The changing face of America

Hello tahmed32, it is my utmost respect for you and your intelligence that makes me continue, knowing fully well that it is not reciprocated. Mayb both of us are wrong, please go and figure out that triple pun?

Interim, I thank you for your valuable inputs, your frustrations showing up in the choice of increasingly non-imaginative abuse, and your eventual inability to accept the simple true fact - India is a better place for all sorts of Indians, including Muslims. This has been proved quantitatively and qualitatively beyond doubt, and if you cannot accept it, what can I say?

Now please do all of us a favour, sign the anti-hudood ordinance, petition the Saudi Arab government to benchmark India towards treatment of Muslims and as for the poor Palestinians and Kashmiris, check with the Kuwaiti Government on their position on these people? Interim, please do feel free to

And oh yes, don`t forget what the OIC is saying.

Back to the general science books?

ps: Thank you for your repeated references to Gujarat / Godhra / Modi et al. While we all agree in India that the violence and subsequent were blots, we are trying to fix things too. Ofcourse, you wouldn`t have read the various inputs on how Indians saved each other and also try to work for each other?

veeresh #182 so, to back your claim to my writing an abusive post, the worst you can do is dig out the term ``bs`` that I used to describe your posts! ``bullshit`` is in fact a polite word to describe what you have been writing:

a. you compared the muslim families that were burnt to death by hindutva mobs while the police in India looked the other way with the armed combatants imprisoned at Guantanamo by the US. As I said, you added insult over (fatal) injury done to those people in India with terrorists. And you flatter Modi and his scoundrels in comparing the criminal actions of the Gujarat government in permitting the slaughter of over two thousand innocent people to take place with the actions of the US government in imprisoning suspected terrorists (who are routinely visited by various observers, including representative from their own countries, who are allowed to say communal prayers and so on).

b. You claimed that I could not say that those muslims who were killed in Gujarat until I provided you the definition of muslim! And you kept insisting on this absurdity even after I reminded you that those hindutva mobs that killed the muslims needed no definitions to determine who the muslims were that they were out to kill.

Yes, I can think of more accurate words to describe what you are writing, but will leave it at ``bs``. I have wasted enough time with you, so you can fuk off now or stick around. I dont care.

tahmed 32, I refer to your using the term ``bs`` or ``bullshit`` which IMHO is abusvie. Here, btw, is the latest (http://us.rediff.com/news/2003/oct/20saudi.htm) :-

````In a rebuff to Pakistan`s efforts to seek mileage out of the Gujarat riots, Saudi Arabia has said Muslims in India cannot be considered a minority and that they could resolve their problems without outside help.

``I would hate to think of the Muslims in India as a minority, coming from a country that has less Muslims, than the Muslims of India. So these Muslims are not tattered in the wind,`` Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal said at a joint press conference with his Pakistani counterpart Khurshid M Kasuri in Islamabad on Sunday.

``They (Indian Muslims) are people with substance. They are people with courage and with enough of that courage to stand for their interests by themselves and not to wait for the help of others,`` he said when asked about the kingdom`s stand on Indian Muslims in the context of the Gujarat riots. ````

+++

It seems as though the whole thing goes back to defining what a Muslim is.

veeresh #178 ``logical amendments``

you are being too kind to yourself. less charitable people would call it deception.

but carry on, lets have your next masterpiece...

veeresh #178 i also see you use the word ``abusive`` to describe what i wrote. please cut and paste what i wrote that you consider abusive - or else i will assume that this making of ``logical amendments`` (addressed in my post below) comes easily to you.

being an international student in US for 3 yrs, I went through the similar experience and media holds the sole responsibility for this current situation. after reading article in Times about muslims or after watching msnbc, cnn....things get worse. It is gets really frustrating sometimes and I wonder where all of this propganda against Muslims , leading towards. Would it ever end?....

tahmed # 177, ofcourse I USE your word with logical amendments.

I don`t know about my Uncles/nephews, but I do know, tahmed32 ji, that your getting abusive is a sure sign of despair.

Please go back to #90, and address the original question, as well as statement - Muslims in India are better off than they are in Islamic countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and certain parts of USA like Guantanamo Bay and Saudia. I do not see anybody, Muslim or Hindu or otherwise, Indian/Pakistani or otherwise, denying this simple fact.

Add to that, in the course of the debate here, even the OIC said pretty much the same thing.


You, ofcourse, will pick on phrases out of context but not address the main issue.

Never mind.

veeresh #175 you write ``to use your words . . . `` and then proceed to write stuff I never wrote.

I have in the past had a few instances of individuals misquoting me to others (like your uncle Jay Thakeray, who was then unable to show where I had written that stuff). You have brought your genius to new heights by misquoting me to myself. (I use the word genius jokingly, just in case you take it seriously).

So, carry on with your bs... I have lots of time for you (takes about two seconds to speed read through your bs, and another 20 seconds to respond. But maybe I should start billing you for my time).

tahmed32 # 175, to use your words . . .

