Muslims in America

in #192 read "that the institutions that produce such invasions will do so inspite of the person occupying the oval office, and have done so with similar barbarity as they have shown in Iraq..." as


that the institutions that produce such invasions will do so regardless of the person occupying the oval office, and have done so with similar barbarity as they have shown in Iraq... the lies they use before invasions have been used consistently as well, only the details that make those lies have changed

truth writes "Does the Islamic identity over rides all other identity?.."

Those elite chose to use the "Islamic" identity because in India the other identities could not have been used for separation due to their blurred nature.

Tahmed peon of the West writes in response to Majumdar"you continue: "But I believe you supported this invasion, didn't you?"

Yes I did. From the point of view of the Iraqi people mentioned above. And it makes as much sense today as it did then. The only thing I did not predict is the incredible incompetence of the Bush administration which I outlined below and which everyone knows today."

I suggest you all read his dimwit article in support of the Iraq war before it occurred, he did not support it for the Iraqi people (except as slogan similar to the "incompetant" Bush Admn that he is talking about deliberately to save face for his barbaric masters who regardless of the person in command would have done more or less the same), he supported it because of his belief in the inherent superiority of the white man and his ability to civilize and to legitimize his baseless nonsense. If people were the concern why Iraq, why not Saudi Arabia or other nations supported by the US and much less progressive than Iraq before the US invasion? And how can he say the Bush admn is incompetent when it was painting similary rosy pictures regarding the people of Iraq and their offers of candy and flowers. Now this fool is supporting the US troops rampaging inside Pakistani territory using much the same bs of "flowers and candy". Know these snakes and know them well, whenever the barbarism of their masters is revealed for all to see they try to save face by blaming individuals knowing full well that the institutions that produce such invasions will do so inspite of the person occupying the oval office, and have done so with similar barbarity as they have shown in Iraq...

Re: # 190 Dost What's The Matter

"Do not ask a non-muslim to read the quran; it is not exactly of the "how to win friends and influence people" type."

Bad reading habits ruin men. Read it (Iqra) to educate yourself about what is true. Now that the whole world is anxious to understand it, why shouldn't you do the same instead of forming opinions based on junk writers at ChowQ?

"After reading it, a non-believer will either 'submit' or regard Islam as his enemy."

If I can read about all other religions, why can't you? If you submit, it'll do you tremendous good, and if you regard God's Word as your enemey, then may God alone help you!

"Of course, if he reads it in the company of someone who can put a proper spin (aka contextualise) on certain verses, it could have a different effect"

God has made his Word easy to understand; try a detailed translation 'mitra'.

tahir#188:

Here is a friendly advice from a non-believer. Do not ask a non-muslim to read the quran; it is not exactly of the "how to win friends and influence people" type. After reading it, a non-believer will either 'submit' or regard Islam as his enemy. Of course, if he reads it in the company of someone who can put a proper spin (aka contextualise) on certain verses, it could have a different effect.

Re: # 187 Truth Serem

"What is this Guddu? there is a grammatical mistake"

I meant to show you how weak your question was if you replaced certain words, that's all.

I understand all your questions; they require many articles to explain. Why don't you find your answers by reading the Qur'an. Don't be afraid now.

ChowQ is not the place to gain wisdom; 'chalaki' yes but not truth!

Re: # 172 Sachal Sarmast

"Does the Islamic identity over rides all other identity? If so, then is it something in the doctarine/koran?"

I can't believe you're still stuck with these questions! Of course, once you completely submit to Allah's Will and admit He is the Creator, everything else is secondary. THIS Muslim identity has been allowed to corrode, thanks to liberal education. And if you read the Qur'an, you will find out many things.

Do it now.

Re: # 186: Tahir,

What is this Guddu? You are write there is a grammatical mistake.

"But do you think political Islam is the problem? Or, is Islam political by design?"

May be you can enlighten on this:
Is it easy to use Islam for ulterior motive of few? Does it ask for separate identity in terms of your political power, names, language, festvals, cultural expressions, etc that it perceives threats to itself from seemingly innocuous events such as cartoons, Amarnath land lease?

