Terrorism is Nobody's Monopoly

Re: # 233

kaal, godot, HP

HP: ``…Lay it out.... ``. Here goes:

In this post I lay bare five requisites for the liberal agenda. Tactics will come later.

1. The liberal has to have a strong belief in the capability of the individual. Therefore, individual freedom is an absolute must.

2. One person`s freedom can impinge on the freedom of another person. Hence, society has to put some constraints on freedom through laws. These laws are to be imposed by a coercive structure called the state. To restrain the power of the state: (a) democracy and decentralization of power are a must; (b) the constitution has to be flexible so that it can be changed by elected representatives.

3. The liberal should always try to limit the power of the state (even when the state is controlled by the liberal or her representative). In this regard mistakes can be made, but the liberal should be courageous enough to make such mistakes.

4. The liberal should be absolutely willing to yield powers of the state to democratically elected non-liberals, even if it means that liberal laws will be overturned. In such situations it is incumbent on the liberal to oppose the state individually or through collective action in whatever manner possible as long as it is non-violent.

5. The liberal must grant the provisions listed in (4) to her opponents. This is an absolute must and is the hardest to implement. But without this the liberal agenda is bound to fail. No justification, economic, social, miltary or otherwise should be tolerated.

#243 boy, I sure know which I will go for from below.....

#243 by hamidm2

About the first one, this is hardly the person you want to highlight. He is no more than a punk just like his father and doesn`t represent anyone.

About the second, why do you think it`s going to be extinct?

C`mon, don`t be paranoid ... switch to another channel from faux tv.

the man who will lead muslims into the `age of reason`



...... as a first step he wants to make sure that muslim women do not get raped unless there are four spectators .........


and this species is willl be extinct in five years .........




http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/sunday/Images/231_fashion_2.jpg

Although some of the interactors such as #240 are beneath contempt, and their agenda is obvious, I would like to remind them that after the migration from Mecca, the Muslims were in a constant state of war against Quraish which started with Guerilla warfare and turned into full-fledged combat only when they had gained sufficient strength and sufficiently weakened Quraish. One part of that warfare was attacking the Quraish`s supply lines/logistics in hit and run tactics which these people term as `looting` caravans. The very same disruptions to their supply-routes drew in Quraish into the first real battle at Badar where they were defeated.

Before prophethood, Muhammad was a merchant trader and travelled with merchandise to all parts of the Arabian Peninsula and beyond. That was his trade.

I hope the matter stands clarified. Please don`t bother replying.

HP, 233

THE MODERATE MARTYR appeared in last week’s New Yorker. From it you can assess the struggle Islamic liberals and reformists are facing.

why Muslims display terrorist tendencies

---

How did Prophet(the founder of Islam) earned his livelihood ?

has anybody did research on this aspect ?

Arab world was the connecting link between the EASTERN world & WESTERN world
Only a minority of the arabs earned their livelihood thru trade
While the majority were engaged in agriculture, shepherding cattle,goats,sheep etc
But there were also few who earned their livelihood thru looting caravans !

Although Muslims are unwilling to admit, it seems that the prophet was smart enough to use concepts like Jihad , holy war to justify this criminal activity (which needs no explanation)
Once a caravan is attacked , all the men were beheaded (as was the norm in those days)
while the women were captured-dishonoured like any other war booty ? Nobody is talking about ETHICS here ! Also look at the motivating ideas of ``life after death with 72 virgins !!! `` etc etc , it clearly show the TRUE MENTAL LEVEL OF THE FOLLOWERS OF PROPHET !!
Till the medieval age the muslim power was at its zenith , and then the decline started !
The present generations of muslims are offocurse descendents of these animals !

For pakistanis , dacoits-rapists like Mohd Ghazni etc are national heroes ! . have u seen any human group who considers the rapist of their forefathers(or more specifically fore-mothers) as war heroes ?

#238 I am sorry if I conveyed the wrong meaning - i was not alluding to Gill the freethinker here - but to the interactors.

Freethinker knows fuly well the implications of what he puts down in writing and is a better person at understanding the importance of the seperation and the interactions.

