AMERICA HAS LOST THE IRAQI WAR

Tuesday, September 05, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com

The Pentagon`s latest quarterly ``progress`` report to Congress on Iraq is a grim tale of a lost war. The Pentagon told Congress what Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and propaganda organs such as Fox ``News`` never tell the American public. - Paul Craig Roberts


Click Here For The Full Story

as a presian proverb says -- darogh go ra nu haafeza bashad -- a liar has no long term memory -- Bush was a liar is a liar and will continues to be a liar -- and it is not even his fault -- coke and alcohol have not only burnt his memory centers in his cerebral cortex -- the excesses of his fraternity days have irreparably scarred his Thalamic Conscience....as well.

in defense of torture -- the little dyslexic man with an atrophied mind and a contorted fascist face -- struggles to convince -- ``my fellow Americans`` -- about the the benefits of nazi torture techniques -- sounds more and more pathetic by every passing day....

.....to a point where one almost feels sorry for the man desperately searching thru his syntax challanged limited mind for some good arguments in support of Gestapo torture chambers....just short of Nazi ovens.

Thanks for calling a spade a spade -- freethinker.

Re:echoboom#5

[...AMERICA HAS LOST THE IRAQI WAR......]

Has it occured to you that it is the Iraqis who have lost the war? What is it to America? They will declare victory one day and just pull out their troops from Iraq. Then they can start operations in some other place either directly or via proxies.

Iraqis are now living in a hell and it will remain a hell whether America stays or leaves. The reason is simple. Iraqis started out by resisting against US occupation. However, now they have degenerated into a full blown sectrian civil war. Every day 40-50 people - either Shias or Sunnis - are getting slaughtered by the other side. The parallel is with India which started with resisting British rule and ended up with full blown hindu-muslim violence during partition. Another example is the Balkans where sectrian bloodshed set new records.

The only outcome after the US leaves will be partition in Iraq resulting in 3 new states - Sunni, Shia and Kurd. Each of these states will be eternal enemies of the other like India/Pakistan. Millions will die and be ethnically cleansed and uprooted.

It is really tragic since Iraqis actually got a golden chance to establish a democratic government after Saddam was ousted. Most dictatorships in this world do not get that chance. If they could have come together and established democratic rule with peace and prosperity for all, they could have built a shining new Iraq. Instead they are literally committing mass suicide by killing each other meaninglessly.

America, which at the current time is defined not by its people but by its elite, lives off of creating enemies. It fluorishes when it develops and nourishes enemies where none existed before. Those who want to challenge US hegemony and its barbaric projection overseas will have to figure out ways in which every enemy the US creates is brought back to its senses, that is the only way this monster`s addiction to war and destruction can be effectively challenged. The military response from so-called enemies is what the US craves, it knows no other language and no other solution to its woes which are a plenty if such distractions did not exist. Starve the US of the justifications it seeks for war and you will win a much bigger war. If the countries of the NAM rely on non-military/economic alliances instead of seeking military confrontation (which is actually the trap the US sets for potential enemies) it would be a good start, victory can be more readily achieved, for the sake of humanity who are mostly disposable to this elite, regardless of nationality.

Re:masadi#8

[...America, which at the current time is defined not by its people but by its elite, lives off of creating enemies.....]

Only a macaca_mullah like you can say such a ridiculous thing. Did America create Hitler? Did America create Stalin? Did America ask USSR to invade Afghanistan? Did America create Saddam? Did America create Osama? America may have collaborated with Saddam or Osama as per its own national interests. Every country does that. That does not mean that it created them or gave them license to commit mass murder.

For the past 200 years, America has been the last best hope for mankind. It is the place where mankind has reached the pinnacle of personal freedom and economic boom. That is why macaca_mullahs like you and zeemax still live here shamelessly in spite of badmouthing it every day. That is the tolerance of Americans. Any other people would have kicked you out of their country in 2 days. Someone should report the two of you to the Department of Homeland Security as people who have malevolent hatred against America.

If one is to avoid the semantics, it would be fair to say that in the coming days America will emerge as a country that will have a mix of secret and disclosed prison and torture cells with in its territories and around the globe where citizens of other countries would be kidnapped and brought to, tortured, interrogated, and indefinitely incarcerated with impunity. What makes them think that people of world will just stand that and let them get away with this fascist gestapo crap.

Re: # 9 ranjit {``... Did America create Hitler? …”}

Back before the 1932 US elections when FDR swept the vote and changed policy direction by 180 degrees, Adolf Hitler was a considered not only an okay guy in the corridors of power, but was actually looked upon kindly. Some even considered him their best hope against a common enemy. (If you don`t believe me, go to the New York Public Library and check the newspaper archives. I have.) I’ve mentioned it elsewhere on this site earlier but I’ll recount the facts.

An insignificant army ranker after the war, Hitler worked in military intelligence when he joined the German Worker’s Party (DAP) headed by Anton Drexler. Things suddenly moved fast as if a hidden hand was at work. By 1921 Hitler took over the leadership of the party which was by now called by it’s new name, National Socialist German Worker’s party (‘Nazi’ for short) and quickly proceeded to have swelling ranks of armed militia under his personal command. History books tell us that the SA (and later the SS) in short few years were numbering up to 400,000 armed men, usually ex-army, who had been recently unemployed. That is four lakh, or four hundred thousand armed men. The German Army, on the other hand, was restricted to a maximum of a 100,000 by the terms of the peace treaty signed in Louis IV`s former abode under the watchful eye of one former history professor from Princeton University.

