Islams Challenge
Ronald K Rodebaugh September 23, 2001
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#487 Posted by shammi on October 5, 2001 9:59:18 pm
Re: Tahmed321 #484
I am not sure that it is only retired generals who created or supported the Taleban.
I think that Pervez Musharraf in his BBC interview admitted that despite the support that Pakistan had given the Taleban, they refused to heed Pakistan`s advice on several matters (Bamiyan Buddhas, OBL, NGO officials trials, minorities to wear distinguishing marks, etc.) and caused Pakistan embarrasment. The point is -- that he did admit that his government (as some others before him) had supported the Taleban.
I am glad that the Taleban are finally being jettissoned.
I am not sure that it is only retired generals who created or supported the Taleban.
I think that Pervez Musharraf in his BBC interview admitted that despite the support that Pakistan had given the Taleban, they refused to heed Pakistan`s advice on several matters (Bamiyan Buddhas, OBL, NGO officials trials, minorities to wear distinguishing marks, etc.) and caused Pakistan embarrasment. The point is -- that he did admit that his government (as some others before him) had supported the Taleban.
I am glad that the Taleban are finally being jettissoned.
#486 Posted by shammi on October 5, 2001 9:59:18 pm
Re: RSaxena #483
In order to develop a response to terrorism, one needs to think through the strategy that terrorists apply. The response should to be to defeat the strategy, not the terrorist alone. Thus, knee-jerk responses are out (and you will find that they are EXACTLY what the terrorist wants you to do).
Fundamentally, terrorism is the strategy adopted by the weak against the strong. The terrorist cannot obtain his/her political/military objectives either through persuading public opinion through legitimate means, or through an all out military conquest.
The terrorist, thus, changes tacks and uses the strength of the adversary against itself. This is achieved by provoking the adversary into adopting a response that favors the terrorists` agenda. Thus, while the victims of terrorism cannot prevent or predict terrorist attacks, they can DEFEAT terrorism by choosing carefully the response they adopt. I am not saying that this is without cost, or that the cost may not rise, but it is the only practical way of defeating terrorism. Further, since the victims can completely control their response, they can also control the outcome of terrorism in the long run. The fundamental point is that the choice is yours as a victim - it is decidedly not in the hands of the terrorist. This is because even terrorists thrive or die on the basis of public opinion. Even in the international arena, terrorist movements are vulnerable when their actions alienate support. Just witness what the world thinks today of the menace of global terrorism after Sept. 11.
There was a time when some Arabs supporting the PLO conducted attacks in departure terminals in European airports in the `70s - you do not see much of that today. Why is that? In `75 an attack carried out by PLO sympathizers (or perhaps PLO members) in the departure terminal of Orly Airport killed several innocents. At the time, there were suggestions in the French newspapers that the pro-Arab policy of the French government should be reversed because it had failed to prevent the attack at Orly airport. Within days the Palestine Liberation Organization strongly condemned the attack. It also announced that it had taken measures to punish persons who engaged in the hijacking of airplanes, boats or trains. What the French journalists had correctly intuited was that the locus of the struggle was not at the Orly airport: it was at the Elysée Palace and at the Quai d`Orsay. This was tacitly recognized by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) when on January 29, 1975, it announced that henceforth it had decided to treat hijacking of airplanes, ships, or trains as crimes and would impose death penalties on hijackers if their actions led to the loss of life.
A similar thing happened after 38 were killed outside the J&K assembly this week - Pakistan joined India in condemning it, because it knew that the resulting negative publicity was too high a cost to bear. Of course, the WTC attack of Sept. 11, is to be seen in the same light - the response of the US will decide whether or not the Islamic world views it as the West vs. Islam or the West vs. OBL. If it is the latter, OBL will be history. That is also why people like Romair are often very sensitive to, and dislike Indian efforts to get `Pakistan branded as a terrorist state`. Nothing grates on any country/people more than being considered an outcast in the world community of nations. That also explains Musharraf`s support for the US in the face of domestic disquiet and internal opposition. The risk of losing Western political support, of being viewed by the world as an outcast, was too high a price to bear - higher than the risk to his own regime from internal opposition or dissent.
