NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry to beat a much beaten topic, but this is noteworthy. The idea that parents will feel compelled to lend their children to such a worthy cause (instead of the boring things like studying and playing..) is beyond my comprehension.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200602281610.htm
5,000 children demand execution of cartoonists during Pak. rally

Karachi, Feb. 28 (AP): About 5,000 children chanting ``Hang those who insulted the prophet'' rallied in Pakistan's largest city on Tuesday in the latest protest in the Islamic nation against the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

The children, ages 8 to 12, burned a coffin draped in U.S., Israeli and Danish flags at a traffic intersection in the port city of Karachi as police in riot gear looked on.

The rally was organized by Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan's largest Islamic group. The children, some wearing school uniforms and headbands emblazoned with ``God is great,'' were released from schools to take part.

Jamaat-e-Islami is part of a radical coalition of six Islamic parties that has rallied Muslims throughout Pakistan in recent weeks against the cartoons despite bans on protests in some cities.

I wonder what a cluster bomb would do to a crowd of 5000 children?

It's common to involve Children in protests of things the children have no understanding of apart from what thier parents tell them.

Straight out of the village.

Arsehole parents.

It's common to involve Children in protests of things the children have no understanding of apart from what thier parents tell them.

Like when Fred Phelps has kids with "God hates Fags" signs and such.

I wonder what a cluster bomb would do to a crowd of 5000 children?
Start a war on the United States.

Like when Fred Phelps has kids with "God hates Fags" signs and such.
On the other hand, those just make no sense at all. Why would they care that God hates long pieces of firewood, or cigarettes? (Both of those definitions predate the more offensive one...)

Anyway... just shows you what brainwashing can do, and why I'm starting to revere George Orwell as a prophet. ;)

Like when Fred Phelps has kids with "God hates Fags" signs and such.

Exaclty

I wonder what a cluster bomb would do to a crowd of 5000 children?
The old hate begets hate syndrome huh?

Perhaps a better suggestion....find out why these 8 to 12 year olds feel the way they do?

Start a war on the United States.

Right on the money

Kind of like Parents who drag their kids to Pro Life rallies.

The old hate begets hate syndrome huh?

Perhaps a better suggestion....find out why these 8 to 12 year olds feel the way they do?

Because their parents told them too.

Perhaps a better suggestion....find out why these 8 to 12 year olds feel the way they do?

Children do as they are told.

The question should be "Why the parents feel the way they do, so much that they are sending their children for this thing?"

Why is an American and Israili flag getting burned? Do they look for an excuse to hate the west?

Start a war on the United States.
Cool! Let's do it! We haven't had a real war with carpet bombing of cities and the whole country mobilized for combat and for production of war materials in decades.

Why is an American and Israili flag getting burned? Do they look for an excuse to hate the west?

Yes.

The old hate begets hate syndrome huh?

Perhaps a better suggestion....find out why these 8 to 12 year olds feel the way they do?
Or we could just give their mothers a very late term abortion. I'll bet many of those kids would have turned out to be terrorists anyway.

Or we could just give their mothers a very late term abortion. I'll bet many of those kids would have turned out to be terrorists anyway.

hmm

The old Arab muslim = terrorist idea.

Rather prejudiced is it not?

hmm

The old Arab muslim = terrorist idea.

Rather prejudiced is it not?
1) They're Pakistani, not Arab. I guess it's all the same to you though. Racist.

2) I don't care if they're unitarians. They're pressuring western nations to execute people for exercising freedom of speech. Fuck 'em. That's an insult to western civilization. That's the behavior of savages. I don't much care what happens to them.

Why is an American and Israili flag getting burned? Do they look for an excuse to hate the west?

Well, You can't burn the EU flag, can you? It's much too pretty. And if they were to burn each EU members flag separately, It would all get a bit confusing:

"Death to France! Death to France!"
"No, brothers. This is a Dutch flag held sideways."

They just stuck to the old reliables.

Children do as they are told.

Not me :D . I have always been a very arguementative and self-sufficent child (still am technically). At this age I would not have gone along with it. But there again, I had a very unusual childhood. I can't see how the parents can live with themselves, leaving their children to a life as sheep.

Or we could just give their mothers a very late term abortion. I'll bet many of those kids would have turned out to be terrorists anyway.
So then you just want to play God in the meantime? Judge, jury, and executioner.

Many people detest suicide bombers. Your suggestion is far worse, and even more more cowardly. You want to kill 5,000 children with a daisy cutter dropped from a distance.

So then you just want to play God in the meantime? Judge, jury, and executioner.

Many people detest suicide bombers. Your suggestion is far worse, and even more more cowardly. You want to kill 5,000 children with a daisy cutter dropped from a distance.
I'm not seriously advocating it. I'm exaggerating my reaction to illustrate how disgusted I am with these arrogant savages who think that they can force us to abandon freedom of speech and freedom of the press, two pillars of Western civilization, because their little feelings were hurt.

Oh, and I never said to use a daisy cutter. Just cluster bombs. After all, we don't want to knock down every building in a wide radius of the blast site, just execute the protesters.:)

It may just work in Europe... I've heard rumblings about anti-defamation laws in the works.

Freedom of speech, but only when you don't offend Islam. Oi...

It may just work in Europe... I've heard rumblings about anti-defamation laws in the works.

Freedom of speech, but only when you don't offend Islam. Oi...
Welcome to dhimmitude.

1) They're Pakistani, not Arab. I guess it's all the same to you though. Racist.

2) I don't care if they're unitarians. They're pressuring western nations to execute people for exercising freedom of speech. Fuck 'em. That's an insult to western civilization. That's the behavior of savages. I don't much care what happens to them.

How about the fact that they are children. Also Pakistan is right next to Afganistan. seems close enough.

Also Pakistan is right next to Afganistan. seems close enough.

Afghanistan is not Arab either (if that is what you are implying, apologies if not).

Afghanistan is not Arab either (if that is what you are implying, apologies if not).

What is it then?

South Asian culture is very different to that of Arab culture.

They're pressuring western nations to execute people for exercising freedom of speech. Fuck 'em. That's an insult to western civilization.
You insulted their civilisation first.


That's the behavior of savages. I don't much care what happens to them.I believe they hold similiar sentiments in regards to us.

You insulted their civilisation first.


I believe they hold similiar sentiments in regards to us.

That's probably true. In such times, I for one am pleased that we hold most of the cards in this world, because we have a one-up on them as a result.

Alls this porves is that Islam is really a religion of hate and false gods.

Like ALL religions.
:(

You insulted their civilisation first.


I believe they hold similiar sentiments in regards to us.
Yeah, but I didn't demand that Muslim people in Muslim land print or view the cartoons. They're demanding that non-muslim people in non-muslim lands implement their laws. I stand by my "Fuck 'Em" comment.

Savage is as savage does. When's the last time we stoned someone to death because she was raped by someone she wasn't married to?

The United States of America fought a bloody revolution, then another war against britian in 1812, a Civil War, and to world wars so we could have simple rights as human beings to think and to live and to say whatver we want as long as we dont effect others in that right. I'll be damned if I let someone tell me 8,000 miles away how to do those things just because its they're "religion" that people cant do that. Fuck that Oppresive shit. People need to be less sensitive when dealing with that culture, just because they believe that people have to obey them doesnt make it so, after all those who fought and died for our rights.

Drunk commies deleted im so with you on this one!
:gundge:

Yeah, but I didn't demand that Muslim people in Muslim land print or view the cartoons. They're demanding that non-muslim people in non-muslim lands implement their laws. I stand by my "Fuck 'Em" comment.
I know your overall view, however, that we should export Western 'civilisation'. They want to export theirs. You think your culture is better. So do they. Who is right and who is wrong is only determined by who 'wins' in the end.

Savage is as savage does. When's the last time we stoned someone to death because she was raped by someone she wasn't married to?
Savage is as savage is defined, oh citizen of a nation that executes children.

What is it then?

Well Afghanistan is an ethnically and culturally diverse country with around 40% Pashtuns and the rest made up of Turkics, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras etc. They most certainly have very less in common with Arabs (except Islam of course and even there they have different sects than Arabs).

Pakistan is also a diverse country with Punjabis, Pushtuns, Sindhis and Balochis. All have different languages and different cultures and sub cultures. They are also most certainly not Arabs, but the elites of that country are wannabe Arabs and fawn upon the Arab sheikhs.

Well Afghanistan is an ethnically and culturally diverse country with around 40% Pashtuns and the rest made up of Turkics, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras etc. They most certainly have very less in common with Arabs (except Islam of course and even there they have different sects than Arabs).

Pakistan is also a diverse country with Punjabis, Pushtuns, Sindhis and Balochis. All have different languages and different cultures and sub cultures. They are also most certainly not Arabs, but the elites of that country are wannabe Arabs and fawn upon the Arab sheikhs.
I think people get confused and think Arab=Muslim.

Maybe they need to remember that Muslims are found everywhere.

In China.

In Somalia.










UNDER YOUR BED!!!

Hahaha...just kidding:)

He's the Indian with the dot, I'm the Indian with the feathers:) Which one are you referring to?

He's the Indian with the dot, I'm the Indian with the feathers:) Which one are you referring to?
Indian from India :D
Stupid question though, his location says India.

Indian from India :D
Stupid question though, his location says India.
My location could say Tuktoyuktuk. That wouldn't make me Inuvialuit:)

Moving along...

I know your overall view, however, that we should export Western 'civilisation'. They want to export theirs. You think your culture is better. So do they. Who is right and who is wrong is only determined by who 'wins' in the end.


Savage is as savage is defined, oh citizen of a nation that executes children.
Well then let's get to fighting while we're still a superpower because I damn sure don't want them exporting burquas and stonings.

I never said that the USA was the most civilized country. We may well be the most barbaric of the Western nations, which makes us well suited for fighting off the enemy. Kinda like the barbarian tribes hired by the Romans to help fight off attacking barbarians.

He's the Indian with the dot, I'm the Indian with the feathers:) Which one are you referring to?

We should promote this brotherhood of Indians (the Indians from India and the native American-Indians from the Americas) :D

Btw, I see that he has edited his "stupid question". What did I miss?

We should promote this brotherhood of Indians (the Indians from India and the native American-Indians from the Americas) :D

Btw, I see that he has edited his "stupid question". What did I miss?
She, actually. I asked 'I assume you're Indian?'.

I was going to go into my typical long rant but I would only be repeating everything Drunk Commies Deleted already said.

I wonder what a cluster bomb would do to a crowd of 5000 children?
Nah, Lets Try A Fuel Air Bomb. That's Always Fun.

When Fred Phelps gets kids to carry signs that say "God Hates Fags," it's just a fruitcake exploiting children.

When Pakistanis get kids to demand execution of blasphemers, it's more solid proof that Islam is an evil and wicked religion that needs to be exterminated.

Oh yes, I forgot that unlike Islam, Christianity is a True Religion of Peace™ that has never, EVER been responsible for or has been exploited by men of ambition in order to commit or incite numerous acts of violence.

:rolleyes:

Nah, Lets Try A Fuel Air Bomb. That's Always Fun.
Too much property damage. It'll knock down buildings. Maybe even a KFC.

When Fred Phelps gets kids to carry signs that say "God Hates Fags," it's just a fruitcake exploiting children.

When Pakistanis get kids to demand execution of blasphemers, it's more solid proof that Islam is an evil and wicked religion that needs to be exterminated.

Oh yes, I forgot that unlike Islam, Christianity is a True Religion of Peace™ that has never, EVER been responsible for or has been exploited by men of ambition in order to commit or incite numerous acts of violence.

:rolleyes:
Umm.... Please Moderators, Grant Us The Privelige To Flame Him With All Our Might!

Too much property damage. It'll knock down buildings. Maybe even a KFC.

Does It Look Like I Care? More Shit Blown Up The Better.

I would honestly have no problem with dumping white phosphorous on them.

When Fred Phelps gets kids to carry signs that say "God Hates Fags," it's just a fruitcake exploiting children.

When Pakistanis get kids to demand execution of blasphemers, it's more solid proof that Islam is an evil and wicked religion that needs to be exterminated.

Oh yes, I forgot that unlike Islam, Christianity is a True Religion of Peace™ that has never, EVER been responsible for or has been exploited by men of ambition in order to commit or incite numerous acts of violence.

:rolleyes:
Fred Phelps is a marginal fruitcake that no one in our country takes even remotely seriously and who the vast majority of people think is a complete fucktard. These 5000 children were mobilized by the largest Muslim organization in Pakistan. Fred Phelps in no way represents any measurable segment of the American population. These children represent the largest segment of theirs. If you were to take a poll in the US most people would have never heard of him because he is so fring he gets almost no press. A poll in pakistan about the opinions these children espoused would reveal that not only do most people know of them and what they did but a very sizable segment, if not majority of the population would agree with it. Really stupid comparison you made there, Gauthier. Try better next time.

Umm.... Please Moderators, Grant Us The Privelige To Flame Him With All Our Might!

Does It Look Like I Care? More Shit Blown Up The Better.
Wow!! Only 13 and filled with thoughts of mass murder. Sad to say the least. :(

Fred Phelps is a marginal fruitcake that no one in our country takes even remotely seriously and who the vast majority of people think is a complete fucktard. These 5000 children were mobilized by the largest Muslim organization in Pakistan. Fred Phelps in no way represents any measurable segment of the American population. These children represent the largest segment of theirs. If you were to take a poll in the US most people would have never heard of him because he is so fring he gets almost no press. A poll in pakistan about the opinions these children espoused would reveal that not only do most people know of them and what they did but a very sizable segment, if not majority of the population would agree with it. Really stupid comparison you made there, Gauthier. Try better next time.

So because Fred Phelps is marginalized in the United States- despite the fact that people have actually heard of him and his anti-gay rants, in the world no less (Those sodomite Swedes come to mind)- that makes blanket labelling Muslims as violent and genocidal a valid point? Again Islam has followers in the billions globally which makes this "largest Muslim organization" and such similar mindset a minor percentage within Islam as a whole.

And anyone who even half-seriously advocates or agrees with dropping cluster bombs or fuel air explosives on children is someone who has no moral high ground to stand on, regardless of religious persuasion or lack thereof.

Really stupid straw man you made there, Dan. Try some actual logic next time.

:rolleyes:

Wow!! Only 13 and filled with thoughts of mass murder. Sad to say the least. :(

It's comedic how these "Bomb teh k1ds lol!!!!!1111one!!!" freaks talk about how Muslims are mindlessly violent.

:D

Wow!! Only 13 and filled with thoughts of mass murder. Sad to say the least. :(
How Is It Sad?

It's comedic how these "Bomb teh k1ds lol!!!!!1111one!!!" freaks talk about how Muslims are mindlessly violent.

:D
When Did I Ever Say Muslims Are Mindlessly Violent? Did I Ever Say Muslims Ae Mindlessly Violent? I Don't Think I Did. I Think They're Blindly Loyal To Their Religion, But I Never Said Anything About Them Being Mindlessly Violent.

It's comedic how these "Bomb teh k1ds lol!!!!!1111one!!!" freaks talk about how Muslims are mindlessly violent.

:D
It's just a sign of how sick and tired we've become of hearing certain parts of the Muslim world demand that we abandon central portions of our culture (like free speech and freedom of the press) or else. Eventually, if you keep annoying the toughest guy on the block, he's going to start considering beating the hell out of you.

Also, I don't think anyone here is seriously advocating bombing the kids. We're making exaggerated comments like that because we're frustrated with these primitive savages who would try to dictate how our civilizations should be run.

It's comedic how these "Bomb teh k1ds lol!!!!!1111one!!!" freaks talk about how Muslims are mindlessly violent.

:D
Well the US made excuses for bombing the piss out of Iraq, and are making excuses for taking out Iran, and now we have people here advocating mass murder of young children. All part of the slippery slope.

How civil our cultured masses are becoming. :rolleyes:

Well the US made excuses for bombing the piss out of Iraq, and are making excuses for taking out Iran, and now we have people here advocating mass murder of young children. All part of the slippery slope.

How civil our cultured masses are becoming. :rolleyes:
1) The Bush administration fooled the American people into supporting the invasion of Iraq. The administration went out of their way to convince Americans that Iraq was a threat to our national security.

2) We're considering strategies to DISARM Iran. Not to "take out" Iran.

3) Nobody here is actually advocating killing children.

Really stupid straw man you made there, Dan. Try some actual logic next time.


I think you have to try some perspective.

Jamaat-e-Islami is an organization with huge followings. It was founded by Maududi, a prominent islamist thinker. There is a jamaat-e-islami hind (of India) and a jamaat in Bangladesh too. Put together their membership will surpass that of any other islamic org including even Hizbut Tahrir.

There is simply no comparision to Fred Phelps whatever.

I wonder what a cluster bomb would do to a crowd of 5000 children?
Lots and lots of blood. And War.

Perhaps a better suggestion....find out why these 8 to 12 year olds feel the way they do? Because Mommy and Daddy told them too. Just like those people told those kids to run into the hospital to try and 'Feed' that comatose Terri. Getting their kids arrested.

Why is an American and Israili flag getting burned? Do they look for an excuse to hate the west?
Yes, don't you know EVERYTHING is the West's fault, you fall down the stairs, an invisible American soldier tripped you at least they would believe.

Pft at least these children are listening to their parents. Not like punk-ass 'rebels' these days. Nothing but sass-mouth.

So because Fred Phelps is marginalized in the United States- despite the fact that people have actually heard of him and his anti-gay rants, in the world no less (Those sodomite Swedes come to mind) in the United States-Everyone's heard of Uri Geller, too. Most people just laugh at him, though. that makes blanket labelling Muslims as violent and genocidal a valid point? Again Islam has followers in the billions globally which makes this "largest Muslim organization" and such similar mindset a minor percentage within Islam as a whole.The whole post is about Pakistan. Trying to deflect attention away from the obvious weakness in your comparison between the message these 5000 children in PAKISTAN were conveying and its broad acceptance in PAKISTAN and Fred Phelps' message that is accepted by an imeasurably small segment of wackos in the US by widening the argument to include all Muslims in the world is weak, dude. I mean, c'mon. Admit it was a bad comparison and move on.

And anyone who even half-seriously advocates or agrees with dropping cluster bombs or fuel air explosives on children is someone who has no moral high ground to stand on, regardless of religious persuasion or lack thereof.

Really stupid straw man you made there, Dan. Try some actual logic next time.

:rolleyes:
:) I don't agree with dropping cluster bombs on children. I don't think DCD does, either. I think he said as much. Its a measure of our frustration. Wha I would like to see is a complete miltary withdrawal of the US from the region for about five years. Let them go back to tribal fighting for about half a decade. When we go back there will be a few billion less of them because they will have cut off most of each other's heads and then they'll be easier to deal with. This, of course, is also just a measure of my frustration.

