Michael Moore's open letter to Juan Williams who was recently fired from Fox News

Read on Pakistan Cyber Force Facebook Page

• Subscribe to our Daily Updates

Dear Juan,

Sorry to hear you got fired by National Public Radio for saying on Fox that you get nervous when you see Muslims on a plane with you. It was dumb to say such a thing, but I don’t think saying one dumb thing should be a firing offense. (I do think an NPR journalist wanting to take money from Fox News to be a regular commentator should be a firing offense, but that’s another story).
But there’s more to this — and some important things that everyone is missing.
For instance, what you said about Faisal Shazad, the Pakistani immigrant who wanted to bomb Times Square. When he was being sentenced this month, he claimed, according to you, that his attempted attack was just “the first drop of blood.” We can’t let political correctness blind us to this, you explained.

Michael Moore

I guess Shahzad made a big impression on you, because after being fired you went back on Fox and told them, “You can’t ignore the fact what has recently been said in court with regard to ‘this is the first drop of blood in a Muslim war against America.’”
Sadly for you (and this is also why you shouldn’t be working for a real news organization like NPR), Shahzad never said that. If you were a real journalist, you would have quoted him accurately. What he actually said was that he was the “first droplet of the flood,” not blood. But I know how easy it is to mishear things when scary Muslims are talking. And I guess it’s not a huge difference anyway.
What really matters is that you’re 100% right: We shouldn’t let political correctness stop us from paying close attention to what people like Shahzad say. The problem is you just haven’t taken it far enough.

Juan Williams - The Fox News reporter who called Muslims as terrifying and was later on Fired by the Arab Muslim majority share holder of Fox News

So Juan, I’m asking you to join me on a crusade — whoops! scratch that, let’s call it a “mission” — to publicize these statements by Faisal Shahzad as widely as possible. Because most of the media have not spent much time on what he had to say.
Here’s what he said at his recent sentencing (after talking about being a droplet in a flood):
[Saladin] liberated Muslim lands… And that’s what we Muslims are trying do, because you’re occupying Iraq and Afghanistan… So, the past nine years the war with Muslims has achieved nothing for the U.S., except for it has waken up the Muslims for Islam. We are only Muslims trying to defend our people, honor, and land. But if you call us terrorists for doing that, then we are proud terrorists, and we will keep on terrorizing until you leave our land and people at peace.

And this is what Shahzad said when he plead guilty back in June:
I want to plead guilty, and I’m going to plead guilty 100 times over, because until the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan, and stops the occupation of Muslim lands, and stops killing the Muslims, and stops reporting the Muslims to its government, we will be attacking U.S., and I plead guilty to that.
Then there’s email that Shahzad sent to a friend in 2006:

Everyone knows the current situation of Muslim World… Friends with peaceful protest! Can you tell me a way to save the oppressed? And a way to fight back when rockets are fired at us and Muslim blood flows? In Palestine, Afghan, Iraq, Chechnya and else where.
And then there’s what Shahzad was telling friends and relatives even before that:
Mr. Shahzad had long been critical of American foreign policy. “He was always very upset about the fabrication of the W.M.D. stunt to attack Iraq and killing non-combatants such as the sons and grandson of Saddam Hussein,” said a close relative. In 2003, Mr. Shahzad had been copied on a Google Groups e-mail message bearing photographs of Guantánamo Bay detainees, handcuffed and crouching, below the words “Shame on you, Bush. Shame on You.”

So what do you say, Juan? Now that you have a new $2 million contract with Fox, let me come on with you for some in-depth discussions about the terrorists’ real motivations. We can’t let another day go by letting the PC brigade stop us from telling the truth: Terrorists aren’t trying to kill us because they hate our freedom. They’re killing us because we’re in their countries killing them.

Yours,
Michael Moore

P.S. If you want to understand suicide bombings, be sure to read the new book that studied every instance of it for the past 30 years. It’s been used by many groups of many religions, not just Arabs and not just Muslims. And almost all such terrorism has one motivation in common: occupation by foreign militaries.

P.P.S. Here’s something else that I’d sincerely love to talk about with you: what do you think when you see rich middle-aged white men talking on TV about how they get nervous around African Americans on the street? And then they explain that we can’t let political correctness stop us from talking about black-on-white crime?
Does it drive you crazy that they say this without even being conscious of the history of far greater violence by white people toward blacks? And do you maybe understand now how those middle-aged white guys get it so wrong?

UPDATE: Juan, you probably remember in 1986 when the Washington Post Magazine ran a Richard Cohen column defending jewelry store owners who wouldn’t buzz in young black men. It caused such a big controversy that the New Republic ran a bunch of responses to it, including one by you. You might find it interesting to go back and read what you wrote then — for instance, “Racism is a lazy man’s substitute for using good judgment… Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.”

Michael Moore
Oscar and Emmy-winning director


Enticing Fury

Pakistan Cyber Force

Michael Moore's open letter to Juan Williams who was recently fired from Fox News

Read on Pakistan Cyber Force Facebook Page

• Subscribe to our Daily Updates

Dear Juan,

Sorry to hear you got fired by National Public Radio for saying on Fox that you get nervous when you see Muslims on a plane with you. It was dumb to say such a thing, but I don’t think saying one dumb thing should be a firing offense. (I do think an NPR journalist wanting to take money from Fox News to be a regular commentator should be a firing offense, but that’s another story).
But there’s more to this — and some important things that everyone is missing.
For instance, what you said about Faisal Shazad, the Pakistani immigrant who wanted to bomb Times Square. When he was being sentenced this month, he claimed, according to you, that his attempted attack was just “the first drop of blood.” We can’t let political correctness blind us to this, you explained.

Michael Moore

I guess Shahzad made a big impression on you, because after being fired you went back on Fox and told them, “You can’t ignore the fact what has recently been said in court with regard to ‘this is the first drop of blood in a Muslim war against America.’”
Sadly for you (and this is also why you shouldn’t be working for a real news organization like NPR), Shahzad never said that. If you were a real journalist, you would have quoted him accurately. What he actually said was that he was the “first droplet of the flood,” not blood. But I know how easy it is to mishear things when scary Muslims are talking. And I guess it’s not a huge difference anyway.
What really matters is that you’re 100% right: We shouldn’t let political correctness stop us from paying close attention to what people like Shahzad say. The problem is you just haven’t taken it far enough.

