--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What our dear brother has written is that Great
Russian chauvinism consolidated itself with Stalin and
basically that Lenin himself was not a manifestation
of history development that confirms the status of the
oppressing people . . . domination and chauvinism.
Lenin
--- Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
there are other options besides secession: Ken
mentions federalism,
while simply increased democracy (including civil
liberties and
affirmative action) may do the trick in other
situations.
---
My personal favorite solution. It works for the rest
of
In a message dated 7/28/2004 12:13:45 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am simply interested in the proponents of self
determination . . . Lou P . . . and Mr. Green and whether they have any
material on their support of Regional autonomy for the Southwest in
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Give me a break. These so called national movement
. . . I also have
Yugoslavia in mind . . . are utterly reactionary
movements of and led by the
bourgeoisie and none of them even talk about
improving the life of the proletariat
as proletariat. Minister
Chris Doss wrote:
Reactionary is an understatement.
This is equally true of terrorists in Kashmir. About
70% of terrorists killed in Kashmir in the recent
years have been non-Kashmiris. They are usually
Punjabis trained by the ISI and smuggled into Kashmir.
But other nationalities are also
--- Ulhas Joglekar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is equally true of terrorists in Kashmir. About
70% of terrorists killed in Kashmir in the recent
years have been non-Kashmiris. They are usually
Punjabis trained by the ISI and smuggled into Kashmir.
But other nationalities are also involved. e.g.
Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
Chris Doss wrote:
Reactionary is an understatement.
This is equally true of terrorists in Kashmir. About
70% of terrorists killed in Kashmir in the recent
years have been non-Kashmiris. They are usually
Punjabis trained by the ISI and smuggled into Kashmir.
what are
--- ravi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
imho, the more important debate is regarding cause and
effect: did
local
popular unrest and uprising lead to the influx of
foreign terrorists?
or
did foreign terrorists bring about the image of local
unrest?
---
Maybe both are right?
Speak of the devil.
Unnamed Sources Expect Iraq To Attract Arab Fighters
from Chechnya, Kashmir
Beirut Al-Diyar (Internet Version-WWW) in Arabic 03
Jul 04
[Report from Paris by Al-Diyar correspondent Badra
Bakhus al-Faghali: Western sources expect Iraq to
turn into a center for fundamentalists
ravi wrote:
This is equally true of terrorists in Kashmir.
About
70% of terrorists killed in Kashmir in the recent
years have been non-Kashmiris. They are usually
Punjabis trained by the ISI and smuggled into
Kashmir.
what are the sources for these numbers?
I suggest you visit
Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
ravi wrote:
This is equally true of terrorists in Kashmir.
About 70% of terrorists killed in Kashmir in the recent
years have been non-Kashmiris. They are usually
Punjabis trained by the ISI and smuggled into
Kashmir.
what are the sources for these numbers?
I suggest you
Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
Chris Doss wrote:
Reactionary is an understatement.
This is equally true of terrorists in Kashmir. About
70% of terrorists killed in Kashmir in the recent
years have been non-Kashmiris.
Lately the resistance in Iraq has mainly been killing people at
open-air markets. The
same as the anti-imperialist content of blowing up pubs in Guildford and
Birmingham. Those who don't understand Ireland are doomed to repeat its
history ...
on the other hand, I suppose I should cheer up. Ireland is now a thriving
and dynamic nation, and racial prejudice against the Irish would
--- Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lately the resistance in Iraq has mainly been
killing people at
open-air markets. The anti-imperialist content of this
strategy is
hard to discern.
Doug
---
It doesn't have anti-imperialist content. The point is
to make themselves look badass on TV and
Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
Chris Doss wrote:
Reactionary is an understatement.
This is equally true of terrorists in Kashmir. About 70% of
terrorists killed in Kashmir in the recent years have been
non-Kashmiris.
Lately the resistance in Iraq has mainly been killing people at
open-air markets. The
Charles Brown wrote:
CB: The SU had autonomous regions.
They were formally autonomous. In reality, there was Great Russian
chauvinism from just around the time that Stalin was consolidating
power. Lenin's concern over this matter prompted him to wage his final
struggle against Stalin.
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
Have you added up all the Iraqi civilians killed by various factions
of Iraqi and non-Iraqi terrorists and compared the number to that of
Iraqi civilians killed by US and other foreign troops who invaded and
have occupied Iraq and by economic sanctions before the invasion
At 11:05 AM -0400 7/29/04, Doug Henwood wrote:
Have you added up all the Iraqi civilians killed by various
factions of Iraqi and non-Iraqi terrorists and compared the number
to that of Iraqi civilians killed by US and other foreign troops
who invaded and have occupied Iraq and by economic
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
You have no moral right to be acting superior to terrorists, since
you intend to vote for one.
