Hypocrisy Big

re: rsaxena #19
[ ... ...hold on.....this indian is fully against that bumbling fool`s plans for iraq...not out of love for saddam, but because of what it will do to our economy and our security situation as residents of the US... ]

That`s what I said, no? Your opposition in this matter is based on self-interest, not on some vague, suicidal and outdated moral value.

re: adnan

{Indians have no moral qualms about the imperalistic tendencies of the Bush administration.}

...hold on.....this indian is fully against that bumbling fool`s plans for iraq...not out of love for saddam, but because of what it will do to our economy and our security situation as residents of the US...

Like many, I have no problems with an attack on Saddam Hussain.

My two concerns are:

-The Iraqi people

and

-That the US should get itself above the level of a drug dealer who`s out after a former accomplice-turned-traitor. It isn`t OK for Saddam to be in power now and it wasn`t OK before when he was a `useful` to the Americans.

As for where Islam comes in all this: If you can sum it all up in a `Religion of Peace` type bottom line, that isn`t everyone`s Islam. Strange that you haven`t realized it yet.

re Field Marshall #13
You keep saying ``And it has directly or indirectly killed more human beings than any other country since WWII.``
Do you have any statistics to back up this claim? From what little I know, in the post WWII era, Mao caused 40-60million deaths. The upper estimate for both Khmer Rouge and the brave army of the land of the pure is about 3 million. The upper estimate for number of North Vietnamese civilian+military deaths in Vietnam War is 2 million.
If you have more reliable data, I will be happy to be corrected.

ho hum. here we go again. the usual gang of idiots blaming pakistan for everything under the sun. surprised not to have seen any posts linking pakistani army to the economic crises in argentina. actually, i am a little flattered with the attention indians pay to pakistan now that they have expresso bars and infosys and wipro and thus live in an empire that exceeds the glory of the ancient greek and the ancient roman empires combined.

there is however hope for us barbarians who live beyond the pale. uncle sam is finally cleaning up the mess it helped to create in the first place. we will deal with uncle sam after it helps us to get rid of our monsters. and on this we are one up on the indians. after all, how much better would india be if uncle sam would have gone around chasing bal thackeray instead.

[ ... President Bush works for me, a voter, and not the other way around. So I propose we the people vote the obstacle out. ...]

Haroon, this month`s elections have proved that the general public does not agree with your viewpoint. The American public has spoken. As Republicans bask in their terrorism-inspired glory, liberals, humanists and democrats are licking their wounds. In the end, it was the grammatically-challenged George Bush who turned out to be more savvy than the myopic Daschle.
If American Muslims are stupid enough to align themselves with the wrong side then they should be prepared for the consequences too. I grew up in the Middle-East, and let me be the first to tell you that the whole notion of `ummah` is farcical - nothing more than a figment of Maududi`s imagination. The Arabs do not, never have and never will consider Pakistanis (or any non-Arabs for that matter) as first-class Muslims. The issue of Kashmir, Palestine and Chechnya is not an Islamic issue. Its about land and super-sized egos. Do you really think a Palestinian gives a flying squirrel about a poor farmer in Sindh? Of course not. Sindhi farmers, as we all know, do not speak Arabic, and they`re not fighting the Israelis. So as far as the Palestinians are concerned, their plight is not an Islamic issue. Do I think that the Iraqis will suffer if a war is imposed upon them? Yes, of course. Am I gonna cry foul and bite the very hand that feeds me? Hell, no! Please don`t be fooled by the alhumdullillah, inshallah, blablah of the American Arabs. These people will stab you in the back sooner than you can say Assalaam-ulaikum.
The need of the day is to point out our own shortcomings and take our leaders to the task. We should ask for better jobs, better roads, better hospitals and better education for our fellow Pakistanis and Muslims if we really care about them. This whole Jihad and anti-American rhetoric will only serve to exacerbate the Muslim existence in the 21st century.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re: arjun_m #9
[ ... Pakis on chowk resents American influence because America`s actions dont suit their jihadi worldview. If the Americans were bombing the Indians or the Israelis, the paki moral crusade would be chomping at the bits to support dubya.. ]

Yeah, just like you`re chomping at the bombing of Iraq and Afghanistan....
I actually admire the Indian quality (no sarcasm here, I swear) to align itself with the winner. When the Soviet Union was an empire, India hung to its coattails and enjoyed the ride. Now, when Bush considers India a ``strategic and natural partner`` and Bill Gates wants to fight the AIDS epidemic in the country and Oracle wants to build more offices in Bangalore, Indians have no moral qualms about the imperalistic tendencies of the Bush administration. I wish Pakistanis will take a page out of this wonderful book on self-interest written by the Indians. It works, it puts food on the tables of the poor and the hungry. Alas, we always drown ourselves trying to go against the flow. The banyaa (and I say this with the utmost respect) mentality is the winning strategy, let`s face it!

``Is America an Empire? Is the Pope Catholic?``

Are the pakis standing in long queues outside US embassy begging for American visas ? Is mushy begging for more bail outs ?

