12-26-2008, 08:52 AM (This post was last modified: 12-26-2008, 12:04 PM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I respect a person for what he stands for and what he has done.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->My respect for any <i>persons</i> is contingent upon my first agreeing with the *motivations* underlying their actions and the stances they take, regardless of however much the actions themselves may agree with me.
Different motivations may still result in people undertaking the same actions, and though I may approve of an action in itself, it does not mean that I approve of all motivations that could have led to that same action (and hence it does not automatically follow that I approve of any <i>person</i> who happened to undertake the right action). This idea is already partially there in The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend. Temporary friend.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Sankaracharyas and the Acharya Sabha agree that Dr.Swamy is a good man and does a great job.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The job is useful, certainly.
(Shankara)acharyas find many people good. Their reasoning is not the same as mine. They frequently think that actions are transparent indicators of motivations (because their own are), when this is *not* true in the general case. They also overlook some things because they are essentially good people - this makes them often incapable of seeing certain kinds of flaws.
BTW, your attempts to sway me with reference to others' opinion (however respectable they may be) will remain ineffectual in my case: I don't work that way.
<!--QuoteBegin-Savithri+Dec 25 2008, 07:33 PM-->QUOTE(Savithri @ Dec 25 2008, 07:33 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->You and I have many things in common, we are anti-secular for secularism is anti-Hindu. You and I wish to uphold Hindu Dharma.[right][snapback]92234[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Things in common? So you <i>say</i>. You have yet to convince me of it.
Also, I am not anti-secularism. I am anti-pseudosecularism (which *is* anti-Hindu). There is a gaping divide between the two.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->for what his daughter has done or anyone else has done<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->If some person allowed their nazi kid to remain in his household, that tells me that he condones such behaviour and is willing to live with/tolerate(/accept?) such an ideology.
And christoislamicommunism and psecularism *are* the same as nazism: christoislamicommunism is an ideology for genociding people, while psecularism is one that provides the apologetics for this ideology of genocide. Barely to be differentiated.
I do not need to side with anyone permanently - including Swamy - for me to be <i>temporarily</i> supportive of what they do. Therefore, why are you canvassing for <i>permanent</i> support? I can tell you quite openly that unless he <i>continuously</i> says and does things that I agree with, there *will* be no such guaranteed support from me. And one of the first things he will have to do for me to know he is remotely serious is deal with that hyper-pseudo-secular daughter of his. And her penchant for islamania. And why doesn't he first try his experiment of "Indian muslims have forgotten they are Hindus and need only be reminded of it, for all things to become peachy again" on his son-in-law? When his daughter's husband publicly forswears islamania (thus becoming an apostate), I may reconsider Swamy, but only if his daughter simultaneously starts publicly defending Hindu Dharma *and* also retracts any offences against Hindu Dharma that she may well have made earlier.
Hmmm, yes, I think that may put me in a better mood concerning Swamy. I still won't know he is sincere of course (as regards his *motivations*), but I may approve more thoroughly of his *actions* then.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What you and I do not have in common is a personal tirade against Dr.Subramanian Swamy.
[...]
Therefore, I do not wish to hang him for what his daughter has done or anyone else has done.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->A "tirade" no less.
And "hanging"? <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> I don't understand why you are using this word. Until your strange denial, no one could have suspected you of wanting to hang anyone. But if you were trying to impute a desire of "wanting to hang Swamy" onto anyone here, I should perhaps warn you that your statement is very dangerously constructed and has an unintended(?) side-effect. Because, an alternate but still direct implication of the logic in your unnecessary sentence is that - in explicitly saying you do not wish to hang Swamy for his daughter's (or anyone else's) actions and by omitting a corresponding explicit denial of wanting to hang her for the same - it leaves open how you may yet choose to hang her instead! <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The moral: to think carefully about constructing roundabout accusations, else they may come back full circle.
<b><span style='color:red'>Isolate and confront the rogue state, war no option (but necessity)</span></b>
<b><i>
By Subramanian Swamy</i></b>
Terrorist attacks such 26/11 Mumbai carnage can be deterred only by effective retaliation which will serve as a deterrence against future attacks. What is an effective retaliation for the 26/11 attacks ? In my view, it is bombing of LeT camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-held territories. That means war declared by Pakistan. War is however a terrible event in human affairs. It is against the finer and civilised instinct of the human being and a temporary triumph of the base emotions. Wars are imposed either on evil intentions or by miscalculations. Civilised societies to survive have to be prepared for such wars. My quick answer thus to the question whether war with Pakistan is then inevitable is: Yes!
<b>My substantive answer is that the war will be imposed on us anyway whether we retaliate or not, by the compulsions of Pakistanâs polity, and we should prepare for a formal war with that country which could come anytime within the next four years. The terror genie is now out of the bottle in Pakistan, and an informal ad hoc proxy war is already on between India and Pakistan through Pak-trained terrorists. It cannot be ended without a decisive formal war. We cannot also go on bleeding like we have during last 20 years, each occasion at the time and place of choosing of the terrorists of Pakistan. To top it all, we are being dished out Pakistanâs inane argument on the need providing âproofâ, by a government which is a puppet of the trainers of these terrorists.</b>
Unlike the 1965, 1971, and 1999 wars with Pakistan, this time we should first prepare instead react by reflecting on who are our real allies in this coming war, and what the post-war situation of a destructed and disarmed Pakistan should be. In 1971, USSR was claimed to be our ally, but it would not let us smash the West Pakistan military machine when the Pakistan army was on all fours on the floor.
