America’s Moral Compass

Dear godot

Please pardon my tardy response. I was indisposed, it wasn’t a snub. Just A few points regarding your post #141

First, I wish you had not given such a crass example (ugly unlovable woman – welcomes rape). Your confrontational polemics seem to suggest that you are far too emotionally committed on this issue. Otherwise you would not take leave of your good taste.

Now, to answer your inquisition “… How do you define a “criminal” act?...” I shall have to refer you back to my same old post # 139 wherein I wrote… “Now whether the original act was a crime or not is another debate that cannot be resolved because it is an emotive issue. Opinions will differ. …”

Clearly, I have no wish to get into a pissing contest with you or anyone else for that matter. So please don`t expect “a lesson in history” as you put it. The facts are there for all to see. We can each take what we want from the available information. As for my definition of crime that you asked for [“… How do you define a “criminal” act? …”], please let me refer you to the following source: http://costofwar.com

You may understand where I am coming from.

…SR

And to think that by invoking the ``mysterious ways`` one can disclaim any responsibility to his heinous deeds..............there is a greater mystery that awaits him.................

Islamic theocracy in a democratic setup would never survive...............it would undeniably follow the Pakistani way.....oscillating between dictators with each accusing one another of NOT following Islam in the ``truest`` and ``purest`` form.....................and further crushing the `poor`, `children`, `women` and other weaklings into slavery..............

Re: # 159

That wasn`t a metaphor. You need to choose your terms more carefully.
Even more carefully do you need to choose your analogies. There can be no justification for rape.

Re: # 159
Thank you kindly.
I know what metaphor means.Other people are never as stupid as you think they are and you`re not as smart!
I did see where this came from. As for your earlier comment that those who had to understand, understood- I don`t see that. Neither hamid_m nor SR agreed.
If you had any empathy at all towards abused women, you would not have used that metaphor.
I will let this be, because you are not going to admit it was insensitive.

Re: # 158

2 suggestions:

1. Look up the word ``metaphor``

2. Go back and read the posts to understand how this metaphor was established in this exchange.

Re: # 156
I do understand the dilemna. I hate to tell you this, but it`s not very hard. You are still justifying rape here, where all you`re trying to say is you have to be cruel to be kind sometimes, or as my surgeon friends say, sometimes you need to amputate a limb to save the patient. There were other ways of saying the same thing. Your premise remains strange because if the woman was so desperate to have a child, she might have agreed to have sex. In any case, if you`ve ever worked in an emergency department, you learn that all sorts of women get raped; you hear of it as well from the most beautiful film stars to the women with acid-burnt faces in Bangladesh. Plus the woman might just want sex, why bring the child into it?

Ordinary Muslim #151 Ha! ha! Good post. I always knew the Ordinary Muslim had much more sense in his head than the uniformed and/or bearded clowns who try to lord it over them.

Re: # 153

nb

Those who needed to understand the metaphor and the dilemma posed understood it.

I think that Bush`s desire to democratise the Middle East is actually good for the Islamic World although not in the way Bush thinks. Allah works in mysterious way and Bush (who thinks god talks to him anyway and that he is doing god`s work!) may well be an instrument in His plan (azza wa jal -Glorious is He!). Let`s be honest here, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, the Gulf States are all run by dictators who do nothing but oppress the common man. These people will not be removed internally so if the US, in trying to bring secular democracy to these countries, uses force to get rid of these regimes, it will actually be good for the Muslims: just as is happening in Iraq, as soon as the people of the Middle East get a chance for free elections, they will pick Islamic parties thereby bringing real Islamic governance to this area for the first time since the decline of the Caliphate. Therefore by bringing democracy to the Islamic World Bush will actually be helping to build a Middle East where there is a series of nation states all having democratically elected Islamic leaders running Islamic theocracies from Egypt to Pakistan. This is what the Muslims have wanted for decades but their own oppressive tyrannical rulers, such as Saddam, have been preventing them from doing so. By forcefully ridding the Muslim nations of these tyrants Bush will be doing a great service--although he doesn`t realise it.

Re: # 64

On the basic topic of fairness, no society is completely just and fair, but the USA comes closest to it in the modern world.

Actually, that is WAY wrong. In terms of fairness the whole of Western Europe trounces the USA and especially the Nordic countries. In the USA there is gross disparity between the rich and the poor. A country like Sweden is probably the closest in practise to a fair society on earth.

Re: # 141
Godot, I find it extrememly distressing that you justify rape in any way. I know you are trying to make a point, but please do rethink this. Why, by the way could the woman not go to a sperm bank?

Ordinary_Muslim

``Can greybeard Sistani force a hyperpower to hold elections? If so why didn`t he force Saddam to hold elections? ``

Because, to their credit, the Americans would not persue a policy of Genocide (although they did so in Cambodia) in Iraq.

Second, the current state of Iraq is one in which insurgent forces have free reign. The tight control Saddam had on Iraq is one which the Americans desire, however have found seriously elusive (despite being a HyperPower).

So your comparison of Saddam and USA is a bit off. The fact is, Sistani did force the elections on threat of a full scale Shia insurgency. That Saddam could control them (ultimately) and the USA can not is an exercice for you to work out. I`ll give you a hint: Americans have the luxury of leaving.

Re: # 123

``In actuality, the USA govt. has been trying its best to avoid holding real elections in Iraq, including this January one. It was forced to hold them by Sistani.``

Can greybeard Sistani force a hyperpower to hold elections? If so why didn`t he force Saddam to hold elections?

All Chowkies should take their hats off to Romair. He gives us guffaws all the time. Many Pakistan military people do not realise that their stupidity will be ridiculed. Chowk is not a Pakistan military unit where brain dead automata believe their CO cannot be wrong.

Perhaps such pseudo intellectuals should remember this saying. ``It`s better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.`` - Abraham Lincoln.

Re: # 133

{If the Saudi monarchy gets toppled by a populist Wahabbi uprising, let it get toppled. If the a popular Islamic brotherhood takes out, ``the five time elected with no opposition`` Mubarak in Egypt, let it happen}


Question for Romair: If democracy at any price is what he recommends, then here`s the question. What if Romair lives in a country where fanatical mullahs win an election. How long will it take him to courageously run away? If Romair does not want to live under mullah-rule (even if it is democratically elected), why should others?

Let`s not forget that Adolf Hitler was democratically elected. If Romair and other America bashers from Pakistan`s military are so fixated on democracry, why didn`t Paksitan`s military accept the results of elections in 1971?

What if a democratically elected mullahcracy results in a mushroom cloud over Manhattan? Sounds far fetched? Well, the September 11 barbarism sounded far-fetched on September 10.

>> Iraq has been destroyed worth an amount of tens to perhaps hundreds of billiions.

Iraq`s GDP is $30 billion ! (Apparently they don`t teach Math or Economics at Risalpur. That`s why Romair types know only fuzzy economics !)

>> If America had simply pressurised Israel to hand over the tiny 3% of land that it is refusing to, and given it $50 billion dollars, most of these problems would have been solved.

So simple !

I wonder if he has heard of this:
``For every problem, there is one solution which is simple, neat and wrong.``--H. L. Mencken (1880--1956), U.S. journalist

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

i will bet a falafel that they name bagdad airport as ``bush international``......... i wouldn`t be surprised if they renamed baghdad as ``bush city``

BAGHDAD, Feb. 4 -- Influential Sunni Arab leaders of a boycott of last Sunday`s elections expressed a new willingness Friday to engage the coming Iraqi government and play a role in writing the constitution, in what may represent a strategic shift in thinking among mainstream anti-occupation groups. (washington post)

arjun,


......... people who are driven by hate and envy will go to any length and sink to any depth to prove their point ......... but it is good to know that you are keeping an eye on romair - the man is relentless !

