A Decision to Regret

A legal action may resolve many prevalent inconsistencies on this site for all times to come!

Um, what kind of legal action? Sue a bunch of anonymous handles? Or shutting down the site itself? Wouldn`t that be kind of like cutting the nose to spite the face? Get a grip. Jeez

Eklavya

Explain please. Why frustrated?

Zahra

Re Musharraf

Clear headed, decisive thinking. I am proud of and for you.

Zahra

Getting hoity toity? You are the same crummy woman who called people pagal because they didnt accept your arguments.

If you are real woman, not total trash, not daughter of men you describe, do what you promise. Never come back. Get lost. First step in cleaning up Chowk. If you come back with tail between your legs, we will know who fathered you.

scout to zahra:

``can you now yell at anNy for describing her smooth milky hairless skin to SameerJB, for propositioning me on another board, and for liking ali1 the pervert. she needs a spanking and she needs it NOW.``

sorry zahra..woh mae monetarily behek gayee thee

scoutie beta..allow me to ditch you in full view of chowk

hrmpph

disloyal larki

scout,

anNy propositioned you?!!!!

ahem..hmm..

ok ok i wont say anything...

BUT...let the record show that I would have liked to say a few things...

but you Pakistani shernis terrify us banias a lot more than those chest thumping male counterparts of yours...

esp when the super-sherni is prowling around, looking for blood:)

saxena,

you lousy coward...

at least i linger around the tigresses den & tempt fate...

I saw scouty`s footprints on your butt while you were making a beeline out of here...

Dont burn the bridges ,some would want to go back some day .

The day my green card lost its magic



WhenRahul Jacob decided to surrender his right to US residency, people thought he must be mad. But he had his reasons













OFF CENTRE: The day my green card lost its magic: WhenRahul Jacob decided to surrender his right to US residency, people thought he must be mad. But he had his reasons

Financial Times; Nov 3, 2001

By RAHUL JACOB

People look at me strangely when I tell them what I havedone; they think I must be mad. For I recently went to the USconsulate in Hong Kong to give up my green card.

In Asia, surrendering your right to permanent resident status in the US is no small matter - especially for someone living in Hong Kong, where vast numbers of people sought citizenship rights in other countries as an insurance policy in the run-up to the city`s return to China in 1997.

I gave up my green card because, for me, as for countless other professionals working overseas, it all came too easily.

A native of Calcutta, I arrived in the US aged 21 on a graduate scholarship with no grander ambition than to watch John McEnroe play tennis at the US Open. I was besotted with New York and wanted to work there, but was less certain of everything after that. A green card was a means to that indeterminate end.

Living in New York in the early 1990s, it seemed as if half my childhood friends were also there and had gone some way towards obtaining a green card with the help of their employers. When I asked the then chief of reporters at Fortune if the magazine would sponsor me for a green card, she said she would check with the managing editor.

Minutes later, my first boss, who combined Lauren Bacall`s glamour with a native New Yorker`s wisecrack-a-minute wit, came by. ``I think you had better come and take a look at his reply yourself,`` she said. The e-mail read: ``Re: Rahul`s immigration problem: I could adopt him or we could marry him off to my daughter. Please do whatever is necessary.``

This instinctive inclusiveness epitomises the best US companies from General Electric to Citigroup. Many countries have immigration procedures that target educated and skilled immigrants more effectively than the US, but American corporations were among the first to seize the chance to hire professionals from around the world as travelling abroad and studying overseas became more affordable.

As one of the silent yet numerous beneficiaries of globalisation from the developing world, at least I knew I was lucky. My last apartment in New York was near a promenade that offered a view of Ellis Island where thousands of turn-of-the-century immigrants even had their names changed as they arrived on ships from Europe. I could not imagine coping with a new name, a new language and a new country all at the same time.

