tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post115287509573031775..comments2023-11-02T19:19:15.129+05:30Comments on Death Ends Fun: Two hands of the questionDilip D'Souzahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08221707482541503243noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-1153614933455290952006-07-23T06:05:00.000+05:302006-07-23T06:05:00.000+05:30riots are terror attacks by those who don't have b...riots are terror attacks by those who <BR/>don't have bombs... playing into the hands of those who had...ori0nishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12751103701076702372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-1153364813709367972006-07-20T08:36:00.000+05:302006-07-20T08:36:00.000+05:30Nath, I agree with you that there doesn't seem to ...<I>Nath, I agree with you that there doesn't seem to have been anything pre-meditated about the riots -- unlike this pre-planned and elaborately orchestrated bombing attack.</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps I should clarify my definitions. What I should have said was:<BR/>Riots do not <I>necessarily</I> have concrete political goals beyond revenge.<BR/><BR/>Hypothetically, one could indeed plan a riot and use it to achieve a political objective. This would simultaneously be a riot and an act of terrorism. The two words do have different meanings, but they are not mutually exclusive.Nathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04737952788723847550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-1153304655686040242006-07-19T15:54:00.000+05:302006-07-19T15:54:00.000+05:30Nath: Those responsible for riots do not conscious...Nath: <I>Those responsible for riots do not consciously bring themselves closer to any political goal</I>.<BR/><BR/>Really? What would you call the Congress electoral victory after the 1984 killings in Delhi? The BJP electoral victory after the 2002 killings in Gujarat?<BR/><BR/>Those parties should have been thrown out on their behinds for their roles in those respective killing sprees. Yet they won massive victories.Dilip D'Souzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08221707482541503243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-1153232363147857582006-07-18T19:49:00.000+05:302006-07-18T19:49:00.000+05:30I do not think anyone has suggested that the "mass...<I>I do not think anyone has suggested that the "massacres" were any different from the "terror attacks" as fas as end result goes.</I><BR/><BR/>Well then, let me be the first to do so. I see a difference between riots and terrorism.<BR/><BR/>Terrorism is the use of violence -- or, rather the resulting panic and irrationality -- as a political tool. Usually executed by a relatively small group of people. The killing is a means, rather than an end.<BR/><BR/>Riots are violent outbursts from a large group of people. The violence is in anger, with no concrete goals beyond revenge against a real or imagined grievance. Those responsible for riots do not consciously bring themselves closer to any political goal.Nathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04737952788723847550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-1153193262323273652006-07-18T08:57:00.000+05:302006-07-18T08:57:00.000+05:30confused: Why don\\\'t you hang a sign outside the...confused: <I>Why don\\\'t you hang a sign outside the door? ... [etc]</I><BR/><BR/>Don\\\'t follow.<BR/><BR/><I>Where have you ever?</I><BR/><BR/>A quick comedown indeed. From \\\"claim militant Islam is not a threat to the world\\\" to \\\"where have you ever?\\\" What\\\'s the next step?<BR/><BR/>One small thing: I write about what I see around me. Not about what you see around you (or me). They may not match. OK with me. <BR/><BR/>Sailesh: I looked hard, but this has nothing to do with Hindu vs Muslim fundamentalism. I don\\\'t see those massacres I mention as being due to one or the other fundamentalism, I just see them as terrorist attacks. That\\\'s all. I have no desire or interest in inducing guilt. <BR/><BR/>Finally, to me the <I>main issue</I>, bar none, is our unwillingness to punish terrorists -- whether the Bombay train blasts 2002 scum or the Bombay killings 1992-3 scum.Dilip D'Souzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08221707482541503243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-1153191881694287182006-07-18T08:34:00.000+05:302006-07-18T08:34:00.000+05:30Dilip I must say I am disappointed with this post....Dilip I must say I am disappointed with this post. I cannot imaagine why you would come up with such a post that serves no purpose other than to add to "Hindu vs Muslim fundamentalism".<BR/><BR/>You are defeating your own purpose by the tone of your post here. You purport to view all acts of killing as the same, no matter how they are labelled, yet you manage to prejudice the reader into viewing them as different from each other.<BR/><BR/>The point of your post defeats me. I do not think anyone has suggested that the "massacres" were any different from the "terror attacks" as fas as end result goes. Yet, as others have pointed out, you try to induce a feeling of guilt when none is required. Why?