Beware of Ariel Morons and Protect Your Children!
Udayakumar October 7, 2000
#83 Posted by macgupta on October 14, 2000 1:47:18 pm
A data point -- Rabindranath Tagore`s letter to the Viceroy renouncing his knighthood was dated May 31, 1919.
``The time has come when the badges of honour make our shame glaring in their incongruous context of humiliation, and I, for my part, wish to stand shorn of all special distinctions, by the side of those of my countrymen who, for their so-called insignificance, are liable to suffer degradation not fit for human beings….``
(Tagore’s Protest letter to the Viceroy on May 31,1919, renouncing Knighthood).
(taken from http://www.gagan.1freespace.com/jallianwala_bagh.htm )
-arun gupta
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#82 Posted by sadna on October 14, 2000 1:27:29 pm
Ferozk #83
It is noteworthy that GW took care to mention the Arab-Americans of Michigan during the second debate, with seeming deliberation, though not in the ME context.
Sadhana
It is noteworthy that GW took care to mention the Arab-Americans of Michigan during the second debate, with seeming deliberation, though not in the ME context.
Sadhana
#81 Posted by amit on October 14, 2000 11:23:38 am
Re:macgupta#79
Arun,
Israel has made a major mess of the peace process by keeping it only at the political level. A better approach would have been to provide economic help to the palestinians along with the political track. Israel and US have the means to invest money in West Bank and Gaza. They could have done that easily. Moreover, they could have encouraged Palestinians to access Israeli educational institutions and jobs in the Israeli economy on a much larger scale than what is allowed today. These moves would have created an economic vested interest for the Palestinians.
The reason you see so much violence is because Palestinians are totally frustrated that the peace process has provided no benefits to them while at the same time the political track is so slow. There is really no good solution left. There is already a de facto Palestinian state. One option is to simply make it a de jure Palestinian state without a standing army and without Jerusalem. In other words, Israel can simply declare that a Palestinian state now exists without any army. Arafat will be forced to take up the responsibility without Jerusalem.
Arun,
Israel has made a major mess of the peace process by keeping it only at the political level. A better approach would have been to provide economic help to the palestinians along with the political track. Israel and US have the means to invest money in West Bank and Gaza. They could have done that easily. Moreover, they could have encouraged Palestinians to access Israeli educational institutions and jobs in the Israeli economy on a much larger scale than what is allowed today. These moves would have created an economic vested interest for the Palestinians.
The reason you see so much violence is because Palestinians are totally frustrated that the peace process has provided no benefits to them while at the same time the political track is so slow. There is really no good solution left. There is already a de facto Palestinian state. One option is to simply make it a de jure Palestinian state without a standing army and without Jerusalem. In other words, Israel can simply declare that a Palestinian state now exists without any army. Arafat will be forced to take up the responsibility without Jerusalem.
#80 Posted by macgupta on October 14, 2000 11:23:38 am
Excuse me for getting confused, SameerJB.
Earlier in the same book Payne writes that ``Two days after the massacre at the Jallianwalla Bagh he [Dyer] proclaimed martial law. A strict censorship was imposed; it was so strict that many weeks passed before the news reached the rest of India.``
Your theory that the administration would want at least the political leaders to know what happened is viable; but Dyer and O`Dwyer thought that they were facing the equivalent of 1857 and would want to keep it from spreading.
-arun gupta
#79 Posted by ferozk on October 14, 2000 7:02:12 am
Re: SameerJB # 81
Thanks!
As to the Bush administation`s policies on South Asia and Middle East, it hard to predict them at this stage, because in the pre-election days, the candidates usually generalize their responses. They do this in order not be pegged by the media in spelling out their real intentions and with GW Bush being no exception to the rule, his policies will be determined by the foreign policy team he picks; its interactions with State Department diplomats and the scores of think-tanks, which dot the American landscape.
There are five foreign policy clusters in the United States, which to varying degrees influence the creation and, to a greater extent, the implementation of foreign policy objectives. They are: the White House; the State Department; the media; CIA/Pentagon and the think-tanks. Each of them have their own internal dynamics and it is the compromise of their internal dynamics and the issue perceptions of all four, which articulates a foreign policy decision in the United States.
In the case of South Asia, at the present time the White House and the State Department are pro-India, because the State had always favored diplomatic with India, but due to the rationales of the Cold War, its interests were superceded by the CIA/Pentagon`s strategic complusions.
