Desicritics Comments on The Wasteland of Hatred

Comment by commonsense

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:47:05 EST

Kerty: ""CS That would be Jehadi dream come true"" It would be identical to Kerty's wet dreams...

Comment by kerty

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:39:02 EST

CS That would be Jehadi dream come true, wouldn't it? Having cleansed us off in Pakistan(from 23% to less than 2%), they dream to weed us out from India too. Mumbai attacks must be their surgical strike to weed us out. I must say, they have succeeded very well in Kashmir. And you have us peeing in our pants all over India. Onward jehadi soldiers.

Comment by commonsense

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:00:57 EST

Dhiraj, That's a great idea! About parachuting Kerty and his minions into pakistan such that their theoretical dreams become realities, and they can Rambo-like, put an end to terrorism, once and for all...

Comment by Dhiraj Singh

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:53:00 EST

I have a better idea, my friend... why don't we ship guys like you and kerty to Pakistan so that you can weed out the terrorists there itself... why bother filling up our jails with them... jails that are spilling over with our own terrorists anyway.

Comment by BangaloreGuy

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:31:40 EST

Cant we just ship folks with such amenable thoughts (as the author) back to Pakistan so we can get the terrorists outta there and into our jails? (or maybe we can make an act. For every terrorist attack send a hundred such folks out to Pakistan. Let them enjoy Pakistani hospitality, which they so obviously crave)

Comment by Morris

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:11:06 EST

She appears to be saying that India is heading towards civil war. What signs she is seeing for that? India must choose between her vision of justice(whatever that is) or civil war. She seems to be instigating civil war. She is an author. Is,nt she? A very dangerous person, she is unable to see any good any where.

Comment by Ledzius

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 01:09:34 EST

It has become fashionable for pseudo-intellectuals like Arundathi Roy to hate India and everything it stands for. For example, check out her article "Monster In the Mirror" published in the Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/12/mumbai-arundhati-roy She should perhaps realise that the monster she sees in the mirror is none but herself.

Comment by Dhiraj Singh

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:56:18 EST

Absolutely... she's become a literary terrorist... arriving at the worst possible scenarios and outcomes in a bid to make her case... here's what Rushdie had to say bout her remark here: "We're told one of these hotels is an icon of the city of Mumbai. That's absolutely true. It's an icon of the easy, obscene injustice that ordinary Indians endure every day." -(Arundhati Roy) I thought that particular remark in her piece was disgusting. The idea that the deaths of the rich don't matter because they are rich is disgusting. The idea that the 12 members of the Taj staff, who heroically gave their lives to save many of the guests, are to be discounted because they were presumably the lackeys of the rich -- this is nauseating. This is amoral. And she should be ashamed of herself. (Salman Rushdie)

Comment by Morris

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:47:34 EST

Thank kerty Intersting reading. She sounds like a hatemonger herself.

Comment by kerty

Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:07:38 EST

An Open Letter To Arundhati Roy ABHINAV KUMAR, IPS officer The Outlook India "To call the foreign funded insurgency in Kashmir and the terror attacks across the country as justified blowback for the failures of the Indian state and civil society is both false and callous. It implies a failure of the imagination and the intellect and the complete abdication of moral responsibility by you." Read full article http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20081219&fname=abhinav&sid=1

Comment by kerty

Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:04:43 EST

9 Is Not 11 By Arundhati Roy Read Full article http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20081222&fname=ARoy+%28F%29&sid=1

