Psychology of Guerrilla War

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: # 122
dear shabha....i did not respond to urstruly comment as i accepted it as his opinion and he

has a right to his opinion. now that you are asking my opinion about his opinion let me

share that i feel that an action can be judged by three criteria

.....intention of the person or the group...

.....process

.....results

i think socialist revolution had an intention to change an oppressive system and replace it

with a just system. i liked that intention. but in the process communist ideology used the

weapon of anger, resentment and hatred towards the oppressor and when we mobilize

people with anger and hatred then it results in excessive use of force and violence and the

leader loses control.

even in independence of india mohandas gandhi was warned by rabindranath tagore in

1931 that if he mobilizes muslims and hindus of india by their hatred towards british then

the day british leave the hatred will spill over and they will kill each other. nehru stated that

he did not agree with tagore in 1931 and supported gandhi but what happened in 1947

made him remember tagore`s prophecy.

we have seen many revolutions that are based on hatred and cause violence.

i am more in favour of education and evolution based on caring and compassion for all

humanity rather than bloody revolution serving one group or ideology whether it is on the

name of islam or atheism. democracy or communism. i mentioned mandela in my article

because after he forgave whites and had a genuine dialogue with other black leader and

white government he not only won nobel peace prize but also had democratic multi party

elections. in south africa. mandela...de klark...and butulezi....had a peaceful dialogue but

gandhi...jinnah....and mountbaten could not resolve their conflicts peacefully and thousands

of innocent muslims, hindus and sikhs were slaughtered on the altar of freedom and

independence. i hold all parties responsible for that massacre. final question for all of us

is...are ideologies...whether left or right.... more important than human lives?

sincerely sohail

``Lennin`s gurella struggle is valid even though it also resulted in a regressive and oppressive empire that lasted 90 yaers`` (urstruly).
drsohail, would ya plz comment.

Regards.

God receptor in the brain and talking to myself

First, it’s not talking to myself that is worrisome. But watch out when I start responding to that self-talk. That’s when real trouble begins.

Actually, I didn’t realize that I was talking to myself. Then I remembered that “god lives within each of us”. Where, I asked myself, does he/me live inside me/he? It must be the brain… remember, “I think therefore I am?”

So, is there a real “God receptor” in the brain? Short answer: I don’t know. No one really knows. No one has identified it under a scanning electron microscope. Or spotted it in a PET scan using radio-ligands, or whathave you. The so-called “god gene,” which in itself stands on an unstable foundation, subject to re-interpretation, is assumed to have expressed itself via a receptor protein.

Thus my understanding of the “god receptor” is that it’s a conceptual construct, roughly derived from meta-analysis. A hazy mountain made from a solid mole hill, if you will. An “extrapolation” based on sketchy experimental evidence. Sort of like connecting the dots and making a picture. But if there is a cluster of dots then the picture can potentially take various shapes.

The longer answer takes two pages of typing so I’ll rest it here for the moment.

…SR

Sohail sahib very creative angle -- but may be it is asking too much to expect one day a Nelson Mandela will emerge from this gorilla warfare between the Islamist primates and the Christian Ape-man from Crawford Texas.

This is why means are as important as the ends – It’s called Marx’s sweet revenge….

Re: # 118
dear shah 2.....sohail2
sohail rabbani....
khalid sohail......

jogander paul....a famous short story writer has a short short short story that is

i dialed my own phone enumber
and got it engaged.....

smiles....sohail
ps....like your sense of humour

#113 by drsohail on February 12, 2007 6:55pm PT
Re: # 112
Dear Sohail Rabbani....can you share more about your understanding of God Receptor in

the brain....sincerely khalid sohail
[Reply to interact #113]


#112 by SR on February 12, 2007 6:08pm PT

...............................................

I dont understand if Sr is Dr Sohail Rabbani why is he talking to himself

#105 by drsohail

Yaar Dr. Sohail .. itney natraaz mat hoiey ... after all, how many nice people do you find on Chowk? It is gaalum galoch most of the time but one gleans something through a baptism of fire ... A debate does not have to be friendly or civilized here, but just a debate.

Now may I please have my answers? Thanks.

BTW: When Iqbal said ``waiy nakami mata-e-karawan jata raha, karawan kay dil say ehsaas-e-zian jata raha``, he was lamenting on the loss of the great Islamic empires, and not any esoteric notions of peace or something like that.

Re: # 97
`` The muslim elites are not able to provide a decent life or even attempt to provide a decent life to their people. Thats why they use the afterlife as a tool to misguide the people into fighting and suicide bombings.``

I agree. Infact the Islamists are in the fore front of trying to be the ``elites`` aiming at capture of temporal power by misguiding youths with their nonsense.
If you find some Pakistani spouting this nonsense, be sure that he is trying to get to the top of the Ummah`s elite circle.

#106 by ranjit

The analogy with sleep is invalid. In sleep one does not have out of body experiences. In death or close to it one does. There are thousand of published examples of people who had out of body experiences while clinically dead ... i.e. NDEs.

Rgds

Re: # 113

drsohail,

........ i am surprised that being a shrink you do not know what is a god receptor ! ......... i guess in your lingo this affliction is called schizophrenia .........

Re: # 112
Dear Sohail Rabbani....can you share more about your understanding of God Receptor in

the brain....sincerely khalid sohail

Re: # 110 abu safwan {``...If there’s no reckoning after this life than hordes of human beings who are miserable thru no fault of their own at the hands of oppressors in all shape, sizes, religion, sexes etc. got a really shitty deal and they had no say in it. That doesn’t make any sense. The concept of after-life and settling the score with oppressors what keeps me sane, otherwise at least I would be a very unhappy existance ...``}

So you are saying that this faith is like a balm.. that makes life bearable. ``Opium of the masses`` in other words. Is that what you meant?

This is called the ``Argument of Justice`` ...briefly: (i) There is lots of injustice in the world.
(ii) But God is (a) just and (b) omnipotent.

Therefore, according to the argument of justice, there must be a redress against worldly injustice in the afterlife.

Naturally follows that there is an afterlife and there will be justice, paradise, hell etc. etc. If you accept (i) and (ii) it all follows very neatly and logically.

