Jihad: Paradoxes and Defining Moments
Urstruly September 30, 2001
#650 Posted by Zahra on October 16, 2001 11:14:13 pm
CAIR-MI ANNUAL FUNDRAISING DINNER
URS URS:
CAIR-MI invites you and your family to its Annual Fundraising Dinner entitled ``The Great Opportunity``
WHEN: Sunday November 11, 2001 at 6:30 p.m.
WHERE: Novi Hilton-275 & 8 Mile Rd.
COST: Tickets are $50 per person.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, contact the CAIR-MI office.
TEL: (248) 569-2203 or E-MAIL cair@cairmichigan.org
VOLUNTEERS ARE NEEDED!
URS URS:
CAIR-MI invites you and your family to its Annual Fundraising Dinner entitled ``The Great Opportunity``
WHEN: Sunday November 11, 2001 at 6:30 p.m.
WHERE: Novi Hilton-275 & 8 Mile Rd.
COST: Tickets are $50 per person.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, contact the CAIR-MI office.
TEL: (248) 569-2203 or E-MAIL cair@cairmichigan.org
VOLUNTEERS ARE NEEDED!
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#649 Posted by rsaxena on October 16, 2001 5:03:59 pm
Re: Eklayva
``but Shania baby`s got the mood right.``
Do you also go to tupperware parties?
``but Shania baby`s got the mood right.``
Do you also go to tupperware parties?
#648 Posted by PM on October 16, 2001 5:03:59 pm
intersting read... can`t find the URL though...
Victory Is in Saying No to Fear
By MICHAEL KINSLEY,
Michael Kinsley is the editor of Microsoft`s online magazine, Slate.
Years ago, as a tourist in Vienna, I met an old lady who called herself ``the Prinzessin`` and claimed to be a Hapsburg princess, now reduced to the status of tour guide. Among her collection of overpolished anecdotes was an item about complaining to her mother one day during her childhood that life was boring. ``The next day,`` she said, ``we heard that Archduke Franz Ferdinand had been shot.`` Pause for effect. ``And life was never boring anymore.``
The notion that there are days when history swings on a pivot is irresistible and, to some extent, valid. The shooting of the archduke that started World War I, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy assassination. Before: innocence and sun-dappled lawns. Afterward: knowledge, modernity and darkness.
Will Sept. 11, 2001, really turn out to have been one of those days? A horrible day, certainly, and yes, a day that will live in infamy. But a day when life changed dramatically and permanently for everyone, at least in America? Maybe so, but there are adequate reasons to doubt and excellent reasons to avoid leaping to that conclusion.
For the journalists and politicians we depend on for the official cliché of our national conversation, the apocalyptic note is irresistible. It`s just the nature of journalism to make ``this is more important than you think`` a subtext of every story. And when you`ve devalued concepts such as ``crisis`` and ``war,`` as TV news especially has done in recent years, apocalypse is about all you have left when a story this big comes along.
As for pols, they are also natural hyperbolizers who are not disposed to conclude that a national crisis is smaller than it seems. Although logic doesn`t really matter in such things, there is a logical contradiction among the official clichés of the moment that ``everything has changed.``
Victory in the war against terrorism consists precisely of everything not changing. If life has changed permanently and dramatically for the worse, terrorism has won the war. If people become convinced that, say, getting on an airplane is wildly riskier than they previously thought, terrorism has won whether that is true or not.
``Everything has changed`` can also become a self-fulfilling prophecy in terms of the economy, where consumer confidence matters a lot more than the direct costs of terrorism itself. Being told again and again that life from now on will be unrecognizable doesn`t make me want to rush out to Wal-Mart.
Certainly, it`s ironic that so many Americans seem convinced that life was wonderful until last week and will be terrible from now on. For more than a decade, the mantra of U.S. politics was ``change.`` Voters demanded it, politicians of all stripes promised it. For thousands of Americans directly affected by the attack, life has indeed changed tragically. But for most of us, it`s at worst too early to say whether everyday life will be permanently and dramatically altered. And there`s something self-indulgent about assuming so.
While flag-waving is an appropriate and moving response to a frontal attack on our country, there are a couple of wrong notes in the current national chorus. One, of course, is bullying, which is always the underside of patriotism.
More novel, disturbing and, I`m afraid, more characteristic, is the theme of victimization. Oh, poor us. We need grief counseling and little ribbons to wear. Those ribbons claim membership and ask for sympathy more than they communicate resolve. We share the pain of actual victims not just through empathy and financial generosity but also by feeling victimized. How long before some doctor discovers a Sept. 11 syndrome.
