« India through the lens | Main | Baby blogging »

Would you be knowing those guys, but for this?. This is their PR stunt. A bit expensive, but works.

Today’s lead edit in Opinion Journal also speaks about Margaret Hassan and Falluja. Worth a read.

The story of Fallujah isn’t on that NBC videotape.

Nilu, PR for those so-called activists or the “insurgents”?

Yaz, you and your old-fashioned sense of morality. Don’t you know we need to find the marines and the “insurgents” they are cleaning out morally equivalent?

No one gets banned from this site for posting gloating messages about the joys of liberating 100,000 dead civilians in Iraq by dropping ‘precision’ 10,000 lb bombs on areas more densely populated than Chandi Chowk

hello.. my first time here, hope u’ll allow me to disagree with you on my first comment :-D

There are perhaps several different types of insurgents in Iraq, a conservative mouth piece like WSJ would like everyone to believe that everyones the same kind, and so would Arundhati Roy. Only their characterization of who or what “everyone” is will be different.

Also, let me remind you that this is the second case of so called “mercy killing” in Iraq. There are other documented cases of murder, female/male rape, torture and so on. The US army and media machine managed to keep the lid over my-lai for nearly two years. Nothing fundamental in the nature of the American GI has changed in the 25 or so years seperating that war and this one. Therefore, I think its OK to keep the spotlight on such war crimes, if not for anything else, then to remind the US army generals that someone is watching.

btw.. just read a the link that you posted. I dont find myself agreeing with Arundhati often. Her record of careless statements is such that it raises my hackles everytime she says something, but in her defence, she did ask for a non violent resistance in that link.

Shanti,
Does US Patriots and militias during their revolutionary war has the regard for humanity? Now Americans are so proud of their founding fathers and their liberty. That liberty had lot of tactics and atrocities behind it. Dont you know that? If not I’m giving an example here

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/ohc/history/h_indian/events/gnadenhu.shtml

When you are against guided missiles and so much of air power your tactics will be crude and brutal. And finally Pentagon says that 95% of falluja fighters are locals. So basically they are fighting what they perceive as occupiers.

I’m not justifying what Iraqis are doing. I’m just pointing out any war will have atrocities as it is driven by the most violent emotions. Now US is preaching so much about sanitised war because it had its share of atrocities and now it has technology to say it is fighting a humane war, which is an oxymoron.

>> Someone gave this bitch a “Peace Prize”?

Shanti,

A couple of months ago, in an exchange here, I asked you (re: Bidwai and Roy): “who do you fool, but yourself, if you start off by calling them ‘idiot’, or ‘fool’, or ‘obtuse’”? (Now, I might add, “bitch” ).

Somewhere later in the exchange, you said: “it is easier to talk trash about people you don’t know than about people with whom you have had civil discussions.”

Give it a thought, Shanti. As I said then too, I hardly need to defend AR, but give it a thought anyway.

Another point in my next comment.

>> Someone gave this bitch a “Peace Prize”?

Which reminds me. Some years ago, with great ceremony, Bal Thackeray was conferred the title “Hindu Hriday Samrat” (“Emperor of the Hindu Heart” ). He is regularly referred to that way today.

This is a man who wrote in signed editorials in December 1992 and January 1993:

* “Which is this minority community? The Muslim traitors who partitioned the country and haven’t allowed us to breathe ever since.” (December 5).

* “Muslims should draw a lesson from the demolition of Babri Masjid, otherwise they will meet the same fate as Babri Masjid.” (December 8)

* “Pakistan need not cross the borders and attack India. 250 million Muslims in India will stage an armed insurrection. They form one of Pakistan’s seven atomic bombs.” (December 9).

* “Muslims of Bhendi Bazar, Null Bazar, Dongri and Pydhonie, the areas we call Mini Pakistan… must be shot on the spot.” (January 8).

These, and much more, were written during the 1992-93 riots in Bombay, and arguably inflamed the killing we saw then.

This is the man they called Hindu Hriday Samrat.

I have yet to see you, or anyone else, writing anywhere, a line similar to the one you have above about AR.

I know there are guys itching to jump on me for saying this. Before they do, let me also say: it truly saddens me that I react to your line about AR like this. That in turn, people will react to what I say by saying, “what about XYZ, why didn’t you condemn that?” — and on we go, the merry go round of “what about”.

But I read what AR has to say, and for the life of me I cannot see how you come to the conclusion that AR weeps for the murderers of Margaret Hassan.

In contrast, BT actually calls all Muslims traitors (an explicit violation of Section 153 of the IPC), he actually calls for them to be killed — and he gets called Hindu Hriday Samrat? (Or was it because he said those things that he got called Hindu Hriday Samrat?) And you don’t find this offensive?

Dilip,

I fail to see the relevance of the reference to Bal Thackeray! He may or may not be a jerk, but what’s that got to do with The Rebel of All Things?

Shanti,

I’ve written this on several blogs now —- The Rebel of All Things thrives on publicity. Her tendency to score self-goals is just a smart way to become controversial and hence make it to the news. You are giving her oxygen by writing about her.

The best way to tackler her is to condemn her to anonymity. Ignore her.

Nitin,

Here’s the relevance: Shanti’s comment that “Someone gave this bitch a “Peace Prize”?”.

In much the same way, someone gave Thackeray the title “Hindu Hriday Samrat”, after all.

Nitin,

I also meant to say, I’m always amused by the optimism in your advice to “ignore” AR, and she will therefore be “condemned to anonymity”. Do you really believe that? Vast numbers of people, whether you like it or not, listen to hear and read her. You can’t wish them, and therefore her, away.

Besides, is that really how you deal with views you disagree with? Hope they will vanish? A good way to fool yourself, but no more.

I am glad I found something to agree with Mr D’Souza, at long last. Yes, we should not — and CANNOT — ignore Our Lady of Fulmination. Yes, it is true that she has a sizeable, if not “vast” — allow for a little bit of “journalistic” licence there — following, especially among white folks. We must try to understand why. How did this shallow hypocrite who has nary an original thought to contribute manage to fool a good number of seemingly smart people? Here is one explanation:

Roy was in position when 9/ll happened, ready to scold on front pages all over the world—or at least the big chunk of it that used to be British. Within a few weeks, she produced an astounding article called “the Algebra of Infinite Justice,” originally printed in the Guardian but since disseminated by email through all the laid-off countries which once produced the middle managers of the British Empire.

From Canada to New Zealand, you hear Roy’s article quoted with glee by grumpy old white men who usually respond with bitter letters to the editor when the local aboriginals get stroppy. Yet these bilious old racists simply melt when Roy’s big brown eyes appear. The paradox is not really so hard to understand. Roy, for the old Anglos, is a convenient little brown stick with which to beat the Americans, whom the grumpy old Anglos hate even more than they hate the Abos. The Americans put these guys out of an Empire-managing job, and they will never forgive that or lose their conviction that the world was oppressed far better under the Union Jack than the Stars and Stripes.

http://www.exile.ru/2002-April-05/great_literatury_frauds_of_our_time.html

aha.. So what is Dilip saying here.. AR doesnt deserve the peace prize any more than Bala Saheb deserves being called hindu hriday samrat ? :-D Since comparing anyone to Thakrey is one of the worst insults in Dilips universe, chill out people. Hes on your side, really.. :-D

Anon, 100,00 people killed? You are not talking about the lancet study that said the numbers could be anywhere between 8,000 and 195,000 and then proceeded to take an average, are you? Post with your proper name if you want to discuss instead of doing a hit and run.

uspeed, where is AR condemning violent resistance for the terrorist scum to heed her request to become non-violent? What is their incentive? This again, is not about what Americans did. I am as appalled about Abu Ghraib as anyone else, but I fail to see the link between killing a harmless aid worker and the war.

Dilip, I don’t think terrorist-enablers like AR deserve any respect. She might not sit there and pay them to kill, but her public support does offer them a chance for PR. She and her ilk are in the business of trying to whitewash the terrorists’ crimes against humanity. She and people like her are the reason terrorists are able to find sympathy in spite of committing heinous crimes. I refuse to respect scum like her.

I hate AR doesn’t mean I like Thackeray - I called him a narrow-minded bigot and a Sena-crazy. I will call them as I see them. I really don’t feel the need to be civil to someone who finds a desparate need to identify with terrorists and dictators be it lefty or righty.

Dilip, she is backing the “resistance” in Iraq without differentiating or even offering a scolding word for the murders being committed by the same people leading the “resistance”. Did she ever speak against the “violent” rule of Saddam Hussein as passionately as she is attacking the “occupation” now? Did she care?

One more thing - Margaret Hassan was against the war too. The difference was that unlike others who bitch, moan and complain she set about making things right as much as she could for the Iraqi people she truly cared about.