````of course you understand...what happens in the Islamic World does not require a rocket scientist to understand...you simply are more concerned with Islam`s precious image than with truth - and the truth is that all sorts of murders that killed countless Muslim people by the Islamic leaders themselves went unreported because there was no way they could, there was no police, there was no governance, there was no election! You understand it all very well. ````

But, as I said, dont let me stop you.

Please continue to live in your fantasy la-la-la-la land, and look for reasons for your own shortcomings by pointing at India.

+++

As far as India`s image is concerned, well, we have something called a free media, currently reporting from, amongst other places, Faizabad and Ayodhya. Also from OIC in Malaysia. Also from J&K. Also from Kerala. Any Indian, or non-Indian, Hindu, Muslim or otherwise, with a legal reason to be in India, can take a video camera and pretty much record whatever they want to make of India`s image. Credible ones get on to news channels and the like.

But.

I wonder what happened to free media for Muslims, leave alone others, in the ultimate paradise for Islamic freedom, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, USA (Guantanmo Bay), don`t you as a Muslim have a little peep or at least a whimper about that? Oh yeah, that was tahmed32 and his free as the falcon Muslim friends walking down the streets of Jiddah and Riyadh and Mecca and Medina and Kuwait and Guantanamo Bay, checking out the graves of murdered Muslims, non-human Muslim women, de-recognised Muslims and getting their opinion?

And of course, that was tahmed32 getting redressal from the police, and when unable to secure it, approaching the Courts, and when unable to get justice there, heading for the Supreme Courts. That is, when he was not trying to get his elected representative into place.

But of course, that is OK.

But what he really REALLY did not like was the fact that there was no chocolate on the plane.

Yes, tahmed32, Gujarat and Babri, sure. We screwed up, we`ll fix it.

But what did you do with your end of the funny farm?

veeresh #174 ``Now I understand!! ``

of course you understand...what happened in Gujarat does not require a rocket scientist to understand...you simply are more concerned with india`s precious image than with truth - and the truth is that communal murders that killed over 2000 people while police looked the other way. and the governor in charge got re-elected. you understand it all very well.

But, as i said, dont let me stop you.

Ah, now we have soysauce and tahmed32 together, trying to ignore the real issues facing Muslims while beating the India/Godhra-Gujarat-Babri drum!!

It is absolutely correct for ``other Muslims`` to take away the rights of Muslim women, Muslims they don`t like, Muslims of a different colour, Muslims who have a mind . . .

Now I understand!!

Veeresh,
I am beginning to think that you`re trying to ignore the question while maintaining your stupid argument about who a muslim is. Anyone who identifies him/her self as muslim or so identified by others is a muslim. Same goes for a hindu or a christian or a tamil. I think you`re trying to hide your bigotry by resorting to tautology.

veeresh #171 so you still maintain that India has the ``best`` record in treatment of muslims? restating your opinion in post after post, while ignoring obvious evidence to the contrary, doesnt make it right.

but dont let me stop you....keep repeating yourself..i have all day

Subject still the same. For a moment assume I fit your description of a Muslim.