In the case of a president who must suddenly rally people to an unexpected cause, a bit of hyperbole is understandable. The danger for George Bush is that he is promising total victory when that is not possible or even, in a way, necessary.
Terrorism is not ``an enemy`` that can be defeated. It is infinite tactics available to any enemy. Particular enemies can be defeated and terrorism in general can be discouraged, but the possibility can never be eliminated.
Life was riskier than we realized before Sept. 11 and is not as risky as we fear now. Resisting the conclusion that everything has changed is one way to help prevent it from being true.
For information about reprinting this article, go to
Victory Is in Saying No to Fear
By MICHAEL KINSLEY,
Michael Kinsley is the editor of Microsoft`s online magazine, Slate.
Years ago, as a tourist in Vienna, I met an old lady who called herself ``the Prinzessin`` and claimed to be a Hapsburg princess, now reduced to the status of tour guide. Among her collection of overpolished anecdotes was an item about complaining to her mother one day during her childhood that life was boring. ``The next day,`` she said, ``we heard that Archduke Franz Ferdinand had been shot.`` Pause for effect. ``And life was never boring anymore.``
The notion that there are days when history swings on a pivot is irresistible and, to some extent, valid. The shooting of the archduke that started World War I, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy assassination. Before: innocence and sun-dappled lawns. Afterward: knowledge, modernity and darkness.
Will Sept. 11, 2001, really turn out to have been one of those days? A horrible day, certainly, and yes, a day that will live in infamy. But a day when life changed dramatically and permanently for everyone, at least in America? Maybe so, but there are adequate reasons to doubt and excellent reasons to avoid leaping to that conclusion.
For the journalists and politicians we depend on for the official cliché of our national conversation, the apocalyptic note is irresistible. It`s just the nature of journalism to make ``this is more important than you think`` a subtext of every story. And when you`ve devalued concepts such as ``crisis`` and ``war,`` as TV news especially has done in recent years, apocalypse is about all you have left when a story this big comes along.
As for pols, they are also natural hyperbolizers who are not disposed to conclude that a national crisis is smaller than it seems. Although logic doesn`t really matter in such things, there is a logical contradiction among the official clichés of the moment that ``everything has changed.``
Victory in the war against terrorism consists precisely of everything not changing. If life has changed permanently and dramatically for the worse, terrorism has won the war. If people become convinced that, say, getting on an airplane is wildly riskier than they previously thought, terrorism has won whether that is true or not.
``Everything has changed`` can also become a self-fulfilling prophecy in terms of the economy, where consumer confidence matters a lot more than the direct costs of terrorism itself. Being told again and again that life from now on will be unrecognizable doesn`t make me want to rush out to Wal-Mart.
Certainly, it`s ironic that so many Americans seem convinced that life was wonderful until last week and will be terrible from now on. For more than a decade, the mantra of U.S. politics was ``change.`` Voters demanded it, politicians of all stripes promised it. For thousands of Americans directly affected by the attack, life has indeed changed tragically. But for most of us, it`s at worst too early to say whether everyday life will be permanently and dramatically altered. And there`s something self-indulgent about assuming so.
While flag-waving is an appropriate and moving response to a frontal attack on our country, there are a couple of wrong notes in the current national chorus. One, of course, is bullying, which is always the underside of patriotism.
More novel, disturbing and, I`m afraid, more characteristic, is the theme of victimization. Oh, poor us. We need grief counseling and little ribbons to wear. Those ribbons claim membership and ask for sympathy more than they communicate resolve. We share the pain of actual victims not just through empathy and financial generosity but also by feeling victimized. How long before some doctor discovers a Sept. 11 syndrome.
In the case of a president who must suddenly rally people to an unexpected cause, a bit of hyperbole is understandable. The danger for George Bush is that he is promising total victory when that is not possible or even, in a way, necessary.
Terrorism is not ``an enemy`` that can be defeated. It is infinite tactics available to any enemy. Particular enemies can be defeated and terrorism in general can be discouraged, but the possibility can never be eliminated.
Life was riskier than we realized before Sept. 11 and is not as risky as we fear now. Resisting the conclusion that everything has changed is one way to help prevent it from being true.
For information about reprinting this article, go to
#647 Posted by PM on October 16, 2001 5:03:59 pm
intersting read... can`t find the URL though...