I dont care abt AR and what she says, stopped doing that some time ago. People like her are just the mirror images of those they oppose, someone like say, George Bush. Either the world is against them, or with them. So for AR, all the Iraqi insurgents would be “freedom fighters”, while for Bush and his ilk, all the insurgents would be “terrorists”.

Having said that, I think theres a need to appreciate that Hassan had been working in those areas for upwards of 30 (?) years, and was murdered/abducted only after the war was over and the insurgency started. This is not to absolve the people who did this of any responsibility for their actions, but the circumstances and the context in which their actions took place have to be understood. The WSJ edit the link to which yazad posted, was eager to absolve, or at least to understand the motives of the Marine who murdered the unarmed, wounded Iraqi man inside the mosque - “He had seen his friend being killed, his unit had been under attack” and so on. It even urged those of us not under attack to withhold our judgement cause we arent actually the people “ontheground”. Why not show the same “understanding” to the Iraqi guy who killed Hassan ? May be his family was wiped out in the American bombing, or something worse happened to him. The very least that is true is that this illconsidered invasion and war shattered his nation and his world.

Being consistent demands that the responsibility for the other things happening in this war, such as the unaccounted billions, the $200 million prison, destroyed public facilities, war crimes and human rights abuses and so on be laid at the right door.

Like I said, I dont care much for the likes of DD, AR and so on. I am also clear about what side and what future I am for. Even so, I just think that theres a lot of hypocrisy all around. I am not sure that there isnt an element of glee that I have on seeing the shoe on the other foot.. I mean the same WSJ would not hesitate to pontificate about abuses by the “mostly hindu army” of the “mostly hindu India” commtting horrific human rights abuses had there been such a video of an Indian soldier, but look how they squirm now :-D

uspeed, I agree with you a lot more than you would imagine. I just cannot stand self-righteous hacks of any political persuasion.

Shanti, AR isn’t a “terrorist-enabler” any more (or less) than you or I are. I do realize that this may be something we will have to disagree on, so I’ll leave it there.

I’m glad you pointed me to the “narrow-minded bigot” post … but with respect, Shanti, it’s not quite the same as “Someone gave this bitch…” and “scum like her”, is it? Arguably, it’s not even HIM you’re calling a narrow-minded bigot.

Though for those frenetic jumpers out there, I’m not even saying you SHOULD call him names. I really couldn’t care less. The world is full of polarised opinions, and clearly your scum is someone else’s Sydney Peace Prize winner; your narrow-minded bigot is someone else’s Hindu Hriday Samrat.

There are lessons there for all of us — as I’ve tried to indicate here before, they are lessons I’m learning the hard way over the last several years.

uspeed, whether you care for me or not is immaterial, but I do have a question. You said: same WSJ would not hesitate to pontificate about abuses by the “mostly hindu army” … (etc).

OK, please point us to where the WSJ ever used the phrase “mostly hindu army”, and where they ever pontificated about abuses by that mostly hindu army. Please. I’m waiting.

Dilip,

I do believe that it is a good policy not to dignify nonsense by bringing it up in serious discourse. You are quite right, my ignoring her may not prevent people from giving her a prize, but in my own humble and small way, I’m happy not to have contributed to that perversion.

If its immaterial why do you have a question ? anyhow, Dont hold your breath.. I dont keep a record of links to everything I read. “Mostly hindu India” is a phrase one comes across very often in news reports in western media when reporting about Kashmir. These reports also pontificate about alleged HR abuses in J&K. Mostly Hindu army is my own touch :-) - and the two terms are pretty similar if one were to consider the assumptions and connotations behind them.

Once I again I find something to agree with Mr D’Souza. Use of expressions like “bitch”, “bigot” is likely to be construed as venting of emotion, and is likely to be dismissed as “polarized opinion”. Instead, the adjectives we apply to people must be truthful and accurate, for then there would be plenty of evidence to back up the description.

I would not call Arundhati Roy a “bitch”. I’d say that she is a casual liar, a habitual twister of facts and an unscrupulous person. Volumes can be written showing how she fits each of these descriptions.

* * *

Nitin, I disagree with you. You cannot ignore Goebbelsin techniques on the grounds that it is a good policy not to dignify them with a serious discussion. It is essential that we do not lose the ability to discriminate between good and evil; to be manipulated by the Roys is to lose this ability. Each time a Hassan is killed, each time a Theo von Gogh is murdered, it serves to contrast the mindset underlying such brutality with the romantic picture of “resistance” that Our Lady of Fabricated Fulmination is projecting. As Christopher Hitchens wrote recently:

From the first day of the immolation of the World Trade Center, right down to the present moment, a gallery of pseudointellectuals has been willing to represent the worst face of Islam as the voice of the oppressed. How can these people bear to reread their own propaganda?

Obviously, they can bear to (re)read. We ought not to. Which is why I think Shanti has done well by highlighting the afore-mentioned contrast.

Nitin, you are welcome to pay no attention to AR. But do you really think you have a monopoly on “serious discourse”? And again, is this really how you deal with views you disagree with, pay no attention and hope they will vanish?

As I also once mentioned here before: the blog world is a fine place all around, but I’m left wondering: how often do you guys seriously take on viewpoints other than yours, instead of dismissing them as “scum” and “nonsense” and “perversion”; and pretending that only what you do is “serious discourse”? (I direct this equally to those in the blog world I tend to agree with — they are just as reluctant to come to grips with other views).

uspeed: Just your touch, of course. Bluffs must be called.

If Shanti is so against Roy because she supports a group which involve in murder, what about Shanti who support the war which involved in civilian casuality and whose army went into the war with lies as its reason?

The problem with your argument is anybody takes a stand against Iraq war is consider as supporters of murder. Is not that stupid?

I dont think Bush or Shanti has any right to talk about non-violence resistence. If you take arm better prepared for the worst fight from your enemy. Dont create rules. In war no rule matters. That is what history says and in these live TV era opponents can use the same TV to get their PR.

Preaching freedom with the help of missiles is real BS. And dont forget this war is about WMD and not liberating Iraqis.

Dilip,
I applaud you for not engaging Mr Raghu Reddy in his incendiary commentary.
I would like to quote here from Mr Reddy’s favorite book i.e. ’ The Quran’ which has a great line for the likes of Mr Reddy ” When the ignorant speak, say Peace”

Chok, I will not reiterate the hundreds of reasons I had for supporting the war on Iraq - do a search of my archives and read if you care. I am not calling every anti-war activist a bad person. I know many of them - my husband is anti-war. Yaz and Sameer who comment often here were against it. In my comment above, I noted Margaret Hassan was against war. I just don’t see how killing her achieves any objective or can even be seen as some kind of legitimate resistance. That is bullshit.

Dilip, I am not saying I am the only one capable of serious discourse. I know a lot of people who disagree on everythign with me who are capable of having perfectly serious discussions and really good points. I don’t like when people who are capable of molding public opinion (ab)use it to make terrorism acceptable. Did you like it when Modi and Co. tried to justify the murder and mayhem in Gujarat? Wouldn’t your insides churn if you were asked to sympathize with the murderers and saw people supporting them?

Shanti, Do you know what US patriots did to their fellow colonists who were called Loyalists?

In any resistance to be successful you need to eliminate the traitors first. If US in war if any citizens support the enemy US will execute them. That is the law.

The problem here is the rules of war. Those rules were created by the west after it conquered the world. When it was conquering it didnt bother about any rules. You are buying into that rules without understanding how a Arab view this war.

Violence creates more violence. That is the nature. If US supported some non violent opposition to the Sadaam I dont have any problem with that. You might have hundreds of reason for the war, some of them are legitimate but if you take arms and violence means it will create more violence. By supporting the war you are actually supporting the violence perpetuated by the US. Then you should despise yourself as you are despising Roy.

Chok, your arguments are total bullshit. I really don’t care what the US patriots did - that is not the topic here. Believe it or not, there are different kinds of violence. I am against murder of anyone, but I am for death penalty in some cases. Both things kill people, but one is done with malice while the other is out of a sense of justice. I agree that to the warped minds of terrorists what they are doing seems like justice - doesn’t matter to me.

Killing for the sake of killing is heinous as opposed to being killed by accident. Non-violent resistance against Saddam Hussein? Who would co-ordinate it? How would you even go about it? Wake up, Chok! Millions of people around the world to stop America from going to war with Iraq to depose Saddam. How many of those marchers were holding banners asking Saddam to stop terrorizing his own country? How many Iraqis marched in any of those protests? Think about it and you will see the difference between AR who thinks she knows what is good for Iraqis better than they do and me.

Dilip, u as a journalist and a two bit political hack should be the last person to shoot off your mouth abt making accurate statements :-D Remember, its not the hallowed portal of rediff dot com we are writing in, only a blogs comments section. A setting thats much more informal.