People are stunned when Lashkar-e-Toyba executes shepherds. But, it makes perfect sense from a terrorist`s warped perspective - it is to get security forces to fall like a ton of bricks on anyone who could be suspected of being a Laskhar operative (thus, alienating innocent bystanders). This is how one might win converts, and supporters to a political cause. People are outraged when innocents die, but it is how victims channel their response that determines whether the terrorists` agenda succeeds or not. In Kashmir, the avowed agenda of the terrorists (and through them their handlers - the rulers of Pakistan) is to make Kashmiris and non-Kashmiri Indians to view the world as `us` and `them`. This agenda is furthered when Indian outrage at bombings, killings, etc. results in heavy handed security measures being put in place - it brings more converts to the terrorists` cause. The bombings/killings carried out by the terrorists alone cannot undo the Indian State - those attacks are too puny to achieve the result. It is the Indian response alone that can do it. It is here that democracy wins - it exasperates terrorists and their handlers that an elected government controls security forces. An attack on an elected govt. is an attack on the people themselves. That is why democracy is sought to be undone by attacks on the legislature, govt. officials, threats to voters on Election Day, etc.
`… you hear most Pakistanis, they seem to be saying their military dictatorship is the best thing to have happened to Pakistan..`
You need to very careful as to why you hear voices appreciating the new leadership - it is all about removing corruption, throwing out incompetent politicians, stabilizing Pakistan, stemming the descent into lawlessness, etc. - but not explicitly for supporting or stepping up the Kashmir insurgency. Not a single person has claimed that the reason that Musharraf is supported is ONLY because of Kashmir. Although, many Pakistanis may support the official Pakistani line on Kashmir, it is clear that many Pakistanis are also acutely sensitive of being branded as `terrorists`. The T-word is so deplorable that many go to lengths to call terrorists `freedom fighters` , `jehadis`, `mujahideen` or `volunteers` (Romair`s original). Indeed overuse of the word `jehadi` itself has many people concerned for it is so closely associated with Islam, and sullies the religion. If global public opinion begins calling a spade a spade (e.g. as it happened with the Taleban, and Pakistan`s jettisoning them), and terrorists in Kashmir are called as such, you will see how quickly support for terrorism in Kashmir will disappear within Pakistan. Occasionally, an incident like WTC attacks is so evil, so overwhelming that the contrast in behavior between the victim and the terrorist is crystal clear. It is for the same reason that handlers of terrorists in Pakistan will not publicly support or condone any attack in India (I am however not ruling out such attacks). Short of that, the pin-pricks by themselves are unlikely to change Indian resolve or bring about any politico-military change. Rather, it may be counterproductive to the terrorists` cause - since many of the unsuspecting policemen who are killed by mines, and grenades are local Kashmiris with mouths to feed at home. It was precisely this - the annoyance of the ordinary public with the terrorists in Punjab, that eventually led to the fading of the insurgency there.
Furthermore, since the Musharraf govt. is seen to be doing some good by some Pakistanis, a physical attack on it by India over terrorism in Kashmir will be indistinguishable for many Pakistanis as an attack on Pakistan itself. Suddenly, you will make many more enemies, and anyone remotely associated with the government as heroes/martyrs - I do not think that this is what you want.
``…then there is the coward pack of culprits like Urstruly, sarwari, scout, etc. who don`t go to the frontlines to fight but provide ideological support to terrorism in Kashmir...``
My response above applies to this. Paper warriors are the first to flee from the cause when the cause itself becomes ignominious.
You have also stated that India should resort to selective assassinations - I am sure a very tempting option to you to eliminate undesirables. But, you need to also understand that it is counterproductive if used without thought to the arguments that I have laid out above. It may work (as it did in the case of Bhindranwale), but it alone is no panacea. Today, former Bhindranwale sympathizers run the state govt. in Punjab, and would have been mistakenly targeted by your assassination policy (if adopted) in the past.
The best solution is to contrast the terrorists` behavior from that of the victims in stark terms. Elections remain a potent tool - one side conducts them, the other mouths shibboleths. Do not underestimate the power of the ballot. Elections, or threats to disrupt them do not go unnoticed by the world.
In order to develop a response to terrorism, one needs to think through the strategy that terrorists apply. The response should to be to defeat the strategy, not the terrorist alone. Thus, knee-jerk responses are out (and you will find that they are EXACTLY what the terrorist wants you to do).
Fundamentally, terrorism is the strategy adopted by the weak against the strong. The terrorist cannot obtain his/her political/military objectives either through persuading public opinion through legitimate means, or through an all out military conquest.
