Terrorism is Nobody's Monopoly

#220 by GT

“Very similar to what I have been thinking lately. I do not know whether or not the West can win this war. But I do believe that this is a war that liberals can win. “

I looked at your recent two posts(#s280, 246) too on the issue but I think you are going all over the place with this. The Manichean division of the world is too simplistic and using labels liberally often results in neglecting the variances that exist and change from society to society.

You statement above and Irfan Hussain’s quote assume that the current war is between liberalism and conservatism. Irfan makes another mistake when he claims that moderate are being radicalized. Radicalization of a moderate would actually lead to liberalism whereas Irfan is implying the reverse.

The first question is whether the West leading the war against the so called conservatives is liberal?

Strangely enough, the sections of the western society and the leadership supporting the war are genuinely conservative from the western pov. They may appear way too liberal for the conservative ME but in the western society these guys are definably conservative. That leads us to consider that even if the West wins the war, it would still be a conservative victory. Now we get to a point that we know that whether or not the west can win this war is immaterial as in both cases (west’s defeat or victory) only the conservatism would win. So the strategy which you are mistakenly calling tactics, should be for the liberals to win on both sides and that is the real issue whether the liberals can win on both sides of the fences or not?

One aspect of this clash of civilization is that the conservatives fighting this war on both sides will attempt to beat the liberals first before they begin the victory parade probably together.

One more thing for you to consider is how we define liberalism or even conservatives in the Societies outside of the western hemisphere. From the western pov, both terms can be defined though lots of flexibility would be required in placing the labels. In the societies outside of the West, and for this discussion’s purpose we assume in our part of the world, how would you define liberal or conservative? Imo, that is where Irfan Hussain’s term moderate comes in. Generally speaking there is no liberalism in our part of the world within the same broad context that we use in the west. Similarly the western concept of conservatism cannot be applied in our part of the world.

We now have two sets of people on both sides of the war. We want liberals to win in the West and we want moderates to win in our part of the world. Now consider this: a western conservative could or would be far too liberal for a moderate in our part of the world.

So I will amend your statement to say that this is a war that both liberals and moderates can win. Since we are dealing with entirely different thought processes, we will need to have two strategies for that victory. One strategy would support the moderates to win and the other would be for liberals to win in their respective sphere of influence in the West or in the East.

Now I am going to throw a curveball at you. Before the second WW, even the fascist were considered liberal. Most of the fascist came out of the liberal or even the communist ranks. I think the greatest fascist Mussolini himself was one time a communist sympathizer and a firebrand trade unionists. Remember both his and Hitler’s political parties were “socialist” parties. Interestingly, most of the neo-cons in the US have reached their conservative positions via the Trotskyism. The point is that the labels are difficult propositions and we need to distinguish between the differing situation from one theatre to the other to find a multifaceted strategy and not one size fit all tactics.

More later...

zeemax writes << It doesn`t behove you to tangle with the ignorant ones like tahmeds >>>

My posts are not directed at him, he is trying to mislead humanity, our brothers and sisters into submission to the US that will ensure their misery and suffering and enslavement for genertions to come, in other words he is recommending the mass killings of their children and grandchildren using happy imagery, and some sincere folk out there might be misled with all fancy talks of civilization and globalization and science and what not, even though he does not understand what he talks about.

Misleading the folk by such damn fools is what I seek to prevent, and that is the purpose behind my responses to these ``fox news`` type mirasis. The days when the masses followed the West, a West whose elite consider them lower than their pet dogs are coming to an end, God willing, insha allah.

#250 by hamidm2
.......... so what is the answer ? more guantanamos and daisy cutters ............

Hamidm, I have 2 observations to make on this post. The first is that you advocate the above answer, but have the guantanamos and daisy cutters you have been using for the past 5 years made any difference in making you safer? Certainly you can continue to follow the same answer but do keep somewhere in the back of your mind the remote possibility that it may result in a daisy cutter from the opposite camp landing on your very own sprinkler lawn and 2 car garage. Do not reject this possibility as too far-fetched because it isn`t.

