Lessons From the Pearl Murder
Ras Siddiqui February 22, 2002
#250 Posted by wadera on March 1, 2002 8:47:55 pm
This is so terrible, horrible - all this burning and killing of innocent people (Hindus and Muslims). I want to express my sympathy to all Indians and to hope that the government takes firm action to prevent this from spiralling out of control. ``Right`` and ``Wrong`` or blame do not come into this. There has got to be a better way to express our differences without killing each other. We on Chowk who talk about secularism and extremism are a minority among our people. The majority of Indians and Pakistanis are not into the esoterics of tolerance, because they don`t seem to have been exposed to it. It makes me more and more convinced that we need GOOD schools and education at a grass-roots level. SOMETHING to counter this hate-filled propaganda that is destroying innocent people.
(P.S. This Friday`s prayers were for all the people killed, both Hindus and Muslims)
(P.S. This Friday`s prayers were for all the people killed, both Hindus and Muslims)
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#249 Posted by saminashah on March 1, 2002 2:06:57 pm
Hydra
Re: ``Ill stop it there because your other ranting is directed against someone THAT I AM NOT .I am not non secular i think islam doesnot like to force itself on everyone .``
No, you say that you are not non secular, but you play games by advocating shariat laws in the US, and then write, ``not that I am saying that``. This is called talking out of both sides of your mouth.
``On the other hand you are just vomiting what popular media vomit every second.You believe that men do everything for virgin hourie as popularised by media.That is the kind of muslim you are.You have nothing original in your thaught nor any filter.``
What is your definition of popular media, hydra? Do you think Noam Chomsky, A. Roy, E. Said, Robert Fisk are ``popular media``? They are clearly progressive media writers and critics who deconstruct mainstream media-therefore your ``filter`` notion is rubbish.
``As a muslim at least editorialize the garbage from most of the aliennculture writers And the rubbish popular media chacterisations.All those high sounding word do not apply to me.``
No, nothing applies to you, hydra, not propriety on websites, or one stable position or anything. You are above everything. We should all focus on the mainstream media and throw roses at the conspiracy garbage that comes out of fundo communities.
``You are nothing but Xerox copy of news media everyday.``
No Mr. Cut and Paste who wont read the articles he posts, you are.
Btw, in which country do you live?
Re: ``Ill stop it there because your other ranting is directed against someone THAT I AM NOT .I am not non secular i think islam doesnot like to force itself on everyone .``
No, you say that you are not non secular, but you play games by advocating shariat laws in the US, and then write, ``not that I am saying that``. This is called talking out of both sides of your mouth.
``On the other hand you are just vomiting what popular media vomit every second.You believe that men do everything for virgin hourie as popularised by media.That is the kind of muslim you are.You have nothing original in your thaught nor any filter.``
What is your definition of popular media, hydra? Do you think Noam Chomsky, A. Roy, E. Said, Robert Fisk are ``popular media``? They are clearly progressive media writers and critics who deconstruct mainstream media-therefore your ``filter`` notion is rubbish.
``As a muslim at least editorialize the garbage from most of the aliennculture writers And the rubbish popular media chacterisations.All those high sounding word do not apply to me.``
No, nothing applies to you, hydra, not propriety on websites, or one stable position or anything. You are above everything. We should all focus on the mainstream media and throw roses at the conspiracy garbage that comes out of fundo communities.
``You are nothing but Xerox copy of news media everyday.``
No Mr. Cut and Paste who wont read the articles he posts, you are.
Btw, in which country do you live?
#248 Posted by Rdesikan on March 1, 2002 12:32:22 pm
Re AAmir
Religion when practiced in moderation is a good thing as it instills values, respect for others, etc. But when one takes it to the extreme in each and every case, as people like you do, it devolves into nonsense and eventually into chaos and sheer evil. The funny thing is that there aint no such thing as heaven and 72 virgins waiting etc. It`s just stuff to pull in suckers like you. Buzz off you brainwashed nutcase.
Religion when practiced in moderation is a good thing as it instills values, respect for others, etc. But when one takes it to the extreme in each and every case, as people like you do, it devolves into nonsense and eventually into chaos and sheer evil. The funny thing is that there aint no such thing as heaven and 72 virgins waiting etc. It`s just stuff to pull in suckers like you. Buzz off you brainwashed nutcase.