`` And a note to all of you who are Muslim, just a little something we all should remember, as our position in this conflict, and its resolution, is (to say the least) of the utmost importance: We Muslims are supposed to be a mercy to the world and thus, by inclusion, to all of humanity ``

Sure .... muslims are showing a lot of mercy to the world. Some names come to my mind.... philippines, Middle east, bradford, oldham, chechnya, moscow theaters, kashmir, balkans, bali, WTC, washington etc etc.

`` regardless of race, gender, creed. Sometimes, being a mercy to humanity also entails speaking up for humanity, speaking truth to power and tyranny. ``

what a BS.

As other posters have suggested, you would be praising the virtues of Muhammad if the campaign had been against india.

In the history of superpowers, the USA has (had) an interesting aspects that make it different from other superpowers of yesteryears.

First of all, any superpower is an empire. Why else would a country become a superpower, if it did want to dominate and control other countries? A military budget of 300-400 billion dollars annually (Pakistan`s is 2.8 billion and India`s is around 14 billion) is obviously used to intimidate others, not just to protect ones own borders (after all, Canada can protect its borders with a budget of 10 billion).

The US has a military budget that is greater than that of the next 25 to 35 countries combined. More human beings are killed by a bullet manufactured in the USA than by a bullet manufactured in any other country. USA averages one or so open military attacks against another country per year, and one or so covert ones/per year. It has launched more armament against other countries, since WWII than any other country. And it has directly or indirectly killed more human beings than any other country since WWII.

Just the blowing up of the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan knocked out half the drug producing capability of the whole country. The US then blocked a UN investigation into this incident, since it knew the US claims were incorrect and it actually was a pharmaceutical plant. Imagine how many people would die in the US if half its drug making capability were neutralized. Before our Indian US foreign policy lovers get too defensive, they should keep in mind that the Union Carbide tragedy in India killed thousands, and the Americans involved are walking free as a bird (this is only something an empire can get away with). Empires have no permanent allies.

So like all superpowers, US is an empire, and does what all empires do, i.e. subjugates directly and indirectly poor peoples and kills them when it wants.

The difference is that unlike other superpowers of old, the US has (had) a population that, though naive and ill-informed, does (did) speak out against the vicious foreign policy initiatives of its own govt. And if someone from another country (even a country the US was bombing) is able to make it into the US, he/she actually prosperes far more than they could have in their country of birth.

So, US domestic policy is great (though things are changing now) and humane. While US foreign policy is ruthless. This is the battle being fought right now. The ruthless US foreign policy lovers are trying to win over the US domestic population, thereby neutralizing the only obstacle in their superpower killing sprees (and, believe me, they are kiling sprees - read the details of an US ex-attorney general on the number of innocent people killed in Iraq). The attack on the WTC is the greatest prop available to their cause. These were the same people who argued that fighting the Soviets through, ``Mujahideen,`` and then dumping Afghanistan, was in the US interests (interestingly none of them is now willing to take the blame for the blowback that occured in the form of the WTC attacks).

Once this obstacle of the local populaiton lack of support is removed, I am afraid there will be no check left on the US, and it will then be no different than any other empire of yesteryears.

Afer Iraq, Iran is the next target.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Interesting summary of current concerns within our community.

America as a whole needs to study the long term impact of the

new Bush Doctrine and not just its impact on American Muslims.


Ras

....hahahaha...i was just waiting for stuka to get riled up about this attack on the elephant party and its beavis-n-butthead president...

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Haroon:

``So I propose we the people vote the obstacle out. ``

And I propose we vote the dude in for another four years. Why the fuss?

``The übersupporters of President George Bush II, violator of international law, constitutional law and even grammatical law, are now bringing additional limp argumentation in favor of the next phase of the War on Everything. ``

``And a note to all of you who are Muslim, just a little something we all should remember, as our position in this conflict, and its resolution, is (to say the least) of the utmost importance: We Muslims are supposed to be a mercy to the world and thus, by inclusion, to all of humanity – regardless of race, gender, creed.``


And since you speak for all Muslims, or at least to all of them, I would suggest you give this advice to your brothers in Al Qaeda. They do not seem to agree on your position. In fact, compared to those chaps, Donals Rumsfeld does a danged fine job of inclusion. He at least lets you live.

Listen you ``Humble little intellectual fascist``, please enlighten us on what specific international law has been violated by the United States government under George Bush. Same goes for constitutional law.

And before you mention Kyoto Protocol and Iraq, please consider the difference between trends and laws.

It is legal to withdraw from treaties, and treaty, provided you do so openly. It is illegal on the other hand to sign a treaty and break it`s conventions in a secretive manner.

It is legal to declare war on another country, provided military action takes place after the declaration of war. Therefore, the attack on Pearl Harbor was illegal because it was NOT preceded by a declaration of War. I therefore eagerly await FACTUAL examples of the Bush administration breaking international or constitutional law.

As far as grammatical law is concerned, why do you feel so threatend by a non ivory tower individual running the country. If he does the job, and he cannot be accused of moral turpitude (unlike a certain predecessor) then why does it give you such an itch if he mispronounces certain words?