The terrorist, thus, changes tacks and uses the strength of the adversary against itself. This is achieved by provoking the adversary into adopting a response that favors the terrorists` agenda. Thus, while the victims of terrorism cannot prevent or predict terrorist attacks, they can DEFEAT terrorism by choosing carefully the response they adopt. I am not saying that this is without cost, or that the cost may not rise, but it is the only practical way of defeating terrorism. Further, since the victims can completely control their response, they can also control the outcome of terrorism in the long run. The fundamental point is that the choice is yours as a victim - it is decidedly not in the hands of the terrorist. This is because even terrorists thrive or die on the basis of public opinion. Even in the international arena, terrorist movements are vulnerable when their actions alienate support. Just witness what the world thinks today of the menace of global terrorism after Sept. 11.
There was a time when some Arabs supporting the PLO conducted attacks in departure terminals in European airports in the `70s - you do not see much of that today. Why is that? In `75 an attack carried out by PLO sympathizers (or perhaps PLO members) in the departure terminal of Orly Airport killed several innocents. At the time, there were suggestions in the French newspapers that the pro-Arab policy of the French government should be reversed because it had failed to prevent the attack at Orly airport. Within days the Palestine Liberation Organization strongly condemned the attack. It also announced that it had taken measures to punish persons who engaged in the hijacking of airplanes, boats or trains. What the French journalists had correctly intuited was that the locus of the struggle was not at the Orly airport: it was at the Elysée Palace and at the Quai d`Orsay. This was tacitly recognized by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) when on January 29, 1975, it announced that henceforth it had decided to treat hijacking of airplanes, ships, or trains as crimes and would impose death penalties on hijackers if their actions led to the loss of life.
A similar thing happened after 38 were killed outside the J&K assembly this week - Pakistan joined India in condemning it, because it knew that the resulting negative publicity was too high a cost to bear. Of course, the WTC attack of Sept. 11, is to be seen in the same light - the response of the US will decide whether or not the Islamic world views it as the West vs. Islam or the West vs. OBL. If it is the latter, OBL will be history. That is also why people like Romair are often very sensitive to, and dislike Indian efforts to get `Pakistan branded as a terrorist state`. Nothing grates on any country/people more than being considered an outcast in the world community of nations. That also explains Musharraf`s support for the US in the face of domestic disquiet and internal opposition. The risk of losing Western political support, of being viewed by the world as an outcast, was too high a price to bear - higher than the risk to his own regime from internal opposition or dissent.
People are stunned when Lashkar-e-Toyba executes shepherds. But, it makes perfect sense from a terrorist`s warped perspective - it is to get security forces to fall like a ton of bricks on anyone who could be suspected of being a Laskhar operative (thus, alienating innocent bystanders). This is how one might win converts, and supporters to a political cause. People are outraged when innocents die, but it is how victims channel their response that determines whether the terrorists` agenda succeeds or not. In Kashmir, the avowed agenda of the terrorists (and through them their handlers - the rulers of Pakistan) is to make Kashmiris and non-Kashmiri Indians to view the world as `us` and `them`. This agenda is furthered when Indian outrage at bombings, killings, etc. results in heavy handed security measures being put in place - it brings more converts to the terrorists` cause. The bombings/killings carried out by the terrorists alone cannot undo the Indian State - those attacks are too puny to achieve the result. It is the Indian response alone that can do it. It is here that democracy wins - it exasperates terrorists and their handlers that an elected government controls security forces. An attack on an elected govt. is an attack on the people themselves. That is why democracy is sought to be undone by attacks on the legislature, govt. officials, threats to voters on Election Day, etc.
