Salaam O Rachel* Salaam
Temporal March 20, 2003
#36 Posted by Tipu on March 23, 2003 7:24:34 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#35 Posted by pmishra2 on March 23, 2003 6:52:12 am
Tipu #34
As expected, you have come up with reasons why you and your country are special and different and others are not so special. How your viewpoint must be correct but others are not. You have not presented a single fact that contradicts my main points. In fact you are more or less openly racist about jews, just like hindu extremists are about muslims and their ``foreign origin``. How original !
Basically, you have no knowledge of history or broader issues. You are only interested in justifying your viewpoint. This is no different from the attitude of any other fanatic, nationalist or religous. It can lead nowhere.
I will not be wasting any more time on you....
As expected, you have come up with reasons why you and your country are special and different and others are not so special. How your viewpoint must be correct but others are not. You have not presented a single fact that contradicts my main points. In fact you are more or less openly racist about jews, just like hindu extremists are about muslims and their ``foreign origin``. How original !
Basically, you have no knowledge of history or broader issues. You are only interested in justifying your viewpoint. This is no different from the attitude of any other fanatic, nationalist or religous. It can lead nowhere.
I will not be wasting any more time on you....
#34 Posted by Tipu on March 22, 2003 9:38:17 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#33 Posted by pmishra2 on March 22, 2003 8:47:44 am
#32 Tipu
Instead of obsessing about the Balfour declaration, I would advise you to read the history of the entire middle-east and south asia. There is no difference between the creation of Israel or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or India. In each case, the departing colonial power made sordid deals with various groups to its own best advantages etc. and departed. It is deeply stupid and hypocritical and ultimately racist to single out Israel as unique in this respect.
What IS unique about the middle-east is the single minded obsession of the arabs not to compromise in any way and to focus on destruction of israel. And even more sad, to force the Palestinians to pay the price for this obsession.
Thank god that in South Asia we did not have such lunacy. For all the bad feelings, at least pre-Jihad and Kargil, India and Pakistan recognized each other as legal entities and tried to go about their business. How would it have been if India declared in 1950 that it would never be reconciled with Pakistan and that its national policy would be based on the annhilation of Pakistan???? This is what the arabs have done with israel!
Finally, there is also this obsession about european jews living in Israel. Somehow this is supposed to make the israeli state illegitimate!!
And yet Pakistanis (and many indian muslims) proclaim their ethnic and spiritual connection to Iran. Saudi Arabia etc. with great pride. The distance between Delhi and Teheran is equal to the distance between Jerusalem and many parts of southern and central europe. Why is one relationship OK and the other ``colonialism`` ???
Instead of obsessing about the Balfour declaration, I would advise you to read the history of the entire middle-east and south asia. There is no difference between the creation of Israel or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or India. In each case, the departing colonial power made sordid deals with various groups to its own best advantages etc. and departed. It is deeply stupid and hypocritical and ultimately racist to single out Israel as unique in this respect.
What IS unique about the middle-east is the single minded obsession of the arabs not to compromise in any way and to focus on destruction of israel. And even more sad, to force the Palestinians to pay the price for this obsession.
Thank god that in South Asia we did not have such lunacy. For all the bad feelings, at least pre-Jihad and Kargil, India and Pakistan recognized each other as legal entities and tried to go about their business. How would it have been if India declared in 1950 that it would never be reconciled with Pakistan and that its national policy would be based on the annhilation of Pakistan???? This is what the arabs have done with israel!
Finally, there is also this obsession about european jews living in Israel. Somehow this is supposed to make the israeli state illegitimate!!
And yet Pakistanis (and many indian muslims) proclaim their ethnic and spiritual connection to Iran. Saudi Arabia etc. with great pride. The distance between Delhi and Teheran is equal to the distance between Jerusalem and many parts of southern and central europe. Why is one relationship OK and the other ``colonialism`` ???
#32 Posted by Tipu on March 22, 2003 6:38:39 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#31 Posted by pmishra2 on March 21, 2003 9:22:53 pm
Talk about complete lunacy !!
[quote]
EVEN THOUGH MANY THINGS ARE GOOD IN ISRAEL JUST AS IN AMERICA & NOT ALL ISRAELI OR AMERICANS ARE CONDEMNED BUT SELECTIVELY SOMTHING IN BOTH THESE COUNTRIES IS CAUSE OF 70% OF INTERNATIONAL PROBLEMS OF SUICIDE BOMBING GULF WAR TERRORISM
[end-quote]
Sure, whatever. Just remain steadfast in your belief that Israel and America are the source of all problems in the world.
