Silvio Salvatore

Silvio Berlusconi Lloyd Blankfein Timothy Geither etc.

The man accused of attacking Mr Berlusconi, 73, was immediately arrested, as the crowd yelled abuse at him. The suspect, Massimo Tartaglia, 42, did not appear to have any political affiliations. Police said he had no criminal record and was not among the small group of protesters at the rally, but they said that he has been treated for mental health issues at Milan’s Policlinico Hospital for the past ten years.

Italy’s ANSA news agency said that the alleged attacker had received ten years of treatment for mental problems. Police said he was wielding a miniature statue of the Duomo cathedral, the city’s symbol.  Mr Berlusconi, blood streaming down his face, appeared stunned as he was taken away to hospital in a car. Hospital sources later said that Mr Berlusconi’s condition was not serious. He had two broken teeth and has suffered injuries to his nose, lips and cheek. He would be kept in overnight for observation. President Napolitano expressed his unconditional condemnation of the attack, and repeated his recent calls for an end to violent political rhetoric.

During Mr Berlusconi’s speech at the rally in Milan demonstrators shouted “buffoon” and “thief” at him. He shouted back “Shame, shame”, saying: “I am not a monster as the opposition claims — and not just because I am handsome.” He claimed that opinion polls gave him a popularity rating of 63 per cent, although the last published poll gave him 45 per cent.

Like the potentates of Iran, like the Beltway wizards of Washington, the mandarins of Wall Street, and all others immersed in wealth and its powers, there is a loss of tonal hearing, an incapacity to hear the baying of the crowds until it is too late.  Silvio says his popularity rating is high; Italy seethes with anger at his cavalier behavior.  During the rally which ended with his bloodied face he took off his shirt, ostensibly to show he was not wearing a bulletproof vest.  Or perhaps to emulate Mussolini?

It’s an old political story, this dancing with the devil.   And are some asking in Italy whether  Mr Tartaglia is the only sane and brave man left, or whether he’s just nuts?

[For more on Italy and how why it comes to this in these days see this ,  this, and this.]

Late breaking news:

‘Staring at his bloodied hand, he told me: ‘There’s a climate of hatred, I expected this would happen,”’ Zangrillo told Corriere della Sera, Italy’s leading newspaper.

Do tell, Silvio, nostro salvatore.  Having spent some decades stoking the fires of resentment using his podium as politician, premiere, head of the mass media, newspapers, publishers, Mr Berlusconi would like now to play martyr.  I think even Italians are not likely to buy into this latest role in their cruise-ship crooner.

Up and coming Silvio

Noble Nobel?

After a somewhat fawning introduction by the committee chairman, and a Chopin piano etude played with somewhat melodramatic theatrics by Lang Lang (for which evidently he’s famous), and then a jazzy work by Esperanza Spalding, whose name alone seems like a clever fix for the man with the audacity of hope, President Barack Obama went to the podium to deliver his Nobel Prize acceptance lecture.  Commencing with the requisite disclaimers, under the circumstances, of worthiness, citing Gandhi and Martin Luther King as the models, though also saying there were millions of unsung others more worthy than himself, Obama did accept the award, and began the substance of his talk.  As he began I worried that the two microphones intruding from left and right would interfere with his orator’s gesticulations, and indeed he did bang into them a few times.  Likewise at some points he fumbled his teleprompter reading, stalling once long enough to have me thinking the system had gone down.  Minor technical matters these.

The substantive matters were another story, and nothing minor about them at all.  While bathed in Obama’s eloquence, the content was pretty much business as usual for the American foreign policy clique.  The positive response of America’s bobble-head pontificators, left and right (though American “left” is not Left at all), underlined the point.  While the audience yearned to hear words of some change in America’s direction, what Obama gave was a hard-nosed reassertion of American exceptionalism dressed up in loquacious words and quotes from prior Nobel prize winners.  While making very veiled reference to America’s wayward behaviors of the last 8 years, by saying he had ordered Guantanamo closed, and torture stopped, he built for himself a rickety platform on which to stand the rest of his argument.  Looking into deep history, verily from the first Man, he asserted warring had always been in us, and by implication, always would be.  But, so he said, steadily we’d built institutions – religions, governments, States, and then international organizations and agreements – and had constructed rules to constrain our warring natures.  The rules he cited were ones which America openly and brazenly violated most recently in the past decade, and which we’d quietly broken (though no one in the world was unaware of this) for many decades, or, hell, since we grabbed a continent from from its original inhabitants, more or less rendered them extinct, and rampaged in the name of “civilization” where ever our “national interests” lay.   And Mr Obama repeated that America would retain its unilateral “right” to intervene in places where its “national interests” lay, including in places where our bleeding humanitarian heart needed to reach out and correct the abuses of genocide, failures in human rights, etc., if need be with arms.  Like depleted uranium, phosphorus bombs, and the rest of our lethal stash of scientific killing machinery.  Of course, we’d do this in the name of “democracy, freedom, human rights” etc.   After all, we’re Americans, and as the whole world recognizes, we do good.

