Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- The Rise of the New Economy Movement
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- The Organic Watergate: Alarming Report Reveals USDA's Cozy Relationship with Corporate Agribusinesses in 'Organics'
- Updated: Under Pressure, TED Releases 'Income Inequality' Talk
- 'Biggest Act of Civil Disobedience in Canadian History'
Popular content
Today's Top News
Britain and US Urge India and Pakistan to Keep Talking
Indian Muslims,protest against terrorist attacks in Mumbai, ...
AP
Sat Nov 29, 8:03 AM ET
Previous 111 of 457 Next
Indian Muslims,protest against terrorist attacks in Mumbai, as a placard reads ' Kill terror not terrorist ' in Ahmadabad, India, Saturday, Nov. 29, 2008. Indian commandos killed the last remaining gunmen holed up at a luxury Mumbai hotel Saturday, ending a 60-hour rampage through India's financial capital by suspected Islamic militants that killed people and rocked the nation.
(AP Photo/Ajit Solanki) The
United States and Britain are urging India and Pakistan to act with
restraint and do nothing that could set back the recent thaw in their
relations in the wake of the Mumbai terror attacks. But a direct public
accusation by India yesterday that the perpetrators were linked to
Pakistan risked rekindling tensions.
With signs of a growing rapprochement between the nuclear-armed neighbours linked to hopes for a more effective US and Nato-led military effort against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, the stakes for the south Asian region could hardly be higher, diplomats and analysts said.
"We are privately encouraging them not to do anything that could derail this process," a senior British official said.
Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, is to discuss the crisis with foreign secretary David Miliband in London before a Nato ministerial meeting on Monday.
Whether by chance or design - some experts believe it was a goal of the terrorists - the Mumbai attacks came days after Ali Asif Zardari, the Pakistani president, made striking overtures: to withdraw his country's first-strike nuclear threat, sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, create an EU-style economic zone with India and allow visa-free travel.
Illustrating this progress, Pakistan's foreign minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, had just finished talks in Delhi with his Indian counterpart on terrorism, trade and visas when the terrorists struck.
But the fragility of the rapprochement was underlined too when Manmohan Singh, India's prime minister, said the attacks were probably masterminded by a group based in an unnamed "neighbouring country" - usually code for Pakistan.
India's foreign minister, Pranab Mukherjee, went further yesterday by saying that "initial evidence" showed "elements with links to Pakistan are involved".
International alarm at this finger-pointing was tempered by relief that Pakistan is behaving so helpfully. Zardari condemned the attacks and agreed yesterday to send the head of the powerful ISI intelligence agency, Lieutenant-General Ahmed Shujaa Pasha, to India to review evidence on the Mumbai atrocities.
Analysts said this suggested the Pakistan military was confident that no direct links will be revealed by India. Pakistan is keen to avoid a repeat of the near-war situation following the assault on the Indian parliament in December 2001.
But there were hints that the Pakistani authorities might acknowledge the existence of indirect links with terrorist groups: when Zardari telephoned Singh yesterday to again condemn the attacks, he said that "non-state actors" were responsible. "Non-state actors wanted to force upon the governments their own agenda but they must not be allowed to succeed," Zardari's office cited him as saying.
"Do not play politics into this issue," Qureshi warned. "This is a collective issue. We are facing a common enemy. We have to join hands to defeat this enemy."
The US state department said it, like Britain, was sending investigators to Mumbai to help the Indian authorities.The wider US concern, however, is about what one diplomat predicted could be "significant deterioration" in the process of Indo-Pakistani reconciliation. That has been boosted since Zardari, widower of the assassinated Benazir Bhutto, replaced Pervez Musharaf to become Pakistan's first civilian president since 1999.
Barack Obama, the US president-elect, has signalled that this will be a priority for him and for General David Petraeus, head of US central command. The aim is to persuade Pakistan to pay less attention to India and more to the al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in the border tribal areas.
On a visit to Afghanistan in July, Obama highlighted the regional aspect of the fight against the Taliban in that country and, increasingly, inside Pakistan. "A lot of what drives motivations on the Pakistan side of the border still has to do with their concerns and suspicions about India," he said. Pakistan continues to station the larger part of its army not on the Afghan border but along the line of control in Kashmir.
