Neo humanis, Terrorsim and educaiotn

These are extracts from some of the articles in the US:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Editorial/Jihads_True_Face/articleshow/3781351.cms
1. One lady writes "if, as now seems likely, last week's terrible events in Mumbai were the work of Islamic terrorists, that's more bad news for India's minority Muslim population."
She is afraid of the repurcussions of the attcks.Nothing surprising, right?
Well she is afraid not of further attacks but, the treatment that woudl be meted out to In dian Muslim youth - she feels that they would be rounded up and edetained without any inquiry and discretion. She further deplores the "inhuman" Hindu terror acts sagainst Indian muslim - does she mean the Godhra carnage (conveniently forgetting what happened before that?) But what about the Mumbia blasts and hijacking (when Masood Azhar got freed)
She goes on to say that this is same as the neo-racialism going on in the US (post 9/11).
2. There is another gentleman (has to be as he is a US citizen), who points out - "the Mumbai catastrophe underscores the importance of vocabulary". That terror be treated only barbarism and not war. True, though it doesn't much change the effect and loss.
Now let us look at his reason (and for those of you preparing for GRE and GMATs be very attentive):
"The former implies a cause: a national or tribal or ethnic rationale that infuses a sacrificial action with some group's view of heroism; the latter is an assault on civilised values, everyone's. ... To the degree barbarism is a part of the human condition, Mumbai must be understood not just as an act related to a particular group but as an outbreak of pent-up irrationality that can occur anywhere, anytime. It may be true that the perpetrators viewed themselves as somehow justified in attacking Indians and visiting foreigners, particularly perhaps Americans, British and Israeli nationals. But a response that is the least nationalistic is likely to be the most effective."
So very enlightening (more about his "unfeeling" character, and ) thoughts about English. And he further that the retaliation shouldn't be based on nationalistic would be most effective.


But has she forgotten that this is not new in India, we were terror targets since long before US acknowledged the existence of the word in the dictionaries. Or as is more probable, she must have felt that if her country doesn't believe that India is abeing "terror"ised then that alone can be the truth. Which US citizen would have/does care for any other country, anyway? If this is what humanity is alla bout, then I think we need a new word to describe the selfeless souls who sacrifice themselves for the sake of others, and not just give armchair comments.

And dude tell me what would be your reaction, if your kids were shot at point blank range when they went out for lunch? And u think the reaction shouldn't be nationalistic? Would India have to wait for a UN force to come? And let the loss of life continue? Can you get any more meaningless than that?

And the pity is these two are professors at University of Chicago and Princeton. What sort of effect would people like this have on the taught. Be liberal, no one says it is wrong, but don't be hypocritic. And the greater pity is Indian students line up for these Universities - and many people in India still find it easy to believe that the education standards there are better, all round personality devolopment they say - Under such teachers? Well a generation that venerated the West is ruling us, and the effects are clear. When will we change, or will we?