Next is your obssession with the bearded politicians the pictures of whom you take great joy to post in your criticism. Firstly, it is obvious that you carry very odious prejudices regarding personal appearances of people, which is of no relevance to the commitments you exhort. Secondly, you are completely misguided in the objects of your paranoia because these very bearded ones are the ones whom you should SUPPORT instead of OPPOSE, as these are the people protecting your democratic facades since long at-least in Pakistan. The people whom you should fear, are actually the non-bearded non-political ones like the Hamid Guls who given half the chance will smash your system, not maintain it.

So give the bearded ones a big hug.

Masadi,

It doesn`t behove you to tangle with the ignorant ones like tahmeds. In terms of intellect, there`s no comparison. Let me give a few examples:

1) He has been parroting some nonsense about the glories of globalisation, and is unaware that after the collapse of talks at Cancun, the next Doha ministerial rounds have been postponed indefinitely and the entire process is dead. Further, whatever little support it had amongst the manufacturing giants of China and Korea, is now non-existant after the self-serving and unilateral levy of anti-dumping duties by EU to protect domestic markets, totally against the spirit of WTO. The US of-course has been routinely doing the same thing in case of its steel for a number of years and it is now clear to everyone that globalisation is just another exploitary mechanism like the United Nations to protect a few countries` interests.

2) Then, he has also been harping about the wonders of the `scientific method` of determining fact through empiricism, while being unaware that the very foundation of all scientific knowledge is based on a premise that the world exists in the first place; and which premise is accepted in all scientific argument as being impossible to be proven as fact through empirical methods. In short, all scientific argument is in fact based on `nothing`.

With such limited faculties of comprehension, how are you going to convince him that the theory of `everything` which resolves the disconnect between the empirically proven and the empirically unproven is, in fact, contained in nothing else but the ``Quran`?

Re: # 303

Tahmed sahib:

Why don`t you leave Massadi mian to develop his perfect vision of what modern islam should be, and how he can transport one billion followers back 1,400 years, invention of time machine not withstanding. I know now he will try to jump on me, the non-muslim.

Anil

tahmed <<< That is, you obviously dont have a valid reason for calling me the ``worst of creation`` since you have no clue what my actions are like >>>

The product of your mind is posted on here all over the place for people to judge what kind of a person you are and the kind of evil you recommend and support, you are the worst of the worst there is, a hypocrite who has no concern for the masses around the world as he supports barbaric US invasions and sings praises of globalization that is fast destoying the earth itself. That is enough evidence for me to conlcude that people like you are the worst of creation. Unlike that you have no evidence to prove that I follow a ``primitive`` culture. People here can tell who the primitive one is, the one who goes with the flow or the one who thinks independently.

tahmed writes <<< and this is my last post to you here. I come to chowk to exchange posts with civilized, intelligent people. Not with pompous little bastards like you. >>>

Another indication of the ``mirasi mentality`` is that being unable to come up with a rational response they initiate name calling (like he did by calling me primitive) and then take it to the next level of indecency (by calling me a pompous bastard). It is not too hard for me to resort to name calling as well. I can just as easily call this sorry excuse for a human being a sob or call him a m` fer etc but I wont resort to that. As you all will note my post #298 challenged his post based on argumentation unlike anything he was able to come up with

My conceptualization of the ``Mirasi Mentality`` which these people display has nothing to do with the ``hard working`` mirasis, that hard work has nothing to do with rational argumentation and this mirasi provides ample evidence of that.

and this is my last post to you here. I come to chowk to exchange posts with civilized, intelligent people. Not with pompous little bastards like you.

#300 When I say you are a jahil, I say that for a reason - a jahil is incapable of a civilized discussion. Of disagreeing without being disagreeable.

Your response is just another piece of hollow namecalling that merely confirms your jahiliyat. That is, you obviously dont have a valid reason for calling me the ``worst of creation`` since you have no clue what my actions are like. As for the word ``mirasi`` that you have been throwing around like a jahil maulvi - mirasis are fine, honest, hard-working people. Unlike jahils like you. So dont dare look down upon mirasis. You are not fit to polish their trumpets or to carry their drums.

in #300 read the perfect of as ``the perfect example of``

tahmed writes << masadi: and you are the perfect example of the primitive culture I am talking about. >>

You are the perfect of the isfala safileen that the Quran talks about, the human that becomes the worst of creation.

