Filtered Posts

Losing My Religion dullahbhatti #109: ``Romair mian eh bhaar di gall kar rahe O?``

Bhatti Saab: bhaar ich tay koi mukabla naheen... Saadi Anjuman tussaan di Ashwariya nuun aaram naal kutt sakdi aye........Ikk Anjuman chaar Ashwariyoon toon bhaari ayee.......

``both Kaura and Dillidost have lakk so patlay ke kuRiyan vi jalldiyaN ne ehna toN.``

Sardaraan dae patlay lakk? Aye dinn vee vekhna see..........Aye donoon mainu shuru toon ee banuati Sardar dissdae sann..........

rsribhar #110: ``then you use sexual abuse of Turkish women to remind you to sing your national anthem``

Actually what is so special about, ``Turkish`` whores. I have always wondered. How are the different from Portugese, Lithuanian, French, Malyasian etc.

``- which by the way is written purely in Farsi and has nothing to do with any of the umpteen Paki languages.``

Yes, it is written in Farsi, which is why I still cannot understand it.......

Losing My Religion Rsibhar #105: ``Once again, I request you to pay attention to fine examples of Muslimahs on Chowk. Here is a quote:........Ah...the ``husband`` of the Turkish whore speaks..Romair, you must ask Salim Chuhan to post pics of his wife servicing other men....

I say, Romair, while you have been dueling injuns, some Muslimahs have been learning to abuse their coreligionists in the most debauched manner. Who says women aren`t free to express themselves in Islam or in the Land of the Pure? Now, do you understand my disappointment with Pakiland and Moose Limbs?``

This conflict presents an interesting dilemma:

On the one hand, I think fellow Rajputs need to stick together, against all these lower caste Rajput wannabees - male and female. Not only that, I think this is what happens when Muslim women start stepping outside and getting Ph.Ds. Pretty soon, they forget their place, which like my cat, is inside the house, cooking and cleaning. My own wife has started telling me to take out the trash, ever since she started working. Taking out the trash!! - something none of my proud male Hindu ancestors would ever do............They would have chopped their wives into ten pieces at the mere suggestion of such a task.........

On the other hand, one must admire the fact that a Pakistani Muslima is kicking the butt of ten Indians of various varieties - Hindu, Sikh and Muslims - at the same time. It brings pride to my heart and a tear to my eye. Obviously if one Pakistani Muslim is equal to ten Indians, one Pakistani Muslima is, apparently, equal to twenty. I almost started singing, ``Pak Sar Zameen`` after reading the, ``Turkish whore`` comment........

So the decision is tough. However, the jury decides:

Saminasha - hosla mat harna. apni jang jaree rakho!!

Losing My Religion rsibhar #81: ``Please take a look at Saminasha`s post below:
{``#78 by Saminasha on August 4, 2005 8:42am PT
Well...now that Salim Chuhan the Namard is on this board, this page is officially braindead. ``}
I REST MY CASE.``

I thought Rajputs had some pride. Some chivalry. Some courage. At the very least an ability to mix originality with any nonsense they may throw out.......You have given up far too easily........You disappoint me........Prithviraj Chouhan must be rolling in his grave.......

Al- Qaeda: The Cutting Edge of Jihadist Movement The world works in strange ways. And the definition of Jihad and terrorism works in even stranger ways.

Amongst other things, the USA has declared Iran: “the axis of evil,” and “the center of tyranny.” It may in fact be planning to attack Iran. Iran is a terrorist country, according to the USA. Interestingly, the Shah, with his Savak secret police was not a terrorist govt. Is targeting one’s own Irani citizens, not terrorism?

However, this is not what makes the whole jihad and terrorism definition (or lack thereof) interesting.

In Iraq, the USA’s future is in the hands of a gentleman, appropriately called by a newspaper, Ally McBeal Sistani. Ayatollah Sistani. The good Ayatollah can put a million people on the street of Baghdad, by raising one finger. He actually put a few hundred thousand on the street earlier. Americans are obviously dead scared of the guy. He is the one who forced them to hold elections in Iraq in January. In fact, had he raised one finger before Bush’s elections, Kerry would be in the White House today. Sistani is supporting the elections in Iraq, because he knows his Shia party will win. Though he refuses to even shake hands with any American in the occupation authority. Yet the Americans are fully dependent on him, even though he is a religous Ayatollah.

However, this is also not what makes everything interesting, either. There is more.

