A Lot is Rotten in the State of Denmark

``60% of europeon banks are filled by muslim`s money.``

how filled?? i would bet not more than 3-5%. arabs may impress pakistanis with their wealth, and they may be ostentatious in their show of wealth, but they are nothing on the world scene. thus, for all their talk of boycotting danish goods, i heard some danish official say on tv that in fact only 3% of their exports go to the middle east.

and rest assured those 3% muslims would not dream of leaving europe, and for every one muslim there there a a thousand in their native lands who would kill to get a european visa.

in fact, all those danish flag burners of the muslim world would stand on one foot all day before the danish embassy if someone told them they would get a danish visa as a result.

muslims would need to change their attitude on a lot more than money making techniques (and btw, the only real money making technique is spelt h-a-r-d - w-o-r-k.)

If you all ask me then personally ithink WHY muslims have to live in europe or WHY invest in europeon banks and stock market, remember 60% of europeon banks are filled by muslim`s money. I know it won`t happen but it would be better for the remaining 3% muslims in barbaric Denmark to live that country and move to their own country and invest their money. These so called royal family of denmark are rejoicing on Arabs money which are kept long in scandinavians` bank, So ARAB why keep it there, if Arabs really want to bycott then remove your money from there.

However, there`s a drwback for all these idea, muslims countries SADLY do not provite financial security to the foreign investers hence many muslims tends to invest in the west where they are profitted. Once again its time for Muslim countries to change their attitude toward their way of money making technique.

SR #173 ha! ha! If the masochists are the whiny, self-indulgent ghoris of the muslim world, then the sadists would be the western people who refuse to give these scoundrels the solid thrashing they are begging to be given (and richly deserve, I may add).

And thus #173 is a fitting way to end the discussion on the discussion space created by this miserable, whiny article.

Re: # 171 zeemax et al

``Hit me,`` said the masochist. ``No,`` replied the sadist.

I think you gentlemen should stop inflicting torture on yourselves...
This must be getting very painful.

#169 ``I know Chowk`s motivations/editorial policy very well. Next?``

Anyone who seriously thinks he understands some other persons motivations has to be soft in the head. No point in discussing further.


Even, for the sake of argument, if one acknowledged you to be the mind-reader that you just claimed to be: what exactly is this motivation that you are so doggedly claiming to be aware of - to remove pictures because they have been doctored!! ha! ha! give me a break!!

I gotta go now. Please look at the picture, carefully, and think .. and answer my 3 questions of # 159. Thanks.

The answer to my questions please ... you cornered cat ... clutching to straws and evading the issue ...

#168 by tahmed32

No I don`t agree to this. I know Chowk`s motivations/editorial policy very well. Next?

and how does your #159 respond to this?? by providing explanations on why you are so sure the picture was doctored. not by addressing the basic point i made - i.e. the cause for its removal. simply reposting what i wrote in bold letters does not change the fact that you are avoiding responding to what i wrote there. obviously we havent gotten very far over the last hour or so that we have been chatting on this (hopefully in between some real work on your part, i hope).

so let me try another tack: do you agree that neither you nor i can know about someone`s motivations??

#166 by tahmed32

#158 by tahmed32 on February 28, 2006 5:47am PT
zeemax: You missed the point - the picture was not removed because it was doctored (as you say, and which btw doesnt make much sense as i will explain in a minute), but because of what it showed, namely the preparations to stone a woman to death.

This is what it says .. right? I answered it by saying the Chowk removed it because it was a cheap phoney attempt at slander. Now please answer my 3 questions. Thanks.

If you feel cornered, that`s fine too. We can forget it and carry on with the inane stuff as usual.

#165 if you were to read what i wrote in #158 (the opening sentence, which you are so studiously avoiding), you wouldnt waste your time writing lengthy arguments in #159.

and dont just throw back my phrases (``soft arguments``) at me. that is just a hollow echo.

#164 by tahmed32

Then please answer my 3 questions, parawise, in # 159. No `soft` arguments. Thanks.

zeemax: where do i say that the picture is doctored?? like i said, please dont give me soft arguments. i hate it when people add 2 plus 2 and come up with 5. you need to clear this basic level intellectual bar before claiming such superhuman intellectual gifts like reading other people`s minds!!

#162 by tahmed32

So we agree the picture is doctored. We don`t agree where you say neither you nor i know what was in chowk staff`s head when they removed that picture. I know. You don`t know:-) I`ve been on Chowk longer than you have. BTW have you ever met any editors of Chowk?

zeemax: neither you nor i know what was in chowk staff`s head when they removed that picture. agreed?

#160 by tahmed32

No it was removed because it was doctored ... cheap attempt at slander you see? Against the Chowk policy. If it had been genuine it wouldn`t have been removed.