Comment by Morris

Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:55:19 EST

kerty I have never said that Islam is a religion of peace. That was Bush who said it. There is a lot of violence in Islam both among the belivers and a lot directed towards nonbelievers. Perhaps that is because prophet himself was a warrior. But I am not considering such violence as terrorism. What is happening in Iraq is a kind civil war and I do not consider that a terrorism either. If you are trying to tell me that there is a lot unjustifiable violence in islam, I have no argument. I do not know. You may be right. But that does not mean all violence has no justification whatsoever. You seem to agree that PLO or say Hamas violence is due to injustices. So why not the one in Mumbai due to Kashmir? Perhaps I should have defined what I mean by terrorism. Terrorism is a violent act carried out by a person or persons at a location usually some distance away from where pepratators reside with an intent to terrorise by destroying lives(including their own) and property. Therefore a lot of incidents you lited are just general violence. I agree there is a lot of violence around the world and Islam appears to have been involved in most of it. And a lot of it appears to be senseless. All I am trying to do is to make some sense wherever possible. Perhaps by doing so we can learn to managae or prevent. May be it cannot be done. But let us try. Unlike you my mind is not made up I am searching for the truth. Every one is entitled to a just and fair deal even if that person may turn out to be a Jihadi.

Comment by Kerty

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:41:13 EST

Morris "Almost all terrorist acts can be traced to such perceived injustices" One of the biggest disservice(apologetics) one can do is to confuse Islamic terrorism with the following: 1- crimes that arise out of economic conditions 2- revolutionary uprising that arise out of ideological quest 3- Separatist insurgencies arising out of quest for autonomy and independence 4- violent retributions that arise out of wrongs or injustices 5- Confuse Jehadi terrorism with LTTE(#3) or PLO(#3,4) or Maoists(#2) What were excuses for terrorism before Gujarat riots, before Babri demolition, before Kahsmir, before creation of Pakistan, thru out Moghul period, during medieval era? Ideologies of imperialism, hegemony, world conquests do not need sense of injustices to engage in Jehads and crusades. Hatred of everything non-islamic is not derived from sense of injustices, it is derived from religious dogma - liberal democracies and liberal civilizations epitomize the direct challenge to them. That is what draws Jehadis towards them. One can't give into them.

Comment by commonsense

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:36:22 EST

Kerty: ""If I were a jehadi..." If? If? what's the difference between kerty and jihadi??

Comment by Morris

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:23:59 EST

Many people have suggested that the cause of terrorism is poverty. I have always disagreed. If that was the case we can see some correlation betweent poverty and terrorism. But that is not so. So what is the cause? I think the cause of terrorism is perceived injustice. When such injustices appeared to have been done to the people who are unable to find any recourse either through judicially or through conventional war, they are likely to resort to terrorism. Almost all terrorist acts can be traced to such perceived injustices. Modern day terrorism arose from middle east. Palestinians feel that in 1947 they were unjustly driven out of their homes. May not be unjustly but that is what they perceive. As if that was not enough, Israel grabbed more land and this time illegally after 67 war. Arabs now know that they cannot win any conventional war and right the wrongs that have been done to them. They are frustrated. So they resort to terrorism. Why did they hit NY coz US supports Israel. Why London? Coz UK was a major partner with Bush attacking Iraq. And so on. Every act can be traced to a perceived injusice. The same applies to LTTE terrorism in Sri Lanka. Please do not take this as my support for terrorism or terrorists. I am simply trying to understand what is going on. Now in the context of India, after 1947 there may have been other problems, but not the kind of terror acts we are seeing now. I think the origin of this is in Kashmir. Pakistan and their people feel that India has unjustly taken over Kashmir. It is their perception. May be they are wrong but that is not the point. Pakistan knows that they cannot win the conventional war. So while they may not be actively involved in supporting terrorists, it is likely that they do not make any serious efforts to stop them. They are passively supporting the cause. It is interesting to note that under BJP there was a diologue going and I think they even implied that they are willing to talk about Kashmir. Under Congress such hope has been dashed. The Congress now cannot even mention the word Kashmir because that would mean that they were wrong to begin with. Powerful countries when they commit questionable acts should dig deeper in their hearts and see whether what they did or are doing is just and fair. And if they feel justified, they must try hard to explain their position and/or compensate the aggrieved party. I believe terrorism is here to stay and all we can do is to try to contain it by smart thinking.