Today, however, it is common for professionals to work outside the countries they grew up in. For many, moving countries presumably seems just a little more complicated then moving cities did to their parents. A recent book, A Future Perfect by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, has even coined a term for such people - cosmocrats - and estimates there are 20m of them.

Surrendering my green card in Hong Kong required ``a clear and concise statement`` establishing that ``the alien has voluntarily and affirmatively`` given up permanent resident status.

I could have given as a reason my growing addiction to the promise, the upheaval, and the all-too-frequent disappointments of developing Asia. I could also have railed against the complexity of the US tax system.

But neither reason seemed clear or concise so I simply said I was no longer certain when I would return to the US. Grateful as I was for the doors my green card opened, I now regarded it as something akin to a security badge from a previous job - to be handed back. It no longer held the magical promise of a new life.

Copyright: The Financial Times Limited







Need more business information? Ask our research team - click here

General Note:
Do i need to repeat? I hate doing that. A legal action may resolve many prevalent inconsistencies on this site for all times to come! Beyond that, I owe NONE any explanation!


Anil:
Sorry, I have no desire to be at a place where ``semi-educated-male-trash`` who should be cleaning gutters in south asia than being here, resides and spills their frustrated minds off and on. It`s not us vs them at all. I think you are a solid person so don`t lose your mental vision. But I do PITY the unfortunate poor women[without any options] who are in any way or shape attached to ``the trash`` as wives, mothers, sisters and daughters. Trash is trash! These women will procreate and produce the same kind. Garbage in, Garbage Out! I just hope and pray they are not able to produce any male kids. It`s adding to the already existing filth.

Ironically, the majority on Chowk belongs to mentally undernourished, physically imbalanced, morally bankrupted, spiritually robbed and emotionally frustrated retards.

Sour truth!

Time to leave.


Sherdil:
Thanks for the response to my questions. I am sorry I would not be interacting on this ``trashy site`` any more, so no more questions from my end.

I understand the tribal wars will continue as they have been. No matter what any Educationist Aqil or Baligh says, the only way out for Pakistan would be, to have a strong dictator, as a leader[Pres. Musharraf cannot leave now], the rest of the trashy men[regardless of their regional affiliations]with 6 yards of shalwars, uncouth persona, dead-brains, spiritually and morally bankrupted selves, bulging bellies and disgustingly-ugly-hairy-attire will drown Pakistan in no time.

The writing is pretty much on the wall for the ones with some vision and insight. Take Care!

Zahra-crouching tiger-hidden dragon,

the fact that you managed to scare Suxena away from this board without even mentioning his name in your list of male morons makes you my number one HERO :)

can you now yell at anNy for describing her smooth milky hairless skin to SameerJB, for propositioning me on another board, and for liking ali1 the pervert. she needs a spanking and she needs it NOW.

Zahra for PM!

Pakistan zindabad!

etc. etc...

ps: just don`t yell at me, i`m a good girl :))

Zahra,

You say that Studebaker is a ``ba$tard`` and he says you are a ``tawaif``. I don`t know which one of you is right (maybe both of you are right); but I don`t see how you are any better or any worse than him. Do you?

Shammi, Soysauce

I believe you misunderstand me and I have contributed to the misunderstanding. ``Anything Islamic`` is too broad to be meaning ful, I completely agree. A better way to put it would be that Islam and Islamic sources that are not in synch with Western Liberal, secular humanist thinking usually get a hostile reception in the press. as evidence of such an attitude, I offer a Title from an article in todaay`s International Herald Tribune: ``Pakistani nuclear scientist is also an Islamist`` - the article explore the possible connection between Pakistani scientist, their religious beliefs and their proclivity towards terrorism. Can you imagine a more objectionable premise?

