06-03-2004, 10:58 AM
You need a subscription to access this article, i believe.
The word games have begun already. But we in the Indian subcontinent are long acquainted with these games.When a terrorist is a Muslim he is automaticallly a militant. of course it is never explained what he is militant about and of course it is never explicitly stated that these socalled brave and courageous militants are also almost always killers of women and children. the unfortunate but unavoidabe consequences of a coflict in the words of the good CEO from across the border. Unavoidable , my dear general ? all it would take is a word from you Herr General and the killing of women and children would stop.
Godhara and its aftermath is now invariably referred to as a pogrom by our homegrown leftists but it is never explained why in a pogrom hundreds of policemen are killed or that several hundred Hindus were killed. But i forget Killing of Hindus doesnt count. it matters only when Muslims are killed. Otherwise how to explain the fact that the initiating event in Godhara is hardly ever mentioned.
So the moral equivalence goes on, something that Europe is only just discovering. But we have been used to facing this moral equivalence from our long and lugubrious history. We are told, that history does not matter and neither does it matter that the greatest and most massive holocaust was committed during the last seven centuries. What matters is only the present. But what of the present ? The present where 400,000 Hindus have been driven out of otheir homes in their own country . The same present where the Hindu population of pakistan has been decimated from 5 million to nothing. The same present where Hindus in Bangladesh are systematically being eliminated. But in the word games we play the current violence in the subcontinent is all the fault of hindu nationalists such as Atal behari Vajpayee. So the moral equivalence goes on and the word games will continue to be played with gusto and with total disregard for the truth.
The more important consequence of the fecklessness of the US president in fighting the real enemy, is that the war on terrorism has become a mockery. Ameerica is continuing to pay a heavy price for its embrace of the terrorists in Pakistan, just as it paid a heavy price on 9/11 for an act committed in part by those who were initially trained by the US CIA.
Kudos to Garry kasparov for bringing attention to the subtle propaganda being waged to portray the killers and perpetrators of the violence as the victims.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Originally posted by Amber G.in the other forum<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stop the Moral equivalence
BY GARRY KASPAROV
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 12:01 a.m.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It is said that to win a battle you must be the one to choose the battleground. Since the Abu Ghraib abuses were revealed, the battleground has been chosen by those who would blur the lines between terrorists and those fighting against them. The Bush administration has contributed to the confusion with its ambiguous "war on terror." You cannot fight a word. You need targets, you need to know what you are fighting for and against. Most importantly you must have beliefs that enable you to distinguish friend from foe.
While al Qaeda may not have a headquarters to bomb, there is no shortage of visible adversaries. What is required is to name them and to take action against them. We must also drag into the light those leaders and media who fail to condemn acts of terror. It is not only Al Jazeera talking about "insurgents" in Iraq, it is CNN. Many in Europe and even some in the U.S. are trying to differentiate "legitimate" terrorism from "bad" terrorism. Those who intentionally kill innocent civilians are terrorists, as are their sponsors. <b>No political agenda should be allowed to advance through terrorist activity. We need to identify our enemy, not play with words.</b>
The situation is worse in the Muslim world. <b>Calling the terrorists "militants" or "radical Islamists" presupposes the existence of moderates willing to confront the radicals. Outside of Turkey, it is very hard to find moderate clerics who will stand up to Islamist terrorists</b> , even though the majority of their victims are Muslim. In Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr has been murdering his religious opposition and using armed gangs to establish political rule. He appears immune to anything resembling condemnation. We know that his militia receives outside support--and where would it come from other than Syria and Iran?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The word games have begun already. But we in the Indian subcontinent are long acquainted with these games.When a terrorist is a Muslim he is automaticallly a militant. of course it is never explained what he is militant about and of course it is never explicitly stated that these socalled brave and courageous militants are also almost always killers of women and children. the unfortunate but unavoidabe consequences of a coflict in the words of the good CEO from across the border. Unavoidable , my dear general ? all it would take is a word from you Herr General and the killing of women and children would stop.
Godhara and its aftermath is now invariably referred to as a pogrom by our homegrown leftists but it is never explained why in a pogrom hundreds of policemen are killed or that several hundred Hindus were killed. But i forget Killing of Hindus doesnt count. it matters only when Muslims are killed. Otherwise how to explain the fact that the initiating event in Godhara is hardly ever mentioned.
So the moral equivalence goes on, something that Europe is only just discovering. But we have been used to facing this moral equivalence from our long and lugubrious history. We are told, that history does not matter and neither does it matter that the greatest and most massive holocaust was committed during the last seven centuries. What matters is only the present. But what of the present ? The present where 400,000 Hindus have been driven out of otheir homes in their own country . The same present where the Hindu population of pakistan has been decimated from 5 million to nothing. The same present where Hindus in Bangladesh are systematically being eliminated. But in the word games we play the current violence in the subcontinent is all the fault of hindu nationalists such as Atal behari Vajpayee. So the moral equivalence goes on and the word games will continue to be played with gusto and with total disregard for the truth.
The more important consequence of the fecklessness of the US president in fighting the real enemy, is that the war on terrorism has become a mockery. Ameerica is continuing to pay a heavy price for its embrace of the terrorists in Pakistan, just as it paid a heavy price on 9/11 for an act committed in part by those who were initially trained by the US CIA.
Kudos to Garry kasparov for bringing attention to the subtle propaganda being waged to portray the killers and perpetrators of the violence as the victims.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Originally posted by Amber G.in the other forum<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stop the Moral equivalence
BY GARRY KASPAROV
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 12:01 a.m.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It is said that to win a battle you must be the one to choose the battleground. Since the Abu Ghraib abuses were revealed, the battleground has been chosen by those who would blur the lines between terrorists and those fighting against them. The Bush administration has contributed to the confusion with its ambiguous "war on terror." You cannot fight a word. You need targets, you need to know what you are fighting for and against. Most importantly you must have beliefs that enable you to distinguish friend from foe.
While al Qaeda may not have a headquarters to bomb, there is no shortage of visible adversaries. What is required is to name them and to take action against them. We must also drag into the light those leaders and media who fail to condemn acts of terror. It is not only Al Jazeera talking about "insurgents" in Iraq, it is CNN. Many in Europe and even some in the U.S. are trying to differentiate "legitimate" terrorism from "bad" terrorism. Those who intentionally kill innocent civilians are terrorists, as are their sponsors. <b>No political agenda should be allowed to advance through terrorist activity. We need to identify our enemy, not play with words.</b>
The situation is worse in the Muslim world. <b>Calling the terrorists "militants" or "radical Islamists" presupposes the existence of moderates willing to confront the radicals. Outside of Turkey, it is very hard to find moderate clerics who will stand up to Islamist terrorists</b> , even though the majority of their victims are Muslim. In Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr has been murdering his religious opposition and using armed gangs to establish political rule. He appears immune to anything resembling condemnation. We know that his militia receives outside support--and where would it come from other than Syria and Iran?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->