......... everyone is jumping on the bandwagon ......... like i said, george bush will go down as the great liberator of the islamic world .........

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/mazdak.htm

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

Another interesting article, from the BBC. It turns out that some of the WTC hijackers are still alive. Which means, some on the plane had stolen passports of the real individuals. I wonder how many people actually know this:

``Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.

The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.

Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.

His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.

Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco........

FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm)

The three biggest terrorists, according to the USA govt. itself, are OBL, Al-Zawahiri and Zarqawi. OBL is a Saudi. Zawahiri is an Egyptian. And Zarqawi is Jordanian.

Yet every time I turn on the TV, the US govt. seems to be complaining about terrorist infiltrating into Iraq from Syria and Iran. These two countries border Iraq and are mentioned again and again. And probably would have been attacked, had the Iraqi resistance not stopped the USA in its tracks. Iraq and Syria are considered the hub of terrorism and the, ``outposts of tyranny`` by the USA.

Why aren`t Saudi Arabia and Jordan mentioned in the same breath. They border Iraq also. And it is a Saudi and Jordanian terrorists that are heading Al-Qaeda`s efforts in Iraq. Not Syrian and Irani. Wouldn`t this indicate that the terrorists may actually be crossing in from Saudi Arabia and Jordan........

And why isn`t Egypt mentioned? The brains behind Al-Qaeda -Zawahiri -is a product of the Egyptian opposition system.

I have been trying to figure out whether the Iraq war is the first one, in which an Arab country has successfully defeated an aggressive political and/or military act by either USA or Israel. And where the USA and/or Britain have been unable to put into a govt. of their liking in an Arab country, and have been forced to accept a govt. - a pro-Iran religious govt. in this case - which both had tried to avoid when they attacked the country.

I think the Iraqis may have achieved a first......

Following is an interesting article by famous journalist and author on how the mess in the Middle East was created:

``What`s Wrong with the Arab World

By Gwynne Dyer

It was just a random statistic, but a telling one: only 300 books were translated into Arabic last year. That is about one foreign title per million Arabs. For comparison`s sake, Greece translated 1,500 foreign-language books, or about one hundred and fifty titles per million Greeks. Why is the Arab world so far behind, not only in this but in
practically all the arts and sciences?

The first-order answer is poverty and lack of education: almost half of Arabic-speaking women are illiterate. But the Arab world used to be the most literate part of the planet; what went wrong? Tyranny and economic failure, obviously. But why is tyranny such a problem in the Arab world? That brings us to the nub of the matter.

In a speech in November, 2003, US President George W. Bush revisited his familiar refrain about how the West has to remake the Arab world in its own image in order to stop the terrorism: ``Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe....because in the long run,
stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty`` -- as if the Arab world had wilfully chosen to be ruled by these corrupt and incompetent tyrannies.

But the West didn`t just `excuse and accommodate` these regimes. It created them, in order to protect its own interests -- and it spent the latter half of the twentieth century keeping them in power for the same reason.

It was Britain that carved the kingdom of Jordan out of the old Ottoman province of Syria after the First World War and put the Hashemite ruling family on the throne that it still occupies. France similarly carved Lebanon out of Syria in order to create a loyal Christian-majority state that controlled most of the Syrian coastline -- and when time and a
higher Muslim birth-rate eventually led to a revolt against the Maronite Christian stranglehold on power in Lebanon in 1958, US troops were sent in to restore it. The Lebanese civil war of 1975-90, tangled though it was, was basically a continuation of that struggle.

Britain also imposed a Hashemite monarchy on Iraq after 1918, and deliberately perpetuated the political monopoly of the Sunni minority that it had inherited from Turkish rule. As Gertrude Bell, an archaeologist and political adviser in the British administration in Baghdad, put it: ``I don`t for a moment doubt that the final authority must be in the hands of the Sunnis, in spite of their numerical inferiority, otherwise you`ll have a mujtahid-run, theocratic state, which is the very devil.`` When the Iraqi monarchy was finally overthrown in 1958 and the Baath Party won the struggle that followed, the CIA gave the Iraqi Baathists the names of all the senior members of the Iraqi Communist Party (then the main political vehicle of the Shias) so they could be liquidated.

It was Britain that turned the traditional sheikhdoms in the Gulf into separate little sovereign states and absolute monarchies, carving Kuwait out of Iraq in the process. (Saudi Arabia, however, was a joint Anglo-US project.) The British Foreign Office welcomed the Egyptian generals` overthrow of King Farouk and the destruction of the country`s old nationalist political parties, failing to foresee that Gamal Abdul Nasser
would eventually take over the Suez Canal. When he did, it conspired with France and Israel to attack Egypt in a failed attempt to overthrow him.

Once Nasser died and was succeeded by generals more willing to play along with the West -- Anwar Sadat, and now Hosni Mubarak -- Egypt became Washington`s favourite Arab state: to help these thinly disguised dictators to hang on to power, Egypt has ranked among the top three recipients of US foreign aid almost every year for the past
quarter-century. And so it goes.

Britain welcomed the coup by Colonel Gadafy in Libya in 1969, mistakenly seeing him as a malleable young man who could serve the West`s purposes. The United States and France both supported the old dictator Bourbuiga in Tunisia, and still back his successor Ben Ali today. They always backed the Moroccan monarchy no matter how repressive it became, and they both gave unquestioning support to the Algerian generals who cancelled
the elections of 1991 -- nor did they ever waver in their support through the savage insurgency unleashed by the suppression of the elections that killed an estimated 120,000 Algerians over the next ten years.

`Excuse and accommodate`? The West created the modern Middle East, from its rotten regimes down to its ridiculous borders, and it did so with contemptuous disregard for the wishes of the local people. It is indeed a problem that most Arab governments are corrupt autocracies that breed hatred and despair in their own people, which then fuels terrorism against the West, but it was the West that created the problem -- and invading Iraq won`t solve it.

If the US really wants to foster Arab democracy, it might try making all that aid to Egypt conditional on prompt democratic reforms. But I wouldn`t hold my breath.``

Re: # 139

SR

What constitutes a “criminal” act? Is it the Argentineans invading the Falkland Island or the British who claim it as their own? Is Chinese Tibet a “criminal” act for the Tibetans or Goa for the Portuguese? Would Mexicans consider Texas and California “criminal” acts? Is Pakistan a “criminal” act for the Indians? What about the Kurds, the largest ethnic group in the world without a country? How do you define a “criminal” act? Lets go back 5000 years in history and look at which ones were “criminal” acts and which ones morally right. Since you seem to separate the two quite well, maybe you can enlighten me on this and give me a lesson in history.

The original act: the American Revolution, the Bolshevik revolution, the bombing of Japan, triumph of the faithful in Iran. “Criminal”?

Your analogy of a raped woman: what if the woman raped was ugly as sin. No man would ever love her or make love to her. Not with a 10-foot pole. She was desperate to have a child of her own because she had so much love to give but no one would want it from her. One day she gets raped, gets pregnant and bears a child. Who should pass judgment on the rapist: you with your “morality” or the woman herself?

...... comparing the liberation of iraq to the rape of an innocent woman is indeed one heck of a leap of imagination ........... how silly can you get ? ........