Yet, as I have argued this is going to change and the change will be effected in the thinking among intellectuals in the States. A new debate, that has the potential to challenge some of the very fundamental beliefs of Western liberal secular humanism, as been initiated; to wit:

from NYT

``Experts on Islam Pointing Fingers at One Another

November 3, 2001

By RICHARD BERNSTEIN

If many of the country`s specialists on Islam and the Middle East are getting more public exposure than usual, the debate over who`s right has also been heating up. One well-known expert in particular is blaming what he sees as the establishment in the field for failing for years to predict the danger of Islamic extremism.

The expert, Martin Kramer, who teaches both in the United States and in Israel and is editor of Middle East Quarterly, writes in a new book, ``Ivory Towers on Sand,`` that the study of the Middle East and of Islam has been afflicted with so much political bias and wishful thinking that most scholars have missed ``the major evolutions of Middle Eastern politics and society over the past two decades.`` And in Mr. Kramer`s view of things, nothing has been more completely missed than the threat posed by Islamic terrorism to the United States and the West.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Kramer`s accusation has provoked a heated debate in the academic world, with angry rejoinders from some of those criticized by name in his book. Those who disagree accuse Mr. Kramer of a host of sins, from being motivated by his own political agenda to quoting his rivals out of context to misunderstanding the nature of Islam himself.

``I haven`t read the book yet, but what I`ve read about it is completely consistent with the views that Martin has expressed in recent years, and completely offensive,`` said Richard Bulliet, a professor of history at the Middle East Institute at Columbia University. ``The impression that I have is that he thinks that any degree of sympathetic study of Islamic politics is simply dead wrong, that it`s anathema and should be represented as such.``

In an important sense, the charges and countercharges prompted by Mr. Kramer`s book are a new chapter in a continuing saga, one that in recent years has seen deep fissures develop both over Middle East politics in general and the nature of Islamic fundamentalism in particular. The disagreements have a good deal to do with Middle East politics themselves, with Mr. Kramer and his scholarly allies tending to be more pro-Israeli and more critical of the Arabs than his scholarly adversaries.

But the debate also encompasses other questions confronting Americans as they ponder the attacks of Sept. 11 and their government`s response to them. How powerful a force is militant Islam? Is it by its very nature an enemy of the United States and the West? Or has it become an enemy because the United States has misunderstood it and pushed it into opposition? Does it contain within itself the possibility of a democratic evolution?

``There are two camps,`` said John L. Esposito, a leading American scholar of Islam and the founder of the Center for Muslim- Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, who is among the scholars criticized by Mr. Kramer. ``One of them believes that all Islamic fundamentalist groups or movements are a threat. The other, represented by myself and several others, would say that you have to distinguish between mainstream Islamic society and extremists, who attack people in their own societies and now in the West.``

Daniel Pipes, the founder of Middle East Quarterly and author of several books on the Middle East, is a colleague of Mr. Kramer and agrees that the division has to do with the vision of fundamentalism. Asked how he differed from Mr. Esposito, he replied:

``What I say is that this is a totalitarian movement and everybody involved in it is a problem. There is no good in it. He would make a distinction between good and bad fundamentalisms.``

To Mr. Kramer, the majority of experts ``failed to ask the right questions at the right time about Islam.`` He said:``They underestimated its impact in the 1980`s; they misrepresented its role in the early 1990`s; and they glossed over its growing potential for terrorism against America in the late 1990`s.``

He argues in part that what he calls the establishment in Middle East studies in this country failed, first, to predict the revolution of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran in 1979 and then to learn something from it.

``In their view any Islamic movement is either moderate or potentially moderate,`` Mr. Kramer said of the major research centers in the United States. ``So every time there is a disagreeable act by some Muslim group, what they say is: `Well, this doesn`t represent Islam; this is not true Islam.` But the real question, which they don`t ask, is why do the people who perpetrate these acts justify them in terms of Islam?``

Mr. Kramer`s book was published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a group that has close relations with Israel, and Mr. Kramer himself is a past director of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies in Tel Aviv. These organizations are respected by scholars in the field, but these institutional affiliations suggest to some of Mr. Kramer`s detractors that his underlying purpose is to discredit those who disagree with him on the basic Israeli-Arab conflict.