Last week, American-imposed “democracy” in Baghdad

So while the President waxed eloquent, as expected, what he said was boiler-plate America first-ism, hence the quick applause of our Right-wing talkeratie.   I suspect on the other side, across the world, Obama did a good job of deflating any fanciful expectations of “change you can believe in” with regard to America’s bottom-line intentions in the world.  If, on skipping on to Copenhagen, Mr Obama announces America’s post-Bush embrace of serious environmental action to forestall global warming and other depredations, it won’t really be because of a turn of heart, but rather of a hard-nosed estimation that not doing anything will be far more costly in business terms:  a lot of America (say Florida) sits at just above sea level and we’d lose a lot of square miles if the ocean rises 3 meters, never mind 30.  Not to mention the other predictable mayhem that global warming promises.

US troops in Iraq

So what are we to make of this, our silver-tongued rhetorician, lacing his toxic talk with gracious words and kindly sentiments while insisting inside the velvet glove is an iron fist?   Which Barack Obama is it, Mr Jekyll or Mr Hyde?  From his recent actions, whether in domestic American affairs of bailing out the banks and investment community (beyond that which Bush’s flush of post-election trillions in cash provided), or in allowing the “health care” reform to be watered down and twisted into another massive bonanza for the insurance and drug companies, or in foreign matters, the initial dispatching of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, now followed in the past weeks with 30K more, it would appear the Hyde side is winning by a long shot.  Jeykll seems confined to spinning nice words and appearing to support them, while on the pragmatic side all the actions seem to support that old military-industrial-media complex which seems to determine the real fate of America.

“Barack Obama’s acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize was a carefully reasoned defense of a foreign policy that differs very little from George Bush’s,” says Walter Russell Mead, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, writing at Politico.com.

“He is winding down one war, escalating a second, and stepping up the pressure on Iran. He is asserting America’s sovereign right to unilateral action in self defense while expressing the hope that this right will not need to be exercised,” Mr. Mead wrote. “If Bush had said these things the world would be filled with violent denunciations. When Obama says them, people purr. That is fine by me.”

US soldiers in Afghanistan

Here is what I sent, and was published in the New York Times in their “comments” sections:

President Obama’s failure to acknowledge that it is the United States of America, under George Bush, which violated the “rules” which he cited – engaging in an illegal war of choice under spurious grounds, using outlawed weapons (phosphorous), using torture, engaging in international kidnapping (extreme rendition) – cast a pall of dishonesty over his talk of “realistic idealism”.  The balance of his talk was essentially the same old story of American exceptionalism, our “national interests” littered around the globe where ever oil or other valuable resources reside, but given in intelligent and elegant language, with an aura of humbleness.  Nevertheless it was George Bush’s white-hat cowboy in content, asserting America was the good guy, and we’d barge in when necessary.  By our terms of “necessary.”

It must have been odd for those assembled to hear from a half-black man America’s usual patter about the old European “white man’s burden.”

And here is something from Tom Hayden, old activist of the 60’s, still at it:

The Nobel museum sits on Oslo’s beautiful waterfront, with banners blazoned with the slogan, “From King to Obama”, referring to an months-long exhibition about the early US civil rights movement. I toured the museum a few weeks ago, during anti-war meetings in Scandanavia.

The “From King to Obama” summarizes the evolution of the American civil rights movement into the successful presidential campaign of its heir, Barack Obama. Their the comparison ends, the linkage jarring. Perhaps it has been taken down.

Dr. King was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1964 after being stabbed, beaten, and jailed across the American South. President Obama becomes the Nobel recipient only ten days after he began rushing 30,000 more American troops to Afghanistan and signing an order approving secret CIA operations in violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. The difference could not be more complete.