This time, because of nuclear weapons on both sides, the war has to be decisive. Pakistan must be sanitized and/or further dismembered beyond recognition. The new Pakistan or the former Pakistans must be led by those who understand Indiaâs retaliatory capacity.
One thousand years of the foreign invasions of this land have proved that Hindus will not submit, no matter what the tribulation and personal tragedy. Iran, Babylonia, Turkey, Egypt and others of the Middle East had in contrast submitted and became majority Muslim countries within a few decades. But Hindus as a whole, despite 1000 years of brutality and impoverishment, have stood defiantly. In Akhand Hindustan, we are still 75 per cent of the total population despite all the atrocities.
But now defiance is no more enough. Now we must decisively and finally settle the issue and defeat our centuriesâ old tormentors and the violent theology behind it.
In my last column I had stated that Islamic terrorism cannot be fought unless we adopt a virat brihad Hindutva concept of identity for Indians, which identity I defined as the mindset of Hindus, who are proud of their Hinduness, and ready to co-opt Muslims and Christians as blood brothers and sisters if they too proudly acknowledge the truth that their ancestors are Hindus and that despite change of religion their culture does not change [Culture is a secular concept defined on the myriad of human relations and attitudes].
Hindus and such Muslims and Christians together constitute the Hindustan nation. All others are either permanent residents or foreigners, but therefore should have no voting rights. NRIs abroad who also acknowledge to be of Hindustani descent can be permitted to be voters in India.
This mindset in responding to terror must focus on retaliation as a deterrent against terrorism, which is the real meaning of âzero toleranceâ for terrorism. The retaliation cannot be confused with vengeance but has to be defined as effective actions to nullify the political objectives of the patrons of terrorists.
What is, for example, the retaliation for the 26/11 terrorist attack on Mumbai? Or for that matter, the âmenuâ of retaliation for all the terrorist attacks since 1989 beginning with when 500,000 Hindus and Sikhs were driven out by terrorists from the Kashmir valley?
The retaliation has to be tailored in each terrorist attack to nullify the political objective of the patrons which objective motivates that attack.
In the 26/11 attack, the political objective was to demonstrate to the world that India is a wobbly, flabby, and corrupt country that cannot defend itself, that anyone can bribe his way with Indians to achieve his nefarious goal. Hence, they want to demonstrate that India is a corroding civilisation, and unworthy being a reliable ally of any country. That is why foreign tourists of friendly countries, such as US and Israel, were chosen for murder.
The terror patrons of Pakistan have, in my opinion, achieved substantially this objective by putting a question mark on our integrity as a people. How could such an operation, foreigners now ask, be put through without the intelligence having a clue? Is it because India ignored timely US intelligence of September that made the LeT postpone its dastardly project scheduled of September 27th to 26/11?
The truth is more bizarre: Intelligence Bureau and RAW did know, but the information was not acted on by the Maharashtra government. Why? It is rubbish to say that the information was not âactionableâ, i.e., not specific enough to take counter measures. I have had access to some of the intelligence supplied to the Maharashtra government, some of it are dated two years ago, which disproves this claim.
One such advisory actually states that LeT-trained terrorists numbering about a dozen are likely to enter from the sea in the Gateway area, and take control of high profile targets such as hotels! Is this not actionable? Or was the Maharashtra Police prevented from taking action by Ahmed Patel on behalf of Sonia Gandhi as alluded to by former Chief Minister of the state, Mr. Narayan Rane?
I thought therefore the Opposition in Parliament would have demanded at least a Commission of Inquiry headed by a sitting judge of the Supreme Court to go into all the lapses. Instead they wallowed in talking of national unity. This is not the time to talk of unity with the government. We are not yet in a formal war to need to talk of unity with the government. A horrible incident had taken place, and it is over now. Hence, it is the duty of the Opposition to put the government in the dock, and at least demand a Commission to go into the lapses. When a formal war is launched we can at that stage unite with the government in a show of unity.
But not now. Since the UPA chairperson Ms. Sonia Gandhi has yet not condemned Pakistan for allowing its territory to be used by ânon-state actorsâ, such a Commission is all the more necessary. Pakistan cannot be allowed to wash its hands off responsibility in this by silence of those who are paid to speak in Parliament by the tax-payer on behalf of the Indian nation.
Considering that the first employer in London in 1965 of Ms. Sonia Gandhi was a Pakistani called Salman Thassir, a dubious business magnate with perhaps ISI connection, and that the guest of honour at the select gathering of just 35 invitees to her daughter Priyankaâs wedding, was Farida accompanied by her husband Munir Ataullah, both known bag persons of prominent Pakistan politicians with ISI connections, hence, it is a matter of concern that Ms. Sonia Gandhi has not condemned Pakistan for the 26/11 attack, and in fact she has not condemned even one terrorist attack starting Mumbai 1993.