3) Nobody here is actually advocating killing children.

Well, maybe not killing babies, but maybe eating them...I mean, who doesn't love BBQ'd baby or roast baby sandwhich?

But on a serious note, this whole cultural sounds like Michel de Montaigne's 'On Cannibals' that I read last year in European history studies.

It's just a sign of how sick and tired we've become of hearing certain parts of the Muslim world demand that we abandon central portions of our culture (like free speech and freedom of the press) or else. Eventually, if you keep annoying the toughest guy on the block, he's going to start considering beating the hell out of you.
I know that you are on record for opposing the Iraq War, and I agree with that position. Having said that, lets look at your angst against the Muslim world.

Firstly, they (the majority of Muslims) aren't asking you to abandon your freedom of speech. They are asking you to respect their religion, and their way of life. Extremism exists on both sides of these issues. Perhaps these cartoons are the breaking point for them?

Secondly, you suggest that they "keep annoying the toughest guy on the block", yet you don't seem to realize what that tough guy has been doing to them the past 50+ years? The US has been involved in political upheaval in the Middle East since the early 50's.

U.S. Intervention in the Middle East: (http://www.isreview.org/issues/15/blood_for_oil.shtml)

The U.S. has relied on brutal, repressive regimes--Iran under the Shah, Saudi Arabia, Israel--to do its dirty work. It has used the CIA to foment coups against "unfriendly" regimes. When necessary, it has intervened directly to punish regimes that have challenged its dominance in the region--as it did to Iraq in 1991. To this day, the U.S. spends billions annually to maintain a large military presence in the region. It provides billions in military hardware to client states, in particular to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel--which the U.S. carefully maintains as the region's most formidable military power.

Now really, just who has been annoying whom? The US has been manipulating this region for a long time and the results are getting worse and worse. Now put yourself in the shoes of those people and you will no longer wonder why they hate the US?

Lets face facts.....if there was no oil in Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, we probably would never have heard of Bin Laden, and there wouldn't have been a 9/11, or embassy bombings? The Iran/Iraq war might never have happened. The hostage taking incident in Iran would never have been realized. Certainly there would have been no Gulf War and no present war with Iraq.

How long do you think before the Muslims are going to say enough is enough?

Also, I don't think anyone here is seriously advocating bombing the kids. We're making exaggerated comments like that because we're frustrated with these primitive savages who would try to dictate how our civilizations should be run.
The very fact that you would suggest such a thing suggests that you are getting run over by all the propaganda. That you would call them "primitive savages" when all they want to do is protect their way of life and customs is careless indeed.

If anything, it is the US that is trying to "dictate how their civilizations should be run"!!

The old hate begets hate syndrome huh?

Perhaps a better suggestion....find out why these 8 to 12 year olds feel the way they do?

Maybe it's because they've exerted their energy and rationality in a prolonged analysis of US foreign policy and concluded that it has a largely negative impact on world affairs.

Maybe it's because they've exerted their energy and rationality in a prolonged analysis of US foreign policy and concluded that it has a largely negative impact on world affairs.
Surely you jest?

As a Canadian, I think I would be rather concerned that 5,000 8 to 12 year old children, half way around the world would be burning my nations' flag draped over a coffin. I think I would really want to know why.

Hell 1/2 those protests are probably state sponsored.

UNDER YOUR BED!!!

Hahaha...just kidding:)

I have a Muslim under my bed. I feed him scraps of food (he doesn't like salami much, though) and in turn he lets me use his hookah. He hasn't tried to kill me yet, and he doesn't even raid my beer.

http://www.zipperfish.net/free/yaafm12.php

Arsehole parents.
true.

Hell 1/2 those protests are probably state sponsored.
Can you prove that? Probably not?

Should we remind them that our press didn't PUBLISH (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5193569) the cartoons? Probably not - we're scapegoats, that's all. :headbang:

Should we remind them that our press didn't PUBLISH (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5193569) the cartoons? Probably not - we're scapegoats, that's all. :headbang:

No, you're wrong. The "Zionists" control the US, the US controls Europe. See, it's clearly our fault.

I know that you are on record for opposing the Iraq War, and I agree with that position. Having said that, lets look at your angst against the Muslim world.

Firstly, they (the majority of Muslims) aren't asking you to abandon your freedom of speech. They are asking you to respect their religion, and their way of life. Extremism exists on both sides of these issues. Perhaps these cartoons are the breaking point for them?

Respect!? What a load of hypocritical BS. When the papers in the ME stop printing cartoons like these, then we'll talk.

http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/arab_media_portrayal_jews.htm

Maybe the breaking point should be terrorists blowing up mosques of different branches of their own faith, where's the thousands of protestors against that?

Secondly, you suggest that they "keep annoying the toughest guy on the block", yet you don't seem to realize what that tough guy has been doing to them the past 50+ years? The US has been involved in political upheaval in the Middle East since the early 50's.

U.S. Intervention in the Middle East: (http://www.isreview.org/issues/15/blood_for_oil.shtml)

The U.S. has relied on brutal, repressive regimes--Iran under the Shah, Saudi Arabia, Israel--to do its dirty work. It has used the CIA to foment coups against "unfriendly" regimes. When necessary, it has intervened directly to punish regimes that have challenged its dominance in the region--as it did to Iraq in 1991. To this day, the U.S. spends billions annually to maintain a large military presence in the region. It provides billions in military hardware to client states, in particular to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel--which the U.S. carefully maintains as the region's most formidable military power.

Now really, just who has been annoying whom? The US has been manipulating this region for a long time and the results are getting worse and worse. Now put yourself in the shoes of those people and you will no longer wonder why they hate the US?

Lets face facts.....if there was no oil in Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, we probably would never have heard of Bin Laden, and there wouldn't have been a 9/11, or embassy bombings? The Iran/Iraq war might never have happened. The hostage taking incident in Iran would never have been realized. Certainly there would have been no Gulf War and no present war with Iraq.

How long do you think before the Muslims are going to say enough is enough?


The very fact that you would suggest such a thing suggests that you are getting run over by all the propaganda. That you would call them "primitive savages" when all they want to do is protect their way of life and customs is careless indeed.

If anything, it is the US that is trying to "dictate how their civilizations should be run"!!

When the "civilizations" include killing women for being raped, calling for the extermination of entire other religions and countries, and thier own gov'ts directly support blowing up civilians, it needs to be changed.

Go ahead, try and deny that these things are supported. Then bring out the old "But the US did this or that", nonsense.

<snip>
That you would call them "primitive savages" when all they want to do is protect their way of life and customs is careless indeed.
First, anyone who sets buildings on fire with innocent people in them, or supports the same is a primitive savage, end of story. Second, they're not defending their way of life, they're attacking the European way. These cartoons were published in Europe, not in one of the backwards countries where these protests are occuring.

Children do as they are told.

The question should be "Why the parents feel the way they do, so much that they are sending their children for this thing?"

It's for the same reason that a bunch of Hindu's in India destroyed a pretty old mosque, which lead to thousands dying in sectarian violence. Or for the same reason that the Germans hated the Jews, and started a holocaust against them. It's because they have no hope, really, and their only hope is through radicalism. Do you think that rich businessmen took down the Babri Mosque? Do you think that rich businessmen in the Weimar Republic set the Reichstag on fire and then blamed the Communists and Jews? The problem with these children isn't their religion, or their culture, or their race. The problem is the fact that they live in less-than-amiable conditions. Anywhere there is alot of poverty, there are alot of radicals. Look at Palestine; it's full of poor people, so guess what? There are alot of terrorists. Do you see alot of Norweigan terrorists? No, you don't.

It's for the same reason that a bunch of Hindu's in India destroyed a pretty old mosque, which lead to thousands dying in sectarian violence. Or for the same reason that the Germans hated the Jews, and started a holocaust against them. It's because they have no hope, really, and their only hope is through radicalism. Do you think that rich businessmen took down the Babri Mosque? Do you think that rich businessmen in the Weimar Republic set the Reichstag on fire and then blamed the Communists and Jews? The problem with these children isn't their religion, or their culture, or their race. The problem is the fact that they live in less-than-amiable conditions. Anywhere there is alot of poverty, there are alot of radicals. Look at Palestine; it's full of poor people, so guess what? There are alot of terrorists. Do you see alot of Norweigan terrorists? No, you don't.
Wasn't the Mosque the Hindus destroyed built on the site of an old and sacred Hindu temple?

Wasn't the Mosque the Hindus destroyed built on the site of an old and sacred Hindu temple?

That has not been confirmed. It is traditionally believed to be the birth-place of Rama, but there are many other places that claim to be said location. It's like all the places that claim to be the birth-place of other great leaders. Some places claim to be the birth-place of the Buddha, for instance. There is no concrete evidence that has been shown by a "neutral" group of scientists (I.E. westerners, who really couldn't care less if Hindus and Muslims were killing each other) that the temple was on said site.

Pft at least these children are listening to their parents. Not like punk-ass 'rebels' these days. Nothing but sass-mouth.

Actually. I am much more satisfied with the children who are fully aware that thier parents are idiots and chose not to listen.

That has not been confirmed. It is traditionally believed to be the birth-place of Rama, but there are many other places that claim to be said location. It's like all the places that claim to be the birth-place of other great leaders. Some places claim to be the birth-place of the Buddha, for instance. There is no concrete evidence that has been shown by a "neutral" group of scientists (I.E. westerners, who really couldn't care less if Hindus and Muslims were killing each other) that the temple was on said site.
Still, it wasn't as if the Hindus just decided "Hey Sanjay, You know what we should do today? Demolish a mosque. Doesn't that sound like fun?".

They attacked the Mosque because it was built on the site of a former Hindu temple, and they honestly believed that the site was the birthplace of Rama.

I'm just trying to get the complete story out there.

First, anyone who sets buildings on fire with innocent people in them, or supports the same is a primitive savage, end of story.
Bush ordered the destruction of Iraq over fabled WMD, and tens of thousands of innocent people have died. Using your methodology, shall we call Bush a "primitive savage"? Anyone who supports "the same is a primitive savage"?

Bush ordered the destruction of Iraq over fabled WMD, and tens of thousands of innocent people have died. Using your methodology, shall we call Bush a "primitive savage"? Anyone who supports "the same is a primitive savage"?
No argument here. Bush is a savage. He takes his orders from some spirit-god who tells him to kill.

First, anyone who sets buildings on fire with innocent people in them, or supports the same is a primitive savage, end of story. Second, they're not defending their way of life, they're attacking the European way. These cartoons were published in Europe, not in one of the backwards countries where these protests are occuring.

Do bombs count? Good. Then EVERYONE is a savage. At least anyone whose ever had an airforce and used it for dropping ordnance on live targets. I'm sure the people of Dresden some 50 years ago, not all that long really, were quite put out at being firebombed as they slept.

Or anyone else in the more recent times whose had the misfortune of being blasted to itty bitty pieces for no greater crime than happening to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm quite sure the application of your analogy will suddenly turn tail in the light of this.

Bush ordered the destruction of Iraq over fabled WMD, and tens of thousands of innocent people have died. Using your methodology, shall we call Bush a "primitive savage"? Anyone who supports "the same is a primitive savage"?


OF course the whole WMD thing was also believed by Saddam. Go figure.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=1&issue=20060224


In a tape dating to April 1995, Saddam and several aides discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had found traces of Iraq's biological weapons program. On the tape, Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law, is heard gloating about fooling the inspectors.

"We did not reveal all that we have," he says. "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct."

Once again, the US military is not deliberately targetting civilians nor paying terrorists to blow up busses, schools, clubs, etc.

Like I said earlier, you used the old "but the US did such and such". Where's the international outcry against the mosque bombing in IraQ. Oh, right, Iran is blaming Israel for it. Of course.

Still, it wasn't as if the Hindus just decided "Hey Sanjay, You know what we should do today? Demolish a mosque. Doesn't that sound like fun?".

They attacked the Mosque because it was built on the site of a former Hindu temple, and they honestly believed that the site was the birthplace of Rama.

I'm just trying to get the complete story out there.

I know, but what drove them to storm the mosque and kill thousands of Muslims, instead of trying to negotiate an agreement with the Mosque? Such as "Hey, Akbar, how about we worship over here, and you worship over there, mmmmkay?"

"Good idea, Sanjay!"

It was because they listened to radical priests. Contrary to popular belief, you can be a radical without be a muslim.

OF course the whole WMD thing was also believed by Saddam. Go figure.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=1&issue=20060224


In a tape dating to April 1995, Saddam and several aides discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had found traces of Iraq's biological weapons program. On the tape, Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law, is heard gloating about fooling the inspectors.

"We did not reveal all that we have," he says. "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct."
I really don't know how much of this would be factual? Perhaps Mr. William O'Neil should stick to investment news rather than world news since he has an obvious George Bush bias?

Previous speakers have included George Bush, Alan Greenspan, Lee Iaccoca, Steve Forbes, Hugh McColl, and most recently H. Wayne Huizenga of Republic Industries and Al Berkeley, President of NASDAQ (http://news.cox.smu.edu/pressroom/pressreleases/oneil.html)

Once again, the US military is not deliberately targetting civilians nor paying terrorists to blow up busses, schools, clubs, etc.
Ummm, they did at Fallujah by disallowing men over 15 from leaving the city before they bombed the crap out of the place with white phosphorus bombs.

US 'uses incendiary arms' in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm)

Like I said earlier, you used the old "but the US did such and such". Where's the international outcry against the mosque bombing in IraQ.
The mosque bombings are internal strife, brought to you via the US invasion of Iraq. Bush should be pleased that Iraq is on the verge of civil war.

Iraq, a country that was never a threat to the US.
Iraq, a country that was supported by the US in her war against Iran and supplied her with WMD.

There is more......

I know, but what drove them to storm the mosque and kill thousands of Muslims, instead of trying to negotiate an agreement with the Mosque?

Wrong.

Not one muslim died in the destruction of the building. People (hindus and muslims) died in the riots after the building was destroyed.

And you are wrong about not negotiating either. Both parties took maximalist positions and both are to be blamed for the failure of negotiations.

And you are wrong about no evidence of temple there.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/aug/25ayo1.htm
Proof of temple found at Ayodhya: ASI report

http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?msid=145797
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) said a temple-like 'massive structure' existed beneath the disputed site in Ayodhya in its 574-page report.


From your earlier post.
There is no concrete evidence that has been shown by a "neutral" group of scientists (I.E. westerners, who really couldn't care less if Hindus and Muslims were killing each other) that the temple was on said site.

Well, there is no concrete evidence shown that Mohammed alighted to heaven from the Dome of the Rock either. Does it loses its significance to the muslims because it is not scientifically proven?

So if hypothetically, the Israelis destroy that mosque and build a synagogue on top of it and say after a hundred years Palestine becomes a free state and they ask for reconstruction of the mosque there due its significance as the place from where they believe that Mohammed alighted to heaven..

are you gonna say, where is the scientific proof?:rolleyes:

I guess not.

I'm not seriously advocating it. I'm exaggerating my reaction to illustrate how disgusted I am with these arrogant savages who think that they can force us to abandon freedom of speech and freedom of the press, two pillars of Western civilization, because their little feelings were hurt.

Oh, and I never said to use a daisy cutter. Just cluster bombs. After all, we don't want to knock down every building in a wide radius of the blast site, just execute the protesters.:)

So you want to execute the protesters (children, by the way, that aren't at fault for what their parents make them do) because they practice their freedom of speech... Wait, why did the children want the cartoonists executed again?

Can you prove that? Probably not?

This might be interesting to you.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=17998&prog=zgp&proj=zsa
Pakistan: The Myth of an Islamist Peril
By Frederic Grare
Publisher: Carnegie Endowment

Policy Brief #45, February 2006
Full Text (PDF)

In a new Carnegie Policy Brief, Pakistan: The Myth of an Islamist Peril, Visiting Scholar Frederic Grare argues that the risk of an Islamist takeover in Pakistan is a myth invented by the Pakistani military to consolidate its hold on power. In fact, religious political parties and militant organizations are manipulated by the Pakistani Army to achieve its own objectives, domestically and abroad. The army, not the Islamists, is the real source of insecurity on the subcontinent. Sustainable security and stability in the region will be achieved only through the restoration of democracy in Pakistan.

It is true that the army has manipulated the islamists. They encourage the islamists when they need to and they crackdown on them when they need to. It is a complex thing.

A case in point is the victory of the MMA party (a coalition of religious parties) in the NWFP province in the last elections. Musharraf split the PML pary and created a splinter faction PML (Q) so that the votes were split and MMA came to power. This was then portrayed as islamists sweeping to power and US needs to bolster Musharraf by aids and arms. Like I said, politics in the subcontinent is a complex thing.

So you want to execute the protesters (children, by the way, that aren't at fault for what their parents make them do) because they practice their freedom of speech... Wait, why did the children want the cartoonists executed again?
Did you even read the post you responded to? I'm betting you didn't because if you did then you've got some serious issues with reading comprehension. I said in the beginning of the post

I'm not seriously advocating it. I'm exaggerating my reaction to illustrate how disgusted I am with these arrogant savages who think that they can force us to abandon freedom of speech and freedom of the press, two pillars of Western civilization, because their little feelings were hurt.

Now WTF were you saying?

*snip*Now WTF were you saying?

I was saying that you defend the cartoonists' free speech (which they have the right to exercise) and attack the muslim protesters' free speech (which they ALSO have the right to exercise).

Any questions or should I declare check-mate on you for beating the crap out of you in an argument in two posts?

I was saying that you defend the cartoonists' free speech (which they have the right to exercise) and attack the muslim protesters' free speech (which they ALSO have the right to exercise).

Any questions or should I declare check-mate on you for beating the crap out of you in an argument in two posts?
Did I say they dont' have the right to protest? Ever? Care to check all my posts on the subject in this thread and in others?

I agree that they have the right to protest, but I disagree with their viewpoint, and I'm sick of hearing about it so I respond with anger. I dare say that you haven't read many of my posts. I've always stood up for free speech.

Did I say they dont' have the right to protest? Ever? Care to check all my posts on the subject in this thread and in others?

I agree that they have the right to protest, but I disagree with their viewpoint, and I'm sick of hearing about it so I respond with anger. I dare say that you haven't read many of my posts. I've always stood up for free speech.

*Sigh* They never learn. Ah well, it's fun to do this. *Yawns and stretches*

You could simply not listen to them. Free speech comes with free listening. You're throwing a fit about how you're sick of hearing about it, and, thus, respond with anger. Just like they do. Or you think they're responding with "annoyance"? No, they are, just like you respond to them, responding with anger. You want them to shut up just like they want the cartoonists to shut up. Yet you claim moral high ground based on the difference between you and them? What difference? They could choose not to read the newspaper. You could choose to change the channel. They are angry at the newspaper. You are angry at them. But let's check how you go at explaining your contradiction, shall we?

