Andrew Brietbart has a fascinating OpEd about a film opening the precise moment India’s 9/11 was being unleashed –
On the evening of Nov. 26, the biggest names in Bollywood walked the red carpet at the Bombay premiere of “The President Is Coming,” a comedy about six 20-somethings vying to win the right to shake hands with President Bush.
Among those in attendance at the star-studded premiere Wednesday evening was Bollywood’s “new heartthrob” Imran Khan, who proudly posed for paparazzi donning a T-shirt with Mr. Bush’s face sandwiched between the words “International Terrorist.”
…At the precise moment Mr. Khan and hundreds of others making their fortunes in the multibillion-dollar Indian movie business were watching “The President Is Coming,” only a few blocks away, 10 20-something Muslim extremists began a horrific three-day terror spree.
In the ironic, postmodern world, you earn accolades by tarring a disagreeable politician with the epithet “terrorist.” By contrast, had Mr. Khan worn a t-shirt critical of Bin Laden & his supporters, and stepped out of his comfy limo at the wrong time just a few blocks away, the word “terrorist” would have taken on a considerably more literal meaning.
This post is nothing more than right-wing bluster. Bush is an international terrorist—he lied to the US, to the UN, to the world, and as a direct result of his actions millions have been displaced and nearly a million killed. On top of that civilians continue to die in Afghanistan thanks to the shoddy “liberation” campaign he waged. And this isn’t counting Guantanamo, which is in violation of the US Army Field Manuel as well as the Geneva Convention.
Because of Bush’s actions and the actions of his administration, far more people have died than the victims of the 9/11 attacks. In terms of number of innocent people killed, Bush is a greater terrorist than Bin Laden. In terms of raw casualties, there is simply no comparison. Anyone who would deny this is seriously out of touch.
Sepia Mutiny, you should be ashamed of publishing such trash. If Vinod wants to spout off on his own blog let him, but this kind of post drags down the quality of Sepia Mutiny as a whole.
Regarding vaitandikV’s comment: this kind of comment
postdrags down the quality of Sepia Mutiny as a whole.We all know that Stalin, Mao Ze Dong, John Holmes, Hitler and the Nazi’s are and forever will be the benchmark against which we measure man’s accomplishment.
Eh? Pun about “man’s accomplishment” notwithstanding, Why are you associating a talented pornstar with dictators?
exactly. especially when i’m so good at it too.
154 · MFA said
well, that depends on what the defintion of it is.
154 · MFA said
Some people put themselves through MFA programs by getting a rise out of people.
155 · Manju said
manju, dahling, sometimes a rose is a rose is a rose.
well, isn’t it amusing to fool some of the people all of the time?
157 · MFA said
but other times a cigar is just a penis
158 · Manju said
ah, but i hate euphemisms; i was being quite literal when i said i had a cuban.
Excellent post, very succintly put.
159 · MFA said
Cuban’s are overated. They’re beneath you.
Maybe Imran Khan is wearing that shirt because he doesn’t want people to think his views agree with his movie character’s views? Sounds like in the movie his character really wants to meet Bush, but if Imran hates the guy than I bet I would also want to do a very easily interpreted gesture to clarify my views? And with the love for Obama all over the world, including India, I doubt that most mainsteam, Indipop public figures would want to associate themselves with Bush support in any way.
(Becauase as you know such wonderfully impartial and intellectual news outlets like TOI and STAR News wouldn’t try to imply he is the same as his movie role.)
151 says: If Vinod wants to spout off on his own blog let him, but this kind of post drags down the quality of Sepia Mutiny as a whole.
Translation? How dare Sepia Mutiny publish anything that disagrees with my point of view!
(yeah, yeah, I’ve done the ‘how dare you’ thing in the comments section, too, but I’m always embarrassed by it later. That kind of bluster convinces noone. BTW, I don’t mind the Harbeers of the world commenting here. That’s the best part of SM – when everyone fights with everyone else, calls each other names, engage in flame wars that last over three threads and three days, and then Manju makes an inappropriate penis joke. Can’t well just not get along?).
163 · MD said
well MD, nothing unifies people more than inappropriate dicks.
Actually, I didn’t think it was inappropriate so much as funny! Keep making inappropriate jokes! Long live Manju!
163 · MD said
Thanks MD, but there’s only one Harbeer and he’s out of this world.
