Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
1945 - 2008 : 61 YEARS OF DEATH, TORTURE,
INTIMIDATION AND MURDER
So who do I think is right? Russia? Georgia? Both? Neither? I really have no objective information on which to base a judegment. My heart roots for the little guy, but I'm not sure Georgia is 'the little guy' here. Is little Georgia just a puppet state of George II of America? I don't know.
Monday, August 18, 2008BRUSSELS: The U.S. administration is trying to stick the label of "bad guy" on Russia for exceeding the peacekeeping mandate and using "disproportionate force" in the peace-enforcement operation in Georgia.
Maybe our American friends have gone blind and deaf at the same time. Mikheil Saakashvili, the president of Georgia, is known as a tough nationalist who didn't hide his intentions of forcing Ossetians and Abkhazians to live in his country.
We were hoping that the U.S. administration, which had displayed so much kindness and touching care for the Georgian leader, would be able to save him from the maniacal desire to deal with the small and disobedient peoples of the Caucasus.
But a terrible thing happened. The dog bit its master. Saakashvili gave an order to wipe Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, from the face of earth.
The Georgian air force and artillery struck the sleeping town at midnight. More than 1,500 civilians perished in the very first hours of the shelling. At the same time, Georgian special forces shot 10 Russian peacekeepers who didn't expect such a betrayal from their Georgian colleagues.
The Kremlin attempted to reach Saakashvili, who was hiding, by phone. All this time the Russian Joint Staff forbid the surviving peacekeepers to open return fire. Finally our patience was exhausted. The Russian forces came to help Tskhinvali and its civilian population.
In reply to the insulting criticism by President Bush that Russia used "disproportionate force," I'd like to cite some legal grounds for our response. Can shooting peacekeepers and the mass extermination of a civilian population - mainly Russian citizens - be regarded as hostile action against a state? Is it ground enough to use armed force in self-defense and to safeguard the security of these citizens?
Tbilisi concealed the scope of the humanitarian catastrophe in South Ossetia. Saakashvili's constant lies about the true state of affairs in Georgia were attempts to lay the fault at somebody else's door.
The Russian response is entirely justified and is consistent with both international law and the humanitarian goals of the peacekeeping operation conducted in South Ossetia. I will try to explain.
The Georgian aggression against South Ossetia, which came as a straightforward, wide-scale attack on the Russian peacekeeping contingent - Russian armed forces legally based on the territory of Georgia - should be classified as an armed attack on the Russian Federation, giving grounds to fulfill the right to self-defense - the right of every state according to Article 51 of the UN Charter.
As for the defense of our citizens outside the country, the use of force to defend one's compatriots is traditionally regarded as a form of self-defense. Countries such as the United States, Britain, France and Israel have at numerous times resorted to the use of armed force to defend their citizens outside national borders.
Such incidents include the armed operation of Belgian paratroopers in 1965 to defend 2,000 foreigners in Zaire; the U.S. military intervention in Grenada in 1983 under the pretext of protecting thousands of American nationals, who found themselves in danger due to a coup d'êtat in this island state; the sending of American troops to Panama in 1989 to defend, among others, American nationals.
We also have to keep in mind the present-day military interventions by the U.S. and its allies in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan. By the way, the last three cases are examples of tough American interventions when its own citizens did not need direct protection. But in spite of those countries' massive civilian losses at the hands of American soldiers, no one blamed Washington for a "disproportionate use of force."
Of course, the history of international relations is full of abuses committed under the pretext of defending citizens.
In order to draw a clear line between lawful and unlawful use of force, one can single out a number of objective criteria: first, the existence of a real threat to life or systematic and violations of human rights; second, the absence of other, peaceful means of resolving the conflict; third, a humanitarian aim for an armed operation; and four, proportionality - i.e., limitation on the time and means of rescue.
Russia's actions were in full compliance with these criteria. In conducting its military action, Russian troops also strictly observed the requirements of international humanitarian law. The Russian military did not subject civil objects and civilians on the territory of Georgia to deliberate attacks.