Otherwise agree youwith you there......just add that the chinese, japanese and the indians lost the traditions of scientific method and stagnated into superstition - and as you say are playing catch up

#237 Strictly speaking, you are right that it is not ``western learning`` per se but the ``scientific bent`` (or more appropriately the ``scientific method``) that is crucial. I was referring to it in a loose sense given that the west has (ever since the``Age of Reason`` dawned in the west 400-500 years ago) been the torch bearer for the scientific method for a few centuries now. The rest of the world (japanese during the meiji restoration, and now the chinese and indians) is of course playing catchup with respect to this ``Age of Reason`` while too many muslims merely ``know not that they know not``.

Your example of Gill`s articles on science is a good one. I too noticed this tendancy to drag Allah into his articles on science - this distorts science as well as religion, and this is indeed another indication of the broader issue of jehaliyat in which muslim societies are stuck today.

Re: # 236

agree in general with your agrument. But TAhmed32, a small note of dissent here
it is note ``western learning`` but scientific bent that is crucial. An ability to see the physical and seperate it from the metaphysical or mystical. (an example I would give is the board/article by Gill the freethinker). Soceities which have learnt to do this have progressed (you could agrue over what progress means - but that is besides the point here), and have also learnt to place these in their relevant boxes and developed mechanisms to deal with these often intractable, interacting issues. I know on this site this example would create more heat than reason, nevertheless I will give it. The Indic tradition of Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Raja Yoga, and Jnana Yoga is a case in point - where there is a seperation with equal emphasis given to all and an assertion that any one can lead to salvation. The west has also developed similar strains. What you call secularism is in a sense this. (I recall reading a paper on this some years ago if I can dig it up I will).

#235 Dot/kaalchakra: I think there is bad news and there is good news.

The bad news is that like all primitive societies, muslim societies lack the internal capacity to break the vicious cycle of ``jehaliyat`` in which they are enveloped. Furthermore, unlike Indians), muslim societies are not willing to discard their jehaliyat. So, as the old persian saying goes:

He who knows not and knows he knows not
He is a child - teach him
and this applies in large part to hindus to their credit, who embraced ``western learning``

The saying continues:
He who knows not and knows not he knows not
He is a fool - shun him
and this applies to many arabs and pakistanis and other muslims - the same arrogance and ignorance that poor Sir Syed beat his head against a wall trying to get muslims to shed.

And now the good news: The bad news above doesnt matter. The reason it doesnt matter is that the forces of globalization are so powerful that primitive cultures and mindsets are like flimsy structures befores before a hurricane. Even as mullahs romp around with dreams of becoming kings, the forces of globalization are rendering them and their kind obsolete. This has been true in all history of not just mankind but of life on earth - those who have failed to adapt have been rendered extinct. Mullahism, despite their loudspeakers and big talk, is doomed to extinction as surely as the dodo bird.

Re: # 226 O wheel of time, you do pose some interesting questions, but very fundemental nevertheless.

-There must exist some unique historical opportunity that increases the likelihood of victory.

The opportunities come and go. The key is to grab them as they come along. You will never get an opportunity which will give outright victory. What you get is a series of opportunities, and the total sum will eventually give you the victory. The cliche - on battles and war comes to mind here. A case in point is the palestine issue. there have been some opportunities for the palestinians to change their condition for the better - yes, these didnot give them what they wanted in their entireity, but over a period they could have amounted something rather more substantial than what they have now. As they say Rome was not built in a day.


-A winning, coherent strategy must be available to effectively exploit that historical opportunity.


A precondition for any such strategy to develop is your ability to harness and marshall your resources together. If you cannot do it you will always miss something and the opportunity will not be fully utilised.Again a case in point was the paletinian negotiations. The PLO and others never had facts, figures etc to hand they were negotiating at Camp David or in Oslo. The Israelies, the Scandinavians etc had more information about the palestininas than than the palestinians themselves. Indeed this was stated as the case in many columns in the Guardian at that time. Indeed this is one of the reasons why the Ofiice of National Statistics or their counterparts in every country has a prominent role to play.


-There must exist underlying broad social mechanisms and processes that work positively for the winning side and negatively for the losing side.


Ha, you touch upon a point why could mean different things to different people. But I would say this the ability to discuss openly, be critical, accept criticism, and a willingness to learn (in otherwords not be blinkered) is a key requirement for developing the mechanisms and processes you talk about. Indeed if you look at the Anglo-saxon experience (US and the UK) you will see that this has always been the case and hence they have moved forward and way beyond many peoples imagniation. The great melting pots of ideas and cultures.
It`s hard to see what coherent strategy liberals can use, or what social processes will carry them (and not their opponents) close to the winning line.

