FC Barcelona does not need Cesc Fabregas

Barcelona are a great team. They play a brand of football that impresses everyone. Their style of play is very creative and depends a lot on smooth flowing short passes and holding onto the ball. The creative genius of Xavi in particular and the trio of Xavi, Iniesta and Messi is general, more often than not, prove too much to handle for opposition teams. None of these players is leaving anytime soon so why is everyone related to Barcelona talking about signing Fabregas?

Cesc Fabregas is an extremely creative midfielder. The moves he creates and the passes he gives are exceptional and he can score goals too. All that creativity, most people argue, will be good for Barcelona who already have one Xavi who does the same.

My argument is simple. Too many cooks spoil the broth. Too much creativity in the center might be good if you have a lone striker in front but Barcelona almost play with 3 strikers. Yes messi starts behind the strikers but regularly dribbles past defenders and ends up scoring more than the actual strikers (Ibra, Henry, Pedro and Bojan). With so much fire power up front, with one of them (Messi) floating around and another (Iniesta) close by to compound Xavi's creative efforts, where would fabregas fit in?

But what if Xavi is injured? Who can fill his shoes if Cesc is not there? On such a day, Guardiola can switch the team to a 4-4-2 formation with Messi stepping back into central midfield to help Iniesta because with the arrival of David Villa the front line is more potent than ever and one can expect Villa to add the sort of clinical striking to barca which would allow the team to use Messi in a more anchor role, in Xavi's absence,to supply passes and through balls which is actually pretty good at.

In the end, I have to admit I would love to see Fabregas playing with Iniesta and Xavi in place of the overrated Busquets but then I would love to see Rooney and Messi play together too. Barca does not "need" to sign Fabregas right now. Let him play at Arsenal for one more season and focus more on defensive weaknesses.

Afghanistan peace plan - A reply to another 5 point plan

I read an interesting article about a 5 point plan for peace in Afghanistan. The origianl article can be read here: 

 http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/a-five-point-plan-for-peace-in-afghanistan/

Well, here goes my reply as it is visible below the article on the above link too.

I commend the authors positivity and effort but expecting free elections from USA where Bush’s election was ‘controversial’ to say the least, where new presidents change their policies from their campaign policies as soon as they are elected, and the country which goes to wars on lesser evidence than there is for aliens on mars, is beyond positivity and sounds more like a dream.

Why presidential elections? Was there a president in the stable pre-9/11 Afghanistan? did afghans have a president when USA attacked? Why not let the people choose their leader however they wish instead of shoving democracy down their throats? Enforcing any ruling system whether democracy or dictatorship are both morally wrong.

I disagree that peace can be achieved only by developmental activity. This inherently means USA should carry out developmental activities, which will give them more time to try to poison the Afghans with the American way of life and corrupt mentality.

There is only one true just solution. USA to leave Afghanistan, Pakistan to help talibaan setup their institutions and govt again since we understand them more than anyone else, and then let the people select their leader to lead the new system.

Sadly due to Musharraf, Pakistani reputation in Afghanistan was heavily damaged, but according to Mulla Omar’s statements they still dont have a grudge as they know it was Musharraf and not all Pakistanis who sold them out to the Americans. They will trust Pakistanis more than any other people.

A bigger problem is that our current government will probably not be interested in this. They still dont understand who funds TTP and that they are not Afghan talibaan, so its expecting too much of them to think they can actually understand or carry out such a policy. I wish Pakistanis realize soon that this government isnt going to lead them to the destination that Iqbal and Jinnah had in mind. Something needs to be done on this side of the border too. Presidents on both sides do not have the support of the people.

Note:

As is evident from my reply above, I am one of those people who look at every Afghan policy from USA very skeptically due to the simple fact that they invaded and destroyed an entire country based on false assumptions and for the sake of oil and gass routes. The have no moral highground contrary to their delusions. The American think tanks, their defense analysts, their presidential advisors, lobbies etc cannot and should not be trusted at all if we Muslims whether Afghan or Pakistani intend any sort of true peace and justice for this region.

Swat peace deal - Actual points

Stated below are the 14 actual points of the Swat peace deal.  I couldnt find them on any news site, nor did i ever see then in any Pakistani or International media except NewsOne. Lets examine the points: 

1. Sharia law would be implemented in Swat and Malakand.
2. Security forces will gradually withdraw from the region.
3. The government and the Taliban would exchange prisoners.
4. Militants would recognize the writ of the government and cooperate with security forces.
5. Taliban would halt attacks on barber and music shops.
6. Ban on display of weapons by militants in public.
7. Taliban would lay down heavy weapons.
8. Taliban would close down training camps.
9. Taliban would denounce suicide attacks.
10. A ban would be placed on raising private militias.
11. Taliban will cooperate with the government to vaccinate children against diseases like polio.
12. Fazlullah’s madrassa, the Imam Dheri would be turned into an Islamic university.
13. Only licensed FM radio stations would be allowed to operate in the region.
14. Taliban would allow women to “perform their duties at the workplace without any fear.”