Coming back to the question of retaliation for the Mumbai 26/11 attack, I advocate US-Israel-India coordinated aerial strikes at all the prominent training bases of the LeT and JeM in PoK, which action, since it is on a part of India, will not mean an act of war, whatever Pakistan may think. This is the mirror-image of the argument that Pakistan itself has used while invading India in 1999 in the Kargil sector i.e., since they consider J&K not a part of India, hence Pakistan can invade it!
The US and Israel will probably not agree at present to help in a military strike since India has never come to the assistance of US or Israel in their hour of grief. In fact when on the day Saddam Hussein was toppled in 2003, a joint BJP-Congress resolution was passed by the Lok Sabha condemning US âimperialismâ in Iraq! Nor have we ever offered Israel help whenever a terrorist attack took place in that country?
Hence, to get the US and Israel effectively on our side in this war on terror, we too have to commit to help them in this war, not merely by ministers paying a visit to Washington and waxing eloquent about being ânatural alliesâ. For all their duplicity, Pakistan under Musharraf in contrast had made a world of difference to the US in its war on terror. Hence the soft corner for Pakistan in US and Europe.
For example, when New York Times reporter Daniel Pearlâs throat was slit by LeT, the Pakistan government caught the mastermind Omar Sheikh [whom we had released in the IC hijack matter at Kandahar] and sent him to Guantanomo prison without making noises about âproofâ. More Al Qaeda leaders have been captured or killed by the US with the cooperation of Pakistan than by direct action of the US. Nor can the US keep the Taliban out of Afghanistan without the active support of Pakistan. Hence, it is understandable that the US is in a catch-22 situation on Pakistan and we in India, if we want US cooperation, have to concretely provide a way out of that.
If we strike at the terrorists camps in PoK, the various governments of Pakistan cannot sit quiet. There are four other governments of Pakistan besides one headed by Zardari. In addition to his government, there is the Army government operating through the seven corp commanders, the ISI government working abroad through fake currency and beautiful women, the Mullah government through Friday prayers in mosques and by brainwashing in madrasas, and the de facto Taliban government in the frontier areas. Anyone of these four governments can declare a war against India on the war cry of jehad, and the other four will have to follow. So war is the outcome of any retaliatory action of India.
12-27-2008, 04:22 AM (This post was last modified: 12-27-2008, 04:35 AM by Husky.)
^ Part III of Subramaniam Swamy's article series.
<!--QuoteBegin-Savithri+Dec 26 2008, 06:41 PM-->QUOTE(Savithri @ Dec 26 2008, 06:41 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->OK, OK, Huskyji, You be who you are and let others be who they are. Aum Saanthi![right][snapback]92258[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Huh? <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> More pre-emptive defensiveness.
<!--QuoteBegin-Savithri+Dec 26 2008, 06:41 PM-->QUOTE(Savithri @ Dec 26 2008, 06:41 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->OK, OK, Huskyji, You be who you are and let others be who they are. Aum Saanthi!
[right][snapback]92258[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A very wise statement indeed Savithri !!! Secular thinking is today termed by some folks as anti Hindu.Better to preserve ones energy into something constructive than indulge in abstract and dry speculation.I think dabbling with erudition is absurd if it doesnt respect others views .
<!--QuoteBegin-Kishore+Dec 27 2008, 01:52 PM-->QUOTE(Kishore @ Dec 27 2008, 01:52 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Savithri+Dec 26 2008, 06:41 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Savithri @ Dec 26 2008, 06:41 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->OK, OK, Huskyji, You be who you are and let others be who they are. Aum Saanthi!
[right][snapback]92258[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A very wise statement indeed Savithri !!! Secular thinking is today termed by some folks as anti Hindu.Better to preserve ones energy into something constructive than indulge in abstract and dry speculation.I think dabbling with erudition is absurd if it doesnt respect others views .
[right][snapback]92288[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you Kishoreji. The cause (Sanaathana Dharma) is greater than individuals. It is this cause that produces those heros (Dharma Rakshakas) who defend it. That which produces such heros sustains them too (DharmO Rakshathi Rakshitha.
Individuals are thus tools only even it be Lord Krishna. Greater they are we consider them Gods. The greatest of them identifies Himself with the cause (Pundareekaakshan in the words of Bheeshma). He is considered the Father of existence (Bhoothaanaam yovya ya: pithaa).
(In Vishnu Sahasranamam, Bhishma tutors Yudhishtira on Dharma as follows:
Yad bhadhyaa pundareekaaksham sthavairassEn naras sadhaa
paramam yO mahath thEja: paramam yO mahath thapaha:
paramam yO mahath brahma: paramam ya: paraayaNam
pavithraaNaam pavithram yO mangalaanaam cha mangalam
daivatham dhEvathaanaam cha bhoothaanaam yO: avyaya; pithaa.)