*Sigh* They never learn. Ah well, it's fun to do this. *Yawns and stretches*

You could simply not listen to them. Free speech comes with free listening. You're throwing a fit about how you're sick of hearing about it, and, thus, respond with anger. Just like they do. Or you think they're responding with "annoyance"? No, they are, just like you respond to them, responding with anger. You want them to shut up just like they want the cartoonists to shut up. Yet you claim moral high ground based on the difference between you and them? What difference? They could choose not to read the newspaper. You could choose to change the channel. They are angry at the newspaper. You are angry at them. But let's check how you go at explaining your contradiction, shall we?
Saying I'm sick of it, posting angry things, that's free speech too.

The difference between my point of view and theirs is that they are attacking free speech. They're calling for the cartoonists to be punished for voicing their opinion of Islam.

I'm merely criticizing their position and their inability to drop the issue. I'm not calling for them to be punished. (except those who used violence)

On another subject, your posts come off as a bit arrogant. You don't know who I am. It's probably not a good idea to assume someone isn't as intelligent as you are until you know him. To do otherwise is kind of foolish.

Like when Fred Phelps has kids with "God hates Fags" signs and such.

5000 of them?

I was saying that you defend the cartoonists' free speech (which they have the right to exercise) and attack the muslim protesters' free speech (which they ALSO have the right to exercise).

Any questions or should I declare check-mate on you for beating the crap out of you in an argument in two posts?


The cartoonists were not calling for the death of anyone.

The protesters are.

Free Speech doesn't include death threats.

Especially death threats towards people for excersing there free speech.

Saying I'm sick of it, posting angry things, that's free speech too.

The difference between my point of view and theirs is that they are attacking free speech. They're calling for the cartoonists to be punished for voicing their opinion of Islam. I'm merely criticizing their position and their inability to drop the issue. I'm not calling for them to be punished. (except those who used violence)

And I'm not proposing you're forced to shut up. But, if you think I was trying to shut you up, then you know why I thought you were trying to shut them up. I think, though, that the charges are just the last straw. You know, after seeing neocons calling for them to be bombed, Iraq (when it was a democracy) turned into a dictatorship for the convenience of the US and then back for the convenience of the US, and so on. Frankly, I think they have more reasons to be "sick and tired" than the US does. The nutballs that attacked WTC get vindicated everyday a soldier rapes someone in Iraq. They're still nutballs, they should still be caught, but they didn't have half the support they do (and even that support is from a fairly fringe segment of the muslim population). The US Religious Right is also a small segment of the Christians, that calls for bombings, and for all kinds of murder (save for the unborn). They're vocal too...

On another subject, your posts come off as a bit arrogant. You don't know who I am. It's probably not a good idea to assume someone isn't as intelligent as you are until you know him. To do otherwise is kind of foolish.

Yeah, but not being a jerk wouldn't be half as fun, and that's sorta why I'm here. Or you think I'm here to discuss world issues and prevent Dubya from starting (another) bloodshed? :)

Plus, it adds STYLE.

I am against this ever being done, but let me point out a few facts.
When people are talking of anti-communist revolutions, for example, no one is blaming the parents and parent-like organizations for putting kids in harm's way. In my country, kids got killed because their parents took them to street battles, or weren't able to prevent them from going. Not to mention that Warsaw has a monument to child soldiers (yes, ages 8 to 12) who have died during the Warsaw Uprising. Not to mention the Soviet child partisans.


It happened, it happens, it will happen - unless we go and sanction it everywhere. Or, at least, not point it out only where it suits our fears and opinions.

5000 of them?

Let's see...

American Religious Right that believes everyone but them and unborn babies should die: 10.000.000/200.000.000 = 1/20

Islamic segment that would like to see the cartoonists die: 50.000.000/1.000.000.000 = 5/100 = 1/20

By golly, you HAVE A POINT! :O

Not.

These statistics aren't real, but they're fairly close. Do you still want to keep on this way?

The cartoonists were not calling for the death of anyone.

The protesters are.

Free Speech doesn't include death threats.

Especially death threats towards people for excersing there free speech.

So you'd call for the arrest of those that advocate A-BOMBING Mecca? Because I don't think the people there will be evacuated and I think there's at least one cartoonist there...

I guess now you know how I feel when I see children in death penalty countries be taught that the death penalty and executions are OK, or that guns are all fine and dandy, or that religion is something admirable...

The old hate begets hate syndrome huh?

Perhaps a better suggestion....find out why these 8 to 12 year olds feel the way they do?

yeah because know why they do things...I can just picture some kids reply, "Well sir, I believe that the current state of secularism in the west is trying to degrade the importance of religious strictures around the world by their exporting of intolerable criticism. I think that the cartoons in Denmark were completely one sided without any real purpose than to be a knee jerk reaction to the fact that a few religious extremists that happen to believe something similiar to what I believe. I think a better solution would have been an in depth article that explains the main points of my faith as well as how it finds itself surrounded by perceived hostile forces at every turn. After all, those who purport to be news agencies have a responsibility to spread correct information and not merely serve as a propaganda machine that holds up a minority of a group as the stereotype for all. I also wish I had some candy...cause chocolate is sooo tasty!"

yeah like that is going to happen

yeah because know why they do things...I can just picture some kids reply, "Well sir, I believe that the current state of secularism in the west is trying to degrade the importance of religious strictures around the world by their exporting of intolerable criticism. I think that the cartoons in Denmark were completely one sided without any real purpose than to be a knee jerk reaction to the fact that a few religious extremists that happen to believe something similiar to what I believe. I think a better solution would have been an in depth article that explains the main points of my faith as well as how it finds itself surrounded by perceived hostile forces at every turn. After all, those who purport to be news agencies have a responsibility to spread correct information and not merely serve as a propaganda machine that holds up a minority of a group as the stereotype for all. I also wish I had some candy...cause chocolate is sooo tasty!"

yeah like that is going to happen

If the powers that be already know the answer, why do they persist in the mistake??

I guess now you know how I feel when I see children in death penalty countries be taught that the death penalty and executions are OK, or that guns are all fine and dandy, or that religion is something admirable...
Fass, guns are all fine and dandy.

This might be interesting to you.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=17998&prog=zgp&proj=zsa


It is true that the army has manipulated the islamists. They encourage the islamists when they need to and they crackdown on them when they need to. It is a complex thing.

A case in point is the victory of the MMA party (a coalition of religious parties) in the NWFP province in the last elections. Musharraf split the PML pary and created a splinter faction PML (Q) so that the votes were split and MMA came to power. This was then portrayed as islamists sweeping to power and US needs to bolster Musharraf by aids and arms. Like I said, politics in the subcontinent is a complex thing.

Tell us something we don't know, Arya. Of course the military has manipulated the Islamists. Especially ul-Haq. Not only was he the weirdest looking dictator ever, he also managed to screw up what Zulfikar Bhutto managed to acheive. Democracy managed to heal some of the problems, but then our good ole pal Musharraf made that whole Kargil incident, nuclear war almost starts, good pal becomes President, and then he starts giving cash to the Taliban. After all, Pakistan learned from prior experience that it's a good thing to have nice neighbors (Afghanistan had been calling for the partition of Pakistan since it was created; mainly for the creation of "Pashtunistan", which would be the N.W.F.P and Baluchistan). Unfortunatly for our pal, the Taliban just so happened to support the guy who wanted to kill America, one of Pakistan's biggest ally's. Whoops.

The sooner Pakistan gets a new leader who decides to cut military spending, the sooner Islamism on the sub-continent will be pretty-much wiped out. Once Pakistan decides to cut military spending, it can pay more for social programs, thus reducing radical Islamism, since people with a decent life tend to think less-favorably about blowing themselves up than poor people. Then the Indians can pay less, and send some money to Bangladesh, thus getting rid of Islamism there. All that's in the way is this stupid Kashmir issue...

Tell us something we don't know, Arya. Of course the military has manipulated the Islamists.

Well, a lot of people actually don't know the mullah military nexus. They take the utterings of Musharraf at face value.

Especially ul-Haq. Not only was he the weirdest looking dictator ever, he also managed to screw up what Zulfikar Bhutto managed to acheive.

Hey don't be dissing the mard-e-momeen like that..:p
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/Zia-ul-haq.jpeg

I disagree that Bhutto would have been better. He too was rabidly obsessed against India. Remember his thundering "Indian dogs" in the UN assembly? He was also the one who called for a thousand year war with India.

Democracy managed to heal some of the problems,

It was not a real democracy. Benazir and Nawaz had the people's mandate, but they never had authority over the military. Benazir said that she was not allowed access to the country's nuclear facilities by the army command and that she did not have any say in the country's foreign policies. Nawaz said that he was not aware of the Kargil opertion by the military. GHQ Pindi never gave up the power to civilian elected leaders.

There is a saying that catches this situation...I dunno who coined it..it goes like.."Everywhere else countries have armies, but only in Pakistan does the army has a country".

Well, a lot of people actually don't know the mullah military nexus. They take the utterings of Musharraf at face value.

Well, I have to say, Musharraf isn't that bad. He's more like Ayub Khan than ul-Haq. Musharraf supports the Islamists because it helps keep him in power. ul-Haq supported them because he was a fundie.



Hey don't be dissing the mard-e-momeen like that..:p
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/Zia-ul-haq.jpeg

MY EYES! AAAGGGHHHH!!

*jumps off a cliff*

I disagree that Bhutto would have been better. He too was rabidly obsessed against India. Remember his thundering "Indian dogs" in the UN assembly? He was also the one who called for a thousand year war with India.

Well, you're right there. He did become morbidly obsessed with India later on. He did implement some nice social programs earlier on, though. He just got a bit to cozy with the military, and that pretty much ended screwing him over. Hell, at least he was secular.



It was not a real democracy. Benazir and Nawaz had the people's mandate, but they never had authority over the military. Benazir said that she was not allowed access to the country's nuclear facilities by the army command and that she did not have any say in the country's foreign policies. Nawaz said that he was not aware of the Kargil opertion by the military. GHQ Pindi never gave up the power to civilian elected leaders.

There is a saying that catches this situation...I dunno who coined it..it goes like.."Everywhere else countries have armies, but only in Pakistan does the army has a country".

Good point. The military is a bit too powerful. An unfortunate series of events led to Pakistan being where it is today, starting with the idea of Partition itself (which could actually have not been as bad if things were handled correctly; I.E. deciding which princely states go where), Jinnah dying before he could actually show what he intended to do with Pakistan, the first war with India, Ayub Khan coming to power, the second war with India, Bangladesh seceding, Bhutto being executed, etc. Pakistan has had a pretty traumatic history for 60 years of being around. I mean, India got off easy. It was contiguous, it had alot more money, it had alot more of the army, it was bigger, it was more populous, etc. Pakistan, on the other hand, was weak, small, split in half, poor, had like 1/4th of the army, and was alot less populous. Partition didn't really end well for Pakistan, when you think about it. If only the Muslims and Hindu's could have come to an agreement of sorts...

Thankfully, though, 3 wars later, India and Pakistan are finally talking to each other, instead of at each other. Now that India and Pakistan are normalizing their relations with the outside world (especially today, because of the signing of the nuclear deal with the U.S.), the Kashmir issue can be solved once and for all, (and without Kashmir and the eternal enemy India the military looses alot of support) then Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh can be one, big, happy family again. Well, maybe that's a bit too optimistic, but things will get better.

Let's see...

American Religious Right that believes everyone but them and unborn babies should die: 10.000.000/200.000.000 = 1/20

Islamic segment that would like to see the cartoonists die: 50.000.000/1.000.000.000 = 5/100 = 1/20

By golly, you HAVE A POINT! :O

Not.

These statistics aren't real, but they're fairly close. Do you still want to keep on this way?


What are you talking about?

If by "keeping on this way" you mean getting as far away from the point as possible than, no, I don't.

So you'd call for the arrest of those that advocate A-BOMBING Mecca? Because I don't think the people there will be evacuated and I think there's at least one cartoonist there...

Where do you see protests of 5000 children calling for the A-bombing of Mecca?

Well, I have to say, Musharraf isn't that bad. He's more like Ayub Khan than ul-Haq. Musharraf supports the Islamists because it helps keep him in power. ul-Haq supported them because he was a fundie.

It can be argued that Zia too used islamism to consolidate and hold on to power. Power was his goal. He used islamism for that.

Ayub Khan was no better. Remember he started this "civilians are not to be trusted for running Pakistan, only we can" thing. Yahya, Zia, Mushy are merely following the precedence set by him. Ayub was also a bad general and strategist who started the 1965 war with India unnecessarily. Amazingly enough, he and his planners never thought that India would respond for the incursion in Kashmir (Op Gibraltar and Op Grand Slam) by attacking elsewhere along the international border. Ayub also was completely into the martial races theory and famously said "one Pakistani soldier = ten Indian soldiers". This thinking contributed (and is still contributing) to unnecessary belligerence and bravado by Pakistanis.


Well, you're right there. He did become morbidly obsessed with India later on. He did implement some nice social programs earlier on, though. He just got a bit to cozy with the military, and that pretty much ended screwing him over. Hell, at least he was secular.

I would not concede that he was secular. He was that one who made Islam as the state religion of Pakistan (although it could be argued that he had to give that to get the constitution approved by the islamic groups).

An unfortunate series of events led to Pakistan being where it is today, <snip>

If only the Muslims and Hindu's could have come to an agreement of sorts...


Nice try blaming the hindus. The call for a seperate muslim state came from the muslim landed aristocracy, the salaried elites and the political leaders. When it became clear that an independant democratic India would implement land reforms - the muslim landed aristocracy was scared. The muslim salaried class was afraid of competing with the others in an open competition environment. The political leaders knew that in a "one man one vote" universal democracy, they cannot become the rulers as they thought they should be (them being descendants of the Mughal empire...in their warped worldview).

Hence the muslim league demanded seperate electorate (like it was in Lebanon). The congress leaders rejected this proposal. Then the muslim league demanded partition and a seperate state where they can rule as they please without any accountability. The average Abdul on the street never demanded partition. The areas that are now Pakistan did not even vote for the muslim league. IIRC, the union party won the elections in Punjab beating the muslim league.

Then the claim of "Islam khatrey main hain" was started. This was the basis of the two nation theory (that a muslim cannot be a muslim if he lives in a non-muslim country). This is essentially the core of islamism.

Pakistan is not where it is today because of "series of unfortunate events" or "big bad hindus who won't give kashmir". It is there because of the ideology behind its creation. Kashmir etc are all not the problem. They are symptoms of this problem of the two nation theory.

It can be argued that Zia too used islamism to consolidate and hold on to power. Power was his goal. He used islamism for that.

Ayub Khan was no better. Remember he started this "civilians are not to be trusted for running Pakistan, only we can" thing. Yahya, Zia, Mushy are merely following the precedence set by him. Ayub was also a bad general and strategist who started the 1965 war with India unnecessarily. Amazingly enough, he and his planners never thought that India would respond for the incursion in Kashmir (Op Gibraltar and Op Grand Slam) by attacking elsewhere along the international border. Ayub also was completely into the martial races theory and famously said "one Pakistani soldier = ten Indian soldiers". This thinking contributed (and is still contributing) to unnecessary belligerence and bravado by Pakistanis.

That is true, Ayub was not the greatest dictator ever (come to think of it, the amount of good dictators = pretty much none).



I would not concede that he was secular. He was that one who made Islam as the state religion of Pakistan (although it could be argued that he had to give that to get the constitution approved by the islamic groups).

Bhutto hated the Islamists with a passion. As you stated, the only reason why he made Islam the official religion of Pakistan is because of the Islamists. Also, me saying he was completely secular was a bit off; he was pretty secular for a Pakistani leader (as in he thought Islam was all fine and dandy, and it had it's uses, but it shouldn't influence the state all that much). Of course, that led to Islamists staging riots every other week, so that kinda hurt him.



Nice try blaming the hindus. The call for a seperate muslim state came from the muslim landed aristocracy, the salaried elites and the political leaders. When it became clear that an independant democratic India would implement land reforms - the muslim landed aristocracy was scared. The muslim salaried class was afraid of competing with the others in an open competition environment. The political leaders knew that in a "one man one vote" universal democracy, they cannot become the rulers as they thought they should be (them being descendants of the Mughal empire...in their warped worldview).

Hence the muslim league demanded seperate electorate (like it was in Lebanon). The congress leaders rejected this proposal. Then the muslim league demanded partition and a seperate state where they can rule as they please without any accountability. The average Abdul on the street never demanded partition. The areas that are now Pakistan did not even vote for the muslim league. IIRC, the union party won the elections in Punjab beating the muslim league.

Then the claim of "Islam khatrey main hain" was started. This was the basis of the two nation theory (that a muslim cannot be a muslim if he lives in a non-muslim country). This is essentially the core of islamism.

Pakistan is not where it is today because of "series of unfortunate events" or "big bad hindus who won't give kashmir". It is there because of the ideology behind its creation. Kashmir etc are all not the problem. They are symptoms of this problem of the two nation theory.

I never blamed the Hindu's for the problem; I blamed both sides. Yes, the Pakistan movement was spear-headed by the more wealthy Muslim class. However, it's not as if all people who were going to live in "Pakistan" were against it. If they were, they would have left. Millions of people left, many of them dirt-poor, so there is no reason for the people that were going to live in Pakistan couldn't leave if they didn't want to.

Also, another thing that contributed to Partition as that Nehru and Gandhi's refusal to agree to the Cabinet Mission Plan. The man who made partition happened, Jinnah, was striving for a united India (albeit with ironclad safe-guards for the minorities) 'till the very end. However, when he saw that was not going to happen, he switched sides. I mean, was it that hard to allow Muslims to have their own seats? I mean, they do the same thing with seats reserved for women in some countries, why couldn't they just reserve some seats for the Muslims? Hell, it would have been worth it. It would have averted 3 wars and 1 really big skirmish (Kargil), it would have led to Indias economy being even more powerful than it is today, and radical islamism would probably be weaker.'

However, the past cannot be changed, so now we need to focus on the future. If the Indians and Pakistanis come to an agreement on Kashmir (most probably just cement the line-of-control to be the actual border, since India hasn't held the plebicide it was supposed to hold since 1947, and the chances of a dictatorship in Pakistan letting there be free elections in their side of Kashmir is slim), then they can get onto working towards the future. I mean, really, what separates the average Indian and the average Pakitani? I mean, they speak roughly the same language (Urdu and Hindu are really, really similar. Kinda like Spanish and Catalan), they have roughly the same culture (except for when it comes to religious ceremonies), they both love the same sports, the same food, the same movies, etc. If the radicals on both sides (the Islamists and the Army on Pakistans side, and the BJP and its ilk on the Indian side) are silenced by the people (which could really only happen once Kashmir is put to rest), then the sub-continent can move closer to unity. I'm not saying a unification, because that's probably impossible now, but at least alot closer economic and political ties.

