Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 14:47:55 +0200 From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> 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: <20010928144755.C7471@lpt.ens.fr> In-Reply-To: <3BB427FD.61AE3E6A@mindspring.com>; from tlambert2@mindspring.com on Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 12:34:21AM -0700 References: <1001447850.3bb0e1aa11dfc@webmail.neomedia.it> <20010925222900.A71817@lpt.ens.fr> <3BB216E8.89F3419@mindspring.com> <20010926202630.C10954@lpt.ens.fr> <3BB427FD.61AE3E6A@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert said on Sep 28, 2001 at 00:34:21: > > > > There is no question of placating. Just don't meddle in their > > affairs, they don't concern you. That is the only message here. > > The problem is that they consider the destruction of Israel > to be one of their affairs, I'm frankly at a loss of words at your caricature of the Israel situation throughout your emails, so I'll keep quiet; maybe someone else will take the bait. I've been to Israel, and met many Israelis, some as recently as last month, and while I wouldn't call them unbiased they knew much more of the history of the situation than you seem to and seemed to understand the Palestinian point of view much better. We can continue this in private email if you like. > Get this straight: the attacks of 11 September were the > responsibility of the attackers. There is no argument about that, and never was. The argument is about the responsibility the US has in framing a response. > India wanted to trade above the level needed to alleviate > any unnecessary suffering of the civilian population in Iraq, What would you call "necessary suffering"? The deaths of 150000 people through disease and starvation? Does it become "unnecessary" only if it exceeds some threshold? > Realize that the U.S. is currently free from outside rule > because of a revolutionary war, in which "ordinary Americans" > gave their lives in order to throw off the yoke of a nation > which, at the time, was opressing them. > > I think that the basic issue that you are not understanding is > that, given its origins, it is almost unimaginable for average > U.S. citizens that someone starving to death because corrupt > government officials are selling off relief supplies would not > rise up, and similarly, give their lives to throw off the yoke > those corrupt government officials. That's right; all over the world where corrupt dictatorial regimes rule, be it Myanmar, or much of Africa, or China, or sundry other places, it is the people who are at fault for not throwing out their dictators. I wonder whether you realise what you sound like. > > > 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? > > Your statements regarding Pakistan, in these emails. This is getting interesting. Which statements? Most of my statements have been quotes from the Pakistani press (admittedly, the liberal sections of it). > > > 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, > > What about as a percentage of the population, rather than as > a raw count? Here's the answer: > > India Hindu 81.3% > Muslim 12% > Christian 2.3% > Sikh 1.9% > other groups including Buddhist, Jain, Parsi 2.5% > > Pakistan Muslim 97% (Sunni 77%, Shi'a 20%) > Christian, Hindu, and other 3% > > And FWIW: > > Afghanistan Muslim 99% (Sunni 84%, Shi'a 15%), > other 1% I know all that perfectly well. You are only proving that if partition hadn't happened, the percentage of Muslims in India would have been some 25% rather than 12%. Big difference, indeed. You also said this self-segregation "has continued", which is absolutely not true, at least not in India. As for your numbers: 12% of a billion people is a very large number. And this number is not homogeneously mixed through the country; some areas (parts of Uttar Pradesh in the north, or Hyderabad in the south, for example) have large Muslim populations, perhaps 50% or more; other parts have very few. The proportion of muslims in mainstream professions is comparable with, often better than, their proportion in the population. Indeed, a quite disproportionately large fraction of the more popular musicians and actors, for example, are muslim. (Ironically, both these professions are banned by the Taliban.) 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?20010928144755.C7471>