Girls Gone Wild
If I had written what you did, you would have jumped on me! Tahmed32 is an example of a hyper-sensitive soft Islamist. He can brook no criticism, and his frequent response to any criticism is to question the nationality (usually Indian in his case) of the interactor. Here is a piece that draws on your line of reasoning. Much as I dislike cut and paste jobs, I could not really post a link in this case. This is an article from the The Wall Street Journal (subscription only) written by a former terrorist from Indonesia:
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE, APRIL 3, 2007
COMMENTARY
The Trouble With Islam
By TAWFIK HAMID
April 3, 2007; Page A15
Not many years ago the brilliant Orientalist, Bernard Lewis, published a short history of the Islamic world’s decline, entitled ``What Went Wrong?`` Astonishingly, there was, among many Western ``progressives,`` a vocal dislike for the title. It is a false premise, these critics protested. They ignored Mr. Lewis’s implicit statement that things have been, or could be, right.
But indeed, there is much that is clearly wrong with the Islamic world. Women are stoned to death and undergo clitorectomies. Gays hang from the gallows under the approving eyes of the proponents of Shariah, the legal code of Islam. Sunni and Shia massacre each other daily in Iraq. Palestinian mothers teach 3-year-old boys and girls the ideal of martyrdom. One would expect the orthodox Islamic establishment to evade or dismiss these complaints, but less happily, the non-Muslim priests of enlightenment in the West have come, actively and passively, to the Islamists’ defense.
These ``progressives`` frequently cite the need to examine ``root causes.`` In this they are correct: Terrorism is only the manifestation of a disease and not the disease itself. But the root-causes are quite different from what they think. As a former member of Jemaah Islamiya, a group led by al Qaeda’s second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, I know firsthand that the inhumane teaching in Islamist ideology can transform a young, benevolent mind into that of a terrorist. Without confronting the ideological roots of radical Islam it will be impossible to combat it. While there are many ideological ``rootlets`` of Islamism, the main tap root has a name -- Salafism, or Salafi Islam, a violent, ultra-conservative version of the religion.
It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the ``end of days.`` The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong.
The grave predicament we face in the Islamic world is the virtual lack of approved, theologically rigorous interpretations of Islam that clearly challenge the abusive aspects of Shariah. Unlike Salafism, more liberal branches of Islam, such as Sufism, typically do not provide the essential theological base to nullify the cruel proclamations of their Salafist counterparts. And so, for more than 20 years I have been developing and working to establish a theologically-rigorous Islam that teaches peace.
Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western intellectuals -- who unceasingly claim to support human rights -- have become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah’s inhumanity. They find socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel. What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western ``progressives`` pave the way for Islamist barbarity? Indeed, if the problem is not one of religious beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.
Politicians and scholars in the West have taken up the chant that Islamic extremism is caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. This analysis cannot convince any rational person that the Islamist murder of over 150,000 innocent people in Algeria -- which happened in the last few decades -- or their slaying of hundreds of Buddhists in Thailand, or the brutal violence between Sunni and Shia in Iraq could have anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Western feminists duly fight in their home countries for equal pay and opportunity, but seemingly ignore, under a façade of cultural relativism, that large numbers of women in the Islamic world live under threat of beating, execution and genital mutilation, or cannot vote, drive cars and dress as they please.
The tendency of many Westerners to restrict themselves to self-criticism further obstructs reformation in Islam. Americans demonstrate against the war in Iraq, yet decline to demonstrate against the terrorists who kidnap innocent people and behead them. Similarly, after the Madrid train bombings, millions of Spanish citizens demonstrated against their separatist organization, ETA. But once the demonstrators realized that Muslims were behind the terror attacks they suspended the demonstrations. This example sent a message to radical Islamists to continue their violent methods.
Western appeasement of their Muslim communities has exacerbated the problem. During the four-month period after the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in a Danish magazine, there were comparatively few violent demonstrations by Muslims. Within a few days of the Danish magazine’s formal apology, riots erupted throughout the world. The apology had been perceived by Islamists as weakness and concession.
Worst of all, perhaps, is the anti-Americanism among many Westerners. It is a resentment so strong, so deep-seated, so rooted in personal identity, that it has led many, consciously or unconsciously, to morally support America’s enemies.
Progressives need to realize that radical Islam is based on an antiliberal system. They need to awaken to the inhumane policies and practices of Islamists around the world. They need to realize that Islamism spells the death of liberal values. And they must not take for granted the respect for human rights and dignity that we experience in America, and indeed, the West, today.