The two countries have fought three wars since independence in 1947 and nearly did so again in 2002 after the attack on India's parliament. Pakistan for years supported militants battling Indian forces in Kashmir but reined them in after the 9/11 attacks on the US. While seeking Pakistani cooperation in the "war on terror," the Bush administration also drew closer to India.

110 Comments so far
Show AllFunny, if Israel or America is attacked just like that, we shoot first ask later whereas if India or Pakistan is attacked like crazy, we urge "peace". It was the US and Britain that got this terrorism started in the first place. Why isn't anyone calling for an abolition of the CIA which is involved? When Israel and America can "defend themselves", India can just as well do the same. Let India destroy Al Queda so the US doesn't have to.
Carla Waters
"It was the US and Britain that got this terrorism started in the first place."
The problems between India and Pakistan we had nothing to do with. We were not involved at all in any of their wars.
Ahh ... i see. Thats all cleared up now in my fuzzy head. Britain had nothing to do with the India-Pakistan problems and neither does the U.S. Its as simple as that. Nice.
Sorry, I meant the US. Britain was certainly involved during the Raj and many of their decisions in the late 1800's and early 1900's led to current problems.
But the US has been arming Pakistan and India all too often so wouldn't you think that we were sort of involved in their wars?
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Terrence, see below, but I'd say no we aren't involved other than as suppliers of equipment. Their argument is far older than even the Raj. And we certainly weren't involved in their 3 wars since 47 other than as suppliers.
Of course you are all correct that supplying is helping. But involvement suggests control or direction which we most assuredly did not have.
"Their argument is far older than even the Raj."
What argument ? Pakistan was part of India (Indian subcontinent) before partition. The british created the divisions. Hindus and muslims in India did get along for the mots part as they are of the same ethnicity. You need to either visit or read up on Indian history.
"And we certainly weren't involved in their 3 wars since 47 other than as suppliers."
Oh yes we were. We offered implicit and explicit support to an endless stream of Pakistani dictators so as to gain a strategic foothold in South Asia and turned a blind eye to all the mischief these dicks were upto. We are equally culpable.
Britain divided India into India and Pakistan. Ok, so that's a really long time ago and decades have past. However, the US Government has been giving those two nations financial and military aid with our taxpayer dollars. If those two nations were not given the weapons, they wouldn't be able to fight each other like crazy. We may not be involved in their wars but we helped them get into it big time. Don't you agree?
In selling them arms or supplying them arms sure. But no more than any other nation that sold or supplied them weapons. China, Russia, North Korea, Poland, UK, etc. And if we hadn't it wouldn't have slowed them much.
But involved in their wars since Independence? Not the US.
Look at Viet Nam. North Viet Nam got all the weapons they needed from Russia and China to oppress and murder their own population. Does that mean that Russia and China are responsible for the 50,000+ murders during land reform foe example as they supplied the weapons? Or was it the North Vietnamese that pulled the trigger?
"In selling them arms or supplying them arms sure. But no more than any other nation that sold or supplied them weapons. China, Russia, North Korea, Poland, UK, etc. And if we hadn't it wouldn't have slowed them much."
Ouch. I guess we are at a lose-lose. To make matters worse, I hear China has been supplying Pakistan with nukes while Russia and Israel have been doing some for India. This does not look good at all. :=(
"But involved in their wars since Independence? Not the US."
True, but I thought just giving it to them would be enough to say we aided them but oh what's the use? If we don't give them, someone else will right? Very sad. :=(
"Look at Viet Nam. North Viet Nam got all the weapons they needed from Russia and China to oppress and murder their own population. Does that mean that Russia and China are responsible for the 50,000+ murders during land reform foe example as they supplied the weapons? Or was it the North Vietnamese that pulled the trigger?"
Well, if it weren't for China and Russia arming them, the death toll wouldn't have been so great unless of course another country or two was prepared to step in and take their place of supplying Vietnam. I do agree with North Vietnam shouldn't have pulled the trigger but giving them the guns made it far easier for them to resist the urge to kill. Am I missing something here?
---"the US Government has been giving those two nations financial and military aid "
India has never received American military aid ! India has always been a Soviet leaning country since its independance and for the longest time was a staunch believer in Non-Alignment, choosing the middle-path between superpowers. The collapse of the Soviet Union has definitely changed the status quo and in the recent past India (with its new found wealth) has grown closer to the U.S. and is beginning to purchase U.S. arms. Read up a little before you begin to vomit over the board as usual.