What British and American college history text books don`t tell us is who was paying for those 400,000 men in uniform? That is 800,000 leather boots, 400,000 leather belts, leather caps, shirts, trousers, socks, shirts and jackets. I presume they had at least one extra change of uniforms issued. Let`s not even mention the laundry cost and that of all the flags and medals. Then there were the trucks and jeeps to carry them along with the rest of the logistics, including rations to feed them and their housing etc. Within a few months, starting in 1923, a new force seemed to be rising in German politics out of nowhere. Adolf Hitler and the Nazis hit the headlines with their elaborate rallies, banners, radical ideas and swelling masses of organized followers. What made this man a success? Who was paying for all that?

In the 1932 German election Hitler had a round-the-clock chartered airplane that took him places. He delivered as many as 9 speeches a day while his rivals traveled by train the old fashion way and made one or two stops a day delivering their speeches. Air travel in those days was nowhere near as common. Consider as a case in point that in the richest country of the world (USA) by 1930 the sum total of ALL commercial flights was 162,000.

There was money coming from somewhere and lots and lots of it? The 400,000 armed men had to be paid, they were not full-time volunteers. They had to be fed and the fuel bill of the fleets must have been enormous not to mention the Nazi party infra structure that had as many as 9 daily political rallies organized... I can go on, but you get the point. The German state wasn`t paying for any of it before Hitler got into office in 1933. So who was? Let`s just think about that...!

Hitler was a staunch anti-communist and he was a racist. Who in the world, in 1920s, had the money and resources to support an anti-communist bigot??? I leave the answer of this question to your good judgment.

...SR

While those Pakistanis who got their visas to the west and feel safe to talk the big talk about jihad and what-not....other Pakistanis pay the price for this. Even the arab gods of the arab worshippers among the expats are sending their ``muslim brothers`` back.



...arrival of more deportees from different countries - Dawn

Excerpts:

GUJRAT, Sept 18: The drive against human traffickers is becoming a daunting task for the FIA with the arrival of more deportees from different countries. ...

Documents related to operation Harpoon revealed that after interrogating 742 illegal immigrants from Oman the agency identified 633 human smugglers.
Similarly, Spain and Greece deported 482 Pakistanis belonging to this region in July and August. ...

Re: # 11 by SR

I would like to know the answer to your question, if you have credible sources. I can only recollect - factories from the Ruhr (to control labor unrest) and other local sources. I will not be surprised if there were private fundings from the US raised by the Lindbergs and the von Kleinsmids (even today all fundamentalists have such fundings). However, I will be surprised if the US govt. funded Hitler (secret funding should be known by now).

In addition to #11 by SR let me add the fact that the SU faced the brunt of Hitler`s onslaught losing 20 million while the US not only delayed opening a second front against Hitler in France, it ultimately lost less than a fraction and emerged with its economy booming and its infrastructure unscathed, and of course it lost no time in laying the foundation of another war with no end by creating another bogeyman and the Soviets complied with the American demand to set in place a dynamic that recently ended with the US emerging victorious. Such obliging of the US with a continuous war from which it will emerge victorious maybe not in the small battles but at the end is what my post #8 was talking about. So far this analysis has not even touched upon the cultural aspect of how the US creates and nourishes enemies for its public and the world for which it is uniquly placed on the global arena. Peons of the West like tahmed will cry big tears over Pakistani deportations from Oman but will deliberately cloud the reasons behind why thousands of years after humans have made transition from being hunter gatherers are so many people being forced to roam the earth away from their homes just to make ends meet for their families.

Recently I met an Iranian guy who owns a car workshop here in town and he is crying similar corcodile tears saying oh back home when you go to a park the people make a mess they throw food all around and over here, everything is organized, people throw trash in garbage bins and other such bs, so I had to remind him that maybe he is forgetting the fact that these industrialized countries are responsible for making a big mess the earth over, destroying its environment, depleting its forests and minerals, they are the ultimate mess makers while he, like hamidm and tahmed are worried about a chicken bone or a banana peel being thrown in a park. Oh he said, see they killed a Nun in Somalia! What`s going on in Iraq I said, just because the media gives more importance to a Nun compared to the over 100,000 the US has butchered in Afghanistan and Iraq does not mean you take that as proof of something. Finally I asked him, ``Is you name Behram``, because we have just such a bigot on chowk who used just such dimwit arguments. Oh Muslims are selfish he said, all they care about is going to heaven. Really and what about the objects of your worship the US public? Have the marriages end in divorce~ based mostly on selfish reasons~ fathers are missing they refuse to pay child support, the single mothers languish in poverty? He refused to fix my car.

read Have the marriages, as ``almost half the marriages``

Re: # 12
thanks tahmed for that link.
i think i`ve written about that before there are thousands of pakistanis working in southern europe on fruit and dairy farms some even on pig farms. the pay is around $200 a month, they live in barns sharing it with animals, pigs etc. most are from gujrat, jhelum area, the way i know about them is because i met a couple of them who manged to smuggle themselves in to uk.

