The Reading Group-Invites ONLY- 4 |p146|

First Previous

Page

119

Next Last

Frequent Posters

axeion

@axeion

Stunner

+ 2

Posted: 15 years ago

#41

Originally posted by: amyria

Hi all😊
I am late again😕

@Nitz i am not going to see varudu after your description😛 Oh, u shld see it. Everyone needs to exp it 1st hand😉

@Xserialji i like siddharth too.I saw all his movies multiple times😉 except stricker.

Also I like comedy and fantasy movies.I prefer a comedy low budget movie over super star one.
I agree, I love the small budget movies more than multi-starer. Have u seen Vinayakudu and Avakai Biryani?

hi Axeion ji ,pinki am happy now after all the confusion😆😆😆
We were waiting for u n Nitz to come online, but u guys ditched us😡 and we had to surrender

Edited by axeion - 15 years ago

Quote

RainbowWarrior

@RainbowWarrior

Dazzler

Posted: 15 years ago

#42

Originally posted by: immunoblot

Uh, RW ji the different worlds were created to highlight which part of the divide different nations were during the cold war. US and the NATO allies were the First World, the Soviets made up the Second World, and the rest were grouped as Third World. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Sceond World ceased to exist. The First World almost exclusively comprised the developed countries; while the Third World nations were largely impoverished. The terms thus ended up signifying the economic prosperity of the "Worlds"...
India is barely forward. 40% of our population subsists on less than 1 dollar (purchasing power parity) per person per day. The malnourishment in children of backward states is more severe than in Rwanda/Sudan. We definitely belong to the third world category. (China, with a more prolific and stronger economy insists on calling itself a Third World country. So, you can imagine how aptly placed India is.)

Thanks for explaining.
It still sounds like a derogatory term. The sole purpose does not seem to be mere categorisation here... Why not just go for Third World economy then...?

Originally posted by: immunoblot

I tend to agree with what you say, RW ji... but I cannot bring myself to agree with the part in blue. So long as the belief system isn't founded on tyranny or hate, we wouldn't call it terrorism. Would we??

Colonies were built on tyranny, were they not? And hate was a major part of it too. To a great degree the same line of thought still persists, even though it is less obvious and not out in the open as before.

Some businesses for instance, hire people of a certain race/religion for higher posts, so that they can keep their ideologies first. I'm not saying this is against the law but it is a hidden means of control that goes all the way up to governments where certain folk are kept out of decision making roles.

Years of failure to 'get in' would ultimately lead to resentment and the further alienation of the groups not allowed, leading to sectarianism and possible violence. The more violent, aggressive and politically motivated people among these groups would naturally levitate towards more extreme methods and finally terrorism.

This system of selective acceptance and control on the part of the people in power (group 1) does push people to extremes. Not everyone reacts the same way and the majority of the world population just resigns themselves to the way things are and tries harder to fit in (group 2) to whatever mould group 1 has decided upon. Another section retorts back peacefully but seldom gets very far (group 3) and the smallest group resorts to violence and mostly just get's people killed (group 4), and scares group 2 so much that group 1 is given further power to do whatever they want to annihilate group 4 and if some innocent people of group 3 get hurt in the mix, who cares? They shouldn't be so out spoken in the first place, they should try harder to fit in (even in their own countries).

9/11 was a horrible event but does it justify the action of the US in Afghanistan? Exactly a month after the tragedy, the US killed twice the number of people who had died in a single strike. If some one dropped a bomb over my home right now, I'd definitely call them terrorists, regardless of, if the rest of the world agreed with me or not, and I'd be very very very terrified.
The Taliban is still not gone, do the 'first world countries' really think killing everyone will solve anything? And if they do, then they are no different from the terrorists they are targeting.

I'm not sure I should read this book, I haven't even started yet and I'm so worked up.... 😕

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

immunoblot

@immunoblot

Rocker

Posted: 15 years ago

#43

Originally posted by: RainbowWarrior

Thanks for explaining.
It still sounds like a derogatory term. The sole purpose does not seem to be mere categorisation here... Why not just go for Third World economy then...?

