Attack in Mohmand #89 Posted by TehsinA:

"It is so simple:"

NO, you think all the interactors on this thread are FOOLS. No you are the fool, idiot, imperialist, peon of the west, hamidm, tahmed, jihadi, hinjew. Phew! Yes, so OK where were we...

Oh! It is you? Fool, idiot, imperialist, peon of the west, hamidm, tahmed, jihadi, hinjew ... I have proved to you that you are confused and that you know nothing. And I have proved to you that I am right and that I know more than you.

So there .... things are not that simple. Do you get it now?

Attack in Mohmand HP:

"You are discussing policy and not something in isolation."

Since it is relative, policy can be better or worse. So I do not see why a "better response" would have no meaning given any "situation". There are several hypotheses flying around, I do not see why a comparative evaluation cannot be made.

When you say that I can do the exercise myself, of course I can. But it would be incomplete and stupid given my grasp of the issue. In any case, I have said what I had to say. I am off to the under-world.

Attack in Mohmand #33 Posted by HP:

HP:

You are making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Forget my assumptions and throw them into the dust-bin. For the time being, and at least in pavo's board, I am not interested in figuring out what the US needs to do. Here is my point. If one is criticizing Pakistani responses to US actions, I would like to know what are the "better" responses and why are they "better". Plus, I would also like to know whether the "better" responses are feasible. Simple as that.

Attack in Mohmand Masadi:

We hear you and have been hearing you for 1001 posts. Your points and perceptions are incisive, deep, knowledgeable and intelligent. What you have to say and have repeated again and again is:

The US elites are behind the problems of Pakistan. They need to be defeated. People who disagree with you are idiots and peons of the west.

WE HEAR YOU MASADI, YOU NEED NOT REPEAT YOURSELF!

Attack in Mohmand Zeemax:

I know your view. Your stating repeatedly, along with detours like "... (GT) you know nothing about Pakistan ...", will not convince me that your views are congruent to those of a sizeable proportion of the Pakistanu people. Read the article you posted for me clearly. Even the Afghans are getting irritated with hot heads like you. The commander said: "These Pakistanis are too hot-blooded. They want to fight every day." Out of politeness, he did not add ... "hence they are stupid fighters".

Zeemax, I have my views too: " Some tribal/feudal leaders are playing havoc with the lives and beliefs of many Pakistanis". So there ...

Attack in Mohmand Masadi:

"In this clear very clear alternative that GT knows about but denies he has read on chowk, Pakistan needs to use all means open to it to stop this cross border BS by the Americans including cutting off their proxy supply lines to the Taliban..."

I am talking about a CLEAR policy perspective which systematically deals with political and military feasibility. Just saying that a democratic govt will be able to do so is not enough. One has to clearly show why and how. I repeat once again that I have not seen such an article (or interact) in chowk. I would be happy to see one.

Stating that I am "confused" or "know nothing about Pakistan" will not get the debate anywhere. Even if the labels were to be true.

Attack in Mohmand Continued ....

Sorry, apart from zeemax's pov there is the other dominant pov which basically states ".... get rid of the Taliban on your own (i.e. do not rely on the US) ....". Feasibility (i.e. reality), both in terms of politics and military issues, is a problem here.

Attack in Mohmand Mr. Amin:

Let us look at the basics.

1. The US does not want the Taliban to win in Afghanistan.

2. The Taliban is strong (and is gaining in power) in Pakistan. They provide support to the Taliban fighting in Afghanistan. It is in the US interest to make the Taliban less powerful in Pakistan.

3. The US wants the Pakistani government / army to help it make the Taliban less powerful in Pakistan. Otherwise it (at the least) threatens to deal with the issue directly.

4. The goals of the Taliban and the US are clear and laid out for everyone.

Question to you:

What do you want Pakistan's policy to be? (I am not asking you what Pakistan's policy is, because I am quite convinced about what it is).

It is only after you specify your ideal policy, can you criticize the Pakistani govt./army. Otherwise your angry essay is neither here nor there. For example, zeemax's view is clear (right or wrong is a different matter). He wants (desires) the Pakistani government to side with the Taliban and fight the US. Do you want:

(a) The Pakistani government to side with the US and go after the Taliban.

(b) Something similar to what zeemax wants.

(c) Want the Pakistani govt. to remain neutral (if so then why do you think it is feasible).

(d) Something else (what would that be).


Frankly, I have hardly seen a clear Pakistani policy perspective on this issue in chowk or in Dawn. Actually, the only CLEAR perspective that has been put forth is of the kind that zeemax puts forth. It also seems to have some support.

Twenty Three Students Expelled From Punjab Medical College, Faisalabad So I googled to figure out what "...la hawla wa la quwwata ilah billah...." meant. And this is the third entry (by our very own naqsh): [Feb. 2, 2001] {The date is interesting}.

"It is sad to see the state that Muslims have sunk to. If someone insults Jinnah or Bhutto or Ataturk or anyone else some of us like we are quick to jump in to defend them....but a sik evil devil has the nerves to insult the Best of Creation sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, the Beloved of Allah, the raison d`etre of the Universe`s existence, Our Beloved Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam and we do not get angry? Astaghfirullah! Our blood should be boiling! Of course the perpetrators of this heinous crime must be publically executed and their foul corpses should be thrown into a ditch and burnt. Do you not know that Islam IS the Love of the Beloved Prophet alayhi salato salam?

