London Targeted: Numbers Game
Temporal July 7, 2005
#128 Posted by bbabu on July 12, 2005 7:59:51 am
Romair #119
`` 1. Members of which relgion, in today`s world, produce the most suicide bombers? ``
Sri Lankan Tamils have never invoked Hinduism to launch their suicide bombings.
The only religious factor in the Sri Lankan civil war is the hardline opposition of the Buddhist monks. Even their opposition is based on nationalism rather than religion.
`` 2. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world
3. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world
4. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world
5. Is there any piece of land occupied by Muslims, against the wishes of its Jewish inhabitants
6. Is there any piece of land occupeid by Muslims, agaisnt the wishes of its Christain inhabitants
7. Is there any piece of land occupied by Muslims, against the wishes of its Hindu inhabitants
8. Is there any piece of land occupied by Jews, against the wishes of its Muslim inhabitants
9. Is there any piece of land occupeid by Christians, agaisnt the wishes of its Muslims inhabitants
10. Is there any piece of land occupied by Hindus, against the wishes of its Muslims inhabitants ``
It is funny everything you ask is Muslim and some other non-Muslim religion. That should answer your question.
`` 1. Members of which relgion, in today`s world, produce the most suicide bombers? ``
Sri Lankan Tamils have never invoked Hinduism to launch their suicide bombings.
The only religious factor in the Sri Lankan civil war is the hardline opposition of the Buddhist monks. Even their opposition is based on nationalism rather than religion.
`` 2. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world
3. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world
4. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world
5. Is there any piece of land occupied by Muslims, against the wishes of its Jewish inhabitants
6. Is there any piece of land occupeid by Muslims, agaisnt the wishes of its Christain inhabitants
7. Is there any piece of land occupied by Muslims, against the wishes of its Hindu inhabitants
8. Is there any piece of land occupied by Jews, against the wishes of its Muslim inhabitants
9. Is there any piece of land occupeid by Christians, agaisnt the wishes of its Muslims inhabitants
10. Is there any piece of land occupied by Hindus, against the wishes of its Muslims inhabitants ``
It is funny everything you ask is Muslim and some other non-Muslim religion. That should answer your question.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#127 Posted by Romair on July 12, 2005 7:58:39 am
Dost-mittar #122: You need to get out of looking at everything as a Hindu or Indian. Please look at things objectively. As long as you keep being offended, even by simple questions, I am afraid you will always hold biases opinions against Islam and others.........
I havd asked simple straight forward questions. Which have simple straight forward answers. They will only seem loaded to individuals who realize that they do not fit into their worldview. And may force them to consider options, other than the ones they have started believing in. This is why people shy away from answering such questions. Their incorrect views become exposed......
Which may be why you have answered the questions with other questions. Instead of with answers. If one wants to understand these issues, one must let go of one`s religious and nationalistic beliefs and biases, and discuss them objectively.........
However, even though you have not answered my questions, I will still try to answer your questions, objectively and as honestly as I can, without worrying about what my religion may happen to be:
Which religion divides the world into two camps, theirs of peace and the rest where a war is to be waged?
Ans.. I don`t know of any such religion. Although, some politico religious leaders do subscribe to this philosophy in Islam. And maybe in other religions also.....
- Which religion tells its adherents that it is their religious duty to wage a violent jihad?
Ans: No religion that I know of
- Which religion tells its people to kill anyone who insults their holy book or their prophet?
Ans. No religion that I know of
- Which religion says that after the enemy is defeated its halal to kill non-combatants, turn them into slaves?
Ans. No religion that I know of
- Which religion says that it is halal to turn women of the defeated people into their sex slaves?
Ans. No religion that I know of
- Adherents of which religion are running training camps teaching people how to kill and blow bombs in other countries?
Ans. Adherents of every religion. The biggest military training camps in the world are in the most advanced countries
- Adherents of which religion are killing/dying for people of other countries simply because they have the same religion?
Ans. Adherents of every religion. Although adherents of Islam would probably be more prominent in this area
- Which religion encourages people to wage war against the country that feeds, nurtures and protects them?
Ans. No religion that I know of
As for Hindus and Muslims in the context of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh:
- In which country has the minority population dwindled?
Ans. At the time of partition, all three countries. After partition, I know it has dwindled in Pakistan. I don`t have statistics for other two countries
- In which country has it increased absolutely and relatively?
Ans. I don`t have the statistics. But I would guess India
- In which country are the people of the minority religion entering from another country illegally and settling down in tens of millions?
Ans. India
- In which country has the minority population reduced from a position of power and commanding heights to one which is almost invisible and inaudible?
Ans. None of the countries you have mentioned
- Which country has its head of state, head of executive, head of army, its most powerful politician and its most successful businessman from a minority?
Ans. India
- In which country has the minority the power to force the government of the day to reverse the decision of its supreme court judges by passing special legislation?
Ans. India and Pakistan (don`t know about Bangladesh)
- In which country are the places of worship of minority multiplying and in which country they are hard to find?
Ans. They can be found in any of the above three countries
- In which country do the minorities not dare to even squeal?
Ans. They can squel in any country
- In which country do the minorities dare to even start riots, kill the members of majority or to drive them away from an area?
Ans. India (nearly all communal riots have been in India)
- Which country has scores of political parties belonging to minority many of whom are quite militant and strident?
Ans. None of the above, as far as I know. All three do not have specific parties for minorities. Though I may be wrong
When you have answered the above questions, I have another list ready.
You need to get out of looking at everything as a Hindu or Indian. Please look at it objectively.
I havd asked simple straight forward questions. Which have simple straight forward answers. They will only seem loaded to individuals who realize that they do not fit into their worldview. And may force them to consider options, other than the ones they have started believing in. This is why people shy away from answering such questions. Their incorrect views become exposed......
Which may be why you have answered the questions with other questions. Instead of with answers. If one wants to understand these issues, one must let go of one`s religious and nationalistic beliefs and biases, and discuss them objectively.........
However, even though you have not answered my questions, I will still try to answer your questions, objectively and as honestly as I can, without worrying about what my religion may happen to be:
Which religion divides the world into two camps, theirs of peace and the rest where a war is to be waged?
Ans.. I don`t know of any such religion. Although, some politico religious leaders do subscribe to this philosophy in Islam. And maybe in other religions also.....
- Which religion tells its adherents that it is their religious duty to wage a violent jihad?
Ans: No religion that I know of
- Which religion tells its people to kill anyone who insults their holy book or their prophet?
Ans. No religion that I know of
- Which religion says that after the enemy is defeated its halal to kill non-combatants, turn them into slaves?
Ans. No religion that I know of
- Which religion says that it is halal to turn women of the defeated people into their sex slaves?
Ans. No religion that I know of
- Adherents of which religion are running training camps teaching people how to kill and blow bombs in other countries?
Ans. Adherents of every religion. The biggest military training camps in the world are in the most advanced countries
- Adherents of which religion are killing/dying for people of other countries simply because they have the same religion?
Ans. Adherents of every religion. Although adherents of Islam would probably be more prominent in this area
- Which religion encourages people to wage war against the country that feeds, nurtures and protects them?
Ans. No religion that I know of
As for Hindus and Muslims in the context of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh:
- In which country has the minority population dwindled?
Ans. At the time of partition, all three countries. After partition, I know it has dwindled in Pakistan. I don`t have statistics for other two countries
- In which country has it increased absolutely and relatively?
Ans. I don`t have the statistics. But I would guess India
- In which country are the people of the minority religion entering from another country illegally and settling down in tens of millions?
Ans. India
- In which country has the minority population reduced from a position of power and commanding heights to one which is almost invisible and inaudible?
Ans. None of the countries you have mentioned
- Which country has its head of state, head of executive, head of army, its most powerful politician and its most successful businessman from a minority?
Ans. India
- In which country has the minority the power to force the government of the day to reverse the decision of its supreme court judges by passing special legislation?
Ans. India and Pakistan (don`t know about Bangladesh)
- In which country are the places of worship of minority multiplying and in which country they are hard to find?
Ans. They can be found in any of the above three countries
- In which country do the minorities not dare to even squeal?
Ans. They can squel in any country
- In which country do the minorities dare to even start riots, kill the members of majority or to drive them away from an area?
Ans. India (nearly all communal riots have been in India)
- Which country has scores of political parties belonging to minority many of whom are quite militant and strident?
Ans. None of the above, as far as I know. All three do not have specific parties for minorities. Though I may be wrong
When you have answered the above questions, I have another list ready.
You need to get out of looking at everything as a Hindu or Indian. Please look at it objectively.
#126 Posted by KaalChakra on July 12, 2005 7:58:10 am
anil. dost-mittar
Romair deserves straightforward answers.
Let`s assume the Martian notices that:
1. Hindus are killing Muslims.
2. Christians are killing Muslims.
3. Jews are killing Muslims.
4. Buddhists are killing Muslims.
5. Confucians/Shintoists are killing Muslims.
6. Animists are killing Muslims.
and,
7. Hindus are occupying lands against the wishes of Muslims.
8. Christians are occupying lands against the wishes of Muslims.
9. Jews are occupying lands against the wishes of Muslims.
10. Buddhists are occupying lands against the wishes of Muslims.
11. Confucians/Shintoists are occupying lands against the wishes of Muslims.
12. Animists are occupying lands against the wishes of Muslims.
Finally,
13. Hindus do not wish Muslims to give up the lands Muslims are occupying.
14. Christians do not wish Muslims to give up the lands Muslims are occupying.
15. Jews do not wish Muslims to give up the lands Muslims are occupying.
16. Buddhists do not wish Muslims to give up the lands Muslims are occupying.
17. Confucians/Shintoists do not wish Muslims to give up the lands Muslims are occupying.
18. Animists do not wish Muslims to give up the lands Muslims are occupying.
Now, let`s enter the mind of this Martian and trace the flow of the Martian`s logic.
Romair deserves straightforward answers.
Let`s assume the Martian notices that:
1. Hindus are killing Muslims.
2. Christians are killing Muslims.
3. Jews are killing Muslims.
4. Buddhists are killing Muslims.
5. Confucians/Shintoists are killing Muslims.
6. Animists are killing Muslims.
and,
7. Hindus are occupying lands against the wishes of Muslims.
8. Christians are occupying lands against the wishes of Muslims.
9. Jews are occupying lands against the wishes of Muslims.
10. Buddhists are occupying lands against the wishes of Muslims.
11. Confucians/Shintoists are occupying lands against the wishes of Muslims.
12. Animists are occupying lands against the wishes of Muslims.
Finally,
13. Hindus do not wish Muslims to give up the lands Muslims are occupying.
14. Christians do not wish Muslims to give up the lands Muslims are occupying.
15. Jews do not wish Muslims to give up the lands Muslims are occupying.
16. Buddhists do not wish Muslims to give up the lands Muslims are occupying.
17. Confucians/Shintoists do not wish Muslims to give up the lands Muslims are occupying.
18. Animists do not wish Muslims to give up the lands Muslims are occupying.
Now, let`s enter the mind of this Martian and trace the flow of the Martian`s logic.
