A Time for Renewal
Ali A Minai October 11, 2001
#114 Posted by anNy on October 13, 2001 7:59:01 pm
samina..you sound very upset..dont be..whats happenign is terrible, i know..i know exactly how you feel..my amma has been terribly depressed since yesterday..iv not seen her like this ever..apparently my driver whose an afghani and has been with us since forever, a great many of his tribe memebers are dead and his son in law has been injured..poor mans been crying since this morning...he cant even go back now coz if he goes, he wont be able to come back...
theres nothing we can do save pray..not much really...just keep repeating how incredibly wrong this is and hope someone hears us..the super power bombing those who have nothing to eat..its so grossly wrong, theyll realise themselves...allah khair karrae ga...divine justice?:) really,itll be okay inshaallah..you dont be so sad please
theres nothing we can do save pray..not much really...just keep repeating how incredibly wrong this is and hope someone hears us..the super power bombing those who have nothing to eat..its so grossly wrong, theyll realise themselves...allah khair karrae ga...divine justice?:) really,itll be okay inshaallah..you dont be so sad please
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#115 Posted by bong_dongs on October 13, 2001 7:59:01 pm
Ref kafir k khan,
1)Classifying fish as veggie: is very common all over east asia also. A lot of japanese attitudes towards fish closely resemble Bengali ones (great people think alike :-))
2)Another peice of trivia: Did you know that Bengali is genderless. There is no ``male-female`` gender, nows thats called gender equality!! (frankly concepts of gender equality are probably as alien to Pakis as ``chochoree`` :-))
1)Classifying fish as veggie: is very common all over east asia also. A lot of japanese attitudes towards fish closely resemble Bengali ones (great people think alike :-))
2)Another peice of trivia: Did you know that Bengali is genderless. There is no ``male-female`` gender, nows thats called gender equality!! (frankly concepts of gender equality are probably as alien to Pakis as ``chochoree`` :-))
#116 Posted by rsaxena on October 13, 2001 7:59:01 pm
Pakistan is a moderate country, right?
Full article at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/14/international/asia/14SCHO.html
Nurturing Young Islamic Hearts and Hatreds
By RICK BRAGG
PESHAWAR, Pakistan, Oct. 13 — A thousand years ago, in the days of the camel caravans, storytellers gathered here in the tea shops and brought the outside world and all its thoughts and ideas to the bazaar. As the vendors hawked silk, spice and rich tapestries and traders herded beasts through streets thick with smoke from cooking fires, travelers from distant lands and differing religions told stories about moguls, magic, wit and wisdom. In time, the bazaar came to be known as Qissa Khwani — the Bazaar of the Storytellers.
Now, the streets are still choked with donkey carts and meat still sizzles on open pits, but the vendors are poor men selling simple things. Blaring car horns drown out all other sound, just as the teachers and students in the Islamic seminaries that surround this bazaar have drowned out all conflicting ideas, all unacceptable thoughts.
The storytellers no longer come. There is just one story now, at least one acceptable story. It is the one taught in the seminaries, called madrassas, that have become incubators in Pakistan for the holy warriors who say they will die to defend Islam and their hero, Osama bin Laden, from the infidels. In many of the 7,500 madrassas in Pakistan, inside a student body of 750,000 to a million, students learn to recite and obey Islamic law, and to distrust and even hate the United States.
``Jihad,`` shouted a little boy, from a high window in a madrassa just steps from the Khwani Bazaar. He grinned and waved as foreign journalists snapped his photograph, but, on the streets below, older students had massed for demonstrations that would end in clouds of tear gas and smoke from burning tires, as young men jumped through fire to prove their faith and ferocity.
President Bush and diplomats from the West have taken great pains to point out that the war on Mr. bin Laden and the Taliban of Afghanistan is not a war on Islam, but in many madrassas here in Pakistan — especially those near the border with Afghanistan — militant Muslims lecture students that the United States is a nation of Christians and Jews who are not after a single terrorist or government but are bent on the worldwide annihilation of Islam.