But as to its validity? That`s the sticky part and can neither be proved or disproved. This is the limit of logic. Either you believe or you don`t. And that mostly depends on your upbringing and socialization. Psychoneuropharmacologists claim they have also identified a ``God receptor`` in the brain, akin to the known 300 or so ``Cluster of Diffrentiation`` markers on the cellular surface. Some have it, some don`t.

...SR

Re:abu_safwaan#110

[..See the problem with you hindus is that by and large you have never stood up to anyone, you just go along with status quo, muslims kept on molesting you for centuries, you were a clear majority but just didn’t have the kahonees to stand up....]

Abu, we are not talking about armed resistance against injustice. That is certainly valid and makes sense. I am talking about launching aggressive attacks on others who do not share your beliefs via jihadi activities. Your own statement that ``muslims kept on molesting you for centuries`` is what I am talking about. What makes muslims molest non-muslims in the hope of getting divine blessings? Why this aggression and hatred, to the point that you are willing to give up your own life to harm lots of innocent people and destroy their way of life? Is it worth it if you are not even sure you will get anything for it in your next life, if at all there is a next life?

Jihadi muslims need to ask themselves - why are they doing what they are doing to this day? what is the point of so much destruction? why not live and let live? Yes, hindus did not fight back as hard as they should have. The reason is that we have never stooped down to committing mass scale atrocities to match muslims. In any other country, if there had been a religion based partition, the minority community would have been kicked out lock stock and barrel. We took the higher road, adopting secularism and at least trying to forge a nation with muslims. You can say that we are fools for doing so, anyone else would have committed genocide. But that is ok, we are at peace with ourselves and we feel that God has been kind to us, which is why our country is doing so well now. As compared to that, look at the state of Afghanistan which used to send muslim attackers on Pakistan and India. Look at their pathetic condition today. There is divine justice but it doesnt come from blowing up people but by good karma.

[Last time I checked the Jhopar bhatis and shudars in india werent keen on doing Jihad, are they enjoying there lives?]

No they are not. But is the answer to blow up other innocent people or to acquire an education and pull yourselves up by the bootstraps? As far as I know, even the Islamic jihad concept is to strive for improvement in your life, not to blow up others. If you want to misinterpret it to give sanction to violence and extremism, then you are just giving an excuse to exercise your baser instincts.

Re: # 106

Ranjit,

You said “What If you never wake up after death”, what if you do? And it’s everything that Muslims believe come to fruition? But our debate shouldn’t be about “What If’s” because that’ll go in rounds. The debate should be about happiness in this world. What makes you think that a Practicing Muslim is not a happy human being. That’s where your bigotry becomes an issue. Jihaad is just a word my friend that the world has made it in to this cuss word. Forget about Jihaad, lets talk about armed struggles of other nations, when they stand up to claim their right. When they stand in front of the oppressor and demand that they be treated with respect or else? See the problem with you hindus is that by and large you have never stood up to anyone, you just go along with status quo, muslims kept on molesting you for centuries, you were a clear majority but just didn’t have the kahonees to stand up.

Resistance is not an Islamic phenomenon it’s a human one. When you push someone in to the corner at some point they will push back. Kamikaze’s werent muslims, tamil’s arent, IRA wasn’t. At some point they just said that respectful existence is more imp. To just existance and they demanded respect, that’s what its all about, resisting against the oppressor.

Another point about living, enjoying our lives with our families rather than going for jihaad. Last time I checked the Jhopar bhatis and shudars in india werent keen on doing Jihad, are they enjoying there lives? Because according to your logic, you either opt for jiaahd and if you don’t world transforms itself in to Disney land for you and your family, I wish it was that simple. If there’s no reckoning after this life than hordes of human beings who are miserable thru no fault of their own at the hands of oppressors in all shape, sizes, religion, sexes etc. got a really shitty deal and they had no say in it. That doesn’t make any sense. The concept of after-life and settling the score with oppressors what keeps me sane, otherwise at least I would be a very unhappy existance.

Re: # 71 hamidm {``...as for these girls, they should be sent to hira mandi lahore for re-education...``}

What a terribly moronic suggestion... Don`t you know that even one bad fish can spoil the whole pond. Here you are talking about a whole school (no pun intended) of venemous black fish. These Ninjas are a highly virulent pathogens. I know from personal experience, because we`ve had the misfortune in our own family.

How very irresponsible of you to suggest send them in the shadow of the Shahi Masjid Do you want to risk destroying the last sanctuary of tehzeeb-o-tamadun in that beleagured country? If, heaven forbid, Tibbi also succumbs to the ways of Al pHuda, then there will be no hope left for the future and all color will simply turn to drab black-and-white.

...SR

#106 Ranjit do not include Chistians in your Hypothesis or whatevr your philosophy is

#106 by ranjit on February 12, 2007 1:09pm PT

to summarize: zeemax..wake the fuck up..there are no 72 virgins in your future...just 72 maggots waiting to feast on your rotting carcass..

Re:zeemax#104

[...So as you say you find out there`s nothing afterwards. Who finds out? You`re dead remember? So who`re you talking about who`ll find out there`s nothing?....]

Take it as an analogy to sleeping. Right before you actually go to sleep, you feel sleepy and know that you will soon fall asleep. After that a switch turns off and it all becomes blank until the next morning (or if there is a dream). The interval could have been 8 hrs or a million years, it wouldnt have made any difference.

The same might happen at death, except that the switch turns off and it never turns back on again. If that is what happens, isnt it a waste of time doing jihad and hating everyone? Why not enjoy life with your loved ones and make the most of it? What if life is just 1 chance for you out of eternity to experience consciousness?

Your entire belief system in Islam is based on the firm belief that you are part of something eternal and after death, you will still be ``conscious`` in some form and continue to experience something forever in paradise, since you are a good muslim. Its a mental crutch that is very attractive and reassuring but has absolutely no empirical basis. The problem is that the jihadis turn this attractive mental crutch into an absolute truth and are willing to kill others for it, besides neglecting their current existence. If all that happens after death is that a switch turns off for eternity, what a waste of that one chance to experience consciousness and make the most of it.

At a core level, muslims feel this way because their religion is still young and has not matured sufficiently. Mature religions like christianity or buddhism or hinduism do not make pretenstions to know the absolute truth. That provides their followers with the wisdom to make most of their current lives and also prepare for what lies afterwards. If there is indeed something after death, good enough, otherwise, at least you enjoy this life. The jihadis do not enjoy this life and may soon find out that there is nothing later on either, which is the ultimate tragedy.