If we engage ourselves in evaluating roles of individuals we risk diminishing the importance of the very cause that we try to defend. This cause is our very personality, our psyche, our existence - thus the cause is nothing but us the most auspicious ones (which is you and me and everyone else).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Thank you Kishoreji. The cause (Sanaathana Dharma) is greater than individuals. It is this cause that produces those heros (Dharma Rakshakas) who defend it. That which produces such heros sustains them too (DharmO Rakshathi Rakshitha.Â
Individuals are thus tools only even it be Lord Krishna. Greater they are we consider them Gods. The greatest of them identifies Himself with the cause (Pundareekaakshan in the words of Bheeshma). He is considered the Father of existence (Bhoothaanaam yovya ya: pithaa).
(In Vishnu Sahasranamam, Bhishma tutors Yudhishtira on Dharma as follows:
Yad bhadhyaa pundareekaaksham sthavairassEn naras sadhaa
paramam yO mahath thEja: paramam yO mahath thapaha:
paramam yO mahath brahma: paramam ya: paraayaNam
pavithraaNaam pavithram yO mangalaanaam cha mangalam
daivatham dhEvathaanaam cha bhoothaanaam yO: avyaya; pithaa.)
If we engage ourselves in evaluating roles of individuals we risk diminishing the importance of the very cause that we try to defend. This cause is our very personality, our psyche, our existence - thus the cause is nothing but us the most auspicious ones (which is you and me and everyone else).
With best regards,
[right][snapback]92289[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dear Savithri,
I completely agree with you.
Chapter 6 of Bhagvat Gita
Text 9
suhrn-mitrary-udasina-
madhyastha-dvesya-bandhusu
sadhusv api ca papesu
sama-buddhir visisyate
Synonyms
su-hrt--to well-wishers by nature; mitra--benefactors with affection; ari--enemies; udasina--neutrals between belligerents; madhyastha--mediators between belligerents; dvesya--the envious; bandhusu--and the relatives or well-wishers; sadhusu--unto the pious; api--as well as; ca--and; papesu--unto the sinners; sama-buddhih--having equal intelligence; visisyate--is far advanced.
Translation
A person is considered still further advanced when he regards honest well-wishers, affectionate benefactors, the neutral, mediators, the envious, friends and enemies, the pious and the sinners all with an equal mind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanaathana Dharma is the only way to move forward.Indulging in dry intellect speculation one is needlessly drawn into conflicts and stress with individuals.
Knowledge without devotion is equalent to decorating a dead body
When we consider the true essence of our culture we find that it is not being passive but upholding the bigger picture in life and let go the face value quest.
When we take pride of who we are, and devote our purpose in the betterment of the society.
All these discussions without devotion and actions lead to the same path of the rakshasas .In the mode of ego messaging, winning arguments we lose the very purpose to what we stand......
When it comes to action..... all these tall talkers disappear as they are not minds of action but just thrive on speculation with no commitment and have nothing at Stake as well.
Isnât it time now to stop breast-beating and fault-finding and get down to the business of finding what is wrong with Muslims in India and in Pakistan - and seeking a way to mutual understanding? In this context some generalisations become inevitable.
It would be argued that not all Muslims feel alike, that there are differences among them as between Shias and Sunnis, north Indian Muslims and Kerala Moplahs and between liberal Muslims and extremists. Why presume that all Muslims are automatically anti-Hindu? But the larger fact remains that, in the end, it is the extremist element among Muslims who dictate behavioural patterns and so, when one speaks of Muslim antagonism, one refers to that segment of Muslims who hate Hindus, who will not under any circumstances have anything to do with them.
They are the Muslims like the Lashkar-i-Taiba and their foster parents in the Pakistan Armed Forces, to whom compromise is unacceptable. These Muslims cannot live in peace with anybody apart from âPeople of the Bookâ. They may accept being ruled by Christians, if barely, but being ruled by Hindus or living with Hindus in a multi-religious society is plain anathema to them. One has to read the speech of Sir Syed Ahmed, delivered at Meerut on 14 March 1888, a hundred and twenty years ago, Mohammad Iqbalâs presidential address to the 25th session of the All India Muslim League, Allahabad on 29 December 1930 and the text of the All India Muslim League, Allahabad on 29 December 1930 and the text of Rahmat Aliâs Pakistan Document issued on 28 January 1933 to understand one aspect of the Muslim mind-set.
They preceded Moahammad Ali Jinnah. In his address Sir Syed Ahmed, among other things, said: <b>âOh my brother Mussalmans, I again remind you that you have ruled nations and have for centuries held different countries in your grasp. For seven hundred years in India, you have had imperial sway. You know what it is to rule.... Is it possible that under these circumstances, two nations - the Mohammadans and the Hindus - could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other and thrust it down. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconcievable!â</b> In his address Mohammad Iqbal said: âOne lesson I have learnt from the history of Muslims: at critical moments in their history, it is Islam that has saved Muslims and not vice versa. If today you focus your vision on Islam and seek inspiration from the ever-vitalising idea embodied in it, you will be only re-assembling your lost integrity and thereby saving yourself from total destructionâ.