`… you hear most Pakistanis, they seem to be saying their military dictatorship is the best thing to have happened to Pakistan..`
You need to very careful as to why you hear voices appreciating the new leadership - it is all about removing corruption, throwing out incompetent politicians, stabilizing Pakistan, stemming the descent into lawlessness, etc. - but not explicitly for supporting or stepping up the Kashmir insurgency. Not a single person has claimed that the reason that Musharraf is supported is ONLY because of Kashmir. Although, many Pakistanis may support the official Pakistani line on Kashmir, it is clear that many Pakistanis are also acutely sensitive of being branded as `terrorists`. The T-word is so deplorable that many go to lengths to call terrorists `freedom fighters` , `jehadis`, `mujahideen` or `volunteers` (Romair`s original). Indeed overuse of the word `jehadi` itself has many people concerned for it is so closely associated with Islam, and sullies the religion. If global public opinion begins calling a spade a spade (e.g. as it happened with the Taleban, and Pakistan`s jettisoning them), and terrorists in Kashmir are called as such, you will see how quickly support for terrorism in Kashmir will disappear within Pakistan. Occasionally, an incident like WTC attacks is so evil, so overwhelming that the contrast in behavior between the victim and the terrorist is crystal clear. It is for the same reason that handlers of terrorists in Pakistan will not publicly support or condone any attack in India (I am however not ruling out such attacks). Short of that, the pin-pricks by themselves are unlikely to change Indian resolve or bring about any politico-military change. Rather, it may be counterproductive to the terrorists` cause - since many of the unsuspecting policemen who are killed by mines, and grenades are local Kashmiris with mouths to feed at home. It was precisely this - the annoyance of the ordinary public with the terrorists in Punjab, that eventually led to the fading of the insurgency there.
Furthermore, since the Musharraf govt. is seen to be doing some good by some Pakistanis, a physical attack on it by India over terrorism in Kashmir will be indistinguishable for many Pakistanis as an attack on Pakistan itself. Suddenly, you will make many more enemies, and anyone remotely associated with the government as heroes/martyrs - I do not think that this is what you want.
``…then there is the coward pack of culprits like Urstruly, sarwari, scout, etc. who don`t go to the frontlines to fight but provide ideological support to terrorism in Kashmir...``
My response above applies to this. Paper warriors are the first to flee from the cause when the cause itself becomes ignominious.
You have also stated that India should resort to selective assassinations - I am sure a very tempting option to you to eliminate undesirables. But, you need to also understand that it is counterproductive if used without thought to the arguments that I have laid out above. It may work (as it did in the case of Bhindranwale), but it alone is no panacea. Today, former Bhindranwale sympathizers run the state govt. in Punjab, and would have been mistakenly targeted by your assassination policy (if adopted) in the past.
The best solution is to contrast the terrorists` behavior from that of the victims in stark terms. Elections remain a potent tool - one side conducts them, the other mouths shibboleths. Do not underestimate the power of the ballot. Elections, or threats to disrupt them do not go unnoticed by the world.
#485 Posted by soysauce on October 5, 2001 9:59:18 pm
#499 my previous post
``When those that emphasize the former outnumber those adhering to the latter, you have essentially a fundamentalist society. The latter outnumber the former in almost all societies except where muslims as a whole are not a majority.``
should read
``When those that emphasize the former outnumber those adhering to the latter, you have essentially a fundamentalist society. The latter ARE outnumberED BY the former in almost all societies except where muslims as a whole are not a majority.``
``When those that emphasize the former outnumber those adhering to the latter, you have essentially a fundamentalist society. The latter outnumber the former in almost all societies except where muslims as a whole are not a majority.``
should read
``When those that emphasize the former outnumber those adhering to the latter, you have essentially a fundamentalist society. The latter ARE outnumberED BY the former in almost all societies except where muslims as a whole are not a majority.``
#484 Posted by rsridhar on October 5, 2001 2:20:46 pm
Re:Reply #: 490
jay,
I had argued in another thread many months ago that South Indian muslims are different. Many are well integrated into the cultural mileau of the region. So, a Kerala muslim will dress like rest of the Keralite, take pride in speaking Malayalam and so on. Same with many Tamil muslims. Abdul Kalam is a Sanskrit scholar. Another scholar Bhashyam (i think)gave illiminating commentaries on Ramayana.
Sridhar
jay,
I had argued in another thread many months ago that South Indian muslims are different. Many are well integrated into the cultural mileau of the region. So, a Kerala muslim will dress like rest of the Keralite, take pride in speaking Malayalam and so on. Same with many Tamil muslims. Abdul Kalam is a Sanskrit scholar. Another scholar Bhashyam (i think)gave illiminating commentaries on Ramayana.
Sridhar
#483 Posted by AAmir on October 5, 2001 2:20:46 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#482 Posted by stuka on October 5, 2001 2:20:46 pm
Romair:
``Are there any Indians who are happy for Pakistan, because the sanctions have been lifted, and thus the life of the average Pakistani will improve? If there aren`t any Indians who are happy, and many who are sad, then I would like to ask them why they feel this way.``
I am happy, sincerely so, about non-military sanctions being lifted on Pakistan. If my opposite in Pakistan is trying to make a better living, and the removal of sanctions makes it easier, why would I not be happy?
