The Great Illusion

1) I DO HAVE MANY HINDU AND YES THEY ARE LEAVING US IN THE DUST .........AS PER PRIDE I HAVE NO LLUSIONS THAT INDIANS ARE BETTER EDUCATED ETC BUT THE STEREROTYPES PERPETUATED BY PEOPLE LIKE MOSHSIN PISSES ME OFF......

re : my propaganda

mine is propaganda but it is positive ......it promotes pakistani nationalism and u can love it or leave it ........the insiduous type of propaganda that masquerades around as humanistic universalism should be criticized just like at the way this guy begins

``because of my wife `s nationality....`` its meant to be anti-pakistani and pro-indian right off the bat but ...`` we need to be more open-minded`` blah blah .......to automaticlay denounce ur people as close minded etc etc shows u dont know enough about ur own people ur buyin the other side`s line

now alpha husain u r a perfect example of my point and u can shove it too buddy

Dukhi Ram #360

Thanks for your evasions regarding killing of civilians through suicide bombings. Yes, of course, when any country has a bad goverment or is having a fight between factions, quite naturally suicide bombing of all kinds is justified. Maybe its even in the UN charter! Talk about drivel....

As for Gujarati Muslims and Kashmiri Pandits, my point was simply that there is a very similar situation for both. If anything it is much worse for the Gujarati Muslims as they are being attacked by mobs without any response from the goverment. At least in the Kashmiri Pandit case, the support for terror and murder came from Pakistan and some feeble support for them from the Indian federal and state goverments.

Of course, all the crocodile tears shed on this forum for the gujarati muslims were and are absent when the Kashmiri Pandits were (and are) attacked. Only you would read this as justification for the murder of civilians....

RE anNy #350 & 353

anNy I`ll ignore the emotional response (#350) if you say so :-)

It may surprise you but my heart goes out to ali`s family too and to any other fauji who gives his life in the service of his country. Siachen, yeah thats the place Mohit`s dad had his hips melted by frost bite, it consumes more men and money than any other battle field in the world. I know an officer who`s career was stalled by the affect of an extra long Siachen posting (in the rarefied atmosphere, oxygen deficiency can do a lot of things to your mind). I am not even getting in the K argument here, the only reason I remembered Mohit, was at the mention of the word ``thug`` and thats something he never was, just another guy serving his country.

re fawad 361

Yours is the propaganda, my friend.

moshin take ur propaganda nad shove it

re: a letter in Dawn`s letter to editor

Url: ``http://www.dawn.com/2002/04/05/letted.htm#1``.

``Pakistani attitudes

I am a Pakistani married to an Indian Muslim girl and we have settled in the US for the last several years.

Because of my wife`s nationality, I have had the opportunity to socialize amongst Indians and be a part of many of their social functions. My wife`s Indian circle includes friends that are Hindus, Christians and Parsis. We also socialize in the Pakistani circle where I have quite a few friends and acquaintances. I have noticed stark differences in the mentality, attitude and overall thinking of the people of these two countries.

While discussions in the Indian circles range from current affairs to movies, and from politics (Indian, American and Indo-Pak relations) to cricket, the discussions in our Pakistani social group is generally confined to Pakistan and Islam. Pakistanis are more interested in my wife`s attitude towards Hindus and how Islam is treated in India.

There is a lot more focus on the fact that ours is a Sunni-Shia marriage and that my wife does not wear the traditional Muslim dresses. In short, I have noticed that the people in various Pakistani circles we move in, seem to be obsessed with Islam, Kashmir, India-bashing, as well as America-bashing, in spite of the fact that they have made it their home.

Almost 80 per cent of our Pakistani friends are convinced that Israel and the Jews do have some hand in the WTC attacks and it has all been done to malign Islam as it was becoming a fast growing religion in the world. The recent Gujarat riots in India are, in the opinion of most of them, a part of a conspiracy by the Indian government to eliminate Muslims in India.

Very understandably, my wife does not enjoy our social involvement with the Pakistani circles although she is otherwise an extrovert. While this does cause occasional tension between us, deep down inside, I myself find the conversations in the Indian groups more stimulating and multidimensional. There is no petty mindedness there. `Assalaam-o-alaikum`, `Namaste`, `Hi`, `Hello` and `What`s up` are all equally accepted forms of greetings.

The long-winded point that I am trying to make is that as Pakistanis, we certainly seem to be paranoid about our country, religion and beliefs. When it comes to India or Hindus or Kashmir, we seem to lose all objectivity and let our paranoia govern our thinking.

We must give up this kind of petty thinking. Urdu and Pakistan and Islam are not that weak so as to be threatened by such transient cultural influences.

The early we break such shackles of insecurity, the faster we will progress.

MOHSIN KHAN

Detroit, US ``.

Sridhar

Rsaxena 356

Thanks for the correction.Should I write it 1000

times?

Regards.

hobbyty, re. 351:

Well said! Very well said.

rgds,

PM

Saxena,

Haven`t read wht you`re referring to in #339, but am just wondering why the need to send someone to trial when u already know ur gonna hang him after that? :)

re: banjaara

{{What I am trying to say is your moral position

vis a vis OIC/Muslims/Pakistan is nothing but hypocracy}}

...we`ll believe you when you learn to spell hypocrisy...else one wonders whether you even understand what the word means..