Now the real question is, why are our media and politicians hiding these points and claiming that this deal is a "surrender" or in some way supports TTP? Any one in their right mind can read these and immediately say all these are in favor of the state and the people of Paksitan.

svchost.exe eating up cpu resources and slowing down PC.... simple solution!

Ok, most people are plagued by this problem more often than they think. Some even run to get their RAM upgraded or getting a better processor.

Well im here to tell you thats all unnecessary. For those of you who know svchost.exe is taking up 99% or 100% cpu respources skip directly to the solution.

If you are still reading, you probably dont know what svchost is and whether it is taking your cpu resources or not. Press ctrl+altr+del and open the task manager. Go to the "Processes" tab and sort by CPU usage by clicking "CPU" in the column head. If you see svchost.exe on top now and it says its using between 90% and 100% resources, welcome to the most frequent Windows bug that bugs people out of sanity. lol And now for the simplest solution possible - 

SOLUTION.........

1 - Open command prompt (Start > Command Prompt)

2 - Type what is written below and hit enter/return. 

        net stop "Automatic Updates"

Yahoooooooooooo!!!

Now get back to what you were doing!

err ... still here... why?

Oh, you want to know why this worked? 

svchost was running Windows Updates in the background, and we just stopped the updates.

Anti-privatization

The controlling ethical issue in the anti-privatization perspective is the need for responsible stewardship of social support missions. Market interactions are all guided by self-interest, and successful actors in a healthy market must be committed to charging the maximum price that the market will bear. Privatization opponents believe that this model is not compatible with government missions for social support, whose primary aim is delivering affordability and quality of service to society.

Many privatization opponents also warn against the practice's inherent tendency toward corruption. As many areas which the government could provide are essentially profitless, the only way private companies could, to any degree, operate them would be through contracts or block payments. In these cases, the private firm's performance in a particular project would be removed from their performance, and embezzlement and dangerous cost cutting measures might be taken to maximize profits.

Furthermore, opponents of privatization argue that it is undesirable to transfer state-owned assets into private hands for the following reasons:

• Performance. A democratically elected government is accountable to the people through a legislature, Congress or Parliament, and is motivated to safeguarding the assets of the nation. The profit motive may be subordinated to social objectives.
• Improvements. the government is motivated to performance improvements as well run businesses contribute to the State's revenues.
• Corruption. Government ministers and civil servants are bound to uphold the highest ethical standards, and standards of probity are guaranteed through codes of conduct and declarations of interest. However, the selling process could lack transparency, allowing the purchaser and civil servants controlling the sale to gain personally.
• Accountability. The public does not have any control or oversight of private companies.
• Civil-liberty concerns. A democratically elected government is accountable to the people through a parliament, and can intervene when civil liberties are threatened.
• Goals. The government may seek to use state companies as instruments to further social goals for the benefit of the nation as a whole.
• Capital. Governments can raise money in the financial markets most cheaply to re-lend to state-owned enterprises.
• Lack of market discipline. Governments have chosen to keep certain companies/industries under public ownership because of their strategic importance or sensitive nature.
• Cuts in essential services. If a government-owned company providing an essential service (such as the water supply) to all citizens is privatized, its new owner(s) could lead to the abandoning of the social obligation to those who are less able to pay, or to regions where this service is unprofitable.
• Natural monopolies. Privatization will not result in true competition if a natural monopoly exists.
• Concentration of wealth. Profits from successful enterprises end up in private, often foreign, hands instead of being available for the common good.
• Political influence. Governments may more easily exert pressure on state-owned firms to help implementing government policy.
• Downsizing. Private companies often face a conflict between profitability and service levels, and could over-react to short-term events. A state-owned company might have a longer-term view, and thus be less likely to cut back on maintenance or staff costs, training etc, to stem short term losses. Many private companies have downsized while making record profits.
• Profit. Private companies do not have any goal other than to maximize profits. A private company will serve the needs of those who are most willing (and able) to pay, as opposed to the needs of the majority, and are thus anti-democratic.
• Privatisation and Poverty. It is acknowledged by many studies that there are winners and losers with privatization. The number of losers —which may add up to the size and severity of poverty—can be unexpectedly large if the method and process of privatization and how it is implemented are seriously flawed (e.g. lack of transparency leading to state-owned assets being appropriated at minuscule amounts by those with political connections, absence of regulatory institutions leading to transfer of monopoly rents from public to private sector, improper design and inadequate control of the privatization process leading to asset stripping.

Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We ask our brothers and sisters in Gaza...

Can you forgive us shameless people, oh people of Gaza???
IT seems we do not have the courage or the dignity to do anything for you...


Can you forgive us, our mothers in Gaza, we did not try to save your children from blowing up with bombs or being buried underneath rubble?

Can you forgive us, children on Gaza, for we, your older brothers and sisters haven't protected you at all?

can you forgive us, widow sisters, we let your husbands die and now your and your children are hungry and unsheltered?


I feel i can hear their response, young and old voices, and they are saying: "We were waiting for you to help us, you will have to answer for this on the day of Judgement."