#247 Posted by anNy on March 1, 2002 12:32:22 pm
ana:
point taken..thanks for pointing out so nicely what was wrong with that rather rude reply to yasser...daldal sometimes suckks me in too and when its one of my own ppl being bigots or silly or stupid, it just suckks all the more..
point taken..thanks for pointing out so nicely what was wrong with that rather rude reply to yasser...daldal sometimes suckks me in too and when its one of my own ppl being bigots or silly or stupid, it just suckks all the more..
#246 Posted by AAmir on March 1, 2002 11:36:33 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#244 Posted by saminashah on March 1, 2002 11:12:08 am
Aamir,
re:``Same thing can be said about the opponent of ``islamist`` (whatever u mean by that)
Actually, thats not true. The progressive media and its readers include a broad sprectrum of beliefs and faiths. We just don`t think any religious interpretation should be forced on any citizen, regardless. What does that mean? Everyone has a right to their beliefs and practices in a secular framework that ideally ensures and protects these rights.
Islamicist interpretations want Shariat laws for everybody, regardless, and tends to punish and marginalize those citizens who are not men and not Muslim. Can a Christian/Shia in Pakistan feel as safe as a Muslim in the US? I think not.
``If you can select & choose a designer Islam which by calling them Islamist you concede Islam is there FORTE.``
I don`t know what this sentence means.
``By self assuming ownership of rennaisence & all laws subsequent to Magna Carter , you bashfully do that of western world ....what is wrong for them to use those laws paticularly ....untill according to them there shariat law replaces all the modern laws ...Not that i subscribe to there philosophy or dream.``
So are you saying that all secular forms of govt. should be replaced by shariat law? And what is the basis for this notion?
``I think you are a bigger hypocrite of being Muslim where it counts & rejecting every thing Islam where it requires sacrifice ,extra work or majority opposition to islam as in non islamic west & nonmuslim environment you are.``
And I think you are completely out of line for deciding what Muslim identity is. THERE IS NO ONE MUSLIM IDENTITY. Your definition of Islam is not everyone`s-and you are not God to decide what is right and what is not and that only Muslims deserve your pity and sympathy. Your type cares only about Muslims-you don`t give a damn about anyone else who suffers equally-no, you must hold onto that Muslim persecution complex-because only oppressed Muslims in secular or non Muslim countries are special. What about the people in East Timor, hydra? Are they special? What about Christian Palestinians? Are they special? What about Afghani Jews? And btw, hydra, there are many people in this non Muslim enviroment that are working to protect Muslims in this country. How many Muslims are working to protect non Muslims in Muslim countries in the same way?
``Admit it you are just as much guilty of treading values two worlds & like them unwilling to cross ove completely.You to the west & they to there EasT.``
Admit that the tolerant, open minded, non judgemental, non violent Islam scares the hell out of you. This is your greatest weakness-you can`t and won`t imagine that its possible to live in peace and respect of people of all beliefs nad races. You`d have to give your persecution complex up. You`d have to admit that everyone`s religion has meaning and no one religion is better than the next. You`d have to admit that you made the traps and lies in your own mind on a false sense of superiority.
Btw, why are you living in the US and taking advantage of Western, secular systems? Why aren`t you living in a country that implements shariat law? Don`t talk the talk if you cant walk the walk.
re:``Same thing can be said about the opponent of ``islamist`` (whatever u mean by that)
Actually, thats not true. The progressive media and its readers include a broad sprectrum of beliefs and faiths. We just don`t think any religious interpretation should be forced on any citizen, regardless. What does that mean? Everyone has a right to their beliefs and practices in a secular framework that ideally ensures and protects these rights.
Islamicist interpretations want Shariat laws for everybody, regardless, and tends to punish and marginalize those citizens who are not men and not Muslim. Can a Christian/Shia in Pakistan feel as safe as a Muslim in the US? I think not.
``If you can select & choose a designer Islam which by calling them Islamist you concede Islam is there FORTE.``
I don`t know what this sentence means.
``By self assuming ownership of rennaisence & all laws subsequent to Magna Carter , you bashfully do that of western world ....what is wrong for them to use those laws paticularly ....untill according to them there shariat law replaces all the modern laws ...Not that i subscribe to there philosophy or dream.``
So are you saying that all secular forms of govt. should be replaced by shariat law? And what is the basis for this notion?
