Wag the Dog

Re: Rishi

:``Tell me what do the Kashmiri muslims lack to want a seperate country except the lack of exploitation by a neighbouring quasi-terrorist foreign government `s of its own unemployed, fanaticized youth.``

A naive question that every oppressive majority has asked of the minorities they were oppressing since the beginning of `civilization.` Just read the statements of British colonizers before 1947 who wondered as to why some Indians were `making trouble` when the benevolent British raj had `given them more rights than they had ever had.`

From a humanistic perspective such questions are pointless. What really matters is that the majority of Kashmiri Muslims pereceive that they are oppressed and want seccession. The question to ask is that why shouldn`t they have the right of self determination? What is so sacred about the current boundaries of India (or any other country)? Is the protection of these boundaries worth hundereds of thousands of lives?

A letter to Calcuta Online quotes from ``Blood in the Valley: Kashmir - Behind the Propaganda Curtain`` (published by Lokshahi Hakk Sanghatana, Bombay, India, 1995.)

``The brutality of torture in J & K defies belief. It has left people mutilated and disabled for life (Amnesty International, January 1995).

We will give below a few recent instances of torture, to indicate the nature of the practice.

During the night of 25-26 May, 1994 there was a cordon and search operation in Mohallah Kralteng in Sopore, Baramulla district. At about 8.30 am on 26 May. all the male inhabitants were asked to assemble near a clinic on the road. Fourteen boys

and young men (of age ranging from 19 to 33) and one 65 year old man were taken for interrogation to two local houseswhich were converted into temporary interrogation centres. They were tied with ropes and gagged. A pipe of 4`` diameter was

used as a roller over their legs and thighs. Metal rods were passed through the anus and electric shocks were given. In the case of Md Mubashir Naikoo (35). a razor blade was used to inflict a deep cut wound on his anal region. (reported by a local human rights organisation, Kashmir Monitor)... Such examples can be multiplied by the thousand.`` To read more please visit http://www.calonline.com/emails/em010298.html

I agree with Bad Girl`s observations. What could be more obscene than to launch attacks against sovereign muslim nations and then run off to return to one`s vacation at Martha`s Vinyard. I really don`t care about the president`s penchant for sexual indescretions but clearly his ploy to transform the Lewinsky affair into a senstive personal marital matter between him and Hiliary wasn`t working so why not create an international issue!I don`t think that anyone is being fooled about the President`s real motives behind the seneless bombings against Sudan and Afghanistan.There is no proof that the supposed chemical weopons plant in Khartoum was anything other than what even Sudanese government detractors claim: a pharmaceutical plant! I deplore terrorism of any kind- whether it be perpetrated by a gang of misguided fundamentalists or whether it is being carried out by the United States. Or in the words of president Clinton himself, ``Two wrongs don`t make a right `` when he referred to Pakistan`s testing of Atomic weopons after waiting 17 days for the world to signal that

Pakistan`s safety would be assured. It is sad to note that whenever such incidents take place, invariably it is Muslims who are the victims. In this case, most of the victims in the original bombings in East Africa were Muslims and following the cruise missile strikes, more Muslims were killed. For years we have become accostomed to seeing the plight of Muslims being abused throughout the world. Be it in Bosnia or Kosovo by Serbs, in Chechnya by Russians, in Occupied Kashmir by Indians or in Palestine by Israelis. It seems that a muslim life is worth less than that of another faith. When will muslims finally learn to empower themselves and unite. I have read a few comments by folks on this site who instead point to Muslims abusing their own kind. Sadly this is true but it does not take away from the basic issue of self determination and freedom. This includes the freedom to mismanage oneself until the ugly growing pains are worked out. The Israelis seem to think that Palestinians should be thankful that they enjoy a higher standard of living while living under Israeli rule but apart from a handful of collaborators, most Palestinians still want freedom. Indians may refuse to acknowledge that Kashmiris want freedom because they see themselves as a captive people in India from the time of the partition when their wishes as a people were ignored by the British and India. Russia thinks that Chechnya is better off in the CIS and Serbia refuses to acknowledge that Kosovo has a right to self determination. The list goes on but I think that Muslims the world over realize that this cannot go on indefinitely and we must all work together to bring about freedom and a respect for our right to exist on this planet.

Born to Be

You amaze me. In my reply to Bad Girl I did not even mention Islamic brotherhood or an aversion/fear to any such thing.

