Mumbai Rocked by Seven Bomb Blasts
Chowk Staff July 11, 2006
I do not need any proof of the existence of Allah (swt). I am more certain of His existence
than mine. I am still wondering about the relevance of golden rectangle and golden mean
to this topic.
Khuda Hafiz
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable contentSince you`ve given up, or have not tried the empirical method of reaching Allah, let me tell you that when you split atoms and make bangs and arrive at smaller particles, then when you make even bigger accelerators and split them even further you get to even smaller particles. At the same time the life-span of each particle keeps getting smaller and smaller so it`s increasingly difficult to catch and split, because it appears and disappears, is born and gone, all in an instant.
When you finally arrive at the smallest, tiniest weeniest particle, within our own tissue, which when split cannot be split further because at that point it does not have any life left, that`s eternity. Its everywhere and nowhere. And it`ll create such a big bang that it will blow your socks off. That`s when you`ll find Allah.
Wassalam.
Until now I did not know how much you know about Fibonacci numbers etc.
I have no idea if this has anything to do with Allah (swt).
Yaar Numberi Bhai .... we KNOW what Fibonacci numbers are ... I use them every day in calculating corrections to a major trend. We ALSO know what Golden triangle and Mean is, and believe us we ALSO know that in a Mendelbrot set the patterns from zero till eternity are EXACTLY the same and equally complex and you can`t reach the end where they stop. Bhai we KNOW all that. AND above all we also know how to Google .... but NONE of the above solves our problem:-(
We were looking forward to you enlightening us as to WHERE these things COME from ...
Now please don`t tell me Fibonacci got the idea from observing breeding patterns of rabbits inside a well ... (which he actually did BTW). But it`s a bit odd that breeding habits of rabbits should apply universally to movements of sophisticated markets !!!!!!Of all kinds!!!!
What we want to know from your multi-disciplinary knowledge is whether these have something to do with the real Big Daddy ... you know .. the Big Guy!
Blackmailers and bullies must be told that they are basically enemies of peace, beauty and harmony on this earth.
Why can`t all children of this earth live peacefully in Kashmir, and why can`t rule of law prevail there rather than hegemony of a single group.
Various ``qabza groups``, bullies and land mafias have their eyes on the innocent valley of Kashmir.
Vale of Kashmir is burning, its centuries old priceless structures are burning to ashes, blood is flowing every where.
Evil and selfish spirits want to grab and destroy the beauty of this sparrow,this bird of heaven, known as Kashmir, which God made, to make kings happy.
Kashmir is a world heritage, it must be liberated from all bullies and peace loving people must be able to pay homage to its eternal beauty and grandeur.
O my vale, O my dale of Kashmir you are burning, you are bleeding, but never forget that hearts bleed for you too, and we are helpless, and although we won`t to able to see each others face in this life time, and we will keep on raising moans and cries for you, until we die.
Please tell me what the word following professor means.
Aap log kahan hein mujhey kya maloom?
Agar aap batayein aap kahan hein tow phir aagay baday gein.
You know who I am, but I do not know who you are and so there is no point in interacting
with you. Let me assure you that I am not offended by your nasty remark. Some one said:
DUNIYAN MEIN JAB AAYEHEIN TOW JEENA HI PADAY GA
JEEVAN HAI AGAR ZEHAR TOW PEENA HI PADAY GA
How true!
agar aap hUm tamaam larRkoan ko eik saath bulaa kr lecture dai-daiN toa achha ho. Aap ko bhee bar bar hUr class meiN jaa kar hur larRkay ko 5 second kaa lecture naheeN dainaa parRay gaa.
Mumbai ,yaa BUmBaee, bumoaN sey BHUsum ho gyaa aur CHOWK pUr bhee bum girr rahai haiN.
`` Voh soorataiN ilaahi, kis dais bUstiaaN
Ub jin ko daikhnay ko aankhaiN trastiaaN haiN.``
Please see # 624 to avoid repetition.
Thank you
Dear Nephew:
I am sorry for the misunderstanding.
I did not know that you wanted me to tell you about golden rectangle etc. I thought that
the reference about google would suffice. Obviously it did not. It is not easy for me to
write mathematics on a computer. For instance, Fibonacci numbers are defined as
1,1,2,3,5,8,......, that is, first one is 1, the second is also 1, and from the third onwards,
each term is the sum of the preceding two terms. Writing in symbols, F(1)=1, F(2)=1,
........F(n)=F(n-1)+F(n-2) for n>2.
I fail to understand the relevance of this with the subject under discussion.
Kidnapped by Israel
The British Media and The Invasion Of Gaza
by Jonathan Cook July 20, 2006 Media Lens
`Kidnapped by Israel
sendarticle(`sendEmailLink`,
`Kidnapped by IsraelEmail this article to a friend
Print this article Few readers of a British newspaper would have noticed the story. In the Observer of 25 June, it merited a mere paragraph hidden in the “World in brief” section, revealing that the previous day a team of Israeli commandos had entered the Gaza Strip to “detain” two Palestinians Israel claims are members of Hamas.
The significance of the mission was alluded to in a final phrase describing this as “the first arrest raid in the territory since Israel pulled out of the area a year ago”. More precisely, it was the first time the Israeli army had re-entered the Gaza Strip, directly violating Palestinian control of the territory, since it supposedly left in August last year.
As the Observer landed on doorsteps around the UK, however, another daring mission was being launched in Gaza that would attract far more attention from the British media – and prompt far more concern.
Shortly before dawn, armed Palestinians slipped past Israeli military defences to launch an attack on an army post close by Gaza called Kerem Shalom. They sneaked through a half-mile underground tunnel dug under an Israeli-built electronic fence that surrounds the Strip and threw grenades at a tank, killing two soldiers inside. Seizing another, wounded soldier the gunmen then disappeared back into Gaza.
Whereas the Israeli “arrest raid” had passed with barely a murmur, the Palestinian attack a day later received very different coverage. The BBC’s correspondent in Gaza, Alan Johnstone, started the ball rolling later the same day in broadcasts in which he referred to the Palestinian attack as “a major escalation in cross-border tensions”. (BBC World news, 10am GMT, 25 June 2006)
Johnstone did not explain why the Palestinian attack on an Israeli army post was an escalation, while the Israeli raid into Gaza the previous day was not. Both were similar actions: violations of a neighbour’s territory.
The Palestinians could justify attacking the military post because the Israeli army has been using it and other fortified positions to fire hundreds of shells into Gaza that have contributed to some 30 civilian deaths over the preceding weeks. Israel could justify launching its mission into Gaza because it blames the two men it seized for being behind some of the hundreds of home-made Qassam rockets that have been fired out of Gaza, mostly ineffectually, but occasionally harming Israeli civilians in the border town of Sderot.
So why was the Palestinian attack, and not the earlier Israeli raid, an escalation? The clue came in the same report from Johnstone, in which he warned that Israel would feel compelled to launch “retaliations” for the attack, implying that a re-invasion of the Gaza Strip was all but inevitable.
So, in fact, the “escalation” and “retaliation” were one and the same thing. Although Johnstone kept repeating that the Palestinian attack had created an escalation, what he actually meant was that Israel was choosing to escalate its response. Both sides could continue their rocket fire, but only Israel was in a position to reinvade with tanks and ground forces.