The lifting of military sanctions do not make me happy. I think you will find that understandable.
``Are there any Indians who are happy for Pakistan, because the sanctions have been lifted, and thus the life of the average Pakistani will improve? If there aren`t any Indians who are happy, and many who are sad, then I would like to ask them why they feel this way.``
I am happy, sincerely so, about non-military sanctions being lifted on Pakistan. If my opposite in Pakistan is trying to make a better living, and the removal of sanctions makes it easier, why would I not be happy?
The lifting of military sanctions do not make me happy. I think you will find that understandable.
#481 Posted by soysauce on October 5, 2001 1:50:21 pm
#490 jay
Janaab Jayaprakash:
There seems to be a battle going on - that has come out into the open now - between the moderates and extremists, between liberals and fundamentalists in islam. I have seen from close-up quite a few christian fundamentalists evolve into liberals once they decided that the book could be read in many ways. The bible is not a book of facts but one of allegories and mataphores, they have come to argue. What has happened in the west is that rationalism has tipped the balance in favor of the liberals.
What has been happening in muslim societies is rather the opposite. The koran has come to be more and more a book of facts and instructions on high. A major difference i think is that the bible is not the voice of god. It`s more like a biography of god. It`s easier therefore not to insist on a literal interpretation of the book. The koran, on the other hand, being a book of god`s words, is harder for a believer to deviate from. Hence the arguments are not about interpretations but which of the many mutually contradictory passages you choose to emphasize. On the one hand you have ``slay the idolators`` and on the other, ``there`s no compulsion in religion.``
When those that emphasize the former outnumber those adhering to the latter, you have essentially a fundamentalist society. The latter outnumber the former in almost all societies except where muslims as a whole are not a majority.
More power to people like tahmed123 but voices like his are drowned out everywhere where muslims are a majority.
Janaab Jayaprakash:
There seems to be a battle going on - that has come out into the open now - between the moderates and extremists, between liberals and fundamentalists in islam. I have seen from close-up quite a few christian fundamentalists evolve into liberals once they decided that the book could be read in many ways. The bible is not a book of facts but one of allegories and mataphores, they have come to argue. What has happened in the west is that rationalism has tipped the balance in favor of the liberals.
What has been happening in muslim societies is rather the opposite. The koran has come to be more and more a book of facts and instructions on high. A major difference i think is that the bible is not the voice of god. It`s more like a biography of god. It`s easier therefore not to insist on a literal interpretation of the book. The koran, on the other hand, being a book of god`s words, is harder for a believer to deviate from. Hence the arguments are not about interpretations but which of the many mutually contradictory passages you choose to emphasize. On the one hand you have ``slay the idolators`` and on the other, ``there`s no compulsion in religion.``
When those that emphasize the former outnumber those adhering to the latter, you have essentially a fundamentalist society. The latter outnumber the former in almost all societies except where muslims as a whole are not a majority.
More power to people like tahmed123 but voices like his are drowned out everywhere where muslims are a majority.
#480 Posted by scout on October 5, 2001 1:50:21 pm
MaheshG #491, ``And you think you will help Kashmiris attain their complete freedom by killing little school girls?``
NOPE. I think Kashmir will be helped if India and Pakistan get the hell out of their business. Haven`t I made that clear. It`s not good to be this forgetful.
MaheshG #492,
I don`t know where that post comes from. Clarify.
nasah #493, ``But would you agree that -- they were NOT the OIC gentlemen who FREED the MUSLIMS of Kosovo and Bosnia from the genocidal serbs -- and dragged the President of Serbia, Milosevic in handcuffs before the Tribunal for committing genocide against yes,MUSLIMS.``
Yes I agree. We know our shortcomings. That is why the US holds so much power in the world. It`s the most `fair` country in the world, despite the weird foreign policies.
``They were US ad Europeans CHRISTIANS -- WHO KILLED THEIR OWN -- to FREE millions of MUSLIMS from serb nazis -- you should never forget that.``
It was also the Europeans and the Christians who committed and aided Holocaust in Germany, killing thousands of Jews. It was the Serbian Christians who committed mass genocide in Kosovo. Why wouldn`t the US and other countries help Muslims if the people killing them were members of their own religious inclination? It had to be done.