[quote]
EVEN THOUGH MANY THINGS ARE GOOD IN ISRAEL JUST AS IN AMERICA & NOT ALL ISRAELI OR AMERICANS ARE CONDEMNED BUT SELECTIVELY SOMTHING IN BOTH THESE COUNTRIES IS CAUSE OF 70% OF INTERNATIONAL PROBLEMS OF SUICIDE BOMBING GULF WAR TERRORISM
[end-quote]
Sure, whatever. Just remain steadfast in your belief that Israel and America are the source of all problems in the world.
#30 Posted by Tipu on March 21, 2003 8:13:20 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#29 Posted by tahmed32 on March 21, 2003 7:01:47 pm
temporal #24 I think it is clear that you and I agree on the ends, i.e. the need for muslims to fight islamic extremism.
And we even agree on some of the means: i.e. interpreting the Quran based on what our own common sense tells us. Not based on what some mullah tells us. That is fine.
I nevertheless must beg to differ on your use of the word jihad when what you really mean is nonviolent protest against oppression, and for the following reasons:
a. It implies that it is OK to carry nonviolent protest to the point of dying. If that is what Ms. Rachel Corrie did (and I doubt anyway that her intention was to lose her life in the process of protesting), then she in effect committed suicide. And as you know the Quran explicitly prohibits suicide. My reading of the Quran is that sacrificing one`s life is permitted only in the extreme case of saving someone else`s life. No lives were threatened here. While not wishing to sound flippant about the death of someone so young, and while applauding her defense for the underdogs in the Arab-Israeli dog fight (and that it basically what it is, with no heroes on either side), the sad fact remains that Ms. Corrie died saving a house from being torn down.
b. You approving us of the word ``jihad`` gets the mullah off the hook. So, if you MUST use the word, then at least put the mullah back on the hook by explicitly condemning the murderous actions they commit in the name of jihad. In my usual helpful manner, I shall even provide you with a list that you can attach next time you feel tempted to use the word ``jihad`` instead of something more explicit (like self-defense, or peaceful resistance, or socio-economic progresss):
1. 9/11 was NOT jihad. It was a barbarous act that killed three thousand innocent people from all over the world who were going about their business. AND it was carried out by a bunch of islamic extremists an no one else (as too many muslims do not have the character to admit, despite clear evidence).
2. Kashmir is NOT jihad. The lives of Kashmiris are not being threatened. If someone wishes to carry out a jihad, then the time and place would have been Gujrat when the mobs were attacking muslims, or Godhra when the mobs were attacking hindus: since the purpose would have been to save lives (muslim OR hindu - respect for life does not stop with muslim life alone). That would be jihad. Not creating mischief in other people`s land.
So, by the time you are done clarifying what you mean, you might as well just say what you mean (i.e. peaceful resistance), rather than trying to rehabilitate a word that is beyond repair. Islam is substance, not words.
And we even agree on some of the means: i.e. interpreting the Quran based on what our own common sense tells us. Not based on what some mullah tells us. That is fine.
I nevertheless must beg to differ on your use of the word jihad when what you really mean is nonviolent protest against oppression, and for the following reasons:
a. It implies that it is OK to carry nonviolent protest to the point of dying. If that is what Ms. Rachel Corrie did (and I doubt anyway that her intention was to lose her life in the process of protesting), then she in effect committed suicide. And as you know the Quran explicitly prohibits suicide. My reading of the Quran is that sacrificing one`s life is permitted only in the extreme case of saving someone else`s life. No lives were threatened here. While not wishing to sound flippant about the death of someone so young, and while applauding her defense for the underdogs in the Arab-Israeli dog fight (and that it basically what it is, with no heroes on either side), the sad fact remains that Ms. Corrie died saving a house from being torn down.
b. You approving us of the word ``jihad`` gets the mullah off the hook. So, if you MUST use the word, then at least put the mullah back on the hook by explicitly condemning the murderous actions they commit in the name of jihad. In my usual helpful manner, I shall even provide you with a list that you can attach next time you feel tempted to use the word ``jihad`` instead of something more explicit (like self-defense, or peaceful resistance, or socio-economic progresss):
1. 9/11 was NOT jihad. It was a barbarous act that killed three thousand innocent people from all over the world who were going about their business. AND it was carried out by a bunch of islamic extremists an no one else (as too many muslims do not have the character to admit, despite clear evidence).