Re: # 102
dear zeemax...this is my last letter to you. it is unfortunate that i could not have a friendly

respectful dialgue with you.....all the best...sohail

#103 by ranjit

So as you say you find out there`s nothing afterwards. Who finds out? You`re dead remember? So who`re you talking about who`ll find out there`s nothing?

Re:zeemax#98

[..Good. So you`re just feed for the maggots...]

Zee, what happens if you die and find out that there is nothing afterwards? Your neurons stop firing and it is infinite darkness. Have you thought about that possibility? What a waste all his hatred and ideology would be, wouldnt it?

#101 by drsohail

When Allama Iqbal said that .. he was talking about the maggots. You`ll certainly taste good.

No, really. Dr. Sohail. Please do me a favour. Please never quote Iqbal again. You don`t know what he means. It is an insult to that great man.

Re: # 100
malik sahib...allama iqbal said

waiy nakami mata-e-karawan jata raha

karawan kay dil say ehsaas-e-zian jata raha

i am not a pathan but i have many pathan friends. they are wonderful people....sohail

#98 by zeemax

zee, you are getting hysterical man. dr sohail, plz do some of your psychaitary magic.....

#84 zeemax

``They`re like `ziddi` children. If you take them to hell with `pyar mohabbat`, they will gladly go. But if you push them to `heaven`, they will kill you.``

This looks more like the definition of a Pathan.

#97 by ranjit

Good. So you`re just feed for the maggots.

Fair enough. At-least you`ll do the maggots good.

I accept your point of view. And you`re not alone, many do.

Zeemax,

Lets say I give you 2 choices - 1) Take $100 now or 2) Take a 10% chance of getting $100 million later. Your choice would most likely be 2, since you think losing $100 is not a big deal if you have a chance to score $10 million.

Now lest say I offer you these 2 chances - 1) Take $1 million now or 2) Take a 10% chance of getting $100 million later. Your choice may no longer be the same since losing a guaranteed $1 million is a big deal, even though expected value of second choice is still higher.

The above paradigm holds because humans value loss greater than gain.

The muslims today have a crappy life. Therefore they go for the 10% chance of getting heaven via suicide bombings or any other method. They do not think that losing their lives right now is a big deal as compared to the expected value from Islam. However, if their present conditions were great, corresponding to my second choice, how many would want to give it up to go for the 10% chance of hitting the jackpot after death? Thats why saudi royal family or punjabi feudal lords are not exactly signing up for guerilla warfare, jihad or suicide bombings. The poor Abduls, whose life are a waste, are lured into this by dangling the expected value of a future in heaven.

So all this talk about god and heaven is BS. The muslim elites are not able to provide a decent life or even attempt to provide a decent life to their people. Thats why they use the afterlife as a tool to misguide the people into fighting and suicide bombings.

Look tehsinabbasi ... what you wrote is because the idea of maggots eating you up is unpalatable ... (but it`s true ... just put a breast of fried chicken in the fridge and switch it off ... and check a week later). Now you believe your `soul` will be `somewhere` better, out of bounds. Is that what you said?

What reason do you have to believe that? Why would it necessarily be a better place? Could it be worse? The odds on it being better or worse would appear to be the same in a neutral environment. No?

So then what do you do? Is there actually a soul at all? Or just maggot feed?

You`ll have to decide on the above before going further.

#93 by Tehsinabbasi

Very good:

And it is my belief that I am definitely going to a better place ….

Where?

#92 by Tehsinabbasi

...subtlety of the human condition...

Yes I read it. Thanks.

Sure ... you believe human condition is subtle, I don`t think so at all. It is just a plain truth. Either you believe, or you don`t. Simple. No subtlety there.

Zeemax: #89, #90, #91

Allow me to retort:

My body is not me. This is just a cover, an allusion, maya… that’s all. My soul would be long gone … that you see what death is – a release from these bounds.

And it is my belief that I am definitely going to a better place …. But thank you, you keep the hooris, I would have no use for them.

Zeemax:

I would love to have your comments about the following text that I read. It is from a speech given to graduating seniors at a high school.



“our shared humanity gets savagely challenged when our differences are narrowed into one devised system of uniquely powerful categorization”. I really want you to remember that piece of wisdom. In fact I will repeat it. I want you to be naturally skeptical of anyone who claims access to an absolute truth that goes beyond personal belief and is extended into a value system which is deemed good for all others if only they would see the light. Fundamentalism in all its forms is the enemy of enlightenment and enlightenment ultimately is based on our appreciation and understanding of the plurality and infinite subtlety of the human condition.”

Re .. #90 by zeemax

... maggots, cockroaches, rats, vermin are not winged creatures ... so surely you must believe in them. Do you?

Please respond.

Re: #89 by zeemax

C`mon Hamidm .. tell me ... what do you believe in? Surely it must be maggots which will be born in your own very flesh and feed upon themselves stripping you to the bone. And, there`ll be cockroaches, rats, vermin, each trying to take their share from the maggots.

Will that be it for you? All that you worked and toiled and debated for? Is that it?

Pray tell ..

#86 by hamidm2

Sure you believe in none of those.

Do you believe in maggots which will devour your body in the grave? And then, you`ll be no more?

#85 by Tehsinabbasi

I see. Ok I read your whole post.

Stay well my friend. I wish you the best. But you are ignorant. Learn!

Cheers.

.....contd.....

....and these are girls. Don`t even think about the boys when they go on this warpath.

It`ll be very scary.

Re: # 83


sorry zeemax - i have absolutely no regard for the `sensitivities` of other people if they involve winged creatures, tooth fairies, virgin mothers, flying monkeys, talking ants, suicide bombers or vegetarianism .............

#35 by zeemax

Pardonez moi Monsieur! How utterly thoughtless of me to have neglected your question and of course you know exactly why – because your elegant manner and strength of argumentation renders me speechless.

But as you have so eloquently predicted, I will true to form try to cover my ass.

Let me make my point again, perhaps your eloquence will get it this time. I was lamenting the fact that by robbing caravans and committing bandit raids the Prophet legitimized banditry and piracy for us Muslims and this has been the greatest crime that has been perpetrated against us. For this I gave several examples. But was banditry the only motivation, of course not! I neither said this nor implied it in any way (just like you had correctly predicted I am covering my ass).