``Now tell me when we Muslims have killed our own
(though killing OUR OWN is our exclusive passion)-- TO SAVE a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Jew or a Christian -- ever?``
When have Muslims, in the twentieth century committed mass genocide of Christians, Jews, and Buddhists, except for this recent terrorist attack? And in response to this terrorist attack, Muslims will die in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Pakistan is putting it`s neck on the line for the US.
NOPE. I think Kashmir will be helped if India and Pakistan get the hell out of their business. Haven`t I made that clear. It`s not good to be this forgetful.
MaheshG #492,
I don`t know where that post comes from. Clarify.
nasah #493, ``But would you agree that -- they were NOT the OIC gentlemen who FREED the MUSLIMS of Kosovo and Bosnia from the genocidal serbs -- and dragged the President of Serbia, Milosevic in handcuffs before the Tribunal for committing genocide against yes,MUSLIMS.``
Yes I agree. We know our shortcomings. That is why the US holds so much power in the world. It`s the most `fair` country in the world, despite the weird foreign policies.
``They were US ad Europeans CHRISTIANS -- WHO KILLED THEIR OWN -- to FREE millions of MUSLIMS from serb nazis -- you should never forget that.``
It was also the Europeans and the Christians who committed and aided Holocaust in Germany, killing thousands of Jews. It was the Serbian Christians who committed mass genocide in Kosovo. Why wouldn`t the US and other countries help Muslims if the people killing them were members of their own religious inclination? It had to be done.
``Now tell me when we Muslims have killed our own
(though killing OUR OWN is our exclusive passion)-- TO SAVE a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Jew or a Christian -- ever?``
When have Muslims, in the twentieth century committed mass genocide of Christians, Jews, and Buddhists, except for this recent terrorist attack? And in response to this terrorist attack, Muslims will die in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Pakistan is putting it`s neck on the line for the US.
#479 Posted by scout on October 5, 2001 1:50:21 pm
Suxena #485,
Listen kiddo, I know you feel left out right now and you`re flailing your arms about frantically to get attention. But be patient, your time to throw stones will come.
But just move aside for a second, let the adults speak to each other.
Listen kiddo, I know you feel left out right now and you`re flailing your arms about frantically to get attention. But be patient, your time to throw stones will come.
But just move aside for a second, let the adults speak to each other.
#478 Posted by scout on October 5, 2001 1:00:49 pm
raveena #496,
are you jealous that all you have is peach fuzz on the eternally pre-pubertal mukhra of yours?
some people lack testosterone, what can i do.
i know it frustrates you that you lack it, but there are medicines out there to help.
larki kahinka
are you jealous that all you have is peach fuzz on the eternally pre-pubertal mukhra of yours?
some people lack testosterone, what can i do.
i know it frustrates you that you lack it, but there are medicines out there to help.
larki kahinka
#477 Posted by rsaxena on October 5, 2001 12:27:05 pm
RE: Zahra
``I hope you are doing well after reading scout`s eent-kaa-jawab-pathar-sae response.``
I think he should be doing just fine -- he got an eent-kaa-jawab-garam-hawa-sae response.
It`s funny you how you declare your own battles and your own victories. And you communicate them with some horrendous grammar (for example, habitually incorrect use of the word ``than``) and random-a$$ shairis.
``I hope you are doing well after reading scout`s eent-kaa-jawab-pathar-sae response.``
I think he should be doing just fine -- he got an eent-kaa-jawab-garam-hawa-sae response.
It`s funny you how you declare your own battles and your own victories. And you communicate them with some horrendous grammar (for example, habitually incorrect use of the word ``than``) and random-a$$ shairis.
#476 Posted by Zahra on October 5, 2001 12:02:43 pm
Rsridhar:
I hope you are doing well after reading scout`s eent-kaa-jawab-pathar-sae response. Please do not incite anyone unnecessarily. Agae Hee Dil Kamzoar Hoawae Haen.
Scout:
That was a thah thah one :)
Great!
I hope you are doing well after reading scout`s eent-kaa-jawab-pathar-sae response. Please do not incite anyone unnecessarily. Agae Hee Dil Kamzoar Hoawae Haen.
Scout:
That was a thah thah one :)
Great!