2. Kashmir is NOT jihad. The lives of Kashmiris are not being threatened. If someone wishes to carry out a jihad, then the time and place would have been Gujrat when the mobs were attacking muslims, or Godhra when the mobs were attacking hindus: since the purpose would have been to save lives (muslim OR hindu - respect for life does not stop with muslim life alone). That would be jihad. Not creating mischief in other people`s land.
So, by the time you are done clarifying what you mean, you might as well just say what you mean (i.e. peaceful resistance), rather than trying to rehabilitate a word that is beyond repair. Islam is substance, not words.
#28 Posted by rozaiba on March 21, 2003 2:19:13 pm
T #24 :
well said.
emotionalizing religion and letting it thus dictate terms brings false notions of arrogance.
well said.
emotionalizing religion and letting it thus dictate terms brings false notions of arrogance.
#27 Posted by stuka on March 21, 2003 2:19:13 pm
Faisaluno:
``have you heard of effi eitam? do you know what position he holds in the israeli government? do you know what is his solution to the palestenian problem?``
I honestly have no idea. I would be willing to learn.
``and can you please explain to me how blond hair blue eyed people landed in the middle of middle east?``
Faisaluno, I never said that there was NO migration from Europe at all. In fact, a major portion of the European Jewry that survived the Holocaust immigrated, either to America or to Israel. I even agree that the leaders, and therefore the public face of Zionism, were predominantly white.
Having said that, I mantain that the majority population of Israel in 1948 was consituted of Jews who were from the middle east. Countries such as Lebanoan, Egypt, Syria etc had a Jewish diaspora which moved to Israel. My point is that there was a two way transfer of population, and Israel does not constitute entirely of foreigners from Europe. At this point, thanks to immigration of Russian Jews, the demographic balance has shifted.
`` who do you think spoke these words? ``
I don`t know. Mind you, I would have been less critical of Arab suicide bombings if they had limited themselves to the occupied territories, and at most to settlers and military. However, they cannot claim a moral high point after targetting Haifa, Tel Aviv etc.
Secondly, my post was directed less at Arab methods and more at Arab demands. It was a chronological narrative of how Conservative opinion shifted from being neutral (in the sense of balance between Israel and Arab interests) to now being heavily pro Israel.
Since the birth of Israel to the 70S, Arab perspective of ``pro-Israel`` was based on a country`s acceptance of the state of Israel. The United States, in good faith,, tried to be neutral while mantaining support for the existence of Israel. The 1956 Suez Crisis being a case in point. It is a different matter that Arab perceptions painted America as pro Israel.
The point you make of American support for regressive Arab regimes is valid, but in that case the motivation was winning the cold war and getting oil rather than Israeli interests alone.
``have you heard of effi eitam? do you know what position he holds in the israeli government? do you know what is his solution to the palestenian problem?``
I honestly have no idea. I would be willing to learn.
``and can you please explain to me how blond hair blue eyed people landed in the middle of middle east?``
Faisaluno, I never said that there was NO migration from Europe at all. In fact, a major portion of the European Jewry that survived the Holocaust immigrated, either to America or to Israel. I even agree that the leaders, and therefore the public face of Zionism, were predominantly white.
Having said that, I mantain that the majority population of Israel in 1948 was consituted of Jews who were from the middle east. Countries such as Lebanoan, Egypt, Syria etc had a Jewish diaspora which moved to Israel. My point is that there was a two way transfer of population, and Israel does not constitute entirely of foreigners from Europe. At this point, thanks to immigration of Russian Jews, the demographic balance has shifted.
`` who do you think spoke these words? ``
I don`t know. Mind you, I would have been less critical of Arab suicide bombings if they had limited themselves to the occupied territories, and at most to settlers and military. However, they cannot claim a moral high point after targetting Haifa, Tel Aviv etc.
Secondly, my post was directed less at Arab methods and more at Arab demands. It was a chronological narrative of how Conservative opinion shifted from being neutral (in the sense of balance between Israel and Arab interests) to now being heavily pro Israel.
Since the birth of Israel to the 70S, Arab perspective of ``pro-Israel`` was based on a country`s acceptance of the state of Israel. The United States, in good faith,, tried to be neutral while mantaining support for the existence of Israel. The 1956 Suez Crisis being a case in point. It is a different matter that Arab perceptions painted America as pro Israel.