How gross... the ones that really need to be executed here are their parents for allowing this insane crap! :mad:

Surely you jest?

As a Canadian, I think I would be rather concerned that 5,000 8 to 12 year old children, half way around the world would be burning my nations' flag draped over a coffin. I think I would really want to know why.

I was indeed kidding.

But whenever a person talks about working out why the US is so hated in certain parts of the world it usually serves as the precursor to some lengthy anti-American ramble.

I never blamed the Hindu's for the problem; I blamed both sides.

Although the hindu mahasabha favored partition and has its share of the blame for the partition, you would have to conceded that they were after all reactionary forces formed to counter what was perceived as rising muslim fundamentalism. The hindu mahasabha was formed much later than the muslim league. And before the muslim league was formed, people had no political identification as a muslim or hindu...their regional identities were more prominent.

Yes, the Pakistan movement was spear-headed by the more wealthy Muslim class. However, it's not as if all people who were going to live in "Pakistan" were against it. If they were, they would have left. Millions of people left, many of them dirt-poor, so there is no reason for the people that were going to live in Pakistan couldn't leave if they didn't want to.

Initially they were not for the partition. The people of pakistani punjab voted for the union party. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan of NWFP was allied with the congress. The khan of Kalat (Baluchistan princely state) was also against Pakistan and he even asked Nehru to accept his state's accession to India.

So why did millions move to Pakistan? It is simple. The hindu-muslim violence became a self-fulfilling prophecy. The muslim league kept telling muslims that they are different and that hindus are going to dominate them if they don't ask for and move to Pakistan. Hindu reactionary forces were formed to counter the muslim league and this was used by the muslim league to up the rhetoric and it just spiralled from there until hindu-muslim violence actually became a realistic prospect in certain areas.

I mean, was it that hard to allow Muslims to have their own seats? I mean, they do the same thing with seats reserved for women in some countries, why couldn't they just reserve some seats for the Muslims?

The analogy is false. Women are given reservation because otherwise societal practices are not encouraging for them to take those position. Muslims were under no such societal handcuffs and they were free to compete openly.

The idea of protection of muslim minority against hindu majority is also bunk considering that hindu majority is a myth. There is no such thing as an agreed upon hindu religion that majority hindus follow. The sects of hinduism - Advaita, Vaishnavism, Shaivism etc are all religions in themselves since they have major difference in how to attain salvation (the main purpose of a religion). Add to this the cultural, linguistic, caste differences, it can be said that there is no hindu majority. In India everybody is a minority.

I, a vaishnavist Tamil, have got more in common with a sufi tamil muslim than a kashmir shaivite pandit although I am supposed to identify with the saivite because he is a hindu and I am supposed to be against my fellow tamil because he is muslim. This is absurd but this is the basis of the formation of Pakistan.

However, when he saw that was not going to happen, he switched sides.

Jinnah was not for the interests of common muslims. He was for the interests of the elites that I mentioned in the earlier post.

The British (Churchill especially) were loathe to leave the "jewell in the crown" just like that with no control. The great game was still on and they needed a pliant state through which they can "contain" India.

Jinnah and the muslim league's ambitions to rule without having to compete in an open competition were just handy tool for the Brits.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200508/ai_n14903514
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, aristocrat by temperament, catholic in taste, sectarian in politics, and the father of Pakistan, was the unlikeliest parent that an Islamic republic could possibly have. He was the most British of the generation of Indians that won freedom in August 1947. As a child in the elite Christian Mission High School in Karachi, he changed his birthday from 20 October to Christmas Day. As a student at Lincoln's Inn, he anglicised his name from Jinnahbhai to Jinnah. For three years, between 1930 and 1933, he went into voluntary exile in Hampstead, acquired a British passport, set up residence with his sister Fatimah and daughter Dina, hired a British chauffeur (Bradley) for his Bentley, kept two dogs (a black Dobermann and a white West Highland terrier), indulged himself at the theatre (he had once wanted to be a professional actor so that he could play Hamlet) and appeared before the Privy Council to maintain himself in the style to which he was accustomed. He wore Savile Row suits, heavily starched shirts and two-tone leather or suede shoes. Official portraits in Pakistan present him in a more 'Islamic' costume, but the first time he wore a lambskin cap and the long Indian coat known as sherwani was on 15 October 1937 when he presided over the Lucknow session of the Muslim League. He was 61 years old.

Despite being the Quaid-e-Azam, or the Great Leader of Muslims, he drank a moderate amount of alcohol and was embarrassingly unfamiliar with Islamic methods of prayer. He was uncomfortable in any language but English, and made his demand for Pakistan - in 1940 at Lahore - in English, despite catcalls from an audience that wanted to hear Urdu.
..
By 1940 Jinnah knew what he wanted - Pakistan. What was debatable was why. The slogan that divided India was simple: 'Islam is in danger.' As a proposition, it was absurd. For the believer a faith is true precisely because it is imperishable. A Muslim can be in danger, but not Islam. However, if Muslims were in danger from Hindus, then they needed security and safeguards in those regions where they were in a minority, like central India. Instead Pakistan was created on the western and eastern flanks of the subcontinent, where Muslims were in a majority and if anything the Hindus were in danger.

Churchill was the architect of the partition. It is quite clear that he and Jinnah collaborated together to achieve their ends from then on...regardless of what Nehru or Gandhi might have done to appease them in the naive hopes of avoiding partition.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=52299
Correspondence recently declassified by the British government indicates a close link between Jinnah and Churchill. The letters relate to the second half of 1946, when Churchill, having lost the 1945 election, was Leader of Opposition.

In the letters, Jinnah seems to warn Churchill about imminent violence. As riots broke out all over India and the Labour government—lead by Churchill’s rival Clement Atlee — sought to hurriedly transfer power, Churchill played counsellor to Jinnah, but privately. He advised Jinnah that they should not meet in public. Instead, correspondence was to be addressed to ‘‘Miss E.A. Gilliatt, 6 Westminster Gardens, London.’’ Gillaitt was Churchill’s private secretary.

The letters reveal Jinnah saw Churchill as an ally against ‘‘caste Hindus’’. The Conservative wartime leader — hostile to the ‘‘liquidation of the British Empire’’ — was told by the Muslim League leader on July 6, 1946, that the Cripps Mission had ‘‘shaken the confidence of Muslim Indians and shattered their hopes for an honourable and peaceful settlement’’.

Jinnah wrote: ‘‘If power politics are going to be the deciding factor in total disregard for fair play and justice, we shall have no other course open to us except to forge our sanctions to meet the situation which, in that case, is bound to arise. Its consequence, I need not say, will be most disastrous and a peaceful settlement will then become impossible.’’ Less than six weeks later came the bloodbath of Direct Action.
..
The argument on the British-Muslim relationship was an old one. On August 3, Churchill had written to Jinnah: ‘‘I was... surprised to read all the insulting things that were said about Britain at the Moslem Congress in Bombay, and how the Moslems of India were described as undergoing British slavery. All this is quite untrue and ungrateful.’’

But on December 12, a wary Churchill turned down a lunch invitation at the Claridges’s, advising that the two should not be ‘‘associated publicly”.

Although the hindu mahasabha favored partition and has its share of the blame for the partition, you would have to conceded that they were after all reactionary forces formed to counter what was perceived as rising muslim fundamentalism. The hindu mahasabha was formed much later than the muslim league. And before the muslim league was formed, people had no political identification as a muslim or hindu...their regional identities were more prominent.

The idea of Pakistan was born in 1931, not 1906, when the Muslim League was founded.



Initially they were not for the partition. The people of pakistani punjab voted for the union party. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan of NWFP was allied with the congress. The khan of Kalat (Baluchistan princely state) was also against Pakistan and he even asked Nehru to accept his state's accession to India.

So why did millions move to Pakistan? It is simple. The hindu-muslim violence became a self-fulfilling prophecy. The muslim league kept telling muslims that they are different and that hindus are going to dominate them if they don't ask for and move to Pakistan. Hindu reactionary forces were formed to counter the muslim league and this was used by the muslim league to up the rhetoric and it just spiralled from there until hindu-muslim violence actually became a realistic prospect in certain areas.

You're acting like sectarian violence is something new. For the thousand years that Islam was on the sub-continent, you think Muslims and Hindus were all buddies, but once the Muslim league was created, they decided to kill each other? Hell no.


The analogy is false. Women are given reservation because otherwise societal practices are not encouraging for them to take those position. Muslims were under no such societal handcuffs and they were free to compete openly.

The idea of protection of muslim minority against hindu majority is also bunk considering that hindu majority is a myth. There is no such thing as an agreed upon hindu religion that majority hindus follow. The sects of hinduism - Advaita, Vaishnavism, Shaivism etc are all religions in themselves since they have major difference in how to attain salvation (the main purpose of a religion). Add to this the cultural, linguistic, caste differences, it can be said that there is no hindu majority. In India everybody is a minority.

I, a vaishnavist Tamil, have got more in common with a sufi tamil muslim than a kashmir shaivite pandit although I am supposed to identify with the saivite because he is a hindu and I am supposed to be against my fellow tamil because he is muslim. This is absurd but this is the basis of the formation of Pakistan.

The basis of the formation of Pakistan was that the will of the muslims would be over-shadowed by the Hindu majority. The basis of Pakistan was not to hate India. Of course, Jinnahs sucessors made it that way, but that was not what was supposed to happen. However, the Brits had to rush their way out of India, and Lord Montbatten, who is well known to have been pro-India, left it so that India would be left in a position where it could benefit. Now, when Lord Montbatten leaves a bunch of princely states that want to join one of the countries against their populations wishes (I.E. Hyderabad, that was ruled by a Muslim who wanted to join Pakistan but populated by Hindu's who wanted to join India, and Kashmir, the opposite of Hyderabad), and left the sub-continent in the position we are today.

Jinnah was not for the interests of common muslims. He was for the interests of the elites that I mentioned in the earlier post.

The British (Churchill especially) were loathe to leave the "jewell in the crown" just like that with no control. The great game was still on and they needed a pliant state through which they can "contain" India.

Jinnah and the muslim league's ambitions to rule without having to compete in an open competition were just handy tool for the Brits.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200508/ai_n14903514


Churchill was the architect of the partition. It is quite clear that he and Jinnah collaborated together to achieve their ends from then on...regardless of what Nehru or Gandhi might have done to appease them in the naive hopes of avoiding partition.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=52299

I beg to differ. From the numerous neutral sources I get stuff from (Such as Stanley Wolperts Jinnah, which protrays Jinnah as a man, not as the god-like leader he is thought to be in Pakistan, or the evil scheming businessman he is portrayed to be in India), I can tell you that Jinnah was not a scheming rich man who only wanted to get Pakistan so his rich urdu-speaking friends could have a state. Yes, Jinnah lived in Great Britain for a long time. Everyone knows this. Does that mean Gandhi's contributions were any lesser, since he lived in South Africa for a time? No. Unlike what your propaganda says, and what Pakistani propaganda says, Jinnah was not always for partition. You can see that up until the eve of partition, he was moving for a unified India with protections for a minority. You think all the Muslims of India were rich? Far from it! If all of the Muslims of India were rich, then Bangladesh wouldn't be one of the poorest nations in the world.

Also, you're acting as if Jinnah hated all Hindu's. Far from it. Pakistanis original national anthem was written by a Hindu. Pakistans first law minister was a Hindu. Jinnah envisioned Pakistan as a republic for muslims, not an Islamic Republic. Even Hindu nationalist leaders, such as Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Lal Krishna Advani say that Jinnah was a respectable statesman and a noble Muslim leader,and he must not be blamed for the violence of partition or the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan. Some historians and journalists acknowledge Jinnah's work to protect Pakistani Hindus, efforts to maintain a liberal democracy there and his emotional attachment to the city of Mumbai, where he had lived for most of his life.

,
"New works, especially those compiled after the full disclosure of the Transfer of Power Papers and other primary sources, have seriously challenged the conventional theory on partition.

Chief amongst these works is the famous Indian jurist H M Seervai's Partition of India: Legend or Reality which argues that partition was caused by Nehru and Gandhi's refusal to agree to the Cabinet Mission Plan. Seervai argues that Jinnah never wanted partition and till the very end was striving for a United Secular India albeit one with ironclad safeguards for the minorities. This view has found an echo amongst new historians, armed with primary sources and documents released by the British India Office as well Mr Jinnah's own correspondence, who claim to challenge the existing views of both Pakistani and Indian history writing which is seen as myth-making."

I am not saying that partition was a smart idea, it wasn't, but just blindly listening to radical propaganda that states Pakistan is the route of all evil is stupid. Maybe it's just that I can view things from a more neutral point of view, being an American who has traveled and lived in the sub-continent for much of his life. I listen to both sides of the story, and while I believe Partition wasn't a great idea at all, it could have been averted. Since it wasn't averted, we must now focus on the future. That is one thing I've noticed about your responses to my posts. You haven't commented on the future. All you've talked about is "Pakistan did this..." and "Pakistan did that..." We all know what Pakistan did! Now we have to focus on what Pakistan will do, because if we keep looking towards the past, then it's just going to continue forever, and then your children and grandchildren will pay, not mine.

I'm doing this for you, in a sense, since all this hatred amongst people who are essentially brothers pains me. I love the Indian sub-continent. I love the people, I love the music, I love everything about it. The best years of my life took place on the Indian sub-continent. Watching people who are so similar heading towards nuclear war drives me insane. To me, the wars between Pakistan and India were civil wars. If you want to avoid these civil wars, if you want to avoid 5,000 children demanding execution, if you want to avoid Islamism, you have to work towards making peace with your brothers across the border.

Fass, guns are all fine and dandy.

Only when used as penetrative objects.

You're acting like sectarian violence is something new. For the thousand years that Islam was on the sub-continent, you think Muslims and Hindus were all buddies, but once the Muslim league was created, they decided to kill each other? Hell no.

Sectarian violence pre-Muslim league Pakistan rhetoric was nothing when compared to the blood bath on Direct Action day (called for by Suhrawardy).

The basis of the formation of Pakistan was that the will of the muslims would be over-shadowed by the Hindu majority.

In that case, should not all the muslims of India be shipped to Pakistan?

What kind of logic is that when formation of Pakistan lessens the clout of the remaining muslims in India?

Did you not read this part in MJ Akbar's article.?

By 1940 Jinnah knew what he wanted - Pakistan. What was debatable was why. The slogan that divided India was simple: 'Islam is in danger.' As a proposition, it was absurd. For the believer a faith is true precisely because it is imperishable. A Muslim can be in danger, but not Islam. However, if Muslims were in danger from Hindus, then they needed security and safeguards in those regions where they were in a minority, like central India. Instead Pakistan was created on the western and eastern flanks of the subcontinent, where Muslims were in a majority and if anything the Hindus were in danger.


Yes, Jinnah lived in Great Britain for a long time. Everyone knows this. Does that mean Gandhi's contributions were any lesser, since he lived in South Africa for a time?

SA does not have a vested interest in India. Britain had. The issue is not Jinnah's stay in Britain, it is his colloborating with Churchill.

You can see that up until the eve of partition, he was moving for a unified India with protections for a minority.

It's more like the protection of the rights of the landed aristocracy and the hold on beauracracy that the salaried class had.

If you would have noticed, this is what precisely happened in Pakistan. Pakistan still does not have land reforms. The zamindars and landlords of Pakistan still have like 1000 acres where there is still bonded laborers whilst India had land reforms soon after independance and the zamindari system was abolished.

In beauracracy too, the mohajirs dominate the native pakistanis, disproportionate to their percentage in pak population.

Also, you're acting as if Jinnah hated all Hindu's.

Jinnah was an opportunist. When it suited him, he upped the rhetoric on hindus. When he got what he wanted (a state for himself), in his inaugural speech he said "You will find that in the course of time, Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state"

Jinnah did not hate hindus from a religious POV. He was an opportunist, who came in handy for the elite class and the Brits who wanted to hold a piece of the colony.

You haven't commented on the future. All you've talked about is "Pakistan did this..." and "Pakistan did that..." We all know what Pakistan did! Now we have to focus on what Pakistan will do, because if we keep looking towards the past, then it's just going to continue forever, and then your children and grandchildren will pay, not mine.

An understanding of the past is very necessary for making plans for the future.

There is no future in Indo-Pak relations until they do away with the two-nation theory as the nazariya-e-pakistan.

LoC = IB is the most we can settle for and Pakistan cannot settle for it, unless there is a drastic change in their outlook and attitude. With increasing islamism there, there is no way that can happen and Musharraf is no Ataturk.

Unless Pak can settle for LoC = IB (and I don't see any evidence for that), the talks are bound to be a failure.

I don't hate Pakistan as a whole. I just don't like to be killed by their jihadis. They were brothers. Not anymore. A brother who likes to kill me is not a brother.

This behaviour isn't a surprise, even coming from kids. After all, a muslim is a muslim wether an adult or a child. And they're just doing what muslims do, act like savages.

That said, it makes me wonder why we don't just leave these people to rot. A lot of muslim lands (Though I don't think Pakistan does) rely on western humanitarian aid, with our people paying for them to be given food and medicine. These people hate us, so why are we giving any of this to them? We should just withdraw it and leave them to it. Feeding those who despise us is a huge sign of weakness.

Jinnah was an opportunist. When it suited him, he upped the rhetoric on hindus. When he got what he wanted (a state for himself), in his inaugural speech he said "You will find that in the course of time, Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state"

Jinnah did not hate hindus from a religious POV. He was an opportunist, who came in handy for the elite class and the Brits who wanted to hold a piece of the colony.

The only situation where I see Jinnah ever changing his views was when he finally gave up on Unified and India and threw his support behind Pakistan. Jinnah stood stedfast to his principles. I see the phrase you quoted as to show that he saw the future as non-sectarian and that, in his perfect vision of the future, Muslims and Hindu's would be equal.



An understanding of the past is very necessary for making plans for the future.

There is no future in Indo-Pak relations until they do away with the two-nation theory as the nazariya-e-pakistan.

LoC = IB is the most we can settle for and Pakistan cannot settle for it, unless there is a drastic change in their outlook and attitude. With increasing islamism there, there is no way that can happen and Musharraf is no Ataturk.

Unless Pak can settle for LoC = IB (and I don't see any evidence for that), the talks are bound to be a failure.

I don't hate Pakistan as a whole. I just don't like to be killed by their jihadis. They were brothers. Not anymore. A brother who likes to kill me is not a brother.

Yes, you have to look at the past, but you can't be obsessed with it.

Also, it's gone way past the point where India and Pakistan can re-unificate, so Pakistan needs some reason to exist. There are always going to be two nations, so how can there be no two-nation theory?