Pakistan on the other hand has always been a U.S. stooge or client-state for the last 60 years and has always done our bidding for us.
--- "If those two nations were not given the weapons, they wouldn't be able to fight each other like crazy."
Here we go again with kindergarten analysis. States aquire weapons one way or the other. We ofcourse make billions of dollars off the arms trade so stop bitching.
I find your ideas about our aid to India and especially our military aid naive to say the least.
Your comment is also offensive and uncalled for. The only vomit I've spilled lately was reading your hope for terroist attacks on Washington D.C. and Islamabad. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I read it, but I see I was mistaken.
Thomas ... my offensive comments were directed at the bigoted beast Carla, not you. I was replying to her post ..please check. Also my comments on DC were rhetorical and meant to be cynical which I am !!
"I find your ideas about our aid to India and especially our military aid naive to say the least."
Really ?!! I suppose i should just shut up and go away now because your brain cannot handle information. Smoke some weed. Those cobwebs may disappear.
What about those nuclear weapons the US is giving to both Pak and India. That'll sadly keep them nuking at each other. Get with the times.
"What about those nuclear weapons the US is giving to both Pak and India. "
Yet another unsubstantiated claim yanked out of those dark nether regions. So we are giving them both nuclear weapons ? As much as i hate our aggressive and unbridled foreign policy, this claim is like saying you saw BigFoot, when you actually stumbled upon your own shadow.
"Treat others as you would be.."
gyptian...
"India has never received American military aid !.."
Sorry... Wrong..
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/wawjune2005.html#7
From what I read, Russia used to be the main supplier but if the US gets a better hold of India, Russia's arms supply to India could diminish. Otherwise, it will go back. Ditto for Pakistan. If the US doesn't arm Pakistan, then China makes up for it. Thomas More raised an interesting point that if the US doesn't do the donating, then there will always be other nations ready to step in. I don't support the idea of nations arming other nations like crazy but this issue is out of our control as I see it.
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
.
Thomas, How wrong can one be? As the principle power on this planet the USA has led by example, and that example is one of John Wayne diplomacy and using our military as a bludgeon to gain our own way.
Do you seriously expect calls for diplomacy from a nation that has invaded a sovereign nation, imprisoned hundreds, tortured many of those, murdered tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocents to be heeded?
You are in dire need of a gut check there old boy! Besides, the inequalities and dire poverty that beset the third world are, in part, the direct result of the puppets we install who enrich themselves at the expense of the people and the bloated lifestyles we here lead , lifestyles which come at the cost of raping the third world for resources. Etc.....
While the current dilemma facing India and Pakistan may not be directly laid at our door we are certainly responsible for setting some really bad examples.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Sioux Rose
ARDEE: Right on. Some in this forum deride the lack of muscle of the World Court, and then on THAT basis congratulate the US for not joining. The World Court needs the U.S. on board since the U.S. military IS otherwise a threat to that court's capacity to implement its findings, however just. The U.S. must become a nation among nations, not the "pre-eminent" power that acts as "DECIDER" to all other lands and peoples. This is why the world took a collective sigh of relief in seeing Bush voted out at last... unfortunately, Obama is not stacking up the team of players that would represent a reliable portent of change or progress of the sort so many millions are hoping for.
In this country, most people don't even know that a World Court actually exists. It's bad enough that when I try to bring up discussion on the U.N. at a casual meeting, most people will stare at me and bark at me for even mentioning the name U.N. . If I brought up the name World Court, these same people would perversely think that the US will somehow be controlled by "commie" dictatorships. It's a tough hell reasoning with those folks but since I used to be one of them, I won't giving up trying to convince them out of their madness.
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
I suspect that the Pakistanis got tired of burying their women and children
after Predators dropped Hellfire and damnation on them from the heavens.
The Beltway is too far to send a message but Corporate America's 'back office' is handy.
This incident needs to be fully investigated before any actions are taken. All the evidence should be presented to the international community. Criminals should be brought to justice. Calls for more violence are wrong and will escalate things.
Hurry up with the investigation and hold the criminals accountable already. All evidence is already presented and crystal clear. How many more 9/11s does this planet need?