It is hard to believe that in such a situation any other country would have remained idle. Let me quote two statements:
One: "We are against cruelty. We are against ethnic cleansing. A right to come back home should be guaranteed to the refugees. We all agree that murders, property destruction, annihilation of culture and religion are not to be tolerated. That is what we are fighting against. Bombardments of the aggressor will be mercilessly intensified."
Two: "We appeal to all free countries to join us but our actions are not determined by others. I will defend the freedom and security of my citizens, whatever actions are needed for it. Our special forces have seized airports and bridges... air forces and missiles have struck essential targets."
Who do you think is the author of these words? Medvedev? Putin? No. The first quote belongs to Bill Clinton, talking about NATO operation against Yugoslavia. The author of the second quote is the current resident of the White House, talking about the U.S. intervention in Iraq.
Does that mean that the United States and NATO can use brute force where they want to, and Russia has to abstain from it even if it has to look at thousands of its own citizens being shot? If it's not hypocrisy, then what IS hypocrisy?
Dmitry Rogozin is Russia's ambassador to NATO.
Respected Friends,
On this wonderful occassion of 15 August, let us all contemplate
on one question.
"What can I do for India?"
And, then let us start action on those steps.
Continous contemplation on this question, and action, is perhaps
the only way to pay real respect to the soldiers who sacrificed their
families and lives, for us.
Best Wishes
and signed by the author, whose name I am not using, as he probably wouldn't be pleased to see his name here.
WHAT CAN I DO FOR INDIA?
I am afraid that Mai is about to jump up on her soapbox and tell the
truth as she sees it.
First, I must make it clear that I speak only for myself. I do not
speak for any group or organisation. These are my own ideas and
opinions. Second, I currently reside in the United States of
America. The ideas I express are perfectly legal, protected speech
here. I am advocating nothing illegal.
I am not an Indian. My family is not Indian. My father was a
Punjabi; never once in his 97 years on this planet did he call
himself or think of himself as an India. To him - and to me - India
is an artificial construct invented by the British for their own
convenience.
I am a Sikh - partially of Punjabi extraction. This country India
has been less than kind to me and my sisters and brothers. As a
group, we agreed to support the Nehru-MK Gandhi Axis in return for an
autonomous or at least semi-autonomous region in Punjab, only to find
that when independence came, we were told that 'the situation has
changed.' We were betrayed both by the Indian government and by our
own 'leadership.' Not only did we not get freedom, our home - our
Punjab - was divided between two warring countries amid
inconceivable bloodshed. Later, of course, our Punjab was further
divided in a futile attempt to weaken and silence our self-
determination movement. This tactic didn't work.
For all the years since then, we have lived under the harsh thumb of
the majority group of this country. When we made a move to regain
what is rightfully ours, circa 1984, the full force of the Nehru-
Gandhi family (different Gandhi, though) was thrust upon us. Each of
us has our own story to tell about this period, mine involves a short
detention and torture during the Bluestar Massacre and then the
murder of my entire immediate family in the Delhi Pogrom following
the execution of Mrs. Gandhi.
Since that time, I have become a bit radicalised - stumbling over the
dead bodies of husband, son, brothers, can have that effect. I have
not returned to 'India.' I will return for only one of two reasons:
to watch the executions of Jagdish Tytler, Sajjan Kumar and their
cohorts - or to see the flag of Khalistan raised over our beloved
Punjab.
India is not and has never been one country. It is a ragtag
conglomeration of different states, different cultures, different
languages, different values. Like the Soviet Union and the Balkans
before it, it must and it will fall apart by its own weight.
So what can I do for India? I can sit here, half a world away,
unafraid, freely expressing my views, waiting. Waiting...
Chardi kala!
Mai Harinder Kaur
We have been thinking a lot about which direction this blog is heading.