Juan Williams - The Fox News reporter who called Muslims as terrifying and was later on Fired by the Arab Muslim majority share holder of Fox News

So Juan, I’m asking you to join me on a crusade — whoops! scratch that, let’s call it a “mission” — to publicize these statements by Faisal Shahzad as widely as possible. Because most of the media have not spent much time on what he had to say.
Here’s what he said at his recent sentencing (after talking about being a droplet in a flood):
[Saladin] liberated Muslim lands… And that’s what we Muslims are trying do, because you’re occupying Iraq and Afghanistan… So, the past nine years the war with Muslims has achieved nothing for the U.S., except for it has waken up the Muslims for Islam. We are only Muslims trying to defend our people, honor, and land. But if you call us terrorists for doing that, then we are proud terrorists, and we will keep on terrorizing until you leave our land and people at peace.

And this is what Shahzad said when he plead guilty back in June:
I want to plead guilty, and I’m going to plead guilty 100 times over, because until the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan, and stops the occupation of Muslim lands, and stops killing the Muslims, and stops reporting the Muslims to its government, we will be attacking U.S., and I plead guilty to that.
Then there’s email that Shahzad sent to a friend in 2006:

Everyone knows the current situation of Muslim World… Friends with peaceful protest! Can you tell me a way to save the oppressed? And a way to fight back when rockets are fired at us and Muslim blood flows? In Palestine, Afghan, Iraq, Chechnya and else where.
And then there’s what Shahzad was telling friends and relatives even before that:
Mr. Shahzad had long been critical of American foreign policy. “He was always very upset about the fabrication of the W.M.D. stunt to attack Iraq and killing non-combatants such as the sons and grandson of Saddam Hussein,” said a close relative. In 2003, Mr. Shahzad had been copied on a Google Groups e-mail message bearing photographs of Guantánamo Bay detainees, handcuffed and crouching, below the words “Shame on you, Bush. Shame on You.”

So what do you say, Juan? Now that you have a new $2 million contract with Fox, let me come on with you for some in-depth discussions about the terrorists’ real motivations. We can’t let another day go by letting the PC brigade stop us from telling the truth: Terrorists aren’t trying to kill us because they hate our freedom. They’re killing us because we’re in their countries killing them.

Yours,
Michael Moore

P.S. If you want to understand suicide bombings, be sure to read the new book that studied every instance of it for the past 30 years. It’s been used by many groups of many religions, not just Arabs and not just Muslims. And almost all such terrorism has one motivation in common: occupation by foreign militaries.

P.P.S. Here’s something else that I’d sincerely love to talk about with you: what do you think when you see rich middle-aged white men talking on TV about how they get nervous around African Americans on the street? And then they explain that we can’t let political correctness stop us from talking about black-on-white crime?
Does it drive you crazy that they say this without even being conscious of the history of far greater violence by white people toward blacks? And do you maybe understand now how those middle-aged white guys get it so wrong?

UPDATE: Juan, you probably remember in 1986 when the Washington Post Magazine ran a Richard Cohen column defending jewelry store owners who wouldn’t buzz in young black men. It caused such a big controversy that the New Republic ran a bunch of responses to it, including one by you. You might find it interesting to go back and read what you wrote then — for instance, “Racism is a lazy man’s substitute for using good judgment… Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.”

Michael Moore
Oscar and Emmy-winning director


Enticing Fury

Pakistan Cyber Force

Michael Moore's open letter to Juan Williams who was recently fired from Fox News

Read on Pakistan Cyber Force Facebook Page

• Subscribe to our Daily Updates

Dear Juan,

Sorry to hear you got fired by National Public Radio for saying on Fox that you get nervous when you see Muslims on a plane with you. It was dumb to say such a thing, but I don’t think saying one dumb thing should be a firing offense. (I do think an NPR journalist wanting to take money from Fox News to be a regular commentator should be a firing offense, but that’s another story).
But there’s more to this — and some important things that everyone is missing.
For instance, what you said about Faisal Shazad, the Pakistani immigrant who wanted to bomb Times Square. When he was being sentenced this month, he claimed, according to you, that his attempted attack was just “the first drop of blood.” We can’t let political correctness blind us to this, you explained.

Michael Moore

I guess Shahzad made a big impression on you, because after being fired you went back on Fox and told them, “You can’t ignore the fact what has recently been said in court with regard to ‘this is the first drop of blood in a Muslim war against America.’”
Sadly for you (and this is also why you shouldn’t be working for a real news organization like NPR), Shahzad never said that. If you were a real journalist, you would have quoted him accurately. What he actually said was that he was the “first droplet of the flood,” not blood. But I know how easy it is to mishear things when scary Muslims are talking. And I guess it’s not a huge difference anyway.
What really matters is that you’re 100% right: We shouldn’t let political correctness stop us from paying close attention to what people like Shahzad say. The problem is you just haven’t taken it far enough.

Juan Williams - The Fox News reporter who called Muslims as terrifying and was later on Fired by the Arab Muslim majority share holder of Fox News

So Juan, I’m asking you to join me on a crusade — whoops! scratch that, let’s call it a “mission” — to publicize these statements by Faisal Shahzad as widely as possible. Because most of the media have not spent much time on what he had to say.
Here’s what he said at his recent sentencing (after talking about being a droplet in a flood):
[Saladin] liberated Muslim lands… And that’s what we Muslims are trying do, because you’re occupying Iraq and Afghanistan… So, the past nine years the war with Muslims has achieved nothing for the U.S., except for it has waken up the Muslims for Islam. We are only Muslims trying to defend our people, honor, and land. But if you call us terrorists for doing that, then we are proud terrorists, and we will keep on terrorizing until you leave our land and people at peace.

