Desicritics Comments on What Will It Take To Be Safe?

Comment by fussball

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:01:23 EDT

Gute Arbeit hier! Gute Inhalte.

Comment by fussball

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:01:21 EDT

Gute Arbeit hier! Gute Inhalte.

Comment by lieben

Fri, 6 Mar 2009 11:31:45 EST

Interessante Informationen.

Comment by lieben

Fri, 6 Mar 2009 11:31:12 EST

Interessante Informationen.

Comment by home loan

Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:05:34 EST

Lovely. Great site.

Comment by reviews

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:56:29 EST

departments cable?passports sink:refresher Irene Aerobacter Lusaka Kamikaze!

Comment by reviews

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:55:35 EST

departments cable?passports sink:refresher Irene Aerobacter Lusaka Kamikaze!

Comment by kerty

Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:38:23 EST

dweep "stronger laws do not make for a safer state, without an ecosystem that can implement those laws." Than create that damn ecosystem if that is what it takes. What is stopping it, except apologetics for not having any laws against terrorism? If leftist are hell-bent on appeasing terrorists for votebank, than you are right, stronger laws will not work either just as existing laws do not work. But that is no excuse for not having laws. Any Law can be abused. But that has not stopped all other laws from being enacted. Again, abuse of law is no excuse for not having laws. Abuse of laws is a secondary problem, and eventually enough checks and balance and oversight can iron them out. "there is a clear parallel here with the patriot act and Guantanamo Bay - neither of which made America safer, and which incidentally are now being rolled back." They got their job done. There has not been any terror attack on American soil since than. They have made America safer. If Al Queda was on the loose in America, do you think America would even think about scrapping them? When Leftists came back to power in India, first thing they did was to scrap POTA. Similarly, since American leftists have come to power in America, they are talking about scrapping patriot act and Guantanamo Bay - but America can handle it. Because America has never lacked the political will to fight terrorism - it does not have to make special laws to make up for its lack of political will. India does have to make special laws to make up for its lack of political will to fight terrorism. "I don't see anything in your comments that tells me how "the right" will make us safer" By breaking their will to use terror. By putting fear in their hears and minds. By creating strong political will to take the war to them. By putting them on the defensive. By making them pay. By terrorizing the terrorists. Even if it does not make us safer immediately, we should make terrorists feel even less safer. Present proposition that only terrorists are safe and everybody else is unsafe is not acceptable. "attacking my political leanings (which you guess incorrectly), is not the same as critiquing my argument" Arguments you have presented are associated with political left. So critique of left and their arguments go hand in hand. Nothing wrong with it as long as criticism is maintained within the context of terrorism.

Comment by kaffir

Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:38:11 EST

Dweep, I go by facts, not a desire to blame the right for everything that's wrong in India. I consider justice more important than ideology or political partisanship, and that's why BJP needs to get in line after Congress for their 1984 acts, victims of which still haven't received justice. I also have no problem talking about Orissa, Singur and Nandigram as they all include misuse of power and breaking of law by respective parties/organizations. But I don't find my stance reflected in most of the posts I read - almost always, there are two camps - one which hypes up Orissa, Ayodhya; and the other camp which mentions Singur and Nandigram. You might want to read my previous comment once more as it seems to me you glossed over some important points I mentioned.

Comment by Dweep

Tue, 2 Dec 2008 03:48:17 EST

Dear kerty...I'm not claiming existing laws are enough. Since I'm not well versed with the intricacies of the Indian justice system, I'm hardly qualified to comment. However, stronger laws do not make for a safer state, without an ecosystem that can implement those laws. In a system where laws are often misused, stronger laws are likely to be even more so. And there is a clear parallel here with the patriot act and Guantanamo Bay - neither of which made America safer, and which incidentally are now being rolled back. Sanjay, kaffir - I'm sure Modi and the BJP appreciate your apologism on their behalf. Yet, I don't see anything in your comments that tells me how "the right" will make us safer. And please remember that attacking my political leanings (which you guess incorrectly), is not the same as critiquing my argument.

Comment by commonsense

Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:00:42 EST

Sanjay: ""kerty, you're right. The Left..."" i doubt if anyone imagines that kerty could ever be on the left...whatever those distinctions mean.

Comment by Sanjay

Mon, 1 Dec 2008 21:26:33 EST

kerty, you're right. The Left want the perks that come from ruling a state, but they don't want the responsibilities. They want their personal bodyguards, they want a tax base to enrich themselves off of, they want to be able to hobknob with other world leaders and international heads of state. They don't want to fulfill any obligations, though. But it's more than just their leaders. When I say the Left, I mean the Left-leaning voters every bit as much as the Leftist politicians they're voting for. These Leftist voters don't have the rationality or the intellect to understand that by voting for their Leftist leaders, they are only hollowing out the ground underneath their very feet. Look at how long Bihar had to suffer under Lalu before its idiot voters could figure out that they were throwing their future away under this man. Indians always learn the hard way. The Left have managed to infest the english-language media, too. You can see how they behave on this blog.

