India and Maoist Rebels: Echoes of the Worker's Paradise

Just a reminder that the conflict - or conflicts - going on today are not just in the Middle East, and don't always involve Muslims with a particularly violent view if Islam:

Maoists in India

Maoist rebels in eastern India took over some villages and killed more than 10 people who supported the Indian government.

The rebels, Naxalites, say they're fighting for the rights of the poor. My guess is that the point could be disputed. As for me, I remember the 'good old days,' when workers kept trying to escape from the worker's paradise.

Somewhat-related posts:

• "Guinea, Military Rule, and Terrorism: Beware Hasty Judgment"
  (December 29, 2008)
• "Pakistan, India, Mumbai, Nuclear Weapons, and Pashtunistan: Simple This Isn't"
  (December 27, 2008)
• "Bangladesh Arrests JMB Terrorists - You Thought American Elections Were Rancorous?"
  (December 25, 2008)
• "No Burial in India for Terrorists: Muslim Group's Gutsy Stand"
  (December 1, 2008)
• "Terrorism: Still Not a Muslim Monopoly"
  (June 11, 2008)
• "China's Military: This Can't Safely be Ignored"
  (March 27, 2008)
• "The War on Terror? This May be The War For Freedom"
  (March 18, 2008)
• "Terrorists as an Oppressed Class: That was Then, This is Now"
  (February 23, 2008)
• "Tamil Terror? Bomb Blows up Bus in Sri Lanka"
  (January 16, 2008)
• "Indonesian Deradicalization Program Working: In Indonesia, at Least"
  (January 15, 2008)
• "The War on Terror: India Has Troubles, Too"
  (January 1, 2008)
• "The War on Terror: Not Just America's Problem"
  (December 31, 2007)

In the news:

• "India deploys troops against Maoists"
  CNN (June 19, 2009)

China's Military: This Can't Safely be Ignored

"China’s 2008 Defense Budget"
American Interests (March , 2008)

This is a brief, but detailed, discussion of China's military growth. It's reasonable to assume, given what China is doing, that Chinese leaders have global, not just regional, plans and ambitions.

As I've said before, the present conflict may be more a 'war for freedom,' than a 'war on terror.'

The War on Terror? This May be The War For Freedom

The War on Terror is a fairly common name for the efforts of America and other nations to keep Islamic enthusiasts from killing their citizens. A few things I read over the weekend made me consider using a new name for the 21st century's first major conflict.

Another Front in the War on Terror?

China has been exporting pre-infected consumer electronics to America. Last week's news included "Electronic gadgets latest sources of computer viruses" CNN (March 13, 2008), about an interesting new wrinkle in cybersercurity: electronic gizmos with viruses already loaded at the factory. All you have to do is plug them into your computer, and you've got a potpourri of malware. Gadgets affected include iPods, digital picture frames, and navigation systems: "some of today's hottest gadgets are landing on store shelves with some unwanted extras from the factory: pre-installed viruses that steal passwords, open doors for hackers and make computers spew spam."

The little v-bombs, for the most part, come from Chinese factories. Since the malware seems to be loaded at the end of the production process - ironically, in a quality-control check - this may not be intentional hacking: just the sort of sloppy work that brought us lead-tainted toys, and sent poison dumplings to Japan. ("'Just When You Thought it was Safe to Plug in Your iPod...' " Apathetic Lemming on the North (March 17, 2008), "China: Toxic Toys and Dubious Dumplings Aren't Signs of Terrorism" (January 30, 2008))

Factory-infected consumer electronics isn't the only concern that Americans should have when it comes to the Middle Kingdom. China's government says that the United States should stop thinking that they're trying to hack into American military computers. ("China denies U.S. computer hacking agenda" CNN (March 4, 2008))

I can understand why China's leaders want America to look the other way. They seem to be paying hackers to get information out of American military networks. ("Cyber Tensions Flare Amongst U.S., Chinese Military" (March 12, 2008))

For most of the Cold War, cameras, spy planes and wiretaps were the high tech intelligence tools. These days, it's hacking on the Internet. Attacks on American territory in cyberspace aren't anything new:

• 2007:
  • Homeland Security networks shut down, sensitive data compromised
    Attack traced to the Chinese People's Liberation Army
  • Unclassified Pentagon email system used by the offices of Defense Secretary Robert Gates accessed,
    taken offline and fixed
• 2006: Naval War College computer network attacked and temporarily crippled

Quite a few cyberattacks have Chinese fingerprints on them, and Chinese computer enthusiasts say that they're occasionally subsidized by the Chinese government to hack into American networks.