``If you look at Martin`s own profile, his own ideological profile, and that of his publisher - which are not primarily concerned with what is best for America - it`s clear that there is an agenda here, which is to discredit the entire Middle East establishment,`` Mr. Esposito said.

Reactions to Mr. Kramer`s views are mixed, reflecting what Mr. Esposito called the warfare that takes place in the field. Some, including Mr. Bulliet and others, agree with Mr. Kramer that academic experts, like most government experts, were focused on other sorts of change in the Middle East and underestimated the strength of extreme fundamentalist groups.

``The field has been narrowly focused and polarized in part because the Arab-Israeli conflict took so much of its attention,`` said Fawaz Gerges, a professor of international affairs and Middle East studies at Sarah Lawrence College. ``One of the consequences of that is that we have underestimated the reach and power of fringe Islamicist groups, like bin Laden, like the Egyptian Jihad and other groups in Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon.``

``Osama bin Laden was an obscure man up until the

mid-1990`s,`` Mr. Gerges continued. ``We did not imagine how his message resonates in the minds of many Muslims.``

Mr. Kramer views Mr. Esposito as representative of much that is wrong in Middle Eastern studies, writing about him as an influential figure among policymakers in Washington who in the 1990`s ``came forward to claim that Islamist movements were nothing other than movements of democratic reform.`` Mr. Esposito`s reply is that Mr. Kramer errs both in his characterization of his writings and in his view of Islamic politics.

``The best response is probably to ask people to read my books, like ``The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?`` and come to their own conclusions,`` Mr. Esposito said. ``I specifically deal with bin Laden and talk about him as an extremist involved in acts of terrorism. But I also say that we shouldn`t focus on him too much because that would obscure the fact that there are other bin Ladens, and an excessive focus makes him more of a drawing card for other extremist groups.``

Mr. Bulliet, who, like Mr. Esposito, is criticized by name by Mr. Kramer, agrees with him that a degree of wishful thinking has infiltrated the analyses of some experts. Still, he argues that it is Mr. Kramer`s view of Islam as monolithic and unchangingly hostile that is incorrect.

``The question is what do you see when you look at Islamic politics,`` Mr. Bulliet said. ``Is it an evil that must be fought against root and branch? Or is it a spectrum of political activities that encompasses strong advocates of participatory government, and Iran would now be representative of that, and advocates of totalitarian government, and bin Laden would represent that.

``But if you say that everyone that wants Islam central to public life is an enemy,`` Mr. Bulliet said, ``then you empower the radical fringe.``

guys, now where have you heard this stuff before?

re: hobbyty # 417

Oh, Hobbyty, sometimes you do frustrate me with your arguments and your logic :)

Best.

sameersaab im telling you shaving is bad...honest..my cousins abroad all shave (kanjoos auratain refuse to pay a few hundred dollars/pounds for waxing) and my skins and theirs is very very not the same..mine is smooth and has hardly any hair while they have dandas on their rough skins and have to shave their hands n legs as a ritual every single morning! while i wax every 3 weeks...but what you say about ones age n genes might be true because this one friend has been waxing since much before any of us and her growth is as disgusting and hairs also very ugly

about chowk, i agree with you bilkul 100 percent..people here often make me angry... i get angry in real and sometimes hamidm`s posts ruin what is promising to be a perfectly good day...but i wouldnt want any of them to be barred or thrown off chowk...democracy is a messy process, didnt someone say and unless we learn to cope and tolerate the likes of annoying hamidm, mr.gowy, my dear ali and the 12 headed monster, we wont get anywhere..i disagree with you (specifically), on most issues especially those concerning religion but wouldn want u away ever because your view point is vastly different from mine and in your expressing it, i learn..(may i mention here that your one post a few months back on our position in kasnmir and afghanistan got me thinking and thinking thinking i realised how it was really very silly...u made a significant difference in this huge big world!) similarly ms.sadna..i cant stand that woman...but if im to look at it fairly, its because she says things that are discomforting to me..things that i fail to look at or refuse to because of my love for some things she has no regard for..so while i feel like clawing at her face most of the times, i wouldnt want her away either because there too i learn...im with you here...if bapu is giving people trouble, we either reform him with love or then bully him into behaving himself....having him barred from chowk would not do..i wouldnt say anything about whining if i were you though..zahra is very very angry

