Another Perspective

[atma 0]

Dear Friends-

 

Excuse my presumption that you may be interested in the following- I thought

it was a thought provoking view worthy of consideration....

It was written by an associate living in India-

 

Steve Forbes.

 

Steve-

 

Here's a piece I wrote this morning.

 

Yesterday afternoon a fidayeen suicide car bomber

drove his van into the State Legislature of the Indian

state of Jammu and Kashmir killing at least

twenty-seven innocent people. When the bomb went off,

other terrorists went into the legislature building

itself with automatic weapons and fought a protracted

gun battle with security officers. The visual media

showed pictures of about a dozen bloodied, mangled

bodies, some scattered around the compound, others

laid neatly side by side in a row of six. Everywhere

one could see, on the premises of the State Assembly,

there were sandbag barricades as well as hundreds of

security personnel. The suicide attack was bold and

daring.

 

A Pakistani based terrorist group with a self avowed

connection with Taliban (read ISI), called the

Jaish-e-Muhammad, took credit for the slaughter. This

was the very same terrorist group that executed the

highjack of an Indian Airlines flight IC-814 from

Kathmandu to Delhi in 1999. At that time, the five

highjackers had the plane fly to KANDAHAR,

Afghanistan, where the TALIBAN negotiated the release

of the leader of the Jaish-e-Muhammad, Maulana Masood

Azhar, and two others in the outfit from an Indian

prison, in return for the safety of the innocent

passengers on that ill-fated flight. The highjackers

and the leaders of the Jaish-e-Muhammad returned to

Pakistan to hero's welcomes. Maulana Masood Azhar has

since appeared in numerous public rallies in Pakistan,

calling on Muslims to join the jihad.

 

CNN and BBC devoted two minutes and thirty seconds to

the terrorist act, describing the perpetrators as

Islamic MILITANTS and Kashmiri freedom fighters.

Neither CNN nor BBC named the terrorist organization,

nor referred to them as 'terrorists'. CNN described

about a dozen casualties, BBC didn't give a number.

There were no pictures of sobbing wives or husbands or

mothers or sons, no interviews with those who

witnessed the carnage. The reportage was

matter-of-fact, and showed no sense of outrage. CNN

followed these two and a half minutes with a ten

minute piece on the possible ill effects of asbestos

on the rescue workers in New York.

 

This was not a bomb in a marketplace or disco, this

was the state legislature, the seat of government and

democracy. George Bush had described one of the

motives of the WTC terrorists in America as wanting to

"take away our freedom," while CNN/BBC described the

terrorists in Kashmir as 'freedom fighters'. It is

good to know which of the murderers are fighting

AGAINST freedom, and which of them are fighting FOR

freedom. We wouldn't want to get on the wrong side.

 

Finally, someone has come closer to defining

'terrorism' and the 'war on terrorism'. Let's take

our hats off to CNN and BBC, because they have made

one of the first definitive moves in making these

definitions. They describe the attack on the State

Legislature as 'militancy', not 'terrorism'. I assume

then that when Indian citizens are murdered by self

appointed executioners with a political/religious

agenda it is not terrorism, but militancy. When this

happens in the United States, it is terrorism. Then,

I could further conclude that the 'war on terrorism'

means the war on those people that do this to the

United States, but not on those that do it to OTHER

people.

 

Jaswant Singh, India's Foreign Minister, is in the

United States for the 5 day United Nations conference

on terrorism. George Bush called an impromptu

40-minute meeting with Singh, in which I wonder if he

didn't warn Singh, in no uncertain terms, against

India 'responding' to this attack in any way.

 

I would hope that CNN/BBC would be just a tad more

subtle as an instrument of propaganda for the U.S.

government. I would think that they would attempt to

provide at least a facade of independence. This

morning, CNN has not mentioned the event even once in

the last couple of hours. CNN/BBC are partners with

the US government in selling the 'War on America's

Enemies' as the 'War on Terrorism' to the world. In

India, there are very few that are buying this. Bush

and America are severely discredited, but remain the

world's sole superpower, and therefore through sheer

bully-power are able to get the Indian government and

others to 'follow orders'. One of the many questions

that people in this part of the world are asking is

"who IS making the orders?" It is beyond obvious that

Bush has nowhere near the intellectual skills to even

understand what's happening, let alone know what to

do, and Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld are perceived to be

executors rather that strategists.