All those who are so busy defending freedom of speech and the like would no doubt get annoyed if someone swore at their parents or called them names but they are not angry that Allah`s Darling is insulted? It is enough to make the skies cleft asunder and the zameen to split open!

Know that to LOVE Allah`s Habib is to Love Allah which = ISLAM. Have you not read of the stories of the Companions? They happily struck of the heads of their own relatives during Badr and Uhud to defend the honour of Allah`s Messenger alayhi salato salaam. Do you not remember the case of Hazrat Abu Hurayra radhi Allah anhu who asked permission to kill his own mother because she insulted his Beloved Nabi? That is true love.

And yet here are the so called Muslims who can tolerate that a person insult Allah`s Messenger and still claim to be within Islam! Wallahi if QAdi Iyad or Imam Malik or any of the other great Muslims were alive they would not hesitate in killing the kafir murtad apostate infidels who wrote this twisted email, who published it and who also defend it. I swear by Allah all of them are kaafirs and should be killed so that in future no Muslim dare insult Allah`s Nabi ever again.

Read what Qadi Iyad has to say [see my previous post # 69].

May Allah protect us from the insulters of Allah`s Beloved alayhisalato salaam and make us live and die in the love and ishq of Our Lord and Master Sayyidina Muhammad sal allahu alayhi wa sallam about whom Allah said in a hadith qudsi, ``Lawlaka, Lawlaka maa khalaqtul aflaka!`` (But for thee, but for the I would not have created the Heavens [i..e creation]!

I pray that Gen. Musharraf gives the death sentence to all those involved in this sick letter business.

A reading of the book ``The Penalty for Insulting the Prophet`` by Ala Hazrat Imam e Ahle Sunnat, Faazil e Bareilly, Mawlana ash-Shah Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi alayhirahmat (Urdu title: Gustaakh-e-Rasool ki sazaa) will be enough to dispel any doubts as to what should be done about the people who perpetrated this most evil of crimes.

Astaghfirullah. La hawla wa la quwwata ilah billah.

I strongly advise the Chowk staff to not publish the letter on this site as they might well be risking their imaans by doing so and becoming also kaafir murtad apostates. (May Allah protect us all!)

Bando dekho yeh khulee hain uskii jura`atein ke kare Mustafa ki ahaanatein

Phir kehe kya main nahin hoon Muhammadi, arey haaN nahin, arey haan nahin!

Ala Hazrat"

Were Buddhists and Jains Persecuted in Ancient India? Mr. Baig,

This grand discussion of religion is beyond me. But let me warn you about this Eklavya dude. He will keep on squeezing you till your "inherent prejudices" (thanks rahul capri) flow out without your noticing. Let me put forth certain examples from your post #384.

1. "...FACTS are that the Upanishads first became known after 1656 ....". This sounds like "...Columbus discovered America for humankind ...".

Think sir, the Upanishads were known by whom before 1656? Were they humans? Or were they just "some" Hindus?

2. "India had never been a Hindu country. It had been a mainly Buddhist country for a thousand years, then a mainly Muslim country for six hundred years and British for two hundred."

This of course is beyond comment .... but it is refreshing to finally see a progressive / secularist define India's polity in terms of religion. By default, are you saying that now India is a Hindu country? Note, Ekalavya will be the first to agree with you.

3. "Poor Brahmin priests plied their religious trade using a few vedic hymns but the main corpus of the huge Vedic literature and philosophy that we know today was only known to a very few."

He, he .... And how do you know that it was known to only "a very few". I mean this really takes the cake.

Sir, it is because of people like you that the fight against the likes of Murli Manohar Joshi / Ekalavya becomes very difficult.

Were Buddhists and Jains Persecuted in Ancient India? Please d_m:

" Amartya Sen, who has been able to reestablish his credentials with the anti-pseudo-secularists with his "Argumentative Indian"...."

Have you read this book .... Amartya Sen is perhaps the most over-rated economist .... it has to do mostly with (i) the tribal and bombastic nature of Bengali economists; (ii) the fact that most Indians hardly read but go on reputation.

The Wrong Mix HP,

Yeah, did a quick google and the idea seems to be very fuzzy. But wiki did lead me to the Tatars and how their sharia based revolt metamorphed to particiapation in the Red Army and how they were ultimately purged by Stalin. Interesting! Didn't know anything about it.

The Wrong Mix HP:

I did not know that there was a term called "Islamic Socialism" and that it was coined by the PPP. Can you suggest a reading/reference on it. By the way, you write:

"....groups that own the modes of production."

One does not own a mode of production. Feudalism and capitalism are, for example, modes of production.

I Spy Hindutva Vaibhav:

Sometimes it is OK not to be polite. These Hindutva freaks derive inspiration from badly printed photographs of Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Bhagat Singh. It is, of course, beyond their comprehension that none of these guys were "mobsters".

I Spy Hindutva #13 Posted by mistaken_enigma

Vaibhav:

"What I have done, instead is picked up Hindutva and talked about ..... Its intellectual agenda"

Sorry, but how can you talk about something that does not exist?

I Spy Hindutva #13 Posted by mistaken_enigma:

Vaibhav:

" I am not fighting. I am not preaching a need to fight anything."

Yeah, I understand you .... but the hindutva types will brand it as "cowardice". Needless to say that their bravery come out while operating through mobs and their brave acts are manifested in actions such as those which involve pulling out unborn babies from wombs.