:)

rgds,

anNy

Zahra,

{{Lastly, just to reemphasize for all times to come: Any male who uses the language ``abae``` deserves proper jootian. I simply abhor this verbiage}}

If its OK with you, may I add a few cents to this topic? Fortunately, I wasnt part of this discussion & I regret that you were offended by that word.

Alas, a few months ago, I too was in an unenviable position of putting my foot in my mouth when I had offended my cybersis scouty by making a remark that was deemed badtameez to a woman. All of a sudden I was admonished by several posters for displaying very bad manners.

Zahraji, this may sound as a poor excuse, but its true. There are cultural differences in S Asia. What may be deemed as badtameezi to a particular group may sound perfectly OK to someone who is raised in a different diaspora. So, sometimes there are misunderstandings that can crop up when people are mixed together in an anonymous cyberforum like Chowk. For that reason, I dont think its possible for Chowk editors to become censors.

If I may, let me give you an example. You are obviously a very decent lady. You take offense to the word ``abae```; but use the word ``ba$tard``. Now, to someone like me, that becomes extremely confusing! Is it OK if I call you a ``ba$tard``?; or is it OK if I call you a ``ba$tard`` only if you have made me genuinely angry by your ``impertinence``--see what I mean? :)

Please dont misunderstand me! I`m not implying you are a lady of ``improper upbringing`` because you used the word ``ba$tard`` :) The point I`m trying to make is where does that poor Chowk editor draw the line?

I`ve observed (AFTER coming to Chowk) that in S.Asian society (may I stick my neck out & say, esp in Pakistani society?); there is a certain was to address a man & a certain way to address a woman. You may turn around & say ``how NAIEVE of you!; isnt it self evident?; the Indians I`ve met have the same cultural standards!``.

Please believe me when I say this, Zahraji, in the diasphora I grew up in, its NOT so cut & dry! Now someone else may say ``thats bs, shankar, I grew up in Bombay too & there IS a difference between how you talk to a man as compared to a woman!`` Yeah, but WHICH diasphora in Bombay?! The girls that I grew up with used the same bawdy language I did. Besides, on Chowk, I`ve seen nice Pakistani ladies, with good ``upbringing`` & ``decent families`` freely use words like ``ba$tard, b *tch, s *it, etc etc``. Maybe the CONTEXT its used in, is important. Yikes! now I`m soooo confused:)

Frankly, as far as I`m concerned, WHAT a person says, reveals more about a person`s ``upbringing`` than HOW he/she says it. Thats why I get offended by people like Jay & Farangi Kush, though they hardly ever use a vulgar word. In fact, the latter is ``sickeningly`` polite!

How about this compromise, Zahraji?--if I ever inadvertendly offend anybody by ``budtameez`` behavior in the future; just let me know that they are hurt. If I like & respect them, I`ll fall on my knees & beg their forgiveness:)

I did that with scout & Shirinji & they (God bless their souls) did forgive me.

Regards

Re: Fuzair & Romair

I agree with both of you. The German army has historically always placed emphasis on the operational skills and the German soldiers have always been taught to operate ``within the fog of war``. One only has to look at the Werhmacht`s campaign in Normandy (June-August 1944)to realize this facet. The German army has always had cool thinking colonels and NCOs capable of directing the battle for entire sectors.