Re: # 14

Masadi, why was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem aligned with Hitler? Did he represent the feelings of all of the Ummah? Your anti-Semitism seems to suggest that. Why are you such a hateful person? Does it not make you sick? Again, you talk about 100 thousands killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, but what about what your brothers are doing in Darfur? And how your Wahabi financed brothers are doing to Shias in Iraq? Don’t give us that ‘bigger picture’ nonsense.

El Prezidente Busho needs to go along with his troupe of political contortionists, never in modern history has the world appeared so dire as it does today. Wire tappings, secret prisons, renditions, gitmo, prisoner abuse, gitmo, abu ghraibs, lies, deceptions and the list goes on......not just America, the world needs to be freed from Bush and company....

Dear Masadi:

So, how would you answer this question that I have been asking you all along. Do you use your reason or do you remain a believer? You have a choice: Reason or Belief?

You know similar type of comments were made by the Pope.

Respectfully submitted,

dear masadi,

i`m really curious...i dont get why u bother arguing with ppl who are simply incapable of even trying to comprehend anything u say...is it for practicing ur debating skills, or entertainment?...cuz it certainly is entertaining and educational (i`ve learned a lot) wat u`ve got to say is amazing...buss hope tht u also put all this into other more important uses as well...:)

aslam #16 yes, life is indeed hard for the average pakistani emigrant, particularly to the middle east or much of europe (the kind that does not have the time to come and talk big on chowk). and they are the ones who have suffered the most since they are mostly illegal. given the bad reputation pakistan has received due to terrorist activities (starting with pearl`s brutal killing, and with the ongoing mess created by mullahs), countries around the world are no longer tolerating their presence, as the article indicates.

#11 by SR on September 19, 2006 10:26am PT
Re: # 9 ranjit {``... Did America create Hitler? …”}

SR mostly shows good of knowledge of issues but once in a while I have noticed that he does tend give in to conspiracy theories rather easily.
His post #11 is one example of that.

His post makes wrong assumptions to get to a faulty conclusion that somehow Hitler was supported by some mysterious and hidden powers to take over Germany.
Please read this wiki entry, which pretty accurately refutes SR`s theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler


“What British and American college history text books don`t tell us is who was paying for those 400,000 men in uniform?

SR makes it look like it happened overnight. That was not the case. The SA or the SS ranks swelled to thousands after Hitler had achieved national recognition and not before that. Once a party achieves national recognition, it gets more financial help from different financier. This was not something that happened to Nazis only.

“In the 1932 German election Hitler had a round-the-clock chartered airplane that took him places. He delivered as many as 9 speeches a day”

Wiki entry: “Hitler was campaigning by airplane. This was a brand new political tactic that allowed Hitler to speak in two cities in one day, which was practically unheard of at the time.”

But the real thrust of SR’s post is this:

“Hitler was a staunch anti-communist and he was a racist. Who in the world, in 1920s, had the money and resources to support an anti-communist bigot??? I leave the answer of this question to your good judgment.”

SR implies that perhaps the US or the British supported Hitler. Hitler was not just anti-communist or racist; he was anti Semite way before that. In fact, his political career started with his anti-Semitism in Austria.

The reality is that in the early 20s the US was not in a position to take up a long-term project of supporting Hitler to take over Germany sometime in the unknown future. The US itself was dealing with the post WW1 internal debate about its role in international politics. There was a constant battle between the liberals and the conservatives’ over the US role in international affairs. The conservative vehemently opposed any US intervention globally. The US also had not created the institutions that later on became important part of the US diplomacy. The predecessor to CIA was a small outfit that did not have enough funds or the clout to impact international affairs like the CIA does now. There were no NSA, DIA or other agencies to promote US policies internationally at that time.

British were worse off. They were dealing with multiple problems both internally and in the colonies.

SR talks abt “Adolf Hitler was a considered not only an okay guy in the corridors of power, but was actually looked upon kindly” in the US.
That is true. However, the communists looked at him kindly too. Some groups of conservatives in the US supported Hitler. But there were some groups of leftist in the US that supported communists in Russia too.

There was a diversity of opinion on what Hitler’s real ambitions were but there is nothing to prove that the US actually sponsored Hitler in his pursuit of world domination.

“Who in the world, in 1920s, had the money and resources to support an anti-communist bigot???”

The question here is whether the Bolshevik were such a force in 1920s that some one with “money and resources” would actually take the pains to nourish a little known fanatic who was inciting anti-Semitism in Austria and Bavaria.

I think this line was part of the communist/Bolshevik narrative that got currency in some intellectuals and a little fact checking can take the air out of this balloon. The communists became a force to reckon with only after the second WW. Before that, Russian internal troubles were bringing the communists down politically.

_
I take the liberty to post this here because for some this too is a subject
which piques their mumps.

---

Allahma Iqbal

Science and Faith

Once Science said to Faith:

``My eye can see all that is in this world;

The Entire world is within my net.

