Kissinger of Death

re:#101 by ali87
It has now become fashionable for Pakistani muslims in this and other forums to quote Gujarat pogrom whenever they want to embarass hindus. But the world today is troubled by Islamic terrorism, with its epicenter in Pakistan and NOT by hindu fundamentalism. India and US are forging a security alliance like the one with Singapore, Australia. Check out this news in Nation and think about why this is happening to Pakistanis and not the vily Indoos:
url: http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/241202/main/top5.htm

Sridhar

#100 by ssdhillon on December 18, 2002 3:58pm PT

+++++++++++++++
My problem with people like you is that your criticism of the US is very insincere. You are trying to prove that the US is to blame for everything.
On the other hand you defend Saudi Arabia...the chief supporter of terrorism in the world.
+++++++++

From what I can make out if this criticism came from a Hindu or any other non-Muslim then it can be seen in its true light. Thus you offer no reason to declining my argument(so can I assume that you accept essentially accept the arugment?) only it is not good since it is insincere on my part not to blame Saudi Arabia along side.

Read my posts again. I have not offered any justification or analysis of saudi actions. only that their actions should be judged by the same rules that apply to hindus in Gujrat as well the americcan massacares around the world. Also you if you read my earlier posts you i have clearly said that im not any fan of what the Saudi do or dont do.

That said reading your posts in chowk it seems fair to me that you subscribe to the theory of denoucing actions of Muslim Invaders over a 500 year history of India and thus holding present day muslims accountable for it.

Now how un-orignal of you. You are vary of the leftist historians that much you have admitted(Im not to enamoured of them either). However it is intellectual dishonesty to let our like or dislike cloud over better judgement. The need to examine impatrially facts wether they come from biased sources or unbiased sources. It our duty to sift the fact from Ideology.
Now you dont do that you replace it with another ideology. (The BJP, RSS kind)

Lets us say that we go with your arguments and do admit what you say about Muslim Invaders (which I accept as a fact even if you exxagarate it quite a bit). In nearly 5 thousand years of history muslim invaders came about 500 years back. Even during this 500 years they ruled paritaly or through local kings and appointes.

You want to say that the hindu kings were a peaceable lot? They had courtly arguments instead of wars?? They did not kill one another in the name of various sects? They had no action in eliminating the Buddhists(you are lucky that there are few records of that). You are saying that Hindu kings did not loot temples when they conqured and raided neghibouring kingdoms? (Is it not a fact that temples were a political statements and a vehicle of power dispensation and housed many riches and often royal treasuries, many aspects of the temples had little to do with religon)

You are saying that in the thousands of years of history all the muder and mayhem was done by muslims only?

Im not denying that many muslim invaders killed natives in war and at times in punishment many time not justified. However this was nothing different from what anyone else was doing at that time. On the other hand there is also evidience once they consolidated thier empires the were as fair (as much as you can ask any one in their social context to be) or as punitive as any one else. Aslo there is plenty of evidience to inidcate that they did not anhiliate the hindus (800 millon are proof they did not do that)
Now then comes the isue of snatched land(pakistan and bangladesh). Now there are nearly 400 million muslims in the south Asia nearly 40 percent of the total people. These rations were similar earlier 50 years back , 100, years back and even earlier.

On the earlier hand look at the population of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Central Asia these are quite small compared to India(undivided) and have been so historically for a very long time. So people did come and Invade from these lands and those people themselves were converts to Islam. Simlarly most people in South Asia are of native origin(much as you would like to belive otherwise) If they accepted Islam under force then it goes to say that Hinduism has been weak in its ideological moorings that it could not adapt these people back to Hinduism.

So your complaint boils down to why these people converted and thus giving you a sense of inferiority in your own land. If you are angry about that then you suppourt a thinking that people are not free to choose (even if that choice is passive in present time as most choose because they are born into Islam)their way of life.
It does not help that Hinduism while it tolerates many ways of life(you can choose your own god or way of life)but at the same time makes structures which (which incidently form the basis of socitey for thousands of years) have discriminated (the dalits,, now who were those people? ... that is another story)heavily against large sections of the population to the extent not considering them as part of their socitey(usually far less in important than animals.. Read what your Ideological gurus say from time to time about Dalits Vs Cow).

Now would do you worry about the Dalits who you have treated even worse than the Invaders have treated hindus as?? Now can I call your complaints as Insincere?? Do you acknowlege that in human treatment?? Im not sure. Most of India does not. (Witness how nothign will come out of the Harayana cow skinning incident. )

Yes I agree that there are great humanist principles in various texts of yours I also see the reality that is far from the Ideal (Now this is your compalint about Islam and muslims too) of the peacefull people living in harmony with not only men but animals as well as nature.