Before answering your question about Mecca lets take an earlier raid against Banu al-Mustaliq, this occurred during the 6th year of the hijra. In this “God granted the Prophet many captives men, women and children along with their goods as booty”. But guess what? Juwayriyah the daughter of the killed chief who was extremely beautiful was part of this booty. She was trying to arrange her ransom and was hoping for the Prophet’s assistance in this matter. But, on seeing her, the Prophet had a much better proposition for her. He would pay her ransom and marry her as well. This altered the situation for the whole Banu al-Mustaliq, from captive slaves they were elevated to “relatives by marriage of the Messenger of God”. A hundred families of the Banu Mustaliq were freed. (google time!!!)

Of course you can claim that bandits would never do this. I concede…. they were bandits with a heart!

Now lets go to the main event – Fatah e Makkah that thou anxiously awaiteh.

When the Quraish were caught in a breach of contract and they felt that the Prophet’s wrath would be upon them, there was great consternation in Mecca. Realizing this Abu Sufyan who also happened to be leader of Mecca came running to Medina to save his city from being ransacked, its men killed, women and children sold in slavery. He went to his own daughter Umm Habibah (one of the Prophet’s wives) she refused to intercede on his behalf, he went to the M of G himself who refused to say anything, neither did Umar Farooq, Fatima or Ali. This made the situation even more precarious. When the Meccans realized that a huge army of over 10000 Muslims was on its way to invade Mecca everything broke. Abu Sufyan converted to Islam so did Abbas and Khalid bin Walid and beyond that there were mass conversions. Before long nearly the whole city had converted. So life just didn’t go on – you see everybody converted. Why destroy something if you can have it for nothing, and have allies to boot.

But for the Prophet it was also important not to obliterate his kin. He had spent his whole life trying to reform them, show them the light and with a good mix of force and instruction it was working. He even honored Abu Sufyan by declaring his home as sanctuary from Muslim reprisals. More importantly though it was the Kaaba the house of worship, the place of pilgrimage which he revered that had to be honored and maintained. So there were many reasons, it is not one-dimensional.

#76 by hamidm2

Yes Hamidm. These women are ALL Master`s degree holders. Do you know why they dress like that? Because you push them. The more you push, the more radicalized they will become. This is an odd thing about Muslims. They`re like `ziddi` children. If you take them to hell with `pyar mohabbat`, they will gladly go. But if you push them to `heaven`, they will kill you.

It all just makes me so sad. Really. You may not believe it but it`s true.

#75 by hamidm2

Ok .. ok Hamidm ... whatever you say ... you know I`ve always had this corner in my heart for you .. I`m sorry.

But do regard sensitivities of others as well.

Thanks.

#73 by SR

If these are your thoughts, maybe you should reconsider your plans to move back to Pakistan.

#79 by hamidm2 on February 12, 2007 8:34am PT


you guys should let the kashmiris go if they don`t like the smell of heeng and coconut oil


the kashmiris are free to go wherever they feel they can practise their ninja arts in peace..

I`ll help them along

maps.google.com
www.pia.com

#77 by Tehsinabbasi on February 12, 2007 8:09am PT


Precisely! When the minority feels that they have been treated fairly then the conflict gets resolved.


Apples and oranges...a majority if israelis don`t agree with what a majority of palis want..there aren`t a large number of frenchies trying to blow up the rest of canuckistan..

you`re only putting a righteous spin to it because the islamic party in the dispute is the one that wants the status quo changed...we only need to look at saudi arabia or most other islamic countries to see how accomodating an islamic majority is of the non-islamic minority...

Re: # 77

arjun mian,


...... in case you have trouble reading in between the lines, what tehsin is trying to say is that you guys should let the kashmiris go if they don`t like the smell of heeng and coconut oil ............ and do you really want to hang on to a nation whose women look like the ninjas shown below ? ...... why don`t you give up srinagar and some adjoining orchards and keep the rest - i think most pakis would settle for that ? .............. we should stop acting like the palestinians and the israelis - our grandpa gopinath was a better man than abraham

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#58 by arjun2

“It`s not a conflict because the frenchies who wanted to split had a fair shot and they were in a minority”

Precisely! When the minority feels that they have been treated fairly then the conflict gets resolved. If they feel they have been stiffed then you have trouble. Conclusion, it is incumbent upon the majority to treat the minority fairly even to the extent if they wish to separate. Yes they should make it attractive for them to stay but shouldn’t force them if they so desire.

Had we in Pakistan treated our Bengali brethren fairly when they earned the right to separate if they had so chosen, through a free and fair election, I am quite certain today we wouldn’t have needed a passport to go there.

SR,

are you talking about these ``highly educated women`` ?

zeemax,

..... why do you take these things so personally ?.......... look, the prophet, his buddies, his wives, his concubines, his camel and these nasty women who have are determined on have a bloody showdown to make a point, are all public figures who run the risk of being ridiculed or lauded ............. but why take it out on my poor family who are going about their business as law abiding citizens and don`t even know, or care what what these crazy women are doing in islamabad ............

.......... you really need to control your temper before you end up like omar sheikh - he too was a `highly educated` man who went to an elite public school and lse ........ take a deep breath and don`t say takbeer or anything stupid like that ..........

#73 SR

``Al pHuda``

That was wicked.......

Re: # 69 zeemax {``...these girls are highly educated ... came to Jamia Hafsa ... from recognised Universities...``}

Just for curiousity sake, do these Ninjas from Jamia Hadsa have any connection with the ones from Al pHuda?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: # 69

zeemax,

........ i think they should shut down all the madrassas which are doing nothing but creating an army of potential suicide bombers .......... as for these girls, they should be sent to hira mandi lahore for re-education before they kill innocent bystanders - it is too late to save them ........... it is sad, but necessary .......

#68 by zeemax on February 12, 2007 4:42am PT

peemax...we`ve already seen the awesome record(cough cough) of the staunchly muslim paki army in liberating the oppressed ummah homies in Indian Kashmir...

so this BS about the almighty all conquering ummah homies BS doesn`t play outside yor paki echo-chamber of self-delusion...