As for Rahmat Ali who first proposed the concept of Pakistan, it was his view that <b>âthere can be no peace and tranquillity in the land if we, the Muslims, are duped into a Hindu-dominated Federation where we cannot be masters of our own destiny and captains of our own soulsâ.</b> No worse mind-set can one imagine of anti-Hindu sentiment. Is that mind-set still prevailing? If so, among which class of Muslim society? And by what percentage? We do not know. And possible cannot tell. One would have thought that with the formation of Pakistan, all those Muslims in India unwilling to be under alleged Hindu âdominanceâ would migrate to Pakistan.
And if they wished to stay on in India would happily become part of the larger community without shedding their Muslim identity. That they seem determined not to. They have internalised resentment against their fellow countrymen, sought peace by distancing themselves from Hindus in dress, deportment and mental attitudes. Men must wear skull caps, women must wear burqa, female children should give up higher education and children should attend madrassahs for mental conditioning. These are open and visible ways of separatism.
<b>Then there are the more sinister ways of planning for domination in India. One is by terrorising India and trying to bleed it with a âthousand cutsâ. The second is to use methods of intimidation to subdue Indians by methods foul and vicious; the third is to slowly, but deliberately âcaptureâ districts through âinvasionâ by Bangladeshi Muslims. Not many realise that the districts of South and North 24 Paraganas, Murshidabad, Nadia, Malda and West Dinapur with a total population of 28,324,034 (last census) has a concentration of Muslims numbering between 16 and 17 million, forming a majority. As Arun Shourie recently pointed out âthere is a distinct danger of another Muslim country, speaking predominantly Bengali, emerging in the eastern part of India in the futureâ.</b>
The UPA Government seems sublimely unaware of this dangerous development. The Mumbai terrorist massacre is only one aspect of the Islamic project of undermining India. The setting up along the entire Indo-Nepal border of madrassas needs careful watching. The more subtle and less evaluated danger is from changing the demographic character of eastern India. As recently as in 1996, a former head of the Intelligence Bureau, later to be named Governor of Uttar Pradesh had explained in a series of articles in the media how the entire Northeast, much of West Bengal and Bihar were being inundated by Muslims in demographic aggression. T V Rajeshwar then warned that the Muslim swamping of strategic locations constituted a grave threat to national security.
Worse, it has since been recorded by Intelligence Agencies that Islamic extremists have established a series of modules in western Uttar Pradesh. The facts are all available. Not available are meaningful responses. Eager to capture votes, Muslim communities in the North are being pampered by the Congress and the BSP, never willing to face realities. The jihadi terrorists who attacked Mumbai belong to a group which, along with some 22 other known and recognised terrorist groups in Pakistan hope to destroy the unity of India.
They still live in the 11th century of Mohammad of Ghori, with primitive social agenda that is to take Pakistan back into the medieval ages of brutal Islamic invasions. So, when India is embarking on Chandraayana, Pakistan jihadists and their mentors are bent on undertaking terror-aayana. What can possibly be done to change their mind-sets? According to a distinguished Pakistan scholar Pervez Hoodbhoy the Taliban and other extremist organisations have âa real chance of winning in Pakistanâ. What they apparently want is power through bloodshed, not peace through economic progress. If our political parties do not understand that, they understand nothing, Constant appeasement is counter-productive. It betrays weakness. Sir Syed Ahmed may long be dead, but his successors are still alive as the events of the last one decade and more abundantly show. We donât recognise them at our peril.
12-28-2008, 09:40 AM (This post was last modified: 12-29-2008, 04:55 AM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Kishore+Dec 27 2008, 01:52 PM-->QUOTE(Kishore @ Dec 27 2008, 01:52 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->A very wise statement indeed Savithri !!![right][snapback]92288[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-Savithri+Dec 27 2008, 02:46 PM-->QUOTE(Savithri @ Dec 27 2008, 02:46 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Thank you Kishoreji.[right][snapback]92289[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->It's like one of those Love Boat replays.
As much as I hate to interrupt this deeply romantic exchange you and Kishore are having, I want to insert.
<!--QuoteBegin-Savithri+Dec 27 2008, 02:46 PM-->QUOTE(Savithri @ Dec 27 2008, 02:46 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The cause (Sanaathana Dharma) is greater than individuals.[right][snapback]92289[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And that's exactly what Shamu and Mudy said: that no one owes any allegiance to Subramaniam Swamy the individual; it is only as long as he happens to align with the cause that Hindus ought to support him.
<!--QuoteBegin-Savithri+Dec 27 2008, 02:46 PM-->QUOTE(Savithri @ Dec 27 2008, 02:46 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bhishma tutors Yudhishtira on Dharma as follows:[right][snapback]92289[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->No, you <i>didn't</i> do what it looks like you just did. No, because that would just be hysterical.
If I had to take it seriously, then how to put it? Best not to appeal to Bhishma and Yudhishthira (and all the rest of the Kuru dynasty, not to mention Krishna himself) in support of Subramaniam Swamy. Their adherence to Dharma is *not* compromised (corrected spelling error) like that of the lenient Hindu body today (e.g. me), and they'd not only be the first to exclude Swamy from their society for having allowed his daughter to marry an islamaniac, but also - if acquainted with what islamania entails - they'd likely challenge and fight Suhasini's islamaniac husband.
Your best bet is not to reference the epics or the Geeta in this matter at all. Psecular lifestyles are preserved from scrutiny and discovery of faults without it.