I think, in most academic texts countries are no longer referred to as "First World" or "Third World"... Besides, the way the term is applied to us, is our own choice. If Indians work with the spirit of serving the Nation and countrymen, we'll become a First World country, and nobody will object to the title then...

Originally posted by: RainbowWarrior

Colonies were built on tyranny, were they not? And hate was a major part of it too. To a great degree the same line of thought still persists, even though it is less obvious and not out in the open as before.

Some businesses for instance, hire people of a certain race/religion for higher posts, so that they can keep their ideologies first. I'm not saying this is against the law but it is a hidden means of control that goes all the way up to governments where certain folk are kept out of decision making roles.

Years of failure to 'get in' would ultimately lead to resentment and the further alienation of the groups not allowed, leading to sectarianism and possible violence. The more violent, aggressive and politically motivated people among these groups would naturally levitate towards more extreme methods and finally terrorism.

This system of selective acceptance and control on the part of the people in power (group 1) does push people to extremes. Not everyone reacts the same way and the majority of the world population just resigns themselves to the way things are and tries harder to fit in (group 2) to whatever mould group 1 has decided upon. Another section retorts back peacefully but seldom gets very far (group 3) and the smallest group resorts to violence and mostly just get's people killed (group 4), and scares group 2 so much that group 1 is given further power to do whatever they want to annihilate group 4 and if some innocent people of group 3 get hurt in the mix, who cares? They shouldn't be so out spoken in the first place, they should try harder to fit in (even in their own countries).

9/11 was a horrible event but does it justify the action of the US in Afghanistan? Exactly a month after the tragedy, the US killed twice the number of people who had died in a single strike. If some one dropped a bomb over my home right now, I'd definitely call them terrorists, regardless of, if the rest of the world agreed with me or not, and I'd be very very very terrified.
The Taliban is still not gone, do the 'first world countries' really think killing everyone will solve anything? And if they do, then they are no different from the terrorists they are targeting.

I'm not sure I should read this book, I haven't even started yet and I'm so worked up.... 😕

Much of the World is decolonized today. There are still struggles in parts of the world to overthrow the rulers and to establish self-rule; but most of these struggles will be considered baseless/groundless. In our great Indian Nation itself, there are separatist movements... the northeastern states, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, and Kashmir (with all the world attention) are examples of Indian territories which want to/wanted to split from the Indian Union. And, you can imagine... if we start discussing whether these territories are victims of tyranny then we will be able to view every political act as tyrannical...

Imperialism hasn't ended.... it has just changed its shape... and this will be the colour of our world for as long as we live. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are principal reasons why practically the whole world hates the Americans and their foreign policy. I don't know how the red-necks in the US view their government's actions, most people elsewhere in ("First World") Europe were/are against the war. They think just like you... but would still refrain from calling the US a terrorist state because the US managed to sufficiently present themselves as victims and avengers. You see, it all depends on how well you present yourself.

This thing about presentation... While they were the colonialists, the British carried the "white man's burden" and tried to civilize us, even as they underhandedly robbed our nation. Today, Britain is proudly multi-cultural, and absorbing the "richness" of all people who live there. (IDK, maybe the US is more multicultural, but there is no other nation in Eurpoe, where there are so many foreigners.)
In any case, either ways, they do better than the "terrorists"... they just moulded their policies to suit the climate and the temperament of the world. (And this is what the "terrorists" of today are not doing. Which includes the US too, but not completely.)

RW ji, you should read the book. It supports your views, I think. I haven't started reading it either, but I assume that the story is very inspiring... You'll surely enjoy it...
We've taken the discussion where it doesn't belong... I think the message of the book is that education can help to overcome poverty. Overcoming terrorism is kinda far-fetched...