But since you ask.

- It is not brotherhood which scares me. Brotherhood to different people obviously means different things. I do not believe that if one kills your brother you ``stick up`` by killing one of theirs. There lies the difference in our idealogies. For me ``two wrongs do not make a right, under any circumstances``.

``Eye for eye only seems to make sense until you lose both your eyes ....DUH``

- THe issue here is these ``institutions``(in this case in Afghanistan) where people are taught hate, kill in the name religion. Instead of dealing with this, you point to other such people around the world who are doing similar (wrong) things as justification ?

- Your assumption that I have certain views about Israel and Jews because I have a Indian sounding name is ridiculous. I don`t think like all other Hindus. Come on ... take a deep breath and think about it.....

- What does scare me is the number of people who subscribe to this idealogy in the name of religion (any religion).

Re; Born to Be.

If Islamic brotherhood is your soul then what would you do with the U.S since they have bombed a fellow muslim nation.

c`mon put your actions where your words are buddy

khuda haafiz

Re: Ashish & Rishi

Why does Islamic brotherhood bother poeple? Is it because of a secret yearning that thay dont have anyone to stnad up for THEM? Jealousy perhaps?

(to put it very simply).

It is the fear of people who feel threatened by Islam that `perverts`/distorts their view.

What about the creation of Israel for the Jews?

How come I never hear anythign from Indians about that?

What about standing up/protecting the rights of jews all over?(moving black jews to Israel & investments in their future) How come I never hear anything about jewsih brotherhood?(I have NOTHING against it!you gotta stick together man!) Or is it just Islam that gives you the nightmares?

Re : Bad Girl

Actually I do agree with all your view points except your reply below.

As far as the Indian government`s approach to Kashmir is concerned, it is only an issue involving the Indian Government and its People and that includes the Kashmiris too. How is it that we don`t hear you complain about the Sri Lankan Govt`s handling of the Tamil issue, the Pakistani goverment`s handling of the Sindhi/Mohajir issue or even the British Government`s handling of the Irish Issue. The whole problem is that Muslims tend to involve themselves into the affairs of other countries whereever Muslims are present. It is the Muslims concept of brotherhood and jihad that presents a perverted picture. Pakistan can as well bother about its own muslims and the killings in its own backyard than what happens across the border. It is quiet funny that Pakistan cries hoarse over Kashmir while turns a blind eye to both its own internal contradictions, lack of a viable democracy, feudalism and a sickling economy and also the killing of innocent Hindus in Kashmir by the afghan and pakistani terrorists.

Just like America which is reaping the fruits of its own doings in the middle east, well meaning educated and liberal muslims (both men and especially women ) would be the worst affected when islamic fundamentalism rears its head (ref : taliban )

And as far as India`s handling of terrorism is concerned, it is only a pity that the Indian government is not firm in handling it thanks to the democracy it preaches and practices.

Tell me what do the Kashmiri muslims lack to want a seperate country except the lack of exploitation by a neighbouring quasi-terrorist foreign government `s of its own unemployed, fanaticized youth.

An inappropriate comment in an otherwise well meaning article

re: ashish

i already explained, and i think another reader reiterated better than myself, how terrorism can be `fought` via non-violent means: the education and empowerment of people, whether they are muslim or otherwise. if you had read my piece CAREFULLY you would have seen that one of the reasons i am against bill`s heavy handed tactics is that this bombing is likely to lead to more `violence` and `terrorism` not less. take the conflict in south asia for example: the indian government`s heavy handed approach to the kashmir problem has not worked -- it has only escalated the issue (and let me clarify, that i am not implying that i agree with the official pakistani handling of the situation EITHER)

i believe that bill clinton is a lackey of capitalism. why? read noam chomsky for a start (amazon.com, search author = chomsky). if you would like other references, i would be happy to provide them.

as far as these `terrorist universitites` are concerned, please read ``killing hope: the secret wars of the CIA`` by blum. actually, if you can get either CNN or the new york times, you will see many references implicating the CIA in the setting up of these `universities`. and, as far as `terrorist universities` go, what do you think of the infamous school of the americas (in georgia, US, i believe) that has trained the worst Latin american assasins.

when a government throws bombs on people, in my opinion, that is as much terrorism as when individuals and non-state groups do. i am against state terrorism, as well as the other variety. if you support bill clinton`s actions, you are supporting terrorism, albeit calling it by a different name.