This is not only about Obama, but Norway as well. The Oslo government represents the core leadership of NATO [Gen. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, secretary-general] and the United Nations [Kai Eide, UN special representative to Afghanistan]. Rather that questioning the contradiction of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invading South Central Asia, Oslo has sent 600 troops and $350 million [US] to the Afghan occupation. Obama now is lobbying NATO for 7,000 more troops, despite strong public opposition in Canada, Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom. Somehow NATO leaders believe that Europe’s Muslim communities – an underclass composing six percent of Europe’s population while completely under-represented in Europe’s parliaments – can be held in check by bombing their homelands in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The real reason NATO is in Afghanistan was once expressed by Gen. James Jones, now Obama’s national security adviser, when he was NATO’s chief: “In commiting the alliance to sustained ground combat operations in Afghanistan, NATO has bet its future. If NATO were to fail, alliance cohesion will be at grave risk. A moribund or unraveled NATO would have a profoundly negative geo-strategic impact.” (See Ahmed Rashid, Descent Into Chaos, Viking, 2008, p. 373)

Does it occur to Obama, as he flies overnight to receive this sacred prize, that it is morally unjustified to patch together Western unity by leading a military occupation of impoverished Muslim countries which will only result in blowback? Does he feel any irony in Rudyard Kipling’s White Man’s Burden being carried by the first African-American president?

It is reported that the president is “intrigued” by studying the lectures of two previous honorees, Nelson Mandela and Dr. King. One hopes the lesson will be profound, for the similarity ends only with style. Mandela survived 27 years in the cold cells of racism before becoming his nation’s president. King was rebuked, terrorized, and later stood up against the Vietnam War despite establishment displeasure.

Instead of further compounding the hypocrisy all around, Obama could refuse the Nobel prize until he deserves it. Then he could express a painful regret at sending additional troops, and pledge absolutely to end these long American wars and lead a global effort against global warming even if it costs him the presidency. He then might return to Copenhagen next week to take the rightful mantle of being an environmental president.

Instead, majorities of people in America, Europe, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan will have to continue the search for a leadership that reflects their will and acts on their aspirations.

For the Nobel committee it is an ignoble time, and for Obama a moment of hypocrisy that will haunt him.

Tom Hayden
The Peace and Justice Resource Center

If the increasingly strident murmuring of the American liberal-left regarding Obama are indicative at all, it would seem Mr Obama is peeling off his fundamental support, and might well be re-elected by conservatives (minus the bottom-line racist 15-30% of Limbaugh/Beck-heads) come 2012.  While some may admire his Kissingeresque real-politick enunciated in elegant argument and history-acknowledging quotations, others might, as I increasingly do, find it lipstick on a pig.

Tehran (Update)

News from Tehran is, in the American press, skimpy, at best.  Lacking mass demonstrations or other TV- attracting elements, word from Iran is summarized in little supposedly dull reports:

According to the “experts” this is a uranium enrichment plant, dug into the mountains near the religious city of Qum, and on a basiji base.  It suggests that the Iranian authorities are endeavoring to place their facility in a hardened, “safe” setting, which in turn suggests their intentions are less than benign.  Of course another reading is that they are being prudently paranoid, given the behavior of their antagonists, both the USA and Israel, each of which have shown themselves capable of aggressive and damaging actions, sometimes based on less than real or honest information:

Alleged Iraqi Chemical Warfare plant

Powell’s alleged Iraqi chemical factory

Alleged Syrian nuclear bomb building facility, before and after Israeli attack

Given the sources of these recent revelations, one should be reasonably skeptical.  Self-interest is a rather strong distorting lens, and the Israeli’s have shown themselves, along with the US, to have rather curious concepts of “self-interest.”  America’s apparently lies anywhere that there’s money to be made, assets to seize, or anything like that which can be dressed up as “in the national interest.”  Or, Why Are We In Afghanistan?  Why, because it’s in our national interest, you silly child.

Back in Iran, most recently have come reports that three demonstrators, arrested in the upheaval of some months ago, have been tried and sentenced to death.  They were said to be royalists, in support of the return of the/a Shah.  Several hundred others have been imprisoned, apparently beaten, raped, and a few killed, including the son of a high up authority within the clergy.   Homosexuals are also said to be sentenced to death for this supposed crime.

Demonstrators, Sept 28 2009

Imprisoned and raped (and leaving Iran)

[Note: Apparently when same-sex rape is done by a basij, it is justice and not the supposed crime of homosexuality.]