Well-meaning interfaith dialogues with Muslims have largely been fruitless. Participants must demand -- but so far haven’t -- that Muslim organizations and scholars specifically and unambiguously denounce violent Salafi components in their mosques and in the media. Muslims who do not vocally oppose brutal Shariah decrees should not be considered ``moderates.``
All of this makes the efforts of Muslim reformers more difficult. When Westerners make politically-correct excuses for Islamism, it actually endangers the lives of reformers and in many cases has the effect of suppressing their voices.
Tolerance does not mean toleration of atrocities under the umbrella of relativism. It is time for all of us in the free world to face the reality of Salafi Islam or the reality of radical Islam will continue to face us.
Dr. Hamid, a onetime member of Jemaah Islamiya, an Islamist terrorist group, is a medical doctor and Muslim reformer living in the West.
Dr. Hamid (and Bernard Lewis) are not alone in his assessment. Check out what Robert Spencer has been writing in
`The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World`s Most Intolerant Religion`.
Posted by
PewResearch
Apr 4, 2007 05:19 am
Re: # 191 Hamidm2If I had written what you did, you would have jumped on me! Tahmed32 is an example of a hyper-sensitive soft Islamist. He can brook no criticism, and his frequent response to any criticism is to question the nationality (usually Indian in his case) of the interactor. Here is a piece that draws on your line of reasoning. Much as I dislike cut and paste jobs, I could not really post a link in this case. This is an article from the The Wall Street Journal (subscription only) written by a former terrorist from Indonesia:
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE, APRIL 3, 2007
COMMENTARY
The Trouble With Islam
By TAWFIK HAMID
April 3, 2007; Page A15
Not many years ago the brilliant Orientalist, Bernard Lewis, published a short history of the Islamic world’s decline, entitled ``What Went Wrong?`` Astonishingly, there was, among many Western ``progressives,`` a vocal dislike for the title. It is a false premise, these critics protested. They ignored Mr. Lewis’s implicit statement that things have been, or could be, right.
But indeed, there is much that is clearly wrong with the Islamic world. Women are stoned to death and undergo clitorectomies. Gays hang from the gallows under the approving eyes of the proponents of Shariah, the legal code of Islam. Sunni and Shia massacre each other daily in Iraq. Palestinian mothers teach 3-year-old boys and girls the ideal of martyrdom. One would expect the orthodox Islamic establishment to evade or dismiss these complaints, but less happily, the non-Muslim priests of enlightenment in the West have come, actively and passively, to the Islamists’ defense.
These ``progressives`` frequently cite the need to examine ``root causes.`` In this they are correct: Terrorism is only the manifestation of a disease and not the disease itself. But the root-causes are quite different from what they think. As a former member of Jemaah Islamiya, a group led by al Qaeda’s second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, I know firsthand that the inhumane teaching in Islamist ideology can transform a young, benevolent mind into that of a terrorist. Without confronting the ideological roots of radical Islam it will be impossible to combat it. While there are many ideological ``rootlets`` of Islamism, the main tap root has a name -- Salafism, or Salafi Islam, a violent, ultra-conservative version of the religion.
It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the ``end of days.`` The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong.
The grave predicament we face in the Islamic world is the virtual lack of approved, theologically rigorous interpretations of Islam that clearly challenge the abusive aspects of Shariah. Unlike Salafism, more liberal branches of Islam, such as Sufism, typically do not provide the essential theological base to nullify the cruel proclamations of their Salafist counterparts. And so, for more than 20 years I have been developing and working to establish a theologically-rigorous Islam that teaches peace.
Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western intellectuals -- who unceasingly claim to support human rights -- have become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah’s inhumanity. They find socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel. What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western ``progressives`` pave the way for Islamist barbarity? Indeed, if the problem is not one of religious beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.
Politicians and scholars in the West have taken up the chant that Islamic extremism is caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. This analysis cannot convince any rational person that the Islamist murder of over 150,000 innocent people in Algeria -- which happened in the last few decades -- or their slaying of hundreds of Buddhists in Thailand, or the brutal violence between Sunni and Shia in Iraq could have anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Western feminists duly fight in their home countries for equal pay and opportunity, but seemingly ignore, under a façade of cultural relativism, that large numbers of women in the Islamic world live under threat of beating, execution and genital mutilation, or cannot vote, drive cars and dress as they please.