And this is what Shahzad said when he plead guilty back in June:
I want to plead guilty, and I’m going to plead guilty 100 times over, because until the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan, and stops the occupation of Muslim lands, and stops killing the Muslims, and stops reporting the Muslims to its government, we will be attacking U.S., and I plead guilty to that.
Then there’s email that Shahzad sent to a friend in 2006:

Everyone knows the current situation of Muslim World… Friends with peaceful protest! Can you tell me a way to save the oppressed? And a way to fight back when rockets are fired at us and Muslim blood flows? In Palestine, Afghan, Iraq, Chechnya and else where.
And then there’s what Shahzad was telling friends and relatives even before that:
Mr. Shahzad had long been critical of American foreign policy. “He was always very upset about the fabrication of the W.M.D. stunt to attack Iraq and killing non-combatants such as the sons and grandson of Saddam Hussein,” said a close relative. In 2003, Mr. Shahzad had been copied on a Google Groups e-mail message bearing photographs of Guantánamo Bay detainees, handcuffed and crouching, below the words “Shame on you, Bush. Shame on You.”

So what do you say, Juan? Now that you have a new $2 million contract with Fox, let me come on with you for some in-depth discussions about the terrorists’ real motivations. We can’t let another day go by letting the PC brigade stop us from telling the truth: Terrorists aren’t trying to kill us because they hate our freedom. They’re killing us because we’re in their countries killing them.

Yours,
Michael Moore

P.S. If you want to understand suicide bombings, be sure to read the new book that studied every instance of it for the past 30 years. It’s been used by many groups of many religions, not just Arabs and not just Muslims. And almost all such terrorism has one motivation in common: occupation by foreign militaries.

P.P.S. Here’s something else that I’d sincerely love to talk about with you: what do you think when you see rich middle-aged white men talking on TV about how they get nervous around African Americans on the street? And then they explain that we can’t let political correctness stop us from talking about black-on-white crime?
Does it drive you crazy that they say this without even being conscious of the history of far greater violence by white people toward blacks? And do you maybe understand now how those middle-aged white guys get it so wrong?

UPDATE: Juan, you probably remember in 1986 when the Washington Post Magazine ran a Richard Cohen column defending jewelry store owners who wouldn’t buzz in young black men. It caused such a big controversy that the New Republic ran a bunch of responses to it, including one by you. You might find it interesting to go back and read what you wrote then — for instance, “Racism is a lazy man’s substitute for using good judgment… Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.”

Michael Moore
Oscar and Emmy-winning director


Enticing Fury

Pakistan Cyber Force

Michael Moore's open letter to Juan Williams who was recently fired from Fox News

Read on Pakistan Cyber Force Facebook Page

• Subscribe to our Daily Updates

Dear Juan,

Sorry to hear you got fired by National Public Radio for saying on Fox that you get nervous when you see Muslims on a plane with you. It was dumb to say such a thing, but I don’t think saying one dumb thing should be a firing offense. (I do think an NPR journalist wanting to take money from Fox News to be a regular commentator should be a firing offense, but that’s another story).
But there’s more to this — and some important things that everyone is missing.
For instance, what you said about Faisal Shazad, the Pakistani immigrant who wanted to bomb Times Square. When he was being sentenced this month, he claimed, according to you, that his attempted attack was just “the first drop of blood.” We can’t let political correctness blind us to this, you explained.

Michael Moore

I guess Shahzad made a big impression on you, because after being fired you went back on Fox and told them, “You can’t ignore the fact what has recently been said in court with regard to ‘this is the first drop of blood in a Muslim war against America.’”
Sadly for you (and this is also why you shouldn’t be working for a real news organization like NPR), Shahzad never said that. If you were a real journalist, you would have quoted him accurately. What he actually said was that he was the “first droplet of the flood,” not blood. But I know how easy it is to mishear things when scary Muslims are talking. And I guess it’s not a huge difference anyway.
What really matters is that you’re 100% right: We shouldn’t let political correctness stop us from paying close attention to what people like Shahzad say. The problem is you just haven’t taken it far enough.

Juan Williams - The Fox News reporter who called Muslims as terrifying and was later on Fired by the Arab Muslim majority share holder of Fox News

So Juan, I’m asking you to join me on a crusade — whoops! scratch that, let’s call it a “mission” — to publicize these statements by Faisal Shahzad as widely as possible. Because most of the media have not spent much time on what he had to say.
Here’s what he said at his recent sentencing (after talking about being a droplet in a flood):
[Saladin] liberated Muslim lands… And that’s what we Muslims are trying do, because you’re occupying Iraq and Afghanistan… So, the past nine years the war with Muslims has achieved nothing for the U.S., except for it has waken up the Muslims for Islam. We are only Muslims trying to defend our people, honor, and land. But if you call us terrorists for doing that, then we are proud terrorists, and we will keep on terrorizing until you leave our land and people at peace.

And this is what Shahzad said when he plead guilty back in June:
I want to plead guilty, and I’m going to plead guilty 100 times over, because until the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan, and stops the occupation of Muslim lands, and stops killing the Muslims, and stops reporting the Muslims to its government, we will be attacking U.S., and I plead guilty to that.
Then there’s email that Shahzad sent to a friend in 2006:

Everyone knows the current situation of Muslim World… Friends with peaceful protest! Can you tell me a way to save the oppressed? And a way to fight back when rockets are fired at us and Muslim blood flows? In Palestine, Afghan, Iraq, Chechnya and else where.
And then there’s what Shahzad was telling friends and relatives even before that:
Mr. Shahzad had long been critical of American foreign policy. “He was always very upset about the fabrication of the W.M.D. stunt to attack Iraq and killing non-combatants such as the sons and grandson of Saddam Hussein,” said a close relative. In 2003, Mr. Shahzad had been copied on a Google Groups e-mail message bearing photographs of Guantánamo Bay detainees, handcuffed and crouching, below the words “Shame on you, Bush. Shame on You.”

So what do you say, Juan? Now that you have a new $2 million contract with Fox, let me come on with you for some in-depth discussions about the terrorists’ real motivations. We can’t let another day go by letting the PC brigade stop us from telling the truth: Terrorists aren’t trying to kill us because they hate our freedom. They’re killing us because we’re in their countries killing them.

Yours,
Michael Moore

P.S. If you want to understand suicide bombings, be sure to read the new book that studied every instance of it for the past 30 years. It’s been used by many groups of many religions, not just Arabs and not just Muslims. And almost all such terrorism has one motivation in common: occupation by foreign militaries.