But to be fair to John Kerry, he is only involved with state-sponsored
terrorism. As far as I know, he has never been involved in a suicide
bombing. Now he did apply botox to his
From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
You have no moral right to be acting superior to terrorists, since
you intend to vote for one.
But to be fair to John Kerry, he is only involved with state-sponsored
terrorism. As far as I know, he has never been involved in a suicide
ravi wrote:
Kashmir:
a US protectorate in reality.
then our duty is not to deny the
former, but to fight the
latter, isn't it?
How do you fight the latter?
Btw, do CPI and CPM share your positions?
Ulhas
Yahoo!
In a message dated 7/29/2004 8:49:16 AM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
how can you say that the original _expression_ of the local
population is irrelevant today? if it is true that the kashmiri people wish to
be rid of indian oppression, and we are afraid that the result
yoshie writes:
Only those who do not vote for Kerry or Bush have the moral standing
to criticize foreign terrorists.
why so much emphasis on an essentially powerless and thus meaningless act, an
individual vote?
jim devine
Louis:
Now he did apply botox to his forehead reportedly, but that did
not affect innocent bystanders.
Carl:
It could. Introducing a foreign substance like botox might cause Kerry's
crags to crumble like those of the Old Man of the Mountain under the
onslaught of winter ice fissures.
it's also
I don't want to sound patronising, nor like a single-issue obsessive, but
all of these conversational gambits were tried on the British left during
the Troubles and it's not obvious that they did a lot of good.
dd
-Original Message-
You have no moral right to be acting superior to
--- Doug Henwood wrote:
Lately the resistance in Iraq has mainly been
killing people at
open-air markets. The anti-imperialist content of this
strategy is
hard to discern.
Chris Doss:
It doesn't have anti-imperialist content. The point is
to make themselves look badass on TV and Jihadi
Devine, James wrote:
yoshie writes:
Only those who do not vote for Kerry or Bush have the moral standing
to criticize foreign terrorists.
why so much emphasis on an essentially powerless and thus
meaningless act, an individual vote?
It's testimony to the powers of American assimiliation that
--- Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CB: The SU had autonomous regions.
--
Russia still does. Tatarstan is the case in point.
__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
ravi wrote: Kashmir:
a US protectorate in reality.
then our duty is not to deny the former, but to fight the latter,
isn't it?
How do you fight the latter?
isn't the answer to that question what the broader context of this list
is? or at least the humanist left is?
The terrorist theory is that by blowing things up,
the powers
that be will crack down and alienate the population,
so that
the population will join the insurgent movement.
Specifically
in Iraq, it's supposed to show that the US hasn't
brought order
to the country. The hope is that the
In a message dated 7/29/2004 9:58:32 AM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Charles
Brown wrote: CB: The SU had autonomous regions.They were
formally autonomous. In reality, there was Great Russianchauvinism from
just around the time that Stalin was consolidatingpower.
me:
The terrorist theory is that by blowing things up, the powers
that be will crack down and alienate the population, so that
the population will join the insurgent movement. Specifically
in Iraq, it's supposed to show that the US hasn't brought order
to the country. The hope is that the
In a message dated 7/29/2004 9:58:32 AM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Charles Brown wrote: CB:
The SU had autonomous regions.
They were formally autonomous. In reality, there was Great
Russian chauvinism from just around the time that Stalin was consolidating
power.
Hasn't this gone on long enough?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
me:
The terrorist theory is that by blowing things up, the powers
that be will crack down and alienate the population, so that
the population will join the insurgent movement. Specifically
in Iraq, it's supposed to show that the US hasn't brought order
to the country. The hope is that the
CB: However, isn't this in response to criticism of the essentially
powerless act of supporting the Iraqi resistance on an email list ?
at least participation on an e-mail list sometimes provides intrinsic pleasures.
jim
Cool it, Yoshie.
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 11:12:55AM -0400, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
You have no moral right to be acting superior to terrorists, since
you intend to vote for one.
--
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail
Devine, James wrote:
yoshie writes:
Only those who do not vote for Kerry or Bush have the moral
standing to criticize foreign terrorists.
why so much emphasis on an essentially powerless and thus
meaningless act, an individual vote?
It's testimony to the powers of American assimiliation that
They were formally autonomous. In reality, there was
Great Russian
chauvinism from just around the time that Stalin was
consolidating
power. Lenin's concern over this matter prompted him
to wage his final
struggle against Stalin.
