Mid-Day's Hatefest
©Prax Maskaren. 25th March 2003. See also Campaign of Lies - Part I
In my rebuttal of the Mid-Day statement, "Yankee Go Home" I had demonstrated how the Muslim-owned Mid-Day demonstrated a lying attitude towards the Bush Administration and its allies in the war to contain and even remove Saddam Hussain. I had emailed the link to that (rebuttal) page to Mid-Day, to its editor-publisher, Aakar Patel, but the only reply I received was to 'condense my letter to 150 characters' so that it could be published as a letter to the editor. Obviously enough, I have not thought it worth even bothering to reply to this.
However, as the invasion of Iraq by the Alliance commenced, Mid-Day has become more hysteric in its Campaign of Lies, setting out a veritable Hatefest against the Alliance. In this, Mid-Day has far outdone itself in its edition of 24th March 2003. I have tried finding the same articles on its online version but they are cleverly not featured there!
Before this, however, one columnist, Farrukh Dhondy advocated (Set Saddam Loose On Osama, Mid Day, 22nd March 2003) that the West ought to cultivate Saddam Hussain as a Secularist in order to counteract the Wahhabist bigots and be permitted to keep Kuwait and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for his troubles. This is a deliberate, feigned naivety: No one can permit, under any excuse, the invasion and subjugation of one people by another; Saddam Hussain is only a pretend-Secularist, being a patron of Islamic terrorism in Israel; Saddam fantasizes about expanding his tyranny into a great empire including the states of Arabia, and to encourage him and to connive in his crimes would only strengthen and make him more dangerous — the world does not need another Munich, another Sudentenland-Czechoslovakia, another Yalta. No, there is only one solution to the festering problem that Saddam Hussain poses to the world, and that is to remove him!
Moreover, by conniving at the expansion of his tyranny, democracy is not going to be furthered in Arabia and in Mesopotamia!
In his 8th March 2003 column, Farrukh Dhondy expresses his shock at enountering 'two young Afghan weomen who spoke English with American accents' (War On Ducks, Mid Day). Now, this is strange: Dhondy does not find it strange that Indians or Pakistanis or Afghans should be so totally Arabianized, but finds it odd that Afghans should be speaking in American English! (Was he expecting them to speak Danish with an Esqimaux accent?) Again, if he had been a sensible man, he would have been happy that Afghan women can talk at all, given their savage mistreatment and dehumanisation under the Taliban and al Qa'ida. That, however, escapes his mind! He can only marvel at Afghan women speaking in American English!
Another columnist, Rohit Gupta (Dogs Of War, Mid Day, 20th March 2003) begins by blathering on and on inanely about his life and struggles as a sperm, and then ends with a sting in the tail:
But it takes a man of indomitable moral strength and character to kill hundreds of helpless children, some of them so cute, knowing in your heart that it is for the 'larger good' of the mankind.
Naturally enought, to the hypocrite, the victims of Saddam Hussain, dissenters who are discovered or captured being brutally tortured and murdered, and to extend the reign of terror, their entire families too, their women brutally raped and murdered, their innocent little children savagely murdered: No, of course, these are not human, and these children not 'cute'.
Again, the children of Kuwaitis terrorized and murdered are not 'cute'. The Kurd children gassed en masse: these too are not cute.
The Israelite children who were the victims of Saddam's missiles: these too are not 'cute'.
The Israelite children who are the victims of Arab, Islamic terrorism to create an Arab colonial state in Israel by the name of Palestine or even merely for a worldwide Islamic empire, victims of suicide bombers and snipers: these too are not 'cute'.
For the hypocrite, being 'cute' is thus obviously selective. Obviously enough, Gupta would have found the children of Nazi Germany to be the 'cute' victims of the Allies' bombs! Obviously enough, he would have found the children of Tojo's Japan to be the 'cute' victims of the Allies bombs. But of course, in keeping with the same hypocrisy, the children victimised by Hitler and Tojo were no more 'cute' than those targetted by Saddam!