Broadly what is perhaps required is a
(a) general coalescing of the society along broad agreed lines
(b) creativity, critical ability, openess
(c) a multitude of ideas and a willingness to discuss these

The strenght of democracies donot necessaryly lie in the fact that people elect their govts. But in the fact that they can change tac at the drop of a hat - in with the new and out with old and tired. That is why you do not see old leaders getting a bullet in their head or an electrode shoved wherever when they lose power!

Re: # 226 O wheel of time, you do pose some interesting questions, but very fundemental nevertheless.

-There must exist some unique historical opportunity that increases the likelihood of victory.

The opportunities come and go. The key is to grab them as they come along. You will never get an opportunity which will give outright victory. What you get is a series of opportunities, and the total sum will eventually give you the victory. The cliche - on battles and war comes to mind here. A case in point is the palestine issue. there have been some opportunities for the palestinians to change their condition for the better - yes, these didnot give them what they wanted in their entireity, but over a period they could have amounted something rather more substantial than what they have now. As they say Rome was not built in a day.


-A winning, coherent strategy must be available to effectively exploit that historical opportunity.


A precondition for any such strategy to develop is your ability to harness and marshall your resources together. If you cannot do it you will always miss something and the opportunity will not be fully utilised.Again a case in point was the paletinian negotiations. The PLO and others never had facts, figures etc to hand they were negotiating at Camp David or in Oslo. The Israelies, the Scandinavians etc had more information about the palestininas than than the palestinians themselves. Indeed this was stated as the case in many columns in the Guardian at that time. Indeed this is one of the reasons why the Ofiice of National Statistics or their counterparts in every country has a prominent role to play.


-There must exist underlying broad social mechanisms and processes that work positively for the winning side and negatively for the losing side.


Ha, you touch upon a point why could mean different things to different people. But I would say this the ability to discuss openly, be critical, accept criticism, and a willingness to learn (in otherwords not be blinkered) is a key requirement for developing the mechanisms and processes you talk about. Indeed if you look at the Anglo-saxon experience (US and the UK) you will see that this has always been the case and hence they have moved forward and way beyond many peoples imagniation. The great melting pots of ideas and cultures.
It`s hard to see what coherent strategy liberals can use, or what social processes will carry them (and not their opponents) close to the winning line.

Broadly what is perhaps required is a
(a) general coalescing of the society along broad agreed lines
(b) creativity, critical ability, openess
(c) a multitude of ideas and a willingness to discuss these

The strenght of democracies donot necessaryly lie in the fact that people elect their govts. But in the fact that they can change tac at the drop of a hat - in with the new and out with old and tired. That is why you do not see old leaders getting a bullet in their head or an electrode shoved wherever when they lose power!

#220 by GT

“But I do believe that this is a war that liberals can win.”

An interesting thought! something that I have been thinking of for sometime. Like Kaal and Godot, I am interested in your thesis too. Will work with you on this idea…Lay it out....

#231
Couple of typos...

Not Stringer but Stinger...

#227 by Khasi_Null


“Soviet sources indicate that the most potent weapon against Soviet aircraft was not the Stinger but a Chinese-made heavy anti-aircraft machine gun.``
Soviet Sources?

HAHAHAHA! What can you tell to these jokers..

Another one of those conspiracy theories by this khasi. Anti aircraft guns by whom? Not afghan mujahidin. Stringer destroyed the air superiority that SU had in Afghanistan. Despite many claims by Pakistanis or the CIA, until the stringer was introduced in Afghanistan, Mujahidin had no chance of ever defeating the SU in Afghanistan. From 1979 to 1987 Mujahidin never really controlled any area in Afghanistan and it was always hit and run operations. In fact as for as guerilla wars go, the afghan war was of low low intensity if compared with Vietnam or Iraq now.

I have not finished reading the book but this claim by Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf sounds pretty accurate.

“In the ten-month period from the first firing up to when J left the IS in August, 1987, 187 Stingers were used in Afghanistan. Of these 75 per cent hit aircraft.”



#208
Hey bongay, here is the quote of the day for you from your favorite book
http://www.sovietsdefeatinafghanistan.com/beartrap/english/09.htm
Sounds very khasi like….

“When I queried how and why the Indians sold weapons that they knew would be used against their friends the Soviets, the CIA officer replied `The Indians are mean bastards, not trustworthy at all. For money they would even sell their mothers`.”

HAHAHAHA!