The tendency of many Westerners to restrict themselves to self-criticism further obstructs reformation in Islam. Americans demonstrate against the war in Iraq, yet decline to demonstrate against the terrorists who kidnap innocent people and behead them. Similarly, after the Madrid train bombings, millions of Spanish citizens demonstrated against their separatist organization, ETA. But once the demonstrators realized that Muslims were behind the terror attacks they suspended the demonstrations. This example sent a message to radical Islamists to continue their violent methods.
Western appeasement of their Muslim communities has exacerbated the problem. During the four-month period after the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in a Danish magazine, there were comparatively few violent demonstrations by Muslims. Within a few days of the Danish magazine’s formal apology, riots erupted throughout the world. The apology had been perceived by Islamists as weakness and concession.
Worst of all, perhaps, is the anti-Americanism among many Westerners. It is a resentment so strong, so deep-seated, so rooted in personal identity, that it has led many, consciously or unconsciously, to morally support America’s enemies.
Progressives need to realize that radical Islam is based on an antiliberal system. They need to awaken to the inhumane policies and practices of Islamists around the world. They need to realize that Islamism spells the death of liberal values. And they must not take for granted the respect for human rights and dignity that we experience in America, and indeed, the West, today.
Well-meaning interfaith dialogues with Muslims have largely been fruitless. Participants must demand -- but so far haven’t -- that Muslim organizations and scholars specifically and unambiguously denounce violent Salafi components in their mosques and in the media. Muslims who do not vocally oppose brutal Shariah decrees should not be considered ``moderates.``
All of this makes the efforts of Muslim reformers more difficult. When Westerners make politically-correct excuses for Islamism, it actually endangers the lives of reformers and in many cases has the effect of suppressing their voices.
Tolerance does not mean toleration of atrocities under the umbrella of relativism. It is time for all of us in the free world to face the reality of Salafi Islam or the reality of radical Islam will continue to face us.
Dr. Hamid, a onetime member of Jemaah Islamiya, an Islamist terrorist group, is a medical doctor and Muslim reformer living in the West.
Dr. Hamid (and Bernard Lewis) are not alone in his assessment. Check out what Robert Spencer has been writing in
`The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World`s Most Intolerant Religion`.
Pakistans Permanent Revolution
``...Nobody has right to interpret Islam in accordance with his free will, the president said...``
Isn`t that the OPPOSITE of what the high priest of Chowk, Mr. Tahmed32, frequently states? That one must interpret the Koran as they see understand it?
Posted by
PewResearch
Apr 1, 2007 04:11 pm
Re: # 256 Arjun``...Nobody has right to interpret Islam in accordance with his free will, the president said...``
Isn`t that the OPPOSITE of what the high priest of Chowk, Mr. Tahmed32, frequently states? That one must interpret the Koran as they see understand it?
Pakistans Permanent Revolution
``...NOTE: The supporting of corrupt elitist dictators (including the ones who weren`t corrupt but were still elitist - like Musharraf) was the first big mistake the West made in Muslim countries....``
When Musharraf came to power, you were leading the cheering squad. Remember, the West will (and should) look after its own interest before yours. If you were willing then, then why blame the West?
Posted by
PewResearch
Apr 1, 2007 01:01 pm
Re: # 220 Bulleya``...NOTE: The supporting of corrupt elitist dictators (including the ones who weren`t corrupt but were still elitist - like Musharraf) was the first big mistake the West made in Muslim countries....``
When Musharraf came to power, you were leading the cheering squad. Remember, the West will (and should) look after its own interest before yours. If you were willing then, then why blame the West?
Pakistans Permanent Revolution
Wet dream? What wet dream?
Posted by
PewResearch
Apr 1, 2007 07:41 am
Re: # 205 Hamidm2Wet dream? What wet dream?
Pakistans Permanent Revolution
This article is worth reading, `Primacy of law in India` by Tasneem Noorani in today`s Dawn Op/Ed section. I highly recommend it.
I believe that the idealogical war between different methods of governance between India and Pakistan is not unlike the US-Soviet confrontation during the Cold War. While the principal difference between capitalism and communism was an economic one, India and Pakistan are bedeviled by a religious vs. secular divide. Economic realities hit you faster (and the Soviets collapsed in 70 years) than blunders caused by religious dogmas. It may take much longer for Pakistan`s polity to unravel (although the first limb was shed in `71). What we are witnessing however is a slow motion play of a nation state in the process of collapse. I believe that this article by a former Pakistani interior secretary affirms it. If and when India forges ahead economically to a point whereby the average Indian Muslim is better off than the average Pakistani, the whole driving idea of Pakistan is finished. Finito. Gone. Vaporized.