The other thing is, that the quote is merely a tangential aspect of what I was saying, and that to Shanti, not u. But since you have jumped into the conversation without so much as a ‘by your leave’, let me ask you. Havent you seen this characterization “mostly hindu India” of our country anywhere in the western press ? Havent you seen the Indian armies human rights record being castigated in the western press ? Now that the same press has become oh so concerned with what the “man on the ground” is facing, What are the connotations ?

In any resistance to be successful you need to eliminate the traitors first.

Sicko, what “treason” did this 59-year-old woman commit?

Shanti, I know you cant accept that all violence should be wrong.

But I cant understand during 80s US supporting Sadaam because he is against Iran, same period US supporting Afghan Mujahiddin against North alliance because Northern alliance is with communists, Now after 911 US is arming Northern alliance to fight taliban it is attacking Sadaam who was once armed by US. When will this skewed logic of violence will stop? Can you answer that?

What is going to happen in Iraq is not a democracy. It will be chaos. Sadaam is a product of centuries old rivalry between Sunny, Shaite and Kurds. Americans dont understand that. They armed Sadaam to kill Shiates because Iran is Shiate. Now Iraq Shiate might accept US occupation but when US attacks Iran all hell will broke lose.

You have a very simplistic notion of freedom. That is been marketed by 20th century westerners. I think each society and country has to earn its freedom. It cant be delivered by missiles.

More bullshit, Chok - See here for a chart of arms sales to Saddam. That aside, I am saying over and over again about the past. That is not the point at all. If some people in India decided to torture and kill a British woman to right whatever wrongs the British committed a mere 60 years ago, would that be OK with you?

RR, Still we dont know who killed Hassan. We can’t jump into conclusion on that.

One fact is CARE UK’s 64% of the funds come from the UK govt, who is an enemy of the Iraqi’s resistence. IF US is in war with India and Indian govt’s fund being used by an Indian to spread Indian form of freedom in US might be considered as a treason.

War and violence is stupid which is driven by the most violent emotions. Dont expect rules or reason in that.

Chok, do you even listen to what you say? Providing clean water and facilities for regular people is somehow bad because it was the West’s idea of freedom? Building water sanitation plants is treason?

Dont expect rules or reason in that.

I am not expecting either of them from you sicko.

One fact is CARE UK’s 64% of the funds come from the UK govt, who is an enemy of the Iraqi’s resistence.

How does that alleged fact prove Margaret Hassan’s “treason”, sicko? She was actually a “traitor” to Britain, sicko, because she was anti-war.

Shanti, I will stop arguing here. After a year or so we will see. If Iraq really become a democracy and peace was there then I will accept that Bush did a good thing, irrespective of what his intentions were. But if it becomes chaos and civil war broke then Bush actually made a mistake and you should despise yourself for supporting this mess.

The reason I think Iraq will be a mess is because of the ethnic conflict there. Sadaam was a product because of that. American idea of freedom will not suite in that ethnic conflict.

Another thing is, I dont think US foreign policy is based on right or wrong. It is based on geopolitical strategy. For that matter I’m not naive to beleive that any country’s foreign policy is based on right or wrong. Iraq war is based on WMD. But what happened to Pakistan’s Khan proliferation? US just ignored it because it needs Musharref help. This kind of strategy hurts more.

RR, You and I can keep argue to any length because we are not occupied. We didnt lose anybody in anybody’s bombing, we are not a part of centuries old ethnic conflict. In war and violence there is no rule. So we need to be really really careful in starting a violence or war.

Chok, why do you keep ignoring the fact that I am not supporting the Iraq war because the US is waging it? I would support it if were waged by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. I don’t care about US’ reasons. All I care about is that someone finally took a stand and did something about the situation there. I don’t believe the US foreign policy or the Bush administration is all whiteness and greatness personified. I really do believe as do polls of most Iraqis that they are better off now than they were with Saddam. They believe they can be even better off in the future. I believe them. When any organization is shattered there is temporary chaos - I think it will be ultimately defeated and Iraq will be a better place for it.

Dilip,

By no means do I have a monopoly over serious discourse —- neither do you or anyone else. There are many ways to defeat ideas and people, not all of them involve engaging in shouting matches or intellectual debates. Silence, applied appropriately against the right adversary, can be a powerful tool too. Orson Scott Card, in one book (Enchanted?), tells of how powers of Gods wax and wane according to how often people remember and talk about them. So is it with the Devil.

No, ignoring her is not a passive act of closing my eyes and ears hoping she will go away; it is an active act of not allowing her ideas to spread. Not through me, no.

Your remarks on the blog world is gratuitous. You just cant generalise —- and if you are making this comment after reading my blog, all I can say is that you are hopelessly wrong. The world is changing, Dilip, and its not just the jholna-bag carrying, chain-smoking, black-rimmed-spectacle wearing, kurta-and-jeans crowd that can pass of as intellectuals. Now, everyone can. :-)

OK, let’s take this a bit at a time.

Here’s where I agree with Chok: The problem with your argument is anybody takes a stand against Iraq war is consider as supporters of murder.

If someone believes the Iraq war is misconceived, does that mean they applaud the murder of Margaret Hassan, weep for her killers, support terror? Is it so hard to imagine that there are people who might find both the war and the killing of Hassan sickening?

I also think there’s a point when Chok said don’t expect rules and reason in war. May I point you to something I just wrote on that theme?

Shanti, you said there was a difference between AR who thinks she knows what is good for Iraqis better than they do and me. But actually, what is the difference, at least on this score? You say AR thinks she knows what is good for Iraqis better than they do and that bothers you - but you seem to think you know what’s good for them better than they do too, and that’s the US invasion to overthrow a notorious tyrant. Is it clear that back in March 2003, every single Iraqi wanted the US to come into their country to get rid of Saddam? Not to me, it isn’t – however awful they thought Saddam was, even if they think they are better off without Saddam (as I believe they are).

Nitin: My remarks on the blog world are based on the frequency with which I see, on this page alone, such words as “bullshit” and “scum” flung at differing opinions. I’ve seen the same kinds of attitudes on other blogs too. I have no idea what that has to do with chain-smoking intellectuals; but if as you say, “everyone can” be one such today and that means this is the way opposing views are handled, well – more hits to your blog!

Uspeed: Don’t feel too bad, it’s OK to have your bluff called.

AM: Good to hear from you my friend. Did you get a bit of mail I sent you a few days ago, I think?

Shanti, you also said: Did you like it when Modi and Co. tried to justify the murder and mayhem in Gujarat? Wouldn’t your insides churn if you were asked to sympathize with the murderers and saw people supporting them?

Of course I didn’t like it, of course my insides would (and did) churn. But since this is about AR: I don’t believe she has ever made “terrorism acceptable”. But below is a translation of a leaflet freely circulated in Gujarat in 2002 (I have a copy of the Gujarati original, picked up in Ahmedabad in March 2002).

I would say this leaflet (and others like it) helped make the terrorism in Gujarat in 2002 possible, certainly acceptable. If AR has ever written anything like this, I would like to know about it. Please.

———————

Wake Up… Get up… Unite Reply to a brick with a stone

Today the minority community is trampling on the majority community. For these Muslims, it’s a matter of shame that even 50 years after independence, they have not become Hindustanis. The minority community does not know the strength of the majority community.

Muslims are traitors. This has been proved by the incident in Godhra and the arson in Sindhi Market. So far the Muslims have been traitors in Kashmir, then in the Parliament, now they have challenged Gujarat and they have made a big mistake. The Muslims cannot be protected by the Army or the police. Nor can the people who go after votes who pamper them save them.

When India became independent, it had 3 crore Muslims. Now that we have had 50 years of freedom, they are 35 crore. Understand, beware, within 5-10 years they will be equal to us. It is not a cricket team they are making, but an army that is organized by Pakistan.

Police and the Army, awake. You must also beware. You are also Hindus. You can also be attacked. You must also side with the Hindus. The Hindus support the police and Army fully.

My Hindu brothers, get together and just as, in the independence struggle, the Indian National Army (“Azad Hind Fauj” ) was created, we will create an Azad Hind Fauj [today] and destroy the enemy and reduce the burden of sin on the nation.

[Now in Hindi, though still using Gujarat script, in verse form]

From Vatva to Naroda, from Bapunagar to Kalupura,
On March 29 there will be one voice calling. We will take the name of Ram and attack.
As we destroyed Babri, We will destroy the Muslims [word used is “bando”, derogatory reference to Muslims].
We will turn Jamalpur into ashes, we will destroy Dariyapur.
Whether it is an old chawl or a miyan-ki-galli [reference to Muslim areas],
Today we will not spare you.
We will pick out each one of you [“chun chun ke”] and kill you: this is the
promise of Hindustanis.
…
However many dogs Sonia raises, whether they are like Farooque Shaikh or Haji Billal [Billal is an accused in Godhra massacre],
We will do to them what happened to Ehsan Jaffri [Muslim ex-MP in Ahmedabad
who was pulled from his home and burned to death].
The “bandos” have burned shops and blackened the sky,
We will cut them up and make rivers flow of their blood.