The madrassas` sword is in the narrow education they offer, and the devotion they engender from students from the poorest classes who, without them, would have nowhere to go, or go hungry.``
Full article at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/14/international/asia/14SCHO.html
Nurturing Young Islamic Hearts and Hatreds
By RICK BRAGG
PESHAWAR, Pakistan, Oct. 13 — A thousand years ago, in the days of the camel caravans, storytellers gathered here in the tea shops and brought the outside world and all its thoughts and ideas to the bazaar. As the vendors hawked silk, spice and rich tapestries and traders herded beasts through streets thick with smoke from cooking fires, travelers from distant lands and differing religions told stories about moguls, magic, wit and wisdom. In time, the bazaar came to be known as Qissa Khwani — the Bazaar of the Storytellers.
Now, the streets are still choked with donkey carts and meat still sizzles on open pits, but the vendors are poor men selling simple things. Blaring car horns drown out all other sound, just as the teachers and students in the Islamic seminaries that surround this bazaar have drowned out all conflicting ideas, all unacceptable thoughts.
The storytellers no longer come. There is just one story now, at least one acceptable story. It is the one taught in the seminaries, called madrassas, that have become incubators in Pakistan for the holy warriors who say they will die to defend Islam and their hero, Osama bin Laden, from the infidels. In many of the 7,500 madrassas in Pakistan, inside a student body of 750,000 to a million, students learn to recite and obey Islamic law, and to distrust and even hate the United States.
``Jihad,`` shouted a little boy, from a high window in a madrassa just steps from the Khwani Bazaar. He grinned and waved as foreign journalists snapped his photograph, but, on the streets below, older students had massed for demonstrations that would end in clouds of tear gas and smoke from burning tires, as young men jumped through fire to prove their faith and ferocity.
President Bush and diplomats from the West have taken great pains to point out that the war on Mr. bin Laden and the Taliban of Afghanistan is not a war on Islam, but in many madrassas here in Pakistan — especially those near the border with Afghanistan — militant Muslims lecture students that the United States is a nation of Christians and Jews who are not after a single terrorist or government but are bent on the worldwide annihilation of Islam.
The madrassas` sword is in the narrow education they offer, and the devotion they engender from students from the poorest classes who, without them, would have nowhere to go, or go hungry.``
#117 Posted by stuka on October 13, 2001 7:59:01 pm
Okay guys, everyone is getting way too antsy.
Chill out and
Check out this link. This is awesome:
http://www.xs4all.nl/
Chill out and
Check out this link. This is awesome:
http://www.xs4all.nl/
#118 Posted by sr_chwk on October 13, 2001 7:59:01 pm
saminashah,
exploitation of any kind is wrong, but you buttkistanis have also ruined their country by continually exploiting them for 20+years, religiously, drug trafficking, recruiting young children and brain wash them with your stupid bibilical idealogy and preparing them for jihad.
atleast americans are involving their children for some good cause. if u buttkistanis don`t clean up your act sooner, you and your children will also receive food pockets and 5000lb bombs simaltaneously.
exploitation of any kind is wrong, but you buttkistanis have also ruined their country by continually exploiting them for 20+years, religiously, drug trafficking, recruiting young children and brain wash them with your stupid bibilical idealogy and preparing them for jihad.
atleast americans are involving their children for some good cause. if u buttkistanis don`t clean up your act sooner, you and your children will also receive food pockets and 5000lb bombs simaltaneously.
#119 Posted by ram-rahim on October 13, 2001 7:59:01 pm
Dear Chowk readers:
Let us keep our discourse civil.
SATURDAY OCTOBER 13 2001
Damnation to this religious hatred law
MATTHEW PARRIS
The Times of London
This war will lead to trouble and confusion. Things which were better left alone are being poked at — and for what, what that is achievable? Fragile balances at home and abroad are being disturbed and if we are not careful we shall be left confronting rubble: rubble without a cause.
A small but indicative domestic reminder of the cosmic thoughtlessness which now grips government — something you may think almost beneath your notice but which the Home Secretary will be trumpeting in the Commons next week — disturbs me. The Government, we are told, is now to “outlaw religious hatred”.
So is David Blunkett ready to send V.S. Naipaul to prison? He had better be. He might start by calling for a transcript of the Newsnight programme broadcast on Thursday night, occasioned by the announcement of the award of the Nobel Prize for Literature to the Trinidadian-born author.
Naipaul deserved the prize. And he made a powerful and interesting case for the views he expressed. Newsnight was right to broadcast the interview, which was properly balanced by an extended interview with a persuasive member of the Muslim Council. The resulting vigorous debate was intellectually stimulating and good television. It took the argument forward.