Mr. Sistani is not going to run in the elections, himself. Why not? Well the good Ayatollah isn’t even a citizen of Iraq. What to talk of running, he cannot even vote in the Iraqi elections. What country is he a citizen of? If you guessed the Samoan Islands, you are wrong. Because he is a citizen of Iran. Yes, a chief maulvi citizen of the axis of evil/center of tyranny (take your pick) chief maulvi country – Iran - is being relied on (and maybe even supported) by the USA to ensure peace in Iraq. One of its main candidates (who can vote in Iraq) of the Ayatollah’s party, is a guy named Ahmad Challabi. He is the person who got the USA into the Iraq war to begin with, and who Bush originally wanted to make the Prime Minister of Iraq. He was, however, later on ditched by the USA. Why? Because the USA accused him of having ties with Iran!

But, there is more.

The Ayatollah’s party is a religious party, despite the regular attempts by Fox TV (and its campaign managers - al-hamidm and al-tahmad) to convince us otherwise. Its campaign posters state that voting for this party is like voting for Imam Hussain. It is even called the Persian party, for its ties with Iran’s Ayatollahs. And allegedly its original draft of the next Iraqi Constitution is written in Persian. Amongst other members it consists of the following groups:
- The Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq: this is an interesting group that was based in Iran for decades.
- The Dawa party: This party was actually declared a terrorist organization by the Americans themselves, at one point, when it allegedly targeted the Americans with terrorist attacks, when the Americans were supporting Saddam!!

So the USA took out a secular Saddam, and is now relying on a religious Ayatollah, who is a citizen of the axis of evil - Iran - to put into power someone with ties to Iran (Chalabi), through a religious party - one of whose member parties (Dawa party) was declared a terrorist by the USA itself, for attacking American when America supported the original secular dictator (Saddam) - whom the USA has now jailed !! Irani citizen Sistani’s political party, which will come into power is tied to Iran - a country which the USA wants to attack because it considers it an Ayatollah-led, “center of tyranny!!!”

As they say in the Evangelical Churches of Chicago’s auto-industry: Praise the Lord, for He works in mysterious ways!!

If the above doesn’t show how subjective the definition of terrorism and jihad is, then I don’t know what does. It is decided by Fox TV and the US Congress as much as it is by reality. I am now predicting that, in ten years, the USA will be supporting a man named OBL as the next Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia. He will be leading his US-supported political party (Al-Faida). The USA will be simultaneously trying to hunt down a retired General named Musharraf, whose name will appear right below Ayatollah Sistani’s on the list of America’s Most Wanted, for trying to carry out a coup in US ally Iran. At the same time, the USA will be trying to spread secularism in the world, by pressuring other countries to vote for its Muslim candidate as the head of the UN. The name of that candidate: Saddam Hussain, of course…….

What a tangled web we weave………..when we try to define terrorism.........

Al- Qaeda: The Cutting Edge of Jihadist Movement Freddy_Kruger: On a different topic, can you let me know whether the following is the correct wording for Amrita Preetam`s nazm on Waris Shah. I am having a difficult time finding a genuine copy. There are some sites with a smaller version, with fewer verses...........Which one is correct?

``aaj aakhaN Waris Shah nuuN, kitoN kabraaN vichchoN bol,
te aaj kitab-e ishq daa koii aglaa varkaa phol

ik roii sii dhii punjaab dii, tuuN likh likh maare vaen,
aaj lakhaaN dhiiaaN rondiaa tainuN, waris shah nuN kahen

uTh dardmandaaN diaa dardiaa, uth takk apnaa Punjaab
aaj bele lashaaN bichhiaaN te lahu dii bharii chenab

kise ne panjaN paniaN vichch dittii zahar ralaa
te unhaaN paniiaaN dharat nuuN dittaa paanii laa

is zarkhez zamiin de luun luun phuttia zaher
gitth gitth charhiaaN laaliaN fuuT fuuT charhiaa kaher

veh valliissii vha pher van van vaggii jaa,
ohne har ik baaNs di vanjhalii ditti naag banaa

pehlaa dang madaariaN, mantar gaye guaach,
dooje dang di lagg gayii, jane khane nuN laag

aagaaN kiile lok muNh, bus phir dang hi dang,
palo palii punjaab de, neele pae gaye ang.

