Fading Exclamations

By joe! tahmed.
You should be recruited by the Al-Qaeda guys- you have provided brilliant ideas regarding how to be a 9/11 denier.
Unfortunately, you are on the other side of the jehadis.

echo,
I got the reference to the certain `linear` interactor, which is why I responded as I did. Density, I repeat, varies with pressure (though inversely to how it does in the physical world)
ok, so I get what I am `laiq` now. But I never claimed to be a lover, just a student.

PM:193

191 & 192 are about your tete-a-tete with a certain linearly `humorous` interactor. Simplicity and decency do have some angle..if they spell dense, then so be it.

paraphrase:
Every tom dick and harry is now laying claim to be a lover
Now those famed for their finesse in this art are at peril.
Ghalib.

echo:
As I`ve learnt in my own life, salvation is ALWAYS open to ALL.
As for density, doesn`t that, as a rule, change with temperature and pressure?
Bhai sahib, you will have to excuse my digracefully low Urdu proficiency. The second line of the couplet sailed completely over my head. tarjama would be greatly appreciated.
I dont get why, or of what, I am deserving and Urstruly not.
rgds,
PM

PM:
Your sardonic bait seldom fails, but is the catch desirable? Please humour us not, or are you `raising` the bar on `dense`.

PM #187 How can you say I am avoiding the issue when I am in fact saying that it is impossible to respond to your brilliant questions?

Indeed, if you look carefully, in addition to spotting the McDonald`s restaurant on that moon picture, and in addition to you sitting inside that restaurant eating a hamburger with your Moon-Person date, you will also notice that the flag on the moon has the crescent and star on it. And that spaceguy holding the moon in fact is wearing a space-helmet that looks just like that bedsheet that arafat wears on his head. This proves that the first man on the moon was in fact an Arab, and that they have McDonald`s restaurants on the moon, and also it is very windy there.

I would have gone through life totally fooled by US claims to have landed a man on the moon, and on the real culprits behind 9/11, if I did not have you and urstruly - the two Chowk Sardars, if I may say so - asking brilliant questions on chowk??

Laeque PM / Naa-laeque Urstruly

Hr buul havas ney husn prastee sh`iaar kee
ubb abroo-e shaivaa-e, ehl-e nazar gayee!

---

PM Urstruly:
Sometimes it becomes an obligation to understand or explain complex matters in a simple manner.

PM: What Auden wrote was not satire or homily. He stated a fact. Simple, decent folk really help the earth humming and keep it tilted at an appropriate rakish angle. They disaprove of mind-statics. A static-mind, on the other hand, secures against risky thoughts.

---

The simplicity of US politics

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn`t find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That`s because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that`s why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn`t find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That`s because the weapons are so well hidden. Don`t worry, we`ll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I`m confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn`t they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn`t want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn`t make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It`s a different culture. It`s not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don`t know about you, but I don`t think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn`t matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn`t have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don`t go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it`s a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn`t that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What`s the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba`ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn`t you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China`s a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn`t a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn`t that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don`t be a smartass.
Q: I didn`t think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don`t have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he`s not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What`s a military coup?
A: That`s when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn`t the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn`t you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren`t the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people`s heads and hands?
A: Yes, that`s exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people`s heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn`t the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people`s heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people`s heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It`s OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people`s hands for growing flowers, but it`s cruel if they cut off people`s hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don`t they also cut off people`s hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That`s different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don`t Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What`s the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman`s body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman`s body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don`t go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we`re mad at them now. We`re also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn`t help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn`t do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn`t Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn`t that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that`s true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America`s side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you`re saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Q: Good night, Daddy.

Re: the moon-landing fakes

You can check out one of the faked moon landing stories at http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/moontruth.asp
but be warned though, turns out the faked landing ``evidence`` was itself faked!

I`ve heard of the ``fluttering flag`` hoax before and recall it being comprehensively debunked but unfortunately can`t give you the citation for it.

Tahmed,
I said your humour was improving, but you didn`t havta get carried away, man! I mean, there are only so many corny jokes you can crack before it becomes clear you`re only avoiding the issue.
But don`t bother... with (non)interators like you, who needs RSaxena!