There was another intriguing aspect to Johnstone’s framework for interpreting these fast-moving events, one that would be adopted by all the British media. He noted that the coming Israeli “retaliation” -- the reinvasion -- had a specific cause: the escalation prompted by the brief Palestinian attack that left two Israeli soldiers dead and a third captured.
But what about the Palestinian attack: did it not have a cause too? According to the British media, apparently not. Apart from making vague references to the Israeli artillery bombardment of the Gaza Strip over the previous weeks, Johnstone and other reporters offered no context for the Palestinian attack. It had no obvious cause or explanation. It appeared to come out of nowhere, born presumably only of Palestinian malice.
Or as a Guardian editorial phrased it: “Confusion surrounds the precise motives of the gunmen from the Islamist group Hamas and two other armed organisations who captured the Israeli corporal and killed two other soldiers on Sunday. But it was clearly intended to provoke a reaction, as is the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel.” (`Storm over Gaza,` 29 June 2006)
It was not as though Johnstone or the Guardian had far to look for reasons for the Palestinian attack, explanations that might frame it as a retaliation no different from the Israeli one. In addition to the shelling that has caused some 30 civilian deaths and inflicted yet more trauma on a generation of Palestinian children, Israel has been blockading Gaza’s borders to prevent food and medicines from reaching the population and it has successfully pressured international donors to cut off desperately needed funds to the Palestinian government. Then, of course, there was also the matter of the Israeli army’s violation of Palestinian-controlled territory in Gaza the day before.
None of this context surfaced to help audiences distinguish cause and effect, and assess for themselves who was doing the escalating and who the retaliating.
That may have been because all of these explanations make sense only in the context of Israel’s continuing occupation of Gaza. But that context conflicts with a guiding assumption in the British media: that the occupation finished with Israel’s disengagement from Gaza in August last year. With the occupation over, all grounds for Palestinian “retaliation” become redundant.
The Guardian’s diplomatic editor, Ewen MacAskill certainly took the view that Israel should be able to expect quiet after its disengagement. “Having pulled out of Gaza last year, the Israelis would have been justified in thinking they might enjoy a bit of peace on their southern border.” (`An understandable over-reaction,` Comment is Free, 28 June 2006)
Never mind that Gaza’s borders, airspace, electromagnetic frequencies, electricity and water are all under continuing Israeli control, or that the Palestinians are not allowed an army, or that Israel is still preventing Gazans from having any contact with Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Meetings of the Palestinian parliament have to be conducted over video links because Israel will not allow MPs in Gaza to travel to Ramallah in the West Bank.
These factors might have helped to explain continuing Palestinian anger, but in British coverage of the conflict they appear to be unmentionables.
Arrested, Detained Or Kidnapped?
There was another notable asymmetry in the media’s use of language and their treatment of the weekend of raids by the Palestinians and the Israelis. In the Observer, we learnt that Israel had “detained” the two Palestinians in an “arrest raid”. These were presented as the legitimate actions of a state that is enforcing the law within the sphere of its sovereignty (notably, in stark contrast to the other media assumption that the occupation of Gaza is over).
So how did the media describe the Palestinians’ seizure of the Israeli soldier the next day? According to Donald MacIntyre of the Independent, Corporal Gilad Shalit was “kidnapped” (`Israel set for military raid over kidnapped soldier, Independent,` 27 June 2006). His colleague Eric Silver considered the soldier “abducted” (`Israel hunts for abducted soldier after dawn raid by militants,` 26 June 2006). Conal Urquhart of the Guardian, referred to him as a “hostage” (`Palestinians hunt for Israeli hostage,` Guardian, 26 June 2006). And BBC online believed him “abducted” and “kidnapped” (`Israel warns of ``extreme action``,` 28 June 2006)
It was a revealing choice of terminology. Soldiers who are seized by an enemy are usually considered to have been captured; along with being killed, it’s an occupational hazard for a soldier. But Britain’s liberal media preferred to use words that misleadingly suggested Cpl Shalit was a victim, an innocent whose status as a soldier was not relevant to his fate. The Palestinians, as kidnappers and hostage-takers, were clearly not behaving in a legitimate manner.
That this was a deviation from normal usage, at least when applied to Palestinians, is suggested by the following report from the BBC in 2003, when Israel seized Hamas political leader Sheikh Mohammed Taha: “Israeli troops have captured a founder member of the Islamic militant group Hamas during an incursion into the Gaza Strip.” This brief “incursion” included the deaths of eight Palestinians, including a pregnant woman and a child, according to the same report. (`Israel captures Hamas founder,` BBC online, 3 March 2003).
But one does not need to look back three years to spot the double standard being applied by the British media. On the Thursday following Sunday’s Palestinian attack on Kerem Shalom, the Israeli army invaded Gaza and the West Bank to grab dozens of Palestinian leaders, including cabinet ministers. Were they being kidnapped or taken hostage by the Israeli army?
This is what a breaking news report from the Guardian had to say: “Israeli troops today arrested dozens of Hamas ministers and MPs as they stepped up attempts to free a soldier kidnapped by militants in Gaza at the weekend. The Israeli army said 64 Hamas officials, including seven ministers and 20 other MPs, had been detained in a series of early morning arrests.” (David Fickling and agencies, `Israel detains Hamas ministers,` 29 June 2006).
BBC World took the same view. In its late morning report, Lyse Doucet told viewers that in response to the attack in which an Israeli soldier had been “kidnapped”, the Israeli army “have been detaining Palestinian cabinet ministers”. In the same broadcast, another reporter, Wyre Davies, referred to “Thirty Hamas politicians, including eight ministers, detained in the West Bank”, calling this an attempt by Israel at “keeping up the pressure”. (BBC World news, 10am GMT, 29 June 2006)
“Arrested” and “detained”? What exactly was the crime committed by these Palestinian politicians from the West Bank? Were they somehow accomplices to Cpl Shalit’s “kidnap” by Palestinian militants in the separate territory of Gaza? And if so, was Israel intending to prove it in a court of law? In any case, what was the jurisdiction of the Israeli army in “arresting” Palestinians in Palestinian-controlled territory?
None of those questions needed addressing because in truth none of the media had any doubts about the answer. It was clear to all the reporters that the purpose of seizing the Palestinian politicians was to hold them as bargaining chips for the return for Cpl Shalit.
In the Guardian, Conal Urquhart wrote: “Israeli forces today arrested more than 60 Hamas politicians in the West Bank and bombed targets in the Gaza Strip. The moves were designed to increase pressure on Palestinian militants to release an Israeli soldier held captive since Sunday.” (`Israel rounds up Hamas politicians,` 3.45pm update, 29 June 2006)
The BBC’s Lyse Doucet in Jerusalem referred to the “arrests” as “keeping up the pressure on the Palestinians on all fronts”, and Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen argued that the detention of the Hamas MPs and ministers “sends out a very strong message about who’s boss around here. The message is: If Israel wants you, it can get you.” (BBC World News, 6pm GMT, 29 June 2006)
Siding With The Strong
So why have the British media adopted such differing terminology for the two sides, language in which the Palestinians are consistently portrayed as criminals while the Israelis are seen as law-enforcers?