*******************************************************
I admit that I'm a bit sad at dissolving our corporate person; at the same time, I am now more free to say what I want without clearing any controversial statements I may wish to make. Now I have complete editorial control, although, of course, my co-authors are always very welcome to contribute. When we started this blog, we were all inexperienced and very naive about the Internet. We didn't understand much about search engines and key words. We all thought that our little blog would be lost among the millions out there in the blogosphere. Little did we realise that putting 'Khalistan' in our title would get us noticed. I think that if we had realised, we would have found another name, something less conspicuous.. None of us wished to draw attention to ourselves and our very personal stories. I am pleased, though, that our stories are out there and being read, not because they are our stories, but because these stories need to be told.
Mai Harinder Kaur
This article from 'tv news lies'
Written by Reggie
Monday, 04 August 2008 14:36
On August 6 and 9, 1945. After six months of intense firebombing of 67 other Japanese cities, the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" was dropped on the city of Hiroshima on Monday, August 6, 1945, followed on August 9 by the detonation of the "Fat Man" nuclear bomb over Nagasaki. These are to date the only attacks with nuclear weapons in the history of warfare.
In Remembrance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
When the bombs were dropped I was very happy. The war would be over now, they said, and I was very happy. The boys would be coming home very soon they said, and I was very happy. We showed ‘em, they said, and I was very happy. They told us that the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been destroyed, and I was very happy. But in August of 1945 I was only ten years old, and I was very, very happy.
The crew of the B-29 was so young and heroic, and in the photo they also looked very happy. For some reason, I clearly remember the name of the pilot, Paul Tibbets. Of course I remember the name of the plane, the Enola Gay. And oh yes, I remember the name of the bomb. It was called Little Boy. That made me smile.
I was so proud to be an American that day because we had done something so remarkable. They said we were the first. We were Americans. We were powerful. But they didn’t say that Little Boy had killed 66,000 people with its huge fireball that fateful day in August. They didn’t say that Hiroshima was not a military target, but a city filled with men and women and children and animals who had no idea they were about to die so horribly. When you’re ten, they don’t always tell you everything.
I don’t think anyone made as big a fuss over the second plane, or its crew. Are they even in the Smithsonian? Second best doesn’t count, I suppose, but I remember wondering why they had done it again. Wouldn’t the war be over anyway, like they said? Weren’t the boys coming home very soon? Hadn’t they already showed ‘em how strong we were in Hiroshima? So they told me that the second bomb was called Fat Man, and that made me smile.
So I was even prouder to be an American that second day. They said this would be the end for sure, and after all, these people were the enemy and you kill the enemy when you can. But they didn’t tell me that Fat Boy had killed 39,000 human beings with another fireball on another day in August. They didn’t tell me that Nagasaki was not a military target, but a city filled with…well, you know. They didn’t even tell me that there were horses trapped in the flames of Nagasaki, because I loved horses and that would have made me sad. But when you’re ten, they don’t tell you everything.
Today I’m no longer ten, and I am no longer happy when bombs fall. And the names Fat Man and Little Boy no longer make me smile because I now know the devastation and horror of burned bodies and twisted metal that result from the mushroom clouds. And I am ashamed that on this day Americans don’t stop to remember what was done. And I am horrified that my government has just killed thousands of defenseless men and women and children and animals who were not the enemy, and that the silence of America is deafening.
Today, I am so very sad that many young people don’t even know about the Enola Gay and the mission of its crew. And I am so terribly ashamed that the war we have just waged has been so devoid of the reality of death and pain. They haven’t told us about the thousands of civilians they have killed. They haven’t shown us the devastation they have caused. They withhold the true numbers of our own military who die each day. They never mention the hundreds who have been terribly wounded. War is surgical and sanitized, they tell us, and a very effective way to liberate people. They speak to us as if we all were ten.
George W. Bush is not ten. He has announced to the world that he, as the leader of this great nation, has the right to use nuclear weapons once again. This time, he says, he has the right to char men and women and children and animals if he “suspects" their leaders of being a threat to us. He is not ten. He really isn’t. Then why is he so very happy? And why, please tell me, is he still smiling?