I am only concerned with material things,

What have I to do with spiritual matters?

I can strike a thousand melodies,

And openly proclaim all the secrets that I learn.``

Faith said:

``With your magic even the waves in the sea are set
ablaze,


You can pollute the atmosphere with foul, poisonous gases.

When you associated with me, you were light,

When you broke off from me, your light became fire.

You were of Divine origin, 

But you have been caught in the clutches of Shaytan.

Come, make this wasteland a garden once again.

Borrow from me a little of my ecstasy,

And in the world set up a paradise.

From the day of creation we have been associates,


We are the low and high tunes of the same melody.``

 

Re: # 22
what i can remember from my school history lessons, is that hitler was financed by german industralists. Germany wasn`t a banana republic it was a fairly rich industrial country, in some fields in science and technology it was ahead of us and uk.

cool. People have not really commented on the following Why the fact that such a debate and revolt is taking place in the United State? Also they sem to be incapable of asking whether such a debate is possible within the believers world.

The only one to have impinged on this debate coming from a different angle in Behram1 (see #19 for example).

The keywords faith, reason, freedom, independent thought are missing from many arguments.

cool. People have not really commented on the following Why the fact that such a debate and revolt is taking place in the United State? Also they sem to be incapable of asking whether such a debate is possible within the believers world.

The only one to have impinged on this debate coming from a different angle in Behram1 (see #19 for example).

The keywords faith, reason, freedom, independent thought are missing from many arguments.

#23 if all else fails quote the ummahist of all. Ek_bal!

Echoboom wants science to be the knowledge of Djinns and Pharistas. This way the mullahs can rule the roost and have many more little boys to warm their cockles!

What a shyster?

. ,****,
.((@..@)) Arjun_Macaca is back!
.. ``(--)``

is zeemax is kid? A bachha? he seems to be a shrill little child or is he a ``she``?

Who is arjun_Macaca?

#29 Dick

Dear Dick,

Zeemax appears legitimately concerned.

Identify yourself properly to the vast, teeming masses of chowk squatters!

Zeemax, friend why are youdreaming about arjun_m and seeing him everywhere. Bad for your health!

#30, #29 Yaah! Dick what can you say about yourself?

Allama Iqbal derogated reason (and the derived knowledge of science) to extreme limits. Some of his devoted followers wondered “Iqbal aql kay peechay kyon’ latth liye rahtay hain?” One of the facts which many of us have not resolved is that when the question of his condemnation of reason and science is considered, benefit of doubt is given to him because we worship him as an authority. Even those who haven’t read his philosophy consider him unassailable. In fact, it is largely true of those who haven’t read his philosophy. It does not occur to them that Iqbal could be wrong. The fact is that Iqbal was wrong on many issues; his condemnation of science is only one of them. His devotees quote him as if they are quoting from Quran.

He also said although I am not sure if he said in the context that I understand it:

Sher mardon’ sey hua baisha-e-tahqeeq tahee
Rah gaiy sufi-o-mullah kay ghulam a’ay saqi

The field of scientific research is completely empty of the Muslim scientists.

There was no occasion to bring Iqbal and his condemnation of science here because it is toally out of place in the context of the original article.

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 32
freethinker dude you on the money friend. But our other friends the mullahasishi Echoboom and others are not freethining animals. Purely derivative thinking there. For them Science is the knowledge of the Djinns and pharistas and sonpapris.
Hoodwinking people is their game. So that they are the so-called knowledge people and can get many little camel jocks to worm them on cold noghts.
If people think freely they, the Echobboms of this world, lose out big time.

You are barking up the gum tree mate!

Re: # 30
so who are your Shri BJKumari jee?

Zeemax is on hallucinogens and is like a little carcinoma full of carcinogens. Do not side with an idiot who names himself after a modified car - cheap skate cannot buy the real fast cars but buy cheeap and sups them up!

Re: # 30

If you really want to know go here Click here to enter

#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.

#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!

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.

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

#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???

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

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.

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.

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.

#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!!!)

Interseting question BJ #40,

“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.”

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

The answer is that the assumption preceding the question is not only not `obviously true`, but completely FALSE.

That is why Mohathir Mohamad says that the only reason Muslims are backward is because they left the teachings of Quran. Of-course, he says a lot of other things as well like bringing about the decline & fall of USA.

Or don`t you think Mohathir, who practically built Malaysia single-handedly from a lazy colonial backwater to the powerhouse it is today, knows a thing or two?

About Gillster and his friends, they need to read more Iqbal.

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: # 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!

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

#49

Dear Dick,

I must agree with you on what you said about the poet Iqbal.

Anybody who takes the poet Iqbal seriously ought to have his or her head examined by the Sohail – probably at highly discounted rates because of the large number of visits required.

Except for the saving grace for Iqbal that he may have been a poet. And NOBODY takes poets seriously.

Nobody in their right mind, that is!

Of course, with my Paapistani brothers and sisters, that is always an open question.

#36 by tahmed32 on September 20, 2006 6:07am PT
according to some historians islamic world was going through enlightenment (age of reason)
date wine was halal in baghdad in spain prayers were said in berber language etc.
the crusades and mongol invasion put a stop to that, what happens when a civilisation is under attack it turns inward, that`s exactly what happened to islamic civilisation.

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.

THE FALSE DEMOCRACY OF ELITES


Bush Is A Devil, Chavez Says, Echoing Some in US
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
September 20, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - The United Nations building still stinks of sulphur, after the ``devil`` -- President George W. Bush -- addressed the General Assembly, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez told the world on Wednesday.

Chavez` speech to the General Assembly -- a personal attack on President Bush -- was greeted with sustained applause from the United Nations` member states.

Chavez, after calling Bush a devil, said he thinks Bush needs a psychiatrist.

The Bush-hatred spewing from Chavez sounded familiar, given the fact that some Americans espouse the same beliefs, as their free-speech rights entitle them to do.

Personal attacks on Bush are daily fare on various liberal blogs and Air America talk radio, where Bush is routinely blasted as stupid, incompetent, power-hungry, crazy, and extremist.

Chavez accused Bush the ``dictator`` of trying to consolidate his grip on world domination. He said Bush wants to impose ``the false democracy of elites`` on the world. And he accused Bush of racism, saying that he paints people of color -- such as the new Bolivian president -- as extremists.

The imperialists see extremists everywhere, Chavez said. ``It`s not that we are extremists,`` he added -- it`s that the world is ``waking up -- and rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.``

Chavez made it clear that he was talking about Bush the ``imperialist,`` not the American people.

As Cybercast News Service has previously reported, Chavez -- who is friendly with some of America`s worst foes (Iran, North Korea and Cuba) -- is lobbying for a seat on the U.N. Security Council.

GT in #45 <<< 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. >>>

Actually the model that sees political as a committee of the big corporations, has nothing to do with `power elite` model, it has more to do with the classical Marxist point of view which in the classical Victorian era was quite accurate. Crisis, particularly the great depression and the ensuing New Deal forced them to make adjustments within that hierarchy of institutions, that is the Power Elite Model. The Power Elite model refers more to the world emerging after WW2 though its context can be found in that war. I think we have discussed that model long enough on Chowk for you to view it in past posts rather than a new discussion on the pluralism vs power elite model being necessary. Here is an article in case you missed reading it when I provided the link before. You can disagree with me if you want but there are no other competing models whatsoever that fit in with the facts post WW2.

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.

#51 by bjkumar

. ,****,
.((@..@))
.. ``(--)``

Have you dropped your demand of introductions from Mr. Macaca? Now you`re appeasing him.

Just wondering ... all these macacas keep harping upon darfur ... and the darfur board is empty. Why?

Re: # 58

Precisely because darfur board is empty... macacas need some pakis to kick around... no pakis, no board....

#58 the cheapdo, mullahashishi, Jamaat-e-chowk-ibn-al-qaeda Amir Shreik Zeemax is going bonkers. Will the members of the Jamaat-e-chowk please return it back to him.

What now?

Re: # 51
it is NOT pappistani - it is Pakistani just like it is not fir but phir. What are you - a hindu!!!!!!

Urstruly:54

The whole world is applauding.

Chavez is another darling of the world. The United Satans--this was my coinage--is being zaleeled right and left everywhere.

InshaAllah we the collapse would come sooner than even anticipated.

Ahmediejad--Zindabaad
Hugo Chavez Zindabaad
Fidel Castro--Zinda-O-Paindabaad.

Lakhh LaanUt on the United-Satan; Aaaakhhhhh Thhhooooooooooo!

Re: # 61
[...it is NOT pappistani -it is Pakistani...]

It`s not even ``Pakistani``, it`s actually ``Bakistani``... that`s the way your bedouin masters pronounce it... so you wannabe-bedouins might as well speak the same way.. and also it fits better... :)

Re: # 9
thousand apologies for saying anything against your country. Dont you think you should fight for Hindus taking a shower daily rather than stand up for America.......

Re: # 63
lol - so now we are ``wannabe-bedouins``. Dont you think it is better than to suck gora ``you know what``. But I guess you guys are used to it. I guess you always want another race to look after you. first it was the muslims, than the British and now Bush. Can`t you ever do anything yourself except make your mothers and sisters dance - lol

Re: # 64
[...should fight for Hindus taking a shower daily rather than stand up for America...]

Sure... what about you bedouins and wannab-bedouins?... when are you going to take your first shower?... Remember, washing your earlobes a few times ain`t a shower... :)

#61 by hasanmahmood

[it is NOT pappistani - it is Pakistani just like it is not fir but phir. What are you - a hindu!!!!!!]

Omigosh, you actually noticed the subtle difference! What are you – a Paapistani???

aslam #52 I think the crusades had only a marginal influence on muslim society - the europeans back then were economically and technologically were basically at par with muslims, and their conquests were limited to jerusalem and the ``crusader kingdoms`` that did stretch along the eastern mediterranean coast (levant) and inland to current day syria. The mongols (whose vassal tribe the ottomans started of as) had a more lasting impact i think, in terms of firmly establishing kingships (and the associated sharia laws). The real rot in muslim societies was internal, however. This rot being the result of the perpetuation of kingships (khalifas).

