But to link a reasoned critique of Western foreign policy blunders to a justification for the killing and maiming of innocent commuters in the London peak hour endows murder with an aura of morality and reason it does not deserve. The London bombings are the price Britain pays for being a democratic, multicultural society, not the war in Iraq. What is required in the new era of terrorism is the capacity to discriminate in our judgements, not to abandon the ability to judge everyone except the United States and its allies, as Ali would have us do. George Bush's policies may be deeply worrying, but that doesn't make bin Laden a hero. But Western democracy and theocratic terror are not moral equivalents.So in the above article he says that the British participation in Iraq is no excuse for terrorists to attack Londoners. Quite right. But the same chap now writes about the New Delhi terror attacks:
If the bombers have achieved anything, it is to remind us democracies occasionally get it wrong, but that despotic, malignant cults such as al-Qaeda that kill people merely because of the colour of their skins, or the clothes they wear, or the god they worship, are always wrong.
Barely a day after New Delhi's triple terrorist bomb blasts killed 61 people, the same marketplaces that were strewn with bodies were again bustling with life.
Such is India's capacity to cope with the reality of horror that some ask whether it's a model for life in the age of terrorism, or just a callous, careless country inured to its own citizens' pain.
So if New Yorkers or Londoners hit the streets after a terror attack it is called resilience, but if Delhites do it it is called callous. Read on.
But drawing the line between a terrorist on the one hand, and on the other an Assamese separatist in the country's remote north-east, or armed Maoists running their own administrations in neglected tribal districts, is more than a mere exercise in semantics. In India, violence is a political weapon that all sides - including the state itself - use.
Hey, did't we see riots in Bradford, West Midlands in the UK. Did the British government was playing fiddle with the rioters. See how in the first article he defends Britain for paying the price of being a multicultural and democratic. We understand it perfectly. But this idiot ignores the fact that India is much more larger with so many ethnicities and languages - but he gives no such leeway for a democratic India. More from this hypocrite.
Explanations for India's insensitivity to its own travails range from its huge size, to poverty and the caste system. The Nobel laureate and author V.S. Naipaul surmised that caste created a partition in the Indian mind between the individual and society as a whole.
With 240 million people living below the poverty line, and 15 million of them crowding into cities like Delhi, the struggle for survival takes precedence over fears of death.
First he makes a phoney 'Indians are insensitive' arguement and now he comes up with an equally phoney arguement. Ladies and Gentleme, presenting the caste system and poverty. This is the favorite punching bag of Western journalists when it comes to India. You see, when we talked about London attacks, did we mention British Empire's atrocities in the sub-continent as being responsible for the attacks. It could be possible that terrorists among whom were Muslim youth Pakistani origin held a grudge against Britiain for overthrowing the Ottomon Empire and hence the Caliph. Sounds phoney right. So why the fuck are you introducing all this historical baggage when it comes terror attacks against India. Call it what it is you hypocrite!