[Back to Gujarati]

The Azad Hind Fauj is an organization of Hindutva. Thousands of brothers have already joined this organization. You must also join and help save Hindustan.

Congratulations, Narendra Modi, we salute you. After Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, we have a brave person [to lead] and Gujarat is proud. Hindustan’s glory [shaan] is in your hands.

We appeal to all Hindus not to throw stones against the police or army. They are our brothers.

A Hindustani.

But below is a translation of a leaflet freely circulated in Gujarat in 2002

Very similar to the leaflets a Paki-funded outfit called Deendar Anjuman left at the scene when it burned churches in south India; which burning our Lady of Contrived Indignation clever continues to blame on the “Hindu Nationalism”. (Arundhati Roy, by the way, was born a christian, and chrstiened “Margaret Roy”, according to Richard Crasta.)

This is actually pretty interesting. When it is not those paragons of truth, Arundhati Roy or Teesta Setalvad, it is some leaflet published by, without doubt, Modi. Mr D’Souza has a sleuth’s nose for truth.

* * *
By the way folks, I have taken the plunge:

http://poodlesofindia.blogspot.com

Arundhati Roy will of course of be prominently featured there, in the context of how the poodles plug her. ;)

hey Dilip.. you dont feel bad either :-D

Sometimes ppl will call you what you really are. Nobody cares much for pompous, self righteous political hacks :-P

By no means do I have a monopoly over serious discourse

Nitin,

You DO have a “monopoly” over serious discourse, discourse that you consider to be serious. You enforce this “monopoly” by choosing to participate in, and influencing, discourse that you deem serious. Mr D’Souza wants you to believe that the pissant perorations of our Lady of Contrived Indignation constitute “serious” material. You disagree. So do I. I do not see anything wrong in deeming somebody non-serious and on that ground wishing not to discuss him/her. However, I object to ignoring A Roy NOT on the grounds that she is non-serious, but that she is too dangerous to be ignored.

I have read my Ayn Rand, and am no longer a great fan of hers. Still, there is one Ayn Rand character that remains etched in my memory, for I have in real life met people resembling that character: Ellsworth Monkton Toohey. I believe that AR is a Toohey-like character. There are many such people in the media and liberal arts fields. Their ambition is power; control over others’ lives. They can only be ignored at out peril, even if they appear to be mediocre or bizarre or irrational or just plain loony.

I’ll be writing more on this subject in my blog.

— — —

uspeed, bow to experience. He had his bluff called by varsha@rediff, which is how I got to read the Srikrishna Commission “Report” with a critical eye.

Just happened to see this long discussion.

Personally I feel,no war is justified when it is done using false evidence.But I am not an expert on that.

The coverage we see on media is not by any means the whole truth. We all know that. The number of Iraqis killed and the manner in which they are being killed is something we only get a glimpse of (Abu Gharib events and the one last week when footage showed how an American Marine chose to kill an injured civilian in Fallujah at point blank range), as opposed to getting all the gory details of the expats who are getting killed. Similarly, the coverage on how bad Saddam was is also predominantly Western media coverage. Sure, he was not a nice guy but then so are so many other leaders.

So none of us actually know what is happening. I feel we ,who have access to so much of information need to look at all sides of the story- what is is it about,who is writing it, why may they be writing it etc. It takes more effort to do this but that is something we must do whenever we can.

Meanwhile read this by a civilian in Bahgdad- she has such horrific stories to tell that it will make you wonder - who is justified when we see things from the common man’s perspective? http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

These are dark days for humanity in general.

Uspeed, but why don’t you just say Sudeep?

Nobody cares much for pompous, self righteous political hacks

Wishful thinkers, aren’t you guys? But here’s a thought: I simply long to be called such epithets. Means I’m doing something right…

>>> Wishful thinkers, aren’t you guys?

U mean.. people do care for pompous selfrighteous political hacks ? :-D

>>> here’s a thought: I simply long to be called such epithets.

Is that why you always come back for more ?

>>> Means I’m doing something right…

hmm… I have travelled across the country, speak 2 1/2 Indian languages, can understand 3, have lived in seven states, talked to foreigners in India, and Indians in foreign countries. Nobody that I know of cares much for PSRPHs (Pompous Self Righteous Political Hacks) or thinks they are doing anything right. Do they matter ? oh well.. sometimes they get a booker and then they become big enough to mould opinions in the west, then they matter - albeit only in a context of damage limitation.

So Dilip, my boy :-) you are percocious, but up until such time as you get a booker, you dont matter in the grand scheme of things. Its a nice thought to keep yourself happy though.

Nobody that I know of cares much for PSRPHs

So now you know why your mother told you to be careful of the company you keep.

Nope.. I think my mom fgot to tell me that, so I end up meeting a lot of people. But hey, look at the circles you move in :-P

Sunrayz, the guy killed by the marine was not a civilian but a fighter pretending to be dead. Saddam was not such a bad guy? Go to amnesty.org or hrw.org - find out what they say about him. Don’t be dumb - I will be here waiting. You are so quick to accept anything against the West but not against a documented mass-murderer like Saddam? Do you know that for every Riverbend there are ten healingiraq.com messopotamian.blogspot.com and iragthemodel.blogspot.com? Why is it that you choose to look at only one angle of the story?

RR,

I agree with you on the Toohey part. Where we disagree is over the means to defeat the Toohey. You did’nt give your blog’s URL, though.

Dilip,

Honestly, I’m surprised you cite “bullshit” and “scum” as poor language. I mean which planet are you from man. Do you know that the The Economist magazine publishes the F-word, and terms like “screwed up”. What makes the blogosphere different from the high-brow world of mainstream journalism is its lack of pretension. So what if the commenters use the language and vocabulary they would use in day-to-day conversation?

I’m also surprised how you can generalise about the entire blogosphere using the comments on this blog as a sample !

Nitin,

I cited them as “poor language”? Where? I couldn’t care less what you call people and opinions, my friend. Hey, I must be up there with the Economist — I just finished writing something that uses the word “fucker”! (Psst: what’s “F-word”?)

What I’m saying is, if that’s how opposing views get dismissed (by calling them “bullshit” etc), that’s a poor recipe for dialogue between such views. Unless you don’t care for such dialogue and would rather speak only with people who agree with you. Which (speaking only with those you agree with) is fine too, if that’s what you want.

It isn’t fine with me, that’s all.

I hardly said I generalized from this blog. I did say, I’ve seen the same kinds of attitudes on other blogs too.

Shanti:

the guy killed by the marine was not a civilian but a fighter pretending to be dead

Not quite. The man was a fighter who had been wounded the previous day, deprived of his arms and left in the mosque. Of the man, here are some quotes:

There don’t appear to be any weapons anywhere…
There are no sudden movements, no reaching or lunging…
[The Marine] pulls the trigger. There is a small splatter against the back wall and the man’s leg slumps down…
I … tell the Marines again [that this man] had been disarmed treated and left here…
[I]t bothered me that the Marine didn’t seem to consider the other insurgents a threat — the one very obviously moving under the blanket, or even the two next to me that were still breathing.
[I]t appeared to me very plainly that something was not right. … I was not watching from a hundred feet away. I was in the same room. Aside from breathing, I did not observe any movement at all [in the man shot].

All from the man who shot that video himself, Kevin Sites. Take a look at his wrenching, compassionate, thoroughly honest account of what happened, what the Marine did, what he (Sites) himself did, that day.

What I took away from it: War is not black and white, as we outside it like to think it is; soldiers in wars are caught in godawful dilemmas; and may all journalists aspire to be as honest as Sites is.

Nitin, my blog is

http://poodlesofindia.blogspot.com

The mentioned subject is yet to be uploaded.

The man was a fighter

Yes, not a civilian. A man who took up fighting prepared to die. That does not absolve those who killed him instead of capturing him as a p.o.w, but let it not be said that a non-combatant was killed.

who had been wounded the previous day, deprived of his arms and left in the mosque

Apply Geneva Convention and punish the marine.

Worlds removed from what has been done to Margaret Hassan who was no fighter at all, and had nothing whatsoever with to do the fighting around her.

soldiers in wars are caught in godawful dilemmas

In what “godawful dilemma” were those who killed Hassan caught in? Eg: Should they decapitate her the traditional way or should they just pump bullets into her her head?

and may all journalists aspire to be as honest as Sites is.

.. and be honest enough to stop putting the gloss of “resistance” on terrorism.

Enjoy the greatness of India at : http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/jaskaran/

I think I did’nt make myself clear. I don’t recall saying Saddam wasn’t a bad guy or , that I was saying the West is to blame.