Oh, and before you get too deeply involved with him, you might want to Know More About Kissore. I don't think you could still find his flattery all that complimentary.
<b> A strategy to deter terrorism
</b>
<i><b>By Subramanian Swamy</b></i>
28 Dec 2008 09:14:16 AM IST (New Indian Express)
India is today infested with a host of terrorist insurgencies: JKLF, SIMI, ULFA, the PWG, the Maoists, the Naxalites, the Tripura TNA, the Naga terrorists, the Manipur terrorists et al. They can all be crushed quickly but for one factor: the support they get them from Pakistan and Bangladesh. Pakistan's support is via the ISI, a wing of its army, which also fakes Indian currency to finance such activities.
Pakistani involvement is not because its civil society wants it, but because of the Islamic fervour in the army that is not reconciled to the defeat of its forces in Bangladesh.
The same fervour has turned the Bangladesh establishment against India, and hence with the help of the ISI, al Qaeda has through its Indonesian wing established a base to help these terrorists and also to develop the HuJI, which is emerging as the human infrastructure of terrorists in India. Thus, Islam is the heart and Pakistan is the brain of terrorism in India.
Challenging Islam in the realm of ideas, without diluting the debate with secular platitudes, jamming the brain of terror and destroying its human infrastructure embedded in India, is the core of a strategy to deter terrorism. This means sanitising Pakistan and truncating Bangladesh.
Prominent national security analysts have argued that in countering terrorist threats, deterrent strategies as formulated for conventional warfare have no significant role to play.
The US President's National Security Strategy document states, "Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy." Of course, I am not concerned here with "traditional concepts" but with new ideas to combat the new form of warfare â clandestine violence under the name of terrorism.
The overwhelming consensus against the efficacy of deterrence has now been challenged by two US-based scholars, Robert Trager and Desseslava Zagorcheva [in Deterring Terrorism â It can be Done, International Security Journal (Harvard-MIT, Vol.30, No.3, 2006)]. According to them, the case against the use of deterrence strategies in counterterrorist campaigns appears to rest on three pillars.
First, terrorists are thought to be irrational, and therefore unresponsive to the cost-benefit calculation required in successful deterrence. Second, many terrorists are said to be so highly motivated that they are willing to die, and so not deterred by fear of punishment or of anything else.
Third, even if terrorists were afraid of punishment, they cannot be deterred because they lack or have a shifting "return address" on which retaliation can be visited. Counterterrorist strategies that advocate addressing "root causes" such as by "winning hearts and minds", economic packages and promoting human rights, are for the long run. The required cure is for the short run.
Trager and Zagorcheva argue nevertheless that even the most highly motivated terrorists can be deterred by holding at risk the political goals of their patrons and financiers.
My view is that the ability of a terrorist-targeted nation to put political goals of the patrons of the terrorists and their benefactors at risk stands the best chance of deterring terrorism, and is the most important objective of counter-terrorism policy.
The structure of a counter-terrorism policy must be nation-specific and terrorist organisation-centric. There cannot be a general global strategy of deterrence against terrorism.
Traditional view of deterrence in strategic studies literature implies the scope for a bargain: both sides agree to cooperate on a state of affairs that both prefer to alternatives they face. This is called cost-benefit analysis.
Deterrence, therefore, is not just about making threats; it is also about making offers. Deterrence by punishment is about finding the right combination of threat and offer.
But it appears impossible that deterrence could hold at risk something of sufficient value to terrorists such that their behavior is affected. This means if the terrorists' motivation is high enough, then even a small probability of a successful operation and a high probability of punishment will not deter them.
Further, because the interests of terrorists and the State seem so opposed, it appears impossible that the two sides could agree on a state of affairs that both prefer to that in which each does its worst against the other.
Terrorists are highly irrational by mainstream norms, but not completely. A growing body of literature shows that terrorist groups usually have lexicographically ordered goals and choose their strategy accordingly. States also have preferences over these same objectives.
The preference orderings of objectives of terrorists and States are diametrically opposed. Therefore the question of deterrence becomes crucial. Paradoxically, the high levels of motivation often make terrorists more susceptible to a deterrence strategy that targets their political goals.
Highly motivated terrorists, because they hold their political goals dear are reluctant to run even low level risks that hurt their political aims. This magnifies the coercive leverage of strategies that target political ends.
The Islamic terrorists in India have only one goal: to convert the Darul Harab India of today into the Darul Islam of tomorrow. Judging by the secret writings in circulation amongst clerics in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim clerics consider as unacceptable the failure of 800 years of Islamic rule in India to convert India into a 100 per cent Muslim nation.
Akhand Hindustan could not be converted more than 25 per cent. Thus, it was a passive victory of Hindus and a blow to the imagined invincibility of Islam.
Islamic theologists consider the US a meddling nation that is corrupting the social morals of Muslims; Israel represents a reversal of Islamic conquest of territory in West Asia by Jews who were hated by Prophet Mohammed; and Hindustan a challenge to the invincibility of Islam.
India has a huge population, and worse, has begun to develop quickly. Thus India must be targeted by terrorising Hindus and making them submit. The mad mullahs are thus on a rampage, and we Hindus have to wake up to the real challenge of Mumbai 26/11 and all that preceded it.