---
If a Georgian with a goofy accent can be a Great
Russian
yoshie writes:
Only those who do not vote for Kerry or Bush have the moral standing
to criticize foreign terrorists.
why so much emphasis on an essentially powerless and thus
meaningless act, an individual vote?
jim devine
Because, at bottom, it's a matter of avoiding a double standard of
If voting is merely an individual moral gesture, why
not make a
better moral gesture than a worse one, such as
refusing to vote for a
terrorist?
--
Yoshie
How do you know Nader wouldn't be a terrorist?
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So
Chris Doss wrote:
If a Georgian with a goofy accent can be a Great
Russian chauvinist.
What does his accent have to do with anything? More to the point,
Stalin's individual characteristics have little to do with the *social
process* at work in the USSR, which Trotsky accurately described as
OK.Let's end this thread right away!
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Affirmative action programs do not and cannot solve the fundamental
problem of a historically forced and institutionalized social position
of the African American people as a people. When one even mentions the
shattering and break up of the US multinational state many
At 11:19 AM -0700 7/29/04, Chris Doss wrote:
If voting is merely an individual moral gesture, why not make a
better moral gesture than a worse one, such as refusing to vote for
a terrorist?
--
Yoshie
How do you know Nader wouldn't be a terrorist?
If he becomes one, we will fight against him also,
In a message dated 7/29/2004 12:47:43 PM Central Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And Lenin
outlines issues for struggling against chauvinism including affirmative action:
"That is why internationalism on the part of oppressors or
"great" nations, as they are called (though they
In a message dated 7/29/2004 1:22:52 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK.Let's
end this thread right away!--Michael PerelmanEconomics
DepartmentCalifornia State UniversityChico, CA
95929
Comment
Sorry . . . sent last reply before rading this.
No more from me.
Even the fundamentalist suicide bombers dont usually just target open air
markets. They target police or lineups of people waiting to sign up for
security forces etc. The resistance is manifold. US forces are still prime
targets and the toll of dead and injured is still rising day by day.
In a message dated 7/29/2004 2:05:52 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
by Louis
Proyect-clip-... and the failure tomake socialist
revolution in the West--a failure in itself directlyattributable to the
Kremlin's own lack of Marxist insights.CB: Failure to make
I thought we were dropping this!
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
I posted before I had received the termination notice. Anyway my points are
different. The whole idea that the resistance is mostly from fundamentalist
bombers is misleading and the idea that even the suicide bombers let alone
the resistance in general is mainly targeting open air markets is just
Charles Brown wrote:
by Devine, James
.
The terrorist theory is that by blowing things up, the powers
that be will crack down and alienate the population, so that
the population will join the insurgent movement. Specifically
in Iraq, it's supposed to show that the US hasn't brought order
Horseshit. Oh, I'm sorry, is horsehit too harsh a word when faced with the
bemused scepticism of the professional rationalist? In that case,
horseshit.
The latest, and perhaps most gruesome, car bombing was adjacent to a police
recruitment center. Whether or not you approve of the targets in
So then why, Mr. Henwood, have you given credence to the notion that the US
presence might lend stability to Iraq?
- Original Message -
From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Israel pushing for Kurdish state? -
David, there is no need to talk that way. All you had to do was to explain the
situation, BUT the thread is supposed to have expired anywhere.
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 10:23:17PM -0700, sartesian wrote:
Horseshit. Oh, I'm sorry, is horsehit too harsh a word when faced with the
bemused
Damn it, David. Cut it out!
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 10:24:50PM -0700, sartesian wrote:
So then why, Mr. Henwood, have you given credence to the notion that the US
presence might lend stability to Iraq?
- Original Message -
From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sartesian wrote:
So then why, Mr. Henwood, have you given credence to the notion that the US
presence might lend stability to Iraq?
I haven't, asshole.
He has behaved ok until tonight. One more he is gone; or maybe I will just get him
to resub to LBO.
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 10:51:40PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
sartesian wrote:
So then why, Mr. Henwood, have you given credence to the notion that the US
presence might lend stability to
My apologies; it was intended for Doug, but the posts from David tonight were not
very nice, especially after I asked that the thread be discontinued.
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 08:42:15PM -0700, Michael Perelman wrote:
He has behaved ok until tonight. One more he is gone; or maybe I will just
To the both of you: Fuck off and die, you self-important pricks. Threaten
me because I stayed out past curfew? You know what you can do. And you
know where to find me if you don't like it.
