Revolt in Paradise

Re: # 47 Perhaps you should ask the Chinese and the Indains living there this question. Cheap-skate-macaca-zeemax

#44

Abbey Masadi,

Cut out the buck-waash and answer #40.

If an answer is indeed possible.

Without your own ``bhai-jaans`` chopping off your head.

And that of the dear Dick!

(But don`t anybody DARE call Dick`s head by its logical name!!!)

Re: # 46 BJKumari why involve me in your little fracas with the Jamaat-e-Chowk-ibn-Al-qaeda cell of Chowk.

Ofcourse the Jaamat-e-chowk members will create some muck and use double treple negatives and positives to confuse the issue - like I see dear old cheap_skate_macaca-Zeemax has done. They donot have an answer. they will quote some idiot who thinks ek_bal was the greatest 20th century muslim!

Hitler and the US/UK:

What I stated in #8 regarding US obsession with creating enemies related to the post ww2 era, however Navelle Chamberlin`s appeasement of Hitler, endorsed by Roosevelt is not a disputed historical fact, and the vested US corporations in the German military machine, including IBM and FORD until the entry of the US into the war, is also not disputed. Behind all of these was the broader picture of containing the Soviet Union, a purpose for which Hitler was allowed to have a full swing at them. I don`t think these basic facts, regardless of the details can be described as ``conspiracy

Re: # 44 by masadi:

If I were to assume that Ford, IBM and other US businesses with interest in Germany were but a face of the US govt. (as per your power elite theory), then the US govt. did indeed support Hitler. However, I do not buy the assumption in its entirety. Hence, I asked SR if there was evidence for US govt. support for Germany.

I do not intend to argue with you about the validity of the ``power elite`` hypothesis, at least not now and not on this board. For now let us simply agree to disagree.

Re: # 45 GT

Americas involvement in the WWII shouldn`t be (and cannot be seen ) as an ideological struggle against Germany or Nazism, because it was not. Tthe anti-Nazi US stance was a propaganda invented decades after WWI. Please keep in mind that US decalred war on Germany in December 1941 which is little over two years after the war started. The core reason that US got itself involved in this war was a business deal that took place between Roosevelt and Churcill. THis business deal is called ``Atlantic Charter``. The terms and conditions of this charter can be summarized in one sentence ``We (US) will save your (UK) ass, in return for your Empire``.

According to the Churchill`s own words, Atlantic Charter was the death warrant of the British Colonial Empire but he had no choice because German forces were preparing to land on British Isle with in weeks. According to eye witmnesses Churcill was in tears while signing the document. It is said that Roosevelt comforted him with these immortal words ``Mr. Prime Minister, I know it is hard for you, but I see you (British Empire) as a monkey who has stuck his hands in a jar full of candies. That monkey can easily get his hand unstuck if he simply let go some of the candies; but the monkey is greedy, he is jumping up and down, screaming and kicking but holding on to its candies. So my advise to you, Sir, is that it is time to let go of your candies``

The Atlantic Charter was signed sometime in September 1941. Japanese realized the potential impact of this ``business deed`` between US and UK and saw US as an emerging empire replacing UK. Japanese, who had their own ambitions of an Asian empire tried to pre-empt US plans by attacking Pearle Harbor in December 1941. One week after that US declared itself a combatant in the WWII. It was time to put the business deed in action.

After the end of the WWII, UK forces started evacuating its colonies one by one. The original plan was that as UK would evacuate their colonies the US forces would start replacing them - as it happened in North Africa. In other words there would not be a integral level change in the status of colonies other than that that the British masters would replace American masters. The plan would have gone through had the emergence of Soviet Union not threw the spanner in their plans. The emergence of Soviets Union was the biggest threat to capitalism ever and it was threatening the very core of the colonial Empires through its ideology. Hitler was doing the same thing, but he had no ideology, he was merely a thug. From the perspective of people of colonies Hitler replacing their the then current masters would only mean replacement of one set of ass-wholes with other. However, soviet union`s ideology meant something. It had an appeal to the oppressed people around the globe that finally the time had come when meek would inherit the earth.

But American monkey was smarter than the British monkey. It improvised the concept of Empire from direct rule to proxy rule and help countries ``win their freedom`` from colonialism, as long as it was able to install its own puppet proxy regimes.

After the collapse of Soviet Empire, US started to strengthen its proxy rule around the globe but 9/11 threw the spanner in its plans. Now US is stuck with the choice that either it should let go of its candies or keep them by force and continue being a monkey with its hands stuck in the candy jar. British, as despecable hustlers, as they are siezed the opportunity to get even with Americans for the hand that Americans did to UK with Atlantic Charter. British dragged Americans into wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan and elsewhere to make the monkey out of them. Enjoy the show.

Re: # 48 by Urstruly:

Urstruly sahib:

``Americas involvement in the WWII shouldn`t be (and cannot be seen ) as an ideological struggle against Germany or Nazism, because it was not.``

This is definitely a point of view, and you have put it across in a post that is .... enjoyable. You know me by now, I cannot see things in black and white. The same stands for your assertion. In any case, my question to SR remains unanswered. Don`t get me wrong, I would not be surprised if the US govt. did indeed support Hitler. I simply want to know.

Re: # 53 GT

I thought you would figure out the answer to your question from my post.

But let me explain my point with a short answer through this timeline:


August 1941 - The Atlantic Charter is signed (details are in my last post)

December 1941 - Pearle Harbor

December 1941 - US declares itself a combatant in WWII (1 wk after Pearle Harbor). But keep in mind that this war was declared on Japan and not on Germany. However, it was Germany that declared war on US.