I was only saying that reporting has to be seen in the light of who is reporting and see it from all angles. I was saying that the world needs to hear more about civilian casualties just as we hear about the expat deaths which are being highlighted.

This is what I had said-
..So none of us actually know what is happening. I feel we ,who have access to so much of information need to look at all sides of the story- what is is it about,who is writing it, why may they be writing it etc. It takes more effort to do this but that is something we must do whenever we can….

So I am unable to understand the reason why you are saying stuff like - ‘don’t be dumb’ or ‘why do you choose to look at one angle of the story?’
Anyway , have a good week.

Sunrayz, it really irritates me a lot when people hide behind excuses like “we ned to know this”, “we need to know that” when what they really mean is that they are more convinced in their minds of one side’s guilt than the other but just won’t admit it outright. I prefer honesty out here. As for you looking at one angle only, aren’t you when you only talked about Riverbend and her “horror stories”? I pointed out there is also another angle to it. You will not admit the marine didn’t kill a civilian but will move on to some other topic to feign righteous indignation.

I think people on both sides of the war need to relax. Saddam was a bad guy and his riddance is a good thing. However even well meaning people who supported the war initially must realize that if the violence continues, the Iraqis were probably better off with Saddam than with thousands of thousands of civilians dead.
This is not an endorsement of Saddam but a reality check.
As to the insurgents, the ones who are beheading, killing civilians, killing random westerners, they are obviously misguided and wrong. They deserve no sympathy.
However there are also a lot of insurgents who are just fighting a foreign colonial power and only attack the US Soldiers and theirs is a freedom struggle no less noble than the freedom struggle of any other nation which fought colonialism.
Condemning all insurgents is wrong.
As to the American soldiers. I personally believe that a vast majority of them are kids from small cities who probably could not point out Iraq on a map before the war.
They are in a difficult situation fighting an unknown enemy and I am sure if given a choice a lot of them would rather come back to the US, than to continue fighting in Fallujah and Mosul.

AM, that is one of the best summaries of the situation I heard so far. I might not agree with all of it, but I do think that there needs to be some semblance of order before we can declare the war good for anyone but Zarqawi’s recruiting department. I am willing to wait until the elections are held to see what happens. I really hope there will be free and fair elections just so the people of Iraq will not end up trading one dictator for another.

AM, thanks. It needed to be said and you said it well.

Actually, I’ve been waiting: the post that has generated this tide of comments says Arundhati Roy wept for the murderers of Margaret Hassan. It generated all kinds of abuse for Roy in the comments. Yet I’m still to see a single actual reference to such weeping.

There’s none in her Sydney Peace Prize speech, which presumably occasioned some of this outpouring of hostility towards her, given Shanti’s original astonishment that “Someone gave this bitch a Peace Prize”. There are, however, such statements in that speech as:

* The only kind of resistance that has managed to survive is as crazed and brutal as the occupation itself.

and

* It is mendacious to make moral distinction between the unspeakable brutality of terrorism and the indiscriminate carnage of war and occupation.

Where is the weeping for Hassan’s murderers? May we know, and nail it down, please?

Or is this more of what might loosely be called bloggossip: make an accusation and then mosey on along, knowing it will be repeated and retained?

Dilip, she has vaguely called out “terrorism”, but where does she define who are the so-called legitimate resistance and who are the terrorists? Can you point me to a single organization of “insurgents” in Iraq who don’t resort to terrorism and care only for the people of Iraq to be free of occupation? You know, the kind AR would want us all to join? She is “brave enough” to come out and call George Bush by name as a terrorist - when will she name Zarqawi?

Shanti, first things first. You did say, loud and clear, that she had “wept” for Margaret Hassan’s killers. Where?

I have no problem with your disagreeing with her on everything she said in that Sydney Peace Prize speech, as you indicate you do. You have every right to do so.

But where did she weep for Margaret Hassan’s killers?

Dilip, that was not meant to be taken literally - she is supporting a “resistance” made up almost entirely of people like the kind that killed Margaret Hassan and expects us to sympathize with them. That was what I meant.

Shanti, you once said,

“You can try real hard, squint a little and read between the lines if you want. I can only take the literal meaning what someone said regardless of my politics.”

Now you mean to say something you said should not be taken literally? Your politics and hatred towards Roy was reflected in your post.

Chok, shut up! Title of a post or that of a column for that matter is not necessarily literal - especially when it is opinion. You, who will not back anything up with a single fact and still refuse to acknowledge facts that I have presented to refute your claims shouldn’t act all smug and self-righteous about it now, should you!

Two other posts on the main page right now carry titles - “Mavs spank some Queen ass” and “Invasion of the Evangelicals” - did you take them literally too, Chok?

Shanti, Why to get angry and emotional? I just quoted your statement here. I dont take things literally. My argument in one of the old post was that and you took a stand that you will take only literal meanings. Now you are contradicting. I just pointed out.

What is the fact that Arundathi Roy weeped for the murderers? You dont have any fact for that. When Dilip confronted with that you are escaping by saying it should not be taken literal. If that should not be taken literal what is the reason behind your opposition to peace prize for Roy?

My fact that war is dirty without rules is based on history. Till now all wars are dirty. There never been a war with perfect rules and with ampires to declare penalty and fouls. When I pointed that out you just ignore the fact saying I dont bother about the past.

My stand is if I can fight with my rules and tactics then I expect my enemy to fight with his rules and tactics. If not I consider myself as a hypocrite.

War is not a game with a predefined rule. I think you are confusing basket ball and war.

Chok, I will get angry because you are playing gotcha here and not trying to discuss anything. I didn’t contradict myself. For one thing, there is a difference between the TITLE of something and the CONTENT of something. Then there is also this little thing called rhetoric. If you don’t see that, then I am wasting time trying to have a serious discussion with you.

Dilip understood my point - let us look at a column title of his - “Call The Doctor, I’m a Patriot” - does that literally mean all people who think themselves as patriots are sick in mind or body and have to see a doctor? Nooo!

You keep trying to bait me and then feign innocence when I get angry? I have news for you - you don’t dictate my feelings. If you have basic reading comprehension, you will read again my explanation to Dilip and understand why I hate AR and her peace prize when she backs a “resistance”. You (here I mean you) cannot say war is dirty and then support someone getting a peace prize for supporting one of the sides that is atleast as dirty as the other.

I don’t care how the anyone fights - if I think someone did something horrible, I will say so and not hide behind stupid excuses. War is horrible - yes, but that doesn’t justify the killing of humanitarian and aid workers. Period! I am done with you!

Shanti, Death cause by US bombs are consider by you to be accident.

US war on Iraq is based on WMD. Roy is not arguing a war concept built by Shanti. She thinks that resistance is right because US was the aggressor. Powell went to UN and presented a war reason entirely based half truths. Whatever be your reason, Bush provided wrong reason to the world about war. Attacking a sovereign state based on regime change is not consider to be right. His reason was imminent WMD danger for US security. If that reason is wrong. Then automatically the war is wrong. So resistance becomes right.

If Bush initiate a war based on wrong reason which kill thousands of civilians and you consider that war is for freedom, why cant Roy support a resistance which is fighting against a country which wage a war on wrong reason and can get a peace prize?

War is wrong and I cant justify civilian deaths based on wrong reason and half truths as accident. Same way I dont justify the killings by the insurgents. I think in war we cant justify anything. That is what my argument all along. You try to justify one side and claims that justifying other side are murder supporters.

“she is supporting a “resistance” made up almost entirely of people like the kind that killed Margaret Hassan and expects us to sympathize with them”

Finally still we dont know who killed Hassan. In some cases the kidnapped victims are released unharmed. Also how you know that resistance is made up of almost entirely of aid worker murderers? So your content ( not the title ) is not based on fact.

Or is this more of what might loosely be called bloggossip

Mr D’Souza’s line is what might be loosely called the doctrine of deniability. Of course, she has those couple of lines — tucked away somewhere in that heap of condemnation of enemies of all those nice things she stood for, the heap that gives the overall character to her sermons. The two lines that her fans can throw at her critics triumphantly to deny that she is on the side of the terrorists. To be fair though, I don’t think she put them in there either to help her fans or to appear evenhanded. Most probably the usual rhetorical flourish, thta’s it.

But then, on a second look, even those two lines don’t appear to be what they purport to be.

it is mendacious to make moral distinction between the unspeakable brutality of terrorism and the indiscriminate carnage of war and occupation.

Is that so? Is there to be no moral distinction betwen fighter killing fighter, aruably sometimes brutally, and ..

a 59-year-old woman, a charity worker, held captive, humiliated in front of the world, possibly denied food, sleep, possibly tortured, raped, and then casually murdered, and the murder filmed ….

no moral difference?

They must have given her the piss prize, I guess. There’s no moral difference between piss and peace.

