Musharraf’s Coup - Seven Years Later

Wow... balochistan , Waziristan... what do we have next.... FATA ke FAT gayee Hai !!! I can see the future(really!!!!)USP(United states of Pakistan) is a reality. Pak army should stop fingering it`s Padosis(India, Afghanistan, Iran) , and it`s politicians before it is too late for them to find retirement homes for the Generals ....

Krishna_abcd

Mercifully, the long era of unlimited acceptance is coming to an end, even in India - a land that went the farthest on this poorly considered route, and naturally paid the heaviest cost for its folly.

#279 by sadna

[You must be some loser Paki`s kin to be talking so much out of your rear end. See, I can argue like you do too, but I don`t see the point. ]

Actually I`ll try my best to limit my interactions on Chowk to a minimum, and maybe even wean myself off gradually - it is hard not to want to stuff choice invectives down the throats of scum like HP, faisaluno, HisExcellency a lot of times.

Chowk is infested with common idiots such as yourself. There are only a handful of knowledgeable people worth talking to, who argue on point, and are also well-read and articulate. But they seem not to interact that often - they seem to have come to this realization long ago, having been around longer.

Go start an argument with Mantolives or HP.

#274 by swarrier

[...For example, from your irrational hatred of Muslims am I to conclude that some sensible Muslim girl who you pined after gave you the good old heave-ho (as Wodehouse would put it.) After all it is your assumption that reasoning seems to be driven by your genitals.]

Yes, IF I refuse to provide any rational argument for my supposed ``hatred`` for Muslims, THEN you can consider that as a possible motive - this kind of motive is accepted in courts around the world on a daily basis.

See if you can understand the above statement.

I think you will try to evade the issue ans make ad-hominem attacks. Because you HAVE no argument left.

Re: # 281
Sonny
Anybody who has made attacks is you. Don`t protest too much if somebody tells you that you don`t have guts, or brains. Also a rational argument does not usually end in the statement , `` I find that hard to believe``. You`ve got to have proof bud.

Now you being rational is laughable just as Himmler was about the Jews.

Name calling usually indicates a paucity of imagination, intelligence etc. Now that you admit that sex is the seat of your reason, try to understand that other people reason with a brain.

You don`t even have a sense of humour.

#275 by kaalchakra

[See if you agree with this view. In the Indian tradition, there are two ``peaceful`` religions: Buddhism and Jainism. Hinduism is netural about violence. It recognizes force and violence as necessary aspects of the state maintaining order and state. Force/violence is given legitimacy as the Kshatriya dharma.]

There is no clear-cut definition for Hinduism. There is a wide array of philosophies, with common threads running through them, and there is a wide array of social norms, beliefs and traditions that are based on a myriad of mythologies, some of them used to illustrate the principles of some of the world-views. Beyond that, Hindu tradition and culture is a vast collage of often contradictory ideologies, ranging from the human-sacrifice of the Kali-worshipping ``Thuggies`` to this Swarrier`s ghoulish ancestors who apparently used to offer body-parts to the Gods, to the Vaishnavs, the Shaivites, the Jains to the Buddhists and a thousand others.

The main thread that connects the disparate beliefs in Hinduism is not an interest in the mundane - who should be fighting whom, how one should be marrying, and how many, whether you should be peeling off your foreskin and nonsense like that. It is interested about the deeper questions that are common to all of humanity. It is a quest for knowledge with no guaranteed answers.

In Hindu mythologies, though, you are absolutely correct when you say that there is literature that talks about such things as violence and non-violence.



[But this legitimated ``violence`` is made secondary to and is constrained to broad (not day-to-day) guidance from the intellectual moral order of the society. Sikhism (khalsa tradition) is the only Indian religion that actually makes violence a positive value but ONLY and unambiguously in regard to self-defence.

So, if by violent religion, one means recourse to violence in order to compel others to see the ``religious/moral light`` as we see it, then there are probably no such Indian religions. If by violent religions, one means any religion that considers violence as legitmate choice under ANY circumstances, then Hinduism and Sikhism would fall under this category. Hinduism is quite neutral, considering violence as a (necessary) tool in the hands of the order-maintaining/expanding political state. Sikhism`s relationship to violence is more explicitly `spiritual` and is related to self-defense and self-preservation. ]

I think the reason Hindus have suffered so much in the hands of the Muslims is because of our tradition of non-violence and extreme tolerance. The same Islamic apologists like Swarrier that try to show the whole Hindu-Muslim thing as a 50-50 issue, are the people that defend the right of the Muslims to erect mosques in the holiest of Hindu places, and simultaneously defend the Muslims` right to deny any non-Muslims any right to set foot in Mecca and Medina.

