It is quite surprising to see how good are Americans at exploiting a tragedy to camouflage thier ulterior motives. Was just going through an article by one of my favourite columnists Rajiv Srinivasana.
When the towers fell, I certainly hoped that the US would finally understand what the rest of the world, particularly India, has undergone for years, facing terror in the streets. But I was a little sceptical even then; and three years later, it is clear that America's 'war on terror' is really not a war on terror as in the dictionary meaning of those words. This alleged 'war' is a different animal, and there are two possibilities as to what it is.
The first possibility is that 'terror' is defined as 'that which hurts American interests.' Note that this does not necessarily mean attacks on American persons except insofar as it affects grand American interests. Note also that 'American interests' are broadly defined, for example as in 'oil that lies under other countries, but that America would like to own.' But it certainly means that attacks on other countries, even on the one that for archaic reasons calls itself 'Great' Britain, do not count as 'terror.'
The other possibility is that there is no 'war' at all, but sleight-of-hand, intended to create the illusion that America is doing something to protect its people. For, it is abundantly clear that the nations most involved in terror are Saudi Arabia (financier), Pakistan (enforcer) and China (proliferator of nuclear weapons and missiles). But all three are staunch American allies. I wonder, which Houdini conjured up a 'war'?
Recently, when many school children were killed in a terrorist attack in Russia,
the Economist magazine, had to say about the matter (Another Siege Ends in Bloodshed, September 4, 2004).
Among other things, it says the following:
The Chechen issue is a local problem, not a global one
The separatist struggle results in part from past cruelty shown by Stalin to Chechens
'Black widows', Chechen women whose relatives were killed by Russian forces, are a major part of this attack
The Russian security forces made a mistake, again, as they are incompetent
Russia should seek a 'political solution' to this problem
I liked the answer Mr. Putin gave
"Why don't you meet Osama bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or to the White House and engage in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace? You find it possible to set some limitations in your dealings with these bastards, so why should we talk to people who are child-killers"
Are you listening Mr.Bush?, Ohh...if you listen also you wont understand. This is all too much for your miniscule cerebellem...all you know is Oil and Dollars at the expense of human lives.
Why Aren’t More Men Working?
5 days ago