The American media has a strong dislike of the military regime in Pakistan, because in a strange sense it sees itself as the guardian of the Wilsonian ideals of foreign policy; democracy and consequently, sees the present situation in Pakistan as a threat to its own set of ideals, which it wants to pursue globally.
The CIA/Pentagon relationship is divided, because though the Pentagon favors Pakistan, CIA wants closer ties with India due to its own insitutional threat perceptions, which sees terrorism replacing the Soviet era cold war threats to the American security interests.
The role of the think-tanks/research insitutes in all of this is a bit unclear. This is because each research insitute is, to a degree, closely identified with one of the major clusters and since their executives were the former officials in one of the clusters, they tend to mirror their parent insitutes internal logic/perceptions.
Bush will have to navigate all these clusters and pick a team, which will be a consensus team satisfying the interests of the major clusters. In this regard, James Baker is a good candidate, but if you remember, his name was closely associated in the ``arms for Iran`` scandal, and hence, his candidacy would create more friction than harmonize a consensus. Bush needs his ``honeymoon`` and he will not wish to start off the wrong foot when, and if, he enters the White House.
As to the Middle East, his policies will be determined by what the liberal Jewish community thinks and since the Jewish vote is critical in states with huge electoral votes, the pre-campaign rhetoric will favor Israel. Afterwards, there maybe a distancing of the new administration from Israel, but that would depend on what compromises Bush manages to get out of the American Jewish community, because it is their money, which is supporting Israel`s economy. It was the American liberal Jewish pressure on Israel, which convinced Tel Aviv to proced with the Oslo Accords and it wa their pressure, with (George) Bush`s strong stand, which forced the Israelis to the diplomatic table.
If the American Jews and the new administration see a commonality of ideas, there will a new peace offer in Middle East, but if they see Arafat as being problem, they will support the government in Israel and that would mean hardening of positions in the Middle East and more strife.
The way the media handles the situation will determine how this issue will revolve.
This is just a basic hypothesis and I could be wrong!
Ciao!
Thanks!
As to the Bush administation`s policies on South Asia and Middle East, it hard to predict them at this stage, because in the pre-election days, the candidates usually generalize their responses. They do this in order not be pegged by the media in spelling out their real intentions and with GW Bush being no exception to the rule, his policies will be determined by the foreign policy team he picks; its interactions with State Department diplomats and the scores of think-tanks, which dot the American landscape.
There are five foreign policy clusters in the United States, which to varying degrees influence the creation and, to a greater extent, the implementation of foreign policy objectives. They are: the White House; the State Department; the media; CIA/Pentagon and the think-tanks. Each of them have their own internal dynamics and it is the compromise of their internal dynamics and the issue perceptions of all four, which articulates a foreign policy decision in the United States.
In the case of South Asia, at the present time the White House and the State Department are pro-India, because the State had always favored diplomatic with India, but due to the rationales of the Cold War, its interests were superceded by the CIA/Pentagon`s strategic complusions.
The American media has a strong dislike of the military regime in Pakistan, because in a strange sense it sees itself as the guardian of the Wilsonian ideals of foreign policy; democracy and consequently, sees the present situation in Pakistan as a threat to its own set of ideals, which it wants to pursue globally.
The CIA/Pentagon relationship is divided, because though the Pentagon favors Pakistan, CIA wants closer ties with India due to its own insitutional threat perceptions, which sees terrorism replacing the Soviet era cold war threats to the American security interests.
The role of the think-tanks/research insitutes in all of this is a bit unclear. This is because each research insitute is, to a degree, closely identified with one of the major clusters and since their executives were the former officials in one of the clusters, they tend to mirror their parent insitutes internal logic/perceptions.
Bush will have to navigate all these clusters and pick a team, which will be a consensus team satisfying the interests of the major clusters. In this regard, James Baker is a good candidate, but if you remember, his name was closely associated in the ``arms for Iran`` scandal, and hence, his candidacy would create more friction than harmonize a consensus. Bush needs his ``honeymoon`` and he will not wish to start off the wrong foot when, and if, he enters the White House.
As to the Middle East, his policies will be determined by what the liberal Jewish community thinks and since the Jewish vote is critical in states with huge electoral votes, the pre-campaign rhetoric will favor Israel. Afterwards, there maybe a distancing of the new administration from Israel, but that would depend on what compromises Bush manages to get out of the American Jewish community, because it is their money, which is supporting Israel`s economy. It was the American liberal Jewish pressure on Israel, which convinced Tel Aviv to proced with the Oslo Accords and it wa their pressure, with (George) Bush`s strong stand, which forced the Israelis to the diplomatic table.