#125 Posted by bbabu on July 12, 2005 7:54:41 am
Romair #114
`` You are correct. However, the secret defence dept. memo was leaked, one day after the bombing. Such important memos are never leaked. So one would have to assume the leakage was deliberate, i.e. Blair was letting his public know that he was going to listen to them. And letting the terrorists know that he is withdrawing troops, hence they should not target London again.......... ``
The Brits survived Hitler`s blitzkrieg. They wore down the IRA in a 20 year insurgency.
Why would the terrorists change British policy ?
The only British policy that might/should change is allowing Muslim immigrants into UK. May be Britain should stop giving permanent residency to Muslims from Pakistan and certain other countries. I do not see any point in allowing uneducated/rural/conservative Pakistanis into UK. It might happen if someone in the Pakistani community in Britain provided logistical support for the London bombings.
`` Deploying troops in Afghanistan may not be a bad idea. That is the country that actually had Al-Qaeda connections. Pakistan has 170,000 troops on the border there. That is also the country, where 200 billion dollars would have done wonders. Instead of wasting it on an unnecessary war in Iraq. Afghanistan, so far, I believe has gotten only $5 billion or so...........The other big mistake made there was that Taliban was replaced with Northern Alliance (who are equally bad)........``
Why are the Northern Alliance bad ? They are certainly bad apples among them. They clearly represent Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks and Turkmens who are 50% of the population.
They have enough gray matter not to give Osama assylum. For a change they are not clamoring to return to the stone ages.
`` I thought that for a while. But, seeing the events, no longer think so. If the US/UK forces stay in Iraq, Iraq is doomed. Just look at what is happening. 30 people killed, in London type attacks, every day. It is a huge mess. How much worse could it get? ``
15 out of 19 provinces in Iraq are quiet. The four Sunni dominated provinces are in turmoil.
Iraq is not doomed. If Americans trains the Shites the Shites could boss the Sunnis the way Saddam did. But then the Shites might turn around and kick out the Americans.
`` If the US/UK leave, and hand it over to the UN leadership, then things may still go to hell. But they may improve, also. At that point, Muslim countries, like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and more importantly Arab countries like Egypt etc. will be ready to send in their forces as peacekeepers. Pakistan has one of the largest UN contingents active in the world, today.``
No amount of Muslim peacekeepers will prevent the Shite dominance of Iraq. Why would the Shites want peacekeepers when they have the oil money to build their own army. I do not expect 50,000 plus Kurdish militiamen to look kindly to arrival of Pakistani or Arab peacekeepers.
`` I really don`t see how USA/UK can, ``finish the job.`` It is beyond them. I always knew it would be beyond them. There own populations are against it, now. And I don`t even think they have the same interests as the Iraqis. For example, the USA wants to establish military bases there and privatize the oil industry and ensure that Iraq does not get close to Iran. Three things, the Iraqis would always oppose...........``
I doubt Iraqi oil industry will ever be privsatized. Once the memories of Saddam fades Iraq and Iran will be at each other throats competing for influence in a couple of decades. Nothing will change that.
`` You are correct. However, the secret defence dept. memo was leaked, one day after the bombing. Such important memos are never leaked. So one would have to assume the leakage was deliberate, i.e. Blair was letting his public know that he was going to listen to them. And letting the terrorists know that he is withdrawing troops, hence they should not target London again.......... ``
The Brits survived Hitler`s blitzkrieg. They wore down the IRA in a 20 year insurgency.
Why would the terrorists change British policy ?
The only British policy that might/should change is allowing Muslim immigrants into UK. May be Britain should stop giving permanent residency to Muslims from Pakistan and certain other countries. I do not see any point in allowing uneducated/rural/conservative Pakistanis into UK. It might happen if someone in the Pakistani community in Britain provided logistical support for the London bombings.
`` Deploying troops in Afghanistan may not be a bad idea. That is the country that actually had Al-Qaeda connections. Pakistan has 170,000 troops on the border there. That is also the country, where 200 billion dollars would have done wonders. Instead of wasting it on an unnecessary war in Iraq. Afghanistan, so far, I believe has gotten only $5 billion or so...........The other big mistake made there was that Taliban was replaced with Northern Alliance (who are equally bad)........``
Why are the Northern Alliance bad ? They are certainly bad apples among them. They clearly represent Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks and Turkmens who are 50% of the population.
They have enough gray matter not to give Osama assylum. For a change they are not clamoring to return to the stone ages.
`` I thought that for a while. But, seeing the events, no longer think so. If the US/UK forces stay in Iraq, Iraq is doomed. Just look at what is happening. 30 people killed, in London type attacks, every day. It is a huge mess. How much worse could it get? ``
15 out of 19 provinces in Iraq are quiet. The four Sunni dominated provinces are in turmoil.
Iraq is not doomed. If Americans trains the Shites the Shites could boss the Sunnis the way Saddam did. But then the Shites might turn around and kick out the Americans.
`` If the US/UK leave, and hand it over to the UN leadership, then things may still go to hell. But they may improve, also. At that point, Muslim countries, like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and more importantly Arab countries like Egypt etc. will be ready to send in their forces as peacekeepers. Pakistan has one of the largest UN contingents active in the world, today.``
No amount of Muslim peacekeepers will prevent the Shite dominance of Iraq. Why would the Shites want peacekeepers when they have the oil money to build their own army. I do not expect 50,000 plus Kurdish militiamen to look kindly to arrival of Pakistani or Arab peacekeepers.
`` I really don`t see how USA/UK can, ``finish the job.`` It is beyond them. I always knew it would be beyond them. There own populations are against it, now. And I don`t even think they have the same interests as the Iraqis. For example, the USA wants to establish military bases there and privatize the oil industry and ensure that Iraq does not get close to Iran. Three things, the Iraqis would always oppose...........``
I doubt Iraqi oil industry will ever be privsatized. Once the memories of Saddam fades Iraq and Iran will be at each other throats competing for influence in a couple of decades. Nothing will change that.
#124 Posted by Romair on July 12, 2005 7:34:33 am
correction #119: Following was a misprint I just noticed:
``2. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world
3. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world
4. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world``
should be
2. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world
3. Are Muslims killing more Jews, or are Jews killing more Muslims in today`s world
4. Are Muslims killing more Christians, or are Christians killing more Muslims in today`s world
``2. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world
3. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world
4. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world``
should be
2. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world
3. Are Muslims killing more Jews, or are Jews killing more Muslims in today`s world
4. Are Muslims killing more Christians, or are Christians killing more Muslims in today`s world
#123 Posted by hindvi on July 12, 2005 7:25:23 am
Ley de ke faqad tareekh mein tumhe bas itna yaad hai
alamgeer zalim tha, sitamgar tha hindu kush tha
alamgeer zalim tha, sitamgar tha hindu kush tha
#122 Posted by dost_mittar on July 12, 2005 5:35:22 am
ranjit#121:
Your analysis about Muslims does not bear evidence on the Indian subcontinent.
-Most Muslim rulers did not forcible convert Hindus.
-After the armed conflict was over and the Hindus accepted a secondary status, they were allowed to practice their religion more or less freely, including their caste practices.
- Hindus were allowed to reach positions of prominence under Muslim rule.
-Once the Hindu Rajas accepted Mughal suzereignty, they were left to their own devices and could pretty much do what they wanted.
-No Muslim is trying to convert Hindus in India today or has tried to do so in an active manner; it is actually Christians who are doing so.
Romair#119
You have asked what are called loaded questions. The best way to answer such questions is to ask a series of similar questions. So, here are some questions for you:
- Which religion divides the world into two camps, theirs of peace and the rest where a war is to be waged?
- Which religion tells its adherents that it is their religious duty to wage a violent jihad?
- Which religion tells its people to kill anyone who insults their holy book or their prophet?
- Which religion says that after the enemy is defeated its halal to kill non-combatants, turn them into slaves?
- Which religion says that it is halal to turn women of the defeated people into their sex slaves?
- Adherents of which religion are running training camps teaching people how to kill and blow bombs in other countries?
- Adherents of which religion are killing/dying for people of other countries simply because they have the same religion?
- Which religion encourages people to wage war against the country that feeds, nurtures and protects them?
As for Hindus and Muslims in the context of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh:
- In which country has the minority population dwindled?
- In which country has it increased absolutely and relatively?
- In which country are the people of the minority religion entering from another country illegally and settling down in tens of millions?
- In which country has the minority population reduced from a position of power and commanding heights to one which is almost invisible and inaudible?
- Which country has its head of state, head of executive, head of army, its most powerful politician and its most successful businessman from a minority?
- In which country has the minority the power to force the government of the day to reverse the decision of its supreme court judges by passing special legislation?
- In which country are the places of worship of minority multiplying and in which country they are hard to find?
- In which country do the minorities not dare to even squeal?
- In which country do the minorities dare to even start riots, kill the members of majority or to drive them away from an area?
- Which country has scores of political parties belonging to minority many of whom are quite militant and strident?
When you have answered the above questions, I have another list ready.
Your analysis about Muslims does not bear evidence on the Indian subcontinent.
-Most Muslim rulers did not forcible convert Hindus.
-After the armed conflict was over and the Hindus accepted a secondary status, they were allowed to practice their religion more or less freely, including their caste practices.
- Hindus were allowed to reach positions of prominence under Muslim rule.
-Once the Hindu Rajas accepted Mughal suzereignty, they were left to their own devices and could pretty much do what they wanted.
-No Muslim is trying to convert Hindus in India today or has tried to do so in an active manner; it is actually Christians who are doing so.
Romair#119
You have asked what are called loaded questions. The best way to answer such questions is to ask a series of similar questions. So, here are some questions for you:
- Which religion divides the world into two camps, theirs of peace and the rest where a war is to be waged?
- Which religion tells its adherents that it is their religious duty to wage a violent jihad?
- Which religion tells its people to kill anyone who insults their holy book or their prophet?
- Which religion says that after the enemy is defeated its halal to kill non-combatants, turn them into slaves?
- Which religion says that it is halal to turn women of the defeated people into their sex slaves?
- Adherents of which religion are running training camps teaching people how to kill and blow bombs in other countries?
- Adherents of which religion are killing/dying for people of other countries simply because they have the same religion?
- Which religion encourages people to wage war against the country that feeds, nurtures and protects them?
As for Hindus and Muslims in the context of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh:
- In which country has the minority population dwindled?
- In which country has it increased absolutely and relatively?
- In which country are the people of the minority religion entering from another country illegally and settling down in tens of millions?
- In which country has the minority population reduced from a position of power and commanding heights to one which is almost invisible and inaudible?
- Which country has its head of state, head of executive, head of army, its most powerful politician and its most successful businessman from a minority?
- In which country has the minority the power to force the government of the day to reverse the decision of its supreme court judges by passing special legislation?
- In which country are the places of worship of minority multiplying and in which country they are hard to find?
- In which country do the minorities not dare to even squeal?
- In which country do the minorities dare to even start riots, kill the members of majority or to drive them away from an area?
- Which country has scores of political parties belonging to minority many of whom are quite militant and strident?
When you have answered the above questions, I have another list ready.
#121 Posted by Ranjit on July 11, 2005 11:44:04 pm
Re:anil#117
You are deluding yourself by imagining that Islam is like any other religion and muslims are just like hindus or christians. This is the biggest mistake that we non-muslims make. We do not understand that by its nature, Islam is a militant religion, a proselytizing ideology that does not believe in coexistence. It has only one objective, which is to assimilate either by conversion or elimination. Wherever this ideology encounters non-muslims, its only reaction is to use force or indulge in conflict, with the objective of bringig these non-muslims into the fold. The confrontation may be highly overt as in India or covert as it is in the west, where it is slowly but surely undermining western civilization.
Romair talks about muslims not oppressing hindus or jews. That is sophistry par excellence. How can they suppress minorities, when muslims do not allow minorities to exist at all? Pakistan has been ethnically cleansed of hindus, so of course, muslims do not ``occupy`` hindus. If India kills or expels all Kashmiri muslims, then naturally we will also not ``occupy`` anyone.
Muslims have a very cunning three pronged strategy. Wherever they go, their option 1 is to conquer the whole place, upon which they wipe out minorities and make it an islamic nation. They did that in places like Iran and other muslim nations. When they are unable to wipe out or convert non-muslims, they go for option 2, which is to ask for partitions like they did in India and Yugoslavia. The objective is to take as much land for Islam as is possible. But yet that is not enough. They treat their newly acquired territory as a launch pad and continue the fight to gain more land, expand borders and/or send in infiltratros to wreak havoc and change demographics. If they are unable to accumulate a critical mass, muslims go for option 3, which is to indulge in mindless violence and terrorism. This is what you are seeing in US, Europe and present day India, where muslims are not able to change the demographics.
The underlying thread in all of this is that muslims NEVER give up. Their fight against non-muslims is an eternal war that may wax or wane but will never end. At every frontier between muslims and non-muslims, there is conflict. Muslims will never accept status quo anywhere. For instance, the reality is that in the Indian subcontinent, if muslims sign-off on the status quo with some minor changes, we can have lasting peace. But it will never happen.
You are deluding yourself by imagining that Islam is like any other religion and muslims are just like hindus or christians. This is the biggest mistake that we non-muslims make. We do not understand that by its nature, Islam is a militant religion, a proselytizing ideology that does not believe in coexistence. It has only one objective, which is to assimilate either by conversion or elimination. Wherever this ideology encounters non-muslims, its only reaction is to use force or indulge in conflict, with the objective of bringig these non-muslims into the fold. The confrontation may be highly overt as in India or covert as it is in the west, where it is slowly but surely undermining western civilization.
Romair talks about muslims not oppressing hindus or jews. That is sophistry par excellence. How can they suppress minorities, when muslims do not allow minorities to exist at all? Pakistan has been ethnically cleansed of hindus, so of course, muslims do not ``occupy`` hindus. If India kills or expels all Kashmiri muslims, then naturally we will also not ``occupy`` anyone.
Muslims have a very cunning three pronged strategy. Wherever they go, their option 1 is to conquer the whole place, upon which they wipe out minorities and make it an islamic nation. They did that in places like Iran and other muslim nations. When they are unable to wipe out or convert non-muslims, they go for option 2, which is to ask for partitions like they did in India and Yugoslavia. The objective is to take as much land for Islam as is possible. But yet that is not enough. They treat their newly acquired territory as a launch pad and continue the fight to gain more land, expand borders and/or send in infiltratros to wreak havoc and change demographics. If they are unable to accumulate a critical mass, muslims go for option 3, which is to indulge in mindless violence and terrorism. This is what you are seeing in US, Europe and present day India, where muslims are not able to change the demographics.
The underlying thread in all of this is that muslims NEVER give up. Their fight against non-muslims is an eternal war that may wax or wane but will never end. At every frontier between muslims and non-muslims, there is conflict. Muslims will never accept status quo anywhere. For instance, the reality is that in the Indian subcontinent, if muslims sign-off on the status quo with some minor changes, we can have lasting peace. But it will never happen.
#120 Posted by anil on July 11, 2005 11:31:28 pm
Re: # 119
Romair:
As rule I do not go into statistics, but you were nice enough to no drag State Terrorism I would certainly answer give from the binary answers. Just let me know the period / duration you want to cover and why you want to cover only that period, so that I can give you the binary answers.
I do hope , binary answers and statistics by nature are quite opposite, of each other... one is so precise to be restricted to be one or the other, while the other is all about predicting for a larger group and larger situations from small numbers.
Anil
Romair:
As rule I do not go into statistics, but you were nice enough to no drag State Terrorism I would certainly answer give from the binary answers. Just let me know the period / duration you want to cover and why you want to cover only that period, so that I can give you the binary answers.
I do hope , binary answers and statistics by nature are quite opposite, of each other... one is so precise to be restricted to be one or the other, while the other is all about predicting for a larger group and larger situations from small numbers.
Anil
#119 Posted by Romair on July 11, 2005 9:11:22 pm
Anil #117: Imagine you are from Mars and do not have a religion or nationality. And have never watched US or India or any other media. You are viewing the earth for the first time, as a Martian, and collecting statistics. Could you kindly provide simple one word or numerical answers to the following questions. I have the exact statistics, but I think it is important you think over them, yourself.......
1. Members of which relgion, in today`s world, produce the most suicide bombers?
2. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world
3. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world
4. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world
5. Is there any piece of land occupied by Muslims, against the wishes of its Jewish inhabitants
6. Is there any piece of land occupeid by Muslims, agaisnt the wishes of its Christain inhabitants
7. Is there any piece of land occupied by Muslims, against the wishes of its Hindu inhabitants
8. Is there any piece of land occupied by Jews, against the wishes of its Muslim inhabitants
9. Is there any piece of land occupeid by Christians, agaisnt the wishes of its Muslims inhabitants
10. Is there any piece of land occupied by Hindus, against the wishes of its Muslims inhabitants
Could I request you to kindly provide one word, and Yes/No answers. Once we have your answers, we can debate them in a later reply, where we can discuss reasonings. But for the time being, I would request you to just look at these as statistics.........
1. Members of which relgion, in today`s world, produce the most suicide bombers?
2. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world
3. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world
4. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world
5. Is there any piece of land occupied by Muslims, against the wishes of its Jewish inhabitants
6. Is there any piece of land occupeid by Muslims, agaisnt the wishes of its Christain inhabitants
7. Is there any piece of land occupied by Muslims, against the wishes of its Hindu inhabitants
8. Is there any piece of land occupied by Jews, against the wishes of its Muslim inhabitants
9. Is there any piece of land occupeid by Christians, agaisnt the wishes of its Muslims inhabitants
10. Is there any piece of land occupied by Hindus, against the wishes of its Muslims inhabitants
Could I request you to kindly provide one word, and Yes/No answers. Once we have your answers, we can debate them in a later reply, where we can discuss reasonings. But for the time being, I would request you to just look at these as statistics.........
#118 Posted by KaalChakra on July 11, 2005 4:08:09 pm
re: temporal # 110
Yes, but why does the engine never get engaged long enough for any real distance to be covered forward? Normally, one would think it was time to take the gaddi to a professional mechanic. Or better, get a more effective contraption.
Yes, but why does the engine never get engaged long enough for any real distance to be covered forward? Normally, one would think it was time to take the gaddi to a professional mechanic. Or better, get a more effective contraption.
#117 Posted by anil on July 11, 2005 1:22:29 pm
Re: # 106
Romair:
You indeed have a point regarding the Fatwa at an individual level.
However, don`t you think that Islam is more organized and institutionalized religion, and therefore, where are reformed Islamic institutions?
Can there not be reformed / liberal leaders of mosque or movements to counter Al-Qaidaism and Binladinism?
Can there not be madarasas which teach peaceful part of Islam and not the hate this or hate that and violence under such circumstances are justified, as probably propogated by Al-Qaida, Binladin etc...?
Can there not be Islamic media which opens debates and vigorously brings forward liberal, and cultural thoughts of Islam?
Can there not be the media which even more forcefully opposes the violent as preached and practiced in the name of Islam by Al-Qaida / Binladin?
Even in the darkness of South, to oppose KKK - christianity connection, such institutions were very quickly created and rapidly evolved into regligious counter balance and civil rights movements.
Can there not be Islamic institutions which seek and promote commonality with, rather than exclusion of non-Islamic thoughts, after all there are more humans live while believing in non-Islamic thoughts to run their lives every day?
Above institutions emerge out of evolutionary processes and take their own time and need sustained and committed support from within.
When I visit and look at the marvels of Islamic buildings in Istanbul, and Taj Mahal in Agra I see beauty, I see excellence, I see creativity that I want to enjoy and admire.
When I go to the mosque built on the site of old Vishwanath Temple in Varanasi and see defaced figurines surrounding the mosque`s walls. And then, when I turn around, I see the new Vishwanath Temple humming with followers. I see an uneasy yet peaceful co-existence.
This sight brings two thoughts in my mind.
One is about peaceful co-existence of Hinduism that co-exist with the ugly side of Islam.
Alongwith it I ponder why the Islam cannot be what I see in Agra or in Istanbul and ask where are the Islamic institutions to do this? Where?
The second thought is why are there hardly any examples of peaceful co-existence of Islam with the ugly side of other religious thoughts?
After all Islam is also in the minds of humans who believe in it, for a purpose. Whatever that purpose may be - like each to its own. Accepting peaceful co-existence of ugly side of other religious thoughts is very important part of human reality and existence.
I cannot stop but wonder, does Islam controls the mind, or mind controls Islam? I start to question if there is something that I am missing!!!!
Thank you.
Anil Kapuria
Romair:
You indeed have a point regarding the Fatwa at an individual level.
However, don`t you think that Islam is more organized and institutionalized religion, and therefore, where are reformed Islamic institutions?
Can there not be reformed / liberal leaders of mosque or movements to counter Al-Qaidaism and Binladinism?
Can there not be madarasas which teach peaceful part of Islam and not the hate this or hate that and violence under such circumstances are justified, as probably propogated by Al-Qaida, Binladin etc...?
Can there not be Islamic media which opens debates and vigorously brings forward liberal, and cultural thoughts of Islam?
Can there not be the media which even more forcefully opposes the violent as preached and practiced in the name of Islam by Al-Qaida / Binladin?
Even in the darkness of South, to oppose KKK - christianity connection, such institutions were very quickly created and rapidly evolved into regligious counter balance and civil rights movements.
Can there not be Islamic institutions which seek and promote commonality with, rather than exclusion of non-Islamic thoughts, after all there are more humans live while believing in non-Islamic thoughts to run their lives every day?
Above institutions emerge out of evolutionary processes and take their own time and need sustained and committed support from within.
When I visit and look at the marvels of Islamic buildings in Istanbul, and Taj Mahal in Agra I see beauty, I see excellence, I see creativity that I want to enjoy and admire.
When I go to the mosque built on the site of old Vishwanath Temple in Varanasi and see defaced figurines surrounding the mosque`s walls. And then, when I turn around, I see the new Vishwanath Temple humming with followers. I see an uneasy yet peaceful co-existence.
