shops and such so many that do not read newspapers would not even know that this was fake. The sadder part is that newsrooms compete to print these sensational peices without doing even a basic verification of the facts.Recommend

  • Dec 14, 2010 - 1:04AM

    Thanks Fasi for mentioning my commentary piece. I never thought I’d ever say this to you: Please read before you comment. Your interpretation of the title of my article is totally off the mark. It doesn’t take a genius to know it’s real meaing. Just read the article and you will know.

    The title of my piece, ‘Guardian Uses WikiLeaks For Propaganda, Pakistani Media Can’t?’ is translated this way: ‘Guardian has selectively released US secret cables and used them to write biased stories targeting specific countries, like Russia and Pakistan. Likewise, we too have the right to use data in those cables and interpret them in ways that suit our interests as a nation.’

    I fail to understand how you reached the conclusion, ‘it’s ok to lie to our people because others do it too’!

    As for the ISI remark, again you indulge in deliberate misquoting. The remark was part of an example about how some of our writers in our media can push conspiracy theories about our intelligence agencies remote-controlling mouthpieces in the media. I was not referring to you, but to the late US syndicated columnist Robert Novak who ‘revealed’ this stunning piece of information about me in Washington Post based on feedback from a very well known US diplomat that served in Islamabad. Apparently conspiracy theorists can exist in diplomacy as well as journalism. Recommend

  • Dec 14, 2010 - 2:23AM

    @A Quraishi: Likewise, we too have the right to use data in those cables and interpret them in ways that suit our interests as a nation.’ First of all, who are you to decide what the national interest is. Second, who is the “we” that has the “right”. Third, using fake cables doesnt serve our interests as it makes us look bad. Fourth, Guardian hasnt released the cables, Wikileaks has, approximately at a rate of one an hour. Perhaps you should go through the database yourself rather than relying on other news papers for information. Fifth, do you only selectively read information that fits your view of the world? The Guardian has published articles on every region and part of the world. Many, like the ones detailing activities in Northern Ireland or the behaviour of a member of the Royal Family, or the disdain with which the US holds British politicians, has to do with its own country. They are not selectively targeting individual countries you are! Recommend

  • Advocate My Foot
    Dec 14, 2010 - 3:00AM

    Journalistic wars much….. Still point being does this even matter anymore, of who does what. Fact of the matter remains that we as a nation full of dolts and the like will always and I repeat always let ego and emotion triumph over reasoned judgement. This all goes (the ego and emotion part) under the guise of “patriotism” blah blah blah, you get the picture. And that cannot be more evident in Mr. Quraishi’s reply.Recommend

  • Dec 14, 2010 - 3:53AM

    Too much assumption from Mr. Ahmed Qureshi and declaring we have a right to interpret in our way the wikileaks but failed to produce those cables in wikileaks which already has been declared fake by every one and more over, The guy who released fake cable on in those online news agency Islamabad has been sacked too.

    These cables are like daily dairy of US ambassadors to their government which it self has quite explainable and there’s not much to interpret there. They are self explanatory.Recommend

  • vasan
    Dec 14, 2010 - 6:45AM

    Mr Quraishi, As long as the cable you quote from wikileak is authentic and correct, I guess you can use it the way you want. But when u start planting stories and lies quoting wikileak cables, then it gets too much and People will call it lies and conspiracy theories by the Army and ISI. Elementary my dear quraishi.Recommend

  • Pankaj Mathur
    Dec 14, 2010 - 8:34AM

    Ahmed,

    Your commented above as follows:
    “The title of my piece, ‘Guardian Uses WikiLeaks For Propaganda, Pakistani Media Can’t?’ is translated this way: ‘Guardian has selectively released US secret cables and used them to write biased stories targeting specific countries, like Russia and Pakistan. ”

    Guardian did not release secret US cables, it was Wikileaks. however Guardian may have chosen to pick a selected few and write something targeting specific agenda or a country. Are they biased – perhaps yes depending on whose side you look at.