- Original Message -
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
that may be true, but would you then agree with BBC's
assessment that
it
started as an essentially indigenous and popular
uprising? if so, that
is all the more reason to ask the people.
counterinsurgency warfare
might be a dirty business (and i doubt you condone
it), but it is all
the more dirty
On 27 October 1991 the leader of the national movement, former Soviet General
Dudayev, won the presidential elections in Chechnya. On November 2, the Russian
Duma denounced the elections in Chechnya. On November 7, Yeltsin declared a
state of emergency in Chechnya and ordered the arrest of
No, that's history according to history. Supporting
Dudayev in 1991 is not the same as opposing the
national movement in 1991.
Look, mister
alienatethepublicwiththenameofmywebsite.com, I
actually know Chechens. Real-live Chechens. They live
in Moscow. I get drunk with them. They do not support
Diane Monaco wrote:
That being said and I agree again with you, the
Kurds are an oppressed nationality. Period.
Does it mean that the Left should support the breakup
of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey?
Ulhas
Yahoo! India
Diane wrote:
That being said and I agree again with you, the
Kurds are an oppressed nationality. Period.
Ulhas wrote
Does it mean that the Left should support the breakup
of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey?
Ulhas
Of course not.
But I think your point is more along the lines of the foreign
Whoops, my mistake. I was confusing the Chechen-Ingush
republic with the republic of Chechnya.
--- Chris Doss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, that's history according to history. Supporting
Dudayev in 1991 is not the same as opposing the
national movement in 1991.
Look, mister
In a message dated 7/28/2004 11:41:00 AM Central Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Look, mister alienatethepublicwiththenameofmywebsite.com,
I actually know Chechens. Real-live Chechens. They live in Moscow. I get drunk
with them. They do not support the jihadis.
I am not going to
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How does this self determination formula apply to the
American Union in 2004. There are more African
Americans in and around metropolitan Detroit than
there are Chechens and the Nation of Islam was birthed
in Detroit. Do you gentlemen support and advocate for
the right
Diane writes;
That being said and I agree again with you, the
Kurds are an oppressed nationality. Period.
Ulhas responds:
Does it mean that the Left should support the breakup
of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey?
there are other options besides secession: Ken mentions federalism, while simply
--- sartesian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris,
You gave a better answer when you earlier when you
said you didn't know.
Assuming want Kashmiris want or don't want is
exactly not the issue. The
issue is the material determinants of the struggle,
the history of the
conflict in the area and
Hi Ravi, you wrote:
--- ravi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i do not know about fighters, but definitely quite a
few kashmiris have
been killed in kashmir by indian forces. a simple
search on amnesty.org
for 'kashmir' yields multiple pages and reports of
abuse and murder
perpetrated by the indian govt
Louis wrote:
Moreover, it is a mistake
to lump all the Kurds together. The Workers
Party in Turkey never cut
deals with imperialism, while the Iranian Kurds were allied with
the
USSR at one point, until Stalin's typically cynical double-dealing
forced them to look elsewhere. Of course, the Iraqi
Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
ravi wrote:
Let there be self-determination everywhere, from
Bejing toHavana.
in a general sense, why not?
Surely, Cuban leadership (and this is only an example)should offer
self-determination to Cubans before it demands demands
self-determination for Kashmiris?
i
Chris Doss wrote:
It's counterinsurgency war -- the main victims in
counterinsurgency war are always civilian. It's
probably the most brutal form of warfare there is. I
don't know about the state of the Indian Army, but
most of the horrors against civilians in Chechnya
(leavinf aside the
raviwrote:
i think if i understand you correctly, you are
commenting on the
hypocrisy of cuban support for kashmiris. that may
be valid. can i infer
further that you do not disagree with the content of
their call: i.e.,
the kashmiri people deserve the right of
self-determination?
No, I
... Kashmir is a part of India. India
has been partitioned once with disastrous
consequences. ...
Ulhas
I don't know much about this subject, but isn't a lot of Kashmir controlled by
Pakistan? so isn't that section part of Pakistan, a country which has already been
partitioned twice
Devine, James wrote:
I don't know much about this subject, but isn't a
lot of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan?
Yes, about a third of Kashmir is controlled by
Pakistan.
wouldn't it be best if both India and
Pakistan gave up their claims to the areas that the
other controls?
Yes. India
Ha. It's only a matter of time now until some of the
same people who have been glorifying the Kurds as a
long-oppressed victim-race now start vilifying them as
tools of imperialism.
--- Ulhas Joglekar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Hindu
Monday, Jul 26, 2004
Israel pushing for Kurdish state?
Chris Doss wrote:
Ha. It's only a matter of time now until some of the
same people who have been glorifying the Kurds as a
long-oppressed victim-race now start vilifying them as
tools of imperialism.
Nobody should either glorify or vilify them. Moreover, it is a mistake
to lump all the Kurds
Chris Doss wrote: Ha.