Interestingly, the language used by the British media mirrors that used by the Israeli media. The words “retaliation”, “escalation”, “pressure”, “kidnap” and “hostage” are all drawn from the lexicon of the Israeli press when talking about the Palestinians. The only Israeli term avoided in British coverage is the label “terrorists” for the Palestinian militants who attacked the army post near Gaza on 25 June.
In other words, the British media have adopted the same terminology as Israeli media organisations, even though the latter proudly declare their role as cheerleading for their army against the Palestinian enemy.
The replication by British reporters of Israeli language in covering the conflict is mostly unconscious. It happens because of several factors in the way foreign correspondents operate in conflict zones, factors that almost always favour the stronger side over the weaker, independently of (and often in opposition to) other important contexts, such as international law and common sense.
The causes of this bias can be divided into four pressures on foreign correspondents: identification with, and assimilation into, the stronger side’s culture; over-reliance on the stronger side’s sources of information; peer pressure and competition; and, most importantly, the pressure to satisfy the expectations of editors back home in the media organisation.
The first pressure derives from the fact that British correspondents, as well as the news agencies they frequently rely on, are almost exclusively based in Israeli locations, such as West Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, where they share the daily rituals of the host population. Correspondents have Israeli neighbours, not Palestinian ones; they drink and eat in Israeli, not Palestinian, bars and restaurants; they watch Israeli, not Palestinian, TV; and they fear Palestinian suicide attacks, not Israeli army “incursions”.
Another aspect of this assimilation – this one unmentionable in newsrooms – is the long-standing tendency, though admittedly one now finally waning, by British media organisations to prefer Jewish reporters for the “Jerusalem beat”. The media justify this to themselves on several grounds: often a senior Jewish reporter on the staff wants to be based in Jerusalem, in some cases as a prelude to receiving Israeli citizenship; he or she may already speak some Hebrew; and, as a Jew living in a self-declared Jewish state, he or she is likely to find it easier to gain access to officials.
The obvious danger that Jewish reporters who already feel an affinity with Israel before their posting may quickly start to identify with Israel and its goals is not considered an acceptable line of inquiry. Anyone raising it is certain to be dismissed as an anti-Semite.
The second pressure involves the wide range of sources of information foreign correspondents come to rely on in their daily reporting, from the Israeli media to the Israeli army and government press offices. Most of the big Israeli newspapers now have daily editions in English that arrive at reporters’ doors before breakfast and update all day on the internet. The Palestinians do not have the resources to produce competing information. Israeli officials, again unlike their Palestinian counterparts, are usually fluent in English and ready with a statement on any subject.
This asymmetry between Israeli and Palestinian sources of information is compounded by the fact that foreign correspondents usually consider Israeli spokespeople to be more “useful”. It is, after all, Israeli decision-makers who are shaping and determining the course of events. The army’s spokesperson can speak with authority about the timing of the next Gaza invasion, and the government press office knows by heart the themes of the prime minister’s latest unilateral plans.
Palestinian spokespeople, by contrast, are far less effective: they usually know nothing more about Israeli decisions than what they have read in the Israeli papers; they are rarely at the scene of Israeli military “retaliations”, and are often unreliable in the ensuing confusion; and internal political disputes, and a lack of clear hierarchies, often leave spokespeople unsure of what the official Palestinian line is.
Given these differences, the Israeli “version” is usually the first one to hit the headlines, both in the Israeli media and on the international TV channels. Which brings us to the third pressure.
News is not an independent category of information journalists search for; it is the information that journalists collectively decide is worth seeking out. So correspondents look to each other to determine what is the “big story”. This is why reporters tend to hunt in packs.
The problem for British journalists is that they are playing second fiddle to the largest contingent of English-language correspondents: those from America. What makes the headlines in the US papers is the main story, and as a result British journalists tend to follow the same leads, trying to beat the American majors to the best lines of inquiry.
The effect is not hard to predict: British coverage largely mirrors American coverage. And given the close identification of US politicians, business and media with Israel, American coverage is skewed very keenly towards a pro-Israel agenda. That has direct repercussions for British reporting. (It does, however, allow for occasional innovation in the British media too: for example, whereas American reporters were concerned to promote the largely discredited account by the Israeli army of how seven members of a Palestinian family were killed during artillery bombardment of a beach in Gaza on 9 June, their British colleagues had a freer hand to investigate the same events.)
Closely related to this sympathy of coverage between the British and American media is the fourth pressure. No reporter who cares about his or her career is entirely immune from the cumulative pressure of expectations from the news desk in London. The editors back home read the American dailies closely; they imbibe as authoritative the views of the major American columnists, like Thomas Friedman, who promote Israel’s and Washington’s agenda while sitting thousands of miles away from the events they analyse; and they watch the wire services, which are equally slanted towards the American and Israeli interpretation of events.
The reporter who rings the news desk each day to offer the best “pitch” quickly learns which angles and subjects “fly” and which don’t. “Professional” journalists of the type that get high-profile jobs, like Jerusalem correspondent, have learnt long ago the predilections of the desk editors. If our correspondent really believes in a story, he or she will fight the desk vigorously to have it included. But there are only so many battles correspondents who value their jobs are prepared to engage in.
Collective Punishment
Within this model for understanding the work of British correspondents, we can explain the confused sense of events that informs the recent reporting of the Independent’s Donald MacIntyre.
He points out an obvious fact that seems to have eluded many of his colleagues: Israel’s reinvasion of Gaza, its bombing of the only electricity station, and disruption to the water supply, its bombing of the main bridges linking north and south Gaza, and its terrifying sonic bombs over Gaza City are all forms of collective punishment of the civilian Palestinian population that are illegal under international law.
Derar Abu Sisi, who runs the power station in Gaza, tells MacIntyre it will take a “minimum of three to six months” to restore electricity supplies. (`Israeli missiles pound Gaza into a new Dark Age in ``collective punishment``, 29 June 2006). The same piece includes a warning that the petrol needed to run generators will soon run out, shutting off the power to hospitals and other vital services.
This is more than the Guardian’s coverage managed on the same day. Conal Urquhart writes simply: “Israel reoccupied areas of southern Gaza yesterday and bombed bridges and an electricity plant to force Palestinian militants to free the abducted soldier.” Blithely, Urquhart continues: “In Gaza there was an uneasy calm as Israeli aircraft and forces operated without harming anyone. Missiles were fired at buildings, roads and open fields, but ground forces made no attempt to enter built-up areas.” (`Israel rounds up Hamas politicians,` 11.45am, 29 June 2006)
In MacIntyre’s article, despite his acknowledgment of Israel’s “collective punishment” of Gaza (note even this statement of the obvious needs quotation marks in the Independent’s piece to remove any suggestion that it can be attributed directly to the paper), he also refers to a Hamas call for a prisoner swap to end the stand-off as an “escalation” of the “crisis”, and he describes the seizure of a Hamas politician by Israel as an “arrest” and a “retaliation”.