........ what about the liberaion of france, bosnia, south korea, kosovo, poland, hungary, nicaragua, honduras, and panama .......... are the people of cuba, vietnam, iran, syria, north korea and saudi arabia better off than the people lin those countries iberated by america ? .........

............... i guess there is no limit to silliness when one is driven by envy or religion ...........

Re: # 130 godot [“… such incriminating comment and a hasty conclusion. …

… I do not see an analogy of a revolution to bring about a drastic change in a nation and a society to rape of a woman. Hope you can elaborate on the correlation …”]

My comment may be quite “incriminating” but please do not think that it was concluded in haste.

While I can understand your bright-eyed optimism for the ”drastic change in a nation and a society” it befuddles me that someone with your astute insight faisl to see the analogy.

This wonderful miracle that goes on in Iraq, which you and others celebrate, is analogous to the wonderful, cute and precious baby that I mentioned in my rape analogy. The point there being that even if there is a wonderful outcome that is the consequence of a criminal act, it does not retroactively absolve the perpetrator of the crime.

Now whether the original act was a crime or not is another debate that cannot be resolved because it is an emotive issue. Opinions will differ. I, of course, consider the original act as a criminal one whereas you seem to have changed your mind in the sway of positive press generated by the corporate media.

It is always easy to decipher something positive in political crimes when viewed through the telescope of history. Pakistanis (like most others) are quite good at such revisionism. The Ghaznavi example (a Chowk staple) leaps to mind. Some will say that the British Raj was a blessing in disguise because we got English language in the deal (imagine the nightmare of surfing the web when all you could read or write was Gurmukhi).

One can argue (correctly) that might is the ultimate right. Always have been, always will be. That would be a realpolitik argument and I would not challenge it. But the argument you seemed to be making was a moral and ethical one. It was in that context that I questioned it.

Let me end with the words of another criminal from days past.

“Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along.

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.” (Reich Marshall Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials)

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

…SR

Hi Echooboom:

``#137 by echoboom on February 4, 2005 2:27pm PT
anil:135

............

I withdraw. You cancel.

OK? ``

Aap ki marzi....
Anil

anil:135

Hey take it easy buddy.

My answer to you was as absurd as the postulate by Godot. Only because you , as an `observer` wanted sparkle it , I felt like stepping in.

I withdraw. You cancel.

OK?

romair,

........ firstly, i am glad you left the us - we have enough trouble with the likes of urstruly ................ secondly don`t keep on harping about canada which, as i explained to you in an earlier post, is a country still in the process of being put together and once ontario and bc are annexed by the us there won`t be much left ......

........ as for arabs hating the us, i guess you haven`t talked to john abizaid, george mitchell ralph nader, kasey kasem or those 300,000 arabs that live in the detroit area and continue to pour in ........... they constitute the largest arab community outside the middle east and are thriving ...........half the doctors and hair dresser are arabs and they own all the gas stations and party stores within a fifty mile radius and nobody messes with them - their kids are terrorizing the poor jewish children in west bloomfield (payback for the wes bank, i guess) and the black gangs from detroit are afraid to cross the line into dearborn where streets look like the souks in cairo or beirut ................. at this wednesday`s swearing-in ceremony in detorit there were six indians (one of them a friend of mine), two pakis, and a hundred and fifty iraqis ......... go figure ! ............ you want middle eastern food, come to detroit where you are never more than two miles from an arab restaurant .........

Hi Echoboom:

``#129 by echoboom on February 3, 2005 4:11pm PT
anil:128
Your answer is as expected and you have a 1000 year history to back it up. ``

Construction following destruction points toward the future, and not the past. My statement was not to prove the past, but to build the future.

Have a great day.
Anil

hamidm
//...we welcomed every ghauri, ghazni and qasim so why not bush ....//

No you didn`t. Ghauri, ghazni took over you by sheer force. The ``welcome`` part came later - sometime after 1947, when Ghauri was declared the ``first citizen of pakistan`` or something like that :)

But you made the point. If ghauri is good for pakistan, why not Bush?

People keep trying to portray the previous US regimes, from WWII onwards, and their actions in the Middle East as ill-thought out policies. When, in fact, that is not the case. There is a reason those regimes, and the current one, supported dictators in the Middle East. To the point of ensuring any democratic force was not allowed to raise its head.

The reason is simple. The average Arab on the street hates the USA. Maybe he/she shouldn`t, but he/she does. One doesn`t get the true feel of this, when one lives in the USA, because it is difficult for Arabs to express their emotions about a country that they are actually living in, and benefiting from (unless they are Urstruly).

However, one definitely sees it amongst Canadian Arabs. I have started listening to a lot of Arab music. It has now replaced Indian music as my favorite. As a result, my wife and I, have started going to Arabic restaurants, music shows, etc. We now run across a lot of Canadian-Arabs. Most of them are yuppie Westernized Arabs. They are all quite pro-Canada. One doesn`t see the phenomenon of dislike of their adopted country that one sees amongst Arabs in the USA.

But they all hate America. This includes Christian and Muslim Arabs. I have not seen this kind of hate in the eyes of Indians for Pakistanis, or Pakistanis for Indians. Or Iranis for Iraqis and Iraqis for Iranis. It is something different. It is a mixture of impotence, frustration, vulnerability, fear and most of all extreme anger. An Arab Christian fixing my house told me again and again that OBL is his hero, right in front of everyone. An upscale Arab restaurant with live music, attracts the yuppiest of Arab youth. Girls in small skirts, guys in SUVs. I can`t understand what the singer is singing, but the moment he says the word, ``Baghdad`` in his song, the whole crowd erupts, everytime. The list goes on and on.

This is why the USA has always supported dictatorships. This is also why it will attack any Arab country, that has an anti-US dictator, like Saddam, and try to install a more pliable govt., like Challabi and Allawi. This is also why it will always support pro-US dictators like Shah, King Abdullah, Al-Sabahs of Kuwait, Mubarik of Egypt, the Qatar amir, King of Morroco, Musharraf, Saddam of of the 80s, and most of all the Saudi monarchy.

The moment any of the ones above turn anti-USA, they will be taken out. Saddam biggest mistake wasn`t lack of democracy, obviously. Rumsfeld shook hands with him before. It was the fact that he turned anti-USA, for some reason. Had he kept selling oil at cheap prices and recognized Israel, I am pretty sure he would not have been attacked.

Any democracy in the Middle East, today, will be very anti-USA and anti-Israel. A democratic Jordan will break its treaties with Israel. As will a democratic Egypt, with a relgious govt. A democratic Saudi Arabia has more chance of electing OBL than Prince Abdullah. A democratic Iraq, as we are seeing, will be pro-Iran, with a religious govt.

There is, thus, an inherent contradiction for the USA. If it wants democracy, it will be facilitating govts. that will be nationalistic (at least to their own provinces, if not to complete countries), they will be religious, and they will be very anti-Israel and anti-USA. Oil will become more difficult to get, most of the bases will be gone. As an example, a democratic Turkey with a religious party as its head, refused to provide bases to USA, for the invasion of Iraq, even though it is part of NATO. A semi-democratic Iran did not allow bases either. However a monarchy-based Qatar and Kuwait did allow it.

This is why the USA needs to realize that it is part of the problem in the Middle East and can never be part of the solution, until it solves the above-mentioned contradiction. One cannot just support pro-USA dictatorships for decades, and the moment one of them turns anti-US, go and bomb the country to the stone-age, under the umbrella of WMDs, Al-Qaeda and democracy. While hamidm, tahmad and godot may not be able to see thru that, apparently, all the Arabs have seen through it. And in the big scheme of things, expat Pakistani opinion is not what is important.