If the American Jews and the new administration see a commonality of ideas, there will a new peace offer in Middle East, but if they see Arafat as being problem, they will support the government in Israel and that would mean hardening of positions in the Middle East and more strife.
The way the media handles the situation will determine how this issue will revolve.
This is just a basic hypothesis and I could be wrong!
Ciao!
#78 Posted by ylh on October 14, 2000 12:54:32 am
Actually I have time and again asked people not to look at movies.
All the objectives that I had in mind when I posted that reply, have been achieved.
:)
Yasser Hamdani
All the objectives that I had in mind when I posted that reply, have been achieved.
:)
Yasser Hamdani
#77 Posted by SameerJB on October 13, 2000 7:08:24 pm
FerozK (#58): Your posts have been very informative, very balanced and represent your skills in the area of international relations. Would you please comment on the policies expected from a Bush administration, now that it seems almost certain to me that he will be the winner in the presidential election? What should we expect, in terms of middle east and Indo-Pak arena? Do you think, if he will bring James Baker (former Secy. of State) back in some capacity?
Ahmad B: Thanks for the clarification about Jullianwala Bagh. I did not expect Arun Gupta to write, ``Gandhi not knowing it till June``. I suppose the purpose of gen. Dyer`s action was to spread fear among any future independent seeking movement through force. It would not have been in the interest of administration to black-out the event to a such an extent that even the top leadership of the major political party would not know it. There were many grass-root organization working in and around that area with direct or indirect connection to the Congress party and they knew the extent of carnage quite well.
Ahmad B: Thanks for the clarification about Jullianwala Bagh. I did not expect Arun Gupta to write, ``Gandhi not knowing it till June``. I suppose the purpose of gen. Dyer`s action was to spread fear among any future independent seeking movement through force. It would not have been in the interest of administration to black-out the event to a such an extent that even the top leadership of the major political party would not know it. There were many grass-root organization working in and around that area with direct or indirect connection to the Congress party and they knew the extent of carnage quite well.
#76 Posted by ylh on October 13, 2000 7:08:24 pm
fairdinkhum,
I hope I spelt your name right ...
No hard feelings... thanks for the compliments :)
Yasser
I hope I spelt your name right ...
No hard feelings... thanks for the compliments :)
Yasser
#75 Posted by macgupta on October 13, 2000 7:08:24 pm
Re : Israel-Palestine -- many commentators here in the US newspapers say that PM Barak offered unprecedented concessions to Arafat, including sovereignty over the Muslim and Christian quarters of Jerusalem in the recent failed peace talks, and that Arafat did not respond in any meaningful way.
These commentators interpret this as that Barak`s yielding on long-held Israeli stances was taken as weakness, and that the more Arafat is appeased, the more he will demand; and that is the root of the current violence.
Supposedly the Palestinians still call for the total destruction of Israel, deny the Holocaust in their textbooks and so on -- they have not done anything to prepare themselves for peace.
What do analytic chowkers think about this ? Given that no one is going to negotiate themselves out of existence, what is the basis of a durable peace in Israel and Palestine ? Who should give up what ?
-arun gupta
These commentators interpret this as that Barak`s yielding on long-held Israeli stances was taken as weakness, and that the more Arafat is appeased, the more he will demand; and that is the root of the current violence.
Supposedly the Palestinians still call for the total destruction of Israel, deny the Holocaust in their textbooks and so on -- they have not done anything to prepare themselves for peace.
What do analytic chowkers think about this ? Given that no one is going to negotiate themselves out of existence, what is the basis of a durable peace in Israel and Palestine ? Who should give up what ?
-arun gupta
#74 Posted by macgupta on October 13, 2000 7:08:24 pm
Dear fairdinkum :
I do not think that the people at Jallianwala Bagh were given a choice in the matter; I hope they died with dignity. We know that Dyer ordered the wounded not be attended to and they be left where they had fallen.
At least in the current Israeli-Palestinian madness, we see ambulances.
-arun gupta
I do not think that the people at Jallianwala Bagh were given a choice in the matter; I hope they died with dignity. We know that Dyer ordered the wounded not be attended to and they be left where they had fallen.
At least in the current Israeli-Palestinian madness, we see ambulances.