``I think you are a bigger hypocrite of being Muslim where it counts & rejecting every thing Islam where it requires sacrifice ,extra work or majority opposition to islam as in non islamic west & nonmuslim environment you are.``
And I think you are completely out of line for deciding what Muslim identity is. THERE IS NO ONE MUSLIM IDENTITY. Your definition of Islam is not everyone`s-and you are not God to decide what is right and what is not and that only Muslims deserve your pity and sympathy. Your type cares only about Muslims-you don`t give a damn about anyone else who suffers equally-no, you must hold onto that Muslim persecution complex-because only oppressed Muslims in secular or non Muslim countries are special. What about the people in East Timor, hydra? Are they special? What about Christian Palestinians? Are they special? What about Afghani Jews? And btw, hydra, there are many people in this non Muslim enviroment that are working to protect Muslims in this country. How many Muslims are working to protect non Muslims in Muslim countries in the same way?
``Admit it you are just as much guilty of treading values two worlds & like them unwilling to cross ove completely.You to the west & they to there EasT.``
Admit that the tolerant, open minded, non judgemental, non violent Islam scares the hell out of you. This is your greatest weakness-you can`t and won`t imagine that its possible to live in peace and respect of people of all beliefs nad races. You`d have to give your persecution complex up. You`d have to admit that everyone`s religion has meaning and no one religion is better than the next. You`d have to admit that you made the traps and lies in your own mind on a false sense of superiority.
Btw, why are you living in the US and taking advantage of Western, secular systems? Why aren`t you living in a country that implements shariat law? Don`t talk the talk if you cant walk the walk.
#243 Posted by Layman on March 1, 2002 11:12:08 am
Aamir #228:
``Enough is enough....You hindians never miss a chance to ridicule a Pakistani specially if it concerns Bharat.It is a fact that India name doesnt belong solely to what is now BHARAT.India is bangladesh Pakistan & Bharat ,Bhutan ,Napal so to say ..a region referred to as Indian region by Arabs ,Europeans even before British ,remember Columbus , set out looking for INDIA .Its a fact that Bangladesh in 30 yrs of existence ,Pakistan in 54 yrs of existence have international recognition but BHARAT draw a blank countenence if you mention it to someone in New York.No wonder a new yorker dont have clear nomenclature of INDEPENDENT INDIA which is Only 54 yrs old.
``To call Bharat India is hegonomy of Bharat...``
My dear friend, you make two points:
1. India = `Bharat` + Pakistan + BD + ...
Which makes you a fellow Indian. Welcome to the fold, my friend.
2. To call `Bharat` India is hegemony - I dont understand how.
The truth is the reverse. It is Bharat that is equal to modern India + Pakistan + BD + .... Familiar with the term `Akhand Bharat` or `Undivided Bharat`? Bharat is the ancient name of this land and this makes you a fellow Bharatiya.
It is the Greeks (Alexander?) who called the Sindhu as Indus and referred to our land as India. Our land has always been Bharat. Today`s India has two names: India and Bharat. Our Constitution says `The Union of India, that is Bharat, ...`
It is true that the India of today is not the India of old, but to say that we should no longer call ourselves India is as logical as saying West Pakistan should not call itself Pakistan, because Pakistan = West Pakistan + Bangladesh.
Similarly, the Arabs called our land Hindustan.
Hindustan = Today`s India + Pakistan + BD + ... which makes you my fellow Hindustani. Maybe we should no longer be called Hindustan, then?
``No wonder a new yorker dont have clear nomenclature of INDEPENDENT INDIA which is Only 54 yrs old.``
Since when is an ignorant New Yorker the measure of our identity? Why do you have to justify your identity based on the knowledge or ignorance of a New Yorker?
I personally think India, Bharat and Hindustan all apply to today`s India. I do not like the names India and Hindustan as they are not indegenous and the latter restricts us to being the land of just Hindus (Hindu is another Arab term that I personally do not like). I like the term Bharat because it is indegenous and refers to all people of today`s India.
``Enough is enough....You hindians never miss a chance to ridicule a Pakistani specially if it concerns Bharat.It is a fact that India name doesnt belong solely to what is now BHARAT.India is bangladesh Pakistan & Bharat ,Bhutan ,Napal so to say ..a region referred to as Indian region by Arabs ,Europeans even before British ,remember Columbus , set out looking for INDIA .Its a fact that Bangladesh in 30 yrs of existence ,Pakistan in 54 yrs of existence have international recognition but BHARAT draw a blank countenence if you mention it to someone in New York.No wonder a new yorker dont have clear nomenclature of INDEPENDENT INDIA which is Only 54 yrs old.