In a similarly indulgent tone, the Guardian’s Ewen MacAskill calls Israel’s re-invasion of Gaza “an understandable over-reaction”: “Israel has good cause for taking tough action against the Palestinians in Gaza” – presumably because of their “escalation” by firing Qassam rockets. MacAskill does, however, pause to criticise the invasion, pointing out that “Israel has to allow the Palestinians a degree of sovereignty.” (`An understandable over-reaction,` Comment is Free, www.guardian.co.uk, 28 June 2006)
Not full sovereignty, note, just a degree of it. In MacAskill’s view, invasions are out, but by implication “targeted assassinations”, air strikes and artillery fire, all of which have claimed dozens of Palestinian civilian lives over the past weeks, are allowed as they only partially violate Palestinian sovereignty.
But MacAskill finds a small sliver of hope for the future from what has come to be known as the “Prisoners’ Document”, an agreement between the various Palestinian factions that implicitly limits Palestinian territorial ambitions to the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. “The ambiguous document agreed between Hamas and Fatah yesterday does not recognize Israel`s right to exist but it is a step in the right direction,” writes MacAskill. (ibid)
A step in which direction? Answer: Israel’s direction. Israel has been demanding three concessions from the Palestinians before it says it will negotiate with them: a recognition of Israel’s right to exist; a renunciation of violence; and a decision to abide by previous agreements.
A Guardian editorial shares MacAskill’s assessment: “Implicit recognition [of Israel] coupled with an end to violence [by the Palestinians] would be a solid basis on which to proceed.” (`Storm over Gaza,` 29 June 2006)
If the Palestinians are being faulted for their half-hearted commitment to these three yardsticks by which progress can be judged, how does Israel’s own commitment compare?
First, whereas the long-dominant Palestinian faction Fatah recognised Israel nearly 20 years ago, and Hamas appears ready to agree a similar recognition, Israel has made no comparable concession. It has never recognised the Palestinians right to exist as a people or as a state, from Golda Meir’s infamous dictum to Ehud Olmert’s plans for stealing yet more Palestinian land in the West Bank to create a series of Palestinian ghettos there.
Second, whereas the Palestinians have a right under international law to use violence to liberate themselves from Israel’s continuing occupation, the various factions are now agreeing in the Prisoners’ Document to limit that right to actions within the occupied territories. Israel, meanwhile, is employing violence on a daily basis against the general population of Gaza, harming civilians and militants alike, even though under international law it has a responsibility to look after the occupied population no different from its duties towards its own citizens.
Third, whereas the Palestinians have been keen since the signing of the Oslo accords to have their agreements with Israel honoured -- most assume that they are their only hope of winning statehood -- Israel has flagrantly and consistently ignored its commitments. During Oslo it missed all its deadlines for withdrawing from Palestinian territory, and during the Oslo and current Road Map peace negotiations it has continued to build and extend its illegal settlements on Palestinian land.
In other words, Israel has not recognised the Palestinians, it has refused to renounce its illegitimate use of violence against the population it occupies, and it has abrogated its recent international agreements.
Doubtless, however, we will have to wait some time for a Guardian editorial prepared to demand of Israel an “implicit recognition [of the Palestinians] coupled with an end to violence as a solid basis on which to proceed.”
Jonathan Cook is a former journalist with the Observer and Guardian newspapers, now based in Nazareth, Israel. He has also written for the Times, the International Herald Tribune, Le Monde diplomatique, and Aljazeera.net. His book “Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State” was recently published by Pluto Press. His website is www.jkcook.net
are cheen forget about...this is what should worry most people
Maano..
Woh missile kidher gaya jis ney China jaana tha..??
ussay chupaanay ke liye kitnay roshan chehray gull hogaye..
LOL
after Numberdar ki numberi.... may I be allowed to put in another number...
for example...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
and
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.golden.ratio.html
Youth arrested for Mumbai blast claim hoax
By Jawed Naqvi
NEW DELHI, July 19: India began a clampdown on selected internet websites and blogs on Wednesday amid fears of growing censorship following the devastating Mumbai blasts on July 11.
In separate developments, TV channels reported two arrests in connection with the blasts; their names suggested they were Hindus.
NDTV’s Hindi channel briefly reported in the afternoon the arrest of one Nitin Mohan at the Delhi airport, but then quickly went quiet about it.
Unconfirmed reports said the alleged arrest may have been related to blasts some years ago in another city.
Perhaps even stranger was the arrest of a youth in Bhopal who is said to have admitted to sending false emails to a newspaper and a TV channel in which he had cooked up the story of an unheard of group called Lashkar-i-Qahar which he claimed had owned up its role in the Mumbai blasts.
United News of India said Sumit Tamrakar, possibly a Maharashtrian by his name, was arrested in connection with the email.
Prima facie, it appeared that the youth had sent the email to create sensation. The tone of the report suggested it was a case of juvenile delinquency.
“Sumit, who studied up to class XII before leaving his studies three years back, does not have a past criminal record,” the report pleaded.
On July 15 the same email mischief, if that is what it merely was, had caused chaos. A top Hindi channel had gone to town on the basis of the email, linking the Lashkar-i-Qahar with Lashkar-i-Taiba.
According to the TV channel, the email message was received on Saturday claiming that the outfit was associated with the Lashkar-i-Taiba. According to the report, the Lashkar-i-Qahar said 16 people had triggered seven blasts in local trains.
“The organisation said it was making their involvement public since all the 16 people involved in the operation were now safe,” the news channel had said.
If this was nerve-wracking for investigators, the government appeared to have found a ready solution by seeking to deter the use of internet.
The simple answer is: He is the one who created the universe, you and me.
Number saheb, we chowkies are too far gone to be interested in simple answers. We want the tough answers. Don`t worry, we still have some grey matter left despite our various undesirable pre-dilections ...
In the words of echoboom #609 .....aap kay apnay afkaar pata krnaa chah rahay thhay. yahaaN Aap nay humaaraa hee google ....
Dear Nephew: I am glad that the battle (or is it war?) between uncle and nephew is over.
It would be nice to know who we are interacting with.
Uncle ji, there never was any war to begin with. You misunderstood my post and construed it to mean that we were at war, that`s all! As for me, I`m a humble code coolie, now based in Hyderabad, South India.
The saudis--
The King on a string
The princes who are puppets
The Klansmen in arab robes& are busy lynching the world.
From the New Statesman
You have probably never heard of Mohammed Jameel. He is president and chief executive of the Abdul Latif Jameel Group, which in 2004 donated £5.4m to the Victoria and Albert Museum in London for a display of Islamic art. The new Jameel Gallery, dedicated to the memory of his parents, is magnificent to behold. Housing the museum`s distinguished collection of Islamic artefacts, it has to be seen to be believed. The Saudis are not renowned for being patrons of the arts, so Jameel`s generosity comes as something of a surprise.
Over the past five decades, the Saudis` interest in art (which most of them think is un-Islamic) or literature (which leaves them cold) or science and research (which they want, but think can be bought) has been marginal at best. That is not to say they aren`t exceptionally giving people - but their generosity has been expressed purely in religious terms.