Chok, I am not justifying anything by anyone. Show me one sentence in my post whose “content” you are contesting where I say that it is OK to murder anyone. For the last time I will tell you and this will be it - I am not supporting this war for America. Period! End of story! I have 90 posts on the topic - read if you must! You must be really confused if you think I don’t want Roy to support the “insurgents” - it is absolutely her right as is my right to call her bullshit when I see it. You don’t have to agree with me - it is your prerogative. You have already made up your mind as have I.

I really have to laugh at crap like - “Attacking a sovereign state based on regime change is not consider to be right. His reason was imminent WMD danger for US security. If that reason is wrong. Then automatically the war is wrong. So resistance becomes right. ” - Oh yeah? Forget the Americans for a minute. How is this supportive of the Iraqis? How does the so-called resistance help Iraqis if they keep bombing out electrical lines and deny basic facilities to their fellow people? How do you justify it when they kill their own Iraqi police and bomb their own civilians and kids? Think of how ridiculous your argument sounds for a minute before you get all hot and huffy trying to respond. Guess what, the American troops will probably leave faster the sooner the insurgents stop resisting the efforts to improve the quality of life in Iraq.

Show me one facet of the resistance that doesn’t routinely murder civilians - just one organization that will do it in peace! If you cannot, then stop talking about it.

Shanti:

Chok, shut up! (etc … your other replies to him).

This is uncalled for, it only demeans you, and disappoints me. For what it’s worth.

What surprises me again is that you call what I had written in ‘righteous indignation’. I commented on the post because I felt that there is no absolute right or wrong. I was not refuting what you or the others had said.

I used to think pretty much the same way many people in the comments section have written. Things were right or wrong, black or white and I used to take positions quite strongly. But that changed.

The reason I feel the way I feel now is that I am a medical professional who works in disasters (natural and man-made). I have been working with victims of violence following a situation similar to Iraq, refugees, people who have lost their homes in earthquakes etc since the last 2 1/2 years. I have seen the price the common man pays for the mistakes their leaders make. It is horrible. No war is justified unless all options for an alternative solution have been tried. And I do think that all options are usually not tried before war. There are enough examples in history to justify that.

The marine not killing the civilian is not the point here. From the footage I saw I did’nt see any weapon near the person who lay there injured. So, I wonder if the person was really an insurgent. But, to stop the argument on this one point (if he was an insurgent or not), let’s assume that he was an insurgent. If you know the Geneva conventions you would know that you are NOT supposed to attack (let alone kill) someone who is injured during war. Surely the marine was not acting in self-defense. Soldiers are known to be brutal during war irrespective of their nationality. I think Dilip has written a good post about it on his blog.

It is your blog. Your space to voice your opinion. I respect that. But maybe you must realise that some people may not take a right or wrong position and they might have their reasons for doing that. Some of the comments you made in response to my comments left me wondering - ‘what did I say that she is reacting so abrasively? ’ Maybe just as I learn the way you are thinking from your post , you can learn something from my experience and thoughts. Just a thought.
For me reality is not black or white - though sometimes , when I am working,I wish it was.
Take care.

Shanti,
I am not calling for you or anyone else to join the insurgency.
Its a difficult situation in Iraq. I feel for the insurgents ( atleast the ones who are not attacking civilians) and I feel for the US soldiers (atleast the ones who truly believe that Saddam was behind 9-11 and was a threat to their homeland)
The Iraqi insurgents have injured close to 10,000 US soldiers and killed another 1300. That totals thousands of attacks on the soldiers. Not all attacks on the US troops involve attacks on civilians.
I do wonder the legitimacy of this insurgency especially considering the fact that the US might just leave Iraq and there would be no long term colonialism.
However in Iraq like any 3rd world country, most people get their news from second hand sources and rumors are treated like facts.
There are surely loads of well meaning Iraqis who dont want to be occupied and are against the American occupation. Ofcourse most of them are probably not fighting anyway.
I think its a little dangerous to condemn all insurgents. Foreign occupation in that part of the World is not that uncommon. Maybe if the US sets a timeline for leaving, then the insurgents who still continue to fight are probably then not fighting for ending the occupation, but fighting for something else. Maybe then we can condemn all insurgents.

Sunrayz, we do know for sure this person was not a civilian because there was no need for a civilian to even be there. This person was unarmed and killing him was wrong per the Geneva convention and per humanitarian reasons. I never did support that nor have I ever even justified it. When I see people wilfully distorting things (see Chok and his claims on arms sales to Iraq) and then not responding when caught on it, your point seems just like that - as if you were calling the insurgent a civilian to make things seem worse than they are.

So was the deal with Riverbend - she is but one civilian - there are countless other Iraqi bloggers who are also civilians who say it was all worth it. Have you read them? All this taken together lead me to assume that you were only looking at one side of the issue.

Dilip, I agree I shouldn’t have asked Chok to shut up. I will not be provoked by him again.

AM, I agree with you. There could also be the Sunnis who are disgruntled that they might have to bow down to the majority Shias now that Saddam is gone. There is definitely a part of the insurgency that is Iraqi - I think most of it is made of foreign fighters looking for a fight.

Shanti, US Govt did allow a sale of biological and chemical agents to Iraq after it knows that Saddam using chemical weapons against Iranian troops.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearch/FocusAreas/riegle_report/report/report_s01.htm#Chapter 1. Iraqi Chemical and Biological Warfare Capability


When Iran complained about Iraq’s use of chemical weapon it didnt take an aggresive stand against Iraq. In some of its reports it was trying to say it should not play into the hands of Iran. It did take an official position that using those weapons is wrong. But it didnt condemn it or try to stop it, as it was taking things diplomatically.

Also I know that Saddam was supported by USSR more than US. But during 80’s US had a kid glove treatment for Saddam. Is that true or not?

Also in the same post I was talking about US opposing and supporting Northern Alliance. You wilfully ignored that. Do you know about Northern Alliance human rights history?

Also I talked about US ignoring Khan’s pardon. You didnt talk about that.

I think as Indians we got affected more by US covert arm transfers to Afghans. After USSR left afghanistan, I believe Kashmir started burning because those trained warriors and their Pakistani counterparts turned towards the valley. CIA trained ISI agents started understanding insurgency after Afghan resistance. That is one of the reason I’m so against US misadventures.

Shanti,
According the CENTCOM (Central Command) of the Pentagon, only 5 of the insurgents are foreign fighters. 95 of the insurgents are Iraqis.
You are probably right about the Sunni-Shia thing though.

Show me one facet of the resistance that doesn’t routinely murder civilians - just one organization that will do it in peace!

Good point.

Now, I’m not exactly a great fan of the United States, but let it not be said that the US brazenly defends excesses by its forces. Every time a war crime is detected it squirms in its seat, mouths apologies and vows to punish the perpetrators.

But the “soldiers” of that “Resistance” which is purportedly dear to the heart of our Lady of Designer Denunciations? Has any of them ever, as a faction or as individuals, publicly disavowed the kidnappings and the beheadings of non-combatants by their terrorist brethern?

Shanti,

It’s not just asking Chok to “shut up.” It’s not that you should not be provoked by him again — please, be provoked by him again! That’s the idea and I think Chok would agree.

This is the point: OK, so you didn’t literally mean Roy sat down and actually wept for Margaret H’s killers. But what did you mean?

But when Chok tries to ask you that question, tries to get you to back up what you yourself said, you fly off the handle at him. Fine, it’s your blog. But it doesn’t answer the question, does it?

One of the things about war is that it is rarely, as Sunrayz says, black and white. This very exchange of comments here should teach us all that lesson. Yet the tone of your contributions is that your take on Iraq is right and Chok’s, say, is so utterly wrong that he must “shut up”, “stop talking about it”, it’s “crap” that makes you “laugh”, etc. (Of course, I believe my take on Iraq is right and yours is wrong — but I’m not asking you to “shut up” or go away, I’m here trying to understand the positions of people who think like you. I think Chok is doing the same).

After all, you yourself asked Chok: Show me one sentence in my post … where I say that it is OK to murder anyone. (I haven’t seen Chok make this accusation against you, but anyway). He, and I, are asking you the same thing: Show us one thing that Roy has said which makes you believe she weeps for MH’s killers, even if that’s not taken literally. I’d sincerely like to know about it, I’d sincerely like to know what in her pronouncements makes you believe she would feel sorry for Hassan’s killers.

This is a serious question, not playing gotcha (which I don’t even believe Chok was doing). Take a shot at answering it.

Now if after Shanti has said:

Dilip, that was not meant to be taken literally - she is supporting a “resistance” made up almost entirely of people like the kind that killed Margaret Hassan and expects us to sympathize with them. That was what I meant.

Mr D’Souza insists on:

Show us one thing that Roy has said which makes you believe she weeps for MH’s killers

it shows that any straw will do for Mr D’Souza.