All told, this is thin gruel for making much speculation, but there is a bit.  It seems the basiji – originally a kind of university vigilante militia organized to support the Islamic revolution  but now composed of mostly working-class toughs – has morphed steadily into an altogether different institution.  It now runs many major components within the Iranian economy, and is more a combination of quasi-military force and corporate entity of considerable wealth and power.  It apparently is considering professionalizing its militia forces, perhaps better to enforce its economic diktats.  Depending on one’s point of view it might be considered a kind of mafia.  It seems it is supposedly under the control of the clergy, though this begins to look a bit less clear.  In any event, within the major power players of Iranian culture, it seems unlikely the military would take kindly to an intrusion on its turf of this kind.  Similarly some major economic power-players apparently are chaffing at its fiscal clout.  To say there are internal stresses within the fundamental power blocks which for the most part run Iran.  The addition of the electoral fraud, and the clear unhappiness on the part of a large segment of Iranian society would suggest the future is likely to be grim, at least for the moment.  The heavy-handed behavior of the government suggests not confidence and power, but fear.   As usual with dictatorships on their way out, there is a self-delusion involved which usually finds recourse to brute force:  they’ll love us if we hit them hard enough.  Of course the usual consequence is bloodshed, more violence, repression and, finally, collapse.  Those who do it always seem to think they will be history’s exception.   So while I now imagine my previous six-month guess on when the current Iranian regime will crumble was a bit optimistic, it is clear that whatever the clock, the train is headed over a cliff.

Back in the US(S)of A, one could weave a similar story, albeit it is a bit different.  Here the US military and its “civilian” service industry, of which Republican President Eisenhower severely cautioned us in 1960, has indeed done something like the basiji:  it’s morphed from being a citizen army into a private conglomerate largely dictating just what the national economy may and may not do (afford).  A look at the old facts and figures shows the military-industrial complex is indeed running most of the show:  America spends more money on military things than all the rest of the world combined.  It litters the globe with 700+ bases.  It infiltrates both US culture, and that of other nations – with propaganda, with bribes, with all the usual stuff of a vast bloated and corrupt entity.  Like the basiji.

Basiji

US Basij equivalents

As with the Iranian Basij, the US military is increasingly taking on domestic policing, has its own economic interests (golf courses, “socialized” medical care, retirement pensions, revolving door arrangements with military contractors, etc.) and of course a deep self-interest in expanding its range of influence and assuring its continuation in power.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Speech

This report is a consequence of the fact that Tehran remains a constant high in hits to this site.  I think that indicates something – don’t want to bet on just what but….

For more on Iranian circumstances of the moment see these:

YouTube IDBasiji BBC Iran Focus ParsTimes Autnews (farsi) IranianProgressives

and a few more Iranian blogs:   Madyariran Human Rights Activists in Iran (farsi) HRA in English

Film Festivals and Search engines and how they Work.

About Search Engines and how they work.

The web in-spite of its appearance of freedom is actually one of the most insidious form of hierarchical institutions to emerge in modern times. It is found to quietly mirror American Institutions that depend on the role of institutionalized status rather than free and independent creativity. Search engines crawl to major sites and institutions based of the Federal ranking which itself is dependent upon how many famous professors, writers, critique’s etc. an institution has. Based on that data it then screens as to who among them visits which sites and who visits them and quietly based of these data and statistics it orders the search engine to reflect its find.

Every search engine is optimized around a well researched personality cult. For example if you happen to visit the site of a well known personality and post a comment and they happen to reply back, then your status is automatically uplifted from a mere web luckka (stray Dog) to a higher category.

That’s how the Web search engine functions in a round about way.

About concerns in a drop of interest in independent and especially eccentric and restricted festival such as ours (Sadho poetic fest) is something directly related to the disappearance of major world festival circuits partly due to economic reasons and partly due to loss of audience in matters related to art and culture over and above the economic.

One can have an unending discussion of the present down turn of events globally. Nevertheless I personally think that this downturn brings with it new opportunities especially for our sort of band of small fish.

This is Good for us small and think small types for whom the small is ultimately beautiful, than large types which demand large organizations and even lager cake from the world of finance and promotional ideology in times when the water has run dry.

I came across a good interview which gives a fair picture of the inde-market and why this market is facing its twilight hour. Though she discusses copyright issues she faced in making her début animated feature length film “Sita Sings The Blues“(creative commons), she also speaks about the present and sorry state of Film Festivals.