``To call Bharat India is hegonomy of Bharat...``
My dear friend, you make two points:
1. India = `Bharat` + Pakistan + BD + ...
Which makes you a fellow Indian. Welcome to the fold, my friend.
2. To call `Bharat` India is hegemony - I dont understand how.
The truth is the reverse. It is Bharat that is equal to modern India + Pakistan + BD + .... Familiar with the term `Akhand Bharat` or `Undivided Bharat`? Bharat is the ancient name of this land and this makes you a fellow Bharatiya.
It is the Greeks (Alexander?) who called the Sindhu as Indus and referred to our land as India. Our land has always been Bharat. Today`s India has two names: India and Bharat. Our Constitution says `The Union of India, that is Bharat, ...`
It is true that the India of today is not the India of old, but to say that we should no longer call ourselves India is as logical as saying West Pakistan should not call itself Pakistan, because Pakistan = West Pakistan + Bangladesh.
Similarly, the Arabs called our land Hindustan.
Hindustan = Today`s India + Pakistan + BD + ... which makes you my fellow Hindustani. Maybe we should no longer be called Hindustan, then?
``No wonder a new yorker dont have clear nomenclature of INDEPENDENT INDIA which is Only 54 yrs old.``
Since when is an ignorant New Yorker the measure of our identity? Why do you have to justify your identity based on the knowledge or ignorance of a New Yorker?
I personally think India, Bharat and Hindustan all apply to today`s India. I do not like the names India and Hindustan as they are not indegenous and the latter restricts us to being the land of just Hindus (Hindu is another Arab term that I personally do not like). I like the term Bharat because it is indegenous and refers to all people of today`s India.
#242 Posted by Layman on March 1, 2002 11:12:08 am
Aamir #228:
``Enough is enough....You hindians never miss a chance to ridicule a Pakistani specially if it concerns Bharat.It is a fact that India name doesnt belong solely to what is now BHARAT.India is bangladesh Pakistan & Bharat ,Bhutan ,Napal so to say ..a region referred to as Indian region by Arabs ,Europeans even before British ,remember Columbus , set out looking for INDIA .Its a fact that Bangladesh in 30 yrs of existence ,Pakistan in 54 yrs of existence have international recognition but BHARAT draw a blank countenence if you mention it to someone in New York.No wonder a new yorker dont have clear nomenclature of INDEPENDENT INDIA which is Only 54 yrs old.
``To call Bharat India is hegonomy of Bharat...``
My dear friend, you make two points:
1. India = `Bharat` + Pakistan + BD + ...
Which makes you a fellow Indian. Welcome to the fold, my friend.
2. To call `Bharat` India is hegemony - I dont understand how.
The truth is the reverse. It is Bharat that is equal to modern India + Pakistan + BD + .... Familiar with the term `Akhand Bharat` or `Undivided Bharat`? Bharat is the ancient name of this land and this makes you a fellow Bharatiya.
It is the Greeks (Alexander?) who called the Sindhu as Indus and referred to our land as India. Our land has always been Bharat. Today`s India has two names: India and Bharat. Our Constitution says `The Union of India, that is Bharat, ...`
It is true that the India of today is not the India of old, but to say that we should no longer call ourselves India is as logical as saying West Pakistan should not call itself Pakistan, because Pakistan = West Pakistan + Bangladesh.
Similarly, the Arabs called our land Hindustan.
Hindustan = Today`s India + Pakistan + BD + ... which makes you my fellow Hindustani. Maybe we should no longer be called Hindustan, then?
``No wonder a new yorker dont have clear nomenclature of INDEPENDENT INDIA which is Only 54 yrs old.``
Since when is an ignorant New Yorker the measure of our identity? Why do you have to justify your identity based on the knowledge or ignorance of a New Yorker?
I personally think India, Bharat and Hindustan all apply to today`s India. I do not like the names India and Hindustan as they are not indegenous and the latter restricts us to being the land of just Hindus (Hindu is another Arab term that I personally do not like). I like the term Bharat because it is indegenous and refers to all people of today`s India.