Victory Is in Saying No to Fear
By MICHAEL KINSLEY,
Michael Kinsley is the editor of Microsoft`s online magazine, Slate.
Years ago, as a tourist in Vienna, I met an old lady who called herself ``the Prinzessin`` and claimed to be a Hapsburg princess, now reduced to the status of tour guide. Among her collection of overpolished anecdotes was an item about complaining to her mother one day during her childhood that life was boring. ``The next day,`` she said, ``we heard that Archduke Franz Ferdinand had been shot.`` Pause for effect. ``And life was never boring anymore.``
The notion that there are days when history swings on a pivot is irresistible and, to some extent, valid. The shooting of the archduke that started World War I, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy assassination. Before: innocence and sun-dappled lawns. Afterward: knowledge, modernity and darkness.
Will Sept. 11, 2001, really turn out to have been one of those days? A horrible day, certainly, and yes, a day that will live in infamy. But a day when life changed dramatically and permanently for everyone, at least in America? Maybe so, but there are adequate reasons to doubt and excellent reasons to avoid leaping to that conclusion.
For the journalists and politicians we depend on for the official cliché of our national conversation, the apocalyptic note is irresistible. It`s just the nature of journalism to make ``this is more important than you think`` a subtext of every story. And when you`ve devalued concepts such as ``crisis`` and ``war,`` as TV news especially has done in recent years, apocalypse is about all you have left when a story this big comes along.
As for pols, they are also natural hyperbolizers who are not disposed to conclude that a national crisis is smaller than it seems. Although logic doesn`t really matter in such things, there is a logical contradiction among the official clichés of the moment that ``everything has changed.``
Victory in the war against terrorism consists precisely of everything not changing. If life has changed permanently and dramatically for the worse, terrorism has won the war. If people become convinced that, say, getting on an airplane is wildly riskier than they previously thought, terrorism has won whether that is true or not.
``Everything has changed`` can also become a self-fulfilling prophecy in terms of the economy, where consumer confidence matters a lot more than the direct costs of terrorism itself. Being told again and again that life from now on will be unrecognizable doesn`t make me want to rush out to Wal-Mart.
Certainly, it`s ironic that so many Americans seem convinced that life was wonderful until last week and will be terrible from now on. For more than a decade, the mantra of U.S. politics was ``change.`` Voters demanded it, politicians of all stripes promised it. For thousands of Americans directly affected by the attack, life has indeed changed tragically. But for most of us, it`s at worst too early to say whether everyday life will be permanently and dramatically altered. And there`s something self-indulgent about assuming so.
While flag-waving is an appropriate and moving response to a frontal attack on our country, there are a couple of wrong notes in the current national chorus. One, of course, is bullying, which is always the underside of patriotism.
More novel, disturbing and, I`m afraid, more characteristic, is the theme of victimization. Oh, poor us. We need grief counseling and little ribbons to wear. Those ribbons claim membership and ask for sympathy more than they communicate resolve. We share the pain of actual victims not just through empathy and financial generosity but also by feeling victimized. How long before some doctor discovers a Sept. 11 syndrome.
In the case of a president who must suddenly rally people to an unexpected cause, a bit of hyperbole is understandable. The danger for George Bush is that he is promising total victory when that is not possible or even, in a way, necessary.
Terrorism is not ``an enemy`` that can be defeated. It is infinite tactics available to any enemy. Particular enemies can be defeated and terrorism in general can be discouraged, but the possibility can never be eliminated.
Life was riskier than we realized before Sept. 11 and is not as risky as we fear now. Resisting the conclusion that everything has changed is one way to help prevent it from being true.
For information about reprinting this article, go to
Victory Is in Saying No to Fear
By MICHAEL KINSLEY,
Michael Kinsley is the editor of Microsoft`s online magazine, Slate.
Years ago, as a tourist in Vienna, I met an old lady who called herself ``the Prinzessin`` and claimed to be a Hapsburg princess, now reduced to the status of tour guide. Among her collection of overpolished anecdotes was an item about complaining to her mother one day during her childhood that life was boring. ``The next day,`` she said, ``we heard that Archduke Franz Ferdinand had been shot.`` Pause for effect. ``And life was never boring anymore.``
The notion that there are days when history swings on a pivot is irresistible and, to some extent, valid. The shooting of the archduke that started World War I, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy assassination. Before: innocence and sun-dappled lawns. Afterward: knowledge, modernity and darkness.