<BR/><BR/>It also seems to me as if you are trying to shift the focus from the main issue - that there were terror attacks, most likely by a few Indian muslims, whose participation in such activities seems to be increasing - to some non-issue, and in the process, widen a rift that we are better off without. Again, why?Sailesh Ganeshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10434654034135974696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-1153181627176604912006-07-18T05:43:00.000+05:302006-07-18T05:43:00.000+05:30''of course you are not obliged to pull up anyone....''of course you are not obliged to pull up anyone. I\'ve known that for a long time. No surprise''<BR/><BR/>So, Interesting! When I comment on this blog, I read all the 40 comments before and then keep pulling up people. Why don't you hang a sign outside the door? And please, I pull up enough people on my blog, Mostly who support the position I have taken, so I really dont need any lessons on that. Ok?<BR/><BR/>''Where did I claim that militant Islam is not a danger to the world? ''<BR/><BR/>Where have you ever? Your standard response in such cases is to start writing stories about how Altaf-Bhai is suffering! <BR/><BR/>Cite me one piece you have ever written when you have gone against likes of Mulayam, Naxalites, Muslim fundamentlaists. But your standard response is that you don't give tests. This is not a test, just a statement of facts. Please understand that, this causes more harm to the cause of secularism than you would realize.<BR/><BR/>And yes please do keep learning.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-1153162078569244462006-07-18T00:17:00.000+05:302006-07-18T00:17:00.000+05:30Naveen: Unless Indian Muslims give up this pan-isl...Naveen: <I>Unless Indian Muslims give up this pan-islamic consciousness, there\'s no way you can prevent people from questioning them about their loyalty towards the Indian constitution</I>.<BR/><BR/>Says it all, doesn\'t it. The Indian Muslims I have met -- like several just this afternoon on a random walk through Bhendi Bazar in Bombay -- are ordinary Indian citizens like anybody else in this country that I have met. Concerned about the same things, fearful of blasts, worried about the downturn in business ... the usual. Yet whatever they do as ordinary Indian citizens, there will always be people who will say \"you have a pan-Islamic consciousness and your loyalty will be questioned.\" <BR/><BR/>I trust you read bez\'s comment. <BR/><BR/>Anonymous 958: I don\'t believe in bans. Period. Death penalty, I\'m not sure.<BR/><BR/>confused, of course you are not obliged to pull up anyone. I\'ve known that for a long time. No surprise<BR/><BR/>Your statement about apologists, doesn\'t surprise me either. I\'m learning, finally.<BR/><BR/><I>claim militant Islam is not a danger to the world</I>.<BR/><BR/>Not that I expect an answer (as I said, I\'m learning), but what the hell, let me ask anyway. Where did I claim that militant Islam is not a danger to the world?Dilip D'Souzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08221707482541503243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-1153159687299401812006-07-17T23:38:00.000+05:302006-07-17T23:38:00.000+05:30confused:>>Second, when I said apologists of terro...confused:<BR/><BR/>>>Second, when I said apologists of terror, why did you assume I referred to you? <BR/><BR/><BR/>Guilty conscious? (Dilip's I mean)<BR/><BR/>If you didn't refer to Dilip as apologists of terror, I'll wager that Dilip's terribly disappointed. He's worked so hard to reach that position.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-1153156950001710452006-07-17T22:52:00.000+05:302006-07-17T22:52:00.000+05:30Dilip,First, I am not obliged to pull up anyone wh...Dilip,<BR/><BR/>First, I am not obliged to pull up anyone who comments on your blog. I am responsible for what I write, quote me a line where I have blamed ordinary Muslims, and I would be happy to apologize. <BR/><BR/>Second, when I said apologists of terror, why did you assume I referred to you? <BR/><BR/>???<BR/><BR/>Excellent!<BR/><BR/>The point I was trying to make is that it serves no purpose to obfuscate the issue and claim militant Islam is not a danger to the world. That would be a fairy tale which would draw people away when you make more reasonable arguments that ordinary Muslims cannot be blamed. <BR/><BR/>Please understand thatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-1153153730850112272006-07-17T21:58:00.000+05:302006-07-17T21:58:00.000+05:30"I don't believe in banning organizations"Do you t..."I don't believe in banning organizations"<BR/><BR/>Do you think KKK, Nazi etc. should be banned?<BR/>Should AQ be banned?<BR/>----<BR/>Regarding applying laws? <BR/>Do you support death penalty?