 

The fall of the Taliban has already been discounted.

They are the pawn of Pakistan's ISI (military

intelligence) and are being held out to the Americans

as the sacrificial goat. As the Americans 'created'

Osama bin Laden in the 80's so they have 're-created'

him today. We will never know who perpetrated the

heinous act on the WTC (although we DO know who

committed the terror in Kashmir), regardless of what

we are led to believe. The case against the Taliban

and Osama is absurd, even if the world would be a much

better and safer place without them. What is being

hidden by all this?

 

America has a perfect right to defend itself, and to

deal with whoever attacked the Pentagon and the WTC.

But there is much more happening here, and we are

being sold a bridge.

 

SR

 

 

 

 

[JRdd 0]

Anyone with half a brain can see there is more to what's going on than the government would like its sheeple to believe. And it seems that those who hold the most patriotism here emulate the government in its bullying tactics to shut everyone up. Can you imagine what the discussions here could be like if we were allowed (without shut-em-up destroyers of reasonable discussions), freedom of speech here, on these forums? As it stands, seems you are either black or you're white and there is no room for in-between. Talk about extremism.

 

(edited to add word left out)

 

[This message has been edited by JRdd (edited 10-03-2001).]

[Guest guest]

That's an interesting comment coming from someone who has repeatedly whined on a few forums trying to get others banned. Hmmmmmmmm.

[JRdd 0]

As far as "free speech" I draw the line at New Agey acceptance and/or tolerance of out-and-out Vaisnava aparadha. Also sexual harrassment and repeated use of gross language. We do need to consider our environment and audience, and maintain appropriate boundaries.

 

Further for the cause of reasonable communications, a la mode of any self-reflective person: Keeping general, and using "I" statements and veering away for "you" statements as much as possible.

 

Divide and conquer may be a militant tactic but it does no good among the devotee community. That's it for me on this thread, but best wishes, bro, and may you be successful in all your righteious endeavours.

 

Jayaradhe

 

(edited for omission of three words)

 

[This message has been edited by JRdd (edited 10-03-2001).]

[Guest guest]

You always like to slam the door on your way out, huh? How many times now, good grief. Adios!

 

You'll be back. Just like a bad dream.

 

 

======================================

 

 

<h3>Rumors Run Rampant</h3>

 

 

QUETTA, Pakistan -- Deep in the rabbit-warren markets of old Quetta, Mohammed Yaqoob Gugger sits by his rack of plastic hair clips and reveals who was behind terror attacks in America. It was Al Gore and the Israelis.

 

Gugger's tortured reasoning, based on fragments he hears on the radio, goes like this:

 

American Jews were upset because their man, Gore, lost to the Christians' candidate, George W. Bush. With Gore's help, they enlisted Israeli Mossad agents to bring down the World Trade Center.

 

With every passing day, the rumors grow more fanatic and fantastic. No matter what evidence U.S. officials may eventually reveal to link Osama bin Laden to the Sept. 11 calamity, a radical fringe throughout the Muslim world is sure to reject it out of hand.

 

A broad range of sensible voices, however, plead for something public from Washington that would convince the waverers and bury the conspiracy theories.

 

NATO said Tuesday the United States had provided "clear and compelling" evidence of bin Laden's network being involved. But the Americans worry that public disclosure could jeopardize intelligence sources.

 

We are as frightened of Muslim extremists as you are," Raja M. Afsar told an American visitor to the plush attorneys' lounge at the High Court of Balochistan, the Pakistani province on Afghanistan's southern border.

 

At 64, Afsar is among Pakistan's most respected lawyers, and he believes that after they see the proof, Muslims will rally massively behind Washington.