The first lesson to be learnt for tackling terrorism is that India recognise that the Hindu is the target, and that Muslims of South Asia are being programmed to slide into suicide against Hindus.
The recent al Qaeda videotapes in Bihar, seeking recruits for terrorism against the "US-Israel-India axis", are an indication of this. It is to undermine the Hindu psyche and create fear of civil war that terror attacks are organised.
And since the Hindu is the target, Hindus must collectively respond as Hindus against the terrorist and not feel isolated, or worse be complacent because he or she is not personally affected. Therefore we have to have a collective mindset as Hindus to stand against the terrorist.
In this response, Muslims and Christians of India can join the Hindus if they genuinely feel for the Hindu. That they really do so feel cannot be believed unless they acknowledge with pride that though they may be Muslims or Christians, their ancestors are Hindus.
It is not easy for them to acknowledge this ancestry even though that is the truth, because the Muslim Mullah and Christian Missionary would consider it as unacceptable according to the Koran and the Bible.
That realisation of oneness with Hindus would also dilute the religious fervour of their faith and create a mental option for their possible re-conversion and return to Hinduism.
So, their religious leaders preach hatred and violence against the Kafir and the pagan, ie, the Hindu, to keep the faith of their followers.
But still, if any Muslim or Christian does so acknowledge his or her Hindu legacy, then we Hindus can accept him or her as a part of the Brihad Hindu Samaj, which constitutes Hindustan. India that is Hindustan is thus a nation of Hindus and those others whose ancestors are Hindus. Even Parsis and Jews in India have Hindu ancestors.
Those who refuse to so acknowledge or those foreigners who become Indian citizens by registration can remain in India, but should not have voting rights.
The second lesson is since demoralising the Hindu and undermining the Hindu foundation of India in order to destroy Hindu civilisation is the goal of terrorists, we must never capitulate and never concede any demand of terrorists.
Terrorists are encouraged by appeasement but never satisfied by it. Therefore, no matter how many Hindus have to die, the basic policy has to be: never yield to any demand of terrorists. That necessary resolve has not been shown in our recent history. Instead ever since we conceded Pakistan in 1947 under duress, we have been mostly yielding time and time again.
In 1989, to obtain the release of Mufti Mohammed Sayeed's daughter Rubaiya who had been kidnapped, five terrorists in Indian jails were set free by the V P Singh government. To save Rubaiya it was not necessary to surrender to terrorist demands. But the then government was capitulationist in outlook, or perhaps the then Home Minister was in cahoots with the terrorists, and hence did not explore them.
The third lesson to be learnt is that however small the terrorist incident, the nation must retaliate â not by measured and "sober" responses but by massive retaliation. Our Intelligence agencies tell me in private that we have proof of terrorist training camps in PoK and Bangladesh, and if that is so, we should bomb them by dispatching our air force.
There is evidence that the FBI has presented to a district court in California of satellite photos that establish terror training camps exist near Balakot in northeast Pakistan. Indian government claims proof which has not been made public of 57 camps in Pakistani held territory and 36 camps in Bangladesh.
Many are advising Hindus to deal with the root "cause" of terrorism rather than eradicating terrorists by retaliation. And pray what is the root "cause"? According to liberals, terrorists are born or bred because of illiteracy, poverty, oppression, and discrimination. They argue that instead of eliminating them, the root cause of these four disabilities in society should be removed. Only then will terrorism disappear.
Liberals seek to deaden the emotive power of the individual and render him passive. A nation-state cannot survive for long with such a mentality. The background of some of the world's most notorious Muslim terrorists shows that: Bin Laden, the son of a Saudi billionaire, studied engineering. His deputy Ayman al-Zawahri is an eye surgeon. The 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed graduated from an American college with an engineering degree. Flight 93 pilot Ziad Jarrah's father is a Beirut bureaucrat who put his son through prep school. They didn't do what they did to escape poverty.
Muslim fundamentalists have an education and an economic future, yet they still terrorise. They're literate enough to liberally interpret their holy books, yet they still embrace jihad against Kafirs.
The fourth lesson to learn is that more than the overt threat of the terrorists in India, the more sinister corrosion of our nation state occurs from within. This corrosion provides 'a force multiplier' to the terrorists.
Ultimately our inference must be that terrorist masterminds have political goals and a method in their madness. An effective strategy to deter terrorism is therefore to defeat those political goals and to rubbish them by counterterrorist action.
HAZARIBAG: External affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee has ruled out the possibility of any war with Pakistan in near the future. He also refuted
claims of Pakistan president and prime minister that India is gearing up for war.
Mukherjee said this at abrief Press conference at Koderma, about 60 km away from here on Sunday.
The minister admitted that following 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, India's relationship with Pakistan has "certainly" deteriorated. It has now been proved that terrorists trained in Pakistani soil entered India and killed several hundred innocent people which not only shocked the entire nation but the world community at large.
All that India now expects from the Pakistan government is it should destroy the training centres of terrorists being run from its soil, Mukherjee said.