Bad Girl, Bad article

You picked a catchy title, drew attention then did not even care to explain how this was ``A war between the lackeys of capitalism claiming to represent the free world, and violent, fascist mercenaries``

This is ``eye for an eye`` as a lot of Islamists have often explained. It is a reply to these terrorists in their own language and possibly the only language they understand.

These ``terrorist universities`` have been churning out and letting lose killers for the longest time now. They themselves admit to operating in India amongst other countries and now they have made good on their Jihad against all things ``American``. Unfotunately, America is not like India. they are much stronger and richer.

Pray tell me Bad Girl, how to curb ``Bad Boys`` (read killers) like these.

To answer your question about what good it has done. It has taken away resources from churning out more killers.

Saad,

While there is no problem with the sex part, I think Monica`s case stems from the testimony Clinton gave in Paula Jones case where he denied having sex with Monica. Again here he used legal mumbo jumbo to obscure the term of having sex in his testimony.

Star is only pursing what he believes perjury by Clinton. Star`s motive is not to make a case against the President for having sex but for having utterred untruths in the courts (Jones Case). Lets keep things in perspective. If the man has done good, its great. But under no circumstance should he be able to use good to commit a crime against specific individuals (in this case maybe Paula Jones).

Sorry BG, I just had to put my two cents in. (at the risk of going tangent to the actual article).

Notes: I dashed off this piece in a hurry and have since learnt that the death toll in Afghanistan has also been reported at 21. i`m not sure which figure is more accurate. and, furthermore, pakistan has retracted its report of 6 dead in a mis-fire on pakistani territory. when i heard the report on CNN (friday, august 21), the official US response had been that the missile accident in pakistan was the result of a technical error. in other words, the US had affirmed pakistan`s claim. i`m unsure about the whole thing anymore and i wonder if anyone else has some information on that.

also, when one thinks about it, the only `evidence` the US has against bin ladin is pakistani reports and the confession odeh is supposed to have made to the pakistani`s who apprehended him. since he has been handed over to the US americans, odeh has not confessed or given any information. so, at this point, the case against bin ladin is open. the new york times has persistently reported that the president has evidence that ladin was connected, but none of this evidence is ever detailed.

re: everyone
thanks for the comments. it`s always wonderful when respondents agree, but then there`s nothing to argue about!

re: saad shafqat and syed ahmed
saad, i think you did miss the point. i believe clinton is a contemptible, but his sexual appetite is none of my business. his wag-the-doggish timing was too good to let pass without comment.

as far as bill`s brilliance as a politician is concerned, i think syed ahmed has done a better job than i could do, of arguing against that.

regards.

shafqat writes :

``Republicans want to avenge Nixon, and they have found in Bill Clinton the ideal target - a brilliant man who wins everything but who also loves women and belongsto the wrong social class.``

The US Presidency has been a fairly egalitarian institution - of the last 10 presidents only
FDR ( Roosevelt), Kennedy ( even they were castigated by the Boston brahmins) and Bush could be considered blue-bloods. All the rest came from very humble backgrounds - TRuman - was a shopkeeper`s son, Eisehower a farm boy, Johnson - a sharecroppers son, Nixon & Ford both products of the lower middle class, Carter was a rich and
realtively unknown country farmer, and of course
Reagan had no pedigree whatsoever. Suprisingly the vice-presoidency a patronage position has usually been held by scions of wealthy families - Rockfeller, Gore, Quayle, Agnew, Humprhey, Stevenson, Mondale are a few that come to mind.

Re: Saad Shafqat

``My humble advice is to let Clinton be. He is an outstanding President and a brilliant policy thinker. We all need to learn that consensual sex is a private matter. A he-said/she-said dispute over the fine details of oral sex (even if it happened in the Oval usness of something like the Watergate break-in or the firing of Archibald Cox and the Saturday Night `Massacre`. To reiterate,
get a life.``

Clinton brilliant policy thinker ?? What policies
There is nothing original about the Clinton presidency except sexual trysts in the White house.- The Monetary policy is a left over of the Reagan era - Thank Paul Volcker & Alan Greenspan for that. CLinton is one lucky slippery SOB.
The man is the worst paraody of a politician, - He stands for nothing. NAme a major policy isssue that came to fruitation - domestic or internal during his tenure. NOw Nixon was a crook but a very effective president, Reagan was a demagogue -
but his policies against big government, anti -regulation, sterner foreign policy, revitalization of the american spirit continue
to practised by this Democrat controlled presidency. If you want to give CLinton credit,
give him for perpetuating Republican policies.