"All the evidence should be presented to the international community."
And after the evidence has been presented to the International Community, what are they going to do about it? Actually, what could they do about it?
"what are they going to do about it?"
Nothing. What they should do is force Pakistan to genuinely dismantle its terrorist infrastructure, which is very much in place and functioning very well judging by the carnage they've been able to wreak. The U.S. needs to cut off its $10 billion aid to the Pakistani military. The U.S. should completely stop supporting an endless series of Pakistani dictators and puppets. The long, devious and insidious history of U.S.-Pakistani military to military contacts must end. None of these steps will take place and once the breastbeating and pontificating is over, life goes on as usual till the next terrorist strike ... this time hopefully in Washington D.C. ot Islamabad.
"The U.S. needs to cut off its $10 billion aid to the Pakistani military. The U.S. should completely stop supporting an endless series of Pakistani dictators and puppets."
Thats the truth. If we keep doing it, we may gain control which of course is what the idiots have been trying to buy. And it would be the worst thing for everbody.
"life goes on as usual till the next terrorist strike ... this time hopefully in Washington D.C. ot Islamabad."
Are you serious about that wish? Surely you said that without thinking?
"Are you serious about that wish? Surely you said that without thinking?"
He'll be allright. He doesn't really mean it. He has plenty to lose if that happens and he wouldn't want that coming his way. :)
As for the military aid, we need to ABOLISH the CIA if we're going to stop allowing the Pakistani military to snatch $10 billion of our taxpayer money year after year.
I was wondering the same. The international community rarely does anything about this anyway. Besides, isn't it outside their control?
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
There is the World Court and there are laws. Unfortunately the US has chosen not to sign on.
Joe
Nor will we. Nor should we. I'm beginning to think that a mistake has been made as I read more of the posts here.
Isn't the World Court powerless or at least controlled by monied hucksters or something?
Thomas - once again your desire for pithiness leaves some things unexplained :)Please let us know what mistake you are talking about? Also, why do you think we shouldn't be part of the World Court, if you think it is appropriate to discuss it here? The only explanation I have ever heard is that they could try people like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Kissinger, which would not bother me very much.
Joe
How long will that investigation take and what does the international community have to do with it when it is between Pakistan and India? And just how do you plan to bring the criminals to justice if the international community doesn't find the criminals guilty?
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
This attack is obviously meant to appear like one thing, when it is really something else. The “experts” spout their two cents worth on the mind numbing, brainwashing mass media and trot out the usual buzz words, Muslim Extremist, Al Qaeda style, bla… bla… all feeding the agendas of their “masters” or in other words what the Financial/MIC who are divided only by their various factions of power with various axes to grind. So you are left to think only what they want you to think. But, these bits of info and half truths, sometimes deliberate lies, mostly speculation get you no closer to truth, but are excellent at firing up prejudices and antipathies, between religions, states, and peoples, and founding absolute convictions of righteousness, getting the flags waving, the words of gods and men quoted, country threatened, heroes praised….. That is called brainwashing.
What is absolute and certain is, America, Israel, Britain, India and Pakistan are all countries in which organized state and/or non state players working alone or together are cable and have in the past conducted false flag actions using non national operatives.
A lot of the information made available by the media so far has suggested that the attack might have been perpetrated by a previously unheard-of Muslim extremist group, working out of Pakistan, with possible connections to Al Qaeda (who ever they are?)… Etc. Well, it makes no sense. And, one would hope that the public is starting to get wiser to the fact that, in these types of events when all the “talking heads” seem to agree and are trying to tell you its one thing, you can more or less bet, they haven’t got a clue but are providing the “approved” smoke screen.
The only achievement (and perhaps the only goal) of this attack carried out with military preparation, training and precision has been to make Muslims more marginalized in India, strengthen the anti-Muslim religious based political groups who depend on bigotry and ignorance, causing further religious tension internallt and interfering with the rapprochement between India and Pakistan. That terrorism is devious, and seems like pointless violence is an understatement, but no such action is ever taken without calculating the full and far reaching consequences. None of these results could furthers any of the interests of any Muslim group in general or in particular… It makes no sense. (Saying they were aiming at British and Americans, also doesn’t make sense, they could have killed far more. They killed mostly Indians indiscriminately. Attacking the Jewish centre was deliberate, but could equally well have been a ploy, certainly forbidden under the Koran). Again, it does not make sense.