But if any Home Office lawyers can tell Mr Blunkett how a law framed to prohibit incitement to religious hatred can avoid criminalising a famous author who calls Islam a hateful religion on television, then the Home Secretary is in urgent need of their advice. I shall return to Naipaul.
This new law is a rotten idea. It is born of new Labour’s instinct to promise action whenever any apparent ill makes it to the front page of a newspaper. At least the Dangerous Dogs Act, like Section 28, is virtually inoperable. A law against incitement to religious hatred would be perfectly operable and its most likely result would be a gag on British journalism and publishing.
When you realise you have made a bad law there is sometimes the longstop of failing to prosecute it. Much that breaks our ancient laws on blasphemy against Christianity has been printed and broadcast, but few have bothered to urge prosecution. Most Christians have privately concluded that this would cause a silly fuss.
That may not be the case with Islam, however. Popular and vociferous organisations abound whose spokesmen will monitor the media. The Director of Public Prosecutions will be under pressure not to let this legislation become a dead letter. If those who demean Islam are prosecuted, it may soon occur to many Christians to demand similar protection. Race relations laws never became a dead letter, and a law against incitement to religious hatred would meet similar interest.
Note that it is incitement to religious hatred that is to be outlawed. The BBC has slipped into a lazy habit of saying that Mr Blunkett promises to “outlaw religious hatred”. He cannot. He can only outlaw what people say or do, not what they feel. Our existing race relations legislation does not outlaw racism; it prohibits various types of racist behaviour, including incitement to racial hatred.
This, we may assume, will be the model on which a law on incitement to religious hatred would be based, and the measure may seem effectable most simply by amendments to the race relations laws, bracketing religious affiliation with race.
You may ask why this was not done before. It is unlikely that those who framed the race legislation did not consider the idea. They will have rejected it for some very good reasons which remain valid today.
The first is the argument for free speech. Of course, even our race relations laws nibble at the edges of this liberty but only (it may be thought) very marginally. Racism is perhaps now so discredited that there hardly remains a worthwhile argument to be had on the subject; so in practice those who insult or belittle other races are likely to be manifestly bad people, out to sow mischief. A gag which stops their mouths is unlikely to stifle more useful debate on the subject, because there isn’t any.
Or so the argument has gone. Though presumptuous, it does more or less capture the consensus of the age.
But religion is different. Huge disputes continue to rage about the benefits or evils, and the truths or falsities, of various religions; conclusions follow concerning the estimability of the cultures they spawn. A culture is a collection of real people. Real people may feel vilified by an attack on their beliefs. I, for instance, believe religion is superstition. I accept that this demeans people with religious beliefs. It is a hard thing to say, but in the dislodging of entrenched beliefs, the power to mock is at least as important as the power to argue. Mockery does incite a kind of hatred. I am unapologetic about that.
Religious dispute cannot remain academic, or always polite. It will not always separate the character of the belief from the character of the believer. Vigorous exchanges about whether a religion makes you a better or a worse person will inevitably lead participants into remarks whose targets will find them insulting, and see as encouraging hatred.
Compressed, V.S. Naipaul said this: that in many of the Muslim societies he knows (he cited the world’s largest, Indonesia) Islam diminishes the individual. It did not, he said, illuminate or enlarge. It was a “dark” force. It created cowed cultures.
Naipaul may not want to cause any individual to hate any other individual, but the natural conclusion of his words was that we should view Indonesian Muslims as wretched people. He might, I suppose, try the defence that castigating the effects (for example) of slavery is not to encourage hatred of slaves, but sympathy. “So, Mr Naipaul,” answers prosecuting counsel, “you are calling Muslims pitiable?” No, if this new law is to have any force, it will have too much. It will perturb what it aimed to smooth. And there’s a reason why a tangle is unavoidable. The principal cause of religious hatred is religion.
All three of our major religions in Britain — Christianity, Islam and Judaism — have a hateful idea at their very core. That idea is Exclusion: the “othering”, if you like, of the unredeemed.
“No man cometh to the Father, except by me.” The meaning to me is clear. Jesus, Christians believe, came to earth to save souls. Most Christians believe that not everyone is saved, and the closer to you get to the Church’s front line — Ireland, South America, Africa, our own inner cities — the more you’ll hear about damnation. I don’t know about you, but I think telling your own crowd that the others are damned incites religious hatred.