This sir is not Pakistan, nobody inluding the President is above the law. To quote Truman ``the buck stops here``. Clinton could have a roman orgy for all we care, but he used his power to mislead a congressional investigation, - he comitted perjury , a felonious crime , - irregularties in comapaign finances, and the list goes on and on..
Why blame Judge Starr, - for Clinton`s transgression. He is just an investigating prosecutor, blame the perpetrator. NOw whether CLintons crimes constitute an impeachable offense is quiet another matter, maybe a censure would suffice. The trauma of an impeachment proceedings would hurt the presidency more than the president.
Clinton`s politicla career has been chequered by
smoked but did not inhale, had sex but did not touch, enrolled but didnot avoid the draft etc etc... The man is certainly intelligent, but a brilliant president he is not.

Yes BG the circus will continue because there is no incohenrent US foreign policy. It smacks of third world banana republic adhoc-ism.

U.S. foreign policy, all those foggy bottom intellects aside, is re-active. Ike`s military-industrial complex is focussed on world market strategies, a few hundred millions scattered world wide notwithstanding.

Saad, welcome back.

Nothing wrong with `consensual` or consentual sex. It is the cover-up that matters. If one is `man` enough to unzip, one should be man enough to standup and own it too.

regards

Totally agree,

Even if the lewisnky coverup tactic would be inapplicable to US bombings, it still does not justify the atttitude of the US. Where was the respected UN and its members, probably blinded by Iraq`s arsenal?

Serbia and ISRAEL indeed! Good point!

Keep writing!/stimulating our brain cells!

Re: Saad sahfqat

er.. did you miss the point? the focus i believe was on the `bombing` act not the blowjob or was it the only thing that jumped up at you?

I agree with the many obvious truths in this article, such as the usual rhetoric of democracy, equality, human rights, illiterate interpretation of Islam, etc., which is of course straightforward common sense.

But I disagree with the unfair and thoughtless portrayal of Bill Clinton as a real life Wag-the-Dog operative. Who are we to begrudge an adult man a consensual blow-job ? The blood feud between Clinton and Starr is the maturation of a petty vendetta that has its roots in the incendiary partisanship of national American politics kindled by Watergate. Republicans want to avenge Nixon, and they have found in Bill Clinton the ideal target - a brilliant man who wins everything but who also loves women and belongs to the wrong social class. Towards this end, an exceedingly immature, mean-spirited and malicious scheme has been orchestrated by the Office of the Special Prosecutor to trap this poor fellow in any kind of mess, even if it happens to be something isolated and technical and utterly peripheral to the national cause. So what if Whitewatergate, Travelgate and Filegate turned out to be blanks, Starr seems to be thinking, we`ll trap him for lying about the details of sex acts. My response: who cares and get a life!

A powerful destructive force that is compounding this unnecessary tragedy is the phenomenal capacity and eagerness of modern electronic and print media to cater to our most vulgar appetites. (In a world defined by consumerism, what else can we expect ?) It is clear from all the ongoing coverage on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, the networks, as well as Talk Radio, that the goals of journalism have finally come to be at cross-purposes with the social good. This is because, in deference to the profit motive (and also the intense ambition to become Woodward or Bernstein), there is no longer any modertion between what the public would like to know and what it needs to know. I think the author of this article has also fallen into this media trap and is unthinkingly calling for renewed focus on `perjury`, `obstruction of justice`, and other mindless topics that have the potential to satisfy our most crude urges.

My humble advice is to let Clinton be. He is an outstanding President and a brilliant policy thinker. We all need to learn that consensual sex is a private matter. A he-said/she-said dispute over the fine details of oral sex (even if it happened in the Oval Office) does not even begin to approach the seriousness of something like the Watergate break-in or the firing of Archibald Cox and the Saturday Night `Massacre`. To reiterate, get a life.

Saad Shafqat

Good to see BG after a very long time:)

The questions you have raised are brilliant. There is no justification for the US`s action. It is as stupid and pointless as terrorist bombings. You cannot treat intolerance with intolerance. The real issues of global power sharing go unaddressed in the diversion of attention from Monica to missiles.

It is tempting to think that Clinton`s shame of the confession triggered this outrageously fascist action. The under-lying arrogance of the Global Power shows through.