The Jamia Hafsa issue:

All these girls are highly educated. All of them came to Jamia Hafsa after completing their MSc`s and MA`s from recognised Universities. Most of them come from Kohat and Waziristan. They just came to add the `Mufti` qualification to their education which jamia Hafsa awards. All of them are Pakhtoons save a few from Punjab.

These are the young girls who would not take any BS from anyone. These are Muslims.

What happened was that the Capital Development Authority came one night and bulldozed their mosque. Apparent reason was that the road had to be widened. Real reason is that Musharraf uses that road, and widening was important for security.

The girls don`t have any beef about that. Their beef was that when they went for Fajr prayers, their mosque was gone. They ask why weren`t they told? Why weren`t they given an alternate place? When they asked, they were bullshitted and insulted.

So, what they did, was to take over the library next-door to their hostel. There have been many attempts at a compromise, but don`t seem to be working. The girls are adamant for a formal apology and an alternate place for a mosque where they can walk from their hostels.

Now what is wrong with that ????

What`s wrong is that these young girls are Jamia Hafsa students ... which is a Madrassa. The current policy is to discourage Madrassas. So, the Governement cannot let them win.

In the meantime, the girls have categorically said that if anyone tries to remove them they will blow themselves up, but not leave under duress of the Govt.

Afreen ... Sum Afreen upon our sisters ..

The threat is that when the male Madrassa students see this going on, they will say ``Are we so beyghairat that our sisters are being beaten up and dying for their Faith while we sit idly by?``

That`s when all hell will break loose.

This issue, in my opinion, is a milestone.

Godspeed to the Jamia Hafsa students.

ramchandar CHUTYA,

Ummah is in the hearts. It is not in any boundaries. You hindoos will never understand that. After all, if the great American nation could never understand that, you guys are just lowly insects.

The nation which DOES understand the Ummah phenomenon, are the Jews. That`s why they know they will either live or die, and fighting to live. But, most likely the outcome will the latter during our own lifetimes.

You hindoos don`t even count ... chutyas ...

Dear Brothers Sr, Zee, Malik, Tehsin and Hamid

None of you argue that Islam is Arab imperialism. It self propagting imperialism. The cunning of Mohammad is that he was the first Arab nationlist who used spirtulity for political purpose and for whom all the paki, indian or for that reason any other chutiyas were mere fodder to be used for propagating islam.

All this talk about umah is just nonsense. Where is umah? Can you go and settle down in mecca and live happily ever after. Can you just go there open business, send your children to schools and get the citizen ship. No. Because you are just like kafirs and to be used only for the purpose of propagating this Arab imperialism.

Go and read the book of the Pakistani writer Anwar Shaikh. The name of the book is Islam - Arab Imperialism.

I think there is a copy of this book in one of Lahore`s libraries.

God bless you all kafirs.

...... further add-on ...

Islam`s natural state is one of complete domination. Without full domination, Islam is incomplete. There is no concept of peaceful Muslim co-existence with non-Muslims in an equal political system. Muslims HAVE to dominate, otherwise they are not Muslims.

I think that`s a bloody good concept. I like it a lot. That gives purpose.

....add-on...

Why dont the other muslims just accept reality and admit that Islam is a religion of war and aggression?

Because (to borrow from masadi`s expression) they are Damn Fools!

#59 by ranjit

Dear Ranjit,

When did I ever say Islam was a religion of Peace? Kindly reproduce where I said that.

If anyone else told you so, don`t believe him.

My friend, Islam is NOT a religion of Peace. It is NOT a religion to turn the other cheek. Islam is extremely violent when warranted.

Islam is Peace in times of Peace, Tolerance and Accomodation when times allow that, and Ruthless when it has to be. Islam is a TOTAL system of existence, where life is valued, but not indispensible. Whether own, or of its enemy; whether in uniform, or without it.

Please be clear about that.

Re: # 61 ranjit {``...overall Indo-Pak dynamics are also headed in the right direction because of the relatively smart, calibrated policies...``}

During my recent trip I was quite surprised to see that a brand new four lane road is built from Wazirabad to Sialkot (is it supposed to continue on to Jammu?) ... but it abruptly stops few kilometers short of the border. This used to be a pissy-ant nothing road full of pot holes that went off the GT Road. Now the land value along that road, particularly near Sialkot, has skyrocketted and rivals Lahore prices, right in the middle of no where. I know of some big investors who have bought land along the road. Also Sialkot is getting a BIG airport. An ``international`` airport? Bigger than Lahore`s by some accounts. What is this about?

In a sane world, Western tourists destined for Kashmir could be flying into Sialkot (instead of Delhi)... Look at the map and you`ll see what I mean. The fruits of peace and normalcy of relations besides paying enormous economic dividends, could also very quickly heal all old wounds.

...SR

Re:teshsinabbasi (continued from #61)

India`s policies since 1947 towards muslims and Pakistan have been nuanced and controlled. After the disastrous period of the forties and partition, India learnt a lesson on how to deal with the communal conflict but still come out on top. Firstly it avoided ganging up against muslims within India to take revenge for partition. India still went ahead and adopted a secular constitution and tried to patch up relations with muslims. As a result, India avoided falling into the communal trap that Pakistan did and religion stayed away from politics. This has led to a healthy secular democratic polity that can hold its own against any western democracy. It also prevented muslims from losing all hope and take to extremism, like they seem to be doing in a lot of european countries these days.

Secondly India competed strongly against Pakistan for supremecy in the subcontinent, but did not want to destroy it. India could have focused all energies to fight war after war against Pakistan and do everything to destroy it, like the arabs tried against Israel. That opposition actually strenghthened Israel by fostering unity amongst the Israelis. The lack of such opposition in the subcontinent, took the wind out of the sail for Pakistan. It soon fell into ethnic and linguistic battles - punjabis vs. bengalis vs. mohajirs and then sunni vs shia . In fact, it was the bogey of Kashmir that kept Pakistanis going from an ideological point of view. India stepped in once in a while like in 1971 to break Pakistan, but it never tried to erase it completely. There was no apetite to rule muslim areas again and the presence of a buffer state from West Asia/Central Asia, was quite beneficial for India`s security. So the net result was that India established supremacy over Pakistan in the subcontinent but did not go for the kill, since Pakistan served a useful purpose on keeping India`s western borders isolated from the madness in Afghanistan and elsewhere. This has provided India with the space to focus on economic growth which it has grabbed with both hands.