Read the recent political history of India to develve in to the myth of peacefull nature of Hinduism.

2000 muslims killed in Gujrat, 3000 Sikhs killed in Delhi roits. Plenty of condemenation (including by people who participated in in them) will any action be taken against these peace loving people?? Guess what ? You know the answer. You only look for condemanation. Empty words!! Words brefet of action have no meaning.

So now comes your protests against Saudi Arabia(notice im at present not offering any opinoin about their actions ... In case you jump the gun again) terrorists etc.
Let us look at the number of people killed by them and consider also why. Then count the number of muslims and other minority and dalits(most action can be linked to the Idealogicial moorings of the Hindu right wether it comes in a congress rule or Bjp rule)

But even that is nothing. Consider the people killed by the West in the crusades, occupationof forigen land, Colonial ism, marxsim(including subjugation of many musim countries now free from their rule), vietnam the tally adds up to nearly 30 million or more. I do not want to disregard the killing of millions by muslims more recently in bangaldesh and in the iran iraq war and in afirca etc,

here My point is that much of this can be laid at the door of muslims but any one will be hardpressed to justify that as a islamic action.

However the crusades, colonialism, the recent world wars, now american Imperialism there is a common thread and that is the justificaion of what is called Manifest Destiny. This concept has not changed for hundreds of years and is still being touted as ``US uses its power responsibly``, ``Colatteral Damage`` ``Worth the sacrifice(of others lives??!! not their own!!)`` `` America is destined to be the leader of the world`` ``We will not allow any country to become as powerful as us miitarily or economicaly`` ``American Intrests (There fore if any time American intrests in pakistan conficts with Indias then India will have to bow to it)``
``Globalisation, it is inevitable they say and want to browbeat every country into it

Globalisaiton of economy means only free flow of goods and Captial and not labour which forms the third leg of any economy, similary any and ever commodity which gives any advantage to developing nation is regulated in import, thus textile quotas for imports, and High subsidies if agriculture so that poor countries cant make money from exporting the only thing they can produce cheaply or constantly pushing the bar on eviormental norms for goods produced for export to US , similarly a menaka gandhi withthe help of PETA can protest against slaguhter of camels while all kinds of exotic meat incluidng deer, turkey, crocodile, dogs, Kangroo, etc is leagly available in US. Similarly Leather exports can be stopped from India for inhuman treatment of animals while transporting them from source to markets and slaughter houses.

Face it Dhillon they have got us covered from all bases.

History they say repeats itself (perhaps the usaid thing is that ``if you dont learn from it``) a couple of hundred years back the eurpoeans came to various countries and taking advantage of lose confedration of the then state system got landing and ownership rights for small hamlets (like bombay , pondicherry, Madras, calcutta)Initally they used these terroritries as landing points for their ships for trade. Then they subverted these by making small towns and inviting traders to setupshop there promising very minimal taxes (do you wonder why small nations like singapore, hongkong, oman, dubai, Qutar, Kuwait and now Chile are favoirites of the west??) Subsequently gains from conqured lands (in terms of ship loads of silver and Plantations income based on slavery)in the americas enabled them to finance these entery ports in the Indian land mass(Now you know what is the value of pet dicators and cheap oilis). They started giving out loans to the zamindars and sponsring small troop formations in the local power brokers like zamindars etc , then with this basis of money and ownership(indirect though) of troops they penetrated the social structure of the Inidan states. The offered to mediate (mixing trade, finiancing and peace keeping roles by virtue of financing troops of local zamindars) in local disputes and in a few decades they made themselves indispensable to the local patorns. All this was much before the East India company was formed. Subsequently the bought their own armed men from eruope as well as started maintianing thier own band of paid local troops (to guard their peaceful havens) Were their intentions just to trade?? Indian traders as well as Arabs have traded without the need to get bases for nearly a thousand years. Sometime back in europe they agressively fought each other for religon and initated Crusades usually they never compromised on any where anhiiation or the other was usually thier goal. When they turned to the rejection of older religous edicts and slowly moved to protestant movemnt the took upon trade and occupation of forigen lands to boost their strength against each other.
Thus conquest and anhiliation of Millions of natives was justified as ``Manifest Destiny`` in americas and austrila and those who were weak they had Aparthied impsosed on them.
the key was to manufacture a reason to justify anhilliation where possible and where not complete subjucation and where even that was not possible there was ``White mans burden`` ie to keep the natives from killing each other (you and I should thank our stars that arabs did not subscribe to such notions).they did not care about the religous affliation of people (missonaries were used just as atool in a afterthought) their only intention was to grab land and wealth by all means possible the had little use for people.