My posts are not meant for mirasis like yourself, stay away from them.

masadi: and you are the perfect example of the primitive culture I am talking about.

tahmed writes <<< The bad news is that like all primitive societies, muslim societies lack the internal capacity to break the vicious cycle of ``jehaliyat`` in which they are enveloped. ....And now the good news: The bad news above doesnt matter. The reason it doesnt matter is that the forces of globalization are so powerful that primitive cultures and mindsets are like flimsy structures befores before a hurricane. Even as mullahs romp around with dreams of becoming kings, the forces of globalization are rendering them and their kind obsolete >>>>

I would like all of you thinking people to take a time and note tahmed and his kind because it is very important, if any progress is to be made in our parts of the world that we recognize the back stabbers for who they are.

Nevermind the fact that this rank racist calls his own culture and history ``primitive`` in a derogatory manner which is to say the least quite idiotic, a culture like the US where for the mass society everything is reduced to base human desire and seeking the pleasure principle and material desire is the most primitive by any standard measurable.

Nevermind also the fact that he takes the mullah to be the representative of all Muslim societies which is totally false. What is completely outrageous is that he equates liberal democracy with globalization, globalization as defined and practiced today is the complete antithesis of liberal democracy. Not only does it concentrate wealth among a few dominant corporations (not even countries), moreso than any king could muster and plunder, it has a whole institutional setup in place that has ensured that these few not only dominate the countries of their origin, against the wishes of the majorities (when they relocate jobs overseas), they dominate much of the political and military institutions of other countries. Now please explain to me how liberal democracy translates as globalization where not only the needs of over half the globe are going unmet, pockets of extreme poverty exist in most large developed countries and entire countries like Iraq are sacrificed at its sword?

Know tahmed and his kind, they are the ones who sold our people to the British, they are the ones that ensure that we remain slaves of the Americans and this person wouldn`t hesitate to sell his mama, as ``primitive`` were it required by his masters the US elite. Know his kind well, they are worse enemies of the Muslims than the Hindus of Gujarat.

HE, 296

Israelis are not looking for a mere diplomatic recognition. They are looking for a perpetual right to exist i.e. a ceasefire.

What’s wrong with that? Why should that position be contentious?.

Hamas Covenant (written in 1988) still does`t confer this right to Israel. But its leaders have modified this position in various statements since 2005

Why doesn’t Hamas modify its Covenant and not its “position” “implicitly” which is based on statements and newspaper reports? Why not declare this position explicitly in the Covenant?

If you were Israel, which one would you refer to: the Covenant or some newspaper reports?

godot, 287

No, this is Hamas`s position.

Firstly, lets be clear on what ``right to exist`` means. Israelis are not looking for a mere diplomatic recognition. They are looking for a perpetual right to exist i.e. a ceasefire. Hamas Covenant (written in 1988) still does`t confer this right to Israel. But its leaders have modified this position in various statements since 2005...

``Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas prime minister, said in a newspaper interview that Hamas could promise a long-term ceasefire to Israel in return for the 1967 territory.``
The Telegraph. May 26, 2005

``(Hamas Chief) Khalid Mashaal told the British Broadcasting Corp. earlier Wednesday that a long-term cease-fire with Israel is possible if the Jewish state returned to its 1967 borders``
Jerusalem Post. Feb 8, 2006

``Since its founding in the mid-1980s, Hamas has refused to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist and has called for Muslims to fight an Islamic holy war to reclaim all land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.By signing up to the `Prisoners` Document`, with its reference to Palestinians limiting their claim to land lost to Israel in the 1967 war, the movement implicitly accepted Israel`s existence on land it took before 1967.``
The Telegraph. Sep 12, 2006

Re: # 294

You make an asinine statement, beat around the bush when challenged, then caved-in! Looks like you have a long way to go before you graduate to pants from ``nickers``! Stay happy in your ignorance you think of as ``knowledge.``

Yeah, whatever...