China's motives are clear enough. These days, it's easier to have someone in Beijing break through firewalls and encryption to get weapons blueprints and battle plans, than it is to arrange for an agent to go snooping around with a flashlight and lock picks.

All of which has nothing to do with Islamic extremists blowing up markets and beheading people they don't approve of. Apparently.

The War for Freedom?

My educated guess is that China and Russia are already involved in the global conflict that's been called the War on Terror.

Last year, I wrote about WWII's odd couple, Germany and Japan. ("Iran and Russia and Germany and Japan" (October 19, 2007) ) Germany's leadership was dedicated to the premise that the "Aryan Race" was superior to all others. Japan's very non-Aryan leadership undoubtedly did not share this view.

That didn't keep them from cooperating, a lesson that seems to be lost on people who insist that Iran couldn't possibly be supporting Al Qaeda because Iran is Shiite, and Al Qaeda's Sunni. Differences in philosophy don't make alliances impossible.

Last year, I suggested that Russia could be repeating the same mistake that it made in WWII, forming an alliance with Germany. Russia and its empire were called the Soviet Union then, and this time Russia seems to be leaning toward Iran: but the principle of forming an alliance with an up-and-coming tyranny is the same.

Now, I think that China may have gotten involved.

I don't suppose it's politically correct to say this, but it's not hard to see Russia and China as nations interested in gaining (or re-gaining) an empire. With a goal like that, either of them might make strange alliances, or at least take advantage of America's, and others', trouble with terrorists.

If Russia and China become more, and openly, involved in this global conflict, it won't be quite "the War on Terror" any more. I suggest calling it the War for Freedom. Whatever their ideological differences Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Russia, and China have, they are united in this: None can tolerate the free expression of ideas, open communication of facts, or people deciding how to spend their own money and live their own lives.

That's "freedom." This is a war with terrorists and tyrants on one side, trying to limit freedom, America and some other nations are defending freedom.

Under the circumstances, "War for Freedom" isn't such a far-fetched name for it.

A related post: "Deterrence in Cyberspace: This Just Might Work" (March 18, 2008)

Tibet: A Preview of Coming Attractions?

Let's say that the voices of peace and reconciliation make themselves heard after the 2008 American elections, ending violence in the Middle East.

Or, at any rate, ending opposition to Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other enthusiastic supporters of a particularly control-oriented sort of Islam.

I suspect that these Islamic enthusiasts, and their supporters, would bring peace and order to the Islamic world in short order. Peace and order on their terms, and by their definition, of course.

That process would take a while, but let's say that by the run-up to the 2016 American elections,

• The Pan-Islamic Purview Independent Caliphates (or whatever it's called) has control of the lands between India and Greece
• This association has been discretely providing financial and tactical support to American political candidates - sure, it's illegal but that's American law, and they're above that
• The surviving American candidates either throw their support to the Purview's candidate, are kidnapped and sent back in pieces, have tragic accidents or are blown up by martyrs

Unlikely? In detail, yes. In a generic sense, assuming that America adopts a 'live and let live' policy towards radical Islam, I'm not so sure.

When the Purview's presidential candidate wins the election,

• Congress is either disbanded or (more wisely) maintained as a relatively expensive public-relations front for the council of imams who actually determine policy
• Existing judges, from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, are replaced with men whose knowledge of Sharia law is unquestionable
• A sweeping campaign of social reforms begins purging blasphemy and women drivers from America

Again, unlikely? In detail, yes: but how many people really believe that a group of power-hungry, ideologically-driven men, with little to no regard for laws or traditions other than their own, wouldn't try something like this?