Terror in Pakistan in 2008

Some 725 Pakistanis - 149 Law Enforcing Agencies (LEAs) officials and 576 civilians - were killed in 63 terrorist attacks, averaging 61 killings per month, in 2008.

In the year’s first suicide attack on police outside the Lahore High Court (LHC) on January 10, 16 police officials and four civilians were killed. In the year’s last suicide attack on a polling station in Buner on December 28, 34 people, including four children were killed.

Chronology: Jan 10, 16 police officials and four civilians were killed in a suicide attack outside the LHC, Lahore.

Jan 14, a bomb killed 10 people in a crowded market in Karachi.

Feb 9, a suicide bomber killed 25 people in an election rally in Charsadda. On February 16, a suicide car bomber struck at a PPP rally in Parachinar, killing 37 people.

Feb 22, a roadside bomb hit a wedding party in Swat, killing at least 14 people.

Feb 25, a suicide bomber killed Army Surgeon General Mushtaq Baig and seven others in Rawalpindi.

Feb 29, a suicide bomber killed 44 people in Mingora, a valley in Swat, in the funeral of three policemen, killed in a roadside bomb blast earlier in the day.

March 2, a suicide bomber killed 43 people in a meeting of anti-militancy tribal elders in Darra Adam Khel.

March 4, two suicide bombers attacked Pakistan Naval War College in Lahore, killing five people and wounding 19.

March 10, suicide attackers killed 26 people and partly demolished Federal Investigation Agency office in Lahore in two hits.

March 15, a bomb blast at an Italian restaurant in Islamabad killed a Turkish woman and wounded 10 others, including four FBI agents.

May 19, a suicide bomber killed 13 people at an army bakery in Mardan. No terrorist attack was reported in June.

July 2, a suicide car bomb outside the Danish Embassy in Islamabad killed eight people.

July 6, a suicide bomber killed 15 people in an attack on police in Islamabad close to Lal Masjid.

Aug 12, a roadside bomb ripped through a Pakistan Air Force bus in Peshawar, killing 13 people.

Aug 19, a suicide bomber killed 23 people at a hospital in Dera Ismail Khan. On August 21, two suicide attacks killed at least 57 people outside Pakistan Ordnance Factories (POFs), Wah.

Aug 28, a bomb attack targeting policemen killed 10 people in Bannu.

Sept 6, a suicide bomber killed 33 people at a security checkpoint near Peshawar.

Sept 11, suspected militants hurled grenades and fired into a mosque in Peshawar killing at least 20 worshippers.

Sept 20, the day when President Asif Ali Zardari addressed a joint session of the Parliament, a suicide attacker rammed a explosive-laden dumper into Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, killing at least 40 people.

Sept 22, at least nine securitymen were killed in a suicide car-bomb attack on a security check post in Swat.

Sept 24, a female student was killed in a suicide blast at a FC convoy in Quetta Cantonment.

Oct 6, a suicide bomber blew himself up in a crowd of people in Bakhar at the outhouse of Rashid Akbar Niwani, a Shia MNA from Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, killing 25 people.

Oct 10, at least 40 people were killed and around 90 wounded when a suicide bomber targeted an anti-Taliban jirga in Orakzai Agency.

Oct 19, four people were killed when a remote-controlled bomb exploded in the main bazaar of Dera Bugti.

Oct 26, at least 11 people, seven of them Frontier Corps personnel and three Khasadars, were killed and five others injured in a suicide attack in Mohmand Agency.

Nov 4, at least seven people, including three security officials, were killed in a suicide attack on a security force check post in Hangu.

Nov 11, a suicide bomber blew himself up at Qayyum Stadium in Peshawar, killing four people.

Nov 12, five people were killed as a suicide bomber rammed an explosives-filled bus into the gates of a school in Charsadda district.

Nov 17, at least three troops were killed when a suicide bomber rammed an explosives-laden vehicle into a security check post in Swat’s Khawazakhela area.

Nov 20, a suicide bomber killed at least nine people in a mosque in Mamoond tehsil of Bajaur Agency.

Dec 3, three security forces personnel and two civilians were killed after a Mohmand Rifles convoy was bombed near Shabqadar in Charsadda district.

Dec 5, a car bomb explosion outside an Imambargah near Peshawar’s historic Qisakhwani Bazaar killed at least 22 people. The same day, at least six people were killed when an explosives-laden vehicle was blown up in Kalaia area of Lower Orakzai.

Dec 14, at least two people were killed in a remote-controlled bomb blast in Dera Bugti district.

Dec 28, 34 people were killed in Buner in a suicide attack.

The world tells paksitan to do more for stoping attacks in Afghanistan. Who has done anything for Pakistan to stop terror here? ISI gave TTP co-ordinates to US forces and drones confirmed a lock but never fired. The govt blamed TTP for assasinating BB but still havent declared them terorrists or given clearence ot army for full fledge attacks on TTP. Will Paksitanis keep suffering, unlike a free naiton???