Quote

axeion

@axeion

Stunner

+ 2

Posted: 15 years ago

#44

Originally posted by: Veritas
Ok I am going to post the First question relevant to our Book.
From what I have heard..Three Cups of Teas is required reading for anyone visiting the AF-PAK region.

Doesn't that give in to the assumption that terrorism is a socio-economic problem rather than a political one and can be solved by better education and amenities.

Doesn't Bin laden and his ideology blow a hole through that theory...

I love this, now u guys can't stop me from pulling politics into everything...

Coming back to ur question, the quote you proposed "Three Cups of Tea is required reading for anyone visiting the AF-PAK region." Ok, now where does it even talk about terrorism!

It doesn't give into any assumptions about terrorism; it's just a piece of information about the area u might be visiting. If someone is visiting India, maybe I would recommend them to read "May you be the mother of hundred sons", "The Splendor of Silence", "Discovery of India" or maybe something else. Would that mean I am asking them to make some assumptions about a certain condition prevalent in India? Hell, No!

Moving to the terrorism part of the question, since we don't have a clear-cut definition of what terrorism is, I feel it is just one more form of governance like capitalism, socialism, communism and/or democracy! Thus, it includes a little of Political, socio-economic and geographical conditions each. Osama is a leader just like Gandhi, Bose, Hitler, Napoleon, Churchill, You-know-who and our very own Kronos!!! I had a lot to say, but enough has been said already. I'll try to counter-argue a bunch of viewpoints here though! Just a quick question before I move-on,What will u call ppl like Chandrasekhar Azad? I feel it's all about fight for acceptance/freedom and the power that comes with it!!! And, do we have a definition of Terrorism???

On a side-note,"Reading Lolita in Tehran" is a good book too!!!

Originally posted by: Veritas

I am just at the 5th chapter and till now there has been no mention of terrorism. Its just that people mention poverty and lack of education as a cause for terrorism.
So I thought the question was valid.
But agree Whole heartedly with you Blot ji...Just look at the student who committed Suicide for the Telangana issue or the kids who had burned themselves during the mandal era..weren't they educated. They knew how to read /Write and do arithemetic..something that makes them literate according to the state. But they still decided to do waht they did.
At that particular age you are fairly impressionable and arrogant about your infallibility to fall for ideas like that.

I don't think there is a solution to terrorism either...but violence cannot be completely ruled out.We need to have a multi pronged approach for a solution.

There is no age to influence the human mind, IMO! There is no solution to terrorism; it's not a condition, it's a choice people make! Just like the government we choose.

Originally posted by: Veritas

Your answer does make sense...but that is one aspect of it.

The foot soldiers..The guys who blow themselves up or ram a plane into a building can be labeled as ignorant or misguided fools.

Example one of the terrorists in 26/11 didn't know how to use a tap(according one of the survivors)..When I heard that ..I didn't know whether to feel sorry for him or mad at him.

But their controllers and the people who planned this whole event did know better .

I think it is is pride..This belief ..that their way is the right way..their belief system is the best and their ideas have the most merit ..may be a sense of victim hood and a hope of bringing back past glory

The planner was Kronos, and the followers: Luke and Ares!!!

Originally posted by: Veritas

Pinks...tht almost sounds like my friends "great depression" answer .

It would be quiet easy to dismiss it like that,but if things were that simple..we would never have had a murder or a war. Sometimes violence is necessary.

Violence is necessary always, it's a simple theory of "Survival of the Fittest"'a reason we - the HomoSapiens exist today!!! We had to turn violent towards the wild before they could kill us, and survive! When violence is used in today's world, it is still based on the same principle. Two countries resort to violence to prove their superiority over the other. When US nuked Japan in WWII, it was just to establish their superiority over the other nations and survive the war!