``Enough is enough....You hindians never miss a chance to ridicule a Pakistani specially if it concerns Bharat.It is a fact that India name doesnt belong solely to what is now BHARAT.India is bangladesh Pakistan & Bharat ,Bhutan ,Napal so to say ..a region referred to as Indian region by Arabs ,Europeans even before British ,remember Columbus , set out looking for INDIA .Its a fact that Bangladesh in 30 yrs of existence ,Pakistan in 54 yrs of existence have international recognition but BHARAT draw a blank countenence if you mention it to someone in New York.No wonder a new yorker dont have clear nomenclature of INDEPENDENT INDIA which is Only 54 yrs old.
``To call Bharat India is hegonomy of Bharat...``
My dear friend, you make two points:
1. India = `Bharat` + Pakistan + BD + ...
Which makes you a fellow Indian. Welcome to the fold, my friend.
2. To call `Bharat` India is hegemony - I dont understand how.
The truth is the reverse. It is Bharat that is equal to modern India + Pakistan + BD + .... Familiar with the term `Akhand Bharat` or `Undivided Bharat`? Bharat is the ancient name of this land and this makes you a fellow Bharatiya.
It is the Greeks (Alexander?) who called the Sindhu as Indus and referred to our land as India. Our land has always been Bharat. Today`s India has two names: India and Bharat. Our Constitution says `The Union of India, that is Bharat, ...`
It is true that the India of today is not the India of old, but to say that we should no longer call ourselves India is as logical as saying West Pakistan should not call itself Pakistan, because Pakistan = West Pakistan + Bangladesh.
Similarly, the Arabs called our land Hindustan.
Hindustan = Today`s India + Pakistan + BD + ... which makes you my fellow Hindustani. Maybe we should no longer be called Hindustan, then?
``No wonder a new yorker dont have clear nomenclature of INDEPENDENT INDIA which is Only 54 yrs old.``
Since when is an ignorant New Yorker the measure of our identity? Why do you have to justify your identity based on the knowledge or ignorance of a New Yorker?
I personally think India, Bharat and Hindustan all apply to today`s India. I do not like the names India and Hindustan as they are not indegenous and the latter restricts us to being the land of just Hindus (Hindu is another Arab term that I personally do not like). I like the term Bharat because it is indegenous and refers to all people of today`s India.
#241 Posted by Prem on March 1, 2002 11:12:08 am
re: ana # 242
Amen.
P.S. Passionate people are our only hope. But passion can kill, just as passion can save. Only we can decide which is the greater value.
Amen.
P.S. Passionate people are our only hope. But passion can kill, just as passion can save. Only we can decide which is the greater value.
#240 Posted by Layman on March 1, 2002 11:12:08 am
Aamir #228:
``Enough is enough....You hindians never miss a chance to ridicule a Pakistani specially if it concerns Bharat.It is a fact that India name doesnt belong solely to what is now BHARAT.India is bangladesh Pakistan & Bharat ,Bhutan ,Napal so to say ..a region referred to as Indian region by Arabs ,Europeans even before British ,remember Columbus , set out looking for INDIA .Its a fact that Bangladesh in 30 yrs of existence ,Pakistan in 54 yrs of existence have international recognition but BHARAT draw a blank countenence if you mention it to someone in New York.No wonder a new yorker dont have clear nomenclature of INDEPENDENT INDIA which is Only 54 yrs old.
``To call Bharat India is hegonomy of Bharat...``
My dear friend, you make two points:
1. India = `Bharat` + Pakistan + BD + ...
Which makes you a fellow Indian. Welcome to the fold, my friend.
2. To call `Bharat` India is hegemony - I dont understand how.
The truth is the reverse. It is Bharat that is equal to modern India + Pakistan + BD + .... Familiar with the term `Akhand Bharat` or `Undivided Bharat`? Bharat is the ancient name of this land and this makes you a fellow Bharatiya.
It is the Greeks (Alexander?) who called the Sindhu as Indus and referred to our land as India. Our land has always been Bharat. Today`s India has two names: India and Bharat. Our Constitution says `The Union of India, that is Bharat, ...`
It is true that the India of today is not the India of old, but to say that we should no longer call ourselves India is as logical as saying West Pakistan should not call itself Pakistan, because Pakistan = West Pakistan + Bangladesh.