<BR/><BR/>Trying to understand your opinions/viewpoints thats all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-1153134029792186212006-07-17T16:30:00.000+05:302006-07-17T16:30:00.000+05:30Being of Irish descent, I feel compelled to clear ...Being of Irish descent, I feel compelled to clear up a misconception I see being tossed about. The conflict in northern Ireland is not ethnic. It is religious: Protestant vs. Catholic. Both the IRA and the ULA are very much white and very much Irish.Amandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07394905908453447833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-1153124963437684652006-07-17T13:59:00.000+05:302006-07-17T13:59:00.000+05:30Mr. D'Souza,How many attacks in countries like SL,...Mr. D'Souza,<BR/><BR/>How many attacks in countries like SL, Ireland, Nepal, Columbia, Peru have impact in other parts of the world? I told they are ethnic tensions (in the context of pan islamic conciousness) and I never said that they are not terrorist attacks. Please show me where I have said that. I said that most terrorist attacks are perpetrated by Muslims. That means there are some other terrorist attacks that are not and they include all the countries you named. If you make statistics of no. of terrorist attacks the world over and you classify them based on their perpetrators (even after excluding ethincially related attacks like in Chechnya or Basque), you can see that pan-islamic reasons for attacks are on the rise.<BR/><BR/>Why should a person be more affected by what happens in the rest of the world than what happens next door? Why the heck should a Kashmiri or an Iraqi go and fight in Chechnya?<BR/><BR/>After Islam's advent, it was geographically limited to Arabian peninsula. And what happened in your neighbouring country could affect you directly. Today, what is the reason for people to get all worked up over the attacks on a country far away without bothering about its ramifications on our own country?<BR/><BR/>Unless Indian Muslims give up this pan-islamic consciousness, there's no way you can prevent people from questioning them about their loyalty towards the Indian constitution.<BR/><BR/>There are some apologists in the media who have pointed out that the attacks may have been because of Gujarat/Babri. Then by the same logic, can we justify the attacks on Muslims because of atroities peepetrated on Hindus during the period of Muslim rulers?<BR/><BR/>If you are replying to my comment, can I also know your opinion on Mulayam's remarks on SIMI? Thanks in advance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-1153111607785334202006-07-17T10:16:00.001+05:302006-07-17T10:16:00.001+05:30While we are on riots vs. terror attacks here, I w...While we are on riots vs. terror attacks here, I would like to know more about this thread that I keep hearing: (approx as follows)<BR/><BR/>" Prior to the BJP becoming a force to reckon with / coming to power, most riots in India were started off by community M who could get away with it and community H had to silently suffer. What the BJP & Co. have done is to reverse this trend."<BR/><BR/>I would like to collect opinions on this. This is a * sincere * question not a rhetorical one. It was way before my time. <BR/><BR/>If there is substance to this, it could lead to "justification(?)" for H riots as revenge for earlier M riots , the H riots having now (justifiably?) provoked terror blasts in turn. <BR/><BR/>The cycle of violence, one more roll backward...<BR/><BR/>regards,<BR/>JaiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-1153111575727137452006-07-17T10:16:00.000+05:302006-07-17T10:16:00.000+05:30Jai, "nonhuman" is polite? I search for differnet ...Jai, "nonhuman" is polite? I search for differnet ways to say things with every article I write. This time I chose "nonhuman", that time I chose "sick bastards"; little did I know that along would come someone who would see "nonhuman" as polite. (Of course, that time I got a guy who said "sick bastards" was "too good a term").<BR/><BR/>You talk about a cycle of violence. Here's what I believe about that: we are going to have violence of this kind for years to come and we had better get used to it. Why? Because we don't have the will to punish the guilty, the men who kill our fellow citizens. Take three:<BR/><BR/>The trial for the 1993 bomb blasts was essentially over two years ago, there's no verdict yet, nobody sentenced for that killing of 250+ people -- and that, over 13 years since they happened. The 1984 killings of Sikhs have seen not a single person punished, even though report after report named senior Congressmen (Bhagat has even died) as responsible for those 3000 deaths. 22 years. The 1992-93 riots have seen not a single person punished, even though about a thousand people died. 13+ years too.<BR/><BR/>A country that's unwilling to punish terror will only suffer more terror. I'm getting used to that idea.Dilip D'Souzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08221707482541503243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-1153110634757775022006-07-17T10:00:00.000+05:302006-07-17T10:00:00.000+05:30confused:So should we blame ordinary Muslims? No.G...confused:<I>So should we blame ordinary Muslims? No.</I><BR/><BR/>Good. So did you pull up the guy who wrote on this page: <I>Muslims to introspect and condemn, in unequivocal terms, maybe through fatwas, the religious overtones of the attacks</I>?<BR/><BR/>Why is it assumed that Muslims don't condemn the blasts? That they must be told to do so in unequivocal terms? Because some terrorists who claim to be Muslim set off bombs, we must assume that all Muslims must get up and "condemn"? Thus assuming that they actually approve of them until they "condemn"? I'm making no such assumptions about anyone else; as I've said on this page, I assume that everyone condemns the blasts in unequivocal terms.<BR/><BR/><I>apologists of terror</I>.