Originally posted by: nitz17
I think terrorism is affected by social, economic, political and Environmental issues. Terrorists need manpower to spread their terror and the people under poverty line are likely the easy targets to influence and manipulate. In countries Afghanistan the governments are very unstable and weak, so the situation is favorable for the rise of terrorism. Mountain ranges provide a perfect cover along with the weather conditions and also being elusive and land-locked. So even the geographic factors also provide a platform for the terrorism activities, like camping and weapon handling classes.
We have white collared people as much involved as blue collared people in spreading terror. So I feel that terrorism is not caused just by poverty, but also having superiority/inferiority complex, hatred and the feeling of being ignored. When they take arms in their hands, they sense the power it gives them and think they have no other option to fight the inequality other than terrorizing the nation. They think that their voice has to reach us, unaware of the fact that the forces that gave them arms are manipulating them and driving them with other ulterior motives.

Education alone cannot solve the problem, teaching us how to empathize with other human beings and also educating us how to respect other cultures. This does not apply only to people terror prone areas but everyone. So I feel, working on erasing ignorance from minds is the first step to attack terrorism.

Will Rockies be a good spot for Arms Training due to its location and huge Indian reservations?

I agree education cannot solve this issue, infact it gives u more options to exploit it better! All throughout my Networks Security classes, we had to come up with better ideas to break the algos! When u have ample knowledge of something, its easy to tamper with it. Same goes for terrorism and education, when ppl know a lot abt the disparities of the world, they come up with better ways to either end it or increase it.

Originally posted by: amyria

Terrorism is not related to lack of education alone.Even educated tends to terrorism.

when a group is deprived they rebel.That may be in any way.

Terrorism is caused by multiple reasons.Each part of the world has their own independent cause for building terrorism.Its never a universal cause.

Poverty,globalisation,non-democracy,lack of economic sources,religion are some of the relative causes for terrorism.Most of the terrorist were those who has no mental stability.They could be educated or uneducated.

I personally feel as the terrorism followers are always the victims(may be not everyone)

They were only into it for personal reasons like poverty,for their family welfare(sucide bombers) or 'coz of anti-humanity nature.

Violence is necessary to achive some rights but today violence is out of imagination

We feel terrorism is caused by various reasons bcoz there are various forms of terrorism. The Hindutva movement started by some Indian Politicians in summer 2008 was also a form of Terrorism, and so was the fight for freedom waged by the likes of Chandrashekhar Azad, Subhash Chadra Bose and Bhagat Singh.

Originally posted by: RainbowWarrior

And by that method, if we didn't have weapons of any kind on this planet, suicidal terrorists would only be able to kill themselves and no one else. Problem solved AND the US would probably become the poorest nation with no weapons to sell
Any one know a good weapon vanishing spell?

LoL, that would only help you stop the physical war, how will u put an end to the electronic/information warfare and all other kinds of wars? How will u stop the Iranian anti-social elements from manipulating the feeds from US Drones' flying over Iran? How will stop the members of HAI from hacking the Australian supermarket networks just bcoz some Indian students were attacked by a bunch of Australian goons???

In the end, @whole debate abt the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd world countries; US is fastly heading towards being a Socialist country, so don't worry, the 2^nd world would resurface soon!

And, the current definitions available for terrorism are defined by FBI and the US govt. According to US ideology, communism is also a form of terrorism, but they don't say it; just to please the Maoist govt, or else they will lose all their cheap labor and the US engineering industry will be hurt badly!

And finally, why do u think the US troops are not moving out of Iran? Why were the Oil-well owners allowed to sell oil only in exchange of USD until half a decade ago when they started selling it for Euros?