During the 1970s and 1980s, the Saudis gave astronomical sums to Islamic causes. The royal family, the government and individuals helped build countless mosques, seminaries (madrasas) and Islamic universities throughout the Muslim world, as well as in Europe. The Faisal Mosque that dominates the skyline of Islamabad, the International Islamic University in Kuala Lumpur and the London Central Mosque in Regent`s Park are all products of Saudi benevolence. The money came with a string attached, however: Saudi-funded institutions had to promote a literalist version of Islam, or Wahhabism.
The cause that attracted the most funds was, unsurprisingly, mosques, followed by Islamic schools, jihad in Afghanistan, Islamic universities and professorships, and conferences on Islamic themes. The Saudis never gave money to build hospitals or modern schools, for scientific research or museums, or to eradicate poverty.
The people who benefited also followed a strict hierarchy. I call it the Saudi Sandwich: it is, in fact, a large, multi-layered club sandwich. The top layer is occupied by the Saudis themselves - Saudis tend to be most generous to other Saudis. Immediately underneath this are the Americans. The Saudis have been very partial to America, and the bulk of their funding in the past has gone to prestigious projects at prestigious institutions such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard and the University of California, Berkeley (many Saudi ministers and businessmen studied at these institutions).
The third layer is occupied by white converts to Islam. The Saudis love converts because, as one sheikh told me, ``they demonstrate the superiority of Islam``. White converts also provide living proof that European civilisation is rotten to the core.
The fourth layer is occupied by other Arabs - because they speak Arabic. Beneath them, in strict order, come Pakistanis, Indians, Indonesians, Bangladeshis and Africans. At the bottom of the sandwich are the poor Saudi Bedouins -
I have witnessed this hierarchy at work. During the 1980s and 1990s, I was involved in raising money for a number of intellectual and cultural causes. I would see a white celebrity convert walk into a Saudi sheikh`s office and walk out with millions, while British Pakistanis and Bangla deshis would be kept waiting for weeks, then sent away with peanuts.
All this changed after 9/11. Many Saudis have lost the will to make donations to Americans, and they, in turn, do not want money from the Saudis. The benefactors have
also been forced to realise that many of the mosques and semi naries they helped build are doing more harm than good - and the rage of the fanatics they have nursed and nourished is as much directed against the kingdom as it is aimed at the west.
Enter Jameel, a new kind of Saudi philanthropist. He realises that science and culture serve as much-needed bridges between Islam and the west, and his cash is reaching parts that past Saudi generosity failed to reach. Apart from the V&A gallery, he has initiated the ALJ Arab Technology Start-Up Fund through the Arab Science and Technology Foundation, and is supporting the Poverty Action Lab at MIT (where he studied civil engineering).
Mohammed Jameel is a beacon. I hope other Saudis follow his guiding light.
The Jameel Gallery of Islamic Art opens at the V&A, London SW7 (020 7942 2000), on 20 July
Just a coinicdence that every sane person is Pakistani!
O.K you did whet my desire here. No I never seek mystic thrills. That to me is worse than voodoo.
Thanks again for your immense help.
> I am sorry that it is the only answer I have.
Duh.
You have a habit of giving wrong answers. The correct answer is: ``I am sick of all the miseries that I face as a muslim amongst kaffirs, so I am going back to pukistan.``
Sigh ..... You dissapointed me. Again.
Granted that what you wrote was tongue-in-cheek, I’ll still say the following: The ‘concrete’ in the first book’s title is really a conflation of ‘continuous’ and ‘discrete’ – it’s also ‘concrete’ as opposed to the unrelenting pursuit of abstraction that was the hallmark (and according to some, the bane) of 20th century mathematics. That book is not really about civil engineering. Behind the friendly exterior, it’s a pursuit of mathematical totalitarianism. So-called applied, ‘practical-minded’ people loathe it. It’s a first-rate book by first-rate people. I chose the best book I know of, bar none, for someone of your background wanting to really learn about Fibonacci numbers. That is, if you are interested in more than a flimsy or cursory acquaintance and are not just looking for cheap mystical thrills.
If you truly wish to avoid mathematics that has the slightest utilitarian connection you should abandon Fibonnaci numbers forthwith – they drop very naturally out of a whole lot of practically useful stuff (for the easiest example – they figure in the analysis of Euclid’s algorithm). But really, it’s your loss.
Thanks.
The idea is to share what some of us have gleaned, no matter how flimsy or cursory, from our readings. I for one neither have the faculties nor the inclination for the ``concrete`` side of maths. In my opinion , the moment it becomes ``useful`` it ceases to be learning.
I am more interested in the ``poetry`` or, if you will, in the ``philosophy`` of mathematics . I have no zeal for utilitarian learning--esp. the kind which has even a remote possibility of getting tainted by money.
P.S treat the above as somewhat tongue-in-cheek; but only somewhat--it has more tongue and less cheek or maybe vice-versa :)
Sahib, since you periodically profess your great love of and fascination with mathematics, I suggest you get hold of this book and work through it. It will teach you a great deal about Fibonacci numbers, golden ratio, and a whole lot else, in appropriate mathematical context. It’s a demanding but enjoyable book.
If yu’re too lazy to learn real math, you might try Mario Livio’s recent The Golden Ratio. It will give you the historical context and art and architectural connections of the Golden Ratio. Its not into numerological mysticism however.
Working through either of these books makes more sense than these OT discussions on Chowk.
Janaab Numberdaar sahib, Hum aap sey Fibonacci sequence kay baray meiN aap kay apnay afkaar pata krnaa chah rahay thhay. yahaaN Aap nay humaaraa hee google nikal kay rakh diyaa.
bUrRay numberi niklay aap toa.
Thanks again for the nice words. It is not a silly question. I did not arrive at the conclusion
mathematically. It was a simple question. Who is Allah (swt)? The simple answer is: He
is the one who created the universe, you and me.
In response to #598 by echoboom, I have indicated in #606, how to get access to golden
rectange and golden mean. You can similarly get access to mandelbrot set.
I hope that this helps.
Thanks for asking me about golden rectangle and golden mean.
Please go to google.com and search for golden rectangle. There you will find a number of
topics about golden rectangle and golden mean.
I hope that this helps.
I am sorry that it is the only answer I have.
Most sincerely I thank you for the nice words.
Thanks for bringing Mandelbrot to my attention.
Yes. I asked this question because I was fascinated with the Mandelbrot set. Where do these patterns come from? And they`re all the same .... unending .... and identical ... regardless where you look.
Awaiting Mr. number`s response, if he graces us i.e. ....
Of all the disciplines I find mathematics to be the most fascinating in seeing Allah`s ``jalvaa``.
This path , sometimes I feel, leads you to the ``cutting-edge`` of gnosticism. All other ``scientific`` raes are of course the sub-text of mathematics themselves.
There is a huge difference between numbers as ``counts`` and numbers as ``absolutes``. This is where `` Jaltay haiN jibraeel kay pUr jiss maquam pUr``
Mr. Number would do us a favour if he can regale us with concept of the ``golden-rectangle`` & hence the golden-mean which occurs in nature as one of His signs.
1647 ... amazing.