Anyway, what did I do besides challenge the notion that “actors should stay out of politics” by arguing that silent acquiescence to the status quo is also a political position/statement? I wasn’t even that sanctimonious (this time) and I tried to remain civil even as I was being attacked, misread, and having words and sentiments which I never expressed attributed to me.
Shrug.
It’s called flirting really.
And inappropriate dicks.
115 · Harbeer said
Aha! “Disingenuous” is the new “Ad hominem.” Is that not what Mr. Khan is trying to convey? That in the fever swamps betwixt two fleshy receivers, that respond only a rights-based discourse, a fetish can be constructed around the ritualistic act of solemnly connecting dots between career rent-seekers who seek rent and all the man-made tragedies we have experienced. In this world it is also imperative that this preschool-level exercise should become merchandise worn by those who might consider themselves aware and informed.
What kind of dicks are inappropriate?
166 · Harbeer said
Well, let’s see how you react when bzuh is photographed wearing his $20 ash-grey long sleeved fitted “Ban Harbeer” t-shirt from cafe press.
170 · Rahul said
As long as it’s on sweatshop free American Apparel I really couldn’t care less. 😉
Libertarians for Banning Harbeer!
Err… quick question… since when did “terrorist” mean “someone who causes large numbers of deaths”? It’s much more complex than that. What Bush did in Iraq was not a systematically violent campaign designed to intimidate and terrorize the populace. From what I can tell, there was no deliberate targeting of noncombatants. It was war.
There’s a big difference between war and terrorism. If you don’t think so, then you might as well call people like Alexander, Julius Caesar, Chandragupta Maurya, and the Kauravas terrorists. They all caused large numbers of deaths.
Going by vaitandikV’s comment, apparently there’s some sort of threshold involved. Do explain it to me. Is a person immediately labeled a terrorist once he causes a thousand deaths? Before that, is he just an uncomfortably violent person?
I’m also doubtful that college students would be just as willing to pack up and move to a terrorist training camp as they would to San Diego.
169 · India uncut said
This kind.
you underestimate them. they once made a purse out of a sow’s ear.
Bollywood actors like imran khan are the last to declare someone a terrorist or not. Remember that Bollywood is funded by the muslim underworld of mumbai. Many of those gangsters have liks with terror organisations and have been active in terror attacks in India. Dawood is a good example. The links between those muslims gangsters/terrorists and certain Bollywood actors are very clear. Let’s all remember that a certain Bollywood actor (the halfbreed Sanjay Dutt whose mother was a muslim) had clear links with terrorists that attacked mumbai in 1992/93. There are many more actors that have thos links.
If imran khan wants to call Bush a terrorist than by that same logic his own ‘prophet’ is also a terrorist. Infact he was probably the chief of all terrorists
The post brushes aside an important question raised by the tshirt, namely – How do we define terrorism? Admittedly, the tshirt is not especially nuanced. (Although, I think it is a bit difficult for a t-shirt to be nuanced.) I believe it is interesting to see how US law addresses the issue. US law defines terrorist activity as follows:
Any group of two or more people engaging in, conspiring to engage in, or threatening to engage in terrorist activity is a terrorist organization. Additionally, groups that do not engage in terrorist activity but provide support to terrorist organizations are also terrorist organizations. Any member of a terrorist organization is a terrorist.
The distinction that BlackCat raises above between war and terrorism is based on death toll or the deliberate targeting of noncombatants. Supposedly, in that formulation disregard for deaths of noncombatants does not make war into terrorism. (ie dropping a 500 ton bomb on a pre-school with one solider stationed is war not terrorism). Now, US law does not make distinctions based on intent or who was targeted or hit. It simply refers to individuals not distinguish between combatants and noncombatants. Nor does it refer to death tolls. Obviously, the administration never intended for this definition to be used against them. However, the President has engaged in almost everyone of the defined terrorist activities. The acts included more than two people in every case. So, the President is a member of a terrorist organization and is a terrorist.
P.S. Please, please find a better news source than the Washington Times next time. Now, I’m not saying outright that war equates to terrorism, but the current definition is overbroad. We need to be far more careful as a nation and as an international community in defining exactly what is terrorism. The current definition of terrorism is including hundreds of thousands of individuals who should not be defined as terrorists.
174 · loki said
According to Wikipedia, even Sunjay Dutt’s mother was born into a Hindu family, and she later converted to Islam later in life (or her parents converted). But she’s actually born into a Hindu family who converted to Islam, like A.R. Rahman.
Imran Khan is an American Citizen