Indeed, this may have already happened in India`s western and southern states. YLH, are you reading?
Posted by
PewResearch
Apr 1, 2007 06:57 am
Folks:This article is worth reading, `Primacy of law in India` by Tasneem Noorani in today`s Dawn Op/Ed section. I highly recommend it.
I believe that the idealogical war between different methods of governance between India and Pakistan is not unlike the US-Soviet confrontation during the Cold War. While the principal difference between capitalism and communism was an economic one, India and Pakistan are bedeviled by a religious vs. secular divide. Economic realities hit you faster (and the Soviets collapsed in 70 years) than blunders caused by religious dogmas. It may take much longer for Pakistan`s polity to unravel (although the first limb was shed in `71). What we are witnessing however is a slow motion play of a nation state in the process of collapse. I believe that this article by a former Pakistani interior secretary affirms it. If and when India forges ahead economically to a point whereby the average Indian Muslim is better off than the average Pakistani, the whole driving idea of Pakistan is finished. Finito. Gone. Vaporized.
Indeed, this may have already happened in India`s western and southern states. YLH, are you reading?
Inzi Post-Bob: An Interview
Don`t know. But is it relevant to this discussion?
Posted by
PewResearch
Mar 30, 2007 10:29 am
Re: # 158Don`t know. But is it relevant to this discussion?
Pakistans Permanent Revolution
``...answer my question in #76...``
Yesss, Sirr! Will kick your behind in doing so as well! OKKAY SIRR??
How should I tear you(r argument) to pieces? Delicately, or frontally?
Let us see: what part of this situation are you disputing? Your enraged response does not afford me that clarity. Are you disputing that: a) innocents were killed? or b) the US never attacked? or c) both?
Regarding a) let us first go with what your honorable Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told a news conference after the incident, `We deeply regret that civilian lives have been lost in an incident`. Not wanting to believe your Information minister`s information (don`t blame you there)? Well, how about Senator John McCain`s statement, `It`s terrible when innocent people are killed; we regret that``. However, Sen. John McCain and other lawmakers defended the Damadola action. ``We have to do what we think is necessary to take out al Qaeda, particularly the top operatives. This guy [al-Zawahiri] has been more visible than Osama bin Laden lately,`` McCain told CBS` ``Face the Nation.``
Which brings me to (b), namely US involvement. If Senator McCain`s statement was not an admission of culpability, then how about Senator Evan Bayh? Senator Evan Bayh blamed the Pakistani government for being unable to control the frontier, rhetorically asking ``Now, it`s a regrettable situation, but what else are we supposed to do? It`s like the Wild, Wild West out there. The Pakistani border (with Afghanistan) is a real problem.``
Heck, there is even a Christian religious minister calling the airstrike inhuman. (Not that I agree with him).
You figure out if I was delicate? or frontal?
CIAO
Posted by
PewResearch
Mar 29, 2007 09:17 pm
Re: # 78 Self Righteous Tahmed32``...answer my question in #76...``
Yesss, Sirr! Will kick your behind in doing so as well! OKKAY SIRR??
How should I tear you(r argument) to pieces? Delicately, or frontally?
Let us see: what part of this situation are you disputing? Your enraged response does not afford me that clarity. Are you disputing that: a) innocents were killed? or b) the US never attacked? or c) both?
Regarding a) let us first go with what your honorable Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told a news conference after the incident, `We deeply regret that civilian lives have been lost in an incident`. Not wanting to believe your Information minister`s information (don`t blame you there)? Well, how about Senator John McCain`s statement, `It`s terrible when innocent people are killed; we regret that``. However, Sen. John McCain and other lawmakers defended the Damadola action. ``We have to do what we think is necessary to take out al Qaeda, particularly the top operatives. This guy [al-Zawahiri] has been more visible than Osama bin Laden lately,`` McCain told CBS` ``Face the Nation.``
Which brings me to (b), namely US involvement. If Senator McCain`s statement was not an admission of culpability, then how about Senator Evan Bayh? Senator Evan Bayh blamed the Pakistani government for being unable to control the frontier, rhetorically asking ``Now, it`s a regrettable situation, but what else are we supposed to do? It`s like the Wild, Wild West out there. The Pakistani border (with Afghanistan) is a real problem.``
Heck, there is even a Christian religious minister calling the airstrike inhuman. (Not that I agree with him).