If buttercups buzz`d after the bee,
If boats were on land, churches on sea,
If ponies rode men and if grass ate the cows,
And cats should be chased into holes by the mouse,
If the mamas sold their babies
To the gypsies for half a crown;
If summer were spring and the other way round,
Then all the world would be upside down.
Where do you get this stuff?
Number ... I find you very interesting.
Tell me ... I know there`re many paths/disciplines one can follow to arrive at the conclusion of Allah. One can follow art, literature, music, physics, chemistry and so forth ... all leading to the same conclusion.
Did you arrive at the conclusion through mathematics? Can Allah`s truth be proven mathematically?
Ignore this if it`s a silly question. I was just curious.
Dear Nephew: I am glad that the battle (or is it war?) between uncle and nephew is over.
It would be nice to know who we are interacting with.
Kehtaa> hai tujhh ko dushman-i deeN ghaibaana kyaa``
Aatish!
tr:italics emended words
Listen! just Listen how your story is being told in the world
What the ill-wishers of your creed say behind your back``
It always pays to know the enemy mind.
THE WORLD
TURNED UPSIDE DOWN
By: Phil Brennan
There was a mid-17th century nonsensical ditty ``The World Turned Upside Down`` that some believe was played by the British as they marched out to surrender at Yorktown while the victorious Americans played Yankee Doodle. Whether it really happened matters only to finicky historians, but if it didn`t it should have; for the British, who in effect had just lost their most important colonies, the world really had turned upside down.
From that moment on, nothing would ever be the same. Although some fighting continued sporadically, a spark of liberty had been ignited in America that would not be extinguished, and the old world order had begun to pass away.
We ought to be hearing it now. The world has not only turned upside down, it`s in flames. And like that day in 1781 nothing will ever be the same. Only this time it`s not only a single nation that has seen its world upended, it`s the entire world wrong side up.
The process of upending began a long time ago, we just failed to recognize it. And in failing to recognize it we gave it impetus. It really began in the 8th century but from a modern perspective, it began in the mid-1990s when a deranged Islamacist jehadist Osama bin Laden, in the name of his revolutionary movement al Qaeda, declared war on the United States.
Bin Laden launched a series of terrorist attacks against the United States, starting with a failed attempt to target U.S. troops in Yemen in 1992, followed by the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the 1993 killing of U.S. soldiers in Somalia, the 1996 the truck bombing of the Khobar Towers Marine barracks in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 bombing of U. S. embassies in East Africa, the failed plot in 1999 to bomb millennium celebrations in Seattle, the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen and finally, the 9/11 horror in /2001.
These were all acts of war.
A world war had begun, and most of the world failed to recognize it. To this day, we refuse to accept the fact that a war far wider than the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Israeli/Palestinian war is under way. There are only two protagonists in this war - the West and Islamic fundamentalism, but only the Islamists recognize that fact.
In a recent column, Pat Buchanan recalled the late Hilaire Belloc foreseeing the outbreak of the war in 1938. Said the acclaimed British author ``It has always seemed to me ... probable that there would be a resurrection of Islam and that our sons or our grandsons would see the renewal of that tremendous struggle between the Christian culture and what has been for more than a thousand years its greatest opponent.``
In the Quran Islam (it means ``submission``) demands that the entire world must submit to Sharia law which governs both the public and private lives of all Muslims and those under their domination. It is the ultimate aim of al Qaeda - the goal of the worldwide jihad and a goal the imperiled West refuses to admit exists as we go about muttering the shibboleth that Islam is a ``peaceful religion.``
One reason for the West`s failure to understand the true nature of Islamic fundamentalism is the decadent West`s inability to understand the nature of absolute, do-or-die commitment to a cause, any cause. In the Western mind, martyrdom is an outmoded concept - no cause is worth dying for. The materialist West`s serves its only deity - the self and its creature comforts.
In the eyes of Islam`s adherents the decadent Western immersion in secularist materialism is to them both an abomination and an opportunity - a weakness that can be exploited. This Western weakness blinds us to the real threat - a faith whose adherents are convinced of the rightness of their cause and who are willing to die to bring about its triumph. It a classic case of belief against non-belief. They believe in something worth dying for; we believe nothing is worth dying for. And, as it has been said ``you can`t beat something with nothing.`` Abortion ``rights`` may be a dandy political issue but nobody is willing to die to protect a woman`s right to butcher the baby in her womb.
The West`s belief in nothingness has little appeal to the idealist in all of us; we can`t recruit crusaders for our cause because we have no cause but ourselves and our material well-being, scarcely a rallying cry to those seeking something higher than themselves and a self-centered lifestyle. If the Devil wears Prago, so now do we all. It`s the vestment of the times.
Contrast that with Islam, which offers a greater goal than self-aggrandizement. It offers something to which one can be totally committed. It demands total commitment in return for a reason to live and a reason to die. And it is sweeping across the world like a raging wildfire, gathering up millions of recruits in all the four corners of the globe.
Writes Pat Buchanan `` Islamists are taking over in Somalia. They are in power in Sudan. The Muslim Brotherhood won 60 percent of the races it contested in Egypt. Hezbollah swept the board in southern Lebanon. Hamas seized power from Fatah on the West Bank and Gaza. The Shia parties who hearken to Ayatollah Sistani brushed aside our favorites, Chalabi and Iyad Allawi, in the Iraqi elections. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the most admired Iranian leader since Khomeini. In Afghanistan, the Taliban is staging a comeback.
He could have added that Islam is becoming the dominant religion in all of Africa. According to islamawareness.net in Algeria its 32 million Muslims constitute 99 percent of the population. Zaire has 15 Million Muslims (25% of Population) , Egypt 71 Million Muslims (94% of Population), Liberia .07 Million Muslims (20% of Population), Mali 10.5 Million Muslims (90% of Population), Morocco 1.5 Million Muslims (99% of Population), Niger 10 Million Muslims (85% of Population), Nigeria 67 Million Muslims (50% of Population), Rwanda 1.28 Million Muslims (16% of Population), Senegal 10.4 Million Muslims (94% of Population), Somalia 9 Million Muslims (99% of Population), Sudan 26.6 million Muslims (70% of the population),South Africa 1 Million Muslims (2.5% of Population) and Sudan 26.6 Million Muslims (70% of Population).
It is the fastest growing religion in the world.
Pat Buchanan explains: ``The idea for which our many of our adversaries fight is a compelling one. They believe there is but one God, Allah, that Muhammad is his prophet, that Islam, or submission to the Quran, is the only path to paradise and that a Godly society should be governed according to the Sharia, the law of Islam. Having tried other ways and failed, they are coming home to Islam. This has all happened in the last year. And where are we winning?
``What idea do we have to offer?`` Pat asks. ``Americans believe that freedom comports with human dignity, that only a democratic and free-market system can ensure the good life for all, as it has done in the West and is doing in Asia. ``
To a mind seeking goals higher than the alleged good life, that barely suffices.
Writes Pat Buchanan ``What America needs to understand is something unusual for us: From Morocco to Pakistan, we are no longer seen by the majority as the good guys`` and he asks ``If Islamic rule is an idea taking hold among the Islamic masses, how does even the best army on earth stop it? Do we not need a new policy?``
A conflict that began in the 8th century and has flared up from time to time over the centuries has been re-ignited, and the enemy is out in full force all over a world turned upside down.