The results of all this is that India is focused on economic growth while Pakistan battles with extremists in the North-west, and India and Pakistan are going in for a reconciliation. Recently journalists have noted that Pakistanis are more angry with Afghanistan than India. So Pakistan is becoming India`s western shield without becoming too big for its boots to threaten India - a very desirable outcome for India.

Re:Tehsinabbasi

The peaceful resolution of a conflict requires that the more powerful side executes a smart, calibrated policy to resolve the issue, using only as much force as really needed, compromising as necessary and playing a nuanced, balanced game of winning over your opponents without giving up on your geo-strategic goals. Dumb, brute force doesnt work. Partial force with accompanying smart compromises can do the trick.

The US civil war is one example where a conflict was settled by force. However, the North made extensive compromises and took measures to bring the South back into the mainstream, which the South was willing to accept. The contrasting example is Pakistan in East Pakistan in 1971. Pakistan wanted to militarily crush its opponent (the bengalis) and even physically obliterate it. In some other times, it might have worked. However, in the modern world, it could not sustain the effort and ended up losing half the country. Israel is another example, where they have militarily crushed the Palestinians and each side desires to physically obliterate the other, if they could get half a chance. No wonder this conflict persists till today to the point that both sides would happily spit in each other`s face and kill each other`s kids. Whats the benefit? Both Isrealis and Palestinians have a lousy life where they are scared of getting blown up at any moment.

In this context, I believe India has been very intelligent in dealing with its conflicts. It has used controlled force in Kashmir and never crossed the line, even thought it meant higher casualties on Indian side. Even today, helicopter gunships are banned in Kashmir, something that the Pakistanis use routinely in Baluchistan. On the contrary India has held elections, made sure that Kashmiris own all their land and resources, invested gazillion dollars in Kashmir and avoided changing the demographics, even though it could have changed the religious equation in the valley. As a result of those patient controlled efforts, Kashmir now belongs solidly to India. Pakistanis with all their military power and nukes have given up on Kashmir calling for negotiations, while Kashmiri leaders want to call off the violence entirely. It is really unique that for the first time in history, a non-muslim country could pacify a muslim rebellion without phsyically obliterating the opponents, like in Spain or Sicily.

The overall Indo-Pak dynamics are also headed in the right direction because of the relatively smart, calibrated policies employed by the Indian government in terms of dealing with Pakistan and internally with muslims. Today the US and Europe looks to India in terms of learning about how to deal with muslim minorities!! Go figure.

#59 by ranjit on February 11, 2007 11:06pm PT

There are two standards..

When the practioners of the religion of peace kill a whole bunch of non-muslims, that`s a historic battle..part of a glorious past to be commemorated.
When non-muslims whack a bunch of muslims, that`s a historic wrong that needs to be righted...

when muslims occupy non-muslim lands, that land becomes muslim forever and the occupation needs to be celebrated as part of a glorious past..
when non-muslims occupy muslim lands, that`s a historic wrong that justifies terrorism...

Re:zeemax#49

[..There is no previous example where a handful of warriors waylaid and drained a hugely powerful adversary of its resources, bided their time, then forced them to come and fight on inhospitable turf, and destroyed them. ...]

Zeemax, I have always wondered why most muslims want to insist, until they go red in the face, that their relgion is a religion of peace. Since the 7th century AD, Islam is one long saga of warfare all across Arabia, Persia, Byzantium, North Africa, Europe, Central Asia and India. Whether it is guerilla warfare or regular warfare or looting/plundering of temples or beheading people, its a continuous string of violence that goes on till this day.

As you have admitted in your posting, right from the beginning, the violence was aggressive in nature in terms of conquering non-muslims and converting them to Islam. Why dont the other muslims just accept reality and admit that Islam is a religion of war and aggression? Why this charade about peace and spirituality, when it is all about conquest and domination? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

#56 by Tehsinabbasi on February 11, 2007 10:26pm PT

It`s not a conflict because the frenchies who wanted to split had a fair shot and they were in a minority. In the case of Israel and palestine, the majority of Israelis and the majority of palis want exact opposite things. If you asked a majority of Israelis to vote on whether they want to give the palis everything the palis want, a majority of israelis would say no...likewise the palis...

you need to make an apples to apples comparison here...

#53 by hamidm2

You`re calling these girls Prophet`s concubines?

I guess nothing further remains to be said or heard.

Stay well.

#55 by arjun2

Not true - there was no referendum in Czechoslovakia. Had it gone to a referendum there werent enough votes for it to pass. The leaders just decided to make the split. I am curious to know what you have to say about Canada.

#54 by Tehsinabbasi on February 11, 2007 8:31pm PT

The Czechoslovakia example doesn`t apply...there was no conflict there..the issue was resolved through a referendum..the majority of the people wanted the split and so it happened..

a conflict is when both sides want the same thing..like Pakistan wants Indian Kashmir and India won`t give it away..or the palis want the right of return but the Israelis don`t want to give it to them...

#44 by arjun2

``Can you think of a conflict that has been resolved by talks without 1) large amount of bloodshed 2) one side gaining an advantage over another?

I can`t... ``

I thought I started out with 2 such examples that of Czechoslovakia and Canada in my post #8.

the prophet`s example - buyer beware !

LAHORE: Barbers in Bajaur Agency have decided not to shave men’s beards following threats by unidentified men, the BBC Urdu service reported on Sunday. In an emergency meeting summoned at Inayat Kallay, five kilometres from Bajaur Agency’s main town Khar, local barbers decided that they would stop shaving men.

............and the example of the prophet`s concubines

ISLAMABAD: Over 700 policewomen from Punjab have been summoned to the capital as the district administration prepares contingency plans for an operation to end seminary students’ occupation of a children’s public library. Female students of Jamia Hafsa occupied the library over three weeks ago to protest at the demolition of Amir Hamza Masjid.

#51 by SR

Yes .. Yes .. so Suetonius killed 80,000 Britons (icluding women, children and animals as per the link you provided), but it does not detract from my statement that mine is bigger than yours ... !

:~)

Re: # 49 zeemax {``... I have no point ... I have already made my point ...``}

Okay, okay... alright... so yours is BIGGER than mine ... I give up.