Similarly, the Arabs called our land Hindustan.
Hindustan = Today`s India + Pakistan + BD + ... which makes you my fellow Hindustani. Maybe we should no longer be called Hindustan, then?
``No wonder a new yorker dont have clear nomenclature of INDEPENDENT INDIA which is Only 54 yrs old.``
Since when is an ignorant New Yorker the measure of our identity? Why do you have to justify your identity based on the knowledge or ignorance of a New Yorker?
I personally think India, Bharat and Hindustan all apply to today`s India. I do not like the names India and Hindustan as they are not indegenous and the latter restricts us to being the land of just Hindus (Hindu is another Arab term that I personally do not like). I like the term Bharat because it is indegenous and refers to all people of today`s India.
``Enough is enough....You hindians never miss a chance to ridicule a Pakistani specially if it concerns Bharat.It is a fact that India name doesnt belong solely to what is now BHARAT.India is bangladesh Pakistan & Bharat ,Bhutan ,Napal so to say ..a region referred to as Indian region by Arabs ,Europeans even before British ,remember Columbus , set out looking for INDIA .Its a fact that Bangladesh in 30 yrs of existence ,Pakistan in 54 yrs of existence have international recognition but BHARAT draw a blank countenence if you mention it to someone in New York.No wonder a new yorker dont have clear nomenclature of INDEPENDENT INDIA which is Only 54 yrs old.
``To call Bharat India is hegonomy of Bharat...``
My dear friend, you make two points:
1. India = `Bharat` + Pakistan + BD + ...
Which makes you a fellow Indian. Welcome to the fold, my friend.
2. To call `Bharat` India is hegemony - I dont understand how.
The truth is the reverse. It is Bharat that is equal to modern India + Pakistan + BD + .... Familiar with the term `Akhand Bharat` or `Undivided Bharat`? Bharat is the ancient name of this land and this makes you a fellow Bharatiya.
It is the Greeks (Alexander?) who called the Sindhu as Indus and referred to our land as India. Our land has always been Bharat. Today`s India has two names: India and Bharat. Our Constitution says `The Union of India, that is Bharat, ...`
It is true that the India of today is not the India of old, but to say that we should no longer call ourselves India is as logical as saying West Pakistan should not call itself Pakistan, because Pakistan = West Pakistan + Bangladesh.
Similarly, the Arabs called our land Hindustan.
Hindustan = Today`s India + Pakistan + BD + ... which makes you my fellow Hindustani. Maybe we should no longer be called Hindustan, then?
``No wonder a new yorker dont have clear nomenclature of INDEPENDENT INDIA which is Only 54 yrs old.``
Since when is an ignorant New Yorker the measure of our identity? Why do you have to justify your identity based on the knowledge or ignorance of a New Yorker?
I personally think India, Bharat and Hindustan all apply to today`s India. I do not like the names India and Hindustan as they are not indegenous and the latter restricts us to being the land of just Hindus (Hindu is another Arab term that I personally do not like). I like the term Bharat because it is indegenous and refers to all people of today`s India.
#239 Posted by audio-video-rad on March 1, 2002 12:04:09 am
Stuka #208: Shankar is too easy a target. I just have to keep him honest, every now and then, to make sure he doesn`t start getting too big for his britches..... :)
#238 Posted by Rdesikan on March 1, 2002 12:04:09 am
RE AAmir
``By self assuming ownership of rennaisence & all laws subsequent to Magna Carter , you bashfully do that of western world ....what is wrong for them to use those laws paticularly ....untill according to them there shariat law replaces all the modern laws ...Not that i subscribe to there philosophy or dream.``
Oh wise thingy...is this Magna Carter the notorious transvestite third-fourteen times removed cousin of the former president Jimmy Carter?
You`ve got quite an imagination hoping for those outmoded quasi fiction called shariat laws to replace the so-called modern laws. Been consuming a little too much of the Taliban`s most famous cash crop, eh? And BTW, isn`t looking at a computer monitor sort of akin to looking at pictures, which is illegal by the same laws you pine for?
``By self assuming ownership of rennaisence & all laws subsequent to Magna Carter , you bashfully do that of western world ....what is wrong for them to use those laws paticularly ....untill according to them there shariat law replaces all the modern laws ...Not that i subscribe to there philosophy or dream.``
Oh wise thingy...is this Magna Carter the notorious transvestite third-fourteen times removed cousin of the former president Jimmy Carter?