I shall not add to the war of quotes from the Koran in which Tony Blair and others more expert than me are engaged, beyond remarking that my own reading of this book, like my reading of the Bible, indicates deep ambiguity on the question of the hatefulness or otherwise of unbelief and unbelievers. You can find a quote to suit almost any point of view, but in the end you get a hunch about a religion and its tendencies. I am unconvinced that Islam (though it makes its accommodations where it must, and has become a many-stranded thing) feels permanently comfortable or warm about unbelievers. Kaffir is not a nice word.
Because Judaism does not proselytise, the hateful implications of the faith that one’s people are uniquely chosen by God may be overlooked, but if you know a way to say your lot are God’s chosen without implying that the other lot are not, I should like to hear it. Jews do not, in fact, behave hatefully towards Gentiles, and Judaism too is many-stranded, but an important strand considers it unacceptable for a Jewish girl to marry a Gentile boy, and cuts her off from society if she does so. Such ostracism must amount to incitement to religious hatred, yet surely this cannot be a sorrow to be trailed through the courts?
Glenn Hoddle’s remark that the disabled may be being punished for sin in a former life was silly, but should it be criminal? It’s a point of view. A few hundred million adherents to reincarnationist faiths hold it. May I not mock the fallacy of reincarnationism? The new law will lead to trouble and confusion. Leave it alone, Mr Blunkett.
Let us keep our discourse civil.
SATURDAY OCTOBER 13 2001
Damnation to this religious hatred law
MATTHEW PARRIS
The Times of London
This war will lead to trouble and confusion. Things which were better left alone are being poked at — and for what, what that is achievable? Fragile balances at home and abroad are being disturbed and if we are not careful we shall be left confronting rubble: rubble without a cause.
A small but indicative domestic reminder of the cosmic thoughtlessness which now grips government — something you may think almost beneath your notice but which the Home Secretary will be trumpeting in the Commons next week — disturbs me. The Government, we are told, is now to “outlaw religious hatred”.
So is David Blunkett ready to send V.S. Naipaul to prison? He had better be. He might start by calling for a transcript of the Newsnight programme broadcast on Thursday night, occasioned by the announcement of the award of the Nobel Prize for Literature to the Trinidadian-born author.
Naipaul deserved the prize. And he made a powerful and interesting case for the views he expressed. Newsnight was right to broadcast the interview, which was properly balanced by an extended interview with a persuasive member of the Muslim Council. The resulting vigorous debate was intellectually stimulating and good television. It took the argument forward.
But if any Home Office lawyers can tell Mr Blunkett how a law framed to prohibit incitement to religious hatred can avoid criminalising a famous author who calls Islam a hateful religion on television, then the Home Secretary is in urgent need of their advice. I shall return to Naipaul.
This new law is a rotten idea. It is born of new Labour’s instinct to promise action whenever any apparent ill makes it to the front page of a newspaper. At least the Dangerous Dogs Act, like Section 28, is virtually inoperable. A law against incitement to religious hatred would be perfectly operable and its most likely result would be a gag on British journalism and publishing.
When you realise you have made a bad law there is sometimes the longstop of failing to prosecute it. Much that breaks our ancient laws on blasphemy against Christianity has been printed and broadcast, but few have bothered to urge prosecution. Most Christians have privately concluded that this would cause a silly fuss.
That may not be the case with Islam, however. Popular and vociferous organisations abound whose spokesmen will monitor the media. The Director of Public Prosecutions will be under pressure not to let this legislation become a dead letter. If those who demean Islam are prosecuted, it may soon occur to many Christians to demand similar protection. Race relations laws never became a dead letter, and a law against incitement to religious hatred would meet similar interest.
Note that it is incitement to religious hatred that is to be outlawed. The BBC has slipped into a lazy habit of saying that Mr Blunkett promises to “outlaw religious hatred”. He cannot. He can only outlaw what people say or do, not what they feel. Our existing race relations legislation does not outlaw racism; it prohibits various types of racist behaviour, including incitement to racial hatred.
This, we may assume, will be the model on which a law on incitement to religious hatred would be based, and the measure may seem effectable most simply by amendments to the race relations laws, bracketing religious affiliation with race.