On page 8 of the 24th March 2003 Mid-Day, we have a graphic illustration of "American English," bearing the attribute: Text Compiled by Mid Day World Desk
For starters, we have the comparision between "Self Defence: When America invades a country, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cuba, etc., without UN approval," and "Act of Aggression: When Saddam invades a country, such as Kuwait, without UN approval."
Now, Mid-Day may think that it is smart, but it consistently demonstrates that it is just plain stupid!
There is no comparision between the two kinds of interventions. The invasion of Mexico on the pretext of aiding the 'natives' of Texas, who were really American citizens, or of the Kingdom of Hawaii, or latter of the Spanish Empire dependencies of Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Philippines belong to the class of criminal acts that compare with Saddam's.
The invasion and pretended annexations of Goa and of Sikkim by India in 1954, 1961 and 1971 also belong to this class.
The intervention in Vietnam to aid the Patriotic Resistance to Communism once France had thrown in the towel, or in Cuba again against the godless Communist tyranny and insanity of Fidel Crasto, or in Afghanistan to bring the ruling criminals who patronized international terrorism, or of Iraq to end its invasion of Kuwait and to totally end its mischiefs, belong to another class: one that is in the same class as the Allied invasion of France, Germany, etc., to liberate them from the Nazis.
But of course the punchline is the hilarious suggestion that if Saddam had only been more patient the UN might have approved Iraq's ambition to invade and annex Kuwait! This has got to take the cake! This adds the feather to the cap of Mid-Day's gross stupidity, arising out of its unthinking desperation to whitewash and justify Saddam.
Mid-Day then goes on to compare America's treatment of captives from al Qa'ida, the Taliban and of renegades such as Walker-Lindh, to the treatment of American POWs in Iraq. This ignores the material fact that people like al Qa'ida, the Taliban and the likes of Walker-Lindh are actually merely on the same level and of the same class as pirates, not legitimate, recognized states. And, as is evident, during its some five years of terrorizing Afghanistan, it was recognized only by its patron, Pakistan, and by the United Arab Emirates. The Alliance has not pretended that soldiers of Iraq are in the same illegal category as the Taliban and al Qa'ida.
Again, Mid-Day contrasts America's possession of nuclear, etc., weapons, described under its understanding of "American English" as Minimum Deterrents, while those of Iraq it says are described in the same "American English" as Weapons of Mass Destruction.
In this, Mid-Day cutely overlooks the material fact that underlines the distinction between America's weapons and Iraq's. Iraq had been caught with its pants down, having violated the law by invading Kuwait, and as a condition of peace, had committed to restrictions on the weapons it was permitted to have, which it then promptly violated. America is not in the same situation. There is, thus no moral comparision between the two. However, hypocrites will, of course, not be able to see that, due to their selective vision.
Lastly, and with an offesiveness that very clearly justifies the crimes of 9/11, Mid Day compares "American English" terms 'Terrorism: When Osama bin Ladin attacks cities such as New York and Washington with aircraft' and 'Shock and Awe: When America attacks cities such as Baghdad and Basra with bombs and missiles.' As if to underline its utter maliciousness and hypocrisy, Mid Day accompanies this with a graphic of the WTC buildings exploding after impact and bearing the caption, "The original shock and awe?"
In doing so, Mid Day has transgressed the thin line between legitimate dissent and actual approbation of a crime, which makes it an accomplice and abettor of hate crimes, of Crimes against Humanity.
But to come back to the matter of Mid Day's lies: I ask, Have minions of George Bush and Tony Blair been hijacking Iraqi civil aircraft full of civilian passengers and crashing them into Iraqi cities? Or is it that Mid Day wishes to pretend that there is no moral distinction whatsoever between bombing and firing missiles during combat and acts of terrorism against civilian non-combatants in peace-time?
The implication of Mid Day's malicious Hatefest go far beyond the limits of permissible dissent and free speech to actual incitement to crime and to terrorism. These words are words that deserve to be punished, to be awarded prison. However, to sic the law onto these lowlife is not my job.