You`ve got quite an imagination hoping for those outmoded quasi fiction called shariat laws to replace the so-called modern laws. Been consuming a little too much of the Taliban`s most famous cash crop, eh? And BTW, isn`t looking at a computer monitor sort of akin to looking at pictures, which is illegal by the same laws you pine for?
#237 Posted by rsridhar on March 1, 2002 12:04:09 am
re:Reply #: 212
RSaxena,
I did not create the caste system. It already existed. If i do not say Upper caste, it will not cease to exist. Elections in UP and many other states are fought along caste lines. The shift in power base towards the Dalits and muslims is happening and is an important milestone.
Sridhar
RSaxena,
I did not create the caste system. It already existed. If i do not say Upper caste, it will not cease to exist. Elections in UP and many other states are fought along caste lines. The shift in power base towards the Dalits and muslims is happening and is an important milestone.
Sridhar
#236 Posted by ana on March 1, 2002 12:04:09 am
anNy..
I have to say this much...I admire your passion, and don`t get me wrong, par, how do you really expect Yasser to stop his name-calling (and i think i`ve seen it too), by calling him names yourself? Granted they`re not as graphic as his, par phir bhi...
I agree with you on just about everything that you`ve said. Keep that flame burning inside of you, but you know what..I think you already know this: There are some things we simply cannot change..the likes of Ali, even Yasser, among many other people who consider themselves `intelligent beings` for example. I think it`s horrible that in response to an article which laments the death of a journalist as a result of hate and intolerance, (or for that matter, any of the articles here) that most of the replies here have been so utterly hateful and ridiculous and so lacking in common sense as to not even deserve a response. I`ve seen plenty of posts like this before, and I`ve heard similar stuff and all I have to say is this: Grow up all you bachche log...and get out of this ghaflat, and ignorance that you`re drowning yourself in. If you think you can move forward in leaps and bounds by putting Pakistanis, Indians, the color brown (which as allergic as Aicha is to it, happens to be the color of many of our skins) down so hatefully, then we should all be ashamed and very very afraid! `Cause the daldal is just getting thicker and thicker, and it`s sucking us in to the point of no return.
Don`t give up AnNy..just don`t give in! :)
I have to say this much...I admire your passion, and don`t get me wrong, par, how do you really expect Yasser to stop his name-calling (and i think i`ve seen it too), by calling him names yourself? Granted they`re not as graphic as his, par phir bhi...
I agree with you on just about everything that you`ve said. Keep that flame burning inside of you, but you know what..I think you already know this: There are some things we simply cannot change..the likes of Ali, even Yasser, among many other people who consider themselves `intelligent beings` for example. I think it`s horrible that in response to an article which laments the death of a journalist as a result of hate and intolerance, (or for that matter, any of the articles here) that most of the replies here have been so utterly hateful and ridiculous and so lacking in common sense as to not even deserve a response. I`ve seen plenty of posts like this before, and I`ve heard similar stuff and all I have to say is this: Grow up all you bachche log...and get out of this ghaflat, and ignorance that you`re drowning yourself in. If you think you can move forward in leaps and bounds by putting Pakistanis, Indians, the color brown (which as allergic as Aicha is to it, happens to be the color of many of our skins) down so hatefully, then we should all be ashamed and very very afraid! `Cause the daldal is just getting thicker and thicker, and it`s sucking us in to the point of no return.
Don`t give up AnNy..just don`t give in! :)
#235 Posted by hariharan on March 1, 2002 12:04:09 am
#232, SaminaShah
As someone said, in islamic countries, pluralism/democractic elections mean this:
One man, One vote and...One time.
As someone said, in islamic countries, pluralism/democractic elections mean this:
One man, One vote and...One time.
#234 Posted by AAmir on February 28, 2002 5:51:21 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- MeiraJ08: Cheguevara, I didn't get... Fathers and Daughters
- anil: Masadi sahib: If you want... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- ajeya: #24 Posted by dost_mittar [But... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- masadi: Anil sahib, nice try... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- pakiturk: My friends, ML, MQM, PPP,... MQM - History and
- anil: Masadi sahib: Your brain is... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- masadi: Thinking sahib, Please pardon the... Fathers and Daughters
- masadi: Anil writes "You show... Historian Amaresh Misra on