So, let`s see, what else? Ah... what`s the difference between a golfer and a skydiver?


``?``


The golfer goes... Wham...! ``Oooooh shit..``

The skydiver goes... ``Oooooh shit..`` Wham...!

Cheers,

...SR

...... contd .. #49 by zeemax

.....and you`re seeing this happening right now in Iraq ....

:~)

#47 by SR

I have no point Sir. I have already made my point which you have been unable to rebutt.

There is no previous example where a handful of warriors waylaid and drained a hugely powerful adversary of its resources, bided their time, then forced them to come and fight on inhospitable turf, and destroyed them.

Thanks.

:~)

moulana zee,

i have every reason to call your response:

``charon shaanay chitt``

plz correct me if you feel otherwise.

Re: # 34 zeemax {``...I checked on the battle you quoted. It appears that the 70-80,000 Brits who died did not die in battle, but were mostly civilians who were massacred by Boudica`s rebels when Suetonius abandoned three cities including Londinium (now London) while retreating to fight elsewhere....``}

In the 1700s a sea captain was confronted by a church parish of over a hundred who quoted from (their version of) the Bible and insisted that the Earth was flat. The sea captain insisted that it was round. He didn`t quote any sources. His only arguement was that he`d sailed around it himself.

I took my son to the (what is beleived to be) battle site of the Battle of Watling Street along what is now the A5 in Warwickshire. The Brits have re-discovered native pride in the person of Queen Bodica (this is the new, politically correct, spelling of her name), and therefore much historical research has been done and many memorials are seen all over the place.

The 70 to 80,000 dead civilians you correctly mention are not the ones I was talking about. Bodica`s followers were about a quarter million but the actual warrier are said to be only 140,000. The rest were followers. The destroyed what is now Colchester (where I attended summer school at the University of Essex in 1977) which was the Roman capital of Brition at the time. And yes, they destroyed all Roman villas and farms and even the small trading town, which is now London, but at the time was only a settlement 20 year old. Then they destroyed St. Albans. Suetonius was in North Wales at the time and he hurriedly assembled all the forces that were left in Britain and chose his battleground in what is now West Midlands (a 90 minute drive from the village where I am living now). Then he waited for the rebel army to arrive. It was those 80,000 dead rebel warriors I had referred to, not the 70-80K civilians killed earlier.

But really what is your point. You are getting carried off on a tangent here. I was merely pointing out to you, by giving Suetonius` example, that numerically far smaller armies have destroyed great enemies and that is not unique to Badr. I could just as easily cited examples of Giaus Marius against the Germanic tribes or of Lucius Cornellius Sulla against Archelaus of Pontus during the Mithridatic Wars... There are many, many such examples in ancient times, Alexander the Mediocre, for instance, would never have become The Great, had his small army not defeated the mighty Persian army of King Darius the incompetent who had no business losing that battle. Similarly Robert Clive had less than 3,000 men under his command at Plassi when Nawab Siraj-ud-Daula lost his nerve and lost with 25,000 men under his direct command (forget the additional 30,000 under his uncle, Mir Jaffar, who ``trecherously`` failed to come to his nephew Siraj-ud-Daula`s aid).

The only thing Badr proves is that Muhammad was a superior calibre commander than Abu Jehl. But then this numerical asymetry of forces at Badr wasn`t even your main point. You were claiming that the preceding desert raids were the very first GWs of history. That they clearly were not.

...SR

``my problem is that we hold them as up as paragons of virtue even today when most of us do not share a tent with a camel ..........``

Because without Mohammad`s great example, Islam is like the black cube in Mecca signifying Nothing, a kind of abyss. And we all know how great and respectful that pervert`s (pbuh) deeds were.

#41 by hamidm2

Mr Hamidm2,

You said ... :

...my problem is that we hold them as up as paragons of virtue even today...

Wonderful. Do you know why Jews are in Jerusalem today? Why they`re killing and being killed to remain there? Why`re they digging underneath Al-Aqsa to find that temple?

Because forget the 7th century where according to you we want to go back ... The Jews want to go back to 0.7th century (i.e. 70 AD) as a paragon of virtue .... haha .. your ideals.

What say you now?

:~)

#22 by Tehsinabbasi on February 10, 2007 11:03am PT


Conflict resolution is only possible if the parties to the conflict are interested in resolving it.


Can you think of a conflict that has been resolved by talks without 1) large amount of bloodshed 2) one side gaining an advantage over another?

I can`t...

sorry...that`s just the way it is...The Israelis have the upper hand, despite all islamist delusions to the contrary..and the party with the upper hand is unlikely to give up more...being that the palis want concessions the Israelis don`t want to give, the conflict will go on..

please don`t pull the palis have only goodness in their hearts crap...we all know you pakis would have continued the jihad in kashmir if the circumstances were in your favor..we also know that if you`re talking concessions, meaningless as they might be, it`s only because your efforts at jihad have failed..and it has nothing to do with your ``desire for peace`` or ``your interest in solving it``...what you`re interested in is solving it in your favor...

#42 by malikjahanzeb

Yaar Malik,

You`re too ignorant for me to debate with you. Please get some education first. What you`re talking about are the basic objections which were refuted a very long time ago. I will only debate on what lies ahead ... not what you read on faithfreedom.org or something.

:~)

#40 zee,

I will try to stimulate your lazy intellectual faculties again.

Mohammad was on a mission to create and perpetuate a religion. He was most probably aware of this. He knew what religions of the past (christianity and judaism) had done. He knew what the potential of this activity was. He was not a small time looter. Rather, his eyes were at replacing christianity and judaism with his version of `islam`. I wonder why an avid Qaari of quran like you can miss this.

And don`t forget that he had a careful plan to make mecca into a future hotbed of islam. Do you think he did not have the intention to tag that black cube to be the center of earth?

Re: # 40

zeemax,

....... what do you mean `so far ahead` ?....... they were all part of the same bloody tribe and after they kissed and made-up they were probably killing and looting their neighbors the very next day .......... i, for one, don`t blame them for doing what they did - after all they were barbarians and that was how things were done back then ........my problem is that we hold them as up as paragons of virtue even today when most of us do not share a tent with a camel ..........

#38 hamidm/#37 malik

Haha ... don`t try to weasel out of arguments. The entire Khaybar was confiscated being the hotbed of Jewish conspiracies of Banu Nadir.