This is an age of mind wars, in which speculation, prejudice, innuendo, half truth, and double-speak is the currency and has been the death and destruction of millions mostly innocent, across Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Darfur, DR Congo, Chechnya, Kosovo, Georgia etc....
This blatant waste of life does not make sense, neither did 9/11, nor 7/7 nor Bali, nor any other similar waste of innocent life, commonly termed as terrorism, (a term originally used to define the actions of certain Jewish groups in Palestine). But, these events have all been used to justify, further use of violence, aggression and war. The beneficiaries of these events may seem quite surprising and out of place in retrospect. For example reading the comment from Benjamin Netanyahu, reported on April 16, 08 in Haaretz, "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that "these events swung American public opinion in our favor."
I for one hope that the leaders of India and Pakistan could in fact use this terrible tragedy to reverse the effects, by coming together to jointly fully investigating, finding the real culprits, and unmasking the guys behind the curtain, and for a change, confound the perpetrators of this attack. Now, that makes real sense.
The Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc ... have been under terrorist attacks from the bad apples in the Muslim community. These bad apples deserves the death penalty for taking innocent lives away. Unfortunately, too many otherwise good Muslims have been trained to "respect" even the bad apples and have no intention of seperating good from evil. Just look it up in the Quran and ask the moderate Muslims. This leaves others no choice but to hold those who commit OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE accountable. Until the good Muslims undo the hijacking of their religion and purge the evil doers, they will be the victims of their inability to stand up for justice and will unfortunately have to reap the consequences.
The Christians, Jews, Hindus, and especially the Arabs, etc ... have been under terrorist attacks from the bad apples in the American/Zionist community. These bad apples deserves the death penalty for taking innocent lives away. Unfortunately, too many otherwise good Americans have been trained to "respect" even the bad apples and have no intention of seperating good from evil. Just look it up in the Bible and ask the moderate Christians. This leaves others no choice but to hold those who commit OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE accountable. Until the good Americans undo the hijacking of their religion and purge the evil doers, they will be the victims of their inability to stand up for justice and will unfortunately have to reap the consequences.
Sioux Rose
LUCITANIA: Truly fine analysis. Thank you for sharing it.
There is a very vicious and prolific commentator, a bigot called Clara Waters, posting comments such as follows, which appeared with a similar article in CD. I for one have flagged that comment and asked CD that this person be banned in future.
“If Muslims would quit being a bunch of rogue criminals and terrorists that they are and stop trying to impose their fascist shit on a secular democracy, then they wouldn't be in trouble. They're getting around to being the biggest welfare queens in the US and India and are even trying to suck it off in Europe by playing the victim game to rig the system any way they can. Hell, at times, they even make the worst rightwing evangelicals "liberal" in pale comparison.”
For my part I can happily ignore her and her drivel. I would invite others to do the same. Personally I cannot condone people using these forums to peddle their bigotry and hate and can only wonder if they are paid by the word. This is exactly the kind of thing that feeds divisions and violence between people.
Lucitanian thank you. I have flagged her also. She is reposting my posts and using them for her own ends. Everyone should report this woman so that she is banned.
You folks on this site are completely hilarious. What's the use of banning people. A discussion can involve disagreements. There are plenty of posts that may sound offensive but banning people? I thought the Internet was the last beacon of democracy. You people need to grow up.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
I do not much approve of flagging and banning. I don't flag. Flag not lest ye be flagged. It can lead to sterility of thought. It is much better to contend with differences, as exhausting as it can get.
But I do think there can be a limit on how many times one can post on one article or some word limit. The discussions on the Mumbai attacks have attracted an unusual number of rabid, repetitive, garbled, hate-filled and confused posts that taken as a whole interfere with a productive discussion.
Joe
Thank you Joe. We may not agree on a lot of things but discussions can always give us all food for thought. I'll admit that this terror attack really pissed me off because it reminded me of 9/11/01 and I apologize if anyone felt offended by some of my remarks because they might have been too rough. I'm just so sick and tired of these terrorist attacks going haywire all the time. But I also don't believe that carrying out terrorist attacks, be they on the World Trade Center, subways, business hotels, etc ... are going to address the needs of the poor in the Muslim world. Sure, these poor civilians may jump for joy in revenge for one minute. However, because they did not get together like a community and stand up to their own tyrannical misleadership and press for better leadership that would stand up to the rigged capitalist system, they're setting themselves up for risking their lives. It's just like the way we keep electing bad leaders in Washington by not paying attention to local and state level elections which could instead pave the way for better leadership in Washington in time.