The point you make of American support for regressive Arab regimes is valid, but in that case the motivation was winning the cold war and getting oil rather than Israeli interests alone.
#26 Posted by pmishra2 on March 21, 2003 2:19:13 pm
#23 faisaluno
Its good to see you are an open racist about your views:
[quote]
and can you please explain to me how blond hair blue eyed people landed in the middle of middle east? who do you think spoke these words?
[end-quote]
OK, here is my equivalent in India: Can you explain to me what all these people who claim descent from Turks, Afghans, Arabs and Persians are doing in India? Shouldn`t they be sent back where they came from???
In other words, your argument is exactly the same as Modi and Thackeray. Enjoy the fine company ! Maybe you should meet your soul brothers sometime?
Its good to see you are an open racist about your views:
[quote]
and can you please explain to me how blond hair blue eyed people landed in the middle of middle east? who do you think spoke these words?
[end-quote]
OK, here is my equivalent in India: Can you explain to me what all these people who claim descent from Turks, Afghans, Arabs and Persians are doing in India? Shouldn`t they be sent back where they came from???
In other words, your argument is exactly the same as Modi and Thackeray. Enjoy the fine company ! Maybe you should meet your soul brothers sometime?
#25 Posted by stuka on March 21, 2003 2:19:13 pm
Tipu:
``Factions like Nidal & Habbash George are marauders who may want settlement of Palestenian but a knowledgeable person knows it is Arafat &Hanan & plo who are negotiating``
I acknowledge that rhetoric is different from reality. I also accept your point about Habash and Nidal being in that category. In my post I said:
``the stated aim of Hamas, Islamic Jihad now (and Black September and PFLP and Abu Nidal etc in the 70S) was and remains the detruction of Israel proper``
Remember, the PFLP was always allied with Fatah, the fighting wing of Arafat`s PLO. I repeat, upto the 1973 war, the Palestenian resistance believed that Israel could and would be destroyed. That changed after the war, and comprehensive defeat. Not before.
Even now, you say that Arafat is the main negotiater. Now, at least based on the knowledge that is in public domain, and beyond which neither of us have access, the main sticking points in Oslo were Jeruasalem and the return of refugees. The latter will change the demographic balance of Israel, thereby achieving it`s destruction.
Also, please remember that Hamas and Islamic Jihad did not join the Oslo negotiations because their stated aim is still the destruction of Israel. In terms of public support, the Palestenians support Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah to a far greater extent than the PLO. So Israel will only waste it`s time negotiating with Arafat.
However, I digress. The point of my original post was this. If the Palestenians had accepted the partition in 1948, they could have lived in dignity. Again and again they chose war, in 1967 and 1973, and the purpose of the war was the utter and complete destruction of a people. Therefore, if the Israelis do not shy away from brutalizing the Arabs, it is a result of what has happened less than a generation ago.
``Factions like Nidal & Habbash George are marauders who may want settlement of Palestenian but a knowledgeable person knows it is Arafat &Hanan & plo who are negotiating``
I acknowledge that rhetoric is different from reality. I also accept your point about Habash and Nidal being in that category. In my post I said:
``the stated aim of Hamas, Islamic Jihad now (and Black September and PFLP and Abu Nidal etc in the 70S) was and remains the detruction of Israel proper``
Remember, the PFLP was always allied with Fatah, the fighting wing of Arafat`s PLO. I repeat, upto the 1973 war, the Palestenian resistance believed that Israel could and would be destroyed. That changed after the war, and comprehensive defeat. Not before.
Even now, you say that Arafat is the main negotiater. Now, at least based on the knowledge that is in public domain, and beyond which neither of us have access, the main sticking points in Oslo were Jeruasalem and the return of refugees. The latter will change the demographic balance of Israel, thereby achieving it`s destruction.
Also, please remember that Hamas and Islamic Jihad did not join the Oslo negotiations because their stated aim is still the destruction of Israel. In terms of public support, the Palestenians support Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah to a far greater extent than the PLO. So Israel will only waste it`s time negotiating with Arafat.
However, I digress. The point of my original post was this. If the Palestenians had accepted the partition in 1948, they could have lived in dignity. Again and again they chose war, in 1967 and 1973, and the purpose of the war was the utter and complete destruction of a people. Therefore, if the Israelis do not shy away from brutalizing the Arabs, it is a result of what has happened less than a generation ago.