P.P.S. Here’s something else that I’d sincerely love to talk about with you: what do you think when you see rich middle-aged white men talking on TV about how they get nervous around African Americans on the street? And then they explain that we can’t let political correctness stop us from talking about black-on-white crime?
Does it drive you crazy that they say this without even being conscious of the history of far greater violence by white people toward blacks? And do you maybe understand now how those middle-aged white guys get it so wrong?

UPDATE: Juan, you probably remember in 1986 when the Washington Post Magazine ran a Richard Cohen column defending jewelry store owners who wouldn’t buzz in young black men. It caused such a big controversy that the New Republic ran a bunch of responses to it, including one by you. You might find it interesting to go back and read what you wrote then — for instance, “Racism is a lazy man’s substitute for using good judgment… Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.”

Michael Moore
Oscar and Emmy-winning director


Enticing Fury

Pakistan Cyber Force

Michael Moore's open letter to Juan Williams who was recently fired from Fox News

Read on Pakistan Cyber Force Facebook Page

• Subscribe to our Daily Updates

Dear Juan,

Sorry to hear you got fired by National Public Radio for saying on Fox that you get nervous when you see Muslims on a plane with you. It was dumb to say such a thing, but I don’t think saying one dumb thing should be a firing offense. (I do think an NPR journalist wanting to take money from Fox News to be a regular commentator should be a firing offense, but that’s another story).
But there’s more to this — and some important things that everyone is missing.
For instance, what you said about Faisal Shazad, the Pakistani immigrant who wanted to bomb Times Square. When he was being sentenced this month, he claimed, according to you, that his attempted attack was just “the first drop of blood.” We can’t let political correctness blind us to this, you explained.

Michael Moore

I guess Shahzad made a big impression on you, because after being fired you went back on Fox and told them, “You can’t ignore the fact what has recently been said in court with regard to ‘this is the first drop of blood in a Muslim war against America.’”
Sadly for you (and this is also why you shouldn’t be working for a real news organization like NPR), Shahzad never said that. If you were a real journalist, you would have quoted him accurately. What he actually said was that he was the “first droplet of the flood,” not blood. But I know how easy it is to mishear things when scary Muslims are talking. And I guess it’s not a huge difference anyway.
What really matters is that you’re 100% right: We shouldn’t let political correctness stop us from paying close attention to what people like Shahzad say. The problem is you just haven’t taken it far enough.

Juan Williams - The Fox News reporter who called Muslims as terrifying and was later on Fired by the Arab Muslim majority share holder of Fox News

So Juan, I’m asking you to join me on a crusade — whoops! scratch that, let’s call it a “mission” — to publicize these statements by Faisal Shahzad as widely as possible. Because most of the media have not spent much time on what he had to say.
Here’s what he said at his recent sentencing (after talking about being a droplet in a flood):
[Saladin] liberated Muslim lands… And that’s what we Muslims are trying do, because you’re occupying Iraq and Afghanistan… So, the past nine years the war with Muslims has achieved nothing for the U.S., except for it has waken up the Muslims for Islam. We are only Muslims trying to defend our people, honor, and land. But if you call us terrorists for doing that, then we are proud terrorists, and we will keep on terrorizing until you leave our land and people at peace.

And this is what Shahzad said when he plead guilty back in June:
I want to plead guilty, and I’m going to plead guilty 100 times over, because until the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan, and stops the occupation of Muslim lands, and stops killing the Muslims, and stops reporting the Muslims to its government, we will be attacking U.S., and I plead guilty to that.
Then there’s email that Shahzad sent to a friend in 2006:

Everyone knows the current situation of Muslim World… Friends with peaceful protest! Can you tell me a way to save the oppressed? And a way to fight back when rockets are fired at us and Muslim blood flows? In Palestine, Afghan, Iraq, Chechnya and else where.
And then there’s what Shahzad was telling friends and relatives even before that:
Mr. Shahzad had long been critical of American foreign policy. “He was always very upset about the fabrication of the W.M.D. stunt to attack Iraq and killing non-combatants such as the sons and grandson of Saddam Hussein,” said a close relative. In 2003, Mr. Shahzad had been copied on a Google Groups e-mail message bearing photographs of Guantánamo Bay detainees, handcuffed and crouching, below the words “Shame on you, Bush. Shame on You.”

So what do you say, Juan? Now that you have a new $2 million contract with Fox, let me come on with you for some in-depth discussions about the terrorists’ real motivations. We can’t let another day go by letting the PC brigade stop us from telling the truth: Terrorists aren’t trying to kill us because they hate our freedom. They’re killing us because we’re in their countries killing them.

Yours,
Michael Moore

P.S. If you want to understand suicide bombings, be sure to read the new book that studied every instance of it for the past 30 years. It’s been used by many groups of many religions, not just Arabs and not just Muslims. And almost all such terrorism has one motivation in common: occupation by foreign militaries.

P.P.S. Here’s something else that I’d sincerely love to talk about with you: what do you think when you see rich middle-aged white men talking on TV about how they get nervous around African Americans on the street? And then they explain that we can’t let political correctness stop us from talking about black-on-white crime?
Does it drive you crazy that they say this without even being conscious of the history of far greater violence by white people toward blacks? And do you maybe understand now how those middle-aged white guys get it so wrong?

UPDATE: Juan, you probably remember in 1986 when the Washington Post Magazine ran a Richard Cohen column defending jewelry store owners who wouldn’t buzz in young black men. It caused such a big controversy that the New Republic ran a bunch of responses to it, including one by you. You might find it interesting to go back and read what you wrote then — for instance, “Racism is a lazy man’s substitute for using good judgment… Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.”