-arun gupta
#73 Posted by macgupta on October 13, 2000 7:08:24 pm
Dear Bilal Ahmed :
You are absolutely correct; Gandhi did not know of the full extent of the massacre by June, but heard of the incident earlier. I apologize for the error.
Dear YLH :
Very few movies are historically accurate. Whether it be ``Cleopatra`` or ``Amadeus`` or ``Elizabeth`` or ``Gandhi``, the producers take liberty with history in order to tell a story. It is no different from William Shakespeare`s historical plays. It is a form of historical fiction, i.e., a story set around real events and real people, but not meant to be accurate. Even if the work strives to be accurate, a work for the screen or the stage cannot really portray all the complexity of real life; it is of necessity a simplification.
The best you can hope for is that such works capture the spirit of the times they portray.
If you learn your history from movies or other such works then you are bound to be mislead and disappointed. If you understand these works to be no more than they claim to be, and as a way of awakening your interest in history, then you will get good value out of them.
-arun gupta
You are absolutely correct; Gandhi did not know of the full extent of the massacre by June, but heard of the incident earlier. I apologize for the error.
Dear YLH :
Very few movies are historically accurate. Whether it be ``Cleopatra`` or ``Amadeus`` or ``Elizabeth`` or ``Gandhi``, the producers take liberty with history in order to tell a story. It is no different from William Shakespeare`s historical plays. It is a form of historical fiction, i.e., a story set around real events and real people, but not meant to be accurate. Even if the work strives to be accurate, a work for the screen or the stage cannot really portray all the complexity of real life; it is of necessity a simplification.
The best you can hope for is that such works capture the spirit of the times they portray.
If you learn your history from movies or other such works then you are bound to be mislead and disappointed. If you understand these works to be no more than they claim to be, and as a way of awakening your interest in history, then you will get good value out of them.
-arun gupta
#72 Posted by fairdinkum on October 13, 2000 8:36:19 am
ps i apologize if i offended you...it was inadvertant...
#71 Posted by fairdinkum on October 13, 2000 7:59:21 am
Re: YLH
``fARINDA whatever your name is``
:) LOL ... Just realized that your post was addressed to me... so,you don`t like my name? accha yar! :)
Yasser, I was commenting on arun`s post...didn`t realize he was referring to your posts.. Had I known, I would have told him off. Your argument is sound and brilliantly reasoned...apart from a few posts that you probably wrote in an emotional state of mind, I find your posts interesting and informative....especially the ones related to Pak history / Jinnah....even your emotions are ok, they represent the genuineness of your personality....but I don`t like it when you get relellious and start writing disrespectful posts.....overall, I like you and I enjoy your company in cyber space...
take care...
``fARINDA whatever your name is``
:) LOL ... Just realized that your post was addressed to me... so,you don`t like my name? accha yar! :)
Yasser, I was commenting on arun`s post...didn`t realize he was referring to your posts.. Had I known, I would have told him off. Your argument is sound and brilliantly reasoned...apart from a few posts that you probably wrote in an emotional state of mind, I find your posts interesting and informative....especially the ones related to Pak history / Jinnah....even your emotions are ok, they represent the genuineness of your personality....but I don`t like it when you get relellious and start writing disrespectful posts.....overall, I like you and I enjoy your company in cyber space...
take care...
#69 Posted by fairdinkum on October 13, 2000 2:01:12 am
Is war in Middle East imminent?
Israeli PM Ehud Barak is to form an emergency government, which will include the right wing Likud party whose leader, Ariel Sharon, has been blamed for triggering the recent wave of violent demonstrations when he visited the second holiest shrine of Muslims in Jerusalem. Yesterday, Israeli forces attacked several “security” targets inside Palestinian administered territories. The attacks were to punish the Palestinian “authorities” for the murders of two Israeli soldiers who were killed by an angry mob inside a police station (under Palestinian control) in Ramla. Israelis allege that Palestinian police “probably” collaborated with the mob, and hence the missile attacks on several key targets including the headquarters of Palestinian authority, the seat of Mr. Yasser Arafat. Several targets in West bank and Gaza strip were also hit. Palestinians could only throw stones or fire from Ak-47 assault rifles, but they are not match to the sophisticated weaponry used by Israel. Mr. Arafat called these attacks by Israel an act of war.
Israelis say that Palestinians have been attacking them (Israelis) for the past two weeks. As one Israeli Major puts it, “we are under terrorist attacks from Palestinians, the only language these people (Palestinians) understand is the language of force.”