Edited by axeion - 15 years ago

Quote

axeion

@axeion

Stunner

+ 2

Posted: 15 years ago

#45

Originally posted by: RainbowWarrior
I'm not sure I should read this book, I haven't even started yet and I'm so worked up.... 😕

RW ji, I am not reading it. I started with great spirit but I lost interest after the first 20 pages, the only saving grace is those bunch of pictures in it 😉 Don't bother about reading it if u r busy with work, I can give u company for that 😉

Quote

Incognit0

@Incognit0

Dazzler

+ 4

Posted: 15 years ago

#46

Originally posted by: axeion
RW ji, I am not reading it. I started with great spirit but I lost interest after the first 20 pages, the only saving grace is those bunch of pictures in it 😉 Don't bother about reading it if u r busy with work, I can give u company for that 😉

Looks like I am not the only one here.... 😕.... I need to start from today at least

Quote

axeion

@axeion

Stunner

+ 2

Posted: 15 years ago

#47

Originally posted by: nitz17

Looks like I am not the only one here.... 😕.... I need to start from today at least

Nitz..yeh dosti hum nahi todenge 😉

Quote

RainbowWarrior

@RainbowWarrior

Dazzler

Posted: 15 years ago

#48

Originally posted by: immunoblot
This thing about presentation... While they were the colonialists, the British carried the "white man's burden" and tried to civilize us, even as they underhandedly robbed our nation.

I agree with you.

Civilising a people is just a few steps away from imposing your own beliefs, ethnic cleansing and genocide. Who's to decide which civilization is the best example to follow?

I think our cultural diversity is the best thing we have. Can you imagine a world 100/200 years later, where everyone wears jeans and sings in a Hinglish accent only (or similar)? I love Scottish and Irish accents and a viking cartoon just wouldn't be the same without it and nor would Sean Connery.

The more a majority imposes their set of rules on the world, the more we lose out on cultures, languages, art and so many other things. There are so many places in the world where the people are living in peace, in harmony with nature that don't have a recognised system of education and yet they are far happier and together than those people who sell us their ideals.

Originally posted by: axeion

Violence is necessary always, it's a simple theory of "Survival of the Fittest"'a reason we - the HomoSapiens exist today!!! We had to turn violent towards the wild before they could kill us, and survive! When violence is used in today's world, it is still based on the same principle. Two countries resort to violence to prove their superiority over the other. When US nuked Japan in WWII, it was just to establish their superiority over the other nations and survive the war!

The wild was never killing off the humans when humans decided to attack. There was always a good relationship of co-existence. Yes, life spans were shorter, the likely hood of being eaten alive greater or being wiped out by a sudden communicable disease too but the situation was never as it is today.

After wiping out so many plant and animal species, humans still don't have enough room; after all the advances in medicine, the poor still die from the old diseases and the rich die from other stress based new illnesses.

Humans don't want to just survive, they want to conquer, control and pretty much be the owners of the universe... when most can't even bend over to touch their toes...

Survival is just an excuse for violence.

Pearl Harbour is NOT equal to the nuclear bombing of two Japnaese cities.
Home-made rocket strikes on Israel is NOT equal to cluster bomb air strikes on UN shelters
Ground invasion of Kuwait by Iraq is NOT equal to US bombing Iragi civilians with depleted uranium bombs.

In nature, many species do resort to violence for survival but it's not the ONLY thing that they do. They also adapt and evolve. What have humans learn't from years of violence, other than better ways to make war?

Originally posted by: axeion

LoL, that would only help you stop the physical war, how will u put an end to the electronic/information warfare and all other kinds of wars? How will u stop the Iranian anti-social elements from manipulating the feeds from US Drones' flying over Iran? How will stop the members of HAI from hacking the Australian supermarket networks just bcoz some Indian students were attacked by a bunch of Australian goons???

One war at a time 😊

@"How will u stop the Iranian anti-social elements from manipulating the feeds from US Drones' flying over Iran"
Iranians should fix their own country. If the US has to do anything for them, that's just counter productive. Years and years of providing relief aid to African countries had gotten them no where. The 'grameen' bank system that is now being employed in some countries is actually getting results. Helping people help themselves is the key, not spoon feeding or playing the security guard.

@"How will stop the members of HAI from hacking the Australian supermarket networks just bcoz some Indian students were attacked by a bunch of Australian goons???"
Not familiar with HAI, sorry; sounds like they done something real stupid though. May be they reckon the Australian government will run out of coffee and take notice? lol