October 1942 - Roosevelt passes a law called ``Trading with Enemy Act`` that prohibits American businesses from trading with countries hostile to US. And that is exactly one year after war was decalred between US and Germany. Until this act was passed almost every major corporation in US was doing full business with Nazis including the grandfather of President Bush, Prescott Bush who was a wall street banker.

I think most of the record of business in the war period between US and Germany has been made to disappear since it puts US government in an embarassing position. Jews have vested interest in not embarassing US government, hence, this fact has been swept under the rug of obscure history.

from the BBC......
The speech came after some Muslim leaders expressed concerns about the UK`s foreign policy and called for it to be changed.

Mr Reid did not tell Muslim parents to report their concerns to the police but wants them to confront their children`s behaviour and talk to them.

BBC Home Affairs Correspondent Daniel Sandford said Muslim elders felt their ``real concerns`` about the points raised by the home secretary had been ``spoiled by stupid heckling``.

In an open letter last month, some Muslims leaders said British foreign policy was putting civilians at increased risk in the UK and abroad.

Mr Reid described the letter, signed by three Muslim MPs, three peers and 38 organisations, as a ``dreadful misjudgement``.

Earlier this year, Prime Minister Tony Blair said the government alone could not root out extremism in Muslim communities and defeat the terrorism it creates.


dreadful misjdugement - that is strong language from a Home Minister esp a Brit one.

Mr Reid did not tell Muslim parents to report their concerns to the police but wants them to confront their children`s behaviour and talk to them.

oh! my! The ball has been bounced back. The Muslims want autonomy, he is asking them to deal with the situation and bring things back to an even keel.

As I said, the writings slowly but surely appearing on the wall.

The video of John reid`s speech is here.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5362052.stm

#38

What is wrong with the following statement?

“There will be no significant material and economic progress [in Muslim communities] until the Muslim mind is allowed to challenge the status quo of Muslim conventions and even their most cherished shibboleths.”

I think the Carey speaks the truth.

Why do the Muslims of the world - ``educated`` or otherwise, get so uptight at the above - obviously true statements?

Why, why, why???

Re: # 40 we have to wait for Echoboom, zeemax and Masadi to comeback with an answer. in the good ole days ROMAIR would have been quick of the mark here. these ROMAIR has become more ``reasoned`` so we have to wait for the others to answer.

Dickie bow tie, heed the words of the great and good of Chowk! Let us see you in all your glory!

ref #32 and #36 yes that is interesting - esp Tahmed32`s last line ``The hindus of the subcontinent went off on Sir Syed`s track (the Age of Reason) and the muslims on the Iqbal track (the Romantic Movement). ``

I would say the the hindus wwent down this track even before Syed tried to do it with the muslims.
Nevertheless, very precisely put. Esp you reference to Nietszche. However, I wonder if people know of the connection between Iqbal and germany?

On a side note: its interesting to see today`s Times. Carey`s speech, which can be found here Carey backs Pope and issues warning on `violent` Islam is an interesting read.

This coupled with John Reid`s speech today, it appears the writings have started appearing on the wall (can be found here Watch your Son`s for extremism), and taken with the unreasoned protests of the reps in the hall like this guy

(we UKites know this guy very well, and all those who donot follow his line should be very scared of him), TAHMED32`s argument about ``reason`` etc becomes even more urgent.

#34 Dick

Dear Dick,

Be nice to the Gilster, now!

No need to get all defensive just because your are being asked to introduce yourself. You realize that FP and UP are two different worlds.

And I will have you know that Zeemax has been the recipient of an abhai-daan from this interactor - therefore, he has been allowed lattitude to say certain things without any fear of mauling!

You my dear, on the other hand, are an unknown animal of unknown origins.

Therefore, I reiterate...

Dear Dick, go ahead - introduce yourself.

Introduce yourself gently, Dick, to the vast, teeming masses of Chowkies!

VERY gently!

#32 good point. While Iqbal is venerated in Pakistan, I am beginning to realize more and more that not only was he heavily influenced by western movements of his time, Iqbal in fact represented a philosophy that the civilized world has long discarded. That is:

1. He was heavily influenced by the Romantic Movement that came about in europe in the late 18th century, reached its apogee in the 19th (ranging from the romantic poets of england to the german philosophers like kant and hegel and - the one from whom Iqbal was most influenced - Nietszche)). The Romantic Movement was a reaction to the Age of Reason that had dawned in europe a few centuries earlier, and which had put that continent way ahead of the Asian empires, notably the ottomans in the Orient, the mings/manchux dynasties in China, and of course the indian mughals and lesser kingdoms in the Subcontinent. Even some of his style - notably the ``Javid Nama`` which is patterned along Dante`s ``Divine Comedy`` in terms of his

2. Iqbals` call for a revival of muslim civilization, while couched in the Romantic Movement, thus largely glosses over the real reason the west pushed forward, namely rational thinking and the scientific appoach.

In this sense, I think he has done a disservice to indian muslims by promoting the nietzschian ideas that gave rise to fascism in germany. This is not to belittle Iqbal`s wonderful works, but to recognize that no man is infallible and no man is uninfluenced by his times and so no man`s wisdom is eternally relevant. And Iqbal took off on the wrong path when he glorified nationalism. Sir Syed, on the other hand, while not as profound and gifted a writer as Iqbal, was on the right track when he called for catching up with the west by education. The hindus of the subcontinent went off on Sir Syed`s track (the Age of Reason) and the muslims on the Iqbal track (the Romantic Movement). This is a simplification of course, but not too much.