We can get an idea of how well people react to their country being taken over by a foreign power, no matter how well-intentioned, by looking at the Chinese province of Xizang. (The name "Xizang" probably isn't familiar to you. Quite a few people in America still call the place "Tibet," even though China invaded the country, fair and square, in 1951, started calling in a Chinese province, and call it "Xizang.")

Protests in the Tibetan capital Lhasa turned violent last Friday, and today there are protests in neighboring Chinese provinces.

" 'Whether intentionally or unintentionally, some kind of cultural genocide is taking place,' said the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader. He was referring to China's policy of encouraging the ethnic Han majority to migrate to Tibet, restrictions on Buddhist temples and re-education programs for monks." [emphasis mine]

China's leaders certainly aren't Islamic, but they do have a history of enforcing rules for ideological reasons: remember Mao's "Cultural Revolution?" Mao's gone, but it looks like 're-educating' people whose thoughts aren't government-approved is still practiced.

Judging from what went on in Afghanistan, and what's happening in Saudi Arabia, my educated guess is that there is an element in Islam that is quite serious about enforcing their beliefs. And if America allows the likes of Al Qaeda and the Taliban to continue their policy of conquering and reforming insufficiently-Islamic countries, Sooner or later, it will be America's turn.

I don't think I'd enjoy that.

More about Xizang, or Tibet:

• "China's 'Go West' Drive Seeks to Funnel Aid to Poor Region"
  International Herald Tribune (May 8, 2001)
• "China's hard sell in the mild, mild west"
  CNN (May 29, 2001)
• "Tibet Protests Spread to Other Provinces; Dalai Lama Warns of 'Cultural Genocide'"
  FOXNews (March 16, 2008)
• "Some Basic Facts About Tibet"
  The Associated Press (March 14, 2008)

Tolerance, Opinions, Newspeak, and Today's America

This blog isn't, as I've written before, political. But since politics affects America's decision-making process regarding the war on terror, the topic comes up. This is one of those times.

"Liberal Minded, You’ve Been Blinded" Urban Conservative (March 12, 2008) is, in my opinion, a well-thought-out description of a particular sort of liberal. The author defines the sort of "liberal" he's describing in the second paragraph.

If you think Senator Ted Kennedy is moderate, or that all military recruiting centers should be closed, you probably shouldn't read that post. Particularly if you have high blood pressure, or a nervous disorder.

I think it's good reading, though: and gives a remarkably clear look at the differences between liberalism and conservatism in America. The 2006 comparison of Salvation Army pails in San Francisco and Sioux Falls, SD, for example, may be news to you.

The "Liberal Minded" post also highlights a set of ideas and beliefs which, in my opinion, are keeping many Americans from seeing and understanding what is going on in the world today.

One of those ideas is the curious meaning of the word, "tolerance." That's a word that's been used - and mis-used- a great deal, and is one of the ideas brought up in the "Liberal Minded" post. Here's a copy of my comment on:

Your claim that liberals, although praising tolerance, are in fact intolerant, indicates that you use oldspeak: "They worship freedom of speech for all groups and lifestyles, yet deny select groups from voicing their opinions."

In the current version of newspeak, the "opinions" of persons who engage in crimethink are generally referred to as "hate speech." Obviously, "hate speech" is not the same as "opinions," as anyone capable of doublethink would realize.

Persons with bellyfeel of today's liberal doctrines by and large also possess the blackwhite to accept this definition of "tolerance" without hesitation.

Since you clearly have an ungood attitude toward and goodthinkers and ownlife, I'll continue in oldspeak:

Your last paragraph starts: "Go ahead; call me a right-wing war monger. I’ve been called worse." I don't doubt it. However, in fairness, Let's point out that a Nobel Peace Prize did go to Yasser Arafat in 1994, along with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin, "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East" ( http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1994/ ). So, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the illustrious trophy will go to, say, Ahmadinejad: for his peaceful efforts.

Although some goodthinkers have already made their bellyfeel known, I'll risk committing crimethink by saying that I really enjoyed this post: and think that you hit the nail on the head. I appreciate your careful definition of "liberal." There's quite a broad spectrum - one that I think isn't quite bipolar - out there.