 

The only point from which bin Laden and his lobby can possibly take benefit is that an innocent man is being victimized," Afsar said

 

He said military action should be quick but carefully targeted, "Otherwise, on one hand you lament the taking of lives and on the other you are doing the same thing."

 

Tahir Mohammed Khan, 65, a writer who heads the provincial Human Rights Commission, nodded his agreement.

 

The Americans must explain their case against bin Laden and then speedily depose the Taliban; if they wait, he said, radicals might whip up more resistance and popular support.

 

Right now, Khan said, Muslim extremists are a minor threat magnified by TV camera lenses. Barely 5,000 gathered in Quetta on Tuesday to protest, despite strenuous efforts to truck in people from outlying areas.

 

Behind a stunning rose garden hidden by a mud wall, the Durrani brothers heap scorn on bin Laden and his Taliban protectors. They would like proof that bin Laden is guilty, but they already hate his cause.

 

The Durranis belong to a tribe that straddles Pakistan and Afghanistan and is widely reputed to be fair-minded, charitable and moderate. One of their clan ruled the Quetta region two centuries ago, before the British came.

 

Today, the brothers worry about fundamentalism. They accuse the Taliban and the Arab fighters they shelter of perverting the image of Islam by shedding innocent blood.

 

Abdul Qayyum Durrani, the elder brother at 61, fears the West will bomb Afghanistan, triggering worldwide reaction from extremists. "Millions of people are going to die because of one man," he said

 

He blames a profusion of madrassahs, Islamic religious schools, for turning out young zealots with little practical education but prepared to believe anything their imams told them.

 

Today, opening a madrassah is good business," he said. "The state gives you money, recognition. Then you can go all over the country and collect money

 

The Durranis also insisted that speedy action was vital, otherwise people would start doubting American resolve and, more and more, fall victim to disinformation

 

A tour of Quetta and its surroundings suggested they might be right

 

In the hills near Quetta, four women in cotton shawls walked across a lake bed dried out by four years of drought. They were U.N. social workers returning from a village.

 

Unprompted, one sang out to an approaching foreigner: "I love bin Laden." The others agreed, each eager to explain how Israel had attacked the World Trade Center to discredit Muslims.

 

We love Americans, but it is American policy we can't stand," said Saima Mahsood, 26. The others nodded enthusiastic agreement. Amna Khan, 28, ticked off what she called examples of American terrorism: Vietnam, bombing children in Iraq, supporting Israel in its war with the Palestinians.

 

All four said that if the evidence proved bin Laden guilty, they would turn against him. But their minds seemed made up already

 

Osama could not done such a thing," Saima Mahsood said. "He doesn't have that kind of technical ability. Israel did it. I saw it on TV."

 

[This message has been edited by rand0M aXiS (edited 10-03-2001).]

[valaya 0]

Originally posted by JRdd:

Anyone with half a brain can see there is more to what's going on than the government would like its sheeple to believe. And it seems that those who hold the most patriotism here emulate the government in its bullying tactics to shut everyone up. Can you imagine what the discussions here could be like if we were allowed (without shut-em-up destroyers of reasonable discussions), freedom of speech here, on these forums? As it stands, seems you are either black or you're white and there is no room for in-between. Talk about extremism.

 

(edited to add word left out)

 

[This message has been edited by JRdd (edited 10-03-2001).]

 

You may be interested in watching ABC news nightline at 11:35pm EDST tonight. Oh, guess you don't have a T.V., do you? Well, guess you could just look in the mirror and use your obviously fertile imagination! Then you can share your wishful thinking here, unless of course someone hurts your feelings somehow...

