On Tue September 5 2006 8:22 am, Kragen Javier Sitaker wrote: > The point of my post is that you are > not, in fact, being forced to choose between unquestioning support of > whoever claims to be protecting you from terrorism and support for > terrorism itself; and that unquestioning support for whatever the police > do is likely to encourage terrorism, not control it.
I understand this. There are very real differences between law and order as implemented in functioning Western democracies and law and order as implemented in dysfunctionally democratic India. There are very real differences betwen terrorism in India and that seen in the West. The argument that you make about weakening " the people inside the police force opposing the lying" also holds true in exactly the opposite sense in India. By blindly being critical of anti-terrorist action some people in India are weakening the people within and outside the security forces (in India) who are opposed to the corruption and bias that allows terorrists to get passports and other legal documents to live and thrive in India, and the corruption that allows politicians who have used the services of criminals to get away and continue to protect the same criminals who also take part in smuggling and gun running for terrorists. It is no accident that India has had more terrorist deaths than any other country on earth - unless you choose to include despots like Pol Pot , Papa doc and Saddam as "terrorists". I find it interesting that you single out the question arbitrary detention of innocent Muslims. That is obviously wrong, as was the detention of twelve Indians on a Northwest flight for misbehavior of a commonly seen kind that, for the first time in the history of aviation, was considered suspicious of terrorist behavior. This arbitrary detention seems to be a bigger worry in the West that it is in India. I must point out that there are, once again, very real differences in attitudes towards Muslims in India and the "West" in general. Muslims with beards, women in burqas, five times a day prayer calls from loudspeakers in public places, the exit of a devout Muslim from his workplace for prayer, public holidays for Id, Ramzan (and even the predominantly Shia Muharram) are accepted as normal practice in every village, town or city in India, just as Muslims in India are largely seen as indigenous people and not immigrants. These practices and sights are as normal in India as they would be in a declared Islamic state like Saudi Arabia or Iran. Nevertheless India is described (in semantically accurate words) as "Hindu dominated" India. It does not strike anyone that the US should really be described as "a Christian dominated nation where Muslims are in a minority" Hindu dominated India has some peculiar problems of its own resulting in a caste system of criminals. Certain criminals always get away, and certain people are always spared from terror. Certain people always get incriminated and another group always is at greatest risk from terror. The actions that need to be taken to stop this in India are quite different from the very very Western viewpont that I believe you have posted. But the last time I said something like this Udhay got worked up and said I was trolling. I have been deeply immersed in this subject for a while now and have some views - but the topic is vast . I am not too keen on spilling it over onto this list because there are other boards and groups that discuss only this and nothing else. Silklist is a welcome diversion from that for me. But I might continue if the subject does not disrupt or cause distress. shiv