Michael Moore
Oscar and Emmy-winning director


Enticing Fury

Pakistan Cyber Force

Michael Moore's open letter to Juan Williams who was recently fired from Fox News

Read on Pakistan Cyber Force Facebook Page

• Subscribe to our Daily Updates

Dear Juan,

Sorry to hear you got fired by National Public Radio for saying on Fox that you get nervous when you see Muslims on a plane with you. It was dumb to say such a thing, but I don’t think saying one dumb thing should be a firing offense. (I do think an NPR journalist wanting to take money from Fox News to be a regular commentator should be a firing offense, but that’s another story).
But there’s more to this — and some important things that everyone is missing.
For instance, what you said about Faisal Shazad, the Pakistani immigrant who wanted to bomb Times Square. When he was being sentenced this month, he claimed, according to you, that his attempted attack was just “the first drop of blood.” We can’t let political correctness blind us to this, you explained.

Michael Moore

I guess Shahzad made a big impression on you, because after being fired you went back on Fox and told them, “You can’t ignore the fact what has recently been said in court with regard to ‘this is the first drop of blood in a Muslim war against America.’”
Sadly for you (and this is also why you shouldn’t be working for a real news organization like NPR), Shahzad never said that. If you were a real journalist, you would have quoted him accurately. What he actually said was that he was the “first droplet of the flood,” not blood. But I know how easy it is to mishear things when scary Muslims are talking. And I guess it’s not a huge difference anyway.
What really matters is that you’re 100% right: We shouldn’t let political correctness stop us from paying close attention to what people like Shahzad say. The problem is you just haven’t taken it far enough.

Juan Williams - The Fox News reporter who called Muslims as terrifying and was later on Fired by the Arab Muslim majority share holder of Fox News

So Juan, I’m asking you to join me on a crusade — whoops! scratch that, let’s call it a “mission” — to publicize these statements by Faisal Shahzad as widely as possible. Because most of the media have not spent much time on what he had to say.
Here’s what he said at his recent sentencing (after talking about being a droplet in a flood):
[Saladin] liberated Muslim lands… And that’s what we Muslims are trying do, because you’re occupying Iraq and Afghanistan… So, the past nine years the war with Muslims has achieved nothing for the U.S., except for it has waken up the Muslims for Islam. We are only Muslims trying to defend our people, honor, and land. But if you call us terrorists for doing that, then we are proud terrorists, and we will keep on terrorizing until you leave our land and people at peace.

And this is what Shahzad said when he plead guilty back in June:
I want to plead guilty, and I’m going to plead guilty 100 times over, because until the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan, and stops the occupation of Muslim lands, and stops killing the Muslims, and stops reporting the Muslims to its government, we will be attacking U.S., and I plead guilty to that.
Then there’s email that Shahzad sent to a friend in 2006:

Everyone knows the current situation of Muslim World… Friends with peaceful protest! Can you tell me a way to save the oppressed? And a way to fight back when rockets are fired at us and Muslim blood flows? In Palestine, Afghan, Iraq, Chechnya and else where.
And then there’s what Shahzad was telling friends and relatives even before that:
Mr. Shahzad had long been critical of American foreign policy. “He was always very upset about the fabrication of the W.M.D. stunt to attack Iraq and killing non-combatants such as the sons and grandson of Saddam Hussein,” said a close relative. In 2003, Mr. Shahzad had been copied on a Google Groups e-mail message bearing photographs of Guantánamo Bay detainees, handcuffed and crouching, below the words “Shame on you, Bush. Shame on You.”

So what do you say, Juan? Now that you have a new $2 million contract with Fox, let me come on with you for some in-depth discussions about the terrorists’ real motivations. We can’t let another day go by letting the PC brigade stop us from telling the truth: Terrorists aren’t trying to kill us because they hate our freedom. They’re killing us because we’re in their countries killing them.

Yours,
Michael Moore

P.S. If you want to understand suicide bombings, be sure to read the new book that studied every instance of it for the past 30 years. It’s been used by many groups of many religions, not just Arabs and not just Muslims. And almost all such terrorism has one motivation in common: occupation by foreign militaries.

P.P.S. Here’s something else that I’d sincerely love to talk about with you: what do you think when you see rich middle-aged white men talking on TV about how they get nervous around African Americans on the street? And then they explain that we can’t let political correctness stop us from talking about black-on-white crime?
Does it drive you crazy that they say this without even being conscious of the history of far greater violence by white people toward blacks? And do you maybe understand now how those middle-aged white guys get it so wrong?

UPDATE: Juan, you probably remember in 1986 when the Washington Post Magazine ran a Richard Cohen column defending jewelry store owners who wouldn’t buzz in young black men. It caused such a big controversy that the New Republic ran a bunch of responses to it, including one by you. You might find it interesting to go back and read what you wrote then — for instance, “Racism is a lazy man’s substitute for using good judgment… Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.”

Michael Moore
Oscar and Emmy-winning director


Enticing Fury

Pakistan Cyber Force

Michael Moore's open letter to Juan Williams who was recently fired from Fox News

Read on Pakistan Cyber Force Facebook Page

• Subscribe to our Daily Updates

Dear Juan,

Sorry to hear you got fired by National Public Radio for saying on Fox that you get nervous when you see Muslims on a plane with you. It was dumb to say such a thing, but I don’t think saying one dumb thing should be a firing offense. (I do think an NPR journalist wanting to take money from Fox News to be a regular commentator should be a firing offense, but that’s another story).
But there’s more to this — and some important things that everyone is missing.
For instance, what you said about Faisal Shazad, the Pakistani immigrant who wanted to bomb Times Square. When he was being sentenced this month, he claimed, according to you, that his attempted attack was just “the first drop of blood.” We can’t let political correctness blind us to this, you explained.

Michael Moore

I guess Shahzad made a big impression on you, because after being fired you went back on Fox and told them, “You can’t ignore the fact what has recently been said in court with regard to ‘this is the first drop of blood in a Muslim war against America.’”
Sadly for you (and this is also why you shouldn’t be working for a real news organization like NPR), Shahzad never said that. If you were a real journalist, you would have quoted him accurately. What he actually said was that he was the “first droplet of the flood,” not blood. But I know how easy it is to mishear things when scary Muslims are talking. And I guess it’s not a huge difference anyway.
What really matters is that you’re 100% right: We shouldn’t let political correctness stop us from paying close attention to what people like Shahzad say. The problem is you just haven’t taken it far enough.