Comment by kerty

Mon, 1 Dec 2008 21:01:59 EST

Sanjay National security implies we have a consensus on what 'nation' is. If left does not agree on what 'nation' is, than what is there to secure? When there is no nation, where is need to national security? Therefore, there is no such thing as traitor, national security threat, national defence. It is such left that dominates Indian political establishment, why India remains a soft state, why India refuses to defend anything, why extremists of all stripe roam the mainstream rather than running underground for cover.

Comment by Sanjay

Mon, 1 Dec 2008 20:38:36 EST

Our lying Left are trying to leap into action right away, to keep the public from reacting naturally towards self-defense. They want to keep us in the same place we were before this happened. Because they don't understand that by keeping us in place, they will ensure that such crimes happen to us again. And again. And again and again. Our Left are totally out of touch with reality. Even when reality jumps out and bites them in the face, as it has done thru these attacks, our Left just want to wish it away, and close their eyes, and plug their ears. Anything to avoid having to deal with the ugly realities that they can't accept. "Don't make strong moves on national security," they say. "It will only lead to chauvinism and riots. Don't look towards those who constantly raise the national security issue. It's all a big trick. Because national security can't really be that important to anyone. If someone is giving high priority to national security, it must be because they're trying to pull a political stunt." Yeah, you go on believing that, Left-wing crooks.

Comment by kerty

Mon, 1 Dec 2008 20:33:17 EST

Those who claim existing civilian laws are good enough should have treated the terrorists as civilians and waited till they were proven guilty in court of laws - let it be treated as crime scene to be taken care by local police. Why were institutions of war invoked to deal with them? Why was it treated as war on Mumbai, war on nation? Why were terrorists treated as enemy combatants and killed with military means? Therein lies the disingenuity of the arguments that terrorists should be treated within civilian mechanisms of laws.

Comment by kerty

Mon, 1 Dec 2008 19:51:34 EST

Those who claim that existing laws are enough to fight terrorism seek to demote terrorism as ordinary crimes to be fought within civilian framework. Would they extend the same rationale to gender-specific laws meant to fight crimes against women? Why existing laws are not deemed good enough to handle crimes against women, but in case of terrorism that target both men and women, we are told repeatedly that existing laws in India are sufficient. UN, USA, UK etc all have acknowledged that existing statutes that deal with civilian crimes are not sufficient to tackle terrorism. Law enforcement is a reactive institution. It arrives on the scene after crime is committed, when it is too late. One needs proactive and preemptive approach to go after terrorists before they strike. Counter-terrorism can not exist within the framework of existing laws meant for civilians.

Comment by kaffir

Mon, 1 Dec 2008 19:40:44 EST

And let us not forget that the BJP would also give us more Ayodhya's and Godhra's. How many Godhras and Ayodhyas have happened in BJP controlled state governments, or when NDA was in power? How about Nandigrams and Singurs? Trading in civil liberties, sacrificing secularism, and alienating 140 million Indian Muslims would hardly make for a safer India. Secularism? The same secularism that gave us Shah Bano case? Or the one where Laloo Prasad Yadav goes around with a guy dressed like Osama BL to garner Muslim votes with no criticism? Where a Bitta Karatey is ignored and Babu Bajrangi is hyped up in the media instead of focus on both? Where MF Hussain is championed (though wrt protest against his paintings, but not for his film) and Taslima Nasreen is ignored? That kind of secularism needs to be sacrificed quickly for a more consistent and universal one. As for alienating 140 million Indian Muslims, let them take responsibility for themselves and start condemning unconditionally the extremist elements in their religion instead of justifying it. The condescending big brother majority attitude needs to go. Let them start protesting against lack of education and health-care instead of protesting against what's happening thousands of kilometers away in Iraq or Palestine. That kind of ummahgiri can wait till they are educated and making a living. One more thing: this is not the time to take pot-shots at political parties or to settle scores based on ideology. National security comes first and foremost and all parties need to unite on this issue, so your post is a bit disappointing in that respect, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Comment by Sanjay

Mon, 1 Dec 2008 18:49:23 EST

Oh good grief. Of course nationalist parties have the greater credibility on national security. They constantly raise that issue all the time, and justifiably so, because India happens to live in a tough neighborhood with predatory neighbors. If India was located elsewhere, like North America, then naturally there would be no such need for Indians to be concerned as much about national security. The fact that we're inextricably located in a particularly unsafe part of the world, should compel us to support nationalism, with its natural inclination towards national security. Given the dangerous neighborhood we live in, we simply don't have the luxury to wastefully vote for any old soft-hearted lefty party. Gujarat is a local state govt, and certainly a local state doesn't have the resources to fight off the attacks from a country like Pakistan. That's why NATIONAL security is a NATIONAL responsibility of the NATIONAL govt in New Delhi. Next you'll be blaming Gujarat for not having its own airforce or nuclear deterrent. And if you keep playing games by attacking the ideologies and belief systems which support national security, then I certainly hope you die in the next terrorist attack, so that you get your comeuppance. Once your own life is placed on the line as a result of your own corrupt arguments, then you'll rue your words too late. Those of us who support national security should not have to suffer from fools like you who would use convoluted and contrived arguments to undermine security and safety.