Also, America had a civil war, once. North vs. South, you know. Actually, if you think about it, the American Civil War was much more bloody than all three Indo-Pak wars combined (if you don't count the civilian casualties during the Bangladesh Liberation War), and yet Confederates and Unionists still viewed each other as brothers. If we can deal with 600,000 people dying, why can't you guys deal with about 20,000 people dying?

Also (I use this word alot :p), if you haven't noticed, the average Pakistani doesn't hate the average Indian, and the average Indian doesn't hate the average Pakistani (as far as I know, I haven't lived in India, just visited), so what is with the hate? There are 1.5 billion people on the sub-continent, you can't tell me that 1.495 billion of them blindly follow the propaganda of their leaders. It is dawning on the people of both countries that they are more alike then the radicals would want you to believe.

hmm

The old Arab muslim = terrorist idea.

Rather prejudiced is it not?
Well seeing how they act, I'd say it's pretty justified.

The only situation where I see Jinnah ever changing his views was when he finally gave up on Unified and India and threw his support behind Pakistan. Jinnah stood stedfast to his principles. I see the phrase you quoted as to show that he saw the future as non-sectarian and that, in his perfect vision of the future, Muslims and Hindu's would be equal.

Which would imply that muslims and hindus are not equal in a secular state like India, but they would be in an islamic republic like Pakistan. :confused:

What principles? He raised the slogan "Islam is in danger" when it suited him and became a liberal when he got his Pakistan. I can only see an opportunist there. Politicians don't have principles and Jinnah was a very good politician.

Also, it's gone way past the point where India and Pakistan can re-unificate, so Pakistan needs some reason to exist. There are always going to be two nations, so how can there be no two-nation theory?

The problem with the two nation theory is that it says that muslims cannot be muslims in India. This makes Pakistanis think of themselves as being the saviors of Indian muslims and Pakistan as the fortress of Islam. Do I need to remind you of the slogans

"Pakistan ka matlab kya, La illah il allah"

"Hus hus ke Pakistan liya, lad lad ke Hindustan lenge" ?

This plays into the hindu right wing perceptions that muslims are not loyal citizens to India.

Like I said, the two-nation theory's assumptions that hindu-muslim cannot co-exist has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The ambitions of Paki jihadi orgs go beyond Kashmir. The Lashkar-e-toiba (the prominent and most dangerous jihadi org of Pakistan) explicitly states this in its goal to put the green flag on the red fort.

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/jandk/terrorist_outfits/lashkar_e_toiba.htm
The LeT’s professed ideology goes beyond merely challenging India's sovereignty over the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Lashkar's ‘agenda’, as outlined in a pamphlet titled Why are we waging jihad includes the restoration of Islamic rule over all parts of India.

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=149
The Lashkar and its political wing called the Markaz Dawa Al Irshad have for many years been calling for the expansion of the so-called jihad to the rest of India from Jammu & Kashmir for creating two independent homelands for the Muslims of South and North India. As a first step in this jihad, it had in the past called for intensified activities in Hyderabad and Junagadh, which it looks upon as Pakistani territory.

The Lashkar's and other jihadi orgs like Jaish-e-Mohammed's goals are a logical evolution of the two nation theory. You cannot tell them to stop when the damned country was formed in that basis.

I really see no way out of this conundrum. Pakistan can either accept that it cannot be a homeland for Indian muslims (which would call into question the very reason for its existance) or it can continue to slide down the slippery slope and disintegrate.

Personally I don't care. Pakistan can invent some new theories. What the hell do I care? They can all jump into the sea for all I care.

if you haven't noticed, the average Pakistani doesn't hate the average Indian, and the average Indian doesn't hate the average Pakistani (as far as I know, I haven't lived in India, just visited), so what is with the hate?


That generation of Indians thinking of Pakistanis as misled brother is over. We were brought up on the acts of Pakistani terrorism against Indian civilians.

Perhaps I can tell the pandit families of Nadimarg that Pakistanis are their brothers

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/mar/24jk.htm
24 Pandits killed in Kashmir

Perhaps I can tell the families of Kaluchak that Pakistanis are their misguided brothers

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/may/14jk.htm
At least thirty-three persons, including women and children, were killed when heavily armed militants opened indiscriminate fire in a Himachal Roadways bus

Perhaps I can tell the widow of Rupin Katyal who was murdered on his honeymoon, in the hijacked IC-814 flight that Pakistanis are their misguided brothers

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/578282.stm
At least one passenger has been killed - Indian businessman, Rupin Katyal, who was returning from his honeymoon. His bride is one of the passengers still on board.

Perhaps I can tell this mother who lost her kid to the bomb attacks in Delhi, that Pakistanis are her misguided brothers

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/south_asia_delhi_grieves/img/laun.jpg&imgrefurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4389586.stm&h=152&w=203&sz=5&tbnid=Ic4IWL-sjcsY8M:&tbnh=74&tbnw=99&hl=en&start=23&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddelhi%2Bblasts%26start%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/south_asia_delhi_grieves/img/4.jpg

The Indian capital, Delhi, has been put on high alert a day after three bombs rocked the city, killing at least 59 people and injuring 210 others.

Perhaps I should say that to the Professor Puri's family..
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1350204.cms
Bangalore IISc attack: Prof killed

Perhaps I should say that to the people who lost their near and dear ones in these attacks on the Indian parliament, Ayodhya, Akshardham, Mumbai, Chennai, Coimbatore, Hyderabad etc etc etc that Pakistanis are just their misguided brothers. Oh all this is over and above the more than 40,000 people dead in Kashmir and the 200,000 Pandits who fled Kashmir and are living as refugees in their own country. Perhaps they will understand that Pakis are their misguided brothers.

Perhaps they won't.

Seeing that the jihadi orgs still enjoy huge patronage in that society and the fact that the regime is hand in glove with the jihadis and the fact that Pakistani jihadis are still trying to kill us, all I can say is FUCK Pakistan.

I have no fucking feelings of brotherhood with them. They can stew in that land of the pure for all I care.

I swear rarely, and when I swear, I fucking mean it.

You're acting like the Hindu's are saints! Hindus have killed THEIR share of thousands of Muslims as well. People like you are the reason why the peace process is going to fail. In 20 years, I won't have to worry about the Indian Subcontinent anymore, because it won't exist! Have you ever been to Pakistan? Have you ever met any Pakistanis? Or do you only know everything you know about them from your BJP press reports? I can tell you, I have met Pakistanis and I have been to Pakistan. I have met Bangladeshis and I have been to Bangladesh. I have been to India and met Indians. I do not fall prey to the rampant propaganda that swarms all over the sub-continent.

Pakistan is a country of 150 million people. Yes, that's smaller than India, but that's a helluva lot. The average Pakistani on the street doesn't want to kill Indians. The average Pakistani on the street wants to watch cricket! He wants a job, and he wants to feed his wife and children! That's all he wants! There is a small but vocal minority that wants to destroy India, yes, but it's a freaking minority. Should I hate all Muslims for a minority that killed 5 thousand Americans(3,000 on 9/11, 2,000 in Iraq)? Should I hate all Southerners for killing 400,000 Northerners? Should I hate all Germans for killing 5 million poles? No! I shouldn't! So why do you hate all Pakistanis? Because a minority of them killed 40,000 people? Hell, a minority of Southerners killed 400,000 Northerners (and some are still doing it today, I.E. the KKK, the Aryan Brotherhood), but do I hate them? Hell, even in Bangladesh, where millions where killed by Pakistanis, they don't hate Pakistan.

Your line of thinking is what led to all the wars between Pakistani and India. I can just see it now, "Field Marshal Aryavartha leads the Indian army into Lahore, killing 10 Pakistanis for every Indian killed!" Your line of thought led to the Second World War ("The French, Brits, and Poles ruined our country and killed millions of our people! We must get revenge!"), the First World War ("The Serbians killed out Duke! We must get revenge!"), and so on and so forth. This endless spiral of revenge has to end somewhere, and if it could end in the Indian Subcontinent, the world would rejoice. That would be a few hundred million lives saved from a fiery, explosive death. As Mahatma Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." How can you quote such a man while preaching death and destruction?

You're acting like the Hindu's are saints! Hindus have killed THEIR share of thousands of Muslims as well.

Oh shut up. There is no equivalency between people dying in riots and people killed in a planned and calculated manner (jihad).

It would be a moral equal only if hindus were infiltrating Pakistan and blowing up civilian people there.

People like you are the reason why the peace process is going to fail. In 20 years, I won't have to worry about the Indian Subcontinent anymore, because it won't exist!

lol.

I said, that the peace process will fail because of Pakistani inability to accept LoC as IB.

We have been through this before, haven't we.

I asked the same damn question then. You did not reply. I am asking the same damn question again.

Show me evidence that Pakistan can settle for LoC as IB.

If they can't accept status quo, the talks will fail. What is so hard to understand this simple truth?

And whether you like it or not, people like me (under 30, educated and working class, nationalist) will be the dominant segment in India and they have the more or less the same views that I have.


Have you ever been to Pakistan?

I don't have to step on shit to know it is shit.


Have you ever met any Pakistanis?

I have met enough Pakistanis.

I see that you are building up a strawman here..that I want all Pakistanis dead.

Wrong.

I said, I could care less about the well being of Pakistanis. It is a far cry from wanting them to be dead.

I do not fall prey to the rampant propaganda that swarms all over the sub-continent.

Sure you do.

By equating riots to jihad, is that not what you are doing.

In this one thread, you have quoted many falsehood like how there is no evidence of a temple under the mosque (when ASI reports say otherwise).

Don't you also think that hindu-muslim violence and hindus dominating muslims was such that it justified the creation of Pakistan?

If that is not Paki propoganda, then what is?


The average Pakistani on the street doesn't want to kill Indians.

Well he certainly donates money for jihad. He certainly does nothing against the presence of jihadi orgs which explicitly state that they are killing Indians.

The day when Pakistanis march against the presence of jihadi orgs like JeM, LeT, I will look at Pakistanis in a different vein than I am doing now.

So why do you hate all Pakistanis?

Strawman.

Your line of thinking is what led to all the wars between Pakistani and India.

Oh shut up already. Enough with the sermonising.

Well excuse me for being wary of a person who tried to fucking kill me. It is not your fucking head in the line.

When you live under terror, I would like to hear all this nice talk from you. Yu are not. So you can never look at it from my POV.

Have you ever had any first hand experience in an act of terror where you lost anybody near and dear to you?


How can you quote such a man while preaching death and destruction?

The Mahatma agrees with dharmayudd.

This is what he said

WHAT IS the situation? It is stated that a rebel army composed of Afridis and the like, ably officered, was advancing towards Srinagar, burning and looting villages along the route, destroying even the electric power house, thus leaving Srinagar in darkness. It is difficult to believe that this entry could take place without some kind of encouragement from the Pakistan Government. I have not enough data to come to a judgment as to the merits of the case. Nor is it necessary for my purpose. All I know is that it was right for the Union Government to rush troops, even a handful, to Srinagar. That must save the situation to the extent of giving confidence to the Kashmiries…..
The result is in the hands of God. Men can but do or die. I shall not shed a tear if the little Union force is wiped out, like the Spartans, bravely defending Kashmir nor shall I mind….. Muslim, Hindus and Sikh comrades, men and women, dying at their post in defence of Kashmir, that will be a glorious example to the rest of India. Such heroic defence will infect the whole of India and we will forget that the Hindus, the Muslim and the Sikhs were ever enemies. (H, 9-11-1947, p. 406)

Here's the bottom line.

A good chunk of Pakistanis support the military which supports jihad. A good chunk of Pakistanis directly support the jihadis themselves. It is the military supporting nationalists and the islamist sympathisers who are in the majority.

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/apr/27ariban.htm
Fund-raising by ordinary Pakistanis for terror/mayhem in India

One of the facts that has been reported by multiple sources is that the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, better known as the Lashkar-e-Tayiba raised Rs 780 million from donations from ordinary people, during last month's Eid celebrations -- far more, than previous years, according to The Friday Times.

This comes as somewhat of a shock, since the Lashkar, in its brochures, periodicals and posters, is not particularly shy about announcing its intentions or even depicting trophy pictures of dead Indians. While the Jaish-e-Mohammad has openly declared that 'jihad means killing,' the Lashkar has made its motto 'Killing Hindus is the way forward.' So ordinary Pakistanis openly and knowingly raised millions of rupees in a few weeks to support terror in India. Sort of clashes with the outward appearances of mehman-nawazi -- does it not?

Now, let me suggest a simple thought experiment -- To get an idea about what it takes to raise this kind of money in donations -- think about how hard would it be to raise Rs 780 million in donations in a few weeks time in India. Exactly, how much public support would you need to raise that kind of money? While you do think this one through -- remember, a. Pakistan has a seventh of the population of India, b. Pakistan's per capita income is about 20% less than India's, hence, less spending money c. Lashkar is only one of the terrorist groups raising money during Eid and d. raising money for this purpose is explicitly banned, hence illegal in Pakistan.

Perhaps it is most illuminating to start with the report of one particular fund-raising meeting, held for the Lashkar in early March. Mohammed Shehzad, a respected Pakistani journalist, reports:

'The popular perception that only unemployed youth, poor men or school dropouts are attracted by the jihadi outfits proved wrong last week when a section of the country's elite responded overwhelmingly to the jihad call of the country's top militant donating their real estate property, cash, and sons. Hafiz Mohammad Said, the firebrand chief of the defunct Lashkar-e-Tayiba addressed a select gathering in Islamabad at the Ahle-Hadis mosque in the I-8 sector-the secluded enclave of country's top civil bureaucracy, last Sunday.'

It would seem the country's elite will do anything to satisfy their lust for terror and mayhem including giving up large sums of money, land and in some cases, their own promising careers.

'To motivate the audience, Said repeatedly quoted the largesse of the First Muslim Caliph Hazrat Abu Bakar Siddique. "Would you follow Siddique?' Said posed a question spurring the audience's zeal. The audience was charged emotionally. "I donate my two young sons for jihad in Kashmir and 500,000 cash," announced one among the audience. The 'donor' was a merchant. A woman who was not among the audience but listening to Said's sermon [audible for miles through powerful loudspeakers] sent her jewelry worth 300,000 through her son for the mujahideen's widows. The woman, Dr Rookaya Khan, was a physician.'

'Three brothers -- Asghar, Anwar and Akbar, 19, 22, and 24 respectively -- enrolled themselves for jihad training. Asghar had done his A-level from Beaconhouse [probably the most expensive chain of school.] Anwar was an intern with a five-star hotel. Akbar was marketing executive with a multinational.'

It seems, sacrificing their own children to kill Indians is not too difficult a step, as we see:

'A woman entered the assembly and gave her 2-year baby boy to Hafiz Said. "I am donating him for jihad!" publicised the woman. "We appreciate your donation. But he is too young. Keep him with you as our trust. When he would be a grown up boy, we will train him for jihad and he will earn a good name for you," responded Said. The woman was a landlord. "I am the mother of four sons. What happens if I donate one son for jihad, he embraces martyrdom and earns heaven for all of us!" said she rationalising her decision.'

Shehzad goes on to say, that almost everyone present there donated generously for jihadi terror, with a total collection of about 1.2 lakhs. Of course, collecting money in the name of jihad had been banned by the Musharraf regime since March 2001.

When asked about this open fund raising by a proscribed terrorist group, Pakistani Interior Minister Hayat does his deny-deny-deny-at-any-cost act. 'Hafiz Said was soliciting donations for the social welfare cause under the banner of Jamat-ud-Dawa [the new name of Lashkar-e-Tayiba]. 'Since Jamat-ud-Dawa is not an outlawed outfit and undertakes humanitarian work, therefore, the government cannot proceed against it,' he says.

But, these are not isolated incidents -- in fact, the same Pakistani businessmen who are salivating at the thought of and begging to be able to do business with India, literally fall over themselves to give money to the terrorists. The Daily Times of Lahore, reported on one such fund-raising incident in late November:

'LAHORE: Tehrik Khuddamul Islam Ameer Maulana Masood Azhar on Friday was given millions of rupees by businessmen from Lahore's posh and industrial areas for Kashmiri mujahideen. Maulana Azhar said he would personally deliver the donations to the mujahideen. "He took four sacks full of rupees with him," a TKI source told Daily Times. He met with businessmen after the Friday prayers and asked them to give zakat to mujahideen. He also visited the industrial areas of Lahore on Sheikhupura Road and addressed people at an iftar dinner at a factory.'

Every time Pakistani terrorists execute a 5-year-old Zahida, blow up a 15-year-old Arifa or beat a 9-year-old Nazia to death --we have to remember that the funds for salaries, logistics, arms and potential insurance for these terrorists comes from somewhere. Sure, some of this does come from the Pakistani army and US largesse, but a lot of it comes from ordinary Pakistanis who knowingly write checks to kill Indian children.

The over-whelming mehman-nawazi that Pakistani people have shown to the Indian guests is much appreciated, but they simply must get beyond outwards demonstrations of civility, if they really want peace.

I find it amusing that 5000 children, student unions etc can come out in protests against the offensive cartoons in Pakistan, but not a single protest has ever been done against the presence of literally dozens of jihadi orgs who make no bones about their objectives of killing Indians in jihad in arguably what is more offensive to Mohammed's (peace be upon others) name.

If anything these "moderates" that you speak of are the minority. They are not the "silent majority".

I challenge you to provide one instance of any Pakistani group (students, writers, leaders, anybody) to have categorically opposed jihad against India. The best you can find is that some writers saying that the jihad policy is bad because it has not worked and it has backfired...meaning that it is not that the jihad policy is inherently bad but that it is bad because it did not give intended results.

Take this as a challenge and prove that your "moderate" Pakistanis are against jihad. That would be a good way to shut me up.

Oh shut up. There is no equivalency between people dying in riots and people killed in a planned and calculated manner (jihad).

It would be a moral equal only if hindus were infiltrating Pakistan and blowing up civilian people there.

They don't have to cross the border; they already have 140 million Muslims in their own country.



lol.

I said, that the peace process will fail because of Pakistani inability to accept LoC as IB.

We have been through this before, haven't we.

I asked the same damn question then. You did not reply. I am asking the same damn question again.

Show me evidence that Pakistan can settle for LoC as IB.

If they can't accept status quo, the talks will fail. What is so hard to understand this simple truth?

And whether you like it or not, people like me (under 30, educated and working class, nationalist) will be the dominant segment in India and they have the more or less the same views that I have.

Once again, the average Pakistani could settle for the LoC as IB. But they are being put-down by the military and the Islamists. If the average Indian, such as yourself, tried to show the average Pakistani that you would support them, instead of referring to them as "shit", then that might change. Remember; it takes two to tango.

Also, if arrogant people who refer to their neighbors as "shit" and shun trying to make peace with Pakistan are going to inherit India, then I'm afraid that the great economic growth created will be squandered in flames many times hotter than the sun.