Thanks for posting, and - keep writing, crimethinkwise!

---

About me, in the context of this post:

It's easy to assume that I'm conservative, given the views I express. I'm not.

I'm not liberal, either: and I'm certainly not "moderate" in the current political meaning of the word.

I'm Catholic.

Just the parts of my faith that relate to respect for human life, service to others, and personal responsibility put me at odds with parts of conservative ideology, and with parts of liberal ideology. It also means that I am in agreement with other parts of each of the two political poles.

All of which makes deciding how to vote a real challenge.

Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

---

Update (March 23, 2009)

I started a glossary of newspeak in another blog: There are 'newspeak dictionaries' on the Internet, but some are offline at odd intervals, and others are free-for-all compilations of what George Orwell actually wrote, and nifty words and phrases that sprouted up later.

Eventually, I'll go through the book myself and fill in the blanks in the list I made. But, that's low on my priority list right now.

Why Bother?

I like researching and organizing facts. This growing glossary of Newspeak is, I think, a useful guide for evaluating messages we hear, see, and read today.

People with extreme views on all ends of the ideological spectrum have produce propaganda. George Orwell was a Socialist of sorts, and a member of the British Left.

I'm a Catholic - which, in some circles, is worse, or just as bad, as being a socialist or commie. I've posted about that before ("Conservative? Liberal? Democrat? Republican? No, I'm Catholic" (November 3, 2008) ).

So, here's that work-in-progress:

"Feeling Ungood About Doublethink? Here's Help "
A Catholic Citizen in America (March 23, 2009)

"This post started as a simple definition, and grew.

"Had a Bellyful of Newspeak and Bellyfeel?

"If doublethink has you feeling ungood, or you can't get rid of the niggling suspicion that thoughtcrimes may not be as ungood as you've been told, you're not alone.

"Here's a very short glossary of terms which you may find helpful, while trying to think coherently about what you read and hear on the news. The words are from George Orwell's novel, 1984...."

The Fairness Doctrine is Back

Somewhat in the manner the Transylvanian Count getting resuscitated by his loyal servant in a Dracula sequel, the Fairness Doctrine is back in play. This relic of the post-WWII years was last heard of twenty years ago.

One of the effects of the rule was that if a station ran a 30-second spot for political party A, they had to run a 30-second spot for political party B, too. Even if the station's news feed was run by people who shared party B's views, even if the station's sitcoms, docudramas, and Captain Planet re-runs bore the stamp of party B's world view.

Getting back to the hemophagous count metaphor:

Back in 1987, fearless Fairness Doctrine hunters cornered the creature, drove a stake through its heart, stuffed its mouth with legal opinions, and buried it.

Now, one of the two major political parties, apparently believing that there's too much unregulated opinion floating around, has dug it up.

My attitude toward this attempt to regulate the marketplace of ideas should be pretty clear. A much more restrained discussion of the subject is in a piece written by Senator James Inhofe: "Fairness" at the Expense of Freedom?

As for me, I'm looking for a stake.

Freedom, Foolishness, and the Fourth

On Independence Day (U.S. - July 4), in another blog, I posted the last sentence of the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America, and the names of the people who signed it.

The flame that followed didn't last much more than 24 hours, but it was impressive.

Not much later, in a blog started by someone else, on Freedom, one of the advocates of absolute freedom proposed the following argument. (Aside from bleeping some of the more adult, sophisticated, and mature statements, it is unabridged, copied directly from the original blog comment.)

"The state does not have the right to regulate 'shouting "Fire!" in a theater'.

"This is the oldest and most widely used sophistry of those who would abridge freedom speech as dfined in the First Amendment.

"Would you like to hear the full argument?

"Sorry, I no longer have the time or the interest in playing that game.

"The authoritarians who would abridge the full and clear meaning of the Bill of Rights are invited to play with themselves.

"It will all come out in the wash.

"S**** you and your 'God' too.