If any has doubts about the fighting skills of the German soldiers, one only has to read the USA`s own ``war game`` assessment reports, and there was a reason why the Bundeswehr was tasked with the defence of IGB (inner German Border)durng the Cold War.

Ciao

Soysauce

Please read my post carefully. I have consistently said that the Hindu Nationalist (BJP, RSS, VHP, etc) are getting a free ride from the American (zionist) and Liberal media in general, because both the zionist and the liberals share an antipathy towards Islam, in general. In this mix The Hindu Nationalist offer a reserve of 1 Billion people who generally seem to share an antipathy towards Islam. Voting a Hindu fundamentalist party into power and keeping in power a man who as premier has said that the destruction of the Babri was an expression of national will, to me suggests a general antipathy towards Islam. then of course there is the matter of captive Kashmir.

My impression is that Indians are taught to see Islam in their country as an alien force and the period of Islamic rule as a holocaust for Hindus. Additionally, both zionist and Indians are faced with a freedom struggle, in both cases the protangonists are Muslims and in both cases the antagonists refer to the Muslims as terrorists. In both cases, Islam and Jehad to free oneself from oppression are cited by antagonists in the same breath as terrorism and terrorists. Radical Liberals despise Islam because it has not succumbed. Islam has been defeated in the battles imposed on it by radical Liberalism, but not the war.

the convergence of interests of radical Liberals, zionist and Hindu nationalist will end when what these entities percieve as official US support against Islam will cease.

Ghosts exorcised. Thanks n cheers

Fuzair #403: Your remarks are quite accurate. I have heard the same about the Germans. I actually trained with the US military for a few months myself. My observations are as follows:

The US military is the mightiest military machine ever put together by mankind. There is nothing in history that even comes close. It has a budget of over $300 billion now (larger than the budget of the next 23 militaries combined). It is an electronic, technological and managerial (most people don`t pick up on this point) masterpiece.

It is also the most well educated organization in the US (more educated than IBM, GE, etc.). When I was there, there was a policy that no one could beyond the rank of Major, without a Master`s degree. Needless to say, it the most hi-tech private or public organization in the world, also.

US military personnel are very well-trained, very patriotic, quite a bit more knowledgeable than the average American (they spend a lot of their careers overseas), and are over-all very decent and fun-loving guys (and ladies). They are quite brave, as well. Not to mention the fact that they are in extremely good physical shape (a lot of time in the gym).

However, when I was here, in every war scenario I ran through my head, with equivalent men and machinery, between Pakistanis and Americans, the Pakistanis ended up kicking the American`s butt. Of course, under normal situations, the Americans would have so much more firepower and technology, that they would end up kicking the Pakistani`s butts.

On the whole I would rank the fighting capabilities of the average American soldier as above average (but not great). I would rank the fighting capabilities of the average Pakistani soldiers as borderline great. The reason is that this generation of American soldiers has very little OJT (on the job training). They never have to fight anyone who is an equivalent competition to them. So by the time, the soldiers go in, the Air Force has already destroyed everything through massive high-altitude bombing, and the soldiers are just there in for ceremonial purposes. And due to their high standard of living, they are not as resilient to tough conditions and pressure, as say Indians and Pakistanis and Afghanis.

From the Pakistani military grapevine, I have heard everyone say that no one is a better fighter than Afghanis. And no one is worst than Arabs. I can vouch for the later myself, since so many of them used to be with us during the academy days (in a head-to-head fight, Pakistanis would have kicked the Israelis` butts, just by themselves; while the combined Arab forces have been getting kicked around by tiny Israel).

My ultimate fighting force would have well-trained Afghani soldiers, Pakistani Lieutenants and Captains, German Colonels, American Generals (they are the only ones who think on international and even outer-space scales), Vietnamese resilience, Pakistani/Israeli fighter pilots, American technology, budget and defence industry complex, British military traditions and politico-military leadership, and Japanese patriotism. Now that would be something, wouldn`t it.