You may ask why this was not done before. It is unlikely that those who framed the race legislation did not consider the idea. They will have rejected it for some very good reasons which remain valid today.
The first is the argument for free speech. Of course, even our race relations laws nibble at the edges of this liberty but only (it may be thought) very marginally. Racism is perhaps now so discredited that there hardly remains a worthwhile argument to be had on the subject; so in practice those who insult or belittle other races are likely to be manifestly bad people, out to sow mischief. A gag which stops their mouths is unlikely to stifle more useful debate on the subject, because there isn’t any.
Or so the argument has gone. Though presumptuous, it does more or less capture the consensus of the age.
But religion is different. Huge disputes continue to rage about the benefits or evils, and the truths or falsities, of various religions; conclusions follow concerning the estimability of the cultures they spawn. A culture is a collection of real people. Real people may feel vilified by an attack on their beliefs. I, for instance, believe religion is superstition. I accept that this demeans people with religious beliefs. It is a hard thing to say, but in the dislodging of entrenched beliefs, the power to mock is at least as important as the power to argue. Mockery does incite a kind of hatred. I am unapologetic about that.
Religious dispute cannot remain academic, or always polite. It will not always separate the character of the belief from the character of the believer. Vigorous exchanges about whether a religion makes you a better or a worse person will inevitably lead participants into remarks whose targets will find them insulting, and see as encouraging hatred.
Compressed, V.S. Naipaul said this: that in many of the Muslim societies he knows (he cited the world’s largest, Indonesia) Islam diminishes the individual. It did not, he said, illuminate or enlarge. It was a “dark” force. It created cowed cultures.
Naipaul may not want to cause any individual to hate any other individual, but the natural conclusion of his words was that we should view Indonesian Muslims as wretched people. He might, I suppose, try the defence that castigating the effects (for example) of slavery is not to encourage hatred of slaves, but sympathy. “So, Mr Naipaul,” answers prosecuting counsel, “you are calling Muslims pitiable?” No, if this new law is to have any force, it will have too much. It will perturb what it aimed to smooth. And there’s a reason why a tangle is unavoidable. The principal cause of religious hatred is religion.
All three of our major religions in Britain — Christianity, Islam and Judaism — have a hateful idea at their very core. That idea is Exclusion: the “othering”, if you like, of the unredeemed.
“No man cometh to the Father, except by me.” The meaning to me is clear. Jesus, Christians believe, came to earth to save souls. Most Christians believe that not everyone is saved, and the closer to you get to the Church’s front line — Ireland, South America, Africa, our own inner cities — the more you’ll hear about damnation. I don’t know about you, but I think telling your own crowd that the others are damned incites religious hatred.
I shall not add to the war of quotes from the Koran in which Tony Blair and others more expert than me are engaged, beyond remarking that my own reading of this book, like my reading of the Bible, indicates deep ambiguity on the question of the hatefulness or otherwise of unbelief and unbelievers. You can find a quote to suit almost any point of view, but in the end you get a hunch about a religion and its tendencies. I am unconvinced that Islam (though it makes its accommodations where it must, and has become a many-stranded thing) feels permanently comfortable or warm about unbelievers. Kaffir is not a nice word.
Because Judaism does not proselytise, the hateful implications of the faith that one’s people are uniquely chosen by God may be overlooked, but if you know a way to say your lot are God’s chosen without implying that the other lot are not, I should like to hear it. Jews do not, in fact, behave hatefully towards Gentiles, and Judaism too is many-stranded, but an important strand considers it unacceptable for a Jewish girl to marry a Gentile boy, and cuts her off from society if she does so. Such ostracism must amount to incitement to religious hatred, yet surely this cannot be a sorrow to be trailed through the courts?
Glenn Hoddle’s remark that the disabled may be being punished for sin in a former life was silly, but should it be criminal? It’s a point of view. A few hundred million adherents to reincarnationist faiths hold it. May I not mock the fallacy of reincarnationism? The new law will lead to trouble and confusion. Leave it alone, Mr Blunkett.
#120 Posted by DRUMZ on October 13, 2001 7:59:01 pm
Harimau: Your post to me was GARBAGE. Learn to clearly express yourself and please leave the ego, (whats worse then someone who has nothing to say but still wants to say it?)...
And since Im here you and your ilk (pseudo intellectual paki`s) need to crack open some books...