"Oh yeah, and lest I forget, and shut the f*** up and turn in your guns."
(source not available)

I'm sharing this as an example of the sort of freedom of expression that we enjoy in this country. In addition to the fellow who writes in slogans and epithets, there were a variety of well-thought-out arguments, some of which were not in agreement with current federal policy.

That sort of discussion isn't possible everywhere in the world, at least not with any degree of safety. There's a joke from the Cold War that can be dusted off and re-written to illustrate the point:

An American and an Iranian were discussing freedom of speech in their countries. The American said, "we are free to speak our mind here. I could stand in the middle of the Mall of America, and shout 'I think the American president is an idiot!' The Iranian replied, "we are just as free to speak our minds. I, too, could stand in the middle of the Tehran flower market and shout 'I think the American president is an idiot!'"

The War on Terror might also be called the War for Freedom. People like Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahri and Sheikh Hamed al-Ali; and groups like Al Qaeda, Fatah al-Islam and Hezbollah, all have one thing in common.

They, like Iranian president Ahmadinejad, believe that Islam should rule the world. Their brand of Islam, of course. Judging from what the Taliban did to Afghanistan, I would rather not see that happen.

Ahmadinejad makes his beliefs very clear, saying, "every problem we [Iranians] have will be solved by global Islamic rule" and "we must prepare ourselves to rule the world." These claims are both chilling, and remarkably difficult to find in traditional news sources.

I'd better make it clear that I hope, sincerely, that the 'rule the world' branch of Islam has the same relationship to Islam as a whole that the KKK did to Christianity, back in the sixties. Our problem is that today's Jihadists have power that the KKK could only have dreamed of.

Back to freedom.

Independence Day is a day for people in the States to get outside, grill at least one meal, set off or watch fireworks, and enjoy a day or two off. It's also a day to celebrate the signing the Declaration of Independence, when representatives from thirteen colonies laid out exactly why they would no longer be tied to England.

In this country, we celebrate Constitution Day on September 17. That holiday doesn't draw anywhere near as much attention, although it is the Constitution and its amendments, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, that determine how, and to what extent, we enjoy our freedom.

Back to the War on Terror.

It is important to remember that the War on Terror is an effort to keep crazed religious fanatics from committing mass murder. It's also an effort to keep them from setting up a theocracy that would make liberals' fears of the Bush administration seem like a welcome relief.

The other side of this coin is that the struggle against the Islamic jihad is a struggle for freedom. People in this country have gotten used to being able to speak their minds, to play soccer if they feel like it, and wear a wide variety of clothing.

It would be a shame if we lost that.

By the way: although about nine weeks, by my reckoning, separate Independence Day and Constitution Day (aka Citizenship Day), it took over 11 years (1776-1787) for the government of the United States to have its basic structure hammered out. And we're still arguing about how it should work.

Now, about half-way through the weekend after Independence Day, I think it would be appropriate to remember how the Declaration of Independence ends, and the people who took enormous risks so that those who followed them could disagree with the powers that be, and live to complain about how they were treated:

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[signed]

Georgia: Button Gwinnett; Lyman Hall; George Walton

North Carolina: William Hooper; Joseph Hewes; John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge; Thomas Heyward, Jr.; Thomas Lynch, Jr.; Arthur Middleton

Massachusetts: John Hancock

Maryland: Samuel Chase; William Paca; Thomas Stone; Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe; Richard Henry Lee; Thomas Jefferson; Benjamin Harrison; Thomas Nelson, Jr.; Francis Lightfoot Lee; Carter Braxton

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris; Benjamin Rush; Benjamin Franklin; John Morton; George Clymer; James Smith; George Taylor; James Wilson; George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney; George Read; Thomas McKean

New York: William Floyd; Philip Livingston; Francis Lewis; Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton; John Witherspoon; Francis Hopkinson; John Hart; Abraham Clark

Transcripts of the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America, the Consttitution of the United States of America, Amendments 1 through 10 (the Bill of Rights), and
Amendments 11-27 are available online.

On a more contemporary note, Jonathan D. Halevi's Al-Qaida's Intellectual Legacy: New Radical Islamic Thinking Justifying the Genocide of Infidels is interesting, if dry, reading. He's biased, though, since he's an infidel.