The damage done by these kingships I think was in keeping the Age of Reason, along with other ``dangerous`` western influences notably the questioning of the ``Divine Right of Kings`` that dawned on europe from spreading into the muslim world. Only after getting routinely clobbered by the ever-strengthening europeans (starting with the defeat in the Austro-Ottoman war of the late 17th century) did the ottomans start making some moves in trying to catch up - but picked on the low-hanging fruits of western civilization only - namely military technology.

This preoccupation with picking on this low-hanging fruit - military technology - while remaining contemptuous of the soil provided by the Age of Reason, remains to this day the curse of muslim societies.

dot #38 This man whose picture you included is cut from the same cloth as our pakistani paindoos who stand humbly in line to get visas to the west, and once secure in their residency or citizenship status, start to spit on it.

Glad you agreed on the (admittedly somewhat oversimplified) linkage of Iqbal (and indian muslims) with the Romantic Hero and of Sir Syed (and indian muslims) with the Age of Reason. These damed romantic heroes of the muslim world keep too many muslims living in a dream world, while the rest of the world is moving forward to become increasingly progressive in terms of not merely military technology and easy welath, but in terms of economic growth and political progress.

in #69 below, it should be ``Sir Syed (and indian hindus)``

tahmed in #68 <<< The damage done by these kingships I think was in keeping the Age of Reason, along with other ``dangerous`` western influences notably the questioning of the ``Divine Right of Kings`` that dawned on europe from spreading into the muslim world. >>>

The ``age of reason``, innovation and the resulting scientific method dawned in Muslim societies long before it ever reached the West, this is according to leading historians like Robert Briffault:

It is highly probable that but for the Arabs, modern European civilization would have never assumed that character which has enabled it to transcend all previous phases of evolution. For although there is not a single aspect of human growth in which the decisive influence of Islamic culture is not traceable, nowhere is it so clear and momentous as in the genesis of that power which constitutes the paramount distinctive force of the modern world and the supreme course of its victory-natural sciences and the scientific spirit... What we call science arose in Europe as a result of a new spirit of inquiry; of new methods of investigation, of the method of experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of Mathematics in a form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and those methods were introduced into the European world by the Arabs.[Robert Briffault, The Making of Humanity(1928)]

It is quite baffling that tahmed was justifying colonization and terming it and the ``anglo saxon` ethos beneficial, now he takes it even further back by justifying the Crusades saying they had little impact when they have determined Christian perceptions of Islam, through a whole enterprise of Crusader inspired caricatures and Muslim perceptions of the Christian world through the explicitly religiously motivated barbarism of the crusaders that carries over to this day. He further does not have any clue about the so called Kingships in the Muslim world which had largely autonomous and decentralized rule, and did not involve any ``divine right`` of Kings. He is trying to outdo the most conservative of the Western apologists, even they will not go to the extent of supporting the Crusades and the religiously motivated carnage they caused.

The GOOD news is that the United Satan is getting Zaleeled all over the world.
InshaAllah the Kalb-i-Azams {Top Dogs} of the mongerels & mutts from the Cantonement Kennels, Colonies, and Laal-kurtis [the servant quarters of the Uniformed Langoors]
will soon be yelping and whimpering at the feet of higher civilisations.

Setting back the Calendars to 1492 isn`t that difficult after all.

Venezuela leader Chavez calls President Bush `the devil`


Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took his verbal battle with the United States to the floor of the UN General Assembly on Wednesday, calling US President George W Bush ``the devil`` and denouncing what he said was US imperialism.

The impassioned speech by Chavez, a leftist and one of the Bush`s staunchest critics, came a day after the US president and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sparred over Tehran`s disputed nuclear programme but managed to avoid a personal encounter.

``The devil came here yesterday,`` Chavez said, referring to Bush`s address on Tuesday and making the sign of the cross. ``He came here talking as if he were the owner of the world.`` Standing at the podium, Chavez quipped that a day after Bush`s appearance: ``In this very spot it smells like sulfur still.``

Chavez held up a book by American leftist writer Noam Chomsky ``Hegemony or Survival: America`s Quest for Global Dominance`` and recommended it to everyone in the General Assembly. The leftist leader, who has joined Iran and Cuba in opposing US influence, accused Washington of ``domination, exploitation and pillage of peoples of the world.``

``We appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our head,`` he said.

Chavez`s diatribe reflected the difficulty Bush faces in his key mission at the UN - convincing a largely skeptical world audience that his administration`s fight against terrorism was not one targeting Muslims.

The main US seat in the assembly hall was empty as Chavez spoke. But there was a ``junior note taker`` there, as is customary ``when governments like that speak,`` the US ambassador to the UN said.

Ambassador John Bolton said that Chavez had the right to express his opinion, adding it was ``too bad the people of Venezuela don`t have free speech.``

``I`m just not going to comment on this because his remarks just don`t warrant a response,`` Bolton said. ``Serious people can listen to what he had to say and if they do they will reject it.`` Describing the UN as an ``important world stage`` on which leaders represent their citizens, State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey, said such personal attacks were ``disappointing.`` ``You know, the UN is an important world stage, and an important forum, and leaders come there representing their people and their country,`` Casey said in Washington. ``And I`ll leave it to the Venezuelan people to determine whether President Chavez represented them and presented them in a way they would have liked to have seen.``

Chavez drew tentative giggles at times from the audience, but also some applause when he called Bush the devil. Chavez spoke on the second day of the annual ministerial meetings, which were overshadowed by an ambitious agenda of sideline talks.

