When I think about it, you could reasonably call edit: Bush or Rumsfeld war criminals, since they clearly presided over war crimes, even if they will never be convicted. It is less clear whether Modi qualifies. He instigated atrocities, and then kept police from preventing those atrocities, but crimes against your own people only qualify as war crimes when they are “part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes,” so that might arguably not be the best description for him, depending on how you read that.
1 Like
As a practical point, I don’t use that description of him in India (any more). I prefer “incompetent propagandist”. He would be relatively competent as the head of a single department, but as a PM, he’s no Nehru.
1 Like
As in the U.S., it’s amazing how far spite can drive unemployed and working-poor people toward supporting self-destructive policies.
4 Likes
The promise of jam tomorrow, the prospect of seeing the oppressor in chains today.
2 Likes
Seeing the persons you believe beneath you suffer alongside.
1 Like
And neither being delivered, unless one is a loyal party apparatchik tomorrow or unless the oppressor happens to be a vocal member of the party’s opposition today. Not that this is in any way unique to Modi’s India.
1 Like
Trump? Too soon.
3 Likes
The other interesting thing is, people who were actually flush with unaccounted cash immediately started finding ways to circumvent the controls. Part of the chaos has been people finding ways to circumvent, the government pushing new ways to block those circumventions, new ways around those,…
So, in all that, even though someone with even the least bit of insight can see it’s ineffective and mis-targeted, it still seems like the government is doing something.
5 Likes
Yup, meant to say Bush.
1 Like
2 Likes
Something like war rarely has a singular narrative. Multiple views can be true, which makes getting at the truth to be a complex problem. An account from the POV of Assad’s side is going to clash with those of the rebels, with those of the Kurds, and with those of Daesh. All probably employ some sort of propaganda in crafting their narrative and there is probably some truth found in all of them. Assad is not blameless here and pretending he’s not a petty dictator is just as bad as pretending that are receiving support from the west are rebels with pure motives in mind.
Also, how did this turn into a discussion on Syria when it’s a thread about India?
4 Likes
“yeah, but whatabout.”
5 Likes
Whilst I am instinctively with you here, I have to play devil’s advocate and ask: Why [quote=“BZMacLachlan, post:55, topic:90537”]
accepting clear inaccuracy will ultimately be self-defeating.
[/quote]
Because [quote=“BZMacLachlan, post:55, topic:90537”]
accepting clear inaccuracy
[/quote]
seems to work for the reality-bereft right. Maybe those of us a little more to the left / liberal tendency might give it a try and see if we can beat them at their own game. We don’t seem to be able to win with our own truth/fact-based game.
1 Like
How long do you gaze into that abyss?
1 Like
And Tony Blair is not a (convicted) war criminal.
Many people believe Tony Blair IS a war criminal.
So if Cory wrote “Blair, the war criminal” would that be hyperbole or widely-shared opinion?
2 Likes
I do not know, and I do not know if it is an abyss. I do know there is an abyss of right wing unreality and I cannot fathom how to fill it with facts. The thing is the right (as per Rove’s ‘we make reality’ quote) do not care and are not stopped by the non-right pleading truth and facts. As said elsewhere, it is a trick whose working I cannot understand - other than as an “anything is better than more of the same” howl from those being conned by the lies.
1 Like
I can’t either, and it would seem to be the media’s preferred method of operation. But I don’t know how to even approach it without them operating more successfully.
Why? They are willing to play dirtier than anyone on the left ever could.
1 Like
EXACTLY! The right is always willing to entertain indecent behaviour and play dirtier than the left or even the centre. Includes violence. I would advocate left-wing violence but that ends up like Stalin. (Though some would argue he was never left-wing at all, just another fascist dictator. Him and Mao.)
It is perhaps because the right is all about ‘me, me, me’ that anything goes, for them. The left is all about ‘us’ - the collective, so not everything goes.
(PS At this point, given a chance to debate with Trump in person, would you debate with him or kick him in the balls repeatedly until …? I know which I’d do.)
1 Like
This book delves into a little of that
but it’s more of a collection of essays grouped around a common theme rather than a cohesive book.
Joseph de Maistre is a fascinating figure.
2 Likes
Its kind of interesting how almost all of what you say has been said to me by Indian friends and coworkers lately. Except the part about “which idiot hoards banknotes”. I’ve heard for many years that this ends up being a semi-common thing not with the high profile rich but with those who are benefiting from the corruption that surrounds cash based officialdom.
2 Likes