If you listen carefully you might even hear the lyrics, penned in 1647:
If buttercups buzz`d after the bee,
If boats were on land, churches on sea,
If ponies rode men and if grass ate the cows,
And cats should be chased into holes by the mouse,
If the mamas sold their babies
To the gypsies for half a crown;
If summer were spring and the other way round,
Then all the world would be upside down.
To which I`ll add ``if losers won, and winners lost.``
Tempori Parendum
(Crusader`s Motto: ``We must move with the times``)
> Your question: Allah (swt) who?
> Answer: The one who has created the universe, you and me.
Wrong anser. This calls for negative marking.
Truth for one may not be truth for someone else. I agree.
Your question: Allah (swt) who?
Answer: The one who has created the universe, you and me.
INDEED!
Beautiful word
Thank you
LeT planned 11/7, Mahim boys executed it
Request to muslims - pls rape the sekulars in india first, the next time you guys decide to have a Direct Action Day.
Thanks for the post mortem on me before death. The results are encouraging. I like the
word OLD. Thanks for calling me a gentleman. Now I can interact without fear.
It doesn`t have to be a coherent or organised or unified response. Quite on the contrary it has to be just the opposite ... like the japanese water torture ... drip ... drip ...
It takes a single ant to crawl up an elephant`s snout and feast on its brain, and the elephant is down on its knees ..................
But the battle is a bigger one now ... not restricted to camels & cadillacs ...
Whatever it is, the fact is that the US is not going to lose this war if not for its military might, for the sheer inability of its enemies to forge a coherent and organized response big enough to hurt the US.
They did exactly this in 1973 when US was scared it could be riding camels while the Aye-Rabs would be riding cadillacs. So they picked off all the leaders one by one!
But the battle is a bigger one now ... not restricted to camels & cadillacs ...
In fact we are grateful to US for McDonald, KFC, Pizza Hut and Brittney Spears!
The feeling is mutual. Sitting as they are upon the oil wells, a smarter race (the Jews for instance, or even the lowly banias) could make life difficult for everyone if they choose (and had the brains) to do so.
Not at all. In fact we are grateful to US for McDonald, KFC, Pizza Hut and Brittney Spears!
So the conclusion is that as the Islamic resistance movements adopted to the targeted assassinations strategy by forming a cellular structure, the objective is now to turn those cellular leaderships against each other.
Excellent analysis. I agree. That explains a lot of imponderables.
The following excerpt from one of my posts re Iraq on the other board is relevant:
........on several previous occasions, attacks on Shia/Sunni shrines and funeral processions etc had elicited statements of solidarity from both communities` leaders who went to great lengths to dispel any notions of a civil war. Even the attack on the Imam Mehdi Golden shrine did not provoke a civil war when americans were constantly talking about one in the media, which prompted Moqtada al-Sadr to remark ``My friends, whether we`re having a civil war or not, kindly stay out of it.``
The truth is US cannot exit Iraq unless and until there`s a civil war there. Otherwise they`ll just be replacing Saddam with a coalition of hardline Islamists, both Shia and Sunni.
I looked at the gentleman’s website in addition to his interactor pages. To clarify – I’ve every reason to believe that he’s a very nice old gentleman, completely well-meaning, utterly benign. He may not be of a particularly skeptical bent of mind, however – that is the only sense in which I hoped he was not typical of educated Muslims.
I know US is trying to bring peace to us and we are trying to bring peace to the US. It`s only who can deliver MORE peace. :-)
All we hear is whining and more whining from the Muslim world about American injustices. Just a look at Paki newspapers and not a day passes by without the US being blamed for some misery that Muslims are facing.
At any rate, please take a good look at his interactor page and in particular at his long series of ilog entries on ‘Islam and Arithmetic’. Highly instructive.
Indeed!
I am stating the facts. If you do not like them, it is too bad. Truth does not need defence.
What is truth for you may not be the same for someone else. You say ``those who disregard Allah`s message will be punished on the day of judgment``. I say ``Allah who?`` I hope you get the drift.
I am stating the facts. If you do not like them, it is too bad. Truth does not need defence.
What is truth for you may not be the same for someone else. You say ``those who disregard Allah`s message will be punished on the day of judgment``. I say ``Allah who?`` I hope you get the drift.
Is it a crime to tell you who I am?
Uncle Jee, I didn`t say telling about yourselves is a crime, do so by all means. All I`m saying is that I`m not interested in talking about what I am and what I do on a forum that I come to pass time, that`s all.
What are we afraid of? Come on. Let us tell each other who we are.
There is absolutely nothing to be afraid of. Just that there is no point.
Harish:
I don’t know if the gentleman should be categorised as typical of educated Muslims; I hope not. At any rate, please take a good look at his interactor page and in particular at his long series of ilog entries on ‘Islam and Arithmetic’. Highly instructive.
The following did not print at the bottom of my last post. Anyway....
In the recent months there is a new element that has been introduced in the targeted assasissinations of ulemmas. This element is the assassinations through suicide attacks or at least give an impression that the attacks are being done by suicides. This policy has worked quite well in Iraq in pitting shias against sunnis. It works well if it is done by those who are actually charged with investigation and declaring it a suicide attack as well. In Pakistan the Nishtar Park was the first botched operation that has exposed conclusively as to what is going on. That is the reason every testicle of this corrupt ruling class went out of the way to repeat ad nauseum that attack was suicide attack as if they had witnessed it themselves. The objective of this strategy, as it must have been evident by now, is to turn those cellular leaderships against each other as mentioned earlier. My estimate is that the policy would fail.
& zeemax 568
i am a vicarious beneficiary of your keen insight of the state of affairs in our Pakistan. Please do not feel bad if I count myself also as one who is awed by your profuse & profound
interacts.
CHOWK has really come a long way from the days when the bhoora/bhoree-farangis/farangans, hogged these spaces. How long the 2-number maal, the totaa-mainaa-bunder, could last?
As I`ve always maintained : If you do not go to the madressa, the madressa will come to you.
Thank you for the kind adulation.
I classify religious violence in Pakistan in two categories. The first category is the shia-sunni violence that started right after the Islamic revolution in Iran. The initiators of this violence were the CIA funded organizations like sipah-e-sahaba and couple others. There is an unsubstantiated rumor that Saudis may have also funded these organizations, acting as a conduit, but it seems unlikely; since this funding could have very well be done through zia regime. Anyway, this worked very well and shias are caught in a revenge cycle from which they cannot get out. The idea was to prevent shias from delivering their revolutionary message to sunni masses. It is absolutely possible to stop tyhis cycle of violence if sunni ullema put a united front and mobilize masses in support of shias but they wont. The reason is that, those moulvis who vield the street power belong to the oppressive ruling class. They have their vested interests to keep the status quo in support of dictatorship and neo-colonial agenda in this country. They are doing a pretty good job of it.