"Sure, these poor civilians may jump for joy in revenge for one minute."
Who stands to gain from this. Why was this done. The Muslim world has
nothing to gain from this, and the neocons have everything to gain.
I realize our media has been making hay while the sun shines "An
Al Queda style operation". You have jumped on to this wagon
pointing the finger, and trying to drum up as much racist hate as possible.
Which is what the real perpetrators wanted.
You are correct.
"an unusual number of rabid, repetitive, garbled, hate-filled and confused posts that taken as a whole interfere with a productive discussion."
You are correct and the haters have worn on me. I will stop.
Please see what Carla said below. The desire to ban her is because of her hate filled posts. Anyone who is pro-Genocide on this site needs to be banned. There's freedom of speech and then there's hate speech directed against whole races of people. Hate speech is wrong.
Carla Waters November 27th, 2008 5:09 pm Afghanistan article
"On this issue of bombing Pakistan and Afghanistan, I say let it happen. The innocent ones are already lifeless for the most part and we would do them a double favor by pulling them off the tubes and wiping out the disease."
Could you learn to reframe the issue and debate accordingly please? Perhaps you could have told her something like this:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Afghans do not have to be forced to suffer. We need to inform and educate the American people that our government is supporting the Taliban and the drug lords and we need to reform or get rid of bad agencies that claim to keep us "safe" but are actually causing harm to other nations and compromising our national security. There is no need to put innocent civilians in a dictatorship to death. Let us focus on cutting down on shipping weapons and focus on giving aid to Afghanistan to repair the country's infrastructure and let them decide what religion they want. If they want to vote Muslim, let them. If they want to be secular, let them. The civilians may not feel that they have any hope but it is not impossible to undo the damage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of complaining about hate speech simply because you do not understand others, why not try to understand and reframe the issue. People who show hate against someone or something simply misunderstand. Banning people means you don't want to have a discussion, plain and simple. Children tattle tale, not adults.
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
"learn to reframe the issue"
So a torturer comes to a forum of medical practitioners discussing how to alleviate suffering to advise that he has found a slower and more painful way to kill people. And, you would suggest the doctors listen to him carefully and "reframe the issue". Yaa, there is no way of dealing with hate and genocidal delusions by applying "reason" and logic. Of course I feel compassion for the suffering that haters feel but I have learned that most of the ones that spout that kind of rubbish here are in fact, doing just that, trying to reframe the issue towards their brand of hate, and by dialoguing with them it encourages them more and in fact they have succeeded. So you may waste your time, I won't waste mine.
And who said I do not understand the venom of this poor person. I feel sorry for her in her simple blindness. People who hate are not simply misunderstood. They are obsessed with their own righteousness to wish for the destruction of others as a whole, that is insane, anti-social and requires treatment, tolerance without restraint will not work. That is not my opinion. That is a fact. And you are right, there is nothing to discuss with hate. It only breeds more hate.
Thank you again Lucitanian. How on earth can hate speech be reframed? It cannot. It is what it is. Its wrong. I do pity Carla and agree her self-righteousness has led to her extreme views. The world is not simply black and white its shades of gray.
You live in DC I take it where 93% of the voters are solid blue so I take it that you have been insulated from conservative America which is understandable. Heck, even Northern VA from what I hear is solid blue these days although the rest of the state isn't. Likewise, Prince George and Baltimore are solid blue while eastern and rural MD are solid red. However, I don't share that kind of fortune. I live in rural America and especially in the most crimson red of states where I have to put up with people of self-righteousness everyday. Luckily, I came across a progressive professor from Berkeley named GEORGE LAKOFF whose advice on framing and reframing the issues and the debates has proven to be invaluable. Heck, even my District 1 went Democrat. You don't win an argument against a self-righteous opponent by also being self-righteous. Instead of overreacting, you could learn some civility yourself. Otherwise, I fail to see how you are any better than those you accuse of being self-righteous and extreme.
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho