Complicity in Silence

All Others....

I am not here to defend the Ummah...read my previous posts and usually argue against all those who do end up shamefully defending the double standards of the Ummah....

I am just disgusted by arjun_m.....critique is good but he sounds fanatical and is seething with hate against Muslims.......NO RACE IS PURE AND NO RACE IS ABOVE ANY OTHER...NOT MUSLIM NOT HINDU!

There is more to life then hating others blindly....

And BTW...Jang....look up what happened in the fall of 2002....nuns were raped and churches were torched in Madras.....compliments of Shiv sena.

Diablo #89

It’s always a scream to see the assumptions pompous sermonizers from the ummah make about others. I’ve lost count of the number of times these clowns presume that their adversaries are Hindus before starting off on their inane all-religions-are-equal all-have-bad-eggs homilies.

It might be a good idea to see how many Christians you can find from India who would prefer to be subjects of one of the countries that make up the Muslim ummah, rather than Indian citizens. Muslims from Pakistan typically extrapolate the shabby treatment that their country inflicts on people who belong to religious minorities, onto the treatment that people from the corresponding minorities receive in India, and are generally resentful or incredulous on being told that their projections are unfounded.

And since you addressed your post to arjun in a rather personal fashion – the man seems to be a happy atheist, from a religiously mixed background. So much for your assumptions.

#89 by Diablo

your post is pure rhetoric, no facts. arjun is not hindu, shivesena has not raped nuns among other falsehoods. allow me to generalize..why are ummah members so emotional and full of rhetoric? they remind me of marxist-leninist talking about the proles and bourgoise (sp?) etc.

Diablo #89 Your post is so good, I wish I had written it.

PS: Laiken is bhai kay sar pay jooN nahiN reengay gi. ;-)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Tahemed32 - Demonstrate for us how to answer a question without a ``context``. Demonstrate for us by answering this question:

When are you going to Iraq to help out the US who you contributed in sending to that hellish war?

Talk is cheap. So you might as well keep it to yourself if you can`t answer the above question.

HP

What you wrote, is exactly the point I was trying to make. The Geneva Convention was sidelined first by the Americans themselves when Rumsfeld stated that it did not apply to the the people US incarcerates. Do you remember when in initial days of Iraq war Western televisions through their ``bedded`` jouranlists regulalrly showed naked Iraqi POWs paraded through the streets and when one day Al-Jazeera showed US POWs, Bush suddenly remembered that there was something like GC that prohibits the display of POWs. They break the laws when it suits them and they make others follow the laws when it suites them. But too bad what goes around comes around.

That is why we need to judge the whole situation by moral standards of human beings without taking sides and it must not just stop at that but the culprit must be scorned and shown due disgust.

sadna #86 I dont think there is anything in my post that gives that impression.

Malik #85 you say ``When did I write this? Are you getting delusional?``

You wrote this in your post #12. I am not getting delusional.

In that post, you had responded to my question ``so do you consider this beheading to be justified? `` by writing as follows:

``NO. Absolutely not. It is a travesty and a horrible act. Having said this, lets look at the CONTEXT of this brutal killing. Why was this person in Iraq? Was he there at the invitation of Iraqi people or was he there at the behest of occupation army? Let me further elaborate with an example: ``...

and you go on in the rest of your post to ``explain`` this beheading. That is why I said you condoned this beheading.

The above write-up indicates that you are not only condoning this beheading, you are also being hypocritical about it: that is, you start by saying ``NO. Absolutely not``, and spend the rest of your post contradicting what you said (as I pointed out earlier, and a point that you did simply ignored).

As for calling me ``delusional`` you are merely tossing back the word I used in your case when I challenged you to do the same. I dont just toss words around - if I say you are delusional, I say it because you are claiming I said something that I never did.

arjun_m,

Are you now trying to plaster yourself off as an American taxpayer now?

Dude, take a step back and relax, it ain`t your tax money that is being spent...its probably the immigration anal probe fees you paid to the Americans when you programmed your way to America.....

On that note arjun_m.....you are truly a Hindu on steriods.....you bitch about the Ummah alone, which is fine as long as you are objective.....but with you I don`t see a peep against your own kind....what about your loonies?

Bal Thakray and Shiv Sena have committed the same kinds of atrocities against Christians and Muslims in India? Do you back Shiv Sena when goes around raping nuns?

arjun_m.......there are good and bad people in every race.....bitch about our bad BUT don`t don`t forget that you have some rotten apples in your Hindu basket too.......Don`t forget that your religion segregates HUMANS in categories including ``untouchables``.....so chill out man....you are not God`s gift to the world...you too are racist and biased.