But were the `bandits` thinking so far ahead that they knew with the help of the defeated and vanquished Madinites, they would conquer the entire territories of the Byzantines as well as the Persians to loot and plunder their riches?

If they were, then they really weren`t bandits ... now were they?

:~)

#27 by drsohail

Aah ... I see your field of study is currently limited to 1906-2006. Do let me know, Sir, when you decide to expand your field of study to a bit earlier so that history does not begin in 1906.

And, I am not at all baiting you. Quite on the contrary, you, Sir, are baiting me. You can be quite infuriating with your limited canvas as I`ve said before ... i.e. naive.

And now, you`ld like me to tell you whether muslims brought change by peaceful means or by violence and whether that change was progressive or regressive ...

When was a revolution brought about by peaceful means?

And, when was any revolution regressive?

Ohh ... I forgot ... all Islamic revolutions are regressive. Any others?

:~)

Re: # 35

zeemax,

you ask :``how come they did not ransack Mecca for its riches when they eventually took over the city, but rather pardoned everyone and life went on?`` ``

....... now that was a stupid question, if there was ever one !........ why ransack mecca when everyone converted and joined the marauders of medina to go out and ransack th rest of the world ......... it was good bedouin realpolitik

#35 by zeemax

mecca was still mohammad`s home city and his motive was not to loot its riches but its soul. more than anything else, i think bringing mecca under the banner of islam was his biggest dream come true. he would have happily looted it had it been another city, like khyber.

#31 by billdunc

We were not talking about peace overtures; the topic I was addressing is conflict resolution. An asymmetrical warfare which any guerilla war by its definition is, assumes that one party holds most if not all of the cards. Despite what the Palestinians could’ve, should’ve done, 99% spend their lives just trying and hoping to survive. Could they have done things differently to woo the Israelis towards conflict resolution – may be. But largely this is irrelevant. They are lucky that this conflict is taking place in this era, had it been occurring Medina circa 625 AD it would have been resolved by the stronger party instantaneously i.e. by killing all the men and selling the women and children in slavery. (remember Banu Qurayzah ….. if not ask our resident historian Zeemax he will give you the details).

#28 by Tehsinabbasi

You, Sir, are a complete moron. I remember we had this discussion about whether it was banditry or guerilla raids, and in the end I had posed a question to you as to ``if the early Muslims were bandits, how come they did not ransack Mecca for its riches when they eventually took over the city, but rather pardoned everyone and life went on?``

You never answered because you cannot answer this question, and will keep covering your ass.

#30 by hamidm2

This question is posed to you as well, Sir.

:~)

#25/26 by SR

er ... since I remembered the Queen Boudica`s exploits, I checked on the battle you quoted. It appears that the 70-80,000 Brits who died did not die in battle, but were mostly civilians who were massacred by Boudica`s rebels when Suetonius abandoned three cities including Londinium (now London) while retreating to fight elsewhere.

An extract:

When news of the rebellion reached him, Suetonius hurried along Watling Street through hostile territory to Londinium (London). Londinium was a relatively new town, founded after the conquest of 43, but had grown to be a thriving commercial centre with a population of travellers, traders, and probably Roman officials. Suetonius considered giving battle there, but considering his lack of numbers and chastened by Petillius`s defeat, decided to sacrifice the city to save the province.

Londinium was abandoned to the rebels, who burnt it down, slaughtering anyone who had not evacuated with Suetonius. Archaeology shows a thick red layer of burnt debris covering coins and pottery dating before 60 within the bounds of the Roman city.[9] Verulamium (St Albans) was next to be destroyed.

In the three cities destroyed, between seventy and eighty thousand people are said to have been killed.

Besides, as you would know, the early Muslims had things like advance reconaissance
parties as well as commando units. Remember the adventures of Taleeha?

Cheers!

drsohail,

Nice article informing about many conflicts of current times. But it did lack a psychology aspect to it, as the title claims.

As the conflict grows old, a new generation is born which has been brainwashed with only single sided information. These folks serve as the feul to run the guerilla wars but are not capable of questioning the merits of the cause or method of the warfare. It is only a few poeple on the top who are informed enough to form or maintain a direction to the whole matter. And it is these poeple who are responsible for the cause being `progressive` or `regressive`, based on the perspective(bais) of the judging person.

In arab-isreal conflict, it seems like both parties have ideals which are disconnected from reality and the grey area available to tag each other as the `axis of evil` is very large. In addition, arabs suffer from being less pragmatic and more of a complaining type.

Re: # 31

billdunc,

........ i am sick and tired of hearing about the `plight` of the palestinians - the fact of the matter is that they could have had a just solution a long time ago if they had wanted .......... instead they cling to the notion that they can drive the jews into the sea just as the prophet drove them out of khyber - with him as a role model there is no chance a lasting peace .......... and their internecine and fratricidal warfare is indicative of a culture that thrives on bloodshed and mayhem - israel would be ill-advised to trust these barbarians .............

Re: # 22
Hi Tehsinabbasi,


``Conflict resolution is only possible if the parties to the conflict are interested in resolving it.``

Absulutely true.

``...Israel to this day has not been interested in resolving this conflict despite its rhetoric. It still holds (the vast majority of its power elite) to the mistaken notion that it can have the West Bank for ever by force. Add to that the volatile combination of religious belief that God has ordained them and given them this land and the other fact that the land mass is so small that they could easily use it for the growth of their own population and it is absolutely essential for their security.``

This is a very reasonable statement of the Israeli dynamic.

``The Palestinians problems are equally stark and worse. They have no place to go and are fighting for their survival.``

also true

``Peace would be only possible when Israel genuinely looks for avenues to conflict resolution. In the past those who tried to resolve it paid with their death or destruction (Itzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres etc.) ``
true also

``So the UN Secretary General or for that matter the whole world cannot bring peace or conflict resolution, because one of the parties doesn’t want it. ``

True but only in part....

Your analysis of the dynamic driving Israeli actions is pointed but largely accurate. You fail however to apply the same analysis to the palestinian side. The problem for the Palestinians is that they have a culture at present which only seems to perceive that there is a path to resolution through violence. This is the current battle within Palestinian society. It is a battle between those with a degree of pragmatism ( and there are such people on the Israeli side too) and those who see only the righteo