Link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3908581847435387139

Report 2 (Tehran)

Neda Agha-Soltan, aged 26, transformed from living young woman to dead human and living icon, is now enmeshed in the distortions which death bequeaths.   For those on the side of “the Green Revolution” she is a potent symbol, an emblem of innocence and youth and all which that implies – hopes for a future, possibility, life, and this case life thwarted and broken, a metaphor for the youth of Iran.   Conversely, for the regime of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (for clearly that is what it is, with “the President” merely the visible figure-head of other powers), she is apparently a dire threat.  So the government of Iran has issued two scenarios to explain Neda’s demise:  that she was shot by a sniper of the “terrorist opposition” forces, precisely to create a martyr and symbol, or, alternately, that her killing was arranged by a British documentarian, Jon Leyne, so as to spice up a film he was making.   That either of these explanations stretches credibility to the limit seems not to bother the propaganda arm of the Khamenei/Ahmadinejad gang, or, more exactly, it shows just how bothered they really are.  One more lie lathered on the rest, the delusions of power gone mad.  Thinking they could crudely jiggle the vote count to secure a giant mandate against the evidence of real opposition, they opened a Pandora’s Box, and now must follow its logic.  The consequence will be fatal, the usual trajectory of despots, a history from which they never seem to learn.

From UK Guardian:

Neighbours said that her family no longer lives in the four-floor apartment building on Meshkini Street, in eastern Tehran, having been forced to move since she was killed. The police did not hand the body back to her family, her funeral was cancelled, she was buried without letting her family know and the government banned mourning ceremonies at mosques, the neighbours said.

“We just know that they [the family] were forced to leave their flat,” a neighbour said. The Guardian was unable to contact the family directly to confirm if they had been forced to leave. [...]

Amid scenes of grief in the Soltan household with her father and mother screaming, neighbours not only from their building but from others in the area streamed out to protest at her death. But the police moved in quickly to quell any public displays of grief. They arrived as soon as they found out that a friend of Soltan had come to the family flat.

In accordance with Persian tradition, the family had put up a mourning announcement and attached a black banner to the building.

But the police took them down, refusing to allow the family to show any signs of mourning. The next day they were ordered to move out. Since then, neighbours have received suspicious calls warning them not to discuss her death with anyone and not to make any protest.

A tearful middle-aged woman who was an immediate neighbour said her family had not slept for days because of the oppressive presence of the Basij militia, out in force in the area harassing people since Soltan’s death.

Whether or not, as the Iranian government has asserted (and they have good historical grounds to do so), the CIA or the Soros Foundation or other such NGO’s operating at the behest of dubious interests had a hand in fomenting the present unrest, it is clear that a meaningful sector of Iran was interested in some change in their social arrangments;  in showing themselves  and their interests they provoked their government to showing its real hand and nature.  Iran is a police-state; like most police-states using brute physical force, a monopoly of arms and the major propaganda systems, and control of the economy, to consolidate power for a limited self-interested selection of people.  In this case the major players are apparently the Revolutionary Guard, formed by the clerics during the Revolution in 1979,  and which is the dominant owner of production and its wealth; the military is a power unto itself, and the Shia clerics another.  Among them, they – like the oligarchy which runs the USA – own and control almost everything in Iran.   In the minuet of forces which are used to keep such systems functioning, it seems the Iranian authorities badly overplayed their hand, and looking for the appearance of a massive public endorsement and mandate for their policies, they insulted a significant sector of the populace sufficiently to produce a reaction toxic enough to have set them back from whatever plans they had, and even to in due time induce their own collapse.   The post-US illegal invasion of Iraq chatter of Iran’s consolidation of power and influence in the middle-east has gone up in smoke.   Iran will be fortunate to stumble along at all, riven with internal contradictions and social disquiet until in due time the present controllers are overthrown by their own people.  In the poetics of politics, Neda will be named as the spiritual source, however incidental and accidental her death.

‘We protect 100 per cent of the world’s population. We’re 4 percent of it.’

I never Liked his snake oil stuff mentality, but I take an exception to his recent interview and agree with almost everything.