Juan Williams - The Fox News reporter who called Muslims as terrifying and was later on Fired by the Arab Muslim majority share holder of Fox News

So Juan, I’m asking you to join me on a crusade — whoops! scratch that, let’s call it a “mission” — to publicize these statements by Faisal Shahzad as widely as possible. Because most of the media have not spent much time on what he had to say.
Here’s what he said at his recent sentencing (after talking about being a droplet in a flood):
[Saladin] liberated Muslim lands… And that’s what we Muslims are trying do, because you’re occupying Iraq and Afghanistan… So, the past nine years the war with Muslims has achieved nothing for the U.S., except for it has waken up the Muslims for Islam. We are only Muslims trying to defend our people, honor, and land. But if you call us terrorists for doing that, then we are proud terrorists, and we will keep on terrorizing until you leave our land and people at peace.

And this is what Shahzad said when he plead guilty back in June:
I want to plead guilty, and I’m going to plead guilty 100 times over, because until the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan, and stops the occupation of Muslim lands, and stops killing the Muslims, and stops reporting the Muslims to its government, we will be attacking U.S., and I plead guilty to that.
Then there’s email that Shahzad sent to a friend in 2006:

Everyone knows the current situation of Muslim World… Friends with peaceful protest! Can you tell me a way to save the oppressed? And a way to fight back when rockets are fired at us and Muslim blood flows? In Palestine, Afghan, Iraq, Chechnya and else where.
And then there’s what Shahzad was telling friends and relatives even before that:
Mr. Shahzad had long been critical of American foreign policy. “He was always very upset about the fabrication of the W.M.D. stunt to attack Iraq and killing non-combatants such as the sons and grandson of Saddam Hussein,” said a close relative. In 2003, Mr. Shahzad had been copied on a Google Groups e-mail message bearing photographs of Guantánamo Bay detainees, handcuffed and crouching, below the words “Shame on you, Bush. Shame on You.”

So what do you say, Juan? Now that you have a new $2 million contract with Fox, let me come on with you for some in-depth discussions about the terrorists’ real motivations. We can’t let another day go by letting the PC brigade stop us from telling the truth: Terrorists aren’t trying to kill us because they hate our freedom. They’re killing us because we’re in their countries killing them.

Yours,
Michael Moore

P.S. If you want to understand suicide bombings, be sure to read the new book that studied every instance of it for the past 30 years. It’s been used by many groups of many religions, not just Arabs and not just Muslims. And almost all such terrorism has one motivation in common: occupation by foreign militaries.

P.P.S. Here’s something else that I’d sincerely love to talk about with you: what do you think when you see rich middle-aged white men talking on TV about how they get nervous around African Americans on the street? And then they explain that we can’t let political correctness stop us from talking about black-on-white crime?
Does it drive you crazy that they say this without even being conscious of the history of far greater violence by white people toward blacks? And do you maybe understand now how those middle-aged white guys get it so wrong?

UPDATE: Juan, you probably remember in 1986 when the Washington Post Magazine ran a Richard Cohen column defending jewelry store owners who wouldn’t buzz in young black men. It caused such a big controversy that the New Republic ran a bunch of responses to it, including one by you. You might find it interesting to go back and read what you wrote then — for instance, “Racism is a lazy man’s substitute for using good judgment… Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.”

Michael Moore
Oscar and Emmy-winning director


Enticing Fury

Pakistan Cyber Force

Why Pakistan needs more Nuclear Reactors?

Source: Pakistan Cyber Force

Please click here to subscribe to our daily updates

Ten years into the 21st century, Pakistan is still one of the world’s lowest per-head energy consumer. This is not because it doesn’t need more energy, but because it is not available. If conventional energy sources are scarce and difficultly available, they are usually much costly to import. So perforce, Pakistan has been pursuing for quite sometime the nuclear energy option. It has built up a sizable nuclear power program, a well-trained group of nuclear experts and has gained decades of experience in areas of power generation, health, agriculture and industrial applications.

  

Since 1974, when India conducted its first ever nuclear tests in Pokhran for demonstrating its intention to acquire nuclear weapons, Pakistan has also been engaged in exploring this aspect of nuclear technology. But it carried out its tit-for-tat nuclear explosions in May 1998 only when India repeated the nuclear tests. Today, both Pakistan and India are de facto nuclear weapon states as they stay out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, an international protocol that has lost much of its piety since the United States tore it into pieces by signing a nuclear supplies deal with India in 2008.

Equally guilty of violating the NPT is the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which accorded a waiver to the Indo-US deal, to the great disappointment of international community.

Once again the Group is being pushed into discriminating against Pakistan, by the United States and India, to force China to back out from its commitment to give Pakistan two more nuclear reactors. The lame argument being proffered by this coward nexus is that the deal to sell Pakistan these two reactors was made after China signed up to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which is nothing more than a pile of rubbish. China never did that! 

China has stood by its commitment, and hasn’t contradicted, in so many words, even some media reports also say that it may give Pakistan a much bigger nuclear power plant. This co-operation is bound to increase as Pakistan has mandated the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission to install 8,800 MW of nuclear power plants by 2030.

In the coming few years, Pakistan is going to be a huge market for nuclear technology, like many other countries in the region, and those boycotting this market would be doing so at their own risk :) since it is next to impossible that Pakistan would wind up its nuclear energy program or that China would back out!

Given its property as environment-friendly and being highly competitive cost wise over time in terms of investment, nuclear energy has a bright future, and that realization is fast catching up even with those who had relented over this option in the recent past. It is also safer as compared to many other sources.

For Pakistan, seeking larger inputs of nuclear power in its national energy mix is all the more justified because of the political resistance against the exploitation of hydro sources and some of the CIA agent ministers digesting corruption worth millions of dollars in thermal power generation. But there seems to be an unfortunate tendency among some members of the international community to see Pakistan’s nuclear program more as nuclear weapon-oriented as against its role as a source of cheap and clean energy. The same coward nexus is at the forefront in this opposition as discussed above.

While all three dozens, or so, nuclear power producing countries are potentially nuclear weapons states and seven of them have nuclear arsenals, the eighth country Israhell purposefully keeps its nuclear weapon capability ambiguous. It is only Pakistan’s nuclear program that is always looked at as a threat to the international security. Why? Just because it is the only Muslim country that has this capability? Bombs have no religion. So with the Pakistan bomb; it is only a kind of deterrence, which has worked and therefore, will remain as part of Pakistan’s defense arsenal.