gale`oN tutt`e giit phir trakaleon tuttii tand,
trinjanoN tuttiaaN saheliaaN, chaRakhRre ghuukar band

sane sej de beriaaN, luddaN dittiaaN rohr,
sane daliaan peengh aj, piplaaN dittii toR

jitthe vajdii sii phuuk pyaar dii, ve oh vanjhalii gayii guaach
raanjhe de sab viir aaj, bhul gaye usadii jaach

dhartii te lahuu varsiyaa, kabraaN paiaaN chon,
preet diaaN shaahzaadiaaN, aaj vichch mazaaraaN ron

aaj sabh `Qaido` ban gaye, husn ishq de chor
aaj kitthoN liaaiye labbh ke waris shah ik hor

aaj aakhaN waris shah nuuN, kitoN kabraan vichchoN bol,
te aaj kitaab-e ishq daa, koii aglaa varkaa phol``

Al- Qaeda: The Cutting Edge of Jihadist Movement Freddy_K#47: ``It is the globalization of Jihad from Xinjiang in China to the bombings in Beonis Aires (sp?) in Argentina which makes the current surge in jihadism exceptional, otherwise local jihads have been around all through history including in subcontinent (Syed Ahmed Shaheed Barelvi and Shah Ismail in Balakot is one of the example).``

My aim is not to support or oppose the arguments here. I have just as many arguments with Urstruly as I have had with hamidm. My aim is to encourage an objective discussion on the subject. I think most of these discussions get dominated by the personal feelings of the individuals. There are those who are so passionately addicted to religion that they will always go to one side, subjectively. And there are those who are so passionately hateful of religion that they will always go to the other side, subjectively. Once a person lays down a personal agenda, it becomes very difficult for him/her to be objective.

People have to set some objective criteria for assessing terrorism, its implications, causes etc., based on fact and morality, and not based on mass media, or personal likes and dislikes. Otherwise, those representing the extreme violent opinions will always win. OBL is quite popular in many Muslim countries. However, George Bush just became the President of one.

So what are the objective criteria that should be used?

While progress and acheving a high living standard is important, it cannot be used as the criteria for defining terrorism or jihad. Terrorism isn`t bad, because it maybe keeping Muslim countries from progressing. It is bad, because it is morally wrong to kill people - advanced or otherwise, Muslim or Bhuddhist. What if OBL were to get elected to a democratic Saudi Arabia, introduce women`s rights, secularism, gay marraige, and turn Saudi Arabia into Canada etc. And then, after that, he were to go and bomb the WTC and Pentagon. Would his actions become less terrorist-ic?

The main criteria for defining levels of terrorism has to be the number of people killed. Not the alleged motivation behind the killing. Nor the characteristics of the killer. Nor the fact whether the killing was done by a state-backed army or rag-tag soldiers. Nor the religion behind the killing. And definitely not the living standard of the country carrying out the killing.

Based on this criteria, two things become obvious. In the current world, it is alright to kill innocent people if:

a) One has a State military at one`s disposal. If a squadron of fighter aircraft kills 100 people, no one considers it terrorism. However, if one person sets off a car bomb that kills 10 people, it is terrorism

b) If the country carrying out the killings is internally advanced, and has established a successful society, i.e. rich people killing poor poeple is not prosecuted. Poor people killing rich people is terrorism

The only time rag-tag soldiers/terrorists/freedom-fighters are given the same level of immunity from being labelled terrorists, as a State Army is if the rag-tag soldiers are successful in their cause. Had the Mukti Bahni and Bengalis lost in 1971, they would be considered terrorists. If Kashmiris are able to get independence, all of them will be considered freedom fighters by history. If Chechnyans gain independence, they will all become freedom fighters in the eyes of the world. The Algerian struggle, despite its terrorists aspects, is considered a freedom struggle. It wouldn`t have been had the French won.........

Similarly, no one will ever even think of taking Bush and Cheney to the International Criminal Court or the consider them terrorists. Why not? According to the estimates of American orgaizations themselves, they have killed 40,000 to 100,000 Iraqis. 10 to 25 times the no. killed in the WTC attack!!! Their only defense is that they are doing it for democracy. Their previous one was that they were doing it for Al-Qaeda. And before that for WMD. How is that any difference from OBL saying he is attacking to spread Islam?

Interestingly the core group supporting Bush`s actions are the Christian Evangelists. Yet they are not considered supporters of State terrorism. In fact, I have never heard you utter a single word against state terrorism, of any sort. Nor have I ever heard you even call it terrorism...........What should it be called then?

I think both OBL and Bush are certified terorrists. They have killed innocent people, for their own political agendas. Bush, having killed far more. And this is why I think OBL is so popular amongst the grassroots in many countries. People consider him a terrorist. But they also think he is attacking a bigger terorrist, i.e. Bush.

It is thus, quite important, to first establish objective criteria for what constitutes terrorism. And then make judgements.............Otherwise, one will only end up creating more and more polarization.

Al- Qaeda: The Cutting Edge of Jihadist Movement One has to wonder how much of the current microscope on jihad is genuine and how much of it is because the entity on the other side is the USA. What if the jihad was being carried out against China or Japan or Chile? Would we be discussing it here? Are there similar, “jihads” being carried out in other areas, by people of other religions. If No, then this Muslim jihad becomes unique. If Yes, then one has to consider why those jihads do not get the same amount of attention. And how they are similar or different from Muslim Jihadist movments………

Which religion of the world produces the most suicide bombers? If you answered Buddhism, you are wrong. Because the answer is Hinduism.

“Two thirds of all suicide bombings in this whole world have been committed by the Tamil terrorist group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam,” www.lankaweb.com/news/items01/210901-1.html

“Services were organised throughout the north and east of Sri Lanka on Friday, to honour all Tamil suicide bombers.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2098657.stm
The 2/3rd ratio will now have changed, since Iraq. But the number still remains high. In fact, according to BBC, the Tamil Tigers have committed manifold more suicide attacks than all the other groups in the world combined. Amongst their targets include Rajiv Gandhi, as well as President Pramedasa of Sri Lanka; another President of Sri Lanka, who lost eyesight due to an attack. As well as assassinating the Industry Minister and a member Parliament.

They have bombed the holiest Bhuddhist site in Sri Lanka. They have also bombed the Colombo airport.

The Tamils Tigers are Hindus. And amongst other reasons, one of the main causes of their creation was the support of the Sri Lankan for Buddhism as the main state religion. Interestingly they had enjoyed support from the Indian govt. and from Tamils in India. All of these being primarily Hindu entities also:

“It is widely believed that India provided the LTTE and other Tamil guerilla groups with monetary and training support.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_Tigers)
The point here is not to paint Hindus as terrrorists (and hopefully our Indian repliers will not jump into traditional knee-jerk defensive mode), but to understand the different types of jihads going on in the world, and to figure out the motivations behind them.

How many people in the world even know about the actions of the Tamil Tigers, i.e. suicide bombings that dwarf those by Palestinians. And is this to be referred as Hindu jihad, since it is primary against Bhuddhist Sinhaleses by a predominantely Hindu group. Why or, why not? What are the differences? What if Israel had been created in Sri Lanka? What if the Tamil Tigers had been attacking an Israel, in Sri Lanka, instead of a Singhalese population? Would the world be looking at terrorism in a different way?

The second example is also interesting.

Who were the first people to introduce suicide as the official military policy of the State. If you answered Hindus you were wrong. Because the answer is a combination of Bhuddhists and Shintoism.

The Kamikaze pilots of Japan are legendary. The Japanese govt. officially recruited miltiary pilots to perform suicide missions. This is different from a soldier laying down his life, when deciding to take a hill. This is soldiers, knowing from the get-go, when they sign up that they are going to die. That is their whole mission.

“The belief in the Kamikaze was stronger than ever. It was adamantly believed that, because they were fighting for their Emperor God, the Kamikaze would bring them deliverance at the darkest hour, just as it had in the 13th Century. In fact, the call for kamikaze pilots drew a staggering response. Three times as many applied for suicide flights as the number of planes available. Experienced pilots were turned down. They were needed to train the younger men in how to fly to their deaths. As a result, the majority of those accepted were in their late teens. They felt grateful to have the opportunity to prove that they were real men.” (http://mtmt.essortment.com/kamikazeinforma_rglb.htm)

The total number of kamikaze missions flow in WWII has been placed at around 1500 (perhaps more, perhaps less). This completely dwarfs the number of attacks, say, by the suicide car-driver attacks in Iraq.

What would one call the kamikazes? Bhuddhist jihadists? And how much press did they get? How does their attack compare with the attack on the Pentagon by the recent hijackers (not the WTC, but the Pentagon)?

People need to study all these phenomenon, in there entirety, rather than becoming prisoners of what the media keeps covering………And then try to figure out the situation objecitively……Otherwise the whole debate turns into nothing more than individuals expressing their own political and religious biases, based on whether they like/dislike a religion or a country…..