Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 20:26:30 +0200 From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Salvo Bartolotta <bartequi@neomedia.it>, Konstantinos Konstantinidis <kkonstan@duth.gr>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: helping victims of terror Message-ID: <20010926202630.C10954@lpt.ens.fr> In-Reply-To: <3BB216E8.89F3419@mindspring.com>; from tlambert2@mindspring.com on Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 10:56:56AM -0700 References: <1001447850.3bb0e1aa11dfc@webmail.neomedia.it> <20010925222900.A71817@lpt.ens.fr> <3BB216E8.89F3419@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Let me say one thing I should have said earlier: I realise, belatedly, that most Americans are not in a frame of mind to appreciate hearing their governments being criticised, and this is not the right time for me to have done so. I would not have thought of doing it even a week ago. Also, I like and admire many aspects of America, and I liked the Americans whom I've met so far. The liking does not extend to the foreign policy, but I should have kept quiet for now. That said, I'll reply to Terry's mail anyway... Terry Lambert said on Sep 26, 2001 at 10:56:56: > > > > Yes, you're missing a *lot* by apparently characterising the general > > population of Afghanistan as "cavemen". I've also seen your argument > > about "they'd have done this anyway" elsewhere. It's bullshit. Every > > society has its share of fringe lunatics: America has its Jerry > > Falwell too. But in a normal society these people stay in a fringe > > where they belong. It's only at times of repression and difficulty, > > when a noticeable chunk of the population is feeling unjustly dealt > > with and getting desperate (these are mild words, read about these > > countries sometime) that the violent fringe can actually gather a > > following. Even now, Bin Laden has only a few thousand in his fold. > > The other 23 million or so in Afghanistan are victims; they are > > literally starving to death, and in between they are trying to escape > > the violence. > > The unstated assumption here is that it is possible to please > all such people simultaneously, I don't think there was any assumption there about pleasing anyone. My point was that bin Laden and his crowd are a minority, even among the middle Eastern population; and, if America had not been a prosperous country and if people had been starving, faced with foreign occupation, and suffered a general sense of injustice all the time, someone like David Duke would have a much greater following than he does today: probably greater than bin Laden does today, and he would be advocating much more extreme violence than he does right now, being toned down only by fear of US law. That paragraph was not a direct reference to America, only a reference to conditions in which such fanatics can arise. > Even if the U.S. were to completely ignore its own national > best interestests, and cringe in fear while rushing to placate > every potential terrorist before they become angry enough to > attack, pleasing everyone would be impossible. There is no question of placating. Just don't meddle in their affairs, they don't concern you. That is the only message here. Of course, now that they have struck, the US is more or less obliged to strike back, but it should be done *extremely* carefully. But it's a good time for the US to reconsider its involvements with other shady regimes and other internal problems all over the world. > Trying to do this would put the U.S. in the position of the > battered spouses, who blame themselves for the beatings they > receive from their partners. Except that the US is not the spouse of the middle east. Except, perhaps, for Israel. > I maintain that it's not possible to both support Israel to > keep the Israeli's from feeling abandoned, and germinating > their own terrorists, and to not support Israel, so that the > current terrorist fundamentalists are satisfied and thus they > do not engage in future attacks. But the Israel thing doesn't seem to have been uppermost on Osama's mind. Why must the US continue to meddle in all those other countries? (You're also making some shocking implications above -- ie, that the US feels it necessary to support Israel in all circumstances regardless of moral positions, and that the US feels that if it does not support Israel, Israeli terrorists will attack the US, so it's an emotional blackmail involved. But I'm not sure I want to find out more on this.) > Perhaps, as you argue, the attack was a consequence of U.S. > foreign policy. If so, then the path is clear: and it does > not include permitting others to dictate foreign policy. In that case, why is the US seeking to gain the support of countries all over the world now? > > Remaining history is more recent. The Iraq thing was provoked by > > Saddam Hussein, who invaded Kuwait, and Bush Sr had the support of > > most of the Muslim world in liberating them. Where the US went wrong > > was in the continued bombings and embargo on Iraq for ten years > > afterwards, which did not hurt Saddam at all, caused untold suffering > > on his people, and convinced most Arabs that the US does not value > > Arab lives at all. > > The embargo does not extend to food or medical supplies. Excuse me. It included trade, and that includes trade in medicines and food. There was/is a UN "food for oil" scheme, but the US fought tooth and nail to prevent countries (including India) from using it to trade with Iraq. India had the food, and wanted the oil, and did trade, but it involved plenty of nastiness. Iraqi officials may also have pilfered what food did reach Iraq, but that is not the whole story at all. Even if it was, > If Iraq > has chosen to redirect permitted aid, such that it does not reach > its intended destination, then the suffering of their people is on > their own head, not that of those participating in the embargo. That is precisely the attitude that gets the US so widely disliked. "I'll embargo you, but I'll give you some bags of rice on humanitarian grounds, now if your people starve it's your fault." I dislike it enough coming from US bureaucrats, but I absolutely detest it coming from an ordinary American; I really hope you're not representative. > > The Afghan Mujahedin were, as we already > > discussed, funded by the CIA, and then dropped by them, as were the > > Pakistan military, leading a Pakistani general to be quoted recently > > as saying "The US thinks we are like a condom: they can just use us > > and then throw us away." The roots of this present militancy are as > > much as in the extremist elements in Pakistan as in Afghanistan. > > I have heard other Indian nationals claim that the Taliban were > merely puppets of the Pakistani government. Some do claim that; they, in their present form, are undoubtedly *creations* of the Pakistan government, which is now the only country to continue to recognise them. How much control they have is hard to say. > I think that India's > long standing conflict with Pakistan must color these views. Whose views? The puppet view, or the condom view, or my views in these emails? > The > problems between India and Pakistan started with the end of British > colonialism, when the two countries started self-segregating along > religious boundaries, for no reason other than religious intolerance > on both sides. This self-segregation has continued to the point > where the countries are now sharply divided upon religious lines. Ah, now you're trying to know more about India than I do. As a matter of fact, India has more muslims than Pakistan does, and on the whole there is no more trouble (far less, indeed) than there is between, say, Catholics and Protestants in the UK. India has always rejected the "two-nation theory" (the theory that Hindus and Muslims can't get along) and with good reason. In fact the head of the Indian missile programme is a Muslim (Abdul Kalam). So are any number of other prominent people, in all walks of life, including many journalists; I can point you to writings by some of them if you like. Also plenty of Christians, Sikhs and others. R To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010926202630.C10954>