This sight brings two thoughts in my mind.
One is about peaceful co-existence of Hinduism that co-exist with the ugly side of Islam.
Alongwith it I ponder why the Islam cannot be what I see in Agra or in Istanbul and ask where are the Islamic institutions to do this? Where?
The second thought is why are there hardly any examples of peaceful co-existence of Islam with the ugly side of other religious thoughts?
After all Islam is also in the minds of humans who believe in it, for a purpose. Whatever that purpose may be - like each to its own. Accepting peaceful co-existence of ugly side of other religious thoughts is very important part of human reality and existence.
I cannot stop but wonder, does Islam controls the mind, or mind controls Islam? I start to question if there is something that I am missing!!!!
Thank you.
Anil Kapuria
#116 Posted by hamidm2 on July 11, 2005 9:19:26 am
romair mian,
``This is not meant to imply that the Taliban should have been allowed to stay. They should have been kicked out`` ....
.............so you do agree that the US was right in ``kicking out`` one set of rouges - how did you come to that conclusion and why was saddam different ? ........... who decides which bad guys to take out and which ones to leave alone ? .......... are you gong to take on that responsibility?....... if so, then please write to the white house offering your services - i am sure they could use a smart guy like you to help them make these difficut decisions ............
``This is not meant to imply that the Taliban should have been allowed to stay. They should have been kicked out`` ....
.............so you do agree that the US was right in ``kicking out`` one set of rouges - how did you come to that conclusion and why was saddam different ? ........... who decides which bad guys to take out and which ones to leave alone ? .......... are you gong to take on that responsibility?....... if so, then please write to the white house offering your services - i am sure they could use a smart guy like you to help them make these difficut decisions ............
#115 Posted by Romair on July 11, 2005 8:25:07 am
Dost-mittar: Since you have the tendency to misunderstand my comments, as well, following is a clarification :-)
``The other big mistake made there was that Taliban was replaced with Northern Alliance (who are equally bad)........``
This is not meant to imply that the Taliban should have been allowed to stay. They should have been kicked out. It implies that the Taliban should have been replaced by an entity, other than the Northern Alliance (which according to the RAWA and others, is extremely bad, also).
Also to satisfy you (and Anil), even furthur :-)
- I am neither a card-carrying member of the Taliban, nor do I aspire to their ideology
- I am not related to Mullah Umar, even though are names are strikingly similar
- I do not consider the Taliban a just representative of political, social or any other kind of Islam
- While I am vehemently agaisnt, ``guilt by religious association,`` I do acknowledge that Pakistan had a large part in creating the Taliban and screwing up Afghanistan (though it has helped Afghan refugess more than any other country). Hence, while you will not be able to get me to take responsibility for the attacks in Europe. I may be willing to take some responsibility, as a Pakistani, for the Taliban. And hence can initiate a march on University Avenue, in downtown Toronto, if you like
- I denounce the actions of Taliban (and Northern Alliance, for that matter), regardless of any part Bush, Blair, Churchill, Chriac, Chretien, Benazir, Maulana Fazl, Zbegnew Brehzensky, Ghauri, Ghaznavi, Ashoka, and/or Alexander may have played in their creation.............
``The other big mistake made there was that Taliban was replaced with Northern Alliance (who are equally bad)........``
This is not meant to imply that the Taliban should have been allowed to stay. They should have been kicked out. It implies that the Taliban should have been replaced by an entity, other than the Northern Alliance (which according to the RAWA and others, is extremely bad, also).
Also to satisfy you (and Anil), even furthur :-)
- I am neither a card-carrying member of the Taliban, nor do I aspire to their ideology
- I am not related to Mullah Umar, even though are names are strikingly similar
- I do not consider the Taliban a just representative of political, social or any other kind of Islam
- While I am vehemently agaisnt, ``guilt by religious association,`` I do acknowledge that Pakistan had a large part in creating the Taliban and screwing up Afghanistan (though it has helped Afghan refugess more than any other country). Hence, while you will not be able to get me to take responsibility for the attacks in Europe. I may be willing to take some responsibility, as a Pakistani, for the Taliban. And hence can initiate a march on University Avenue, in downtown Toronto, if you like
- I denounce the actions of Taliban (and Northern Alliance, for that matter), regardless of any part Bush, Blair, Churchill, Chriac, Chretien, Benazir, Maulana Fazl, Zbegnew Brehzensky, Ghauri, Ghaznavi, Ashoka, and/or Alexander may have played in their creation.............
#114 Posted by Romair on July 11, 2005 8:06:14 am
Dost-mittar #113: ``Good to know this.``
I am truly surprised, that you would think that I ever thought otherwise. If that is the case, then I am afraid much of what I have been arguing may have been misunderstood by you..........
``That decision had been taken two months ago and not linked to last week`s bombings.``
You are correct. However, the secret defence dept. memo was leaked, one day after the bombing. Such important memos are never leaked. So one would have to assume the leakage was deliberate, i.e. Blair was letting his public know that he was going to listen to them. And letting the terrorists know that he is withdrawing troops, hence they should not target London again..........
``But the idea is not to bring them back to Britain but to redeploy them in Afghanistan.``
Deploying troops in Afghanistan may not be a bad idea. That is the country that actually had Al-Qaeda connections. Pakistan has 170,000 troops on the border there. That is also the country, where 200 billion dollars would have done wonders. Instead of wasting it on an unnecessary war in Iraq. Afghanistan, so far, I believe has gotten only $5 billion or so...........The other big mistake made there was that Taliban was replaced with Northern Alliance (who are equally bad)........