The solution to this problem lies in:

- The USA pressurising Israel to accept a Palestine, within 67 borders. The whole world, including the Arab world, has accepted this. Yet the USA continues to veto everything that is presented in the UN, even though the European countries do not.

- The USA needs to disengage itself from the Middle East. And stop propping up kings. If the Saudi monarchy gets toppled by a populist Wahabbi uprising, let it get toppled. If the a popular Islamic brotherhood takes out, ``the five time elected with no opposition`` Mubarak in Egypt, let it happen

- Instead of bombing countries, it needs to get rid of its gigantic military cantonments in the fiefdoms of the Arab kings. For all the rhetoric about how people would even tolerate a US attack on Lahore, I can make a bet their feelings would change if one of their own family members was to be a casuality. A Lahore bombed by the massive military might of America would result in a million Lahoris asking for revenge (not asking for elections)......The same is the case for any human beings, including Arabs.

The world is turning into an extremely dangerous place. This cycle could and may lead to a situation, where one fine day, a nuclear device goes off in New York, killing 10 million people. Those who don`t believe me, should read Clancy`s books. He wrote one about an airliner being flown into a US building. No one thought that was possible. He also wrote one about a nuke going off in Colorado.......

What will the US contigency plan be if a nuke goes off in New York? Will it attack Pakistan or India or France? Will it deport hamidms and tahmads to their countries of birth? Will that make any difference? It won`t. Becuase it is useless to get into a pissing contest with terrorists; specifically those who have no fear of death. They will always win, because they have nothing to lose.......

The USA has spent and/or sanctioned $240 billion for the Iraq war. 4/5th of it has gone to just support its military machine. In addition, Iraq has been destroyed worth an amount of tens to perhaps hundreds of billiions. All this money spent on destruction. If America had simply pressurised Israel to hand over the tiny 3% of land that it is refusing to, and given it $50 billion dollars, most of these problems would have been solved.

However, now it may not be possible. The Evangelical Right in the USA is convinced that the second coming of Christ will not occur until certain events occur in Israel, which include the deportation of Muslims. And it controls the US govt. and foreign policy now (it even controls hamidm)...........And the anti-US feeling rises by the day amongst the Arabs in direct proportion to the number of bombs the USA drops on them..........

In the process, the rest of us, who are neither, ``With us nor against US,`` will get destroyed also..........

....... i don`t mean to interrupt marshal romair while he is on a roll, but it is perfectly fine with me if bush invades pakistan to remove musharraf, pick up the garbage on the streets, make abdul take a bath, let the women out to get some freh air and reopen the liquor store on canning road ........ i am sure most pakis will welcome the marines with flowers and ladoos ............ look, we welcomed every ghauri, ghazni and qasim so why not bush ?

godot,

``
You cannot accuse Americans of being “ignorant.” That’s unfair and an easy way out. I don’t really know how many societies are enlightened, including Pakistan’s and Canada’s (or of Holland, for that matter.) ``

I accused certain Americans of being ignorant. Certianly not those who see through the absurdities of American policy. Further, I explicitly stated why I found these people ignorant, so no need to speak in the abstract.

Why are they not ignorant, and why is it worth my while to understand them? I can sympathize with them because I think they are being led astray. I am ignorant of many things myself, however no one is asking me to take their word on a matter that involves life or death that hinge on exactly that I am ignorant of.

I can fully understand what they went through on 9-11...I felt the same when they started bombing Iraq. I see the irony, most likely they don`t.

Re: # 127

SR

I did not expect someone as bright as you to come up with such incriminating comment and a hasty conclusion. Nevertheless...

I suppose what escaped you was the operating word “sometimes” in my post re the end justifying the means. Further, I do not see an analogy of a revolution to bring about a drastic change in a nation and a society to rape of a woman. Hope you can elaborate on the correlation given it is not only “sometimes,” but the premise of the argument as well.

anil:128
Your answer is as expected and you have a 1000 year history to back it up.
My answer is a categorical and unambigous NO!

It is not subject to discussion either.

Hi Echoboom:

``#125 by echoboom on February 3, 2005 11:09am PT

Before asking Romair please give your answer and just replace Pakistan with India. ( Just remember it is a ``pretend`` scenario in BOTH cases.) ``

My answer is categorically yes, no ifs, no buts. Almost always construction follows destruction of some sort. Please do remember that I am not a religious person, so if you will keep the exchange non-religious, I would love to hear your views too.

Thank you.
Anil

Re: # 116 godot [``...I was against Bush invading Iraq. But if democracy takes hold in Iraq, then Bush is vindicated. ...``]

Let us suppose that someone were to rape my sister or daughter and that she were to have a baby as a result of that crime. The baby, indeed would be innocent and maybe my sister / daughter would hold it very precious. Would you then say to me that I should forgive the criminal for is vindicated? Do ends justify the means? Any and all means?

Just wondering.

...SR

Bush stakes ground in Germany

From our special correspondent in Berlin:

Police in Germany are hunting pranksters who have been sticking miniature flag portraits of US President George W. Bush into piles of dog poo in public parks. Josef Oettl, parks administrator for Bayreuth, said: ``This has been going on for about a year now, and there must be 2,000 to 3,000 piles of excrement that have been claimed during that time.`` The series of incidents was originally thought to be some sort of protest against the US-led invasion of Iraq. And then when it continued it was thought to be a protest against President George W. Bush`s campaign for re-election. But it is still going on and the police say they are completely baffled as to who is to blame. ``We have sent out extra patrols to try to catch whoever is doing this in the act,`` said police spokesman Reiner Kuechler. ``But frankly, we don`t know what we would do if we caught them red handed.`` Legal experts say there is no law against using faeces as a flag stand and the federal constitution is vague on the issue.

[editor`s note: in light of the very heavy ongoing discussion, this news item was deemed to have light hearted merit, if not relevence.]

...SR

124;anil
[Is it possible for you to respond to this exhcnage between you and Godot, just as precisely as he has done. I am interested in your answer to such a scenario?]

---

Before asking Romair please give your answer and just replace Pakistan with India. ( Just remember it is a ``pretend`` scenario in BOTH cases.)

Only THEN you would have earned the right to ask Romair.

If Romair wants to answer even without this protocol by all means

Godot #120

From Romair - Godot exchange

``”Let me ask you a simple question also: ``If tomorrow the USA attacked Pakistan and destroyed and killed people in the same fashion as Iraq, to establish, ``democracy,`` would that be justifiable, if an opinion poll in the USA supported such an attack?`` Using your logic on Iraq, it should be completely justifiable”

Yes it will be. If Pakistan were an oppressed nation ruled by a tyrannical dictator who ruled with an iron fist, allowed no space for one to express himself, tolerated no criticism, killed people at will and with impunity, hogged all the national resources for his own personal interest, poisoned the village wells to kill his own people, then yes, that government in Pakistan should be overthrown by external forces, violently if necessary, and democracy and rule of law should be established. ````

Is it possible for you to respond to this exhcnage between you and Godot, just as precisely as he has done. I am interested in your answer to such a scenario?

Thank you.
Anil Kapuria

Godot #117: “Is outrage in response to violence, of unnecessary killing of innocent bystanders, morally incorrect? Does the ensuing anger reflect “ignorance”?

Outrage in response to violence is correct, if it is directed toward the entity that committed the violence. It is incorrect when it is directed towards someone who had nothing to do with the violence. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, according to the findings of the 9/11 commission, itself.