<BR/><BR/>Ah, now we have the ancient tactic of the guy who doesn't even believe his own arguments: resort to insults, paint the other guy as a monster.Dilip D'Souzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08221707482541503243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-1153110219119208422006-07-17T09:53:00.000+05:302006-07-17T09:53:00.000+05:30Dilip D'Souza on 9/11:http://www.rediff.com/news/2...Dilip D'Souza on 9/11:<BR/><BR/>http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/sep/14dilip.htm<BR/><BR/>" I hope they get these guys. I hope they get the sick bastards who conceived this inconceivable horror. "<BR/><BR/>Again I cannot help noticing the CONSIDERABLE difference in tone you adopt Dilip between this and Mumbai 7/11.<BR/><BR/>Overall that article had a nice DDS balance by the end, but why politely call ppl who bombed trains in your city, that you have travelled by as "non-human"? <BR/><BR/>And then start off with the link to riots etc. <BR/><BR/>As several others have pointed out here, I dont think root cause analysis leading to circular justifications will help. <BR/><BR/>As you yourself pointed out in that article that had perceptive Americans speaking about the cycle of violence they feared would be unleashed. <BR/><BR/>Here, dont you think appearing to justify terror blasts by linking to riots will exactly acheive the same thing- close a cycle of violence, and ensure further violence?<BR/><BR/>regards,<BR/>JaiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-1153092210111068072006-07-17T04:53:00.000+05:302006-07-17T04:53:00.000+05:30Dilip,Stop playing these little tricks.The point i...Dilip,<BR/><BR/>Stop playing these little tricks.<BR/><BR/>The point is that the attacks are carried out in the name of Islam. As we can see from your example in Nepal, the Maoists are probably athiests who are carrying out a campaign against a Hindu King. <BR/><BR/>So should we blame ordinary Muslims?<BR/><BR/>No.<BR/><BR/>Should we blame Islam?<BR/><BR/>I am not sure, however I would point that any religion whose followers insist on carrying out their business exactly as it was 1400 years ago or for that matter 5000 years ago, will lead to violence and conflict.<BR/><BR/>So, why is the world frightened?<BR/><BR/>I think the world is afraid of the pan Islamic conciousness. In India, you will give the examples of riots and whatever....<BR/><BR/>But if we remember London tube bombings, there was no violence against against Muslims in Britain, yet 4 local guys chose to blow themselves. Why? I suppose because Britain attacked Iraq, but why should guys in London feel so much anger that they would blow up their own country men? <BR/><BR/>Yes, ordinary Muslims suffer, how do we find a way around it is a difficult question. We must ponder over it, but not at cost of victims.<BR/><BR/>But that way Dilip, cannot be shown by apologists of terror who try to justify such attacks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-1153092122569168002006-07-17T04:52:00.000+05:302006-07-17T04:52:00.000+05:30You should go and join that party, DilipHa ha! You...<I>You should go and join that party, Dilip</I><BR/><BR/>Ha ha! You need quite a bit of catching up to do.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://dcubed.blogspot.com/2005/07/bombay-every-time.html#c112259783879712928" REL="nofollow">A trip down the memory lane</A><BR/><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1742859.cms" REL="nofollow">A former chief secretary says resentment for 1992 riots is the cause behind the attacks</A>barbarindianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14335786532366741947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-1153079293844977882006-07-17T01:18:00.000+05:302006-07-17T01:18:00.000+05:30Dear Naveen,Ireland and SL are "largely ethnic ten...Dear Naveen,<BR/><BR/>Ireland and SL are "largely ethnic tensions"? Shall we try something? You ask anyone in those countries what they would call what they have been suffering from for decades now. I bet they will say "terrorism" and not "largely ethnic tensions." Willing to try this with me?<BR/><BR/>You claimed in your previous comment, "<I>most terrorist attacks around the world are perpetrated by Muslims</I>". I point out five countries where they are not perpetrated by Muslims, as examples of why your claim is mistaken. You fling out two of them saying they are "largely ethnic tensions." (No word about the other three, but never mind). <BR/><BR/>So it seems to me what you want to do is this: define terrorism as those attacks, and only those attacks, perpetrated by Muslims. Well, following that definition, certainly "most terrorist attacks around the world are perpetrated by Muslims." <BR/><BR/>In fact, all.