Bill Clinton condemned the killings of two Israeli solders, but did not mention Israeli revenge attacks. George W Bush, and Algore both asked Palestinians to stop the violence against Israel immediately.
A small boat packed with explosives rammed a US naval destroyer in Yemen killing at least four US personnel on board. Clinton said that it was a cowardly act designed to deter US from promoting “peace” and “stability” in Middle East.
Oil prices hit an all time high as a result of deteriorating situation in Middle East.
Jordan and Egypt (two key US allies in the region) refused to cooperate with US until a joint Arab strategy for the current Middle East crisis is arrived at.
Are we heading for another war in the Middle East?
Will US get involved (directly or Indirectly)?
Was the whole crisis carefully planned by Israeli right wing?
Or was it Mr. Arafat who out of sheer frustration decided to mobilize Palestinians to get what he wants – an independent Palestinian state?
What repercussions a war in Middle East, involving all Arab/Muslim nations, and possibly US is likely to have on the new world order?
Israeli PM Ehud Barak is to form an emergency government, which will include the right wing Likud party whose leader, Ariel Sharon, has been blamed for triggering the recent wave of violent demonstrations when he visited the second holiest shrine of Muslims in Jerusalem. Yesterday, Israeli forces attacked several “security” targets inside Palestinian administered territories. The attacks were to punish the Palestinian “authorities” for the murders of two Israeli soldiers who were killed by an angry mob inside a police station (under Palestinian control) in Ramla. Israelis allege that Palestinian police “probably” collaborated with the mob, and hence the missile attacks on several key targets including the headquarters of Palestinian authority, the seat of Mr. Yasser Arafat. Several targets in West bank and Gaza strip were also hit. Palestinians could only throw stones or fire from Ak-47 assault rifles, but they are not match to the sophisticated weaponry used by Israel. Mr. Arafat called these attacks by Israel an act of war.
Israelis say that Palestinians have been attacking them (Israelis) for the past two weeks. As one Israeli Major puts it, “we are under terrorist attacks from Palestinians, the only language these people (Palestinians) understand is the language of force.”
Bill Clinton condemned the killings of two Israeli solders, but did not mention Israeli revenge attacks. George W Bush, and Algore both asked Palestinians to stop the violence against Israel immediately.
A small boat packed with explosives rammed a US naval destroyer in Yemen killing at least four US personnel on board. Clinton said that it was a cowardly act designed to deter US from promoting “peace” and “stability” in Middle East.
Oil prices hit an all time high as a result of deteriorating situation in Middle East.
Jordan and Egypt (two key US allies in the region) refused to cooperate with US until a joint Arab strategy for the current Middle East crisis is arrived at.
Are we heading for another war in the Middle East?
Will US get involved (directly or Indirectly)?
Was the whole crisis carefully planned by Israeli right wing?
Or was it Mr. Arafat who out of sheer frustration decided to mobilize Palestinians to get what he wants – an independent Palestinian state?
What repercussions a war in Middle East, involving all Arab/Muslim nations, and possibly US is likely to have on the new world order?
#68 Posted by ylh on October 13, 2000 12:56:01 am
fARINDA whatever your name is
Did you read my post... instead of alluding to how stupid I am ... will you assess whether or not I held Gandhi responsible for Jallianwallah ...
The truth is that I made it clear that I in my personal opinion dont hold Gandhi responsible. I said that it can be argued like this ... as it has been in the very Movie that was made to portray Gandhi as God ...
Now before you jump to conclusions .. try reading my post first!!!!!!
Making strawman fallacies and then destroying them does not help anyone!
Did you read my post... instead of alluding to how stupid I am ... will you assess whether or not I held Gandhi responsible for Jallianwallah ...
The truth is that I made it clear that I in my personal opinion dont hold Gandhi responsible. I said that it can be argued like this ... as it has been in the very Movie that was made to portray Gandhi as God ...
Now before you jump to conclusions .. try reading my post first!!!!!!
Making strawman fallacies and then destroying them does not help anyone!
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- tahmed32: Eklavya: please dont split... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- tahmed32: GF #83: while india's... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Eklavya: tahmedji and harish A correction:... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- tahmed32: om prakash #75 agreed.... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Goldfinger: harish_hyd, also this: www.rediff.com/news/2008/nov/nov28mumterror-rescue-efforts-badly-planne d-says-israel.htm?zcc=rl India's... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- rf786: Re: # 61 Like I... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- shoaib_daniyal: “We in Pakistan understand... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- tahmed32: harish #77 we could... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