“Why is it morally incorrect when Israelis kill Palestinians and Indian Army commits atrocities in Kashmir, but is morally correct when Palestinians suicide bombers and Kashmiri Jihadis kill innocent people? Is violence perpetuated by an “underdog,” ie, the Muslims, “morally correct”?”

Anyone killing another innocent person in wrong, and should be considered a terrorist. It doesn’t matter what religion they are. This is what I am trying to convince you of. You seem to be ready to apply this rule to OBL, but not to Bush. I tend to apply it to both.

““What if” is an assumption for both of us, albeit on the flip side. You and I should discuss this in about ten-year time.”

One cannot just support killings and justify them by saying, “Let’s wait to see what happens in ten years.” What about the 100,000 Iraqis who have been killed (according to Johns Hopkins survey)? You completely refuse to take them into account. If you can provide a method of bringing them back to life, perhaps we can wait for ten years………..Is someone comes and kills your son and says, “Just wait for ten years and you will be better off.” What would your reaction be?

However, lets take your argument: What if even after 10 years, it turns out that the Bush administration had ulterior motives for invading Iraq, and it was forced to hold elections, because its plans had gone haywire and it needed an exit strategy (and reasonings to satisfy individuals like yourself). Should Bush then by tried for war crimes? Or would you forgive him, at that point also?

On should not buy all the propaganda thrown at you by the US media and govt. In actuality, the USA govt. has been trying its best to avoid holding real elections in Iraq, including this January one. It was forced to hold them by Sistani. Please read reply #95 (I would be greatly interested in your comments on it).

“Yes it will be. If Pakistan were an oppressed nation ruled by a tyrannical dictator who ruled with an iron fist, allowed no space for one to express himself, tolerated no criticism”

Who should make that decision? George Bush or the people of Pakistan? What if the people of Pakistan overwhelmingly hated the USA and they overwhelmingly considered a USA military action to be an occupation (this is the case in Iraq), and they did not want a single US soldier on their land because they mistrusted the USA. But the govt. of USA and its people felt they just had to invade? Should the USA still invade?

godot: I admire your patience in explaining to romair that outrage over the targetted killing of innocent people is not morally incorrect.

Oh Oh Oh!
AbdoolAmreekaas drool in ecstacy when:

1) Shah of Iran is installed and supported by their whipping Master.
2) Marcos is feted & praised and given asylum in ThuGGland
3) Getting Castro murdered and attempt to overthrow a superior civilisation.
4) Support Pinochet and get Allende murdered
5) Bolster up Suharto so that Islam stays under a lid.
6) Tolerated the 25th year of dictatorship of Mubarak (a.k.a Laughing cow in egypt)
7) Invade Vietnam
8) Ruin Cambodia
9) Spread Terror & Thuggery in Nicaragua
10) Tried to Install puppet dictator in Venezuella

This is not even half the list of places where the U.S Thuggs have not been messed around.
Until & Unless these Thuggs learn a lesson to stay within their own borders these Thuggs will keep on bullying the world. Such a change will come from inside. Spanish speaking people are gaining ground in the south so much so the the anglo-ancestories are running away in droves because of ``language problem``.

Within next ten years the banner will be non-english and predominantly brown(desi), black(afro), and olive (arab). The fizz of anglo-colonial arrogance and patting of AbdoolAmreeka pets will be gone. USSR was there just ten years ago!Smart people are already enrolling in spanish, arabic, and chinese language classes.

Its collapse is just aroung the corner. The din of demolition can heard even now.

Re: # 117

Romair

“I never said that reaction would be moral or correct.”

Is outrage in response to violence, of unnecessary killing of innocent bystanders, morally incorrect? Does the ensuing anger reflect “ignorance”? Why is it morally incorrect when Israelis kill Palestinians and Indian Army commits atrocities in Kashmir, but is morally correct when Palestinians suicide bombers and Kashmiri Jihadis kill innocent people? Is violence perpetuated by an “underdog,” ie, the Muslims, “morally correct”?

”What if [democracy] doesnt` take hold [in Iraq]?”

“What if” is an assumption for both of us, albeit on the flip side. You and I should discuss this in about ten-year time. As for Bush trying to control oil, well, the elected government, chosen by the Iraqis, cannot be a stooge of Bush. Whatever that government decides to do, give all of its oil to Bush or kick the Americans out, will be in accordance with the wishes of the Iraqis.

”who gave you or Bush (or me) to decide that they can invade a country and kill people, as and when they want?”

No one. I was against it. However, sometimes the end justifies the means. If Middle East turns democratic and becomes an open society because of lives lost in Iraq, then those who have lost their lives are heroes who gave up their lives for a noble cause. No revolution has come about without sacrificing lives. The overthrow of Saddam and establishing democracy in Iraq is not short of a revolution brought about by the US. Can you name a revolution in history that did not involve human lives?

”Let me ask you a simple question also: ``If tomorrow the USA attacked Pakistan and destroyed and killed people in the same fashion as Iraq, to establish, ``democracy,`` would that be justifiable, if an opinion poll in the USA supported such an attack?`` Using your logic on Iraq, it should be completely justifiable”

Yes it will be. If Pakistan were an oppressed nation ruled by a tyrannical dictator who ruled with an iron fist, allowed no space for one to express himself, tolerated no criticism, killed people at will and with impunity, hogged all the national resources for his own personal interest, poisoned the village wells to kill his own people, then yes, that government in Pakistan should be overthrown by external forces, violently if necessary, and democracy and rule of law should be established.

Charging #115 you write ``I was not claiming that Muslims are very powerful today, but actually they do have a lot of resources of this world and manpower. ``

I am glad we both see the same reality, i.e. that muslims have no political power and so there is no question of the US trying to break something that does not exist.

On the second part above (that they have a lot of resources and manpower), I think you have an overinflated sense of the riches of arab nations. Please consider the following:

1. The most important resource by far for modern economies is - an educated, hard-working, manpower. The arab nations are basically a desert in this field: the oil rich countries have become rich through (to put it bluntly but accurately) ``mooft-khawri``. They never had to work to become rich, never had to use their ingenuity to come up with new inventions, new ways of organizing production lines and so forth that the true advanced nations of the world did. They got rich through dumb luck: they were living in a region which had oil deposits. The rest of the muslim nations are educationally among the most backward nations on earth - spain alone publishes more books than the entire middle east. If it is manpower that the US wants, in fact the middle east would be the last place on earth. Thus today, it is towards India and China that the US companies look for trained manpower - and there is not a single US military base in either country!!

2. The arabs need the US and other rich nations, not vice versa, to maintain their standard of living as you seem to think. At best oil rich countries can cause some short term disruptions in the world economy (including the US) if for some foolish reason they chose to stop selling oil. However, advanced nations can easily switch to alternative fuel sources if the supply of oil was to dry up. Hybrid cars (that have the capacity to run on either oil or electric power) are increasingly available in the market. It is the oil-suppliers who depend on oil sales to maintain their standard of living - not the buyers.

Re: # 117 by Romair

[What if someone kills my brother and I go and kill you, in return? Is my killing justified just because someone told me that you had done the killing.]

Why don`t you apply this argument to the Paki Jihadis who have made a profession of killing Indians because the Paki govt. told them that the Indians are killing Kashmiris?

godot #116: ``Your comment on “what if you were an American” is about half right, that your reaction would have been the same. But then you tangent off to “Because I would not have known any better”``

I am saying my reaction would have been the same, because you equated me with an American. I never said that reaction would be moral or correct. It would obviously be wrong. Being deliberately ignorant of a situation is not justification for killing anyone. It will never hold up in a court of law or of morality. What if someone kills my brother and I go and kill you, in return? Is my killing justified just because someone told me that you had done the killing.