‘The Mumbai attacks were directed at the US too’

There is plenty of anger out there for his comments on CNN’s Larry King Live. Dr Chopra stressed the importance of looking at Islamic terrorism in a wider context, and suggested that the Mumbai terror attacks [Images] have to be seen in the context of American support for Saudi Arabia and that petro-dollars go from Saudi Arabia to Islamic radicals in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

One of the first attacks on Dr Chopra came on the television program The View where the ultra-conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck called him ‘Glitter Glasses Whatshisface,’ and then, dismissed his comments, muttering ‘Go light a bowl of incense.’

Dr Chopra spoke to rediff India Abroad’s Arthur J Pais at length about his recent views, commenting not only on the conservative American critics, but also a group of Hindus who have taken strong objection to his comments about the killings in Gujarat several years ago.

Do you watch The View?

I don’t. And I did not see the attack on me. When people mentioned it, I did not give it importance. I dismissed Hasselbeck’s views.

Why was that?

I had read that she had been traveling with (Republican vice-presidential candidate) Sarah Palin [Images] during the presidential campaign and that they were friends. I had also heard that she had political ambitions.

What happened then?

I started getting calls and mail from many people across the world. They were upset over her comments. And I also heard that ABC, which broadcasts the show, had asked her to apologise. So in the middle of the programme, she suddenly apologised to the viewers.

What did you make of it?

Well, she did not apologise to me. But that is not important. I believe the harm comments like hers do is that they take away the importance of the issues connected to the Mumbai attacks and in general the consequences of American foreign policy and the American involvements abroad.

What is that upsets you most about the American media?

A part of the media has become a circus. It makes things dramatic and melodramatic to attract ratings and readers. What I said on Larry King was taken out of the context by this section of the media.

In what way?

What I was trying to say was that the terrorist attacks on Mumbai are more complicated than we think. The attacks were directed not only against India but also at many other targets, including America, Britain and Israel. The fact that these guys had planned and executed the attacks before the Indian elections, the fact that the attackers were also looking for foreigners with American and British passports, the fact that they were attacking a Jewish establishment, and that the fact that they came from Pakistan… all these things are very important.

They were telling the Americans, ‘We are looking for you guys.’ They were also making a statement to Israel. And they were making a statement to India. They were also making a statement to their own government in Pakistan against making friendly gestures towards India. In that sense, the Mumbai attacks became an international event.

And the attacks and mayhem got unprecedented coverage in the Western media, especially on CNN.

Of course. You notice that the Western media gave the latest attacks much more coverage than the many recent terrorist attacks in India. This year alone there have been attacks against many cities, including Bangalore, New Delhi [Images] and Jaipur [Images]. The latest attacks got wide attention because there were Westerners among the dead, though their number is very small compared to the overall number of victims.

The attacks were also targeted at Western businesses that were doing business with India, telling the guests at the Taj and Oberoi hotels — and then businesspeople at large — that they are not safe in India.

So what I was trying to tell on CNN is that America is involved, intentionally or unintentionally, in these incidents.

So the talk of you attacking America…

I was not attacking America. I was trying to place the things in a context. I was getting everyone to reflect on the state of the affairs in the world, and urging people to look at the root cause of terrorism.

You have also talked about the rage against America in the Islamic world and how that could have had a role in the Mumbai attacks.

True, there is a tremendous resentment for a number of reasons. America supported the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. But once the Soviet Union came down, America abandoned Afghanistan. The war against Iraq which has killed over 600,000 Iraqis has led to tremendous resentment against America. Also, the treatment of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. The Muslim world is indeed enraged and humiliated.

Muslims know that once upon a time Saddam Hussein [Images] was funded by the Americans, and the atrocities he committed then were overlooked by America. But whatever I said on CNN was taken out of context and made sensational, particularly the headline in The Wall Street Journal, which said, Chopra Blames America.

What was the immediate reaction to these attacks?

Many people were angry; they were jokes against me on many radio stations, not only here, but also in England [Images]. They were also mimicking what Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote in The Wall Street Journal (‘How the ebullient Dr Chopra had come to be chosen as an authority on terror remains something of a mystery’). I got plenty of hate mail.

What were some of the comments in them?

Some said I should go back to India. Some talked about the money I had made in America, implying that I had no right to criticise America.

What would you tell some of these critics?

I am an American citizen and I have as much a right — even a duty — to discuss what I see are the shortcomings in my country. I have my own radio programme, and I have been commenting on politics for a long time. I have had in recent days as my guest former defence secretary William Cohen. I have had Peter Bergen, the best-selling writer and expert on terrorism.

What upset you a lot about the comments by right-wing television host Sean Hannity?