I don't have to step on shit to know it is shit.

That is the most arrogant comment I have ever heard. I have been to countries much worse off than Pakistan (Bangladesh, for example), and I have never referred to it as "shit".


Sure you do.

By equating riots to jihad, is that not what you are doing.

In this one thread, you have quoted many falsehood like how there is no evidence of a temple under the mosque (when ASI reports say otherwise).

Don't you also think that hindu-muslim violence and hindus dominating muslims was such that it justified the creation of Pakistan?

If that is not Paki propoganda, then what is?

#1, I hardly beleve the ASI is a neutral organistaion.
#2 I never denied there was a temple; I denied it was the birthplace of Rama.
#3 I am not equating riots to jihad; I am equating death to death.
#4 I believe that Hindu-Muslim violence created Pakistan, yes, but not Hindus dominating Muslims. The muslims thought they were going to be dominated. I have never agreed with the Partition, but I am against India or Pakistan denying the others right to exist.



Well he certainly donates money for jihad. He certainly does nothing against the presence of jihadi orgs which explicitly state that they are killing Indians.

The day when Pakistanis march against the presence of jihadi orgs like JeM, LeT, I will look at Pakistanis in a different vein than I am doing now.

Recently, there was a marathon in Pakistan, where many women, men, and children all raced together. Islamist groups said that they would hurt anyone who did, yet many women (many without head-dresses), men, and children ran anyways. If that isn't standing up against Islamism, in the face of death, I don't know what is.


Oh shut up already. Enough with the sermonising.

Well excuse me for being wary of a person who tried to fucking kill me. It is not your fucking head in the line.

When you live under terror, I would like to hear all this nice talk from you. Yu are not. So you can never look at it from my POV.

Have you ever had any first hand experience in an act of terror where you lost anybody near and dear to you?

Yes, I have. When I was in Pakistan, they bombed a church near the U.S. Embassy. Many of my friends where there praying at the time. Militants threw grenades into the building and ripped the worshipers to shreds. People were walking out covered in blood, and missing limbs. Two people who I was close too were killed. My entire life changed that day; a week later, all Americans were evacuated from Pakistan, and the innocence of my youth was shattered. I was no longer the boy who's only pre-occupation was when the next Final Fantasy game would be released. I feared for my very life. To this day, including recently when my father had to go to Pakistan, I feared for him.

Here's the bottom line.

A good chunk of Pakistanis support the military which supports jihad. A good chunk of Pakistanis directly support the jihadis themselves. It is the military supporting nationalists and the islamist sympathisers who are in the majority.

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/apr/27ariban.htm


I find it amusing that 5000 children, student unions etc can come out in protests against the offensive cartoons in Pakistan, but not a single protest has ever been done against the presence of literally dozens of jihadi orgs who make no bones about their objectives of killing Indians in jihad in arguably what is more offensive to Mohammed's (peace be upon others) name.

If anything these "moderates" that you speak of are the minority. They are not the "silent majority".

I challenge you to provide one instance of any Pakistani group (students, writers, leaders, anybody) to have categorically opposed jihad against India. The best you can find is that some writers saying that the jihad policy is bad because it has not worked and it has backfired...meaning that it is not that the jihad policy is inherently bad but that it is bad because it did not give intended results.

Take this as a challenge and prove that your "moderate" Pakistanis are against jihad. That would be a good way to shut me up.


Read Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military, by Hussain Haqqani; a former Pakistani ambassador to Sri Lanka and a columnist for major newspapers throughout South Asia. In his book, he states that Militarism and Islamism were inherently bad, and that if the government had paid more money on social services instead of the military and the Afghan Jihad then Pakistan could be in a much better position today, as well as having much better relations with India. The book also strongly advocates democracy.

Also, why don't you quote a website that isn't Indian for once, hmmm? Have I once sent you to a Pakistani web-site?

They don't have to cross the border; they already have 140 million Muslims in their own country.

So you are indeed equating muslims dying in riots (where hindus also die, and where the blame of inciting the riot should be shared by both parties) and what is an internal matter to the arming, indoctrinating and infiltrating of Pakistani jihadis who kill civilians in a cold and calculated manner.

Nice. Let me do a body count (as callous I may risk sounding).

The number of people dead in hindu-muslim riots would be less than 5000 where around 1000 would be hindus.

The number of people dead due to jihad is around 40,000. The number of people displaced as refugees due to jihad is around 200,000 (the Kashmiri Pandit community).

And somehow they are equal.:rolleyes:


Once again, the average Pakistani could settle for the LoC as IB.

Show me proof. I can't take your words.

Like I said a good chunk supports the military which has shown no indication of settling for status quo. Another good chunk support the islamists.

Where are these "average Pakistanis" if yours?

Have you not read what the "average Pakistani" does in that article ? Donating money and even kids to jihad. That is your average Pakistani.

I'm afraid that the great economic growth created will be squandered in flames many times hotter than the sun.

Don't worry too much. We have weathered the worst of Pakistani terrorism at the worst of times. The great economic growth came in the face of increasing tensions and terrorism.

That is the most arrogant comment I have ever heard. I have been to countries much worse off than Pakistan (Bangladesh, for example), and I have never referred to it as "shit".

It was an analogy. You asked me if I had been to Pakistan, as though one can only understand a country if one has set foot in the country. It was in that context I mentioned it. For the record, I don't think the country is "shit". I just think many of them are (jihadi supporters) and it just so happens that there are a lot of them.


#1, I hardly beleve the ASI is a neutral organistaion.

ASI is a central govt org. It is not a hindu group.


#2 I never denied there was a temple; I denied it was the birthplace of Rama.

Yes you did.

Drunk commies post
"Wasn't the Mosque the Hindus destroyed built on the site of an old and sacred Hindu temple?"

Your reply
"That has not been confirmed."


#3 I am not equating riots to jihad; I am equating death to death.

Seeing that there is an unequal number (deaths due to jihad and deaths due to riots), I don't see where the equality is.

Recently, there was a marathon in Pakistan, where many women, men, and children all raced together. Islamist groups said that they would hurt anyone who did, yet many women (many without head-dresses), men, and children ran anyways. If that isn't standing up against Islamism, in the face of death, I don't know what is.

Hahahah.

That is not what I meant by "categorically opposing jihad against India".

Has any group ever marched in the street that they oppose the jihad against India?

NO.

Marching against for some other cause which the islamists oppose is not equal to categorically opposing jihad against India.


Yes, I have. When I was in Pakistan, they bombed a church near the U.S. Embassy. Many of my friends where there praying at the time. Militants threw grenades into the building and ripped the worshipers to shreds. People were walking out covered in blood, and missing limbs. Two people who I was close too were killed. My entire life changed that day; a week later, all Americans were evacuated from Pakistan, and the innocence of my youth was shattered. I was no longer the boy who's only pre-occupation was when the next Final Fantasy game would be released. I feared for my very life. To this day, including recently when my father had to go to Pakistan, I feared for him.

How about if that happens (blowing up civilians) in your country 1000 times?

Would you like to live under the thought that a bomb could blow up anytime now?

I have been through worse. Read on Coimbatore serial bomb blasts.

Read Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military, by Hussain Haqqani

Also, why don't you quote a website that isn't Indian for once, hmmm? Have I once sent you to a Pakistani web-site?

I have read Haqqani before. He is for all intents and purposes, not a Pakistani anymore. He is unwelcome in Pakistan.

Try some mainstream journalists who lives in Pakistan.

If you have a problem with Indian websites you have to demonstrate their lack of credibility. Just because Pakistani news outlets are nonsense, does not automatically make Indian news outlets too as such. You are again playing the equal-equal game here.

Pakistan news - crappy. Indian news - must be crappy too. Nice logic.

So you are indeed equating muslims dying in riots (where hindus also die, and where the blame of inciting the riot should be shared by both parties) and what is an internal matter to the arming, indoctrinating and infiltrating of Pakistani jihadis who kill civilians in a cold and calculated manner.

Nice. Let me do a body count (as callous I may risk sounding).

The number of people dead in hindu-muslim riots would be less than 5000 where around 1000 would be hindus.

The number of people dead due to jihad is around 40,000. The number of people displaced as refugees due to jihad is around 200,000 (the Kashmiri Pandit community).

And somehow they are equal.:rolleyes:

Many of the people dead due to the Jihad are Pakistanis, mind you. If you forgot, India has dealt more casualties to Pakistan than Pakistan has to India in wars. You have trumped them time and time again.




Show me proof. I can't take your words.

Like I said a good chunk supports the military which has shown no indication of settling for status quo. Another good chunk support the islamists.

Where are these "average Pakistanis" if yours?

Have you not read what the "average Pakistani" does in that article ? Donating money and even kids to jihad. That is your average Pakistani.

That's not what I saw when I lived in Islamabad. The future leaders of Pakistan, whom I went to school with, would ask the teachers time and time again, "Why don't we just split it?" or "Why not let Kashmir be independent?" They are the future of their country.


Don't worry too much. We have weathered the worst of Pakistani terrorism at the worst of times. The great economic growth came in the face of increasing tensions and terrorism.

Not even Americas economy could withstand a nuclear war.



It was an analogy. You asked me if I had been to Pakistan, as though one can only understand a country if one has set foot in the country. It was in that context I mentioned it. For the record, I don't think the country is "shit". I just think many of them are (jihadi supporters) and it just so happens that there are a lot of them.

Many, not all of them. Remember, even if only, say, 1% of Pakistanis is a jihadist, that's still 1.5 million people.




ASI is a central govt org. It is not a hindu group.





Yes you did.

Drunk commies post
"Wasn't the Mosque the Hindus destroyed built on the site of an old and sacred Hindu temple?"

Your reply
"That has not been confirmed."

He said sacred Hindu temple. I thought he meant on such a level as, say, the Church in Nazareth where it is thought that Mary was told by angels that she was carrying Jesus, not on such a level as the Korean Church down the street from me.

Hahahah.

That is not what I meant by "categorically opposing jihad against India".

Has any group ever marched in the street that they oppose the jihad against India?

NO.

Marching against for some other cause which the islamists oppose is not equal to categorically opposing jihad against India.

It is equal to opposing the Jihadists. When the jihadists loose support; the Jihad looses support. Pakistanis are tired to being treated as terrorists by the world. This is the new millenium; a time for change. Pakistan doesn't want to be treated well by the west just because it is a nuclear power.



How about if that happens (blowing up civilians) in your country 1000 times?

Would you like to live under the thought that a bomb could blow up anytime now?

I have been through worse. Read on Coimbatore serial bomb blasts.

I have lived under the thought that a bomb could blow up anytime now; I was an American in Pakistan! If you haven't noticed, Jihadists tend to blow people like me up, too!

Also, if you think about it, 9/11 accounted for the amount of civilians who died in the attack 1000 times.

Also, Arya, were you 10 years old at the time of the serial bomb blasts? Did they shatter your peaceful impression of the world?

"Why is an American and Israili flag getting burned? Do they look for an excuse to hate the west?"

Heh. I reckon they've made it mandatory to do something bad to American and/or Israeli flags at any possible opportunity. It's ***, though, the Yanks and the Israelis didn't have anything to do with this whole thing. It's also *** how these young people are being dragged into something they (most likely) don't know all the facts about, at the behest of their West-hating parents. :mp5:

Y'know what? There is something that isn't completely stupid about all this. Ever read the book 'Something Rotten' by Jasper Fforde? It's part of the Thursday Next series. Anyways, during the book, Denmark is being harassed by the English for imaginary reasons. Oh, how I laughed my pants off at the sheer burning irony of this. I wonder what would happen if someone told one of those crazy fundies about this? XD.

I have read Haqqani before. He is for all intents and purposes, not a Pakistani anymore. He is unwelcome in Pakistan.

Try some mainstream journalists who lives in Pakistan.

If you have a problem with Indian websites you have to demonstrate their lack of credibility. Just because Pakistani news outlets are nonsense, does not automatically make Indian news outlets too as such. You are again playing the equal-equal game here.

Pakistan news - crappy. Indian news - must be crappy too. Nice logic.

I'm not saying Indian news is crappy; I'm saying it's biased. The best way to get information is from un-biased sources. Try the BBC. Or Deutsch Welle. Or CNN International.

I wonder what a cluster bomb would do to a crowd of 5000 children?



Lets not forget to follow it up with a napalm strike.

Many of the people dead due to the Jihad are Pakistanis, mind you.

No. Of the 40,000 odd dead in Kashmir, around 2000 would be Pakistani jihadis. I am not counting the dead in declared wars. I have no problems with wars or even guerilla wars were Indian soldiers are targetted.

My problem is when civilians are targetted in jihad.

That's not what I saw when I lived in Islamabad. The future leaders of Pakistan, whom I went to school with, would ask the teachers time and time again, "Why don't we just split it?" or "Why not let Kashmir be independent?" They are the future of their country.

Times have changed. Ever since Zia made the army as an army of Islam, and started the jihad factory, things have progressively changed for the worse.

Call up on your friends and check.

Not even Americas economy could withstand a nuclear war.

No but atleast we would be done with the problem once and for all. I know this is going to set off alarms with you. At times aar ya paar ladai does look better than having bombs going on regularly and the social fabric of the nation being torn by increasing polarisation between hindus and muslims.


Many, not all of them. Remember, even if only, say, 1% of Pakistanis is a jihadist, that's still 1.5 million people.

It's more than that. A pew poll indicated that around 30% approved of Osama. I can only imagine how much support there would be for the Kashmir jihad, which sometimes looks like the only thing a Pakistani lives for.


He said sacred Hindu temple. I thought he meant on such a level as, say, the Church in Nazareth where it is thought that Mary was told by angels that she was carrying Jesus, not on such a level as the Korean Church down the street from me.

So you count it when Christians believe that the Church in Nazareth is sacred to them. After all what proof is there for Jesus being a son of God or that of the whole bible story?

But it does not count when hindus believe that the Ram temple is a sacred one?

Hindus need to scientifically prove that Ram was born there.


It is equal to opposing the Jihadists. When the jihadists loose support; the Jihad looses support. Pakistanis are tired to being treated as terrorists by the world. This is the new millenium; a time for change. Pakistan doesn't want to be treated well by the west just because it is a nuclear power.


I will consider that viewpoint when Musharraf marches his men into the Lashkar-e-Toiba's headquarters in Muridke.

Until then I will remain sceptical of this "Pakistanis yearning for a change" line, because I don't have no reason to trust Pakistanis. Especially after Kargil.

Change has to come from Pakistan. It is they who are sending in armed jihadis to kill our civilians.


I have lived under the thought that a bomb could blow up anytime now; I was an American in Pakistan! If you haven't noticed, Jihadists tend to blow people like me up, too!

Not anymore. You can move. You are not native to Pakistan. I am native to India. We have to face the spectre of terrorism still, while all you have to do is pack your bags and move.

You don't have any stakes at risk. I have.


Also, if you think about it, 9/11 accounted for the amount of civilians who died in the attack 1000 times.

No. Total dead in terrorism in India is above 40,000. The amount of money and energy spent unnecessarily is huge. The growth sacrificed due to instability is significant.

America has experienced none of what we have suffered for the past two decades.

Also, Arya, were you 10 years old at the time of the serial bomb blasts? Did they shatter your peaceful impression of the world?

I was more than that. I did not have any illusion about a peaceful world then. My illusions about Pakistan went away.

I'm not saying Indian news is crappy; I'm saying it's biased. The best way to get information is from un-biased sources. Try the BBC. Or Deutsch Welle. Or CNN International.

Prove it. Prove the information that I have given in the articles as false and biased.

Btw, I can prove that BBC is biased (atleast in some reporting). Check the usage of "militant" when it comes to cases of terrorism against India and "terrorist" when 7/7 happened.

Teaching your children to hate... What a way to be a good parent.

Well, these kids will fuel the next generation of fundies and suicide bombers.

"Children should be legaly inseperable from their parents"

I'm not saying Indian news is crappy; I'm saying it's biased. The best way to get information is from un-biased sources. Try... CNN International.LOL man! good one. Wait. Are you serious? You're giving CNN as an unbaised new s station? CNN? O no wait. It has to be a joke. You must be joking. Lol then

LOL man! good one. Wait. Are you serious? You're giving CNN as an unbaised new s station? CNN? O no wait. It has to be a joke. You must be joking. Lol then

Unbiased in this situation.

Times have changed. Ever since Zia made the army as an army of Islam, and started the jihad factory, things have progressively changed for the worse.

Call up on your friends and check.

It was in 2001. I doubt many of them even knew who Zia was.



No but atleast we would be done with the problem once and for all. I know this is going to set off alarms with you. At times aar ya paar ladai does look better than having bombs going on regularly and the social fabric of the nation being torn by increasing polarisation between hindus and muslims.

So total annihilation is better than some conflict between radical groups? That's a pleasant way of thinking.


So you count it when Christians believe that the Church in Nazareth is sacred to them. After all what proof is there for Jesus being a son of God or that of the whole bible story?

But it does not count when hindus believe that the Ram temple is a sacred one?

Hindus need to scientifically prove that Ram was born there.

That is not the only site in Ayodha that claims to be the birthplace of Ram! Thousands of places claim said title!

For one thing; I am not christian. I was using an anology.



I will consider that viewpoint when Musharraf marches his men into the Lashkar-e-Toiba's headquarters in Muridke.

Until then I will remain sceptical of this "Pakistanis yearning for a change" line, because I don't have no reason to trust Pakistanis. Especially after Kargil.

Change has to come from Pakistan. It is they who are sending in armed jihadis to kill our civilians.

Change cannot come from Pakistan unless they have support. Do you think that a bunch of students armed with signs can stand up to an army 600,000 men strong? This isn't a "People of Iran vs. the Shah" situation. This is a "People of Hungary vs. the Soviet Union" situation.




Not anymore. You can move. You are not native to Pakistan. I am native to India. We have to face the spectre of terrorism still, while all you have to do is pack your bags and move.

You don't have any stakes at risk. I have.

I can move, but if I had the choice, I would still be in Pakistan to this day. Also, what is to stop you from packing your bags and moving? Is something tying you down? Hell, I have family and a home in the states, yet I move everywhere anyways.


I was more than that. I did not have any illusion about a peaceful world then. My illusions about Pakistan went away.

Then you do not know what it is like to have the peaceful world of a child shattered and taken away from you. I could have had a normal childhood, thinking about girls, and exams, etc. Instead, I ended up thinking "Am I going to die today?" At 10 years old.