For Gods sake I can understand these hicks in Iowa rallying around that idiot Bush but what inna hell is worse then a Paki talking about how wonderful 6 year old Americans are...
You and people unfortunate enough to think like you should suspend judgement around folks who are even remotely familiar with American foriegn policy.
Forget Islam what do you know about what the United SNaKes did in Guatemala, Nicaragua and Chile?
And since Im here you and your ilk (pseudo intellectual paki`s) need to crack open some books...
For Gods sake I can understand these hicks in Iowa rallying around that idiot Bush but what inna hell is worse then a Paki talking about how wonderful 6 year old Americans are...
You and people unfortunate enough to think like you should suspend judgement around folks who are even remotely familiar with American foriegn policy.
Forget Islam what do you know about what the United SNaKes did in Guatemala, Nicaragua and Chile?
#121 Posted by sigalph235 on October 13, 2001 7:59:01 pm
re saminashah 119
Another charter member of the `Blame America First Club`.
These are the people who live in the West, send kinds to Western colleges, earn a living from industries that have major ties to the West and then, turn around and find America`s fault in everything.
Shame is a word that is simply too nice for such people.
Another charter member of the `Blame America First Club`.
These are the people who live in the West, send kinds to Western colleges, earn a living from industries that have major ties to the West and then, turn around and find America`s fault in everything.
Shame is a word that is simply too nice for such people.
#122 Posted by tahmed321 on October 13, 2001 7:59:01 pm
hariharan: if you and some of the other Indian interactors on chowk - harimau (who thinks on the other board that he is being funny about mushroom clouds over Afghanistan), rsaxena, gowardhan, jay, sadna, and so on - were representative of the ``educated indian`` I would think rather than worrying about renaisance in islam you would be worrying about washing your faces (to translate an urdu figure of speech into english, and i am sure you know what i mean). Thankfully, i know enough people from india in real life (and many on chowk) to know that they no more represent india than urstruly represents pakistan.
So: Off with all of you hate-mongerers!! There is no creature so low, not a cross-eyed frog, not a three-legged jackass, not a squirming foot long tape worm, on God`s good earth, so low as you and your kin!!
Now go ahead and insult me!! that is all you people are capable of!!!
So: Off with all of you hate-mongerers!! There is no creature so low, not a cross-eyed frog, not a three-legged jackass, not a squirming foot long tape worm, on God`s good earth, so low as you and your kin!!
Now go ahead and insult me!! that is all you people are capable of!!!
#123 Posted by tahmed321 on October 13, 2001 7:59:01 pm
hariharan: if you and some of the other Indian interactors on chowk - harimau (who thinks on the other board that he is being funny about mushroom clouds over Afghanistan), rsaxena, gowardhan (who blow hot and cold about Pakistanis, and that is about all), jay (who has written zillions of posts, and all he is saying is that Pakistan is going down the tubes), sadna (who has written trillions of posts, and all she is saying is that Pakistan deserves to go down the tubbes), and even Ranranasher (something like that, who is simply a moron who sends an odd post here and there to inform pakistanis that they are all jehaids) and so on - were representative of the ``educated indian`` I would think rather than worrying about renaisance in islam you would be worrying about washing your faces (to translate an urdu figure of speech into english, and i am sure you know what i mean). Thankfully, i know enough people from india in real life (and many on chowk) to know that they no more represent india than urstruly represents pakistan.
So: Off with all of you hate-mongerers!! There is no creature so low, not a cross-eyed frog, not a three-legged jackass, not a squirming foot long tape worm, on God`s good earth, so low as you and your kin!!
Now go ahead and insult me!! that is all you people are capable of!!! Ha! Ha!
So: Off with all of you hate-mongerers!! There is no creature so low, not a cross-eyed frog, not a three-legged jackass, not a squirming foot long tape worm, on God`s good earth, so low as you and your kin!!
Now go ahead and insult me!! that is all you people are capable of!!! Ha! Ha!
#124 Posted by AAmir on October 13, 2001 10:43:05 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#125 Posted by Eklavya on October 13, 2001 10:43:05 pm
tahmed321,
LOL...
It is good to let off steam once in a while. I have noticed I too have not been as unperturbed as I would like to be.
Regards.
EK
LOL...
It is good to let off steam once in a while. I have noticed I too have not been as unperturbed as I would like to be.
Regards.