I was on his show along with Bill Cohen. Both of us said similar things about terrorism. But he went after me. I sent him a letter in response to his comments following my show, and his misrepresentation of what I said on his show regarding the Mumbai terrorist attacks. I did not receive any response from him. So last week I read it aloud on my Sirius-XM radio programme.

What was he complaining about?

He said I was blaming America for the attacks in Mumbai and he also said, ‘Wait a minute. You’ve done so well in America. Why are you blaming us? We protect 100 per cent of the world’s population. We’re 4 percent of it.’

What did you write to him?

I told him I was really disappointed in him. I also said that Cohen had made the same point I did about America’s policy toward the jihadists: Cohen quoted from an internal memo by Donald Rumsfeld that asked, ‘Are we creating more terrorists than killing them?’ I also said: ‘I was hoping to come back on your show and have a reflective, intelligent dialogue, but perhaps the attack mode is the only way you know to make a living. The best excuse for your dishonest accusations against me is that you don’t believe what you’re saying. The far right has deflated, so you are there to pump it up with hot air. If you stop blowing, you’ll be out of a job. I empathise.’

Weren’t you asked to appear on the very conservative Bill O’Reilly show?

(Chuckles). I said I would do so if he does not raise his voice, and does not interrupt. I also said I also won’t interrupt him. (chuckles some more) I did not hear from him.

You have also talked about Pakistan making serious gestures toward India in combating terrorism.

This topic has come up for discussion on my radio shows. But people have pointed out, particularly the terrorism expert Peter Bergen, that Pakistan will not hand over the suspects, particularly the leaders of the recent attacks, to India. There will be an outrage and a new war on the government there. Already, Pakistan is a failing State and its survival would be at risk.

The name of fugitive gangster Dawood Ibrahim [Images] is also coming up quite a bit in discussions about the recent attacks on Mumbai…

Experts on Pakistan tell me that it will be difficult to extradite him to India. When he was in India and running his mafia group, he was reportedly beholden to many politicians. Similar situation could be there in Pakistan.

What else do you think the American media hasn’t noticed about the recent attacks?

India has had at least five major terrorist attacks within a year or so. If one such attack had taken place on American soil, there would have been a war. Even if there was no specified enemy, the urge to go to war against any enemy would have been strong. This happened under the previous government. India has shown so far remarkable restraint.

The American media hasn’t paid enough attention how resilient the Indian people are. I am sure in two weeks Mumbai will be its former self and bustling. The vast majority of Indian people are very robust, very resilient and very creative. But there is a distinction should be made between the Indian people and the government.

In what way?

The governments are often corrupt. Some politicians often do anything to get into power. I also feel that in the Mumbai attacks there is a perfect opportunity for politicians with ties to Hindu fundamentalists to take advantage of the situation.

Your comments on Gujarat, while you were talking about various forms of terrorism, has angered many Hindu groups.

What happened in Gujarat was a genocide and there cannot be two ways of looking at it. But I also recognise the sentiment of some people who said that this is not the time — when people are grieving over the recent attacks in Mumbai — to discuss what happened in Gujarat a few years ago.

I am sorry for hurting those sentiments. But my views on fundamentalism will not change. Whether it is Hindu fundamentalism, or Islamic or Christian fundamentalism, I call it an idiotic but divisive force.

Fundamentalism in some cases causes untold problems including wars and terrorist attacks. I have seen all kinds of fundamentalism. My own family and that of my wife have lost members in Partition.

But going back to the recent trouble and destruction in Mumbai, I am surprised and disappointed that there has not been any proper outrage from the Islamic world, except for the sympathy extended by Pakistan. I ask myself, why is that the moderate Islamic community across the world is not coming out against these attacks? Where is the outrage? Where is their condemnation of terrorism?

Leading the way, again

Nightime in Athens, Greece

Greece, the supposed origin of “western civilization” has lately been leading the way again, with riots and a general strike, allegedly instigated by a police killing of a 15 year old.  One suspects the real causes lie far deeper, and the malaise which prompted this eruption has more to do with high unemployment, a rightish government busy attempting to implement the usual cocktail of Friedman economics, IMF and World Bank advice, and hence the customary disturbances brought by the so-called free market.

Perhaps in a bit the frantic efforts of the banking systems of the Eurozone, the USA, et al, will faulter sufficiently to produce a similar reaction elsewhere on the globe.