Now we have a similar situation there are debates going on about how America can be a Just Imperial power (dont tell me you are not aware).
most of the world is surrounded by such pliable entreports(small pliable countries ruled by despots and subjugated allies under american military protection. who have pacificst constituion which regect any miitary role for their countries) which dance at the tune of America. America funds and finances most of the business around the world directly or indirectly thorugh its companies.
Now there are more american troops in more countries and more military officers, america allied business men and politicans than any time in history. America does not love democracy it prefers to deal with dictators as they dont ask questions they only quote a price.

With past and continuing action this scenarion is stirkingly similar to what it was before colonialism. Even same paralels are there while US companes and their patents are rigorusly protectd as well as their investments (wheter they bribed officals or not)are procted native recources are stolen (rembeer the basmati, neem, haldi and the genomoe mapping of biodiversity ) or killed by the ingenous means (Genticaly modified crops which require that the farmer buy seed from american companies every time he wants to sow as the seed produced does not natrualy germinate).
What next will you wait for Dhillonji? Till they buldoze the feilds in punjab to make way for golf courses(buy from america we have plenty of sulprus agriucltural produce--- which by the way was paid through heavy subsidy).

In case you mistake all this to conclude that I hate america I just want to say that I will protect my self against their deeds but I dont need to hate them for it just their actions. This is not to be confused with what my or your opinon about their very good social structrue in US it self. But forigen policy is another thing. More than 95% americans have to slog for their keep the alternative extreme poverty. They hardly have the time or inclination to see what the govt(controlled by the big business and its lobbies--- dont you love the concept of leagal lobbying??) does abroad The media never independent of the big business control toes in the line of the Govt be cause it promotes its intrests and has no stake in informing the masses of the role of the Govt abroad feeds it with black and white stories.

So Dhillonji our respective greviances are just loose change compared to the big threat we have before us in form of the imperal US. Just put it out of your mind that I hate them and love the Saudis. Hate cant acomplish much as Gandhi(Now dont call him leftist or a coward) preached and Godse and now Modi and Sharon have shown in their own preverse way and this is what the (now i know you wont belive it) Quran had informed some 1400 years back.

#99 by ali87 on December 17, 2002 10:02pm PT

+++++++++++++
Looks like all of Islamic countries hate US therefore it is to reason the rest of the world loves US..

Smart way of gauging the world opinion man.. keep it up.

+++++++++++++


My problem with people like you is that your criticism of the US is very insincere. You are trying to prove that the US is to blame for everything.
On the other hand you defend Saudi Arabia...the chief supporter of terrorism in the world.

Save me the sarcasm........I can also come up with a couple of wise-ass comments like these.

#88 by ssdhillon on December 11, 2002 7:08am PT

<>

<>

Hmm... Dhillon ji looks like you like to take polls world wide. Probably your method goes like this.

Looks like all of Islamic countries hate US therefore it is to reason the rest of the world loves US..