``I was against Bush invading Iraq. But if democracy takes hold in Iraq, then Bush is vindicated.``

What if it doesnt` take hold? Then would it be justifiable to try you and Bush for mass murder? Shouldn`t the flip side be true also? Or do you disregard that? What if it turns out that Bush`s intentions were to control oil? What should happen then, in your opinion?

More importantly, who gave you or Bush (or me) to decide that they can invade a country and kill people, as and when they want? I am sure it wasn`t the people who were killed. Can you point out where the Iraqis stated they want to be attacked? Shouldn`t they have a say in it also.............Every survey of Arabs I have seen, indcates a strong hatred of the USA.

Let me ask you a simple question also: ``If tomorrow the USA attacked Pakistan and destroyed and killed people in the same fashion as Iraq, to establish, ``democracy,`` would that be justifiable, if an opinion poll in the USA supported such an attack?`` Using your logic on Iraq, it should be completely justifiable..........

vertex, #113

You cannot accuse Americans of being “ignorant.” That’s unfair and an easy way out. I don’t really know how many societies are enlightened, including Pakistan’s and Canada’s (or of Holland, for that matter.) My question was perhaps more rhetorical: sometimes we have to see ourselves from someone else’s eye to understand ourselves. That picture may not be as pretty as we make of it by looking at ourselves from our own perspective. And sometimes we need to place ourselves in others’ shoes to understand them.

Romair, #111

Your comment on “what if you were an American” is about half right, that your reaction would have been the same. But then you tangent off to “Because I would not have known any better” as if the Americans are the only ones who do not “know any better.” You think that general public in Spain, Britain, Germany, France, Holland (to name a few) knows any better about the Muslims? You think Pakistanis know any better when it comes to the Americans, the Qadianis and the Saudis?

I was against Bush invading Iraq. But if democracy takes hold in Iraq, then Bush is vindicated. He is a hero if there is a domino effect of democracy in the Middle East.

I wish you were more precise and concise in your argument and logic. If you could keep it short, focused and straightforward, it would help me respond better. Because of lack of time, I read your post very quickly and may have missed something.

Also, please see my response to vertex above.

Re: # 111

Romair: This is a nice one, and in fact quite comprehensive.

tahmed32: I was not claiming that Muslims are very powerful today, but actually they do have a lot of resources of this world and manpower. You can understand it as a huge reserve of potential energy. Hence knocking them off turn by turn and capturing their lands is necessary for a superpower to make sure that it never runs out of resources and its enemy can never be able to reach the same level. No values, no morality, no democracy, it`s just a means of prolonging its rule on the world.

arjun_m #112,
so true ......

To chowk staff, why was arjun`s post filtered? Is it incorrect to use the word - gay?

Godot,

“If you were a non-Muslim deeply-entrenched White American, how would you have reacted to 9/11? What would have been your view of the Muslims and Islam in the aftermath of 9/11?”

That`s a loaded question, as we`re not so ignorant as the deeply-entrenched white american who thinks Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and OBL, or that most of the fighting in Iraq is from foreign fighters, or that the Iraq war was not about Oil or WMDs but something greater and more noble.

The question isn`t how we would think if we were them, but rather why are they so ignorant, who is keeping them that way, for what reasons, and how can we change it?

Just as Muslims have to challenge what is being taught to Abdul`s and Zaid`s in the Madrassah`s, we need to tell the Americans to severely censure the likes of Franklin Graham and who-not who are fanning the flames of hate to the Abner`s and Zeeks within middle America.

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

Godot #97: “If you were a non-Muslim deeply-entrenched White American, how would you have reacted to 9/11? What would have been your view of the Muslims and Islam in the aftermath of 9/11?”

Good question.

If you mean, if I were actually an, “non-Muslim deeply-entrenched White American,” then I would have to say that my reaction would have been the same. Because I would not have known any better. I would have had the same issues and complexes as the average American. Most of all, I would have been completely ill-informed about what my country had done in other areas of the world, and would have never been able to figure out why others hated me so much. I would have been convinced that I was a moral force of goodness, and if anyone tried to harm me, I had cart-blanche to kill as many people as I wanted; including in countries that had nothing to do with 9-11.

I would think that nothing in the world was ever my fault.

However, if you mean what I personally would have done, the answer is different. I am partly ethnically Kashmiri. I don’t need to provide you the statistics of Kashmiris who have, and are, being killed in Kashmir. The numbers run ten to twenty times higher than WTC deaths. I support their freedom struggle, and strongly believe if given the opportunity, they would vote for freedom. Yet I don’t want Pakistan to bomb Bombay and kill an equal number of Indian civilians. Nor would I want the Kashmiris, themselves, to do so.

And I spend my whole day with Indians and Hindus, and have been doing so for ten years, or more. I don’t hate them and I don’t want to kill them.

This is not unique to me. I don’t think too many Bangladeshis would approve of killing 40,000 people in Lahore, regardless of the history of 71. In Pakistan, Shia leaders are killed regularly by terrorist Sunni factions. And, in a smaller number, vice-versa. Yet the Shia and Sunni communities in Pakistan aren’t out to kill each other. A lot of the funding for the IRA came from Boston. Yet the British did not bomb Boston (or Ireland). Was Idaho bombed, in the search of Timothy McVeigh?

In case of the USA, the situation is even more immoral for two reasons. First of all, it has gone a killed tens of thousands of people in a country, which according to US govt.`s own admission, had nothing to do with 9-11. It has destroyed whole cities. On top of that it has arrogantly declared that it has done it for the benefit of the citizens of that country, itself. This has to be beyond the height of arrogance. Imagine if the USA had bombed Lahore to smithereens, like it did in Fallujah, and killed thousands of Lahoris. And then you turned on CNN and saw Bush stating that he had done so for the benefit of Lahoris, themselves. And most Americans ended up agreeing with him. Would your blood boil? Or would you justify it through 9-11.

If we are going to apply the USA logic, then why do people complain about the Gujrat riots. There were a group of Hindus who got killed in a train. The Hindus were obviously angry. The govt. declared Muslims to be responsible, in its early investigations. So the more powerful Hindu community went and killed some of them. Same logic. Infact, based on the USA philosophy, Modi could have even declared that he was doing it for the benefit of the Muslims, themselves……………

One cannot play God and start deciding who will live and who will die, and then conveniently justify it by coming up with a string of reasons stating that it is for the benefit of the community being attacked (when all other reasons are proven false). That would mean anyone could attack anyone and kill them. The only time one has a right to use violence is if one is in self-defence (if one is attacked, one’s land is occupied, etc.)…………….

hamidm #109 as elvis presley would sing:

``Dont be cr-r-u-u-u-u-el``

ha! ha!

romair mian,

....... most of the world is envious of the us and that is why they ``hate`` bush ........ that is the bottom line ......... the europeans, now that they don`t need the us to protect them from the commies, are spouting off to cover up their own impotence and insecurity ......... but they are coming to their senses ..........

......... and canada does not even count - for all practical purposes it is totally dependent on the us ....... out of the 400B exports 350B or so go to the us with japan being a distant second at 8B ! ............ and don`t be too sure of how the rest of the canadians view the muslims - about 85% of them live within a hundred miles of the us border and if you guys are not careful they might just join the us and leave you, the eskimos and the polar bears to fend for themselves above the arctic circle ! ..........