EK
#126 Posted by MaheshG on October 13, 2001 10:43:05 pm
RSaxena,
Ssshhh, you bigot.
Can`t you see Tahmed has shown that you want nothing but bad for Pakistan.
Now go away and don`t dare post such news articles again.
Pakistan is a heaven on earth.
If you don`t believe it, ask Tahmed.
#127 Posted by jay on October 13, 2001 10:43:05 pm
Harimau,
I do believe that people handing out nobel prizes have a social obligation that the writings decorated with the prize should promote something essentially positive, something of educational may be even spiritual importance. In that premise Naipual does not make the grade.
Especially at times like this when islam is under the microscope, the intemperate remarks of naipaul about islam will show up as festering wounds with throbing killer virus.
regards
jay
I do believe that people handing out nobel prizes have a social obligation that the writings decorated with the prize should promote something essentially positive, something of educational may be even spiritual importance. In that premise Naipual does not make the grade.
Especially at times like this when islam is under the microscope, the intemperate remarks of naipaul about islam will show up as festering wounds with throbing killer virus.
regards
jay
#128 Posted by saminashah on October 13, 2001 10:43:05 pm
sigalph,
If anything is slightly amusing about this entire shameful sacrificing of an impoverished people, its your hackneyed responses; I could almost time an underboiled egg to the amount it takes to think about profound insights you offer...do you get them out of Dubya`s handbook for the morally bankrupt? or is it Falwell`s book of How to Achieve in America What those Godless Talibanis Acheived in Afghanistan...
For the record, I am invested in giving back to the country that I know, to the people I know daily rise above the dehumanizing pap our institutions try to serve us, to the ideals of being a humane society and a citizen of the world. And I learned that in my Jesuit university from professors and priests who learned it from Gandhi, MLK, and the rest of the humane world. See how the circle works? Shame on you for thinking you could anyone with that nonsense.
If anything is slightly amusing about this entire shameful sacrificing of an impoverished people, its your hackneyed responses; I could almost time an underboiled egg to the amount it takes to think about profound insights you offer...do you get them out of Dubya`s handbook for the morally bankrupt? or is it Falwell`s book of How to Achieve in America What those Godless Talibanis Acheived in Afghanistan...
For the record, I am invested in giving back to the country that I know, to the people I know daily rise above the dehumanizing pap our institutions try to serve us, to the ideals of being a humane society and a citizen of the world. And I learned that in my Jesuit university from professors and priests who learned it from Gandhi, MLK, and the rest of the humane world. See how the circle works? Shame on you for thinking you could anyone with that nonsense.
#129 Posted by saminashah on October 13, 2001 10:43:05 pm
sr chwk
Heres the deal:
1. Put down the crack pipe. NOW.
2. Call your mother
3. Read your post to her.
4. Ask her if she is proud to have spent 9 monthes and what, 53 years? raising you
5. When she starts to cry, go to a shelter, soup kitchen, but no big brother/sister organizations (you shouldn`t be around children)
6. Tell the people who run it that you want to know the worth of a human life.
7. Wash your hands
8. Put on an apron
9. Start slopping the food on the trays. Make eye contact. Talk to the people you are serving.
10. Until then, wog off.
eversopolitely, S
Heres the deal:
1. Put down the crack pipe. NOW.
2. Call your mother
3. Read your post to her.
4. Ask her if she is proud to have spent 9 monthes and what, 53 years? raising you
5. When she starts to cry, go to a shelter, soup kitchen, but no big brother/sister organizations (you shouldn`t be around children)
6. Tell the people who run it that you want to know the worth of a human life.
7. Wash your hands
8. Put on an apron
9. Start slopping the food on the trays. Make eye contact. Talk to the people you are serving.
10. Until then, wog off.
eversopolitely, S
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- ejazharoon: The forbidden fruit is... Alcohol and Teenagers: A
- tahmed32: And furthermore, Moaziz Masadi... How real is your
- ejazharoon: Murad: Thanks for a simple... Faith and Religion
- tahmed32: Mr. Masadi: so you... How real is your
- Kulharee: I am in DC... Alcohol and Teenagers: A
- Eklavya: Baig bhai, the ONLY... Faith and Religion
- HP: #158 Posted by masadi “Lately... How real is your
- MeiraJ08: #9 great exchanges, lol,... Faith and Religion