#475 Posted by nasah on October 5, 2001 11:58:30 am
Dear Scout:
re# 478
You write:
``Yeah, many European countries were pretty silent about Milosevic too. Some even helped the Serbs commit genocide.``
But would you agree that -- they were NOT the OIC gentlemen who FREED the MUSLIMS of Kosovo and Bosnia from the genocidal serbs -- and dragged the President of Serbia, Milosevic in handcuffs before the Tribunal for committing genocide against yes, MUSLIMS.
They were US ad Europeans CHRISTIANS -- WHO KILLED THEIR OWN -- to FREE millions of MUSLIMS from serb nazis -- you should never forget that.
Now tell me when we Muslims have killed our own
(though killing OUR OWN is our exclusive passion)-- TO SAVE a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Jew or a Christian -- ever?
re# 478
You write:
``Yeah, many European countries were pretty silent about Milosevic too. Some even helped the Serbs commit genocide.``
But would you agree that -- they were NOT the OIC gentlemen who FREED the MUSLIMS of Kosovo and Bosnia from the genocidal serbs -- and dragged the President of Serbia, Milosevic in handcuffs before the Tribunal for committing genocide against yes, MUSLIMS.
They were US ad Europeans CHRISTIANS -- WHO KILLED THEIR OWN -- to FREE millions of MUSLIMS from serb nazis -- you should never forget that.
Now tell me when we Muslims have killed our own
(though killing OUR OWN is our exclusive passion)-- TO SAVE a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Jew or a Christian -- ever?
#474 Posted by tahmed321 on October 5, 2001 11:58:30 am
shammi #476 Agreed. If the current crisis results in the mullahs (including the retired generals who made the taliban) being put in their place in Pakistan, we would all be better off.
#473 Posted by Romair on October 5, 2001 11:58:30 am
Soon all the sanctions against Pakistan will be lifted. Some sanctions against India have been lifted as well. Thanks to Pakistan.
I would like to congratulate the Indians on the lifting of sanctions. I am actually quite happy for India, as long as India doesn`t start buying military equipment again.
Are there any Indians who are happy for Pakistan, because the sanctions have been lifted, and thus the life of the average Pakistani will improve? If there aren`t any Indians who are happy, and many who are sad, then I would like to ask them why they feel this way.
Also, I think it is about time, all India Pakistani issues, including Kashmir, alleged terrorism on both sides, etc. were laid out in the open in the UN, and in front of the international HR organizations and press. At that time, we will all know who is lying and who is telling the truth. I think this is a good time for Musharraf to make such an offer. If at that time India refuses to do so, then one would have to assume that its claims of terrorism are actually attempts at hiding its own oppressive actions. If it does agree, then the international agencies will get involved and the issues between India and Pakistan will start to get solved.
Is there any talk in India of taking its alleged terrorism accusations against Pakistan to the new anti-terrorism resolution recently passed by the UN? If not, then why not? It does not make sense to me. I would be interested in any objective replies from Indians.
I would like to congratulate the Indians on the lifting of sanctions. I am actually quite happy for India, as long as India doesn`t start buying military equipment again.
Are there any Indians who are happy for Pakistan, because the sanctions have been lifted, and thus the life of the average Pakistani will improve? If there aren`t any Indians who are happy, and many who are sad, then I would like to ask them why they feel this way.
Also, I think it is about time, all India Pakistani issues, including Kashmir, alleged terrorism on both sides, etc. were laid out in the open in the UN, and in front of the international HR organizations and press. At that time, we will all know who is lying and who is telling the truth. I think this is a good time for Musharraf to make such an offer. If at that time India refuses to do so, then one would have to assume that its claims of terrorism are actually attempts at hiding its own oppressive actions. If it does agree, then the international agencies will get involved and the issues between India and Pakistan will start to get solved.
Is there any talk in India of taking its alleged terrorism accusations against Pakistan to the new anti-terrorism resolution recently passed by the UN? If not, then why not? It does not make sense to me. I would be interested in any objective replies from Indians.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- bulleya: d-m #:"I don't think... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- pinku: #322 Posted by dost_mittar... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- pinku: #321 Posted by tahmed32... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- MantoLives: Tahmed, What I said is... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Adam, That was a... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Majumdar bhai, I am... Living Gandhi and King
- _arjun29: Pakiland is the father... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Mohar mian, Nice try but... Living Gandhi and King