    But Guardian did not fabricate the Wikileaks or fake sources like the story published in few of the Pakistani newspapers. Besides it is not right to use others mistakes for rationalizing ones own mistakes. Recommend

  • Abdur Rahman
    Dec 14, 2010 - 10:58AM

    Well Fasi, to tell you the truth I have to agree with our leadership here. The leaked cables are indeed another conspiracy. That doesn’t mean that they are fake, but they are a conspiracy indeed. The leaks have not told us anything enlightening it has just confirmed the facts which most of us already knew. To me the leaked cables were just that much part of the information that they wanted us to know so that they can divert our attention from something far sinister that they are probably doing. I fail to understand as to why the US foreign diplomats never talked to Israel about any of its atrocities or any other sensitive matter. You wont find any cables about Kennedy’s assassination, Mossad’s activities, the 9/11. To tell you the truth for me Wikileaks didnt expose anything. I already knew why they opposed Turkey from becoming an EU member, already knew Saudia was involved in our political scenario and all the other things u stated in the article. You have to be really dumb not to know all of this already by now and let wikileaks educate you on this. And the best part is, even though now you know all of these things officially, you still cant do a thing, because you are one step behind them, and you’re pretty happy and excited about it too. I maybe a conspiracy theorist but so far almost all of my so called conspiracies have been coming true, instead of paying attention to the cables, we should rather focus on finding out what are they up to now

    ARRecommend

  • Abdur Rahman
    Dec 14, 2010 - 11:50AM

    P.S: When I wrote “You”, I wasn’t referring to Mr. Fasi Zaka, but rather all of us who have been really excited over the release of these Wikileaks cablesRecommend

  • Muhammad
    Dec 14, 2010 - 12:34PM

    wikileaks wikileaks, so far I have analyzed is that, wikileaks intend to create hate in common Pakistan for Arabs, although its true they have great influence in Pakistani politics but still they have been helpful always when we needed.

    sometimes it seems to me that wikileaks have been specially designed for Pakistan.Recommend

  • Parker
    Dec 14, 2010 - 1:06PM

    I expect if the sum of these cables could be used for good, we would all learn that ALL of our leaders are corrupt. Mine. Yours. We as human beings need to stop looking to leaders as saints and sort why WE allow these positions of power to be handed to the person that “sounds” the best, or the one that we feel has a moral high ground, subjective and loose as that statement is in truth, or to support a political party.

    Until we allow our wisest amongst us to hold power, it will not be held with humility as a sacred duty to you–the collective people. Wisdom comes from experience and falling down, sometimes very hard. It comes from the ability to conceptualize outside of books. It requires the people to have a measure of wisdom to recognize this as necessary. Finally, we must mature to a place where we see each other as people living very dynamic yet different lives.

    We have been pitted against each other for far too long. Let us lay our stereotypes aside and work for a better world. Recommend

  • Tahyr
    Dec 14, 2010 - 1:13PM

    Well spotted Pankaj and Abdur just want I wanted to say, Qureshi sahab doesn’t have the slightest idea where wikileaks come from and sahab bahadur went ahead and wrote an article.

    But still noone can beast the excuse of ‘The news’ when they said they googled it. Google aye? thats how they find news. Unsubscribed !Recommend

  • Bina Nosheen
    Dec 14, 2010 - 2:32PM

    Don’t u people think that Media should assume a unbiased and impartial role while exposing to any news or Leaks whatsoever it is while our media is adding spice to what is happening international media arena,we as a responsible citizens are suppose to infer what is fake and what’s not……just like yellow journalism our cable media getting a color of prejudice.Where are our analytsist and critique ….?
    Let them do thier jobRecommend

  • Asad Shairani
    Dec 14, 2010 - 2:54PM

    Fasi – you’re probably the sanest voice in this madhouse aka the Pakistani media. Recommend

  • Gurriya
    Dec 14, 2010 - 3:11PM

    Okay this was an aggressive piece, and delicious too. No doubt anyone with a sane mind could find his/her cool going awry after watching the yarn-tangling certain media personnel have been doing with the WikiLeaks “revelations” which I must say are, as George Fulton put it, not exactly revelatory. The army, the establishment (smartly labelled as the secret government here) and how much our political system is spoon fed by darling America is not something that could raise eye brows – as a collective group of people already given into status quo, the WikiLeaks uproar could have been treated as a proof in black and white to make the common person in Pakistan understand that their days of woe aren’t over yet, their leaders whom they voted for are still ironically engaged in puppetry. this could have been more effective through the hot mediums of TV and Radio than the printed word which does not reach to a lot of the populace – thanks o illiteracy. The “beauty” of WikiLeaks could have more smoothly reached to the common man who has almost none or little idea what the cables are but whatever they have driven from the propaganda of certain TV shows is to intensify their hatred for america. I do however wish to state here that the “meddling of America and Britain and Arabs” is not quite questionable, not to people like me at least who take the oldest proverb in the book too seriously – beggars cant be choosers. We get directions and we have to follow them because we have over a span of more than sixty years of a checkered political history made our political systems, political functionaries and political leadership Spineless and Impotent.
    If WikiLeaks has, more than anything told the world those exact two words about our political system and leadership, i am all for WikiLeaks. It bites. It should. Recommend

