If the Mumbai terror assault seemed exceptional, and shocking in its targets, it was clear from the Thanksgiving Day reports that we weren't going to be deprived of the familiar, either. Namely, ruminations, hints, charges of American culpability that regularly accompany catastrophes of this kind.
Soon enough, there was Deepak Chopra, healer, New Age philosopher and digestion guru, advocate of aromatherapy and regular enemas, holding forth on CNN on the meaning of the attacks.
How the ebullient Dr. Chopra had come to be chosen as an authority on terror remains something of a mystery, though the answer may have something to do with his emergence in the recent presidential campaign as a thinker of advanced political views. Also commending him, perhaps, is his well known capacity to cut through all sorts of complexities to make matters simple. No one can fail to grasp the wisdom of a man who has informed us that "If you have happy thoughts, then you make happy molecules."
In his CNN interview, he was no less clear. What happened in Mumbai, he told the interviewer, was a product of the U.S. war on terrorism, that "our policies, our foreign policies" had alienated the Muslim population, that we had "gone after the wrong people" and inflamed moderates. And "that inflammation then gets organized and appears as this disaster in Bombay."
All this was a bit too much, evidently, for CNN interviewer Jonathan Mann, who interrupted to note that there were other things going on -- matters like the ongoing bitter Pakistan-India struggle over Kashmir -- which had caused so much terror and so much violence. "That's not Washington's fault," he pointed out.
Given an argument, the guest, ever a conciliator, agreed: The Mumbai catastrophe was not Washington's fault, it was everybody's fault. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
12/01/2008 07:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
another celebrity dumb-sh*t spouting off on things of which he knows little.
#2
If only Deepak could lay some of that Hindu mystic shit on the muslims, all would be unicorns and rainbows.
Posted by: ed ||
12/01/2008 9:26 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It's everyone's fault except the terrorist!
I don't believe it no matter how many times they say it.
Posted by: Grolush Darling of the Hatfields3195 ||
12/01/2008 9:54 Comments ||
Top||
#4
In 1998, Chopra was awarded the satirical Ig Nobel Prize in physics for "his unique interpretation of quantum physics as it applies to life, liberty, and the pursuit of economic happiness."
Hmmmmmmmm. Methinks some folks see him as Ye Olde Snake Oil Salesman...
#5
# 1, He is a dumb sh*t for sure. Deepak did not learn much to practice regular medicine. So, in early 1980, he started to promote the snake oil in Boston. Then he talked useless confusing sh*t. Now, he became a Guru and a witch doctor, combined. Very soon, he will be asking people to worship him because he is the Avatar.
#1
Another side effect has been white people contacting me to say that I should be proud to see a black man become president. Could there be a comment that is more condescending, more insulting, than that? If I believed that in America a black man could not be president, then I would be proud to see any black man elected president. But because I always have believed that nothing in America prevents a black man from becoming president or anything else he wants to be, I can be embarrassed, not proud, to see someone as unqualified and inexperienced as Obama become president.
I'm gonna staple that statement to several people's forheads in a couple of years. Nicely put, sir.
#1
Westerners in general, and Americans specifically have a serious case of memory deficit disorder. This disorder will continue until the hallways of the Waldorf Astoria in New York, and the concourses at the Mall of America, for example, run with the blood of innocent men, women and children who have died because we have failed properly and unapologetically deal with the threat of Islamic terrorism within this country.
#2
Some of us have dealt with the problem, only to be hamstrung by idiots who play theoretical games in court rooms and who have too much power to interfere in the real world. They forget Jefferson's warning - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
#3
Well written and prescient, I'm afraid. With their coddling of Muzz, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the next outrage occurs in Minneapolis or surrounding environs. Mall of America, crowded with shoppers, would be an appealing target to these scumbags. They could do tremendous damage before being taken out. In the face of real firepower, the typical mall guard would do as the ones in the train station in Mumbai, cower in fear. Americans ought to think about this, but they won't, anymore than the Indians did.
#4
I heard a large group of Minneapolis Somalis have dropped out of sight and are of concern. I would also not want to be in Las Vegas celebrating New Year's if the most recent targets and timing are an indicator of the terror forecast. Mumbai was planned for the Hindu New Year's besides the Millenmium plot and they do like large hotels with the civilian population maximizing the terror factor.
