Shiv,
sastry wrote: [ on 06:13 PM 8/16/2006 ]
> Did you intend to imply that the events above were connected? If yes,
> citations? If not, why are you bunching them together?
I am making the connection. I am asking people who read my message
to make the
connection and test the connection themselves for validity.
In other words, you're making the assertion but are unwilling or
unable to provide the evidence?
I'm having a hard time taking your last couple of posts seriously.
Some of the reasons for this:
1. Rhetorical tactics that are more appropriate to a smear campaign -
vaguely defined connections between vaguely defined concepts, with a
definite "Us vs. Them" slant;
2. Unsupported assertions e.g, "The US overreacts, and successfully
prevents al further attacks.";
3. Implicit assumptions that also turn out to have no evidence
presented for them (also known as "smuggling in the desired answer as
part of the question"). e.g, "Anglophone press" being presented by
implication as a monolithic entity that takes a single unified stand
on the issues being discussed;
4. A complete lack of a cost-benefit analysis of the various measures
being proposed, both implicitly and explicitly
5. Strawman arguments, e.g, "The view that the airline bomb threat is
false is a luxury that the US and UK citizens can afford"
I am not sure exactly why you're trolling, but I look forward to your
further explanation, in order to perform my own cost-benefit analysis
on further participation in this thread.
Udhay
There is no
compulsion to believe it - but I see a definite connection in terms of the
Indian not wanting to look at uncomfortable questions as to where terror
might be coming from or consider harsh measures that may be required to stop
it.
> It might also be an indicator of the relative amount of available
> data about each set of events. No?
Sorry? What data or lack of data are you referring to? There is
plenty of data
available - only there is a selective lack of interest in some data which
forms the basis for the self flagellation. Vast amounts of data generated by
anglophone media (which essentially dominate the world) are selectively
picked up and propagated by anglophone Indians which may be "natural" in
terms of language, but I think it is totally unnatural in terms of relevance
to India.
This is particularly true in reference to terrorism. Let me try and explain
with a hypothetical example.
Assume that a terrorist group (called"A") sponsors two terrorist attacks, one
in the US and one in India.
The US overreacts, and successfully prevents al further attacks. The
extent of
overreaction is to such a degree that concerned citizens and the anglophone
media start to lash out against the US security apparatus and Bush, alleging
that they are hitting out at non existent threats. This is incidentally
lapped up and echoed by anglophone Indians.
India, OTOH under-reacts and fails to prevent further terrorist attacks.
Security agencies are blamed for lapses and bungling, and any ""successes"
that security agencies claim are criticised as false alarms by bungling
agencies.
The result is that the terror group continues to have successes in
India while
Indians enthusiastically endorse the anglophone press's views that security
agencies either raise false alarms or indulge in excesses.
The view that the airline bomb threat is false is a luxury that the US and UK
citizens can afford given that their security agencies have been largely
successful in thwarting serious terror at the cost of overreacting. This is
not a luxury that Indian citizens can afford - given that terror killings
remain a daily occurence in a cronically underreacting India. Hard choices
are required, and we are not willing to make those hard choices. Yet.
Sorry - this is a hasty reply - will try and clear up any emantic/rhetorical
errors that may have crept in.
shiv
--
((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