Will Sept. 11, 2001, really turn out to have been one of those days? A horrible day, certainly, and yes, a day that will live in infamy. But a day when life changed dramatically and permanently for everyone, at least in America? Maybe so, but there are adequate reasons to doubt and excellent reasons to avoid leaping to that conclusion.
For the journalists and politicians we depend on for the official cliché of our national conversation, the apocalyptic note is irresistible. It`s just the nature of journalism to make ``this is more important than you think`` a subtext of every story. And when you`ve devalued concepts such as ``crisis`` and ``war,`` as TV news especially has done in recent years, apocalypse is about all you have left when a story this big comes along.
As for pols, they are also natural hyperbolizers who are not disposed to conclude that a national crisis is smaller than it seems. Although logic doesn`t really matter in such things, there is a logical contradiction among the official clichés of the moment that ``everything has changed.``
Victory in the war against terrorism consists precisely of everything not changing. If life has changed permanently and dramatically for the worse, terrorism has won the war. If people become convinced that, say, getting on an airplane is wildly riskier than they previously thought, terrorism has won whether that is true or not.
``Everything has changed`` can also become a self-fulfilling prophecy in terms of the economy, where consumer confidence matters a lot more than the direct costs of terrorism itself. Being told again and again that life from now on will be unrecognizable doesn`t make me want to rush out to Wal-Mart.
Certainly, it`s ironic that so many Americans seem convinced that life was wonderful until last week and will be terrible from now on. For more than a decade, the mantra of U.S. politics was ``change.`` Voters demanded it, politicians of all stripes promised it. For thousands of Americans directly affected by the attack, life has indeed changed tragically. But for most of us, it`s at worst too early to say whether everyday life will be permanently and dramatically altered. And there`s something self-indulgent about assuming so.
While flag-waving is an appropriate and moving response to a frontal attack on our country, there are a couple of wrong notes in the current national chorus. One, of course, is bullying, which is always the underside of patriotism.
More novel, disturbing and, I`m afraid, more characteristic, is the theme of victimization. Oh, poor us. We need grief counseling and little ribbons to wear. Those ribbons claim membership and ask for sympathy more than they communicate resolve. We share the pain of actual victims not just through empathy and financial generosity but also by feeling victimized. How long before some doctor discovers a Sept. 11 syndrome.
In the case of a president who must suddenly rally people to an unexpected cause, a bit of hyperbole is understandable. The danger for George Bush is that he is promising total victory when that is not possible or even, in a way, necessary.
Terrorism is not ``an enemy`` that can be defeated. It is infinite tactics available to any enemy. Particular enemies can be defeated and terrorism in general can be discouraged, but the possibility can never be eliminated.
Life was riskier than we realized before Sept. 11 and is not as risky as we fear now. Resisting the conclusion that everything has changed is one way to help prevent it from being true.
For information about reprinting this article, go to
#646 Posted by PM on October 16, 2001 5:03:59 pm
re. RSuxena Reply #: 645
[Re: PM ....You were definitely more interesting writing about homosexuality. Stick with topics you know well.]
I`d ask you to follow your principle of post-only-when-in-the-know, but then, we`d all miss you too much on chowk. :)
[Re: PM ....You were definitely more interesting writing about homosexuality. Stick with topics you know well.]
I`d ask you to follow your principle of post-only-when-in-the-know, but then, we`d all miss you too much on chowk. :)
#645 Posted by ylh on October 16, 2001 5:03:59 pm
Dear Gowardhan,
You really need to take a break man. By the way, I really didnt know that Dr Ajeet was a Pakistani Professor, her book `secular and nationalist Jinnah` a Pakistani book, Jawaharlal Nehru University a Pakistani University, and New Dehli a Pakistani city.
Perhaps Your mummy daddy probably told you that Pakistan indulges in revisionism (no less than India may I add).. but the revisionism in Pakistan History. contends that `Jinnah was a Holy Pakistani Islamic leader`.
Now from what I understand you too believe that Jinnah was a communalist Islamic leader... then I dont understand what your gripe is with Pakistani Historians... their revisionist History and your biases are practically one and the same. Both the revisionist Pakistani Historians especially of the Zia Era and Hindu Bigots contend the same thing, one considers it good and the other group considers it bad...
Ofcourse true Historians and unbiased authors on both sides of the Border like Dr Ajeet, Ayesha Jalal, Raj Mohan Gandhi, Anil Seal, Salman Rushdie, Eqbal Ahmed, and Nirad Chaudhry share exactly the same view as myself. Are all of them Pakistani revisionists.