<BR/><BR/>I told you, I don't "expect" anyone to "condemn" anything. This is a fool's game, this idea of "why didn't you condemn XYZ?" Instead, I <I>assume</I> of my fellow human -- I assume of you -- that he will find all terrorist attacks, whether blasts in trains or killings in the streets of Bombay -- horrifying. With that assumption, I am yet to meet a single person who has shown any happiness over these blasts. Also, while pretty much none of the people I've met have got up and explicitly said "I condemn these blasts" (it's not something people you meet tend to say), I assume that they do. <BR/><BR/>For just one example, I haven't seen an explicit "I condemn these blasts" from you. But I assume that you do, and I believe it is a good assumption. <BR/><BR/>Why hasn't the Cong prosecuted the perpetrators of riots? Because it is a craven party that has no use for justice. Because prosecuting those perpetrators means, in many cases, prosecuting its own people. Most of all, because the rest of us are happy to point fingers abroad, but unwilling to take on our own terrorists; and the Congress, like every other party, is happy to feed on that.Dilip D'Souzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08221707482541503243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-1153071150942102032006-07-16T23:02:00.000+05:302006-07-16T23:02:00.000+05:30There is no difference.If there is I am sure so ma...There is no difference.<BR/>If there is I am sure so many good people here will find out.<BR/>Do we still need to find out differencees between the two, after wehad seen so many of them.<BR/>We have gone blind!!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09731907701188158109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-1153059687769857042006-07-16T19:51:00.000+05:302006-07-16T19:51:00.000+05:30The above was an uncivil answer, now for the civil...The above was an <I>uncivil</I> answer, now for the civil part.<BR/><BR/>Riots and terrorism are morally equally reprehensible. The difference lies in practical matters and has to do with tactical differences in how to deal with them. Many commenters have already pointed out some of the differences. You have also managed to group them quite nicely. Surely there are distinct markers? <BR/><BR/>Compare this with a question: what is the difference between a fruit and a vegetable. Most people would be able to pick one or the other. Some perhaps would not know the difference.<BR/><BR/>Questions such as this are dangerous because they lead to sweeping generalizations and hence jeopardize prevention and investigation. Apart from politicking and trying to induce guilt I see no purpose to your post. Unless you want to debate whether to bring back a POTA like law.barbarindianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14335786532366741947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-1153058739307332152006-07-16T19:35:00.000+05:302006-07-16T19:35:00.000+05:30This is a trick question. No difference, both are ...This is a trick question. No difference, both are committed by heathens. Right?barbarindianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14335786532366741947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-1153051215294028402006-07-16T17:30:00.000+05:302006-07-16T17:30:00.000+05:30i think you are doing more damage to 'secularism' ...i think you are doing more damage to 'secularism' simply by not accepting what is obvious and therefore forcing people to dwell on the same point over and over. this is unfortunately common to secularists.<BR/><BR/>why is it hard for you to accept that terror in different parts of the world are on account of fundamentalist islam? extreme islam as an ideology is a REAL problem, oh ostrich with head buried in sand! islamists in kashmir, afghanistan, england, pakistan, bangladesh, indonesia all draw moral, financial support from each other. bomb blasts in different parts of the world are rooted in the same ideology.<BR/><BR/>this doesnt mean that we persecute every muslim, or that an acknowledgement of this fact will result in persecution of muslims individually, or as a community. a refusal to acknowledge this rather obvious fact does not help matters however.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070362.post-1153045287051803322006-07-16T15:51:00.000+05:302006-07-16T15:51:00.000+05:30Mr. D'Souza,When you point out places like Ireland...Mr. D'Souza,<BR/><BR/>When you point out places like Ireland and Srilanka, you might be missing the point that they are largely ethnic tensions. Even the North East terrorist attacks are due to ethnic tensions. How come you miss the point that the attacks in Mumbai and Delhi and Gujarat have been due to religion. How come you miss the point that ethnicity cannot be as unifying a force as pan-religionism?<BR/>I don't know what you expected from Hindus after the various riots but many of us 'non-secular' people did expect and did get wide condemnation from all quarters. The BJP did lose power in the rest of India. Now that you have a Cong. govt. at the centre, what prevents them from persecuting the perpetrators of the riots? <BR/>When people can get together in lakhs and condemn US attacks in a distant place, what prevents them from doing so in this case? It obviously is closer home.<BR/>The maximum that most Muslim organizations are willing to do is disown the terrorists as Muslims. But not one has accepted the need for introspection in their own community about what has gone wrong. The theory of 'a few misguided youth' will not hold good anymore, after a series of high profile attacks the world over. <BR/>The first step is to accept that there are flaws in the Islamic system (not the religion but the system) that need to be corrected. When people, both the 'secularists' and the Indian Muslims themselves, are not willing to do that, then there is an inherent contradiction between the consitution and the system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com