These traitors and turncoats are the enablers that allow Islam to continuously eat away at the peace and happiness of the average Indian like an everpresent cancer. They are the ones that prevent any decisive step to be taken - sanctimoniously self-righteous and self-professed intellectuals.

If the jehadis and the jehadi sympathisers want war, by god, I say let`s give it to them. Indians are dying everyday anyway at the hands of these mofos. Let`s roll right through that accursed Pakiland and Afganiland and Iran and Iraq and convert all the Muslims to anything they want except for Islam. Let`s invite the world to join in. After we have rolled through Pakiland and Afganiland, there will be others who will join us.

I say let`s just do it. Use the Spanish formula. For a brighter tomorrow for everybody.

krishna_abcd#271
You must be some loser Paki`s kin to be talking so much out of your rear end. See, I can argue like you do too, but I don`t see the point.

swarrier

Glad we agree. Having to disagree with a sword-worshipping friend would have been worrisome. :)

Re: # 277
Them`s were different times, now I am in pursuit of a good Santoku knife to dice vegetables etc. These horrible Germans charge the earth for good steel.

Swarrier and krishna

See if you agree with this view. In the Indian tradition, there are two ``peaceful`` religions: Buddhism and Jainism. Hinduism is netural about violence. It recognizes force and violence as necessary aspects of the state maintaining order and state. Force/violence is given legitimacy as the Kshatriya dharma. But this legitimated ``violence`` is made secondary to and is constrained to broad (not day-to-day) guidance from the intellectual moral order of the society. Sikhism (khalsa tradition) is the only Indian religion that actually makes violence a positive value but ONLY and unambiguously in regard to self-defence.

So, if by violent religion, one means recourse to violence in order to compel others to see the ``religious/moral light`` as we see it, then there are probably no such Indian religions. If by violent religions, one means any religion that considers violence as legitmate choice under ANY circumstances, then Hinduism and Sikhism would fall under this category. Hinduism is quite neutral, considering violence as a (necessary) tool in the hands of the order-maintaining/expanding political state. Sikhism`s relationship to violence is more explicitly `spiritual` and is related to self-defense and self-preservation.

This is just an opinion, and both of you will naturally have equally valid ideas regarding this subject.

Re: # 275
Kaal my dear fellow. That is precisely what I meant. After all as a wee child on my mothers side of the family we were to worship our family swords et al , that are still preserved from god knows when. Tahmed may know, he claims to be old enough. -)

Plus we were also supposed to chop up a few unsuspecting animals and offer them up to our family goddess. I presume in the old days a few enemy body parts would have sufficed. Dang the British for stopping all those fun times.

Of course tradition demanded that you abstained from eating meat before the battle to purify your mind from vague thoughts. So its all impersonal you see.

Krishna

That is a most painful story. Undoubtedly, there are innumerable such incidences on all sides. We have to understand what is going on here. Why some communities are hurt more than others, what they are doing wrong, and others doing right.

#268

[You have demanded another poster`s personal details on this very thread, so there is no point in denying it.]

You have become too accustomed to arguing with idiots like Mantolives, ad nauseum. Asking for someone`s personal details does not equate to personalizing the discussion. For example, if you are Hitler`s kin, and REFUSE to give any logic for your biased statements about Jews, then ONE of the possible reasons would certainly be that this is caused by your kinship to Hitler.

See, how your allegation about me is garbage?

[You did say that Bajrang Dal and VHP can`t be compared to jihadis( a number of Indian killers belong to these organisations) so no point in denying that either.]

I am not denying that. The Bajrang Dal and the VHP are POLITICAL PARTIES that cannot be compared to the jehadi organizations.

YOU MISSED THE WHOLE POINT - THAT EVEN IF A FEW GOONDAS IN THE HINDUTVA-VADI PARTIES ARE CRIMINALS, THAT DOESN`T MAKE THE HINDUTVA-VADI PARTIES THE SAME AS THE JEHADI ORGANIZATIONS.