Comment by commonsense

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:47:00 EST

Ooops! As usual, I spoke too soon. The committee for special awards has once again chided me for my stinginess. The award for Hyperbolic Hysterical History to Kerty is hereby made permanent, for life. This award is in recognition of Kerty conjuring up Pakistan before its actual creation, at least in the eyes of mere mortal humans whose faculties are not completely unhinged from the real world. Hearty congratulations and my transparently insincere apologies for not recognizing Kerty's foamy/frothy historical genius.

Comment by commonsense

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:41:53 EST

Kerty: "Pakistan has always fought India throughout history. Its creation spilled blood of millions. Even during its incarnation during Moghul Raj..." And yet another special award for Hyperbolic Hysterical History for implying the existence of Pakistan (albeit with a slimy sleight of hand by using the term "incarnation") during the Mughal period and even earlier. Congratulations again!!

Comment by kerty

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:50:31 EST

Dhiraj "I think you have neither the convictions of an ideology, your own or borrowed, nor a clear defense for your arguments." Convictions, ideology, clear cut defense/offense and arguments is all I do. I can be accused of being over too full of them. But you are the first one to accuse that I lack them. I promise to try harder. "All you are led by is a sense of SHAME at what has happened. I will grant you your shame because it is all right to feel that especially after what happened in Mumbai." Why should we feel ashamed? It is not a sense of Shame. It is a sense of outrage and anger. There is a big difference. "India and Pakistan have been always been kin, historically and metaphorically." That is not my reading of history. Pakistan has always fought India throughout history. Its creation spilled blood of millions. Even during its incarnation during Moghul Raj, thousands of temples laid to ruins and not a single year went by without wars on hindu kingdoms. History is littered with bloodshed and terror. "There are still families who are Hindu and who have Muslim kin and vice versa both here and on the other side." So what? they are citizens of their respective nations. Just because few families have personal relations across borders do not automatically make nations to be brotherly - people and nations too have self interests that define their relationship with people of other nations - When people of Pakistan have only jehad and terrorism to offer to India, no amount of kinship at family or social level can whitewash the true nature of threat posed by Pakistan. "Perhaps in your single-minded pursuit of the bad guy you tend to overlook many things including India's own culpability in encouraging war games at different times, different places in the subcontinent." That India is to blame for inciting terrorism? That we had it coming? Why, we should be ASHAMED of ourselves for offending out brothers and inciting them to terrorism. "But your anger is impotent and your shrillness is evidence of a great fear. In fact YOU are the biggest supporter of the jihadis because you are giving them exactly what they want. Fear." People have to live in fear because our government is wedded to your ideology of doing nothing and offering its people as a sacrifice to your brotherly terrorists. Get this. It is not fear, it is outrage and anger at such ideology and at such government, and at the audacity of jehadis. It is a head-i-win-tail-you-lose circular logic of appeasement. If we do not fight back, Jehadis get their way. And if we do fight back, we are told that it amounts to doing exactly what Jehadis wanted to achieve. Either way, it is Jehadis who win and the onus