Lucknow: Going soft on terror will not make Muslims happy as the perpetrators of such acts do not segregate their targets by religion, the cleric who heads Lucknow's oldest Islamic seminary has said after the daring Mumbai attack.
"If the politicians of this country think that by shying away from taking on terrorists directly and by going soft on terror they will get kudos from Muslims, they are sadly mistaken," said Lucknow's Naib Imam Maulana Khalid Rasheed, who also heads the Firangi Mahal seminary.
"It is quite clear now that Indian politicians of all shades were somehow living under an illusion that if they were to turn harsh against acts of terror, they would alienate the Muslims of this country," Maulana Rasheed told IANS in an interview.
"They ought to realise that the perpetrators of terror do not segregate their targets in terms of religion, and the victims of terror too cut across religious lines. When you count dead bodies, the first thing that hits you is the horror, not the religion of those killed."
Over 180 lives were lost in the Mumbai attack in which terrorists struck at 10 prominent locations in the city November 26 night and carried on for nearly 60 hours.
Maulana Rasheed, who wondered "when will these politicians change their mindset, said, "I could see fear and apprehension in the utterances and eyes of each of the leaders - cutting across party lines - as they appeared on various TV channels throughout the three-day-long ordeal in Mumbai".
He is surprised that some parties thought Muslims in India did not appreciate any criticism of Pakistan.
"What is worse is that leaders of some parties have even begun to think that any criticism of Pakistan would not be relished by this country's Muslims," he lamented.
"When will they ever realise that by doing so they are clearly reflecting their perverted psyche of labelling all Indian Muslims as pro-Pakistanis, which is the worst abuse for any Indian Muslim."
Maulana Rasheed is also irked about the Centre's move to invite the chief of the Pakistani espionage agency Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to assist India in tackling terror. Pakistan has responded by saying it is willing to send an ISI representative.
"India's bid to invite the ISI chief after the Mumbai attack is like asking a criminal to help the police contain crime," quipped the Maulana.
He said "the move has only undermined India's strength and reflects the total lack of self-confidence in the leaders of this country".
Posted by: john frum ||
12/01/2008 16:16 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Deepak Chopra, are you getting this? LISTEN UP!
Fog of war is a very real problem, and even worse when you're fighting against a foe who is using hit-and-run tactics to sow confusion. So it's not too surprising that reports about just exactly how many attackers were involved in the Bombay terrorist spree have varied quite a lot.
It is a bit surprising just how much they've varied. I've seen reports of up to 40, and as few as 8. The latter seems extremely unlikely considering how many places were attacked and how much sheer carnage there was.
But now it seems to be coming out that Indian forces killed 9 attackers and captured one. One report said those 10 were all there were, but I'm skeptical. A different report said that anywhere from 10 to 30 others got away. Unfortunately, I think that's a lot more likely. More at the link
And so it begins: the NYT now works to give Bambi the cover he needs to be the 'victor' of Iraq. This is the first of what will be many efforts to rewrite history.
That'll be funny, in a tragic sort of way, when Qaeda, sensing the return of Jimmy Carter, sets up shop again. A couple Golden Domes blown and then Tater-flavored Shiites will be hunting Sunnis, who'll soon be back to chopping people's heads off on video for fun and glory. And that will be Bush's fault, since B.O. tried to make peace and Bush didn't leave the genuine conditions necessary for it.
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Here's a story you don't see very often. Iraq's highest court told the Iraqi Parliament last Monday that it had no right to strip one of its members of immunity so he could be prosecuted for an alleged crime: visiting Israel for a seminar on counterterrorism. The Iraqi justices said the Sunni lawmaker, Mithal al-Alusi, had committed no crime and told the Parliament to back off.
That's not all. The Iraqi newspaper Al-Umma al-Iraqiyya carried an open letter signed by 400 Iraqi intellectuals, both Kurdish and Arab, defending Alusi. That takes a lot of courage and a lot of press freedom.
The sort of freedom the NYT doesn't honor here at home.