  • Gurriya
    Dec 14, 2010 - 3:17PM

    @ The Only Normal Person Here
    the West has a lot to do other than defaming Islam probably that is why we look up to the West when our treasury goes empty, when we want to buy new fighter jets or when we want our children to get good education for a better future. By the way, where does Islam and its vulnerability at the hands of the West come under this discussion? Believe me, the WikiLeaks did not talk of Islam at all. Recommend

  • Gurriya
    Dec 14, 2010 - 3:23PM

    @ Quraishi
    Likewise, we too have the right to use data in those cables and interpret them in ways that suit our interests as a nation.’

    We and no one else could ever have the Right to interpret, misinterpret any thing at all to suit our needs – that is damaging to the press which you suggest should engage in disinformation and misinformation and it is damaging to the National Interests of any country which you seem to champion so earnestly. The National Interest of a Country can never be secured by fabrications and lies. Mind it please the next time you enlighten the web audience with your opinion. You could have any opinion but when you are referring to the people in general in a collective WE, plz spare us from generalizations. Recommend

  • Jahanzaib Haque
    Dec 14, 2010 - 6:54PM

    @gurriya The problematic comment was deleted. Best regards (Web Editor) http://tribune.com.pk/comments-policyRecommend

  • Harish S
    Dec 14, 2010 - 7:05PM

    Quarshi was quoting PakiLeaks and not WikiLeaksRecommend

  • SK Ayubi
    Dec 14, 2010 - 7:20PM

    A fairly decent piece Fasi; although I feel the piece was poorly constructed, I do agree with your take entirely.

    Pakistan is so full of conspiracy theorists it’s ridiculous. People need to face the facts and snap out of their unquestioning nationalism. Recommend

  • siddiqui
    Dec 14, 2010 - 8:31PM

    at Edroos:
    AQ is part of this nation (or whatever you call it) and has every right to give his opinion on what he considers to be the national interest.

    at All:
    although Mr. Zaka has every right to interpret or misinterpret AQ’s comment, its quite funny to see you people believing it like a revelation…

    i think AQ was probably talking about using the leaks in a way like Mr. Zaka has used AQ’s statement, i.e., take a statement, cover it in an interpretation of your own and release it to the world as an ultimate truth…

    anyways wikileaks reveals nothing new… most of it is plain diplomatic gossip…
    angie is a no-risk-taker, first lady of bla bla country is like this… rest has nothing new that press hasn’t already speculated or reported… nothing of any critical nature…Recommend

  • harkol
    Dec 14, 2010 - 9:21PM

    As usual Mr. Quraishi has jumped in to defend the indefensible!

    If he has a proof that Guardian has fabricated the story, then he should publish it. All the cables that are released by Wikileaks are authenticated and verified by the Papers in US/UK before publishing them. US has never confirmed or denied any specific leaks published by Wikileaks, but has admitted that Wikileaks is in possession of genuine US diplomatic communication.

    So, if Wikileaks wasn’t the source of ‘fake news’ produced for the purpose of ‘our right of propaganda’, then your sources will need to be verified.

    In any case, any one can publish anything by calling it a fiction, Daily Mail news and others published ‘news’ attributing it to wikileaks. That doesn’t stand the scrutiny.

    Now, you can defend your thoughts till cows come home, but as the Author of this article has mentioned, people will judge if you are a ISI mouth piece or not!Recommend

  • hilal
    Dec 14, 2010 - 10:01PM

    @ siddiqui

    sorry, but no one, even AQ, has a right justifying lies to the pakistani people. period. Recommend

  • Uzma
    Dec 14, 2010 - 10:52PM

    Fasi bhai a gud piece of once again. but i guess everyone is using wikileaks as a weapon for others. Isnt it so that we have failed to understand to what extent the destruction ids meant by the wikileaks???????? isnt it the start of cyber war although we are still into the battle field of terrorism. Recommend