The US is in Iraq not to liberate anyone BUT for its own interests...and as far as this war is concerned well it just so happens that it was also in the interest of the people of Iraq that Saddam be removed. The tax money you are lamenting (are you a Banya?......) was spent because the government of the US willed so....if you didn`t like it then go and lobby against it.....

Don`t just go crying to your Parvati about it!

#85 by Urstruly

“beheading of American prisoner do not fall into the catagory of a legal issue and hence justified.”

I think this was a despicable line by you. You make a serious error , when you attempt to reduce the scope of morality to just legality.

I agree with you that most of the contractors in Iraq are military, CIA, and Intelligence personals in civilian garbs. I also agree with you that they are a legitimate target for the resistance in Iraq. Also true that four contractor hanged in Fallujah were most likely CIA or Sp.ops. people. They were killed in a mob frenzy. Their hanging was not justifiable but nobody can teach a frenzied mob Geneva convention. The beheading of Berg was a deliberate act and that should be condemned vigorously.

The Iraqi resistance has a right to fight back and nobody can deny that right to them. But brutalizing the prisoners is not a right for either side. Beheading is a brutal act. Iraqi resistance has rights to arrest and incarcerate Americans in Iraq, but the Iraqi resistance does not have the right to behead american prisoners.

Since the US is circumventing the Geneva Convention, the Iraqi resistance is not bound by it too. Still, the moral issue is way above Geneva convention or any other law.

tahmed32 #81
You seem to be under the impression that Saudi govt. is the only Arab regime in the ME. For your information, it is not. I leave it to fate or the heavens above to inform you which are other Arab regimes which are dictatorial, oppressive and intolerant.

Talking about the legality of murders in Iraq one must keep in mind that the Geneva Convention does not cover mercenaries and soldiers of fortune which America calls ``civilian contractors``. In other words these civilian contractors are a fair game for anyone as far as legality is concerned. Donald Rumsfeld used the same argument to brutalize Afgahan freedom fighters, prisoners of Guantanamo Bay and later Iraqi insurgents. If we take Rumsfelds line of logic then the killing of four contractors in faluja and dismemberment of their bodies as well as the recent beheading of American prisoner do not fall into the catagory of a legal issue and hence justified.

As you can see that this line of logic i.e. legality of the issue leads us to nothing but to a greater human misery. But the whole issue of Iraq do fall into legal category as well. One party is of course guilty - the party that has broken all internationl laws, violated UN charter, and murdered thousands of innocent human beings based on absolute lies. Not only that, it has lowered itself to use all the dirty tricks that it could, torturing and humiliating prisoners, gang rape of women and children in front of their men with in their own houses while raiding, and what not just to break the will of a people. That party is to be blamed who has committed these war crimes and crimes against humanity.

tahmed32 # 83: You wrote ``the moral poverty that led you to condone this brutal beheading.``

When did I write this? Are you getting delusional?

Tahmed32 - when you promoted this war, you exhibited your hate towards the life of thousands of innocent people who would be killed. By promoting this illegal and unncessary war, you also exhibited your contempt towards the lives of 20/21 year old american soldiers who ultimately paid the price. So stop lecturing us about the sanctity of life. We know how to respect life - ALL life, be it an american or an arab.

Now that this war whose virtues you so passionately promoted has gone wrong, why don`t you go to Iraq and help US in this mess instead of typing away from the confines of peaceful and lush green Virginia?

Hypocricy should be felony.

malik #82 you write ``When you bash ALL muslims for killing an american,``

Where did I write this? Are you getting delusional? Do you think I am so stupid as to condemn an entire community for the crimes of a few? On the contrary, I have written thousands of posts on chowk, and have consistently stood up to those who condemn entire communities (muslim or hindu). This does not win me friends on chowk, and I dont care. I am not running for elections. That is why I stick to the principle that murder is murder, no ifs and buts.

Instead of now trying to find new charges against me, you would be better off just reflecting a bit on your own serious weaknesses:

a. this need for recognition in the west by being a ``revolutionary``, and
b. the moral poverty that led you to condone this brutal beheading.

You wont like me saying this, and no doubt will come back with some more cleverness, but one day you may understand what I am trying to tell you.

sadna #76 Agreed that the saudi government is an obscurantist monarchy. My point was simply the one I was making, namely that EVEN the saudis have condemned this brutal murder without giving ``ifs and buts`` of the kind malik was making on chowk. Nothing more.