Do you know Cuba supports self-determination by
Kashmiris?
Ulhas
--- Ulhas Joglekar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The Hindu
Monday, Jul 26, 2004
Israel pushing for Kurdish state?
By Atul Aneja
Chris, why the sarcastic Ha.? The Kurds have been oppressed for centuries. Playing
a weak hand, they have
been involved in all sorts of weird arrangements, frequently living by smuggling,
shifting alliances
unexpectedly. Why can't people sympathize with them and still be disgusted by
I'm not surprised. They probably knee-jerk support
every little group that screeches national
sovereignity! Even if India goes down in flames.
--- Ulhas Joglekar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Doss wrote: Ha.
Do you know Cuba supports self-determination by
Kashmiris?
Ulhas
--- Ulhas
Sure they've been oppressed (as far as I know -- I'm
not informed on the issue). I'm alluding to certain
segments in the US according to him a group is
oppressed or not according to whether or not it is
pro- or anti-US or Israel.
--- Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Chris, why the
Where does this ocme from, Chris. Again, Cuba is weak -- yet amazingly has survived
every imaginable sort
of pressure -- so it may find it beneficial to side with Pakistan. But to make your
generalization about
knee-jerk support seems overblown.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 10:07:10AM -0700, Chris
Chris Doss wrote:
I'm not surprised. They probably knee-jerk support
every little group that screeches national
sovereignity! Even if India goes down in flames.
--- Ulhas Joglekar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Doss wrote: Ha.
Do you know Cuba supports self-determination by
Kashmiris?
Michael Perelman wrote:
Where does this ocme from, Chris. Again, Cuba is weak -- yet
amazingly has survived every imaginable sort of pressure -- so it may
find it beneficial to side with Pakistan. But to make your
generalization about knee-jerk support seems overblown.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004
ravi wrote:
why pakistan? isn't it wrong to reduce the human rights violations of
kashmiris (by both countries) to a tiff between the perpetrators? or to
put it another way why is supporting self-determination for kashmir =
siding with pakistan?
apologies for the flood. correction to the
You're right, I can't read Castro's mind.
--- Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Where does this ocme from, Chris. Again, Cuba is
weak -- yet amazingly has survived every imaginable
sort
of pressure -- so it may find it beneficial to side
with Pakistan. But to make your
so, are you two saying that kashmiris are a little
group that screeches
sovereignity? aren't their demands of
self-determination legitimate?
why
would india go down in flames if the people of kashmir
were to gain
self-determination?
---
You're assuming a majority of the people of Kashmir
want
Chris Doss wrote:
You're assuming a majority of the people of Kashmir want
self-determination. I don't know if they do. Since most fighters
killed in Kashmir (as far as I know) are non-Kashmiris, I doubt that
they do.
i do not know about fighters, but definitely quite a few kashmiris have
Chris Doss wrote:
You're assuming a majority of the people of Kashmir
want self-determination. I don't know if they do.
Since most fighters killed in Kashmir (as far as I
know) are non-Kashmiris, I doubt that they do.
The real issue is Indian occupation of foreign soil. India has resisted
Kashmiri
Has any country dealt fairly with minorities?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
ravi wrote:
tariq ali writes:
TA The real question is what to do about Kashmir,
and the simple answer
is to ask the Kashmiris.
Let us then ask Tibetan and Uighurs what they want.
Let us ask Sindhis and Baluchis in Pakistan, Tamils in
Sri Lanka, Arakan people in Mynamar, muslims in South
Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
ravi wrote:
tariq ali writes:
TA The real question is what to do about Kashmir,
and the simple answer
is to ask the Kashmiris.
Let us then ask Tibetan and Uighurs what they want.
Let us ask Sindhis and Baluchis in Pakistan, Tamils in
Sri Lanka, Arakan people in Mynamar,
ravi wrote:
Let there be self-determination everywhere, from
Bejing to
Havana.
in a general sense, why not?
Surely, Cuban leadership (and this is only an
example)should offer self-determination to Cubans
before it demands demands self-determination for
Kashmiris?
Ulhas
Chris,
You gave a better answer when you earlier when you said you didn't know.
Assuming want Kashmiris want or don't want is exactly not the issue. The
issue is the material determinants of the struggle, the history of the
conflict in the area and what the resolution requires.
- Original
sartesian wrote:
The
issue is the material determinants of the struggle,
the history of the
conflict in the area and what the resolution
requires.
1. Independent Kashmir would be a US protectorate in
reality.
2. Jammu Kashmir is not a homogenous entity.
3. A part of the territory of
97 matches
Mail list logo