  • zaigham
    Dec 15, 2010 - 12:08AM

    typo

    i think AQ was probably NOT talking

    Recommend

  • Gurriya
    Dec 15, 2010 - 7:49AM

    @ Siddiqui
    Fasi never twisted around with words and his interpretation of the said title of the blog is actually exactly the same to what AQ himself later mentione, with a difference of vocabulary. i am generous enough to ignore the factual error the latter made while writing in this forum that the cables were released by Guardian. Plus the pertinent fact is, the people who have been criticising AQ in this forum have been doing so as per HIS OWN interpretation that he kindly offered to us (Plz check his post above) so no, people who read this column are not dummies who take the written word for the Gospel or as you put it, as revelations. Recommend

  • Gurriya
    Dec 15, 2010 - 7:51AM

    @ Jahanzaib Haque
    Thanks!Recommend

  • SA
    Dec 15, 2010 - 1:19PM

    @Abdur Rehman – “The leaks have not told us anything enlightening it has just confirmed the facts which most of us already knew……I fail to understand as to why the US foreign diplomats never talked to Israel about any of its atrocities or any other sensitive matter. You wont find any cables about Kennedy’s assassination, Mossad’s activities, the 9/11.”
    Mate, not everything needs to be a zionist/hindu/CIA conspiracy. The answer to your question is simple. The cables that were leaked are contemporary (and hence will not refer to Kennedy assasination) and were tagged as ‘Secret’ or ‘Only for US nationals’ or below in terms of confidentiality. Dont be so taken by ‘Secret’, cos there are several levels of confidentiality above that and Manning (the US analyst who copied and leaked these cables) did not have access to such cables. Simple!Recommend

  • Abdur Rahman
    Dec 15, 2010 - 2:18PM

    @Uzma, well that is the purpose of the leaks in the first place, to use it against each other. U will not gain anything beneficial from the leaks and it will not tell you anything that you did not know already.Recommend

  • Gurriya
    Dec 15, 2010 - 2:28PM

    @ Siddiqui
    Fasi never twisted around with words and his interpretation of the said title of the blog is actually exactly the same to what AQ himself later mentioned, with a difference of vocabulary. i am generous enough to ignore the factual error the latter made while writing in this forum that the cables were released by Guardian. Plus the pertinent fact is, the people who have been criticising AQ in this forum have been doing so as per HIS OWN interpretation that he kindly offered to us (Plz check his post above) so no, people who read this column are not dummies who take the written word for the Gospel or as you put it, as revelations.Recommend

  • Asghar
    Dec 15, 2010 - 5:23PM

    @Guriya: Interestingly, i find the most of comments based on personal choices, likes, and dislikes of ‘characters’ rather than finding balanced views in article, or many of the comments.

    Honestly, i love F.Z’s columns but Guriya as you said that its not Gospel. He too can not balance his articles. Why our writers can survive on the extreme bandwagon to be popular, rather than putting the right picture ahead. Some undeniable facts which should have been made part of one sided article should be:

    1) Wikileaks 250,00,000 cables (#cablegates) are released to selected Media outlets.

    2) Media outlets have just released fraction of cables.

    3) Release of ‘selected’ cables give the power of manipulation to choose between the bad, and ugly truth.

    I love F.Z’s columns for good humor, and laugh but not for a mature opinion on public matters, which truly lacks balance.

    Cheerios.Recommend

  • Gurriya
    Dec 15, 2010 - 7:05PM

    @ Asghar
    Fasi Zaka does not write essays or articles, as you must already be aware of. He writes columns that appear on the Opinion-editorial page of this paper. it is supposed to be a column which is (please google its definition of you have any doubts) an opinionated piece that presents the thought pattern of a person who can be labelled as an opinion leader so that people who think likewise can establish their opinions or those who think unlike can either argue, quit reading that columnist or actually change their opinions. i have many a times read many commentators on this website criticising columnists of not presenting FACTS or both sides of the picture which is actually not required of a colunist – thats a news writer’s job, a feature writer’s job, an essayists’s job, someone on the editorial board who writes the editorials’ job or even a person who writes an article. that is technical jargon. and believe me i have education enough to substantially say all this.