The West Asia peace process also was in the spotlight, with ministers from the Quartet that drafted the stalled road map - the US, the UN, the European Union and Russia - planning to meet. The Security Council also was scheduled to hold a ministerial meeting on Thursday that Arab leaders hope will help revive the West Asia peace process.

On Wednesday, Bush met with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and described him as ``a man of peace`` who can help move forward the stalled peace process.

The meeting followed up on his speech a day earlier before the General Assembly in which Bush tried to advance his campaign for democracy in the West Asia during his address to the General Assembly. Bush said extremists were trying to justify their violence by falsely claiming the US is waging war on Islam. He singled out Iran and Syria as sponsors of terrorism.

Bush also pointed to Tehran`s rejection of a Security Council demand to stop enriching uranium by Aug. 31 or face the possibility of sanctions. But he addressed his remarks to the Iranian people in a clear insult to the government.

``The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation`s resources to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons,`` the US leader said.

``Iran must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions,`` he said. ``Despite what the regime tells you, we have no objection to Iran`s pursuit of a truly peaceful nuclear power programme.`` He said he hoped to see ``the day when you can live in freedom, and America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace.``

Ahmadinejad took the podium hours later, denouncing US policies in Iraq and Lebanon and accusing Washington of abusing its power in the Security Council to punish others while protecting its own interests and allies.

The hard-line leader insisted that his nation`s nuclear activities are ``transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eye`` of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog. He also reiterated his nation`s commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Earlier this month, Ahmadinejad proposed a debate with Bush at the General Assembly`s ministerial meeting after the White House dismissed a previous TV debate proposal as a ``diversion`` from serious concerns over Iran`s nuclear programme.

Although the two leaders spoke from the same podium, they skipped each other`s addresses and managed to avoid direct contact during the ministerial meeting.

Also on Wednesday, Afghan President Hamid Karzai warned that terrorism is rebounding in his country and said efforts to build democracy there had suffered setbacks over the past year as violence increased, especially in the volatile south where NATO forces have been battling Taliban militants in some of the fiercest battles since the hard-line government was toppled in 2001. ``We have seen terrorism rebounding as terrorists have infiltrated our borders to step up their murderous campaign against our people,`` he told the General Assembly.

He said the situation was so bad it had contributed to a rise in polio from four cases in 2005 to 27 this year because health workers were unable to reach the region.

But he said the problem had to be fought beyond Afghanistan`s borders as well as within.

``We must look beyond Afghanistan to the sources of terrorism,`` he said. ``We must destroy terrorist sanctuaries beyond Afghanistan.``

He also expressed concern about ``the increased incidents of Islamophobia in the West,`` saying it does not ``bode well for the cause of building understanding and cooperation across civilizations.``

The crisis in the ravaged Sudanese region of Darfur also was on the agenda on Wednesday, with the African Union`s Peace and Security Council meeting to discuss breaking the deadlock over a plan to replace an AU force with UN peacekeepers.

The bloc decided to extend the mandate of peacekeeping forces in Darfur through the end of the year, ensuring that international troops will remain in the war-torn Sudanese province for now. The United Nations will provide material and logistic support to the mission, though Sudan is still resisting demands that the UN take over the mission from the AU, said Burkina Faso President Blaise Compaore, head of the AU Peace and Security Council.

GT {``...my question to SR remains unanswered. [i.e., proof of US government involvement]... I would not be surprised if the US govt. did indeed support Hitler. I simply want to know...``}

You have narrowed it down to a very fine point. Unfortunately, the issue is more nebulous. Therefore, a specific, rasor-sharp answer would be ``NO``, there is no proof of US Gvernment (meaning White House and Capital Hill) involvement.

Now, that`s not the end. It`s seldom as clear cut as that. Let me give you an example to illustrate a point.

Suppose that there were an organization that was believed to carry out various acts of terror in several countries around the world. Suppose also that there was a poor under developed land-locked country in one of the big mountain regions of the planet where this organization supposedly had its shadowy presence. Imagine also that there was another underdeveloped country run by its military that boardered the land-locked country. Now if it were so that elements in the second country (the one with the military rule) were to give aid and comfort to the terrorist organization on its border so as to get their assistance with another cross-border clandestine operation elsewhere, they would probably take care not to leave too many historical documents. We are unlikely to get our hands on a Memorandum of Understanding signed by officials of the second country. They would not be recording their unwritten pacts.

How then could you know what they were up to? You couldn`t, yet you could in a way. Your ``evidence`` would not stand up in a western court of law. Yet historians would piece together various reports and documents that may have been unrelated, but formed a part of a pattern that could paint a fairly plausible picture. Some would call it circumstantial evidence, other would say it was a conspiracy theory. Still others would shrug their shoulders and say something like, ``interesting``, or, ``may be``... etc. Soem would look at it with an open mind others would simply take the official line of the military government of the second country and reject out of hand any possibility that something not quite kosher may have been going on.