of saving the day rests only on India. The Jehadis must not be inconvenienced at any cost. I hear you. "This is not showing spine... this is exposing your midriff further, perhaps invitingly, to anyone who wants to make mince meat out of you. This is saying look at us how you can make us lose our marbles with just 10 men. This is telling them, you don't need a fullscale war to make us shit bricks... just 10 of your men are enough." Would you fight back only if whole of Pakistan engages in terrorism against India? Would you wait till then? Would you sit up if 20 of them attack, or would you rather wait for 30 of them to attack, or perhaps attack by 300 would pull your trigger, but why, you can make the same arguments even when 3000 or 30,000 of them attack. Only 170 people got killed. Perhaps not enough for you and definitely worth fighting for. I do not think any number of casualties would have been worth fighting for in your book. Terrorists kill to terrorize and you would argue that to fight back would be to give in to terrorist's designs. You are creating nice immunity for terrorists. "this past half century has been a struggle to prevent exactly this sort of 'battle of will' rhetoric because that is exactly what Hitler used to galvanize a beaten down Germany... and look what he did." Do you think India is Nazi Germany out to exterminate Pakistanis? Is that what you are struggling to prevent? What do you think Jehadis want to do - live as brothers with India? Do Jehadis have ambitions to hated and exterminate India and hindus or is that just a figment of Nazi hatred against Jehadis? Pakistan has fought several wars with India, it is engaged in proxi wars with India, it is engaged in insurgencies and separatism against India, and it is engaged in terrorism against India - and it has been battle of wills all thru these decades, except that India has not brought will to the battle of wills, India has remained purely reactive and defensive. India has adopted your ideology of doing nothing. If I were a jehadi, this is what I would want India to be - utterly confused, divided, helpless, terror-stricken and unable to do anything about it. "I am not against action. What I am for is the RIGHT action at the RIGHT time." Tell is what is the right action and what is the right time. Give us your convictions of an ideology, your own or borrowed, a clear defense for your arguments. "Do you know why the Arabs hate Israel? It is because of the hurried way Israel was created to accommodate Hitler's survivors, overlooking Palestinian claims to a land." So you think Pakistanis hate us because India has occupied Pakistani land or wants to take over Pakistani land to settle Hindus? It is Hindus who been have forced out from Pakistan. They were 23% of Pakistan and now barely 2%. On the other hand, Jehadis certainly consider India to be Darul-herb, to be conquered by 1000 year war, by war of 1000 cuts. "What do you think will be the fallout of your ALL OUT war?" ALL OUT war is a jehadi threat against any surgical action contemplated by India. No wars are all out wars. They are always targeted, limited with definite end game. That is how India has always fought wars. "Do you want to continue this blood feud that has already stretched far too in its 7th decade? Do you forever want hostile neighbours?" What solution would you suggest? Just ignore the blood feud as if it will die down if we don't heed to it? Ignore the hostile neighbor and its terrorist war? "Do you want your children to grow up in fear and hatred? And remain blind to what is good and beautiful in each one of us?" Tell it to the families of 170 slain. Tell them how beautiful terrorists were. Tell it to people who were at Taj, CST, Oberoi and Nariman House. Tell them to fear not and hate not Pakistanis, for Jehadis are beautiful people, just like each one of us.