    Fasi Zaka does not write gospel, so doesnt George Fulton or Ayesha Tammy or Ayesha Siddiqua or Khaled Ahmed or Amer Ahmed Khan – to name a few of those columnists i choose to read or find myself agreeing with. The reason why AQ was being criticised here was probably not because Fasi pin pointed him out but it was after AQ himself started to give a somewhat incomprehensible definition of his own words which is axtually not agreeable for me and those who share my opinion.

    the facts you mention might be facts, that appeared in newspapers and those people you have to understand this, that read op ed pages in english have already been through them. i have never read AQ, i have nothing against him, but i do not find his idea appealing thats all. its a free country right?
    good talking. and also cheerios (whatever that is, i thought that was a breakfast cereal label. is it the in thing these days?)
    i usually say cheers. Recommend

  • Mojo
    Dec 15, 2010 - 9:47PM

    This Gurriya seems fictitious. Recommend

  • Asghar
    Dec 16, 2010 - 7:50AM

    @Guriya:

    Relax. It is indeed your right as well as my choice to put down our thoughts, and comments. It seems quite astonishing that Op-Ed throughout the world, and presented in reputed outlets are prone to positive feedback or criticism. After re-reading my last comment, i do not find any genuine reason to disturb your peace of mind to write a ‘self-advertising’ comment rather than just sharing technical information.

    Oh, technical information? Yes, because it is time to educate ourselves that Wikileaks; itself is a ‘technical jargon’ based on work of respectable ‘Anonymous’, and other ‘hacktivists’ rather than any local op-ed tom, dick or harry.

    Regarding ‘Wiki-leaks’, your well written opinions without technical jargon are just ‘beautiful comments without brain.’ So, take your hands off from keyboard before you twist to jump onto people; who dare to have opinion other than yours.

    With due respect to other hacktivists, i believe in bringing forward the whole bunch of 250,00,000 cables, rather than Media outlets using their paid right to manipulate, and bring forward only ‘selected’ cables of their ‘own’ choice.

    Before you start munching some local cereal, better take your educated brain to dwell towards the land of South Pacific Ocean to ‘understand’ the friendly greeting of ‘cheerio’. While looking back at my last comment, and your response, truly some people do not deserve to have an open discussion.

    It is NOT your or my ‘formal’ duty to keep writing comments to defend our favorite columnists by coming here after even sixth hour. Give it a break. Relax, smile, and have a nice day ahead.

    P.S: Please do not try to find ‘hactivists’, ‘Anonymous’, ‘Wiki’, and ‘#cablegates’ in English Dictionary, before you hit the road of technical life again.Recommend

  • Gurriya
    Dec 16, 2010 - 11:25AM

    @ Mojo
    Could you please be more articulate? after all you chose to comment on a “person” instead of the “issue” or the “column”. fictitious? as in unreal? or fictional? that gives me laughs that make me ache. Recommend

  • Gurriya
    Dec 16, 2010 - 2:19PM

    @ Asghar
    Woah. From someone talking of Relaxing, you really need to. I am glad you realise that op-ed writings are prone to receive positive criticism instead of rhetorics just spoken or typed to win a discussion. actually, the rationale of a discussion is never to win, it is just to put forth ideas that contrast and at times, compliment one another.

    i do notice my :brainless” comments took your fancy and instead of addressing any of the brainy commentators above, you chose to address me to express how much you like FZ’s columns for a laugh and how much you would not depend on him for one of his matured opinions. Anyway, the phrase you used “Beuatiful but brainless” is actually confused and shall i say, incorrect discourse. Please do not get worked up, i can see you are very touchy about your english linguistic abilities since in the last post, you have not discussed anything but the um, er, um, er, the linguistic disposition. Not to mention the hard earned South Pacific lingo. You see, you are not talking of a bimbo here, beautiful on the outside and brainless on the inside. its a COMMENT you are talking about which actually cannot be beautiful unless it is pithy and pithy could safely be equalized to being brainy. so please make up your mind.
    Secondly, you seem offended by the technical jargon that i let out. and i stand by it. it was not opinionated, it was factual. i find it interesting, you seem to agree with it as well, since in both your comments, you have avoided responding to anything i say.
    Lastly, you mentioned in a Freudian slip that you have to some here after every six hours, i am sorry for that. a handheld could solve ease this pressure. but you wouldnt be doing so just to talk to a brainless person, i am sure. while you seem so earnest to hold healthy discussions, actually throughout this page you are the only commentator who is putting off a fellow commentator with rude taunts, which actually lack brain. i am sorry but that is what the discourse of your post is.
    Lastly, please most importantly, i am not here to defend Fasi, he doesnt need it. my first comment directed at Fasi was actually critical as well as appreciative in nature. i think a comment should be more about the gist of a post instead of direct hurls at other people. it usually happens when one runs out of logic, you seem a sane enough person with, i assure you, good english. (happy now?) and as i said in the beginning, Relax. Recommend

More in Opinion