I can't imagine any other Arab country today where independent judges would tell the government it could not prosecute a parliamentarian for visiting Israel -- and intellectuals would openly defend him in the press.
Wonder if this sort of thing would have happened if Saddam were still around and in charge ...
In the case of Iraq, though, the federal high court, in a unanimous decision, vacated the Parliament's rescinding of Alusi's immunity, with the decision delivered personally by Chief Justice Medhat al-Mahmoud. The decision explained that although a 1950s-era law made traveling to Israel a crime punishable by death, Iraq's new Constitution establishes freedom to travel. Therefore the Parliament's move was "illegal and unconstitutional because the current Constitution does not prevent citizens from traveling to any country in the world," Abdul-Sattar Bayrkdar, spokesman for the court, told The Associated Press. The judgment even made the Parliament speaker responsible for the expenses of the court and the defense counsel!
I don't think it's reasonable to expect Iraq to have relations with Israel anytime soon, but the fact that it may be developing an independent judiciary is good news. It's a reminder of the most important reason for the Iraq war: to try to collaborate with Iraqis to build progressive politics and rule of law in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, a region that stands out for its lack of consensual politics and independent judiciaries. And it's a reminder that a decent outcome may still be possible in Iraq, especially now that the Parliament has endorsed the U.S.-Iraqi plan for a 2011 withdrawal of American troops.
Brought to you by the faith of George Bush and the American soldiers. Let's acknowledge that up-front, since Tom Friedman certainly won't.
Al Qaeda has not been fully defeated in Iraq; suicide bombings are still an almost daily reality. But it has been dealt a severe blow, which I believe is one reason the Muslim jihadists -- those brave warriors who specialize in killing women and children and defenseless tourists -- have turned their attention to softer targets like India. Just as they tried to stoke a Shiite-Sunni civil war in Iraq, and failed, they are now trying to stoke a Hindu-Muslim civil war in India.
If we believe that al-Qaeda, L-e-T, etc are all one organization, loosely tied but cooperating where possible, that would be true. Who's been taking them on all these years, Tom? Who's been going after them? The Spanish? The Germans? The Belgians, those master arbiters of universal jurisdiction for 'crimes against humanity'? The mighty Uruguayans?
If Iraq can keep improving -- still uncertain -- and become a place where Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites can write their own social contract and live together with a modicum of stability, it could one day become a strategic asset for the United States in the post-9/11 effort to promote different politics in the Arab-Muslim world.
How so? Iraq is a geopolitical space that for the last three decades of the 20th century was dominated by a Baathist dictatorship, which, though it provided a bulwark against Iranian expansion, did so at the cost of a regime that murdered tens of thousands of its own people and attacked three of its neighbors.
So in other words, Tom Friedman is a neo-con ...
In 2003, the United States, under President Bush, invaded Iraq to change the regime.
Remember why? Not just to remove an odious regime but to prevent that regime from using its money, power and influence to push yet more terrorism on the civilized world.
Terrible postwar execution and unrelenting attempts by Al Qaeda to provoke a Sunni-Shiite civil war turned the Iraqi geopolitical space into a different problem -- a maelstrom of violence for four years, with U.S. troops caught in the middle. A huge price was paid by Iraqis and Americans. This was the Iraq that Barack Obama ran against.
Not exactly: Barack Obama didn't complain much at all about the 'unrelenting attempts by Al Qaeda to provoke a Sunni-Shiite civil war'. He didn't even complain about our 'terrible postwar execution'. Even if we had done everything right in 2004 and 2005, and even if al-Qaeda had been even more the monsters they have certainly been, Obama would have wanted us out of Iraq. He still wants us out of Iraq, and he's going to remove us whether or not Iraq is ready. All the 'realism' that Friedman offers, and that the center and center-left in this country will editorialize over, won't change that. Bambi needs to have a quick withdrawal to give the hard-left in this country something. And to be clear, it's what he believes.
In the last year, though, the U.S. troop surge and the backlash from moderate Iraqi Sunnis against Al Qaeda and Iraqi Shiites against pro-Iranian extremists have brought a new measure of stability to Iraq.
Don't forget the counter-insurgency strategy, the new leadership, and the resolute stand by George Bush.