Asked what would be India's action if Pakistan refuses to hand over the terrorists sought by India, Mukherjee said, "We've held several rounds of meetings with several foreign ministers including that of the US and leaders of UK and Saudi Arabia and made our stand clear in this regard. We will continue to follow the policy of diplomatic pressure.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Defend but not offend, says the Communists</span>
<b>War against Pakistan not an option: Raja</b>
Express News Service
First Published : 29 Dec 2008 01:49:00 AM IST
Last Updated : 29 Dec 2008 12:30:20 PM IST
CHENNAI: CPI national secretary D Raja on Sunday came down heavily on BJP for trying to disrupt communal harmony in the country by putting pressure on the Central Government to wage a war against Pakistan.
Speaking at a seminar on terrorism and Indiaâs security aspect organized by the Tamil Nadu Science Organization, he said BJP was doing so in the name of nationalism which was just a frontage established by the party to gain political mileage.
Pointing out that war against Pakistan was not a viable option, Raja said the only option at the moment was to focus international pressure on Pakistan and force it to dismantle the terror outfits thriving within its boundaries. âReligion should not be identified with terrorism. A terrorist can belong to any caste and it is wholly wrong to categorize terrorism as a consequence of religious tendenciesââ, he said.
Raja also said another reason for war being not an option before India was that the power structure within Pakistan was still hazy and nothing much was known about who held the actual reins of power within the country.
Pointing out that the need of the hour is to strengthen the intelligence apparatus in India, he said the State Government should be given concrete intelligence inputs by the Intelligence Bureau instead of being vague about it.
âThe State Government should be taken into confidence and allowed to work in tandem with the Centre as far as the fight against terrorism is concernedââ, he said and added, âWith terrorists eyeing on the sea route for entry into the country it is high time that the coastal security was perked up and adequate monetary assistance should be earmarked for the purposeââ. âThe shoes thrown at the US President George Bush by an Iraqi journalist recently were the only `weapons of mass destructionâ that America was able to find within Iraqi territoryââ.
India should take a proactive rather than a reactive role in its fight against terrorism and pursuing a war at this juncture is not feasible, he added.
Express News Service
First Published : 30 Dec 2008 01:22:00 AM IST
Last Updated : 30 Dec 2008 01:57:02 AM IST
KOCHI: The security around the Cochin Shipyard has been beefed up to the highest levels after US intelligence alerted Indian agencies about fidayeen threat on the countryâs lone aircraft carrier INS Viraat currently undergoing major repairs here.
Top sources told The New Indian Express that a plot to attack Viraat using a helicopter was unearthed after internet transaction between Lashkar top brass was intercepted by technological intelligence unit of the US Government. Constant monitoring of emails and internet usage of LeTâs technology chief Zarar Shah showed that he was studying the Viraat in detail.
âSame type of study was done about the Taj and other South Mumbai targets before the attack was launched. So this information is being viewed very seriously,ââ the sources said.
Zarar Shah also did extensive study of the helicopter charter services in India, especially those in South India. âThe inference points at the possibility of using a helicopter to launch a suicide attack to cripple Viraat. Lashkar has done extensive study on both the aspects. The US intercepts clearly confirm that Lashkarâs interest in Viraat is more than a casual curiosity,ââ the sources pointed out.
The information was passed onto Indian agencies along with other sensitive data transferred post-Mumbai terror strikes. And by the time the input was handed over to the Navy, Viraat had already left for Kochi for its repairs. The Navy, however, had spread an elaborate security blanket around the CSL by the time Viraat berthed in the first week of December.
âThere is a security protocol assigned to a sensitive target like Viraat. Weâve initiated the procedures.
The level was a notch higher this time given the existing tension,ââ top sources said.
The Navy has deployed its marine personnel also to guard against any intrusion from the water front.
The CISF has also intensified its patrolling along the Kochi backwaters. The high level of security will remain till Viraat completes her repairs and leaves Kochi.
Sources said it may take up to five months for the extensive repair works to be complete.
His daughter married a muslim and he blessed the marraige
Also
Indian muslims know that they are sword converted descendants of hindus
They are ashamed of their ancestors disbelief
and support their forced conversion as a painful medicine to cure disbelief
Limiting islam to the koran as he suggests will also not help
since the koran has plenty of violence against kafirs
Historically, communism, secularism, ata-turkism etc have failed against
islam
The only thing that has worked is
1. Spanish Inquistion, took 120 years to cleanse spain
2. Sikh sword, took 2 months to cleanse east punjab
3. Population exchange, between greece and turkey in 1922
All easy options were lost in 1947 when the foolish hindus forgave the muslims and let them remain
It took 1400 years to get to this mess and there is no quick easy solution
Just street by street struggles to repel islam on a daily basis for centuries
Unfortunately hindus no longer have the stomach for daily violence
The only thing to contain islam in the meantime is counter breeding
and economic boycott
The foolish west has let in millions of fast breeding muslims
and the western women are infertile
hence it is likely that muslim demographic critical mass and civil war may happen sooner in the west than in India
Hence NRIs have not escaped the muslim menace
UK hindus daily face islamic riots
Ultimately only china will defeat islam, because it is using islamic methods on islam
.