See, I am not contradicting anything that I have said from the beginning. But you are.

Think a little before charging ahead. You are not arguing with Mantolives.

[I have raised and do raise the issue of Congress/Communist violence as and when I think appropriate, not to prove my credibility to self-righteous self-absorbed idiots on the web. ]

Yes, but NOWHERE near as frequestly as you raise issues about the Hindutva-vadi parties.

See, this validates my point about you being biased.

[All you have really to say is that I have Islamist kin and you claim to speak on behalf of all Hindus though I am one too. You are remarkably like Pakis- they call anyone who disagrees with them either anti-Paki or anti-Muslim which is convenient but utterly meaningless. You too basically have no argument to offer( your recital of ignorant prejudice about me cannot be called arguments) so I am done here. ]

I have no arguments, and THAT is why you are trying to escape. This won`t be the first time. :)

Re: # 271
[You have become too accustomed to arguing with idiots like Mantolives, ad nauseum. Asking for someone`s personal details does not equate to personalizing the discussion.]

Perhaps you fail to see what is clear to other people, that asking someone for personal details and using it to form your own biased conclusions is personalising the discussion.

For example, from your irrational hatred of Muslims am I to conclude that some sensible Muslim girl who you pined after gave you the good old heave-ho (as Wodehouse would put it.) After all it is your assumption that reasoning seems to be driven by your genitals.

266 by kaalchakra

[....(2) To achieve (1) without presuming anything negative about specific individuals, unless relevant facts are publicly available. Personalizing a debate negates the second objective. ]

kaalchakra,

I never write ANYTHING without thinking about it first, unlike most idiots that pervade this website.

Swarrier had made the asinine statement that the PROOF that Hinduism is a violent religion is the fact that his caste used to be warriers. In spite of my repeated questioning, when he failed to address my questions in this regard, I concluded that he did not have an argument, but passionately believed in it - THEREFORE the reason he is saying this must be one of the two:

1) either, he must have a PERSONAL reason to want to believe it - this is always penis-related, or,

2) he is a JNU jholawala type lefty.

This process has been a way of trying to narrow down why someone would make a highly irrational and asinine statement, AND then stick to his guns, AND REFUSE TO PROVIDE ANY PROOF OR ARGUMENT in this regard.

If people see this as an attempt to personalize issues etc., I really couldn`t care less.

I used to know a Punjabi Hindu family (in the US) where the father was very devout - he used to sing at temples etc. This only daughter (ABCD) fell in love with a Paki. This guy forced her to convert, to change her name, and she used to tell my wife how her mother-in-law would berate her about not being a ``true`` Muslim. When her friend would go to parties this poor girl would be forced to go to the mosque. You should have see her father. He lost weight, lost any interest in life for a while. But gradually he recovered. Within a space of two years he became a virulent Sikh-hater. Used to make jokes about how Sikhs are troublemakers etc. We used to keep quiet - everyone felt sorry for him.

This guy had to rationalize to retain his sanity. He HAD to BELIEVE that Muslims are all good and nonviolent, and Sikhs are the problem-makers in this world - otherwise how could he tolerate the conversion of his only daughter to this 5-times a day Koran-reading Muslim?

Personal experiences and compulsions do have an effect on your thinking process, unless you are mentally strong.

I never said that it is DEFINITELY his penis that swarrier is following. I said it is ONE OF only two explanations there can be, since he himself had no rational explanation for his own statement.

#265

krishna_abcd
You have demanded another poster`s personal details on this very thread, so there is no point in denying it. You did say that Bajrang Dal and VHP can`t be compared to jihadis( a number of Indian killers belong to these organisations) so no point in denying that either. I have raised and do raise the issue of Congress/Communist violence as and when I think appropriate, not to prove my credibility to self-righteous self-absorbed idiots on the web.

All you have really to say is that I have Islamist kin and you claim to speak on behalf of all Hindus though I am one too. You are remarkably like Pakis- they call anyone who disagrees with them either anti-Paki or anti-Muslim which is convenient but utterly meaningless. You too basically have no argument to offer( your recital of ignorant prejudice about me cannot be called arguments) so I am done here.