Even a Biased author like VS Naipaull who has made no bones about his hatred for Islam and Muslims contends that Jinnah was secular for example...
-YLH
Here is an article I wrote about `Revisionism in Pakistan` ...
http://www.eden.rutgers.edu/
You really need to take a break man. By the way, I really didnt know that Dr Ajeet was a Pakistani Professor, her book `secular and nationalist Jinnah` a Pakistani book, Jawaharlal Nehru University a Pakistani University, and New Dehli a Pakistani city.
Perhaps Your mummy daddy probably told you that Pakistan indulges in revisionism (no less than India may I add).. but the revisionism in Pakistan History. contends that `Jinnah was a Holy Pakistani Islamic leader`.
Now from what I understand you too believe that Jinnah was a communalist Islamic leader... then I dont understand what your gripe is with Pakistani Historians... their revisionist History and your biases are practically one and the same. Both the revisionist Pakistani Historians especially of the Zia Era and Hindu Bigots contend the same thing, one considers it good and the other group considers it bad...
Ofcourse true Historians and unbiased authors on both sides of the Border like Dr Ajeet, Ayesha Jalal, Raj Mohan Gandhi, Anil Seal, Salman Rushdie, Eqbal Ahmed, and Nirad Chaudhry share exactly the same view as myself. Are all of them Pakistani revisionists.
Even a Biased author like VS Naipaull who has made no bones about his hatred for Islam and Muslims contends that Jinnah was secular for example...
-YLH
Here is an article I wrote about `Revisionism in Pakistan` ...
http://www.eden.rutgers.edu/
#644 Posted by ylh on October 16, 2001 5:03:59 pm
Rsaxena
tsk tsk misquoting are we now?
{Re: ylh
``Indians on these boards dont consider me a liar``
MaheshG? Gowardhan? Shall I continue? Having more delusions, are we? Call up mummi again.}
Go back and read the post ... I said `sane Indians dont consider me liars` not `Indians`. It also mentioned your pals Gowardhan and Mahesh G in the Bigoted mental case category to which you belong too!
-YLH
tsk tsk misquoting are we now?
{Re: ylh
``Indians on these boards dont consider me a liar``
MaheshG? Gowardhan? Shall I continue? Having more delusions, are we? Call up mummi again.}
Go back and read the post ... I said `sane Indians dont consider me liars` not `Indians`. It also mentioned your pals Gowardhan and Mahesh G in the Bigoted mental case category to which you belong too!
-YLH
#643 Posted by ylh on October 16, 2001 5:03:59 pm
CNN`s analysis...
Joey Chan, the CNN correspondent, made an indepth analysis of Pakistani and Indian military capabilities...
The figures she gave were
612000 vs 1.3 mil personnel
353 planes vs 774 planes (She also made a point to mention that `analysts believe the Indian superiority is set off by the superior skill of the Pakistani pilots`)
10 submarines vs 16 submarines
2200 Tanks vs 3414 Tanks
65+ Nukes vs 10+ Nukes
In the end her contention was that both sides are more or less evenly matched eventhough India has higher number of troops, but Pakistan has a more professional and skillful force.
She also mentioned an Edge for Pakistan in the Nuclear department.
-YLH
PS I will like this opportunity to congratulate the Brave and skillful Indian army for being able to kill one civilian woman and injuring 25 others.
I suppose this will go down as the 4th Indian victory?
Joey Chan, the CNN correspondent, made an indepth analysis of Pakistani and Indian military capabilities...
The figures she gave were
612000 vs 1.3 mil personnel
353 planes vs 774 planes (She also made a point to mention that `analysts believe the Indian superiority is set off by the superior skill of the Pakistani pilots`)
10 submarines vs 16 submarines
2200 Tanks vs 3414 Tanks
65+ Nukes vs 10+ Nukes
In the end her contention was that both sides are more or less evenly matched eventhough India has higher number of troops, but Pakistan has a more professional and skillful force.
She also mentioned an Edge for Pakistan in the Nuclear department.
-YLH
PS I will like this opportunity to congratulate the Brave and skillful Indian army for being able to kill one civilian woman and injuring 25 others.
I suppose this will go down as the 4th Indian victory?