There is now, for the first time, a chance -- still only a chance -- that a reasonably stable democratizing government, though no doubt corrupt in places, can take root in the Iraqi political space.
That's pretty much a given now. The Sunnis have to cooperate or be completely marginalized, the Kurds have to cooperate or be left to the tender mercies of the Turks, and the Shi'a have to cooperate or be left unstable and ripe for the picking by Iran (or Saudi Arabia). So they'll work together in a more or less stable government. Obama doesn't have to do anything to get there, this is what he's being given.
That is the Iraq that Obama is inheriting. It is an Iraq where we have to begin drawing down our troops -- because the occupation has gone on too long and because we have now committed to do so by treaty -- but it is also an Iraq that has the potential to eventually tilt the Arab-Muslim world in a different direction.
The difference, of course, is that when we withdraw over the next couple of years, we'll be doing so having completed our mission (assuming Bambi doesn't totally screw it up). That's the important point that folks like Friedman don't seem to get.
I'm sure that Obama, whatever he said during the campaign, will play this smart.
I wouldn't be sure of that at all. He was perfectly willing to pull our troops out before when it meant genocide and a victory for both al-Qaeda and Iran. There's no reason at all for anyone to think that Bambi will play it 'smart' now.
He has to avoid giving Iraqi leaders the feeling that Bush did -- that he'll wait forever for them to sort out their politics -- while also not suggesting that he is leaving tomorrow, so they all start stockpiling weapons.
If he can pull this off, and help that decent Iraq take root, Obama and the Democrats could not only end the Iraq war but salvage something positive from it. Nothing would do more to enhance the Democratic Party's national security credentials than that.
Let's remember that the Democratic Party -- the House, the Senate, the MSM, the true believers, and the Kos Kiddies, all of them -- pushed defeat. They wanted us to lose. They did everything they could to make us lose. A less resolute president would have knuckled under. The Democrats deserve no credit whatsoever for the coming victory, and it is necessary for the public to be reminded of that.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/01/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Iraq
#1
He "won" Iraq about as well as Carter won the cold war.
#4
"I'm sure that Obama, whatever he said during the campaign, will play this smart."
Let me get this straight. Friedman is all but admitting that Obama's Iraq rhetoric during his two-year campaign was far from cohearant yet he is "sure he will play it smart". Based on what...his record in the Illinois State Seante? This is not simply giving the benifit of the doubt. This is the crafting of phase II of the Obama narrative. Call it...Silenceing of the Skeptics.
#5
The intellectual dishonesty of Friedman on display here is pitiful. To suggest that Obama and the Democrats will try to claim the turnaround in Iraq as their victory and not George Bush's is one thing, and to be expected. But to fail to point out that this would be a usurpation of the truth, as he should know better, is quite another thing, indeed.
Shame on you, Mr. Friedman. I thought you were more honest, and quite frankly, smarter than that.
#7
The NY Slimes has been disgusting for years, and this F**king Fool is one of its biggest dispensers of horseshit. This Ass deserves a NoBowl as much as Fat Albert. Between this dweeb and the spoiled yogurt being dispensed by his compatriot, Dowd, no wonder this rag is a laughing stock and the actual stock value is dropping like a rock.
Much of the reporting from Mumbai the last few days has been informative, gripping and often moving. Some of the commentary, on the other hand, has been not just uninformative but counterinformative if thats a term, and if its not, I say it should be. Consider first an op-ed article in Sundays Los Angeles Times by Martha Nussbaum, a well-known professor of law and ethics at the University of Chicago. The article was headlined Terrorism in India has many faces. But one face that Nussbaum fails to mention specifically is that of Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Islamic terror group originating in Pakistan that seems to have been centrally involved in the attack on Mumbai.
This is because Nussbaums main concern is not explaining or curbing Islamic terror. Rather, she writes that if, as now seems likely, last weeks terrible events in Mumbai were the work of Islamic terrorists, thats more bad news for Indias minority Muslim population. She deplores past acts of Hindu terror against Indias Muslims. She worries about Muslim youths being rounded up on suspicion of terrorism with little or no evidence. And she notes that this is an analogue to the current ugly phenomenon of racial profiling in the United States. So jihadists kill innocents in Mumbai and Nussbaum ends up decrying racial profiling here. Is it just that liberal academics are required to include some alleged ugly American phenomenon in everything they write?