Israhell's Dimona Nuclear Weapons Factory

Pakistan is profoundly interested in promoting an ethos for global nuclear non-proliferation; but only in step with others! Why should anybody expect that Pakistan would give up its veto right at the Conference of Disarmament to facilitate the passage of the Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) when it tends to legalize India’s excessive stocks and insists that Pakistan should forget about nuclear parity in the region?

What is in store as the nuclear future, nobody knows yet, but the fact is that the only country which used nuclear technology as a weapon of war was the United States of Zionism (U.S.A) and the only country which brought in religion into the nuclear race was India when its sinister leadership saw the “Buddha smiling” over the 1974 Pokhran test.

Enticing Fury

Pakistan Cyber Force

Why Pakistan needs more Nuclear Reactors?

Source: Pakistan Cyber Force

Please click here to subscribe to our daily updates

Ten years into the 21st century, Pakistan is still one of the world’s lowest per-head energy consumer. This is not because it doesn’t need more energy, but because it is not available. If conventional energy sources are scarce and difficultly available, they are usually much costly to import. So perforce, Pakistan has been pursuing for quite sometime the nuclear energy option. It has built up a sizable nuclear power program, a well-trained group of nuclear experts and has gained decades of experience in areas of power generation, health, agriculture and industrial applications.

  

Since 1974, when India conducted its first ever nuclear tests in Pokhran for demonstrating its intention to acquire nuclear weapons, Pakistan has also been engaged in exploring this aspect of nuclear technology. But it carried out its tit-for-tat nuclear explosions in May 1998 only when India repeated the nuclear tests. Today, both Pakistan and India are de facto nuclear weapon states as they stay out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, an international protocol that has lost much of its piety since the United States tore it into pieces by signing a nuclear supplies deal with India in 2008.

Equally guilty of violating the NPT is the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which accorded a waiver to the Indo-US deal, to the great disappointment of international community.

Once again the Group is being pushed into discriminating against Pakistan, by the United States and India, to force China to back out from its commitment to give Pakistan two more nuclear reactors. The lame argument being proffered by this coward nexus is that the deal to sell Pakistan these two reactors was made after China signed up to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which is nothing more than a pile of rubbish. China never did that! 

China has stood by its commitment, and hasn’t contradicted, in so many words, even some media reports also say that it may give Pakistan a much bigger nuclear power plant. This co-operation is bound to increase as Pakistan has mandated the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission to install 8,800 MW of nuclear power plants by 2030.

In the coming few years, Pakistan is going to be a huge market for nuclear technology, like many other countries in the region, and those boycotting this market would be doing so at their own risk :) since it is next to impossible that Pakistan would wind up its nuclear energy program or that China would back out!

Given its property as environment-friendly and being highly competitive cost wise over time in terms of investment, nuclear energy has a bright future, and that realization is fast catching up even with those who had relented over this option in the recent past. It is also safer as compared to many other sources.

For Pakistan, seeking larger inputs of nuclear power in its national energy mix is all the more justified because of the political resistance against the exploitation of hydro sources and some of the CIA agent ministers digesting corruption worth millions of dollars in thermal power generation. But there seems to be an unfortunate tendency among some members of the international community to see Pakistan’s nuclear program more as nuclear weapon-oriented as against its role as a source of cheap and clean energy. The same coward nexus is at the forefront in this opposition as discussed above.

While all three dozens, or so, nuclear power producing countries are potentially nuclear weapons states and seven of them have nuclear arsenals, the eighth country Israhell purposefully keeps its nuclear weapon capability ambiguous. It is only Pakistan’s nuclear program that is always looked at as a threat to the international security. Why? Just because it is the only Muslim country that has this capability? Bombs have no religion. So with the Pakistan bomb; it is only a kind of deterrence, which has worked and therefore, will remain as part of Pakistan’s defense arsenal.

Israhell's Dimona Nuclear Weapons Factory

Pakistan is profoundly interested in promoting an ethos for global nuclear non-proliferation; but only in step with others! Why should anybody expect that Pakistan would give up its veto right at the Conference of Disarmament to facilitate the passage of the Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) when it tends to legalize India’s excessive stocks and insists that Pakistan should forget about nuclear parity in the region?

What is in store as the nuclear future, nobody knows yet, but the fact is that the only country which used nuclear technology as a weapon of war was the United States of Zionism (U.S.A) and the only country which brought in religion into the nuclear race was India when its sinister leadership saw the “Buddha smiling” over the 1974 Pokhran test.

Enticing Fury

Pakistan Cyber Force

Why Pakistan needs more Nuclear Reactors?

Source: Pakistan Cyber Force

Please click here to subscribe to our daily updates

Ten years into the 21st century, Pakistan is still one of the world’s lowest per-head energy consumer. This is not because it doesn’t need more energy, but because it is not available. If conventional energy sources are scarce and difficultly available, they are usually much costly to import. So perforce, Pakistan has been pursuing for quite sometime the nuclear energy option. It has built up a sizable nuclear power program, a well-trained group of nuclear experts and has gained decades of experience in areas of power generation, health, agriculture and industrial applications.

  

Since 1974, when India conducted its first ever nuclear tests in Pokhran for demonstrating its intention to acquire nuclear weapons, Pakistan has also been engaged in exploring this aspect of nuclear technology. But it carried out its tit-for-tat nuclear explosions in May 1998 only when India repeated the nuclear tests. Today, both Pakistan and India are de facto nuclear weapon states as they stay out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, an international protocol that has lost much of its piety since the United States tore it into pieces by signing a nuclear supplies deal with India in 2008.

Equally guilty of violating the NPT is the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which accorded a waiver to the Indo-US deal, to the great disappointment of international community.

Once again the Group is being pushed into discriminating against Pakistan, by the United States and India, to force China to back out from its commitment to give Pakistan two more nuclear reactors. The lame argument being proffered by this coward nexus is that the deal to sell Pakistan these two reactors was made after China signed up to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which is nothing more than a pile of rubbish. China never did that! 