Does Islam like to rule even if it is in minority in a particular land? Isn't that the reason for Pakistan. Chrchill and Jinah only capitalized on this trait of Islam.

Re: # 158 Sach SaiNkRa (truth 100)

"But do you think political Islam is the problem? Or, is it Islam is political by design?"

Question: Do you think a very loving Guddu is the problem or is Guddu loving by nature?

See how silly your original question sounds!

Try and separate politics and Islam and see what you're left with; nothing but Changezi!

Regards.

Re: # 177 by Majumdar
The part about Paul Bremer disbanding the police in the article you posted reminded me of the recently released official history of the Iraq war. I heard an NPR report on it a few days ago: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92086362&ft=1&f=5
The actual report is 720 pages or long or something, so too long to read, but it sounds very interesting because it is especially critical of Bremer and Tommy Franks.

Sort of tangential, but also interesting is this article in US armed forces journal: http://www.afji.com/2008/06/3468975 about how, since the Korean War and the firing of MacArthur by Truman, all the subsequent political leadership of the US has refrained from firing military leadership for incompetence.

tahmed#130:

My comments were mostly about the Arab world and did not apply to Pakistan so much. You guys never tire reminding us Indians how Maudoodi's party never won more than a few votes in elections. And I disagree with you that the arabs failed to develop a middle class; the problem from the western perspective was that this middle class was of Edward Syed types who believed in a secular, socialist, Pan-Arabic nationalism that did not suit western interests.


#131:
"127 dm: How the hell was I supposed to know that Bush would turn out to be so totally incompetent? "
Vadde bhra dee gal sunade tay ajj ay na kehnday. :)

#133:
Regardless of the immorality and illegality of the aggression against Iraq, I agree with your analysis here. But, as I have said before, I do not think that this was an accident but attribute it to the neocons whose objective from the very beginning was to demolish the state of Iraq to provide greater security to their friend in the Middle East.

#181 you may think so, but a moments reflection should clarify why you are on the worng track.
read #182 where I make the same point (i.e. intentions of decision makers are irrelevant, it is their actions and the likely result of those actions that are relevant)

majumdar #177 I am arguing not on the basis of the majority opinion in India thinks, but based on simple logic (i.e. how likely was the US attack to result in overthrow of Saddam and replacement with democracy and the rule of law).

The arguments presented below are not based on the above goal - thus, e.g., the instincts of the Indian people are not necessarily based on the above goal - the epic and ongoing struggle for democracy and the rule of law in Pakistan has drawn at best a tepid response from the Indian public, as even Aitezaz Ahsan admitted when questioned while addressing the US lawyers association in NY. Nor was the above the goal of the other side in India mentioned in the writeup, i.e. those who " warned that there was no profit in antagonising the US" (i.e. their goals was India's relations with the US, not freeing Iraqis from a dictatorship.

Only by carefully establishing goals and weighing the likelihood of a given set of actions meeting those goals (regardless of intentions), can we have a realistic basis for an opinion

Tahmed sahib,

(By "stated goals" I was referring to goals I had stated )

It would have been fine had you ordered the invasion of Iraq, sir!

(In fact, musharraf is a proven liar anyway)

Mr. Sanghvi, who can hardly be accused of being anti-West, is stating almost the same thing about Mush's ally- Bush.

Regards

Re: # 177: Saddam was the only friend of India in Arab world. Many IIT profs used to go on sabattical to build engineering institutions in EyeRaq.

in #178 it should read "replacement of dictatorship with democracy and the rule of law".

majumdar #176: By "stated goals" I was referring to goals I had stated (i.e. replacement of democracy and the rule of law in Iraq), not what anyone else had stated which, contrary to what you believe, I am in fact totally ignoring as being unreliable.

Your reference to Mush's stated goals is thus off the mark for the same reason. In fact, musharraf is a proven windbag and liar anyway - and if I ignore public statements made by far better men then him then rest assured I have no interest in what he claims. Actions speak louder than words.


Please think about this for a second before giving a knee-jerk reaction.