The second category of religious violence is that which started after 9/11. It is a targeted and concerted effort to assassinate those ulema who have nothing to do with shi-sunni violence. Instead some of them were greatest proponents of the shia sunni unity. A couple of biggest names are Moulana Yusuf Ludhianvi Shaheed and Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai shaheed. Together there are about 55 to 60 ulema (excuding Nishtar Park Shaheeds) that have fallen martyr in this category. These were the ulema who did not hold any political power and never sought one. Their crime however, was that they were guiding people towards the righteous path in the hindsight of the neo-colonial invasion of this country. They were the real threat to the military dicatorship and to the corrupt ruling class and neocolonial aggression. The new direction from the neo-colonial masters to their minions is to ``de-Islamize`` the country. The idea is that if a country can be ``Islamized`` and recruited to fight a war (against USSR) then it can also be de-Islamized to become the cogs in the big wheel of global colonialism. As if the Iman of a nation can be turned off or on with a switch at will.
The theory of targeted assassination is new and still undergoing testing. The theory was put in practice by Israelies in the last three or four years when they started a campaign of targeted assasination of Palestinian leadership. Pakistani dicatatorship adopted the startegy round about the same time. In Palestine at least it seems to have failed since Hamas won big time despite the elimination of the big names from its top echelon.
In my opinion this theory is based on old paradigm - the paradigm of ``headless chicken``. This theory would have worked quite well in colonial era Muslim lands but decades and centuries of colonial oppression and installation of proxy governments in Muslim lands in post colonial era have forced people to evolve and improvise and the novety that has emerged is termed by west is ``cellular leadership``. A cell constitutes of small group of people and various groups work independently towrads one ideology and one goal. So the elimination of one leader through assassination and corruption has limited or no effect on the greater movement.
Is it a crime to tell you who I am? What is the reason for this forum to be anonymous?
What are we afraid of? Come on. Let us tell each other who we are.
I am not defending anyone. I am stating the facts. If you do not like them, it is too bad.
Truth does not need defence. If you do not like the message, please do not shoot the
messenger.
And yes I`ve been following the proceedings conducted by Rehmat Husain Jaffery. This is the guy who is an impeccable judge and had practically exonerated NS in the hijacking case by giving him enough grounds to be let-off on appeal despite musharraf`s pressure. He did this by letting-off everyone else on the same evidence. Rehmat Jaffery seems to be of the view that Nishtar Park was NOT a suicide operation. There was some suspicious wooden frame on the stage which blew up.
Do elaborate.
Urstruly, I have read your previous articles on this forum, and I have great respect for your ability in deciphering details. Would you care to elaborate that if this is a red-herring, towards what objective? But there were pieces of leg and stuff as well. I`m totally perplexed. Yes the Nishtar Park episode was weird and no clue yet even though the failed bombers of Musharraf, Aziz as well as the Corp Commander, all were all found, tried and executed in a jiffy.... no problem.
Helppppp!
Before October 2001, inspite of its brutal attacks on Indian civilians for 7-8 years, Laskhar E Toiba was not even banned by the US. However since then, the US has been convicting Americans for associating with LeT, inspite of defense lawyers` protestations that LeT had not been banned by the US before October 2001. The same prudence is being shown by the Australian govt and prob. the French and Canadian govts.
India had been talking of training camps run by Pakistan for many years - after 9/11 the US invaded Afghanistan and cleaned them up.
The US are slow learners but they will get there someday
Manto Bhai,
NO! don`t let the physical resemblance fool you. :)
I thought you would know better. If you are following the proceedings of Nishtar Park tragedy, you would know that govrnment agents are planting severed heads at the scenes of assasinations to direct the attention of public towards you know who. Is this working? Probably not because every local pakistani I speak to points his fingers towards government and cia agents.
No evidence of Pakistan’s hand in blasts: US
Bit of a revelation today. Emerging details have suggested that the suicider who killed Hasan Turabi was a Bangladeshi. That was my first thought as well when I saw the severed head on TV. It certainly looked like a Bengali and nothing like from any Pakistani of any type.
Now that`s really something to consider. Were the Bombay bombers Bengalis? Vow!
all in knots when the US is doing what it is doing?
Bhra I`m NOT in any kind of knots. I know US is trying to bring peace to us and we are trying to bring peace to the US. It`s only who can deliver MORE peace. :-)
WASHINGTON, July 17: The US has so far not seen any evidence to suggest that Pakistan or Pakistan-based groups were involved in last week’s Mumbai blasts, a State Department official said on Monday.
“The evidence to who is responsible, we have not seen yet … we will wait for the results of the investigation,” said Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher while briefing South and Central Asian journalists on United States policy ambitions in the two regions.
Describing the blasts as a ‘horrible tragedy,’ Mr Boucher said they were executed by “somebody with evil intent, with local knowledge … lot of planning … and a lot of malice.”
The Bush administration’s point man for South and Central Asia also disagreed with the suggestion that America’s relations with Pakistan were on the decline. The US, he said, was assisting Pakistan in the areas that were important for its development as a modern and moderate state, such as economy, education, energy, as well as being involved in a strategic partnership with the South Asian nation.
Asked if the US believed Pakistan was not doing enough to curb terrorism along the Afghan border, Mr Boucher said: “Terrorism is a tough (problem) and we are all in that fight together.”
The US, he said, was helping Pakistan fight terrorism so that “we can beat this big threat to Pakistan’s success”.
Mr Boucher said the Indo-US nuclear agreement will be formalised in September after the August recess of the US Congress. “The bill will be up for discussion in the House of Representatives next week, and in the Senate soon afterward. I am hesitant to comment on the timeline, but my estimate is that the final draft of the agreement will be formalised in September,” Mr Boucher said.
In his opening statement, the United States official outlined what he said was America’s ‘ambitious agenda’ for South and Central Asia in which promoting regional trade plays a pivotal role.
He also spoke of the possibility of linking the two regions with the Middle East, adding that South and Central Asian regions offered ‘many opportunities’ for trade and development.
The US official noted that some former Soviet states were still linked to Russia and said that the US would “want to see new ties develop” in that region. But he dispelled the impression that the US was competing for influence in Central Asia with Russia and China.
The US, he said, wanted major world powers to work with each other in creating more opportunities for the people of the region and ‘not to compete with each other’. “We do not want these states to be subservient to a major power … subservient to a single market … but to have more and better opportunities. We expect China to be involved in this region.”
The United States, he said, was also involved in a project to bring electricity from Central Asia to Karachi and in the development of a trade route that passed through Afghanistan and Pakistan, linking India and China with Central Asia.
All these efforts were aimed at ‘making trade flow,’ said Mr Boucher, adding that the United States would also like to see greater commercial cooperation among South Asian nations and supported the South Asian free trade agreement.
Not just Pakistanis... but every sane and level headed person has condemned your unprincipled, dishonest and shameless hatred and bigotry at some point or the other ... so lets not get into you Pakis this and you Pakis that... Get a life. You are a loser living in NJ and you making threats of open war ... how convenient.
Do you think you are Goldameir or something?
Didn`t you know war brings peace? Haan? Can there be peace unless there`s a war first? Are you a PhD?
Bhai Zee, then why are Muslims (including YOU) all in knots when the US is doing what it is doing? Can`t they comfort themselves with the thought that the US is doing it to bring peace to the world?