PM #183 You are being too modest when you say you are merely asking questions. Of course urstruly is right: how come the flag on the moon is fluttering when there is no wind on the moon? actually, if you look carefully, you will see what looks like a McDonald`s fast food restaurant on the horizon, and if you use a microscope on that picture you will also notice a chap with PM written on his forehead eating a hamburger.

As for 9/11, OF COURSE your questions are so brilliant that one is left answerless (``speechless`` is too mild a word). No one can respond to your brilliant questions, thus proving that it was all a jewish conspiracy. Indeed, if you use a micrscope on that picture of the plane flying into the WTC, you will notice mohammed ata arguing with a guy wearing a yarmulka, trying to convince him that he should not be flying planes loaded with people into office buildings. If it wasnt for such brilliant questions raised by you and urstruly (and echobooom too), we would all be still thinking that the Arabs did it.

As I said, who needs sardar jokes on chowk, given that we have you.

Re. sigalph #178. and ‘Namecalling’. I was speaking with reference to your comment in #163 that the “Article reminds me of the fact that there are still people who believe that the moon landing never took place.” That wouldn’t happen to amount to terming the writer and other protagonists well, loony, now would it. :) But it’s not exactly name calling, and to that extent, please accept apologies.

Let’s just say I thought you might dismiss questions such as those posed here out of hand mainly because they don’t fit into your scheme of reality and don’t sync with accepted, or more correctly, official ‘knowledge.” Your explanation (“The reason I do not argue with the 9/11 deniers or lunar-landing deniers is the same that I refuse to get into arguments with Holocaust-deniers”) does little but confirm my earlier characterization of your quite curious (or curiously unscientific) method of dismissing contentious issues by simple, though wholly unwarranted, association with established canards. AS if we didn’t ‘get’ your methodology, you continued: “I mean there are still people around who believe that the Pearl Harbor attack was staged by the US and that the Poles attacked Germany to trigger WWII. All the power to them.” Quite compelling, but some of us would just like to discuss the issue at hand, and get answers to the questions being ask.

re. “You cannot argue with faith. Sometimes these beliefs are the only ones such individuals have to wrap their cherished but precarious world-view with. Why should any sane individual give grief to such sorry souls?”

I am in complete agreement with you here! Indeed, you cannot argue with faith. Please remember that it is faith (at least in the sense I think you use the word) that is inimical to questioning and reasoning. Knowledge, on the other hand (without getting into dense epistemology) is only gained through testing hypotheses, which includes refuting allegations and satisfying all criteria as might exist.
Otherwise, sir, I submit that what one claims as ‘knowledge’ is just so much of faith-based stuff bolstered mainly by public opinion.

And it is just plain silly to assume that when one rejects or questions one proposition, he is doing the same to some unrelated others that you imagine he does. Tahmed sahib, are you listening?

Of course it is entirely your prerogative to respond as you may—even to ape apes, if you get my drift—as it is others’ theirs to judge your responses.
rgds,
PM

Tahmed sahib: Your humour is improving, but if you should land yourself a job as a stand-up, don’t give up the day job just yet, ok? And don’t let your misses know about the slightly derogative way you speak of PMS, ok bhai?
rgds,
PM

Urstruly: I remember reading about the ‘flag fluttering’ anomaly elsewhere some time ago; wasn’t basing it on footage from the website your cited. But yes, with one-sixth the earth’s gravitational pull, the stiffness of the flag is still ‘interesting’ to say the least. But, unless the photos on the site have been doctored, I think they provide more than enough incontrovertible proof of the fakeness of the footage.
Let’s sit back now and watch others here extrapolate this to mean that we are saying that this is proof that there has never been a lunar landing. Oh, and also that the Holocaust never happened, and that 4,000 Jews stayed away from work on Sept.11 2001
rgds,
PM

Oh, Tahmed, forgot this...
You wrote: ``The explanations you and urstruly provide...``
Actually, we`re not providing any explanations at all; simply questioning some that you and others seem to have gone for hook line and sinker. Maybe if you didn`t waste so much energy try to distance yourself from anythign that could possibly be misconstrued as an obscurantist leaning, you might actually be able to recognize this simple fact.

In previous post, i meant to write ``Maybe if you didn`t waste so much energy trying to...``
say it, Sux: ``who cares!``