............the reason canada is ``immigrant friendly`` is because almost 50% of the population is either foreign born or first generation - we all know that canada has been trying to increase its population and more than 50% of the growth in population over the last twenty years has come from immigration ......... anybody with 200K in the bank in pakistan has a canadian passport - even if they don`t live in canada! .......... also, as we know, half of the paf officers who graduated afrom risalpur between 1980 and 85 are in canada !.............. i am sure the canadians would have preferred to get regular white people but other than the romanian and russian strippers, they had to settle for chinese, indians and pakis ............ the chinamen and the horrible hindoos are adapting to their host environment, but it is another story with the musalmaans and like the citizens of bradford and manchester, the good people of toronto might one day regret letting them in ............so don`t get too comfortable

Romair... 54 was genuinely funny.

Thank you.

Re: # 106

I`m surprised you`re even trying to reason with Romair. Logic has never been his forte.

Romair,
Do you think had 9-11 kind of thing happened in Canada, Canadians would react any different from Americans? I would say the initial reaction is almost always of anger and need for revenge.

in my post #104 ``(albeit in need to not see the writing on the wall)`` should have been ``(albeit in need to see the writing on the wall).``

And also note that my reference in that post to Modi in the same sentence as the parents of the russian children who were killed in the school in Beslan by chechens does not in anyway mean that Modi and those parents are at the same moral level. Modi is a brutal murderer of innocent muslims, while those parents of the children murdered by chechen rebels were obviously vicitims. My point was simply that instead of ranting against the US (which in fact means the muslims no harm), we muslims need to start realistically seeing our own standing in the world today.

Charging #100 you write ``It is waging the most open type of war on two fronts which are pretty much correlated; ending the power of Muslims by striking them turn by turn and capturing as much as of the world resources as it can. ``

You seem to be a reasonable gentleman too, :-) , albeit (as you recomend for me) with a need to catch up on your newspaper reading.

That is: if you read ANY newspaper over the past 300 years, you will realize that ``muslim power`` ended around the start of the 18th century in case of the ottoman empire and around that time for the mughal empire as well. Throughout the 19th century, the ottoman empire was the ``sick man of europe``, routinely thrashed (in at least 3 major wars) by the Russian Czar and protected from being overrun only due to german or french or british intervention (including in the crimean war where the brits fought side by side with ``Johnny Turk`` as they called their ottoman chums).

I do read newspapers, my friend, and am well aware of the resentment for the US among many people in europe (which incidentally i have visited perhaps over 30 times in the past 20 years). You on the other hand need to realize that these resentments for the US pale in comparison to the hatreds for muslims around the world (if you have any doubts, contact the relatives of the spanish train that was bombed, or the russian school where schoolchildren were blown up by chechens, or have a chat with Mr. Modi in Gujerat). Islamic countries have nothing to offer to the world today in terms of leadership in in science and technology, in medicine, in ethics, in law and jurisprudence, in constitutional systems, in journalism. The US, by contrast, is the world leader in all these. If it is faulted, it is faulted for unilateralism. You called Iraq a ``heaven`` or something - most people consider it to be a hell. Even Khruschev (who, as head of the soviet union, told the US that he would ``bury`` it) lived to see his son leave the soviet union and become a US citizen!!

Wake up and smell the coffee, my friend, and then catch up on your newspaper reading, starting with the newspapers of the start of the 19th century to find out about ``muslim power``. Then read about Sir Syed Ahmed Khan who struggled to get muslims to smell the coffee and get what was then called western education (and is now simply called education).

My apologies for any harshness in this or earlier posts - no offense intended, since you seem to be a well-meaning gentleman (albeit in need to not see the writing on the wall). Start with reading Ralph #102 where he makes what I believe is an important point: ``The question is what kind of values the empire brings to a place.`` Compare the US values of democracy and education with the bankrupt values of the mullah fazloos and military dictators of the muslim world and you will understand what I think Ralph (who is an Indian poster, and therefore provides a perspective that you may not agree with but should not ignore) is talking about.

Re: # 84
I find it strange that you ask if Indians give directions like Americans do. Both in the US and in Australia, where I now live, I have found that people often don`t give you directions because they can`t-they just don`t know their way around their own cities. On the other hand, Indians always have an answer-be it right or wrong! Maybe Indians in your city don`t give directions, but trust me, most of them do. I know because I have no sense of direction and am perpetually lost!

Damn, Romair continues his old game.

What are Jews afraid of? Duh, of fanatical, jew-hating Muslims. Want proof? Read any Pakistani newsaper. Read any Pakistani `intellectual.` No. Just read Chowk. Or, just read Romair, and you will see hatred of all democratic things dripping from his every post, not even thinly disguised. America, Israel, India - any bets that Romair loses an ounce of blood everytime he hears of these cursed names?! :)

Muslims (Generalizations often serve a useful purpose. ``Not all Muslims are the same`` is a stupid Romairian ploy to sidestep issues) hate Jews with a passion. This is the only quom that even today openly accepts pro Hitler jokes.

Why do Mullahs love Canada? Because they have got their Shariat there. Unbelievable, but true. I bet Romair thinks that is right and proper.

Mullahs in Canada are just feeding off the natural resentment that smaller, less powerful neighbors have toward bigger, brasher friends.

A Christian Canadian has nothing in common with a Mullah, whether that Mullah wears a beard or remains in disguise.

Charging

Every military power builds an empire. Islamists did it (for which you are still paying in the form of spiritual and intellectual bankruptcy, military rule, chopped hands and heads, and shuttle-cock women), the British did it, and the Americans are doing it. The question is what kind of values the empire brings to a place. Since you cannot look beyond Arab colonization, America ofcourse is the great devil, out to get thuggish muslim countries by their beards.

Re: # 92

tahmed32, ``How many countries would willingly accept the military presence of the Pakistan army (even we Pakistanis ourselves have issues with what it is doing within Pakistan!!) or the Indian army or the Russian or Chinese armies??``

You have simply proved my point by yourself. People of Pakistan don`t want `bloody` army rule on us, but still it has been there for most part of the history. Similary, most people don`t want US forces in their countries, but they are still there. The conclusion is, might is right whatever its opponents think; and might does what is in its best interest.

You seem quite a reasonable guy. I urge you to read some anti-US views in newspapers and articles with a neutral mind. Probably it will help you understand the motives of American empire. It is waging the most open type of war on two fronts which are pretty much correlated; ending the power of Muslims by striking them turn by turn and capturing as much as of the world resources as it can.
Thanks

Re: # 97
Great Question!!!!
Bravo!

Re:rshridhar#91

Ha Ha!! Good one. I wish Chowk had a board to post jokes, especially Sardar jokes. I would love to hear some from the Pakistanis.

Here is a good non-Sardar joke, that is quite appropriate for the Bush administration and its wishful thinking Iraq policy -

There are two donkeys who meet on the street.

Donkey 1 says to Donkey 2 -``Hello yaar!! How is life?``

Donkey 2 says - ``Life is horrible. My master beats me every day, there is no food to eat and I have to work 20 hrs a day. It is really bad. How about you?``

Donkey 1 replies - ``Same here. Life is horrible. My master beats me every day, there is no food to eat and I have to work 20 hrs a day. However, my future is bright!!``

Now Donkey 2 is really intrigued. He asks - ``Vow. How come your future is bright?``

Donkey 1 replies - ``Whenever my master has a bad fight with his wife, he always threatens her that he will make her f*$k the donkey!! So someday it will come true. So my future is bright!!`` :-)

Romair

If you were a non-Muslim deeply-entrenched White American, how would you have reacted to 9/11? What would have been your view of the Muslims and Islam in the aftermath of 9/11?