Smart way of gauging the world opinion man.. keep it up.

````Kissinger has resigned from heading the commission due to conflict of interests````(hari)

GOOD RIDDANCE

to hassann #51

no hassann you read carefully: i did not say that kissinger authored the domino theory, i said he was part of the same establishment that came up with ideas like the domino t... that club includes McNamara.

i hold exactly the opposite sentiment as you, when you say that kissinger was a strategic thinker... where has that kind of thinking got us?

and you clumsily have sidestepped my simple line on kissinger:
``Kissinger is very well known for having argued that US interest is a reason in and of itself. It has nothing to do with moral consideration.``

that kind of american policymaking is getting us all in a world of trouble...

the kind of men that are kissinger, mcnamara, and of their generation and homegrown--altaf gauhar-- i wish had never existed...




on December 9, 2002 11:49am PT
Rehan:

Your observations are factually wrong and flawed although I believe that Kissinger is not the best man for this job. Kissnger does have a sense of history and he alongwith Nixon in fact changed the course of history.

Kissinger was not the person who started the Viet Nam war, nor he was the person who brought the peace to the Middle East. The so called Domino Theory was not his invention. The left leaning liberals of Kennedy era including Robert Mcnamara started this Viet Nam War.

Kissinger and Nixon started reducing the forces in Nam gradually to save the honour and prestige of the USA. Read and you will find that his efforts were mainly to negotiate orderly withdrawal.

You may not like it, but he is strategic thinker of the World affairs and there is hardly anyone who has come along to guide American foreign policy.

I will say that Clinton in his second term emerged as a president with a first hand knowledge of World. He followed centrist policies.
I know that some readers will condemn his personal character but that would be an immature and idiotic response.

********Latest News****************

Newswire indicate Kissinger has resigned from heading the commission due to conflict of interests.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Arjun,

`But the fact that Dubya was in the guard or Cheney hasnt served has no bearing on the iraq policy`.

It is not a question of whether, a military person is, or is not a better person to make the decisions at the political level. The point is morality of a person who hid behind excuses, when it was his turn to serve in the armed forces, going for an avoidable war, and risking other peoples lives.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

{{i don`t think anyone said that, you`re just causing trouble :) as usual.}}

scouty,

Aw, c`mon sis, I`m just giving credit where credit is due--& you accuse me of ``causing trouble``:)!

It wasnt ``anyone`` who said that---MOIS said that !!!

Considering the population growth rate of Pakistan, you Pakistani shernian can not only out-breed Indian stris, but probably boast one of the highest rates in the world!

Let me HUMBLY surmise that you Pakistani ladies just reserve your incredible beauty ONLY for your husbands` pleasure & wont share it with the rest of the world---like in a demeaning beauty contest...

Aaap shareef devian kisi se kam nahin!!

er...either that , or your handsome Pakistani male counterparts have absolutely NO clue of what contraception means!!:)))

For all those Pakistanis who think that America is a reliable friend:

Kissinger in his book ``Years of Renewal`` says that the US had already conceded the independence of Bangladesh, India was aware of it, but India wanted to humiliate Pakistan and that is the only reason India went to war with Pakistan. So, there goes US support for the territorial integrity of Pakistan.

The US with equal alacrity declared its support for a ``One China`` policy and abandoned Taiwan under Kissinger.

That same China that keeps making noises about uniting Taiwan with the Motherland doesn`t say a single word about the Republic of Mongolia, a far larger country that seceded from China in 1924 with Russian support. It does look like Russia is a more reliable partner.

# 87 by AzadMunna on December 10, 2002 9:46pm PT
+++++
Chinese hate America & Indians hate America except for VHp RSS & BJP latelly .who have Agnotri as Ambassador at large for the first time or 48 yrs India hated America & cordial with russia.
+++++


That is not true. The ordinary guy in India has a lot of admiration for the US. India was more friendly with Russia because Nehru believed in a socialist system. In any case he believed in non-allignment rather than taking sides in the cold war.

BTW it was not the common man burning flags. The commies(or the socialists) were. They still do. That is the nature of their politics. That is probably the reason they could never do well in more than two states(W. Bengal and Kerala). Even in those states they did not win on an anti - US agenda. It was more anti-capitalist, pro- labour union etc etc.


“Same is true in Pakistan...some support in Admin & less among th people .”

The situation in India is not the same as Pakistan. The common man in Pakistan is taught day in and day out that Israel and US are evil. That is not the case in India. The truth is exactly the opposite. In India the ruling class was historically very socialist(George Fernandes kicked out IBM and Coke the last time he had some power). They were more anti – US than the common man.

ssdhillon #80 I will grant you that Aamir could write more clearly. In fact I will add that I dont generally read Aamir`s posts since he makes them illegible by intermingling quotes from others with his own comments, leaving yards of white space, and so forth. I think he is a smart fellow though, but if he cant be bothered to write clearly, I just skip his posts.

sadna#60

``but the environment and social conditioning in which these choices are made are also someone`s responsibility.
``

Good point. The truth is I dont know the answer. May be the so called ``free will`` is indeed not so free as you imply. May be our ``free choices`` even in our personal sphere are conditioned by the social norms. So there is obviously a limit to my argument; exactly where that limit is unclear to me. Perhaps that limit depends upon specific situations...

The example you gave underscores how many of us actually become a slave of the ``expected`` social behaviors. Nothing is more annoying than to listen to the fake World Peace speech from the beauty queens. One wonders do they know the complexity of what they talk about. I regard these paegents as sort of frivolous activities. But I oppose any attempt by the thekedars of morality, who are immoral themselves, to
ban it.

PS There are two interesting ``labels`` in the American language- cool and nerd. Somehow both are incomprehensible to me :-)

[ #76 by AmericanExpress on December 10, 2002 1:25pm PT
...
AND THEN YOU HAVE REDUCED LIFE TO TRIVIALITY FOR YOU WOMEN FOLK SO MUCH THAT THEY THINK BODY WEIGHT DETERMINES WHO SHOULD LIVEAND WHO NOT .

Weight-gain, illness drives top model to death ...]

Couldn`t this girl`s thyroid problems be behind her depression? In that case at least partly the doctor treating her was responsible. Indian doctors are not the best in the world. Also if this problem was there right from childhood then parent`s responsibility is also there. But in India there is no concept of mental illness. People frown upon pill popping so people do not go in time for early diagnosis. When at last violence, jadoo tona and pooja path does not work then they go for medical advice.

-ew