As a Muslim, you or I or any other Muslims, are better off in India.

Better of when compared to Pakistan/Saudia/Kuwait/USA.

I know the OIC wouldn`t agree.

But we have more Muslims outside the OIC than within, right?

veeresg #169 Trying to change the subject I see.

tahmed # 168, suggested reading:-

http://www.ukpoliticsmisc.org.uk/usenet_evidence/argument.html

A CODE OF CONDUCT FOR EFFECTIVE RATIONAL DISCUSSION
The Fallibility Principle
The Truth-Seeking Principle
The Clarity Principle
The Burden of Proof Principle
The Principle of Charity
The Relevance Principle
The Acceptability Principle
The Sufficiency Principle
The Rebuttal Principle
The Resolution Principle
The Suspension of Judgment Principle
The Reconsideration Principle

1. The Fallibility Principle

When alternative positions on any disputed issue are under review, each participant in the discussion should acknowledge that possibly none of the positions presented is deserving of acceptance and that, at best, only one of them is true or the most defensible position. Therefore, it is possible that thorough examination of the issue will reveal that one`s own initial position is a false or indefensible one.


2. The Truth-Seeking Principle

Each participant should be committed to the task of earnestly searching for the truth or at least the most defensible position on the issue at stake. Therefore, one should be willing to examine alternative positions seriously, look for insights in the positions of others, and allow other participants to present arguments for or raise objections to any position held with regard to any disputed issue.


3. The Clarity Principle

The formulations of all positions, defences, and attacks should be free of any kind of linguistic confusion and clearly separated from other positions and issues.


4. The Burden of Proof Principle

The burden of proof for any position usually rests on the participant who sets forth the position. If and when an opponent asks, the proponent should provide an argument for that position.


5. The Principle of Charity

If a participant`s argument is reformulated by an opponent, it should be expressed in the strongest possible version that is consistent with the original intention of the arguer. If there is any question about that intention or about implicit parts of the argument, the arguer should be given the benefit of any doubt in the reformulation.


`For a practical application of the principles governing good argumentation summarized in this chapter and addressed throughout the book, see the detailed critique of several popular points of view, including those of Shirley MacLaine and Ronald Reagan, in Lawrence L. Habermehl`s The Counterfeit Wisdom of Shallow Minds: A Critique of Some Leading Offenders of the 1980`s (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 1995).


6. The Relevance Principle

One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to set forth only reasons that are directly related to the merit of the position at issue.


7. The Acceptability Principle

One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to use reasons that are mutually acceptable to the participants and that meet standard criteria of acceptability.


8. The Sufficiency Principle

One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide reasons that are sufficient in number, kind, and weight to support the acceptance of the conclusion.


9. The Rebuttal Principle

One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument or the position it supports and to the strongest argument on the other side of the issue.


10. The Resolution Principle

An issue should be considered resolved if the proponent for one of the alternative positions successfully defends that position by presenting an argument that uses relevant and acceptable premises that together provide sufficient grounds to support the conclusion and provides an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument or position at issue. Unless one can demonstrate that these conditions have not been met, one should accept the conclusion of the successful argument and consider the issue, for all practical purposes, to be settled. In the absence of a successful argument for any of the alternative positions, one is obligated to accept the position that is supported by the best of the good arguments presented.


11. The Suspension of Judgment Principle

If no position comes close to being successfully defended, or if two or more positions seem to be defended with equal strength, one should, in most cases, suspend judgment about the issue. If practical considerations seem to require an immediate decision, one should weigh the relative risks of gain or loss connected with the consequences of suspending judgment and decide the issue on those grounds.


12. The Reconsideration Principle

If a successful or at least good argument for a position is subsequently found by any participant to be flawed in a way that raises new doubts about the merit of that position, one is obligated to reopen the issue for further consideration and resolution.


From Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer


+++