Hobbyty:

Sometimes less is more. You do not subscribe to that dictum. You are also very confused. Otherwise, you would not have spent so much energy trying to justify an untenable position.

Urstruly Re 330

Tahmed321 Re 307

Sadna,Shammi, Dost Mitter, Rsaxena

Tahmed321 iz my couzin phirum Mughalsarai. Bee ar all peepool phiraam Bihar.

subroto

pls skip my post (not yet posted) in reponse to your last one...was unduly emotional and am sure will sound like a dudoo when its posted..some other time

cheers!

pmishra #332

Buddhimaan!

You still don`t get it.You said and I quote:-

``Do you take any responsibility for the murderers the Pakistani state has funded and pushed into Kashmir? These murderers have killed 10 times the number of people killed in Gujarat over the previous decade``.

And I quote what you said at #293:-

``Now lets hear from the great hero`s of the OIC meeting in Malaysia.

And to think that the Indian Goverment wanted to join these barbarians! What a lucky break that they couldnt.``

I don`t know how Pakistan and Kashmir came into

your sight while you were reviling the OIC and the

Barbarian Muslims in your original post # 293 and

I in response showed you the mirror,indicating

therein that OIC and Muslims aren`t the only

barbarians,given the game being played in Gujrat. Moreover,Pakistan has never claimed to be the largest democracy,singing the paens of love

and equality and secularism.

What I am trying to say is your moral position

vis a vis OIC/Muslims/Pakistan is nothing but

hypocracy.I wonder what you think of this verse:

Dekh Sudaama ki deen dasha

Karuna kar ke Karuna-nidhi roye

Regards

Shammi

``Since you refuse to give a yes/no answer unless some of your rhetorical questions are answered first.There are certain absolutes and a Yes/No answer is indicative of moral clarity. You did not (could not?) do that.``

``Now, let me ask you -- is killing civilians in suicide bomb attacks by any group for any cause terrorism?

I hope that you are able to come up with a simple yes/no answer to this.``

I regret your characterization of my post as a refusal to give yes/no answers, you choose to disregard my point that the problem of terrorism is too complex for yes/no answers and that we need to be conscious that some persons freedom fighter is anothers terrorist. labeling questions as ``rhetorical``, makes them invalid? I don`t think so. You say there are certain ``absolutes`` - then proceed to elicit agreement to a particular? What might these ``absolutes`` be and why is it that you seek not agreement on the ``absolutes`` but on particulars? Yes/no answers indicative of moral clarity? perhaps they are, however; I submit it is the ``clarity`` of a mentality that finds it difficult to come to grips with complexity and negotiate a path other one gauranteed to produce dissonance, the element of ``self`` righteousness, inherent. It is a ``clarity`` that sectarian violence in Pakistan is based on, it is a ``clarity`` that the recent riots in Gujjrat is based, it is a ``clarity`` that allows sections of the Israeli population to believe communities built on confiscated lands (to which others hold legal deeds) is an extension of God`s promise to them. I suggest that we view yes/no answers as applying to complex political and social problems as being simplistic. Any time we can elicit agreement that a particular act or behaviour is ``terrorism``, we will end up serving particular political positions - basically we are legitimizing asymetric warfare by one side when we should agree that suicide bombers are ``terrorism``, while not characterizing the assasination of leadership as ``terrorism``, or the illegal military occupation as in Palestine, as ``terrorism``, or preventing ambulances from reaching wounded as terrorism, imposing 24 hour curfews upon a civilian population as ``terrorism``, or the imposition of taxes that are not spent on the occupied population as ``terrorism``. And if all these, including suicide bombers are terrorism - then we will have begun to think in terms of absolutes. Do you not find merit in such a position?

Can I come up with yes/no answers? yes, I can - the point of the above is ask if it is possible, if one ``ought`` to think of terrorism in terms of yes/no answers. You make the point that the behaviour of the state government in the recent Gujjrat may not be viewed in terms of yes/no answers and it seems to me that you are not willing to apply the same ``absolutes`` in the case of the state governement. Is it that suicide bombings are designed to kill civilians, whereas the state government`s collusion wilth rioters, the participation of the police on behalf of the rioters, the suspension of citizens rights and the surrender of the state`s obligation to protect citizens and their property, resulted in other than the killing of innocent civilians and loss of property? Is the suspension of law and rights as they effect a minority justified if a majority agrees that the minority should be denied those same? are ``absolutes`` not operational in such a case? Is this not terrorism?, if not, why not?

I request that you deal with these question in your response to this post - characterizing the points as rhetorical, I submit, is a reflective of an inability to grasp and make sense of complexity and a rather selective, narrow take on the problem of terrorism, I urge you to revisit the ``absolutes``, you posit, exist, with relation to the problem of terrorism. Our sensibilities find it difficult to tolerate simplistic, partisan approaches that select to recognize some particulars while positing the application of thus far undefined absolutes.