Comment by commonsense

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:36:40 EST

Kerty: "You still don't get it. India and Pakistan are no kins. They never have been." Oops, sorry I have to amend my award announcement. Most members on the the annual "Hyperbole/Ideology Trumps Reality and Basic Commonsense" award now unanimously agree that Kerty gets this award for the next five years. The award is extended to him for five years due to his claim on another thread that, to paraphrase, God has sent AIDS to "poop the party" for gays. Hearty congratulations!!

Comment by commonsense

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:29:37 EST

Kerty: ""You still don't get it. India and Pakistan are no kins. They never have been."' The annual award for the Hyperbolic Ideology Trumping Reality goes, by a wide margin, to Kerty. Nobody even came close to challenging his monopoly on being totally unhinged from reality. Congratulations. Well deserved! But please don't rest on your laurels (or Hardys for that matter)

Comment by Dhiraj Singh

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:20:22 EST

I think you have neither the convictions of an ideology, your own or borrowed, nor a clear defense for your arguments. All you are led by is a sense of SHAME at what has happened. I will grant you your shame because it is all right to feel that especially after what happened in Mumbai. "You still don't get it. India and Pakistan are no kins. They never have been. Millions of people have been killed, bloody wars have been fought and scores of terrorist events have been inflicted upon India - these are not trivial family squabbles. We see you seeking to treat them as bothers and act as a deaf and dumb grandpa." India and Pakistan have been always been kin, historically and metaphorically. There are still families who are Hindu and who have Muslim kin and vice versa both here and on the other side. Historically we as a subcontinent have been many things including Buddhist and Christian. Bloody wars and feuds are by their nature fought over territory that someone had once owned or someone else now wants to own. As our one of our epic poems describes in great detail they are often fought between brothers and in the end there is no real victor. Perhaps in your single-minded pursuit of the bad guy you tend to overlook many things including India's own culpability in encouraging war games at different times, different places in the subcontinent. This time you are feeling the shove because it has happened so close to home. But your anger is impotent and your shrillness is evidence of a great fear. In fact YOU are the biggest supporter of the jihadis because you are giving them exactly what they want. Fear. Mindless retaliation. And a general sense of unease. "Is that what you think of people who are coming out and speaking out against terrorism and want government to show some spine? Would you rather prefer people to stay put, ignore as if nothing has happened and go about their business of making a living, and count their bucks as you put it? You seem to have problem because people do not want to go on with their lives and their daily business of making bucks, but instead are choosing to hit the streets and media to speak their minds. After every terror attack, they got the same admonition - suffer in silent, do nothing, offer another cheek, introspect and be remorseful because terrorism is all their fault, we shouldn't do anything hasty or nasty as they too are our brothers." This is not showing spine... this is exposing your midriff further, perhaps invitingly, to anyone who wants to make mince meat out of you. This is saying look at us how you can make us lose our marbles with just 10 men. This is telling them, you don't need a fullscale war to make us shit bricks... just 10 of your men are enough. "Its very simple. Weed out their kins and sympathizers, where ever they are and hit them hard. And give them the taste of their own medicine. If they take out our one eye, take out their both eyes. If they break one teeth, break their whole jaw. If they kill a loved one, take out their whole family. Take the war to them rather than acting like a sitting duck waiting to be hit again and again. Rather than remain terrified to the point of not knowing what to do next, turn the tables on them, and terrorize them to the point they would dare not think of what to do next. Its a battle of will." For most of us thinking people, and I exclude you here, this past half century has been a struggle to prevent exactly this sort of 'battle of will' rhetoric because that is exactly what Hitler used to galvanize a beaten down Germany... and look what he did. Yes in a videogame sort of scenario it is easy to "weed out" the enemy... easy to come back to life as well. But then why just stop at kin and sympathizers... why not anticipate further trouble and kill all their living relatives and children because they might grow up hating you. Then why leave their neighbours because they might rat on you to the human rights people, so kill them as well. In fact it's easier bombing the whole damn locality. But tell you what, they might have relatives elsewhere in the country so why leave them as a future headache. Just bomb them wherever they are or are expected to be and count the rest as collateral damage. And tomorrow when someone in your own family picks up arms against what he or she sees as an act of correcting historical injustices please tell me would you have the same sense of tooth-for-jaw enthusiasm as you have now? I am not against action. What I am for is the RIGHT action at the RIGHT time. We are no more a sitting duck than American forces are in Iraq or Israel is... sounded as it is by hostile Arab nations. Do you know why the Arabs hate Israel? It is because of the hurried way Israel was created to accommodate Hitler's survivors, overlooking Palestinian claims to a land. Now more than ever we live in a world that flat. What do you think will be the fallout of your ALL OUT war? Do you want to continue this blood feud that has already stretched far too in its 7th decade? Do you forever want hostile neighbours? Do you want your children to grow up in fear and hatred? And remain blind to what is good and beautiful in each one of us? Regds D PS: Kaffir, taking things literally especially in times like these is not a good habit! I was not referring to any links in particular, was just responding to our friend here!

Comment by kaffir

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:13:35 EST

It is quite another thing for us to sit before our screens and want to play this videogame called LET'S NUKE PAKISTAN. Dhiraj-- Following Mumbai attacks, I've read a lot in the blogsphere and newspapers about taking a tough stance with Pakistan - which no one has said involves going to war with them, in fact, many have explicitly mentioned tough stance but 'no war' - as well as improving our own security infrastructure. It's quite possible that I'm not reading the sources you're reading, but I still have to come across any "Let's Nuke Pakistan" bombastic calls. Is this something that's being said on the fringes, or are mainstream writers saying this? There have been quite a few posts here on DC countering "Let's nuke Pakistan" attitude without any proof presented of that attitude. So I'm left wondering where are the "Let's Nuke Pakistan" calls which are prompting writers like you? Is it just a pre-emptive strategy, or are you imagining the worst possible and then responding to it? Is "not lovey-dovey towards Pakistan" attitude being conflated for "Let's nuke Pakistan"? I personally think there's a huge distinction between those two. Would you like to share some links of these "Let's Nuke Pakistan" writers that you mention? Thanks.