Jim Leach is also a professor, at Princeton, but hes better known as a former moderate Republican congressman from Iowa who supported Barack Obama this year. His contribution over the weekend was to point out on Politico.com that the Mumbai catastrophe underscores the importance of vocabulary. This wouldnt have been my first thought. But Leach believes its very important that we consider the Mumbai attack not as an act of war but as an act of barbarism. Why? The former implies a cause: a national or tribal or ethnic rationale that infuses a sacrificial action with some groups view of heroism; the latter is an assault on civilized values, everyones. ... To the degree barbarism is a part of the human condition, Mumbai must be understood not just as an act related to a particular group but as an outbreak of pent-up irrationality that can occur anywhere, anytime. ... It may be true that the perpetrators viewed themselves as somehow justified in attacking Indians and visiting foreigners, particularly perhaps Americans, British and Israeli nationals. But a response that is the least nationalistic is likely to be the most effective.
If, as Leach says, it may be true the perpetrators viewed themselves as justified in their attacks, doesnt this mean that they did in fact have a rationale that infused their action? But Leach doesnt want to discuss that rationale even though its not hard to find. Ten minutes of Googling will bring you to a fine article, The Ideologies of South Asian Jihadi Groups, from the April 2005 issue of Current Trends in Islamist Ideology. Its by the respected journalist and diplomat Husain Haqqani, who, as it happens, is now Pakistans ambassador to the United States.
Lashkar-e-Taiba, Haqqani explains, is a jihadi group of Wahhabi persuasion, backed by Saudi money and protected by Pakistani intelligence services. He notes that Lashkar-e-Taiba has adopted a maximalist agenda for global jihad. Indeed, the political arm of the group has conveniently published a pamphlet, Why Are We Waging Jihad?, that lays out all kinds of reasons why the United States, Israel and India are existential enemies of Islam. So much for Leachs notion that the Mumbai terrorists had no cause or rationale. But Leachs refusal to see this is in the service of persuading India not to respond in a nationalistic way and of persuading the United States not to see itself primarily as standing with India against our common enemies.
But if terror groups are to be defeated, it is national governments that will have to do so. In nations like India (and the United States), governments will have to call on the patriotism of citizens to fight the terrorists. In a nation like Pakistan, the government will have to be persuaded to deal with those in their midst who are complicit. This can happen if those nations citizens decide they dont want their own country to be dishonored by allegiances with terror groups. Otherwise, other nations may have to act.
Patriotism is an indispensable weapon in the defense of civilization against barbarism. That was brought home over the weekend in an article in The Times of India on Sandeep Unnikrishnan, a major in Indias National Security Guards who died fighting the terrorists at the Taj hotel. The reporter spoke with the young mans parents as they mourned their son: His father, dignified in the face of such a personal tragedy, was stoic, saying he was proud of his son who sacrificed his life for the country: He died for the nation.
#1
Lashkar-e-Taiba, Haqqani explains, is a jihadi group of Wahhabi persuasion, "backed by Saudi money and protected by Pakistani intelligence services."
Common theme here with all our sunni enemies eg. ALQ,Taliban,Le T etc !!!!
#3
You'd better believe the ruling elites want us to see this as an 'act of barbarism' rather than an 'act of war': even they understand that if the Indians demonstrate clearly that Pakistan was involved, it's an act of war with all the potential consequences thereof.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/01/2008 12:45 Comments ||
Top||
#4
an outbreak of pent-up irrationality that can occur anywhere, anytime
No, dear Professor Leach. A riot is an outbreak of irrationality; a terror attack of this magnitude is the result of coldhearted planning, coldhearted training, and coldhearted execution by those who have very deliberately chosen to become instruments of evil.
#5
"His father, dignified in the face of such a personal tragedy, was stoic, saying he was proud of his son who sacrificed his life for the country: 'He died for the nation.' "
The father, a former engineer in India's Space Agency, chased local politicians away, calling them "stinking dogs"
Posted by: john frum ||
12/01/2008 16:05 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