You figure out if I was delicate? or frontal?
CIAO
Pakistans Permanent Revolution
The second (non-working) link is http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article788673.ece
From the UK Times
Posted by
PewResearch
Mar 29, 2007 08:46 pm
Re: # 74The second (non-working) link is http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article788673.ece
From the UK Times
Pakistans Permanent Revolution
``...The US denies that it bombed damadola or any other place inside Pakistan. ...``
Perhaps, this will be somewhat convincing. If you don`t trust Wikipedia, then you may trust this article in the UK Times more. By the way, do you have any reference to the effect that `US denied bombing Damadola`? I don`t recall reading one. The less said about your (Pakistani) government`s truthfulness, the better.
CIAO
Posted by
PewResearch
Mar 29, 2007 08:41 pm
Re: # 73 Tahmed32``...The US denies that it bombed damadola or any other place inside Pakistan. ...``
Perhaps, this will be somewhat convincing. If you don`t trust Wikipedia, then you may trust this article in the UK Times more. By the way, do you have any reference to the effect that `US denied bombing Damadola`? I don`t recall reading one. The less said about your (Pakistani) government`s truthfulness, the better.
CIAO
Inzi Post-Bob: An Interview
``...I hope you agree that marriage is a religious concept. Getting, ``married`` in no way affects one`s biological, intellectual, ethical faculties....``
Marriage if defined as `an interpersonal relationship with governmental, social, or religious recognition` precedes organized religion. Humans have had monogamous relationships for time immemorial with social sanction before there was organized religion. You don`t think that there was marriage before Islam in pagan Arabia? Ditto for every other religion.
The rest of your argument breaks down because it is built on a weak foundation.
If you get the time, check out this
book. It will explain to you chapter and verse how human behavior and physiology has biologically evolved to promote monogamous relationships. You won`t find any linkage to religion, and why monogamy is essential to human survival. You will learn that while men are naturally inclined to be polygamous, women have evolved pretty clever mechanisms to counter such behavior! There is no morality/religion in play here - pure survival of the species.
Posted by
PewResearch
Mar 29, 2007 12:58 pm
Re: # 128 Bulleya``...I hope you agree that marriage is a religious concept. Getting, ``married`` in no way affects one`s biological, intellectual, ethical faculties....``
Marriage if defined as `an interpersonal relationship with governmental, social, or religious recognition` precedes organized religion. Humans have had monogamous relationships for time immemorial with social sanction before there was organized religion. You don`t think that there was marriage before Islam in pagan Arabia? Ditto for every other religion.
The rest of your argument breaks down because it is built on a weak foundation.
If you get the time, check out this
book. It will explain to you chapter and verse how human behavior and physiology has biologically evolved to promote monogamous relationships. You won`t find any linkage to religion, and why monogamy is essential to human survival. You will learn that while men are naturally inclined to be polygamous, women have evolved pretty clever mechanisms to counter such behavior! There is no morality/religion in play here - pure survival of the species.
Pakistans Permanent Revolution
``...British Royal Indian Army...``
There was no such entity. The official name was the `British Indian Army`.
CIAO
PS: Let us talk about Gandhi now!
Posted by
PewResearch
Mar 29, 2007 11:59 am
Re: Mantolives``...British Royal Indian Army...``
There was no such entity. The official name was the `British Indian Army`.
CIAO
PS: Let us talk about Gandhi now!
Pakistans Permanent Revolution
``...Bengalis (ex-Pakistanis), Mohajirs and to a large extent Sindhis did prove that they were ready for democracy many times....``
Nope! The difference is that your politicians failed to adopt Gandhian Ahimsa as a tool for national struggle.
Posted by
PewResearch
Mar 29, 2007 10:40 am
Re: # 31 Mantolives``...Bengalis (ex-Pakistanis), Mohajirs and to a large extent Sindhis did prove that they were ready for democracy many times....``
Nope! The difference is that your politicians failed to adopt Gandhian Ahimsa as a tool for national struggle.
The Day We Killed Bob Woolmer
respects to Woolmer
Posted by
PewResearch
Mar 22, 2007 07:05 pm
Pakistanis pay final respects to Woolmer
Is this Pakistan’s Democratic Revolution?
Interesting point. Mantolives (YLH) is quoted on the BBC website as saying, `Yasser Hamdani: ``I will support the boycott until the issue is resolved```.