Like wise, in the case of the US, we run into another confounding factor. Unlike a third world country where the be-all and end-all of everything is the government, the power structure of the US is a huge multiplex of which ``the government`` is only one piece.

(This brings us to another very vast question as to WHAT or WHO is America? But that`s another long debate.)

So, I don`t know that your focus on the US ``government`` involvement is necessarily conducive to getting a true picture of things.

Urstruly, for instance, thinks that ``most of the record of business in the war period between US and Germany has been made to disappear`` because the ``Jews have vested interest`` and that such matters have ``been swept under the rug of obscure history.``

I do not think he should drag all the Jews into this issue. It is neither helpful nor necessary. Commercial Interests may be a better label to blame a group, if indeed a group needs blaming at all. Records are very much available, they just may not be available on the internet. We live in the lazy age where if you cannot find it on-line, it doesn`t exist. Like I said in my earlier message, go to the New York Public Library. Maybe I am just technologically challanged. But I can remember a time when serious research did take place and there was no internet. Back in the early 1980s I`ve spent a lot of time in the New York Public Library finding all kinds of gems in their archives. As an amature history buff I looked up many old newspapers and magazines from earlier years and the things that one finds are not on the internet. At least not for free. At least NOT YET. Let`s ask Urstruly, maybe he`ll tell us that the Jews own the internet, that`s why. I think, its just not in the Commercial Interest of the powers that be to simplify life.

...SR

Re: # 22 HP {``...I have noticed that he does tend give in to conspiracy theories rather easily. ...``}

Brother HP, let`s not get so warm under the collar. There is no need to address me in the thrid person singular. I am your humble servant, at your service.

I have no wish to dissect your post line by line and issue rebuttals. You are entitled to your views just as the rest of us are to ours. I`ll make it very brief and only take a couple of small points, almost at random.

{``... reality is that in the early 20s the US was not in a position to take up a long-term project ...``}

Come on, be real. Surely you know of the ``Roaring 20`s`` also called the ``Booming 20s``... It was an era of unprecedented economic prosperity in the US. Europe lay in ruins. The US was unquestioned super-rich, super-power of the world. Joined the War in 1917 and walked away with the prize. The Empire was ready to be transferred from the UK to the US just then. It didn`t have to wait until after the Second War. But they just decided to turn inwards and were absolutely paranoid about communists and anarchists. Just like today its terrorism and drugs. Totally out of proportion. If the resources were not there in the US, where else could they have been? In Ethiopia?

Well, that`s just one point. I meant to take a couple more, at random... but I`m really bored. Have no wish to convince you or anyone else. Please believe what you may.

...SR

Re: # 73 by SR

SR:

Thanks for your reply. I wasn`t really interested in a `proof` per se. Here was my original question:

``I would like to know the answer to your question, if you have credible sources.``

You seem to be saying that you remember some documents from the NY archives which could provide some credibility. If you are right, then it would really be interesting. Hope someone does some research on this. But till then, allow me to remain skeptical.

Re: # 32

You are right in your observation MG!.

When we subordinate the reason to emotions we ignore flaws of of one we admire or love. That is what happens everyday, when we raise our heros to immortality.

Kamath

#74 by SR
“I have no wish to dissect your post line by line and issue rebuttals.”

Why not? Is it because you really have no rebuttal and can’t justify your theory or I should rather say conspiracy theory?

“Come on, be real. Surely you know of the ``Roaring 20`s`` also called the ``Booming 20s``... It was an era of unprecedented economic prosperity in the US.”

This reply unfortunately tells me that you really don’t know what are you talking abt. I brought up the 20s in a specific context, which was mostly political and diplomatic. I referenced US isolationism, which was a major force in the US political circles in the 20s. A little search on Google would get the whole info on that.

“During the 1920`s and 1930`s, America was in isolation, and took little part in international relations (conferences and treaties between the nations) .In addition America, isolated herself in terms of trade. Tariffs (import duties) were put on foreign goods to protect American industry. (Because they could not sell their goods to America, European countries could not afford to buy agricultural goods (farm produce) from the USA. This was one of the causes of the Depression.)”

Some conspiracy theorist and other analyst have made a big deal out of the US companies such as FORD and IBM doing business with Germany in the 30s and some companies did continue after 1939. First thing, we need to remember that there were no restrictions from the US government to do business with Germany after Hitler took over that country. Nor was there any need to force such restrictions. The US companies were not breaking any laws. The US companies doing business with Germany is NOT a proof that the US was supporting the Nazis.

The US stock market despite the 1929 crash, was still one of the major markets in the world, many countries had invested money in the Market, and Germany was no exception. Some German owned banks legally operated in the US until the war started, and at that time, those banks were confiscated as enemy property. Bush’s grandfather was also a Director in one of those banks and it was no crime before the war to be a director of a German owned bank.

Hardly any US company did business with Germany during the war.

Urstruly in his post #48 despite some melodrama makes some valid points. The US was responsible for the fall of the British Empire and closer home, Indian independence and the British rushing the things through was due to the US pressure too.

I see a reference to circumstantial evidence. There is no such thing a