``As for cool heads to analyze this, I think that it would be highly irresponsible for Bush-Blair to cut their losses and run from Iraq now.``
I thought that for a while. But, seeing the events, no longer think so. If the US/UK forces stay in Iraq, Iraq is doomed. Just look at what is happening. 30 people killed, in London type attacks, every day. It is a huge mess. How much worse could it get?
If the US/UK leave, and hand it over to the UN leadership, then things may still go to hell. But they may improve, also. At that point, Muslim countries, like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and more importantly Arab countries like Egypt etc. will be ready to send in their forces as peacekeepers. Pakistan has one of the largest UN contingents active in the world, today.
In addition, the bombers may stop targeting police recruits etc. Since they will not view them as collaborators. Also, the support for the insurgents amongst common Iraqis will die down, since their will be no more occupied...........
I really don`t see how USA/UK can, ``finish the job.`` It is beyond them. I always knew it would be beyond them. There own populations are against it, now. And I don`t even think they have the same interests as the Iraqis. For example, the USA wants to establish military bases there and privatize the oil industry and ensure that Iraq does not get close to Iran. Three things, the Iraqis would always oppose...........
I am truly surprised, that you would think that I ever thought otherwise. If that is the case, then I am afraid much of what I have been arguing may have been misunderstood by you..........
``That decision had been taken two months ago and not linked to last week`s bombings.``
You are correct. However, the secret defence dept. memo was leaked, one day after the bombing. Such important memos are never leaked. So one would have to assume the leakage was deliberate, i.e. Blair was letting his public know that he was going to listen to them. And letting the terrorists know that he is withdrawing troops, hence they should not target London again..........
``But the idea is not to bring them back to Britain but to redeploy them in Afghanistan.``
Deploying troops in Afghanistan may not be a bad idea. That is the country that actually had Al-Qaeda connections. Pakistan has 170,000 troops on the border there. That is also the country, where 200 billion dollars would have done wonders. Instead of wasting it on an unnecessary war in Iraq. Afghanistan, so far, I believe has gotten only $5 billion or so...........The other big mistake made there was that Taliban was replaced with Northern Alliance (who are equally bad)........
``As for cool heads to analyze this, I think that it would be highly irresponsible for Bush-Blair to cut their losses and run from Iraq now.``
I thought that for a while. But, seeing the events, no longer think so. If the US/UK forces stay in Iraq, Iraq is doomed. Just look at what is happening. 30 people killed, in London type attacks, every day. It is a huge mess. How much worse could it get?
If the US/UK leave, and hand it over to the UN leadership, then things may still go to hell. But they may improve, also. At that point, Muslim countries, like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and more importantly Arab countries like Egypt etc. will be ready to send in their forces as peacekeepers. Pakistan has one of the largest UN contingents active in the world, today.
In addition, the bombers may stop targeting police recruits etc. Since they will not view them as collaborators. Also, the support for the insurgents amongst common Iraqis will die down, since their will be no more occupied...........
I really don`t see how USA/UK can, ``finish the job.`` It is beyond them. I always knew it would be beyond them. There own populations are against it, now. And I don`t even think they have the same interests as the Iraqis. For example, the USA wants to establish military bases there and privatize the oil industry and ensure that Iraq does not get close to Iran. Three things, the Iraqis would always oppose...........
#113 Posted by dost_mittar on July 11, 2005 4:35:43 am
Romair#105:
``Not at all. I condemn them with or without Bush.``
Good to know this.
``People need cool heads to analyze this. There is far too much rhetoric and emotionalism, on both sides. What I have suggested as a solution, is already happening. UK is considering withdrawing troops from Iraq. It is good to see some sanity..........``
That decision had been taken two months ago and not linked to last week`s bombings. The idea is to replace them with Iraqi troops. But the idea is not to bring them back to Britain but to redeploy them in Afghanistan.
As for cool heads to analyze this, I think that it would be highly irresponsible for Bush-Blair to cut their losses and run from Iraq now. They have destroyed the state of Iraq and has plunged it into a civil war. It is their moral responsiblility to leave it only after it has a stable government of a united country. Withdrawal at this stage might serve the purpose of those who want to cut a strong Arab state into three squabbling countries, but it does not serve the people of Iraq or even Arabs.
``Not at all. I condemn them with or without Bush.``
Good to know this.
``People need cool heads to analyze this. There is far too much rhetoric and emotionalism, on both sides. What I have suggested as a solution, is already happening. UK is considering withdrawing troops from Iraq. It is good to see some sanity..........``
That decision had been taken two months ago and not linked to last week`s bombings. The idea is to replace them with Iraqi troops. But the idea is not to bring them back to Britain but to redeploy them in Afghanistan.
As for cool heads to analyze this, I think that it would be highly irresponsible for Bush-Blair to cut their losses and run from Iraq now. They have destroyed the state of Iraq and has plunged it into a civil war. It is their moral responsiblility to leave it only after it has a stable government of a united country. Withdrawal at this stage might serve the purpose of those who want to cut a strong Arab state into three squabbling countries, but it does not serve the people of Iraq or even Arabs.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- masadi: And for the 1000th... Why is Karachi Turning
- masadi: In the right wing... Why is Karachi Turning
- masadi: Btw, no present day... Why is Karachi Turning
- masadi: tahmed writes "now i... Dhokha and Being a
- masadi: #348 laddu writes "Re:... Dhokha and Being a
- pakistan3: Re: # 90 Tahir, Your post... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- masadi: Anil don't hide behind... Why is Karachi Turning
- peonofthewest: masadi saab, howcome they... Dhokha and Being a
