The Beslan Silver Lining

#31 vertex

interesting reply.

one thing that has bothered my is what positions do muslims have regarding the Bodos? Bodos seem to want ethnic clensing of bngladeshi muslims. pakistanis clearly relish any separatist movement in india. many indian muslims (and tamils and dalits and sikhs apparently) at least lend a sympathetic ear towards decentralization and separatist causes.

what about the specific bodo cause? at face value this must present a dillemma, no?

As usual, the usual suspects, the bleeding heart muslims apologists, are out in full force justifying worse things by pointing out to allegedly worst things.

It is safe to assume that these apologists hearts also bleed for their supposedly oppressed bretheren in France and Oldham (UK). I guess ``Justice`` can be finally achieved when the horribly oppressed muslim ``freedom fighters`` finally blow up Eiffel tower and the London bridge to avenge the horrible oppression commited by the french and the British against the ``indegenous`` muslim peoples of France and Britain.

Isn`t that the modus operandi of muslim ``freedom fighters`` everywhere? multiply like Rs and then carry out ``jehads`` ?


Now leaving the larger question aside and coming to the theater of conflict mentioned in this article..... The Russians actually left Chechens alone following the bloody conflict of 1995 to 97. The chechens, true to their form, were not just content following their usual career paths such as kidnappings, extortions, drug-running, etc.... No sir, they had to invade Russian government in the neighboring Dagestan. The Russians then realized the nature of holy fanatics who bendover five times a day towards that big black stone in the center of Mecca. Just as no amount ironing could make a Dog`s tail straight, a jehadi can never be expected to realize that all the talk of whores in heaven is just a baloney. He has to be exterminated like the cockroach that he is.... and thus the conflict has begun in earnest.

arjun_m

Can someone find any similarity between Chechnya, Beslan and 9/11 etc and the following analogy:

“Tell me something: If you were robbed, would the cops try to find the robber or would they work on solving the larger problem of unemployment and poverty in society that leads people to commit robberies?”

It definitely lacks the very common sense reasoning here and in almost in interact.

No offence please

#32 by Urstruly

Let me explain how it works. A strong nation-ideology-people project influence over others. Their is a lot of symbolism involved. When everyone gets the message from these symbols, there is peace. Obstinate irrational opposition casued violence.

This has happened in the past in when the moors controlled spain, turks the byzentine empire and mughals dilli. Empires were strong and Dhimmis-Yahuds lived peacefuly, once they accepted the status-quo power. Whenever ill-advised (i.e. from ideologically and materially low-powered foes) attempts at challenge to the status-quo power invariably led to blood-baths, but rarely change of power. Change of power mostly came thru chemicals like alkelloids and opiates. As you well know, the Dhimmies and everyone else had it pretty good as far as everyone joined and supported the golden rule.

Script has not changed much, just the actors are different. There is the dominant western ideology based on material consumption, market-economy and flush-toilets, which is universally liked. There are symbolic powers with promises of peace in Dhimmi status (look at S. Korea or Taiwan, or the new Vietnam). Communism appeared powerful, but was rotten at the core. All the challenge caused was much bloodshed, but no change of power. Now a few small-time guys are not willing to accept the dhimmi status, so that all of us can have peace why? If they think rationally, they would, but alas, they are drunk of religion. Drunk enough to go into a battle, the outcome of which is pure mayhem, and not change in the status-quo power.

The only way the dominant powers will give way is when they rot at the core (like the afeemchi mughals). Truth shall always prevail.

Do you not agree? So, are you with us or or are you with them?

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

Jang

I agree with your analysis but I believe from the core of my heart that it is not in the nature of man to accept the tyranny of other. There is a difference between tyranny and justice though. So my stance is that I am with those who are with justice. And by the way what makes you think that if it succeeds you will not be in the Dhimitude as well. Have you already accepted your fate without puting up a good fight? makes one wonder how come it has become your second nature to accept the dhimitude everytime without a fight. May be I am wrong in my convictions but the idea of going down in a blazzing glory is so captivating that I will stick to my convictions.