You can choose your goalpost, Shanti, like this:

Show us at least three articles published by Our Lady of Laboured Lamentation in which she focused exclsuively on terrorism and terrorism alone, with no ifs and buts, and lambasted the terrorists left, right and center?

Of course, we don’t mind it if she chose to insert a line or two condemning the US also.

This is the reason Chok, Dilip and I will continue to talk past each other without any of us taking anything away from this.

First of all, Chok, I am sorry I yelled at you - I shouldn’t have.

Second, Chok specifically said I was justifying the American atrocities while calling out the insurgents - this is when I said I don’t condone murder of innocents by anyone - US or not. Which is why I asked Chok to show where I supported any kind of murder.

Dilip, as I emailed you, show me one column that Roy devoted to bash terrorism without any ifs and buts (thanks, RR). Roy’s columns are titled - “Aljazeera.Net - Prizewinner backs Iraqi ‘resistance’”
“Infoshop News - Arundhati Roy backs Iraqi ‘resistance’”
“Arundhati Roy: Why we should support Iraqi resistance”
“Sydney Peace Prize winner urges Iraqi resistance. 03/11/2004. ABC”
“babble: Arundhati Roy backs Iraqi ‘resistance’”

What is the face of Iraqi resistance? The guys who strung burnt bodies up on a bridge - the ones who make snuff videos out of horrific beheadings of pleading victims - the ones who blow up civilians, Iraqi Police and Americans indiscriminately. There is simply no VISIBLE aspect of the Iraqi resistance that will do anything peacefully.

Taken together, won’t someone come away from Roy’s columns thinking that is what she backs? Where did Roy decry the atrocities without stopping to offer excuses? You cannot have it both ways, Dilip!

Chok, I have told you time and time again that I don’t care what America did in the past - it is not like they have had the same President ruling them since the 80’s. Fine, US sucks! I give you that, so let us move on! Now tell me again, how is Margaret Hassan’s killing by the “insurgents” justfied.

Bro Dilip,
I commend you again on ignoring the incendiary comments of Raghu Reddy
If we keep ignoring him, he will hopefully go away.
Peace.

Shanti,
I would again cautioning you against blanket condemnations of all Iraqi Insurgents.
Theres no way for us to tell whether each and every insurgent is attacking civilians or not.
Its very possible and infact likely that there are atleast some insurgents who attack only the US Troops.
However that raises the question on whether it is even justified to attack the US Troops in Iraq ? I dont know the answer to that. If the people who are attacking these troops, honestly believe that the Americans are there to permanently occupy ( and with the talk of building 12 permanent bases and military presence for decades you cant really blame some Iraqis for believing that) then can they be blamed for attacking the troops.
However on the other hand the Americans are primarily engaged in the re-building effort so one could argue that the US Troops are actually helping rebuilding Iraq so it makes sense to co-operate with them.
I dont know the answers to these questions and I am sure neither do you or anybody else.
Lets all hope that the insurgency ends, Iraq makes a peaceful transition to a Liberal Democratic state and the US troops leave Iraq completely.

Caution * = cautioning

AM, I am only talking about the face of insurgency in Iraq as we know it. I am suer tehre are people amongst the lot who actually believe what they are doing is for the good of Iraq. The most visible aspect of the insurgency of course, is the terrorist activity.

Face of insurgency as you see where ?
On CNN- FOX and American bloggers ?
What if all you watched was Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya on tv ? If you were watching only 5 Arab sattelite channels for your news on Iraq, you will certainly see a different face of insurgency.
I do however agree with you on this point.
The terrorist attacks have completely overshadowed the insurgency.
I would also grant you, that for an objective person, the public face of the insurgency is indeed terrorism.
I personally sample a whole range of media. From American Conservative to Arab nationalist media. I would have to confess that the public face of the insurgency is indeed terrorism.

Shanti, First of all we dont know who killed Margaret Hassan. Is that right or wrong? Yes, there is a possibility that insurgents would have done that. But we cant claim that. Rather we cant claim that insurgents didnt do that.

I will condemn any crime or initiating a crime in a civilian non war situation. But during riots and war we cant take any side. That is why I oppose any action or decision which supports or initiate a riot or war. That is the reason I think America is wrong. It might be idealistic but for me anything in this world can be solved without arms. Only thing is it will take time, patience and good leadership. Bush never tried that.

My view of curtailing terrorism is making the reason for the terrorism to vanish. If the purpose for the terrorist go away then the civilian support lines will vanish then they cant survive anymore. Contrary if you keep attacking the terrorist (who is blended with civilians) then civilian population will get antogonised with your attack that inturn creates a reason for the terrorist parasites to exists. Bush didnt understand this.

In case of Saddam he is such a parasite which has a reason in that region. Sunni, Shia & Kurds rivalry is well know. To counter Iranian Shia sunnis need some tough person. His terrorising activities are supported by majority Sunnis. Now Kurds are victims but if they get power they will be much more ruthless than Saddam. I will give a passage from Cheney when he was Secretary of defence.

“Once you get to Baghdad, it’s not clear what you do with it. It’s not clear what kind of government you put in place of the one that’s currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime, a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that going to have if it’s set up by the American military there? How long does the United States military have to stay there to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens once we leave?”

Now tell me how much of this is solved? Does Bush and his administration have answer for this? Or do they behave like they have conviction that they understand these issues?

Anybody who has a weapon or not can start a fight. But it will need a person with conviction, intelligence and understanding people to solve social things.

In monarch and dictatorship we can blame the king or dictator. In democracy we need to blame each and every citizen who supports a government which goes into a misadventure.

As Mujahid said Americans watch Fox and Iraqis watch Al Jazeera. Their view will be shaped based on that. Iraqis are fighting a war concept based on Bush administartion and not based on Shanti’s idea. So dont try to think they are fighting against your reason i.e getting rid of Saddam.

When you talk about willful civilian deaths as murders think what happened during sanctions. Iraqis deprived of medicine and food died. But did US relent from keeping the sanctions? It had a dirty move to keep a tab on Saddam. Arab media used that as an anti american plank. Now if now US says it is trying to help them they wont beleive that. That is natural. Fighting these misunderstanding by arms is not right thing. US has a historic mistruct in that region and US needs creative non provoking ways to make them beleive that they are for good cause.

I wanted to argue in your forum because you are one person who supports war based on toppling Saddam atrocities. I accept that he was a cruel ruthless person. But to solve it we need to understand the history of the region, socio economic aspect, solving the rift within their society etc., and some leader needs to make the people to unite against Saddam. That unity will topple Saddam not a external entity like US ( who is consider to be number two enemy after Israel by them ) can deliver that by arms. That unity never exist there because of various ethnic conflict. Can US make that to vanish overnight by bombing?

See our freedom fight, in one of your post you were talking about Indian democracy. I beleive that we have such a fairly functional democracy because of non violence freedom movement. If arms were spread across and violent emotions were used to fight against Britishers, after they left we will be using those arms and emotions to fight within ourself.

So I think US entered into Iraq without proper plan and understanding and I think I have to blame US based on that fact. All other things happening is a result of that.

And finally I accept your apologies :) Have a great thanksgiving.

This is the reason Chok, Dilip and I will continue to talk past each other…

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it’s a pity, maybe not. At least we’re talking. But let’s see, I’m going to try to take something away.

show me one column that Roy devoted to bash terrorism without any ifs and buts

First things first. I’ll make a deal with you, Shanti. This began with you saying Roy wept for the killers of Margaret H, yes you didn’t mean it literally. But you give me something she said, anything she wrote, that makes you say something like this about Roy, and I promise you I will do my best, in turn, to persuade you from her writing that she is no — what was that phrase you used? — “terrorist enabler”. I will do my best to explain how I see her arguments. Is that fair?

You asked Chok to show you where you supported any kind of murder, because you honestly believe you don’t support any kind of murder. So do I. In the same way, I’m asking you to show me where AR supported Margaret H’s murder, because I honestly believe she doesn’t support any kind of murder.

Chok, there have been and there will be wars in which there is one side or the other that is more to blame than the other. Yes, both sides will play dirty - but there is always one side that is more good than the other or atleast not as bad as the other. World War 2 comes to mind.

Not to say America didn’t get into this war out of her own interest more than anything else, but Saddam was literally stringing along half of the Security council by bribing them. Iraqis didn’t needlessly have to die under the sanctions - there was teh Oil-for-food program. Billions were earned by Saddam seeling oil under the program that didn’t make it to the people like they were supposed to. The UN which administered that program didn’t check on it and let the corruption go on as long as they kept getting kickbacks.

You have heard about Halliburton often - have you heard about TOTAL-Fina-ELF? An oil company related to Jaques Chirac’s son-in-law(?). As long as France, Germany, Russia and the UN were happy getting kickbacks over the dead Iraqi people, who had any incentive to get rid of Saddam? Who would have done anything? Is it the US’ fault that the all-knowing UN permitted blatant misuse of funds intended to buy essential medicine and food for Iraqi people? Why was Saddam sanctioned? Because he was not co-operating with the UN as he was supposed to. If the US let the sanctions lift without him still complying, guess who will have finally won the Gulf War.