China has stood by its commitment, and hasn’t contradicted, in so many words, even some media reports also say that it may give Pakistan a much bigger nuclear power plant. This co-operation is bound to increase as Pakistan has mandated the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission to install 8,800 MW of nuclear power plants by 2030.

In the coming few years, Pakistan is going to be a huge market for nuclear technology, like many other countries in the region, and those boycotting this market would be doing so at their own risk :) since it is next to impossible that Pakistan would wind up its nuclear energy program or that China would back out!

Given its property as environment-friendly and being highly competitive cost wise over time in terms of investment, nuclear energy has a bright future, and that realization is fast catching up even with those who had relented over this option in the recent past. It is also safer as compared to many other sources.

For Pakistan, seeking larger inputs of nuclear power in its national energy mix is all the more justified because of the political resistance against the exploitation of hydro sources and some of the CIA agent ministers digesting corruption worth millions of dollars in thermal power generation. But there seems to be an unfortunate tendency among some members of the international community to see Pakistan’s nuclear program more as nuclear weapon-oriented as against its role as a source of cheap and clean energy. The same coward nexus is at the forefront in this opposition as discussed above.

While all three dozens, or so, nuclear power producing countries are potentially nuclear weapons states and seven of them have nuclear arsenals, the eighth country Israhell purposefully keeps its nuclear weapon capability ambiguous. It is only Pakistan’s nuclear program that is always looked at as a threat to the international security. Why? Just because it is the only Muslim country that has this capability? Bombs have no religion. So with the Pakistan bomb; it is only a kind of deterrence, which has worked and therefore, will remain as part of Pakistan’s defense arsenal.

Israhell's Dimona Nuclear Weapons Factory

Pakistan is profoundly interested in promoting an ethos for global nuclear non-proliferation; but only in step with others! Why should anybody expect that Pakistan would give up its veto right at the Conference of Disarmament to facilitate the passage of the Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) when it tends to legalize India’s excessive stocks and insists that Pakistan should forget about nuclear parity in the region?

What is in store as the nuclear future, nobody knows yet, but the fact is that the only country which used nuclear technology as a weapon of war was the United States of Zionism (U.S.A) and the only country which brought in religion into the nuclear race was India when its sinister leadership saw the “Buddha smiling” over the 1974 Pokhran test.

Enticing Fury

Pakistan Cyber Force

Why Pakistan needs more Nuclear Reactors?

Source: Pakistan Cyber Force

Please click here to subscribe to our daily updates

Ten years into the 21st century, Pakistan is still one of the world’s lowest per-head energy consumer. This is not because it doesn’t need more energy, but because it is not available. If conventional energy sources are scarce and difficultly available, they are usually much costly to import. So perforce, Pakistan has been pursuing for quite sometime the nuclear energy option. It has built up a sizable nuclear power program, a well-trained group of nuclear experts and has gained decades of experience in areas of power generation, health, agriculture and industrial applications.

  

Since 1974, when India conducted its first ever nuclear tests in Pokhran for demonstrating its intention to acquire nuclear weapons, Pakistan has also been engaged in exploring this aspect of nuclear technology. But it carried out its tit-for-tat nuclear explosions in May 1998 only when India repeated the nuclear tests. Today, both Pakistan and India are de facto nuclear weapon states as they stay out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, an international protocol that has lost much of its piety since the United States tore it into pieces by signing a nuclear supplies deal with India in 2008.

Equally guilty of violating the NPT is the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which accorded a waiver to the Indo-US deal, to the great disappointment of international community.

Once again the Group is being pushed into discriminating against Pakistan, by the United States and India, to force China to back out from its commitment to give Pakistan two more nuclear reactors. The lame argument being proffered by this coward nexus is that the deal to sell Pakistan these two reactors was made after China signed up to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which is nothing more than a pile of rubbish. China never did that! 

China has stood by its commitment, and hasn’t contradicted, in so many words, even some media reports also say that it may give Pakistan a much bigger nuclear power plant. This co-operation is bound to increase as Pakistan has mandated the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission to install 8,800 MW of nuclear power plants by 2030.

In the coming few years, Pakistan is going to be a huge market for nuclear technology, like many other countries in the region, and those boycotting this market would be doing so at their own risk :) since it is next to impossible that Pakistan would wind up its nuclear energy program or that China would back out!

Given its property as environment-friendly and being highly competitive cost wise over time in terms of investment, nuclear energy has a bright future, and that realization is fast catching up even with those who had relented over this option in the recent past. It is also safer as compared to many other sources.

For Pakistan, seeking larger inputs of nuclear power in its national energy mix is all the more justified because of the political resistance against the exploitation of hydro sources and some of the CIA agent ministers digesting corruption worth millions of dollars in thermal power generation. But there seems to be an unfortunate tendency among some members of the international community to see Pakistan’s nuclear program more as nuclear weapon-oriented as against its role as a source of cheap and clean energy. The same coward nexus is at the forefront in this opposition as discussed above.

While all three dozens, or so, nuclear power producing countries are potentially nuclear weapons states and seven of them have nuclear arsenals, the eighth country Israhell purposefully keeps its nuclear weapon capability ambiguous. It is only Pakistan’s nuclear program that is always looked at as a threat to the international security. Why? Just because it is the only Muslim country that has this capability? Bombs have no religion. So with the Pakistan bomb; it is only a kind of deterrence, which has worked and therefore, will remain as part of Pakistan’s defense arsenal.

Israhell's Dimona Nuclear Weapons Factory

Pakistan is profoundly interested in promoting an ethos for global nuclear non-proliferation; but only in step with others! Why should anybody expect that Pakistan would give up its veto right at the Conference of Disarmament to facilitate the passage of the Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) when it tends to legalize India’s excessive stocks and insists that Pakistan should forget about nuclear parity in the region?

What is in store as the nuclear future, nobody knows yet, but the fact is that the only country which used nuclear technology as a weapon of war was the United States of Zionism (U.S.A) and the only country which brought in religion into the nuclear race was India when its sinister leadership saw the “Buddha smiling” over the 1974 Pokhran test.

Enticing Fury

Pakistan Cyber Force