Comment by kerty

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:06:57 EST

Dhiraj "the Grandpa analogy was between India, Pakistan and the US not India, Pakistan and Me" You still don't get it. India and Pakistan are no kins. They never have been. Millions of people have been killed, bloody wars have been fought and scores of terrorist events have been inflicted upon India - these are not trivial family squabbles. We see you seeking to treat them as bothers and act as a deaf and dumb grandpa. "Creatures of War who crawl out of the woodwork to 'defend' the country. Who're otherwise too busy counting their bucks" Is that what you think of people who are coming out and speaking out against terrorism and want government to show some spine? Would you rather prefer people to stay put, ignore as if nothing has happened and go about their business of making a living, and count their bucks as you put it? You seem to have problem because people do not want to go on with their lives and their daily business of making bucks, but instead are choosing to hit the streets and media to speak their minds. After every terror attack, they got the same admonition - suffer in silent, do nothing, offer another cheek, introspect and be remorseful because terrorism is all their fault, we shouldn't do anything hasty or nasty as they too are our brothers. "And who is this 'WE' that you're talking about? I don't think you represent anybody but your self." I assumed that, besides me, there are other people too who do not consider invaders and jehadis to be their kin. But I stand corrected. By no means, 'we' was meant to represent you, because you have made it clear who your kins are. "What do you suggest we do with 'our' naxals? Or 'our' LTTE? Or 'our' militants in Kashmir and the Northeast?" Its very simple. Weed out their kins and sympathizers, where ever they are and hit them hard. And give them the taste of their own medicine. If they take out our one eye, take out their both eyes. If they break one teeth, break their whole jaw. If they kill a loved one, take out their whole family. Take the war to them rather than acting like a sitting duck waiting to be hit again and again. Rather than remain terrified to the point of not knowing what to do next, turn the tables on them, and terrorize them to the point they would dare not think of what to do next. Its a battle of will.

Comment by Dhiraj Singh

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:38:45 EST

The problem with you is that you're blind as much as you're deaf... the Grandpa analogy was between India, Pakistan and the US not India, Pakistan and Me (I don't carry with me that kind of self-importance). I have more respect for Bal Thackeray who has called for a public execution for Asab, because if he's an Islamist then that is the kind of punishment Islam prescribes for killers of innocents, rather than Creatures of War who crawl out of the woodwork to 'defend' the country. Who're otherwise too busy counting their bucks and thinking of ways of getting of out of the country for greener pastures (and cards). And who is this 'WE' that you're talking about? I don't think you represent anybody but your self. Do you speak for people who changed countries because of Partition? Do you speak for those whose loved ones became part of that 'river if blood'? Do you have a friend who's become an insurgent because someone put a gun to his head and threatened death for his family? What do you suggest we do with 'our' naxals? Or 'our' LTTE? Or 'our' militants in Kashmir and the Northeast? Would your idea of a solution to the Sikh militancy be to annihilate the entire lot of Khalsa-panthis? I am not, as many in the media and outside it are, in the business of suggesting solutions... when I do have one I shall "spill it"... Till that time I'll keep my counsel even at the risk of sounding like a jihadi-sympathiser to you. Thanks n regds D

Comment by kerty

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:07:04 EST

Dhiraj There are no bothers living in same house here, nor any grandpa presiding over them. So leave the family analogy to rest. You may feel kinship with the Pakistanis, but pulse of people you talk about don't want anything to do with Pakistan. It has its own house, raised over a river of blood. We do not consider invaders or Jehadis as our kins. If you have clearer ideas or creative solutions, than spill them, we are all ears. But don't become the 'moral support' Grandpa for jehadis. That is not a solution. It is the main problem.