#642 Posted by rsaxena on October 16, 2001 12:17:04 pm
Re: TAhmed
{{PM: I see you have the ``Hate Paki Club``}}
You seem to have finally fired up your neurons after a long break to at least stop calling it the ``Hate The Muslim Club`` ... that`s simply wrong... mostly because there are Indian Muslims like Zafar.
``Hate The Paki Club`` is more correct, but not completely.
{{PM: I see you have the ``Hate Paki Club``}}
You seem to have finally fired up your neurons after a long break to at least stop calling it the ``Hate The Muslim Club`` ... that`s simply wrong... mostly because there are Indian Muslims like Zafar.
``Hate The Paki Club`` is more correct, but not completely.
#641 Posted by rsaxena on October 16, 2001 12:17:04 pm
Re: semiconfusedme
``”Go screw yourself”
..lol, so it’s come down to this has it?….``
You seem to think that`s an attempted insult. PM just said he enjoys doing that and doesn`t consider it an insult. So would you please stop mocking him?
``”Go screw yourself”
..lol, so it’s come down to this has it?….``
You seem to think that`s an attempted insult. PM just said he enjoys doing that and doesn`t consider it an insult. So would you please stop mocking him?
#640 Posted by rsaxena on October 16, 2001 12:17:04 pm
Re: shrinker
``I hope the both of you get married to a gal like scout or binifer. Your egos are badly in need of a good trimming...``
I don`t like men, in that way.
``I hope the both of you get married to a gal like scout or binifer. Your egos are badly in need of a good trimming...``
I don`t like men, in that way.
#639 Posted by tahmed321 on October 16, 2001 10:01:08 am
PM: I see you have the ``Hate Paki Club`` (Team Leader, Rsaxena, Second in Command, Gowardhan, Commercial Attache Audio-Video-Desi-Discount-Store) upset with you. You must have said something wise (I`ll go check you post).
Shankar: You are slipping my friend. Rsaxena has not insulted you at all this week.
Shankar: You are slipping my friend. Rsaxena has not insulted you at all this week.
#638 Posted by shankar on October 16, 2001 10:01:08 am
Zahra,
Aw, please let binifer enjoy her last few days of freedom:)
Aw, please let binifer enjoy her last few days of freedom:)
#637 Posted by shankar on October 16, 2001 10:01:08 am
Saxena,
{{Isn`t that right, shrinker? Now you too aren`t going to lie, are you? I`m sure that post can be pulled out very easily.}}
Sure he is! Just about as idiotic as you are.
You are two peas in the same pod. When he`s away from Chowk, you go through a severe depression. When he`s back, you becoming your loving colorful self.
I hope the both of you get married to a gal like scout or binifer. Your egos are badly in need of a good trimming...
{{Isn`t that right, shrinker? Now you too aren`t going to lie, are you? I`m sure that post can be pulled out very easily.}}
Sure he is! Just about as idiotic as you are.
You are two peas in the same pod. When he`s away from Chowk, you go through a severe depression. When he`s back, you becoming your loving colorful self.
I hope the both of you get married to a gal like scout or binifer. Your egos are badly in need of a good trimming...
#636 Posted by semipreciousme on October 16, 2001 10:01:08 am
RSaxena
RE: PM
”Go screw yourself”
….lol, so it’s come down to this has it?….
Re: binifer #564
”till trying hard to start a fight with me? pathetic...can`t even do that well”.
….that’s rich….you’d give her the same oh-so-eloquent response as you did to PM…
RE: PM
”Go screw yourself”
….lol, so it’s come down to this has it?….
Re: binifer #564
”till trying hard to start a fight with me? pathetic...can`t even do that well”.
….that’s rich….you’d give her the same oh-so-eloquent response as you did to PM…
#635 Posted by ZafarA on October 16, 2001 10:01:08 am
Reply Soysauce # 648
``You rifle thru someone`s drawers only if you are intimate with them..``
Arre, aap bhi doctor ruth ka prograam sunthe honge...
``You rifle thru someone`s drawers only if you are intimate with them..``
Arre, aap bhi doctor ruth ka prograam sunthe honge...
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- bulleya: anil #: "That is... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- tahir: Re: # 51 Quin "...into... Translation of a (Love)
- guru: Vinash Kale Viparit Buddhi! The... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- laddu: Re: # 102 parthab, A "blind"... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- laddu: Re: # 103 Kaale Khan,... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- guru: Why Islamists are compalining... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- anil: Re: # 98 Ijaz sahib: "...'where... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- Naqshbandi: Re: Asad's translation and... Translation of a (Love)