Arya, I have a question for you; why are you so opposed to the peace process? Do you not want there to be a free and peaceful sub-continent? Hell, I'm an American; we're supposed to be all insular and ignorant. I shouldn't care less about India. But I do. Listen, if I could, I would have gone back in time; shot Lord Montbatten and Allama Iqbal, and then would have been content to see a United India. That is all I hope for. Now that is impossible (or at least highly improbable), but you have a chance to make the Sub-continent move closer together. Why do you shun such hope? Do you want innocents to keep dying? Do you want little Sanjay in Amritsar to cry while asking strangers all around him why is mother wont wake up after the bombs exploded? Do you want little Akbar to ask why his brother died crossing the mountains to kill children? Do you want little Inder to ask why his friends died in riots because of their religion? Or do you want them all to live peacefully?

You may call me unrealistically optimistic, sure, but weren't all great men optimists? Gandhi was an optimist, Martin Luther King was an optimist, Lech Wałęsa was an optimist, why can't you be?

It was in 2001. I doubt many of them even knew who Zia was.

Apologies. I thought you were in Pakistan much earlier.

So total annihilation is better than some conflict between radical groups? That's a pleasant way of thinking.

When I see bombs going off continually with no abatement and when I see that there is no stopping of the jihad factory, I do get that thought at times. I don't want it to happen. But the way the things are (continued terrorist attacks), I can see public support for this swelling.

That is not the only site in Ayodha that claims to be the birthplace of Ram! Thousands of places claim said title!

What thousands? The Ramayana is the primary source and it says Ayodhya.

There are thousands of counter claims to Christian beliefs too, but is not the bible version taken as the standard?

Change cannot come from Pakistan unless they have support.

Support cannot come unless there is an indication that change would come.

Do you think that a bunch of students armed with signs can stand up to an army 600,000 men strong? This isn't a "People of Iran vs. the Shah" situation. This is a "People of Hungary vs. the Soviet Union" situation.

All Hungarians hated the SU.

Not all Pakistanis hate their military regime. A good chunk of Pakistanis (especially from Punjab) support the military regime and its jihad policies. There is some mandate for the regime. You cannot deny that.

Also, what is to stop you from packing your bags and moving? Is something tying you down?

How about atleast a hundred of my blood relatives? Father had 11 siblings and Mom had 8.

The point is that, you and your family can avoid the risk of terrorism easily, while I cannot. It tends to affect your perspective.

why are you so opposed to the peace process?

Because I don't see peace at the end. I just don't see Pakistan settling for LoC = IB and that is the maximum we can settle for.

Pakistan is talking peace not because they have realised that jihad is inherently wrong. It is only because it is not working and even this is not shared by the islamist faction in the army and ISI.

All my reading from their mainstream media indicates that they expect "concessions" form us and that Bush will make India give these concessions. See the heartburn expressed in their media after Bush indicated nothing of that sort.

I am just being realistic here. Do I think that there are some Pakistanis who will settle for LoC = IB and move on with thier lives? Yes. But these Pakistanis are nowhere near the decision making polity and there is no way they are going to be anywhere near decision making.

The fight is between the military and islamist for the title of "savior of islam". And whoever settles for LoC = IB will be branded as traitor and would be taken out by the other.

This peace process was started by an American initiative and this is bound to fail because of the unrealistic expectations from the Pakistani side.

Added Later: You are making it as if I am against the peace process. I am not against peace. I am just sceptical of the outcome of it. My scepticism is rooted in realism. Your optimism is rooted in illusions.

If you think I want a war with Pakistan just like that, you are mistaken. It may be hard to believe for you, but I am a non-violent person, a vegetarian to boot. But I will take up arms (war) if it means stopping more killings (jihad).

This would be of interest to you.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1642308,00300001.htm?headline=A~snapshot~of~middle~class~India
A snapshot of middle class India

It is a truism within Big Media to say that the people of India want peace with Pakistan. My sense, however, was that while nobody wants another war, outside of Delhi and parts of the Punjab perhaps there was no great warmth towards Pakistan. Most of India is young, does not care about Partition and sees Pakistan as just another foreign country — and a hostile one at that.

When peace with Pakistan came up, every single person I met was clear: there could only be peace on our terms. And this meant not giving up an inch of Kashmir. Nor was there any support for the idea of more autonomy for Kashmir.

So, let us treat all this liberal rhetoric about how Indians long for peace with scepticism. Our idea of peace is: Pakistan should shut up and behave itself or we will retaliate.


This constituency will be the dominant one in India in the coming years, if it is not already so.

When I see bombs going off continually with no abatement and when I see that there is no stopping of the jihad factory, I do get that thought at times. I don't want it to happen. But the way the things are (continued terrorist attacks), I can see public support for this swelling.

Well then, I guess that means that I don't have to worry about if there will be nuclear war or not. It's assured.



What thousands? The Ramayana is the primary source and it says Ayodhya.

There are thousands of counter claims to Christian beliefs too, but is not the bible version taken as the standard?

I mean thousands of places in Ayodhya. Thousands is probably an over-statement, though.



Support cannot come unless there is an indication that change would come.

This is the problem; support cannot come unless there is an indication that change would come, but an indication that change would come cannot come unless there is an indication there will be support.



All Hungarians hated the SU.

Not all Pakistanis hate their military regime. A good chunk of Pakistanis (especially from Punjab) support the military regime and its jihad policies. There is some mandate for the regime. You cannot deny that.

Not all Hungarians hated the SU. I'm sure a large amount of affluent upper-class Hungarians supported the SU, because it kept them in power. Just like a large amount of affluent upper-class Pakistanis in Punjab support the military.



How about atleast a hundred of my blood relatives? Father had 11 siblings and Mom had 8.

The point is that, you and your family can avoid the risk of terrorism easily, while I cannot. It tends to affect your perspective.

I've got hundreds of blood-relatives all over the place. Hell, the majority of them are in the United States. But I leave anyways, and if I had a choice, I would never move back to America. Visit, maybe, but not move back.



Because I don't see peace at the end. I just don't see Pakistan settling for LoC = IB and that is the maximum we can settle for.

Pakistan is talking peace not because they have realised that jihad is inherently wrong. It is only because it is not working and even this is not shared by the islamist faction in the army and ISI.

All my reading from their mainstream media indicates that they expect "concessions" form us and that Bush will make India give these concessions. See the heartburn expressed in their media after Bush indicated nothing of that sort.

I am just being realistic here. Do I think that there are some Pakistanis who will settle for LoC = IB and move on with thier lives? Yes. But these Pakistanis are nowhere near the decision making polity and there is no way they are going to be anywhere near decision making.

They could go near the decision making if the military is undermined, or if there are free democratic elections (not rigged democratic elections where the IJI wins all the seats). If the PPP comes to power again, and Bhutto becomes the true and actual leader of Pakistan (unlike before where the military hid all the nuclear plans and the Kashmir Jihad plans), then she could deffinetly help make the LoC = IB. After her first two terms, she has probably learned by now what to do: Put all of the militaries plans out into the open. If she does that, like she should have done in her second term (she only supported moves in Kashmir because she tried to avoid a military coup, which happened anyhoo), the military would be seriously undermined, the Islamic parties will loose support (except for in the Tribal Areas, because all the Taliban fled there) and then the sub-continent can move forward. So what India should do is this; say that it is only willing to consider serious negotiations if Pakistan holds completely free and fair elections. The PPP holds a considerable amount of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), and that's with the government actively working against it. Now, imagine it with it's leader at it's helm, western support, and free and fair elections.

The fight is between the military and islamist for the title of "savior of islam". And whoever settles for LoC = IB will be branded as traitor and would be taken out by the other.

This peace process was started by an American initiative and this is bound to fail because of the unrealistic expectations from the Pakistani side.

Added Later: You are making it as if I am against the peace process. I am not against peace. I am just sceptical of the outcome of it. My scepticism is rooted in realism. Your optimism is rooted in illusions.

If you think I want a war with Pakistan just like that, you are mistaken. It may be hard to believe for you, but I am a non-violent person, a vegetarian to boot. But I will take up arms (war) if it means stopping more killings (jihad).[/QUOTE]

You might not want a war, but you are not fully looking at the other possibilities. If a real war breaks out now (I mean a war on the 1971 scale, not the Kargil scale), then pretty much all hope is lost. The moderates will all be either killed or silenced, and then the radicals will gain a firm grip on control of the country.

This would be of interest to you.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1642308,00300001.htm?headline=A~snapshot~of~middle~class~India
A snapshot of middle class India



This constituency will be the dominant one in India in the coming years, if it is not already so.

I'm afraid, then. I at least hoped that the Indian people could support a compromise. Now, though, I see that they can't. Hell, they don't even listen to the United Nations...

Well then, I guess that means that I don't have to worry about if there will be nuclear war or not. It's assured.

There will be no nuclear war. Whatever the Chinese gave, they took away. The rest is under American lock and key.

It was under this conclusion that Op. Parakram was initiated, which had to be given up after American assurances that Pakistan would dismantle the jihad infrastructure. It was when Musharraf went on TV and promised that Pakistan would no longer allow its soil to be used for anti-Indian terrorists. A promise that he has not kept.

I mean thousands of places in Ayodhya. Thousands is probably an over-statement, though.

The temple issue did not start with the BJP taking up the issue. There have been fights going on there for the rebuilding of the temple there from the days of the Mughal era and the British era.


This is the problem; support cannot come unless there is an indication that change would come, but an indication that change would come cannot come unless there is an indication there will be support.

We are running thin on patience. We have given enough chances for them to change their errant ways. It has been nothing but disappointment and betrayal from them. When Vajpayee started the peace process, I genuinely thought that at last the mess would end. But it later dawned that the military was planning Kargil even when Vajpayee and Nawaz were singing peace tunes

Just like a large amount of affluent upper-class Pakistanis in Punjab support the military.

And just how is this oligarchy of elite feudalists, mullahs and military going to give up power? I really see no hope for the average Pakistani who does not belong to any of thse camps.


They could go near the decision making if the military is undermined, or if there are free democratic elections (not rigged democratic elections where the IJI wins all the seats). If the PPP comes to power again, and Bhutto becomes the true and actual leader of Pakistan (unlike before where the military hid all the nuclear plans and the Kashmir Jihad plans), then she could deffinetly help make the LoC = IB.

I just don't see how BB can come back as a popular leader, what with the stigma of corruption on her (and Nawaz for that matter). Mr. 10 percent Azif Zardari anyone?

You are a hopeless optimist. The military have it very lucrative now. They have the prime pickings in the real estate and their hold in top posts in civilian institutions and side money from the drug business. I just don't see them going down quietly. Everytime a military leader loses popularity, the next one will come and promise to clean up.

If an elected civilian says LoC = IB, he will be branded traitor and will be ousted in a coup. Ain't that what Musharraf did....that NS was corrupt and selling Pakistan?

So what India should do is this; say that it is only willing to consider serious negotiations if Pakistan holds completely free and fair elections.

The desire for democracy should come from the Pakistani people. If enough people desire it enough, there will be no stopping democracy in Pakistan.


You might not want a war, but you are not fully looking at the other possibilities.

All realistic possibilities point to only one thing. Bogging down of the talks because Pakistan cannot develop a consensus for LoC=IB. If there is no signifcant change in Pakistani expectations, this is what is going to happen. Not because me or Indian like me wanting talks to fail, but because of the unrealistic expectations from Pakistani side.

I'm afraid, then. I at least hoped that the Indian people could support a compromise. Now, though, I see that they can't. Hell, they don't even listen to the United Nations...

LoC = IB is a compromise that we are willing to settle for. Constitutionally, the whole of J&K is part of the union.

Hell, they don't even listen to the United Nations...

lol. Your bias is showing.

The UN resolutions calling for India to conduct a plebiscite had also called Pakistan to withdraw their troops to pre-1947 borders as a precondition for the plebiscite. Since Pakistan never satisfied the conditions for a plebiscite, India could never hold one.

The reason for that is until the defeat in 71 war, Pakistan was under the impression that they can wrest away Kashmir militarily.

And now having the demographics changed in PoK by settling Punjabis in PoK, absorbing Baltistan and Gilgit into Pakistan's federal structure as "Northern areas" and donating the Shaksgam valley to China and changing the demographics in Indian Kashmir by driving away 200,000 Pandits of the valley.....India is supposedly not listening to UN.

And you say that you don't fall for Pakistani propoganda. If that is not Pakistani propoganda, then I don't know what is.

lol. Your bias is showing.

The UN resolutions calling for India to conduct a plebiscite had also called Pakistan to withdraw their troops to pre-1947 borders as a precondition for the plebiscite. Since Pakistan never satisfied the conditions for a plebiscite, India could never hold one.

The reason for that is until the defeat in 71 war, Pakistan was under the impression that they can wrest away Kashmir militarily.

And now having the demographics changed in PoK by settling Punjabis in PoK, absorbing Baltistan and Gilgit into Pakistan's federal structure as "Northern areas" and donating the Shaksgam valley to China and changing the demographics in Indian Kashmir by driving away 200,000 Pandits of the valley.....India is supposedly not listening to UN.

And you say that you don't fall for Pakistani propoganda. If that is not Pakistani propoganda, then I don't know what is.

I meant the U.N. said "Don't build any nukes". Which Pakistan did, too, so that's why I don't see them as the biggest hope for peace (since the sole purpose of the military is to make war, hmmm?)

There will be no nuclear war. Whatever the Chinese gave, they took away. The rest is under American lock and key.

It was under this conclusion that Op. Parakram was initiated, which had to be given up after American assurances that Pakistan would dismantle the jihad infrastructure. It was when Musharraf went on TV and promised that Pakistan would no longer allow its soil to be used for anti-Indian terrorists. A promise that he has not kept.

Pakistan still has the bomb; I assure you. If the military is so al-powerful and omni-potent, then it still has the bomb.



The temple issue did not start with the BJP taking up the issue. There have been fights going on there for the rebuilding of the temple there from the days of the Mughal era and the British era.

Yeah, but did any of them actually do it?




We are running thin on patience. We have given enough chances for them to change their errant ways. It has been nothing but disappointment and betrayal from them. When Vajpayee started the peace process, I genuinely thought that at last the mess would end. But it later dawned that the military was planning Kargil even when Vajpayee and Nawaz were singing peace tunes



And just how is this oligarchy of elite feudalists, mullahs and military going to give up power? I really see no hope for the average Pakistani who does not belong to any of thse camps.

How did the oligarchy of elite feudalists, priests, military, and americans get overthrown in Cuba? They had a charismatic leader and support from a major power. If someone manages to lead those who want change, then it will come.




I just don't see how BB can come back as a popular leader, what with the stigma of corruption on her (and Nawaz for that matter). Mr. 10 percent Azif Zardari anyone?

She came back after her first term. And anyhoo, she hasn't been tried on any charges of corruption, and when you think about it, I doubt she was any more corrupt than her predecessors.

You are a hopeless optimist. The military have it very lucrative now. They have the prime pickings in the real estate and their hold in top posts in civilian institutions and side money from the drug business. I just don't see them going down quietly. Everytime a military leader loses popularity, the next one will come and promise to clean up.

If an elected civilian says LoC = IB, he will be branded traitor and will be ousted in a coup. Ain't that what Musharraf did....that NS was corrupt and selling Pakistan?



[quote]The desire for democracy should come from the Pakistani people. If enough people desire it enough, there will be no stopping democracy in Pakistan.

The desire is not strong enough! Hungary showed us that, Tianamen showed us that! They must have the means!



All realistic possibilities point to only one thing. Bogging down of the talks because Pakistan cannot develop a consensus for LoC=IB. If there is no signifcant change in Pakistani expectations, this is what is going to happen. Not because me or Indian like me wanting talks to fail, but because of the unrealistic expectations from Pakistani side.

Do you really think Musharraf is stupid enough to say "We want all of Kashmir"? If anything, Musharraf and his cronies will support of LoC=IB because they need American support. There is a power-struggle on the top, now; the radical mullahs vs. the military. If the military is to hold onto power, they need American backing and American weapons. Guess where they can get those from.



LoC = IB is a compromise that we are willing to settle for. Constitutionally, the whole of J&K is part of the union.

The article you quoted said that the "average Indian" wouldn't give up an inch of land in Kashmir. Kashmir is the entire region. Unless that means that they don't believe the land to be held by Pakistan to be Indian.

Careful Aryavartha. I detect a hint of silly Nationalism in some of those posts...

You're better than that.

Careful Aryavartha. I detect a hint of silly Nationalism in some of those posts...


You are right. I was getting a bit emotional. Nothing gets my goat more than the trivialising the death of so many innocent civilians in this dirty jihad war.

LS is offering me just promises, promises that were offered to me before and nothing has happened since. In the meantime I have to deal with the reality of jihad which is threatening to polarise the Indian muslim community for worse.

Did you see some of the protestors during the anti-Bush protests in Hyderabad etc? A coupla women were in those bee-keeper suits with placards praising Osama. I can see Pak jihadis drooling over the prospects of recruiting them and blowing up a sensitive place and inciting riots.

More than the deaths in Kashmir, I am afraid of this Pakistani penetration in the rest of India.


LS
Do you really think Musharraf is stupid enough to say "We want all of Kashmir"? If anything, Musharraf and his cronies will support of LoC=IB because they need American support.

He is not stupid enough to say "we are letting go of the Kashmir cause". Nobody can say that and get away with it. The moment there is a hint of any leader settling for LoC=IB, he will be branded traitor and hung from the nearest lamp post.

How did the oligarchy of elite feudalists, priests, military, and americans get overthrown in Cuba? They had a charismatic leader and support from a major power. If someone manages to lead those who want change, then it will come.

Cuba was not formed on the basis of idealogy like how Pakistan was claimed to be formed for Islam. There is a vast difference between comparing Cuba and Pakistan. Pakistan is a very unique country. It was the first country to be formed on the basis of religion (the next being Israel).

Like how Israeli leaders are compelled to keep up their rhetoric, lest they be branded traitors, all Pakistani leaders are compelled to keep the jihad going.

She came back after her first term. And anyhoo, she hasn't been tried on any charges of corruption, and when you think about it, I doubt she was any more corrupt than her predecessors.


BB can only bank on the support base of PPP in Sindh and nothing more. Similarly NS can bank on support base of PML in Punjab and nothing more. The problem is that there is really no national leader who can rally support from all of Pakistan. The only people who can rally such support are the islamists.

Where is this charismatic leader of yours with the potential of a mass base?

The article you quoted said that the "average Indian" wouldn't give up an inch of land in Kashmir. Kashmir is the entire region. Unless that means that they don't believe the land to be held by Pakistan to be Indian.

Constitutionally, the whole of J&K is part of the union. Narasimha Rao, the late PM of India, passed a resolution to that effect which also makes it mandatory for any change in borders to be cleared by 2/3 majority in the parliament.

By some hardselling, 2/3 majority can be got for LoC = IB but nothing more than that. No party (congress or the BJP) can risk being perceived as a sellout.

When Indians like me say we are not gonna give an inch of Kashmir, we mean the Kashmir that is with us. There is no point in crying for something (whole of J&K in the union) that can never happen. Besides PoK is irreversibly jihadised and I doubt if even the Indian establishment has any designs on getting it back. If LoC = IB is offered, India will take it, under the condition that jihad will stop - which I doubt will stop...regardless of what the offer is. Jihad has long back become a business.

LS


He is not stupid enough to say "we are letting go of the Kashmir cause". Nobody can say that and get away with it. The moment there is a hint of any leader settling for LoC=IB, he will be branded traitor and hung from the nearest lamp post.

I doubt it. Musharraf may not be liked amongst the Islamists, but I don't think the army would kill him if he said LoC=IB. At least, as long as he doesn't do it in an idiotic way. Tell me the last time a military dictator of Pakistan was deposed and then executed? Musharraf is a smart guy, (unfortunatly, Lenin and Mao were smart guys too, so that's not saying much) so if he plays his cards right he can pull it off.



Cuba was not formed on the basis of idealogy like how Pakistan was claimed to be formed for Islam. There is a vast difference between comparing Cuba and Pakistan. Pakistan is a very unique country. It was the first country to be formed on the basis of religion (the next being Israel).

Like how Israeli leaders are compelled to keep up their rhetoric, lest they be branded traitors, all Pakistani leaders are compelled to keep the jihad going.

Hmmm. You raise a valid point there. However, if you look at Israel, youw ill see that more moderate parties are coming to power. That is possible in Pakistan as well.



BB can only bank on the support base of PPP in Sindh and nothing more. Similarly NS can bank on support base of PML in Punjab and nothing more. The problem is that there is really no national leader who can rally support from all of Pakistan. The only people who can rally such support are the islamists.

Where is this charismatic leader of yours with the potential of a mass base?

Unfortunatly, you're right there. While BB is the best possible candidate, she lacks the support of the most of the country. Pakistan has 150 million people; there has to be some charismatic leader somewhere in there...

Constitutionally, the whole of J&K is part of the union. Narasimha Rao, the late PM of India, passed a resolution to that effect which also makes it mandatory for any change in borders to be cleared by 2/3 majority in the parliament.

By some hardselling, 2/3 majority can be got for LoC = IB but nothing more than that. No party (congress or the BJP) can risk being perceived as a sellout.

When Indians like me say we are not gonna give an inch of Kashmir, we mean the Kashmir that is with us. There is no point in crying for something (whole of J&K in the union) that can never happen. Besides PoK is irreversibly jihadised and I doubt if even the Indian establishment has any designs on getting it back. If LoC = IB is offered, India will take it, under the condition that jihad will stop - which I doubt will stop...regardless of what the offer is. Jihad has long back become a business.

I see, so when you say "not gonna give a inch of Kashmir", you mean "not give an inch of the Kashmir that we control." Here's a question, though; what if the Kashmiri people vote to leave? I mean, they aren't very happy about being blown up by Jihadi's, but you cannot tell me that the Indians have been perfectly kind in retaliation for the attacks. Innocent Kashmiri's suffer on both sides. Personally, I think it would be better if Kashmir was independent. Then the scheming Indians and Pakistanis would just leave them the feck alone...

On the other hand, those just make no sense at all. Why would they care that God hates long pieces of firewood, or cigarettes? (Both of those definitions predate the more offensive one...)

Anyway... just shows you what brainwashing can do, and why I'm starting to revere George Orwell as a prophet. ;)

What took you?

I doubt it. Musharraf may not be liked amongst the Islamists, but I don't think the army would kill him if he said LoC=IB. At least, as long as he doesn't do it in an idiotic way. Tell me the last time a military dictator of Pakistan was deposed and then executed? Musharraf is a smart guy, (unfortunatly, Lenin and Mao were smart guys too, so that's not saying much) so if he plays his cards right he can pull it off.

Ayub Khan deposed by Yahya. Yahya deposed by ZAB. ZAB deposed and hung by Zia. Zia killed by Shia airmen (as retaliation for his shia killings in Gilgit riots and his sponsoring of the anti-Shia SSP and other sectarian jihadi orgs). NS deposed by Mushy.

Mushy deposed by ?

He may not be killed, but he will certainly be deposed by the new savior and protector of Islam or Pakistan, it does not matter because for Pakistanis, Pakistan = Islam.

The point is that in the whole history of Pakistan there have been only one or two peaceful transfer of power. Something as big as Kashmir issue, will certainly result in a coup.

Here's a question, though; what if the Kashmiri people vote to leave?

Their above average participation in assembly and parliamentary polls indicate otherwise.

The Jammu hindu, Jammu muslims, Ladakh Bhuddist, Ladakh muslim, the Shia, the Gujjars are all perfectly fine with the union. The problem is only with a minority of the valley sunnis.

I refuse to hold the region and its people hostage due to the jihadis in the minority valley sunni community.


Personally, I think it would be better if Kashmir was independent. Then the scheming Indians and Pakistanis would just leave them the feck alone...

Personally, your thoughts amount to nothing. Independant Kashmir is not a viable entity. It will be further divided due to infighting between the sunnis, shias, jammu-ites, Ladakhis etc. Not only will India and Pakistan continue to fight for influence, US and China too will enter the fray for influence there.

No effing way are we gonna give up our sovereignity because it suits other people. They can take a hike.

Btw, your friends, the moderate Pakistani "brothers", just blew up another city. And then you wonder why hardliners are increasing in India.

Ayub Khan deposed by Yahya. Yahya deposed by ZAB. ZAB deposed and hung by Zia. Zia killed by Shia airmen (as retaliation for his shia killings in Gilgit riots and his sponsoring of the anti-Shia SSP and other sectarian jihadi orgs). NS deposed by Mushy.

Mushy deposed by ?

He may not be killed, but he will certainly be deposed by the new savior and protector of Islam or Pakistan, it does not matter because for Pakistanis, Pakistan = Islam.

The point is that in the whole history of Pakistan there have been only one or two peaceful transfer of power. Something as big as Kashmir issue, will certainly result in a coup.

Time will tell.



Their above average participation in assembly and parliamentary polls indicate otherwise.

The Jammu hindu, Jammu muslims, Ladakh Bhuddist, Ladakh muslim, the Shia, the Gujjars are all perfectly fine with the union. The problem is only with a minority of the valley sunnis.

I refuse to hold the region and its people hostage due to the jihadis in the minority valley sunni community.

You're changing the subject; have or have not Indian soldiers commited less-than-favorable acts against the Kashmiri people to try and get them to turn over Jihadis?




Personally, your thoughts amount to nothing. Independant Kashmir is not a viable entity. It will be further divided due to infighting between the sunnis, shias, jammu-ites, Ladakhis etc. Not only will India and Pakistan continue to fight for influence, US and China too will enter the fray for influence there.

No effing way are we gonna give up our sovereignity because it suits other people. They can take a hike.

Btw, your friends, the moderate Pakistani "brothers", just blew up another city. And then you wonder why hardliners are increasing in India.

I know it's not going to happen, I just think it would have been better off.

They didn't blow up a city. They killed 20 people. And they weren't moderate, they were radicals. Also, how do you know they weren't home-grown? It's not as if everyone in India wants to be in India.

Now the Hindu's are going to get revenge for the act of some hard-liners, and then they're going to kill a few thousands Muslims. And then in a few years some Hindu's are going to blow up a mosque, kill 20 people, and then the Muslims are going to kill a few thousand Hindus, and then so on and so forth. Don't you ever just want the cycle of violence to end? Or are you people going to keep going down the path of revenge and revenge until the end of time?

You're changing the subject; have or have not Indian soldiers commited less-than-favorable acts against the Kashmiri people to try and get them to turn over Jihadis?

You mentioned it.

The HR violations by the army is undeniable. However, I fail to see the equivalency between the jihadi army infiltrating here with the purpose to kill and the stray cases of HR violations by army personnel who for the large part face and have faced disciplinary action for their despicable actions. HR violations do not help and even one case is too many, but to point to them as equivalent to the thousands killed and hundreds of thousands displaced in jihad is intellectual dishonesty and only betrays your Pak-jihadi apologist side.


Also, how do you know they weren't home-grown? It's not as if everyone in India wants to be in India.

It had the involvement of a few Indian muslims. This does not take away the fact that the cell is Lashkar-e-Taiba - a Paki jihadi org and the planners were Pakistani.

And a person born in India can be Pakistani. Pakistan is not a nationality. It is a mindset.

Now the Hindu's are going to get revenge for the act of some hard-liners, and then they're going to kill a few thousands Muslims. And then in a few years some Hindu's are going to blow up a mosque, kill 20 people, and then the Muslims are going to kill a few thousand Hindus, and then so on and so forth. Don't you ever just want the cycle of violence to end? Or are you people going to keep going down the path of revenge and revenge until the end of time?

yeah yeah yeah....whatever :rolleyes: . Let's all gang up on the reactionary forces and not on the forces that are bent on provoking violence.

As it stands, a Hindu life is not equal to a momin's life, what to speak of Hindu places of worship. So why should we care....let the jihadis a free run. Better still, Hindus should destroy their own places of worship. Apparently, only then they won't be "communal"...lol..

You mentioned it.

The HR violations by the army is undeniable. However, I fail to see the equivalency between the jihadi army infiltrating here with the purpose to kill and the stray cases of HR violations by army personnel who for the large part face and have faced disciplinary action for their despicable actions. HR violations do not help and even one case is too many, but to point to them as equivalent to the thousands killed and hundreds of thousands displaced in jihad is intellectual dishonesty and only betrays your Pak-jihadi apologist side.

I'm not saying that makes up for the Jihad, it's just that you have been portraying Indians as the selfless, honorable soldiers of good and the Pakistanis as the despicable, scheeming soldiers of evil.





And a person born in India can be Pakistani. Pakistan is not a nationality. It is a mindset.

That's the first time I've heard that. Does that mean Indian is not a nationality, it is a mindset? Or does that mean Israeli is not a nationality, it is a mindset?



yeah yeah yeah....whatever :rolleyes: . Let's all gang up on the reactionary forces and not on the forces that are bent on provoking violence.

As it stands, a Hindu life is not equal to a momin's life, what to speak of Hindu places of worship. So why should we care....let the jihadis a free run. Better still, Hindus should destroy their own places of worship. Apparently, only then they won't be "communal"...lol..

I'm just saying that there is little visible effort being made between the Muslim and Hindu communities of India to strengthen relations. The Muslims who stayed in India, for the most part, stayed because of a loyalty to the idea of a secular Indian state, and they didn't go for the "Homeland of South Asias Muslims" advertising campaign. However, these Muslims have come under attack for the acts of a few radicals. Yes, those who commited the crimes have to come to violence, but the in-evitable riots that are to come do not have to happen.

And no such effort is needed.
India is a Nation.
Its citizens owe allegiance.
Plain and simple - India's Muslims will simply have to learn to keep the traps shut and OBEY.

Pakistan should not have been formed in the first place.

And no such effort is needed.
India is a Nation.
Its citizens owe allegiance.
Plain and simple - India's Muslims will simply have to learn to keep the traps shut and OBEY.

Pakistan should not have been formed in the first place.

That way of thinking led to Pakistan being created in the first place. The Muslims were afraid that the Hindu majority would tell them to "keep the traps shut and OBEY."

I'm not saying that makes up for the Jihad, it's just that you have been portraying Indians as the selfless, honorable soldiers of good and the Pakistanis as the despicable, scheeming soldiers of evil.

:rolleyes:
I suppose it is the Indian army that killed millions of Bangladeshis and raped thousands of Bangladeshi women.

I suppose it is the Indian army that armed, trained and aided in infiltrating murderous religious zealots and killed thousands of unarmed civilians and made hundreds of thousands of civilians as refugees.

Oh wait...


That's the first time I've heard that. Does that mean Indian is not a nationality, it is a mindset? Or does that mean Israeli is not a nationality, it is a mindset?

Israel, yes. It too is a state formed on the basis of religion.

India, no. You have to be born there or have lived there.


I'm just saying that there is little visible effort being made between the Muslim and Hindu communities of India to strengthen relations. The Muslims who stayed in India, for the most part, stayed because of a loyalty to the idea of a secular Indian state, and they didn't go for the "Homeland of South Asias Muslims" advertising campaign. However, these Muslims have come under attack for the acts of a few radicals. Yes, those who commited the crimes have to come to violence, but the in-evitable riots that are to come do not have to happen.

What inevitable riots? Where there riots in Varanasi?

Oh I guess the provocation was not enough. Maybe they should have killed more Hindus. And then Hindu backlash would have occured. And then we can all pillory the Hindus for responding to what they see as unchecked jihad against them.

Nobody should speak a word against muslims. After all, they are allowed to be violent for their religion. Classic dhimmitude.

:rolleyes:
I suppose it is the Indian army that killed millions of Bangladeshis and raped thousands of Bangladeshi women.

I suppose it is the Indian army that armed, trained and aided in infiltrating murderous religious zealots and killed thousands of unarmed civilians and made hundreds of thousands of civilians as refugees.

Oh wait...

I suppose that the soldiers who stopped trains going across the border after the partition and shooting everyone on board were just Pakistanis, the hundreds of thousands of muslims who died just happened to die accidentally.

I suppose that the Kashmiri women that got raped in retaliation for suicide bombings just magically got raped. After all, if the Jihadis wouldn't rape someone because of something they did, and the obviously infallable Indian soldiers could never do anything wrong, it must have been some invisible ghost.

The point is that while yes, the Pakistani Military is more brutal than the Indian, the Indian isn't infallable either. Think of the United States military; the most powerful in the world. It has numerous human rights violations, and we don't even have an arch-rival anymore!




Israel, yes. It too is a state formed on the basis of religion.

India, no. You have to be born there or have lived there.

So because it is a state formed on religion it's not a real country? Does that mean states formed on ideaologies (say, Communist China, or the United States) aren't countries because you don't have to be born there or have lived there to be a citizen?




What inevitable riots? Where there riots in Varanasi?

Oh I guess the provocation was not enough. Maybe they should have killed more Hindus. And then Hindu backlash would have occured. And then we can all pillory the Hindus for responding to what they see as unchecked jihad against them.

Nobody should speak a word against muslims. After all, they are allowed to be violent for their religion. Classic dhimmitude.

For the last fucking time, I am not a Muslim. I am not a christian. I am nothing. Don't assume I have some magic bias in favor of Islam, and I think all the Hindu's are evil and have to serve the Muslims. For one thing, I see religion as something that causes endless pain and suffering. You know why this whole partition thing happened? Religion. You know why these bombings happened? Religion. Religion has lead to the deaths of countless of my family members.

Also, there have not been riots yet. But just look a few weeks ago, in Lucknow.

Another thing; how long is this debate between us going to last? I swear, we've been here for a week, and neither of us have budged and inch. Are we just debating for the sake of debating now?

I suppose that the soldiers who stopped trains going across the border after the partition and shooting everyone on board were just Pakistanis, the hundreds of thousands of muslims who died just happened to die accidentally.

Hundreds of thousands? :rolleyes: The deathcount during partition is put at 10,000 on each side.

Even in that bloodbath, the cycle of violence started with the call for Direct Action day by muslim league leaders.

It weren't soldiers who did the train killings. It was the vigilante mobs who did that on both side.


I suppose that the Kashmiri women that got raped in retaliation for suicide bombings just magically got raped. After all, if the Jihadis wouldn't rape someone because of something they did, and the obviously infallable Indian soldiers could never do anything wrong, it must have been some invisible ghost.

heh. So the 100 odd HR violations by army personnel (who get punished for it, for the large part) is equal to the jihadi acts of murder and rape.

Btw, only an idiot would argue that women were raped in retaliation for suicide bombings. That was a disgusting piece of Pak propoganda. Not to forget the act of making reactionary events as justification for the provocatory event.

Its like you crippling me, destroying my house, killing my family members in cold and calculated manner and if I slap you in the face in a moment of rage you claim that "see, he hit me, I told you he hates me, why are you blaming me, see he is also indulging in violence"..:rolleyes:


So because it is a state formed on religion it's not a real country?

Yes. If two people exist side by side for millenia and within ten years a seperate country is made just because some of them follow a different religion - it is not a real country. It is a country made for the interests of certain sections of the people. What results is a country unsure of its identity.

Both Israel and Pakistan are very unsure of their identities as religious states.

For the last fucking time, I am not a Muslim. I am not a christian. I am nothing.

That does not mean anything. You can be an ardent atheist and still be a dhimmi.

And for the last time, I am not blaming islam. I am blaming certain muslims. There is a world of difference between the two.

Another thing; how long is this debate between us going to last? I swear, we've been here for a week, and neither of us have budged and inch. Are we just debating for the sake of debating now?

Seeing that you have offered me no proof for any of the things you so vigorously assert, I don't think this debate (that is if we can call this a debate:p ) is going anywhere. You can stop whenever you want to. Good luck with whatever it is that you do.

I wonder what a cluster bomb would do to a crowd of 5000 children?

wow thats a great way to deal with people who don't agree with you,
so glad someone like you doesn't control the world's most powerful military ...... oh wait...

Hundreds of thousands? :rolleyes: The deathcount during partition is put at 10,000 on each side.

Even in that bloodbath, the cycle of violence started with the call for Direct Action day by muslim league leaders.

It weren't soldiers who did the train killings. It was the vigilante mobs who did that on both side.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#India

This place says 200,000 to 1 million people.

Also, you're claiming that the militaries did absolutely nothing? So when my teacher told us that her entire family was gunned down in front of her by men dressed up in Indian army uniforms, it was just a co-incidence? When my other teacher told us that she watched Pakistani soldiers gun-down innocent hindus, it was just a co-incidence? The first step towards reconciliation is realising it happened.



heh. So the 100 odd HR violations by army personnel (who get punished for it, for the large part) is equal to the jihadi acts of murder and rape.

Btw, only an idiot would argue that women were raped in retaliation for suicide bombings. That was a disgusting piece of Pak propoganda. Not to forget the act of making reactionary events as justification for the provocatory event.

Its like you crippling me, destroying my house, killing my family members in cold and calculated manner and if I slap you in the face in a moment of rage you claim that "see, he hit me, I told you he hates me, why are you blaming me, see he is also indulging in violence"..:rolleyes:

100 odd?

Also, I got this information from mister Hussain Haqqani, who you previously stated "wasn't even a Pakistani anymore".



Yes. If two people exist side by side for millenia and within ten years a seperate country is made just because some of them follow a different religion - it is not a real country. It is a country made for the interests of certain sections of the people. What results is a country unsure of its identity.

Both Israel and Pakistan are very unsure of their identities as religious states.

Well, I must say, the two people did not peacefully exist side by side for a millenia.

Also, if what you're saying is true, then Lithuania isn't a real country; since for 500 years it was part of Poland, and then it split because of the interests of "certain sections of the people." Does that mean that Lithuania is unsure of it's indentity?