Sistani seems to have outsmarted everyone. Following is from Time Magazine. As I had mentioned earlier, the US tried its best to not hold elections in January, however, Sistani forced its hand.........

``But even as President Bush claimed vindication for his Iraq strategy in the spectacle of millions of Iraqis braving terror and intimidation to go to the polls, the real author of Sunday`s election —Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani — confined himself to a simply thanking voters for turning out, and expressing regret that his own Iranian birth prevented him from joining them. It may be easily forgotten in the post-election spin that Sunday`s vote was not the Bush administration`s idea—quite the contrary. The U.S. had never intended for Iraqis to democratically choose the body that would write their new constitution; Washington had envisaged an election only after a constitution had been written by a body appointed by, and under the tutelage of the U.S.

Initially, the plan had been to hand power to returning exiles after toppling Saddam Hussein. When the exiles proved too unpopular, the U.S. then sought to have its handpicked Iraqi Governing Council write the new constitution. Even after the IGC proved incapable, the Bush administration consistently rejected Sistani`s demand for democratic elections. Instead, U.S. administrator J. Paul Bremer proposed, that a constitution-making body be appointed by a series of caucuses comprising handpicked elites around the country. Sistani was having none of it. He insisted on democratic elections, used his influence among Shiites on the Governing Council to block Bremer`s scheme, and then brought his supporters onto the streets to warn that anything short of democracy would be deemed illegitimate by the Shiite majority.

And it was this pressure from the Iranian-born Ayatollah—certainly an unlikely Tom Paine figure —that forced the administration to scrap its own plans for Iraq and agree to hold elections by the end of January 2005.......

Opinion polls continue to show that a majority of Iraqi voters want the U.S. to leave immediately after the election, and a new government, whatever its makeup, will be expected to respond to that sentiment......

Ironically, ending the U.S. presence is a point of consensus between Iraq`s new political class and the insurgents
``

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1022720,00.html?cnn=yes

Sistani seems to have outsmarted everyone. Following is from Time Magazine. As I had mentioned earlier, the US tried its best to not hold elections in January, however, Sistani forced its hand.........

``But even as President Bush claimed vindication for his Iraq strategy in the spectacle of millions of Iraqis braving terror and intimidation to go to the polls, the real author of Sunday`s election —Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani — confined himself to a simply thanking voters for turning out, and expressing regret that his own Iranian birth prevented him from joining them. It may be easily forgotten in the post-election spin that Sunday`s vote was not the Bush administration`s idea—quite the contrary. The U.S. had never intended for Iraqis to democratically choose the body that would write their new constitution; Washington had envisaged an election only after a constitution had been written by a body appointed by, and under the tutelage of the U.S.

Initially, the plan had been to hand power to returning exiles after toppling Saddam Hussein. When the exiles proved too unpopular, the U.S. then sought to have its handpicked Iraqi Governing Council write the new constitution. Even after the IGC proved incapable, the Bush administration consistently rejected Sistani`s demand for democratic elections. Instead, U.S. administrator J. Paul Bremer proposed, that a constitution-making body be appointed by a series of caucuses comprising handpicked elites around the country. Sistani was having none of it. He insisted on democratic elections, used his influence among Shiites on the Governing Council to block Bremer`s scheme, and then brought his supporters onto the streets to warn that anything short of democracy would be deemed illegitimate by the Shiite majority.

And it was this pressure from the Iranian-born Ayatollah—certainly an unlikely Tom Paine figure —that forced the administration to scrap its own plans for Iraq and agree to hold elections by the end of January 2005.......``

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1022720,00.html?cnn=yes

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

vivek #90: “To the common man in the USA 9-11 was committed by Muslims. We, as more educated people can talk about not all Muslims being the same, but for the common man they are.”

This is my whole point (with one difference). I think to the common American, all Muslims are the same. However, I have definitely not found this to be true for the common Canadian. Which is why I am really interested in finding out what the common European thinks, to get a well-rounded view of the whole Western thought process.

I would seriously encourage you to visit other Western countries. My eyes have really opened up, as I have started doing so. The public discourse on terrorism, in Canada, is so different from USA, that one has a hard time believing the two countries belong to the same Western philosophical thought process. The discourse on int’l affairs is also very different. Despite so much American pressure, There is a common phenomenon amongst many American Muslims that even though they live in the USA and still hate its guts (the Urstruly phenomenon). I have not seen this in Canada. I don’t know the situation in Europe……

The Muslim view is far more represented in the Canadian media, than in the US media. In fact, just Pakistanis themselves are more represented in the Canadian media and politics than all the Muslims, combined, in the USA. And after discussions with so many Canadians, I am quite convinced that there does exist a much better understanding of Muslims amongst Canadians (and of other minorities, also). And a far better and fairer understanding of the Middle East situation (including Israel-Palestine). In fact, the biggest fear that exists in Canada (and in the USA) is that some terrorist will go from Canada to America and blow something up. Not that someone will blow something up inside Canada.

“Inspite of it most Muslims do not face discimmination in their daily life. I would say that as a very positive aspect of this society. “

I would say this is true (although it does exist at the borders for non-US resident Muslims). I acknowledge that. This is because there are decades of systems that have been put into place through Civil Rights Movements, etc. and because USA has never really been under pressure, till 9/11. Continental USA hadn’t been attacked for almost 200 years.

This is why I keep saying the USA is sitting on the fence, and I am not saying it is openly discriminating. We will find out which side it will go to, if another attack occurs inside the USA. I think it will, at that point, roll over to the negative side. Muslims in the USA are, on the whole, an insignificant community. They have never bothered to organize themselves into any kind of lobby. They are not even a minor political force. They are at the mercy of the majority. And if the majority gets really angry, and can’t differentiate between one Muslim or another (as you say), and cannot take its anger out on Iraq any longer, and cannot locate OBL, who is it going to take it out on? My guess is on all our Chowk expats……..

In addition, there is a proxy war being fought inside the USA, between pro-Israel Jewish lobbies and an increasing US Muslim population. It is in the interest of the former to limit the rise of the Muslims in the USA. And it has a lot of influence. No such lobby exists in Canada or Europe. In fact, in France, Muslims themselves are a lobby now. Which is why France is very popular in Arab surveys (barring the headscarf stuff).

Following is a quote from Daniel Pipes, who has been appointed at a very senior religious position by Bush,

“``I worry very much from the Jewish point of view that the presence, and increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims...will present true dangers to American Jews.``
- Daniel Pipes speaking before the convention of the American Jewish Congress, 10/21/2001

Who do you think Pipes is afraid of? The bearded maulvi Muslim, saying his prayers, who has no interest in the USA and will never rise in the system. No. He is afraid of the affluent, well-integrated yuppie Muslim who can give the Jewish community a run for its money. He is more afraid of hamidms than of the Urstrulys. And he (neo-cons etc.) will eventually isolate these individuals, if one more attack occurs. Unfortunately some of the Muslims, themselves, are feeding his fire, by becoming Bush’s biggest cheerleaders, instead of joining up with the with the ACLU and Democrat/Nader side….

”Regarding Israel, I think Israel will recognise Palestine sometime soon. However it would want a Palestine state which is dependent on Israel for its survival.”

I agree. And because of this, the conflict will continue. And the USA will continue to be targeted, even though it has no direct conflict with Arabs. And the cycle of violence will get larger and larger………..