 

From :

Nightline <listeditor@abcnews.go.com> Reply-To :

Nightline <listeditor@abcnews.go.com> To :

"Nightline Mailing List" <nightlinemail-l@alist0.starwave.com> Subject :

NIGHTLINE: Watch What You Say Date :

Wed, 03 Oct 2001 14:31:49 -0700

 Reply

 Reply All

 Forward

   Delete

 

 Printer Friendly Version TONIGHT'S SUBJECT: We are living in sober times, where words

matter even

more than before September 11. Whether it's news reports

compromising

troop movements (as in "loose lips sink ships") or simply being

politically incorrect in this pre-war period, tonight we'll

address the

questions of what to say and how to say it. As this email goes out, we've just obtained newly released New

York City

police and fire department tapes from September 11. You'll hear

those

tonight. But our main focus will be political dissent at a time

of crisis. ---- Is dissent in wartime unpatriotic?  It's a perennial question

with no easy

answers. While there's been no official war declaration,

President Bush

has described the terrorist attacks as an act of war.  One

writer who's

been critical of Osama bin Laden still worries that a prevailing

"pseudo-unity" will, as the CHICAGO TRIBUNE noted, "choke off

the spirit

of dissenting individualism crucial to defeating" what he calls

"Islamic

fascism."  Put another way, does fear trump constitutional

rights? It's a question some citizens are asking after losing their jobs

for what

they've written or said in the wake of the September 11 horror.

The

OREGON DAILY COURIER columnist, the University of New Mexico

professor and

the host of the ABC program POLITICALLY INCORRECT (which follows

NIGHTLINE

in many cities) all know what it's like to be stung after their

words

ruffled feathers.  The first two were fired. POLITICALLY

INCORRECT'S Bill

Maher has had some advertisers abandon his broadcast.  Some

would say the

marketplace of ideas is working. But others argue free speech is

taking a

hit during this difficult time for the country. Tonight, in another special one-hour NIGHTLINE, Ted Koppel will

speak with

people who have different perspectives on White House Press

Secretary Ari

Fleischer's misunderstood admonition that in times like these,

people

"need to watch what they say, watch what they do. . ." Among

them writer

Susan Sontag, who asked in THE NEW YORKER, "Where is the

acknowledgement

that this (the Sept. 11 terrorist attack) was not a 'cowardly'

attack on

'civilization' or 'liberty' or 'humanity' or 'the free world'

but an

attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as

a

consequence of specific American alliances and actions? Strong words.  Not popular, especially in these times.  But does

she have

the right to speak her mind?  Or the TEXAS CITY SUN editor who

was fired

for writing a column critical of the President following the

terrorist

attack? Or Republican political operative Ed Gillespie who says

"the

events of 9/11 cause all of us to reevaluate. And I think we see

a

reevaluation of moral relativism." Lots of food for thought. We hope you'll partake. Wednesday, October 3, 2001 Richard Harris

Senior Producer

NIGHTLINE OFFICES

Washington, D.C. -----------

If you have questions or comments regarding this message or a

recent

"Nightline" broadcast, please do not hit reply; simply click on

this link

to send your message directly to the "Nightline" staff:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/Nightline/Nightline_email_form.html Or log on to the new "Nightline" Message Board:

http://boards.go.com/cgi/abcnews/request.dll?LIST&room=nightline Chat with "Nightline" guests and find articles, transcripts and

video

excerpts on our Web site at:

http://abcnews.go.com/Sections/Nightline/ You can to the "Nightline" e-mail at:

http://login.mailpref.go.com/ Ask your friends to sign up! Send them this link:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/nightline_login.html

 

 

[paul108 0]

jaya JayaRadhe!

 

Your detractors are proving your point nicely.

 

p.s. I have half a brain on each side!

 

 

Originally posted by JRdd:

Anyone with half a brain can see there is more to what's going on than the government would like its sheeple to believe. And it seems that those who hold the most patriotism here emulate the government in its bullying tactics to shut everyone up. Can you imagine what the discussions here could be like if we were allowed (without shut-em-up destroyers of reasonable discussions), freedom of speech here, on these forums? As it stands, seems you are either black or you're white and there is no room for in-between. Talk about extremism.

 

(edited to add word left out)

 

[This message has been edited by JRdd (edited 10-03-2001).]