How is that different from other Gandhian `unconstitutional` measures such as Non-Cooperation, Satyagraha, Quit India? YLH has lost his marbles on the (Gandhian) issue, and does not even know that his quote is in contradiction of his million+ posts on Chowk on Gandhi. But, you caught him in the act of contradicting himself. His `boycott` is just as `unconstitutional` as any Gandhian tactic.
Posted by
PewResearch
Mar 21, 2007 01:24 pm
Re: # 90 BJKInteresting point. Mantolives (YLH) is quoted on the BBC website as saying, `Yasser Hamdani: ``I will support the boycott until the issue is resolved```.
How is that different from other Gandhian `unconstitutional` measures such as Non-Cooperation, Satyagraha, Quit India? YLH has lost his marbles on the (Gandhian) issue, and does not even know that his quote is in contradiction of his million+ posts on Chowk on Gandhi. But, you caught him in the act of contradicting himself. His `boycott` is just as `unconstitutional` as any Gandhian tactic.
Is this Pakistan’s Democratic Revolution?
That`s because of the Great Pyramids and the numerous references to Egypt in the Bible. Has nothing to do with any suggested Pakistani inferiority to Egyptians. After all, don`t forget that the Pakistani Air Force came to the Egyptian`s rescue in `73 - the one that Israel almost lost! You know why, don`t you?
Posted by
PewResearch
Mar 21, 2007 10:08 am
Re: # 88 ``.Americans have a more positive opinion of the land of mohd atta than the jand of mohd jinnah.``That`s because of the Great Pyramids and the numerous references to Egypt in the Bible. Has nothing to do with any suggested Pakistani inferiority to Egyptians. After all, don`t forget that the Pakistani Air Force came to the Egyptian`s rescue in `73 - the one that Israel almost lost! You know why, don`t you?
Is this Pakistan’s Democratic Revolution?
Here is the closest chart I found. Fortunately, Pakistan`s position is not as dire as you predicted. Although, I could not find a chart that showed them as being the `top 3 terrorist countries`, they do have the dubious distinction of being the world`s 9th most `failed state` as of 2006 (an `improvement` in rank of 34 in 2005) according to the US Foreign Policy magazine and the US-based Fund for Peace. This was BEFORE the dismissal of the Chief Justice:
They did beat Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka (but lost to Ireland, again)! There is something to crow about!
Also, I do have a few choice graphs from an opinion poll organization that hijacked my nick for their own nefarious purposes: Here are some graphs from Pew Research (the organization):
Again, good news all around! Support for suicide bombings is down to only 44%. Go, eat a crow sandwich now, Arjun!
Also, a whopping 43% believe that democracy can work in the land of the pure! So, what if it is the lowest belief rate in the Islamic world? Who cares? Again, you have been wrong all along, Arjun!
Unfortunately, this week, unfavorable views about Christians/Jews fell to a new low:
Alright, you get some credit for being right.
And here is the clincher! Confidence in OBL is the 2nd highest in the world, after Jordan! Way to go!
Posted by
PewResearch
Mar 21, 2007 09:58 am
Re: # 84 Arjun2Here is the closest chart I found. Fortunately, Pakistan`s position is not as dire as you predicted. Although, I could not find a chart that showed them as being the `top 3 terrorist countries`, they do have the dubious distinction of being the world`s 9th most `failed state` as of 2006 (an `improvement` in rank of 34 in 2005) according to the US Foreign Policy magazine and the US-based Fund for Peace. This was BEFORE the dismissal of the Chief Justice:
They did beat Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka (but lost to Ireland, again)! There is something to crow about!
Also, I do have a few choice graphs from an opinion poll organization that hijacked my nick for their own nefarious purposes: Here are some graphs from Pew Research (the organization):
Again, good news all around! Support for suicide bombings is down to only 44%. Go, eat a crow sandwich now, Arjun!
Also, a whopping 43% believe that democracy can work in the land of the pure! So, what if it is the lowest belief rate in the Islamic world? Who cares? Again, you have been wrong all along, Arjun!
Unfortunately, this week, unfavorable views about Christians/Jews fell to a new low:
Alright, you get some credit for being right.
And here is the clincher! Confidence in OBL is the 2nd highest in the world, after Jordan! Way to go!
- PewResearch
- Interacts: 368
- iLogs: 0
- Gallery: 0
- Page views: 422
- Last visitor: guest
- Member since: Jun 25 2005
- Last signin: Jul 14 2007
- Send a message
- Add as friend
- Add to ignore list
- Add to block list