Shanti, I have a question, do you think US has a proper plan and understanding of Iraq and its people?

Do you think a set of people who is constantly fighting with themselves violently can be a part of a free democracy?

Dilip, herre are her own words - “Like most resistance movements, [the Iraqis] combine a motley range of assorted factions. Former Baathists, liberals, Islamists, fed-up collaborationists, communists, etc. Of course, it is riddled with opportunism, local rivalry, demagoguery and criminality. But if we were to only support pristine movements, then no resistance will be worthy of our purity.

“Before we prescribe how a pristine Iraqi resistance must conduct their secular, feminist, democratic, nonviolent battle, we should shore up our end of the resistance by forcing the US and its allied governments to withdraw from Iraq.”

What is that supposed to mean? Here is what an admirer supporting her column has to say - “We must also recognise that people who bravely resist US military occupations are actually doing the cause of peace a favour. The sustained and successful armed resistance of the Vietnamese National Liberation Front made the US establishment back off from direct foreign military intervention for nearly a decade after Washington’s decisive defeat in Vietnam.”

See what they are taking away from her words? Can you see how she is willing to excuse away the follies of the resistance because no one is all that pure? Her words and her support as the winer of multiple prizes are being used by other people to rationalize away the atrocities committed in the name of the resistance. This is why I call her terrorist-enabler. Willingly or not, she is providing support to their actions by giving them a wink and nod excuse to explain away their crimes.

Chok, I think there was definite failure of planning for peace by the US. There were plenty of mistakes made that I cannot condone and a whole lot of screwups involved. I would grade them bad in not anticipating and dealing with the current problems earlier. OTOH, did you read about democracy in Afghanistan? That same country where people have always fought violently with each other amongst themselves? Apparently, they had better elections than Kosovo which is under the UN control still. Isn’t it amazing how people can some times put their differences behind when they see they can benefit from it?

Wow Shanthi - i have hit upon this debate late. Its interesting to see how there seems to be a blurring here of who the aggressor is and who the victim. And who is to blame - the perpetrators of atrocities resulting from war or the initiators of the war itself ? And finally who is a terrorist or an enablor of terrorists ? Bush as AR says … or AR as you say ?

I am curious like Dilip and Chok - where did you get the impression that Arundhati Roy supported the killers of Margaret Hassan ? And what in your perception makes her a terrorist-enabler ? Is that just a counter-argument to her calling Bush a terrorist at some point in time? And more basic - am terribly curious to know why you hate her so ? What harm is she doing ? And at a broader level, is there a subliminal link between those that hate her and those that are pro-Bush (never mind for now about pro-BJP!!!)

I digress here, but in comparison, it must be said that many Indians i know feel Bush is a terrorist - and many others around the world do too. I wonder what or who gave him the right to become the watchdog for the world ? To say that war is better than Saddam ? Or that Iraq will be better without him ? Or the audacity to wage war per se ? No guerilla attack like so-called terrorists wage - but blatant massacre nonetheless, a more despicable form of in-your-face terrorism. And if the people of Iraq resist this invasion are they terrorists ? Or victims who are resisting terrorist attacks ? And what is wrong in AR saying - “One wasn’t urging them to join the army, but to become the resistance, to become part of what ought to be non-violent resistance against a very violent occupation,” she said, adding that the term resistance needed to be redefined. “We can’t assume that resistance means terrorism because that would be playing right into the hands of the occupation,” she said”

Sorry for the long rant - there are no easy answers i’m sure - just questions and a little pain that we’re missing the woods for the trees. Perhaps only time will tell who wins and who loses in this whole sordid affair. My hope is that we dont lose our dignity and humanity in the process.

Dina, you may want to actually read some of Al Mujahid’s points before you go around throwing things like pro-Bush and pro-BJP. I know, it is easy to make assumptions and try to fit people into molds - it just doesn’t always work. There is a very long discussion here where I have pretty much answered all your charges more than once so it will help to read it all.

Shanthi - i have read the whole lot of comments here - Al Mujahid seems to have a balanced view of things. And hey - these aren’t charges Shanthi - they’re real questions i have.

And they remain unanswered.

In what way does the statement you quoted from Arundhati Roy - part of which i quote here - “we should shore up our end of the resistance by forcing the US and its allied governments to withdraw from Iraq.” - imply that Iraqi’s should become terrorists ? Doesn’t she also go on to talk about non-violent methods ?

And i still cant figure all this venom against AR.

Maybe we’re both blinkered and can’t see the other side of the picture ? Or perhaps this is all part of the a changing world order - and periods of transition will always be chaotic.

I don’t really know.

Forgive me for interceding in an on-going discussion.

Dina suggests that detractors of Ms. Roy are pro-Iraq war and pro-BJP. This assertion is absurd.

Many of us who consider ourselves militantly secular support the Iraq war. We also find Ms. Roy’s ideas appalling — at core, she is offended by, what she calls, the neo-liberal project and the wars to defend it. Well, this neo-liberal project has, for example, brought prosperity and self-confidence to millions of Indians who have finally broken through from under the chains of immoral, if benign, socialism. Ms. Roy, if she had her way, would trap us all in an even-worse malignant socialism which, in its tunnel vision, sees fit to empathize with the head-hunting insurgents of Fallujah.

Now, there is no doubt that all wars are, ipso facto, “crimes” because, no matter how careful one is, innocent people get hurt. But these sorrows are the trees that distract us from the forest of despair that the potentates and witch-doctors of the middle east have given their people — and not just their people, to us all.

This war is to end their horror-regimes. Unless the insurgents can articulate a superior plan for post-war Iraq than is now on the cards, they are obstructing Iraqis from a much better future than they dared hope for, barely two tears ago.

That Ms. Roy would defend such insurgents tells us all about how much she cares for Iraq’s people.

A suggestion not an assertion, perhaps absurd Primary Red - but not unfounded given the commentary at this very post.

Are you suggesting justification for the world’s largest super-power world going on a witchhunt in the middle-east ? Cleansing again ? This gets more frightening!

I am going to India tomorrow for a few weeks. I am curious as to what is the level of support or opposition to the Iraq war in India. Hopefully I should be able to figure this out before I come back.
Happy Thanksgiving everybody :)

Dina, you seemed to suggest that just because they didn’t start the war, the perpetrators of the atrocities in war should not be blamed for it - did I get that right?

As for aggressors and victims, all I see in my post was Margaret Hassan as the terrorists as the aggressors - they somehow shouldn’t be blamed because it is all Bush’s fault for starting the war. Fair enough, if you want to say things like that didn’t happen until the war started. Daniel Pearl’s widow would disagree - so would the victims of Bali bombing. It is actually appalling to me that people like you who supposedly decry the war for all the innocent civilians who died, will go to such lengths to avoid passing the blame to people who deliberately killed their completely innocent victims for nothing but propaganda reasons.

I quoted Roy herself in the comment right above yours where right after saying resistance should be non-violent she reveals her true colors by saying it is OK even if the resistance weren’t and we shouldn’t judge the resistance by pure standards. It is all right there - if that is not talking out of both sides of her mouth, I don’t know what is. You know why there is venom against her? Because she can actually get decent, intelligent and well-meaning people like you to swallow her BS.

Shanti - no no no - thats not what i am suggesting - i am saying merely reacting to incidents like these will not solve the problem - nor will the problem go away if we think all those in a resistance movement like we are seeing in Iraq today, or supporters of it, should be shot down.

Dont get me wrong - not for a second am i condoning their methods in what they are doing. Am only suggesting that naive statements of shock without a context don’t really help. Thats what i meant when i said we are missing the woods for the trees. And each of these incidents occur within a context - in this case the context of a war being waged on their country. In the case of Daniel Pearl or the Bali bombings - or why, even in the case of the Bombay Bomb blasts and aftermath - the context was very very different.

Just to put my thoughts in perspective - would you call Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre terrorists because they were part of the resistance movements during WW2 ? We had our own resistance movements during British rule - and UNFORTUNATELY not all of them were non-violent.

I am not a big fan of Roy either - i just feel that some of what she says makes sense in THIS context. And i see her not just as an Indian, but also a citizen of the world, like many of us are today - which gives her the wherewithal and the right to make her point about resistance in the context of the war waged by the US on Iraq.

And you the right to refute it ……. and me the right to debate :):):).

Its got nothing to do with being decent, intelligent and well-meaning or not - nor is it a question of swallowing anyone’s BS - resistance against a bully of any kind, is what resonates within me.

Doesn’t this resonate within you too ? Think of your son Neel - would you not wish him to stand up against someone invading his space,