U.S. definition of terrorism is when U.S. or Israel is attacked. Until Bush realizes that I.S.I is coducting cross border terrorism in Afghanistan he will call Pakistan is ally on terrorism. His army generals in Afghanistan are saying that American soldiers are fighting cross border terrorism from Pakistan. It appears Bush does not get it. Bush should call I.S.I terrorist organization then only Pakistani generals will get it.
The sender of the email, would likely have a setup behind him. To even inititate legal proceedings would not be easy, if non-Islamic forces are involved.
First info-warefare needs to be overcomed, which would involved denigeration, hood-winking, subterfuge and offensive propaganda of severe proportion, far more than what India can bear. The initial effort would be to nip it in the bud.
The first few steps need to be diplomatic. First disenegage from an active initiatives being undertaken.
Provide adequate time for Indian economic leaders upto middle level to take suitable measures to prepare for the inevitable counter measures which would be applied on India.
Legal stepsto be effective ought to work on fidility to sanctity of India with no scope for any negotiation and full scope subjection to Indian law of all guilty persons.
The series of measures required to be able to lift the issue, step by step to a level commensurate with the counter measures which would have already been thought out shall not be easy.
Onw hopes that such an outcome never arises, but need to be prepared is also important. The fuzzy feelings associated with the outcome is not positive. And it is time the guilty ones be made to pay the cost of their crimes.
RE:Worst case scenario - if true
by teen paise on Jul 30, 2008 04:20 AM Permalink
Making politician make a statement, the way late Indiira Gandhi attempted would be counter-productive. It would be better to make allusions and layered internal communication such that within India a significant constituency understands the stakes involved and prepares adequately for long term attirition.
RE:Worst case scenario - if true
by teen paise on Jul 30, 2008 04:26 AM Permalink
If true all the guilty ones need to be taken care off, the way Israel has gotten after all Nazi perpetrators.
RE:Worst case scenario - if true
by teen paise on Jul 30, 2008 04:36 AM Permalink
First all legal measures need to be tried. It is likely that in the 'nation of laws', legal measures could work. But the way it happened with Bhopal Gas Tragedy does not seem assuring and the stakes here are obviously many times higher.
Any non-legal approach is likely to fail and political approaches is probably impossible.
RE:Worst case scenario - if true
by teen paise on Jul 30, 2008 04:39 AM Permalink
Legal approach necessarily implies that one is innocent unless proved guilty. But in this scenario, even if guilty to enforce it would be a complex and difficult exercise. We need to take care to minimise the cost to the nation which ensuring the guilty ones are brought to books.
RE:RE:Worst case scenario - if true
by teen paise on Jul 30, 2008 04:40 AM Permalink
Keeping in mind our expereiences in the past. Keeping in mind what Mr. Pinter mentioned in his Nobel Prize speech, there is sufficient ground for being prepared carefully for such an eventuality.
RE:Worst case scenario - if true
by teen paise on Jul 30, 2008 05:35 AM Permalink
Prefer to invoke the approaches of persons like Alfred P Sloan and Peter Drucker to handle the situation institutionally and thereby maximise the punishment to the guilty, in case the need ever arises.
RE:Worst case scenario - if true
by teen paise on Jul 30, 2008 06:31 AM Permalink
Even if found really guilty, it would not be easy to progress with the case. There would perhaps be even offers for easy terms on N-deal and other lures as well as threats. It makes sense to see the N-deal as recognition, a belated one, of Indian Constitution and Indian Law. Any political negotiation to compromise on applicability of Indian law would dilute this premise itself, therefore would be unconstitutional.
#1 10,000 deadly terror attacks committed explicitly in the name of Islam in just the last six years.
#2 Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, had people killed for insulting him or criticizing his religion. This included women. Muslims are told to emulate the example of Muhammad.
#3 Muhammad said in many places that he has been "ordered by Allah to fight men until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger."
#4 After Muhammad died, the people who lived with him, and knew his religion best, immediately fell into war with each other.
Muhammad's favorite daughter, Fatima, and her husband, Ali (the second convert to Islam, who was raised like a son to Muhammad) fought a war against an army raised by Aisha, Muhammad's favorite wife - and one whom he had said was the "perfect woman."
Not only was her husband, Ali, eventually murdered, but Fatima (who survived the early years at Mecca safe and sound) died of stress from the persecution of fellow Muslims only three months after her father died.
Three of the first four Muslim rulers (caliphs) were murdered. All of them were among Muhammad's closest companions. The third caliph was killed by the son of the first. The fourth caliph was killed by the fifth, who subsequently poisoned one of Muhammad's two favorite grandsons. Muhammad's other grandson was later beheaded by the sixth caliph.
RE:Ten Obvious Reasons Why Islam is NOT a Religion of Peace
by mike mike on Jul 30, 2008 02:23 AM Permalink
Within 50 years, the Kaaba, which had stood for centuries under pagan religion, lay in ruins from internal Muslim war.
#5 Muhammad directed Muslims to wage war on other religions and bring them under submission to Islam. Within the first few decades following his death, his Arabian companions invaded and conquered Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and Zoroastrian lands.
#6 Muslims continued their Jihad against other religions for 1400 years, checked only by the ability of non-Muslims to defend themselves. To this day, not a week goes by that Islamic fundamentalists do not attempt to kill Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists explicitly in the name of Allah.
None of these other religions are at war with each other.
#7 Islam is the only religion that has to retain its membership by threatening to kill anyone who leaves. This is according to the example set by Muhammad.
#8 Islam teaches that non-Muslims are less than fully human. Muhammad said that Muslims can be put to death for murder, but that a Muslim could never be put to death for killing a non-Muslim.
#9 The Qur'an never once speaks of Allah's love for non-Muslims, but it speaks of Allah's cruelty toward and hatred of non-Muslims more than 500 times.
#10 "Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!" (The last words from the cockpit of Flight 93)
US instructed it all using isi as a proxy as usual. but this time congressis asked cia to teach a lesson to bJP for cash-show. the trust vote almost got delayed and if it had been post-poned by a day more congress would have lost it. congress was in big a shock. cia now has both opposing pawns in its hands. Ultimately US wants deal most and hence winning the trust vote was must. after deal and the trust vote, makes it easier for cia to play India against china. cia-US wants to play india against china hence cia is gradually taking over indian media, indian politicians and India's intelligence agencies. US-NRIs don’t know what they have got india into. shamefuly bjp would have done the same. The deal should have been stalled till obama’s days. game is all over for Indian democracy and civilization. soon US will use India as an ammunition against china. As a slave of US, India will become like pakistan in next 20-30 years. but forget that all. At the moment congress is now at war with bjp and using isi-jihadis as pawns. Now SP has joined hands with congress expect terrorism to get worst in India. Remember this is same SPwho defends SIMI in UP courts. We are in the middle of war with ourselves strings pulled by USA!
I request American president Bush to advise our PM MMS to introduce a stringent law to deal with terrorists equivalent to PATRIOTIC ACT ENACTED IN US after 9/11. Then our PM will listen.