#24 Posted by temporal on March 21, 2003 12:43:36 pm
pmishra2 #15:
jehad is misunderstood…within and without islam:
---in pakistan it is a carte blanche to come to the aid of muslims worldwide…
---the ROW sees it justifiably as acts of terrorism
---my own views have been elaborated in the past (if you care: [http://63.194.130.82/cgi-bin/show_article.cgi?aid=00001128&channel=civic%20center&start=0&end=9&page=1&chapter=1] in that sense Rachel Corrie was a jehadi
---in addition to above i have stated unequivocally i am against loss of life through acts of terror, be it by individuals, organizations or states ...how many others you know here have been that explicit?
rgds,
t
jehad is misunderstood…within and without islam:
---in pakistan it is a carte blanche to come to the aid of muslims worldwide…
---the ROW sees it justifiably as acts of terrorism
---my own views have been elaborated in the past (if you care: [http://63.194.130.82/cgi-bin/show_article.cgi?aid=00001128&channel=civic%20center&start=0&end=9&page=1&chapter=1] in that sense Rachel Corrie was a jehadi
---in addition to above i have stated unequivocally i am against loss of life through acts of terror, be it by individuals, organizations or states ...how many others you know here have been that explicit?
rgds,
t
#23 Posted by Urstruly on March 21, 2003 12:43:36 pm
taimurmalik
Your post speak volumes about your good nature and innocence but I am not sure about theirs.
#22 Posted by faisaluno on March 21, 2003 12:43:36 pm
stuka:
have you heard of effi eitam? do you know what position he holds in the israeli government? do you know what is his solution to the palestenian problem? and can you please explain to me how blond hair blue eyed people landed in the middle of middle east? who do you think spoke these words?
``I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.``
#21 Posted by temporal on March 21, 2003 12:43:36 pm
Tahmed #2: and nazarhayatkhan #7:
islam has been hijacked by the ultra orthodox because of this very attitude…we…the silent, moderate muslims…by default (and not by design) have let them bring misery and scorn on us…it is about time we stand up and repudiate their ultra orthodox interpretation of this religion…
…why cannot i have my different interpretation?…if they go ahead and quote me ayahs of Qur’an, exhorting the believers to take up arms in the cause of justice…i will come back equally forcefully and refute it…in my humble view they can do so only if justice and harmony prevails in their society…only then can they exhort others to join their jehad…and since most…if not all muslim countries and societies lag behind…way behind... when it comes to social justice and peace and harmony and rights for their citizens…their call for any extra-territorial jehad is null and void…
…‘…Let us lose this small battle to the mullahs, and try to win the bigger battle’…you say…sorry bud, that time is past when we should give in to these ultra orthodox hijackers…please reconsider…to reclaim moderation we should adopt their tactics…we shall not give in an inch…
draw a line…no more terror…no more bamboozling in the name of religion…
rgds,
t
islam has been hijacked by the ultra orthodox because of this very attitude…we…the silent, moderate muslims…by default (and not by design) have let them bring misery and scorn on us…it is about time we stand up and repudiate their ultra orthodox interpretation of this religion…
…why cannot i have my different interpretation?…if they go ahead and quote me ayahs of Qur’an, exhorting the believers to take up arms in the cause of justice…i will come back equally forcefully and refute it…in my humble view they can do so only if justice and harmony prevails in their society…only then can they exhort others to join their jehad…and since most…if not all muslim countries and societies lag behind…way behind... when it comes to social justice and peace and harmony and rights for their citizens…their call for any extra-territorial jehad is null and void…
…‘…Let us lose this small battle to the mullahs, and try to win the bigger battle’…you say…sorry bud, that time is past when we should give in to these ultra orthodox hijackers…please reconsider…to reclaim moderation we should adopt their tactics…we shall not give in an inch…
draw a line…no more terror…no more bamboozling in the name of religion…
rgds,
t
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- Saleem_Chauhan: the whole world is... The Future of Indo
- laddu: Re: # 40. it is... The Future of Indo
- tahmed32: and as for this... Pleas For Sanity as
- tahmed32: #173 GT: In other... Pleas For Sanity as
- GT: tahmed: You are simply a... Pleas For Sanity as
- Pew_Research: Following a visit to... Pleas For Sanity as
- tahmed32: #170 is to GT... Pleas For Sanity as
- tahmed32: #164 "Indian chowkies offering... Pleas For Sanity as
