Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 02 Aug 2014 09:19

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3964 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 ... 100  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 29 Mar 2012 00:07 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27
Posts: 4707
if it's not written in public, then where is it written? what is the point of "writing it" if it's not available to the general public. the goal of deconstructing Islam, is not some isolated scholarly pursuit, it is an active societal level objective so that common people can understand it and replicate at their own level of understanding. if it's secret, and hidden under classified info, what is the point? who is reading it? and how will it be useful?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Mar 2012 00:24 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31
Posts: 4270
Location: Tejo Mahalaya
This is a strange one, being used as psy-ops by UK media:
Bashar al-Assad joked about religion of most of population, emails show
Quote:
Syria's President Bashar al-Assad swapped jokes and photographs that callously mock the religious beliefs held by a majority of his population, leaked emails purportedly show.

The ream of messages and derogatory cartoons allegedly sent among his 'inner circle' of female aides and family members poke fun at conservative Muslims.

Most of the messages ridicule the burka, the full body cloak worn by some Muslim women.

One e-mail from a female adviser depicts an image of a crying child in a shopping mall who has lost his mother. Trying to reunite them the shop assistant asks the boy for a description of his mother. The little boy replies 'I don't know sir I have never seen her!!' and the joke jumps to an image of a woman fully shrouded in black pushing a shopping cart.

On January 22 the President's father-in-law Fawaz Akhras allegedly forwarded a 'British wedding photograph' showing 24 newly wed Muslim couples, the women all wearing white burkas, their faces covered. "I just hope, for their sake, that each husband goes home with the right table cloth" the joke reads. Another email entitled 'Why God sends rain to Mexico and not to the Middle East' lists photographs of scantily clad weather women, and ends with an image of a covered Muslim woman standing by a weather map holding an umbrella.

The jokes, which might be viewed as humorous by a liberal Western audience, will be deeply insulting to many in Syria's largely conservative society.

The messages apparently convey little respect by the President and his aides for the population they lead. One message appears denigrate Arab men as being unclean or untrained; the email opens with a picture of a kitten peeing in a squat toilet, and leads on to an image of a man donning a red Kuffiyeh, the traditional Arab headers, urinating against a wall.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Mar 2012 00:56 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Posts: 1888
Location: USA
devesh wrote:
if it's not written in public, then where is it written? what is the point of "writing it" if it's not available to the general public. the goal of deconstructing Islam, is not some isolated scholarly pursuit, it is an active societal level objective so that common people can understand it and replicate at their own level of understanding. if it's secret, and hidden under classified info, what is the point? who is reading it? and how will it be useful?



If this is in response to my post then I am talking about J&K. Why would a diplomat "deconstruct Islam" to the Americans?
The idea was to defeat the agenda in Kashmir and I am saying a lot has been done in response to Varoon's point that nothing
was done.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Mar 2012 01:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Posts: 12183
Supratik wrote:
devesh wrote:
if it's not written in public, then where is it written? what is the point of "writing it" if it's not available to the general public. the goal of deconstructing Islam, is not some isolated scholarly pursuit, it is an active societal level objective so that common people can understand it and replicate at their own level of understanding. if it's secret, and hidden under classified info, what is the point? who is reading it? and how will it be useful?



If this is in response to my post then I am talking about J&K. Why would a diplomat "deconstruct Islam" to the Americans?
The idea was to defeat the agenda in Kashmir and I am saying a lot has been done in response to Varoon's point that nothing
was done.


Each time it was done - the theologian connections and the theological institutional connection - both inside Pak as well as in ME and so-called friendly Gulf countries as well as within India as supported by externals - were not really raised from the ideological position. The basic fact that as longt a sthe ideological sources remained active - with petro-money and western support solidly behind those theological institutional mechanism, the Paki moves in J&K will never stop -was not raised.

It was always presented as specifically a slumabad and regime problem by the Indian side - not the ideological one. There wa sno need to deconstruct Islam - but deconstructing the Paki move with its Islamist core agenda would have explained far better the Paki moves to come in the future. This was not done.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Mar 2012 02:29 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27
Posts: 4707
supratik ji,

when I said "deconstructing Islam", I meant the Paki case where the Paki regime specifically uses the theology and the theology backed networks to do its deeds. this is where we need to directly point out that the theology itself is used as the backbone by he Paki regime to fund its propaganda and activities.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Mar 2012 04:20 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Mar 2010 04:12
Posts: 291
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8gvVMDj ... re=related

I came across this in youtube. If posted previously then I apologize. Says he left islam and reverted back to being hindu.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Mar 2012 09:00 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38018
Quote:
Western Survival Depends on Western Pride

by David J. Rusin
FrontPageMagazine.com
March 28, 2012

http://www.meforum.org/3199/western-survival-france
Print Send RSS Share: Facebook Twitter Google +1
Be the first of your friends to like this.

Claude Guéant, the French interior minister, sparked a firestorm last month when he praised Western values as "superior" to the oppressive ones found elsewhere, namely the Islamic world. Yet the controversy did more to spotlight an area in which the West clearly trails its rivals: self-confidence. If a government official cannot extol the unique virtues of freedom and equality that define Western life without being cast as a bigot by the politically correct, how can they be safeguarded against the highly motivated forces of Islamism, which doubt neither the superiority of their own principles nor the righteousness of imposing them on others?

"Contrary to what the left's relativist ideology says, for us, all civilizations are not of equal value," Guéant, a member of President Nicolas Sarkozy's Union for a Popular Movement, told a conference on February 4. "Those which defend humanity seem to us to be more advanced than those that do not," he averred. "Those which defend liberty, equality, and fraternity seem to us superior to those which accept tyranny, the subservience of women, social and ethnic hatred" — a truth that would be hammered home a month and a half later by a jihadist murdering Jewish children in Toulouse. Thus, Guéant underscored the need to "protect our civilization."

The response from the aforementioned relativists was swift and hostile, led by the Socialist Party of François Hollande, the apparent frontrunner in this spring's presidential race. Pierre Moscovici, Hollande's campaign chief, called Guéant's observations "a premeditated, willful, conscious gesture" to secure rightist votes for Sarkozy. He is "targeting Muslims," Moscovici added. Prominent Socialist Harlem Désir condemned Guéant's words as a "pitiful provocation" reflecting his party's supposed "moral decline." Hollande spokesman Bernard Cazeneuve accused Guéant of attempting to "hierarchize humanity," while the Young Socialist Movement decried his speech as "xenophobic and racist." Serge Letchimy, representing Martinique in the National Assembly of France, went farthest of all when he addressed Guéant in parliament, saying, "You bring us back day after day to those European ideologies which gave birth to the concentration camps."

To their credit, Guéant stood by his remarks and Sarkozy supported him. "Obvious words to note that not all civilizations have the same worth regarding the humanist values that are ours," Guéant later explained to Le Figaro. "Who can contest that there is a difference in values between a civilization that favors democracy, protects individual liberties … promotes the rights of women, and a civilization that accepts tyranny, accords no importance to liberties, and does not respect equal rights between men and women?" Many people, it seems.

Guéant is hardly the first politician to be raked over the coals for touting the exemplary characteristics of the West and shining a negative light, directly or indirectly, on Islam. Indeed, the row recalls one that erupted days after 9/11 when Silvio Berlusconi, Italy's prime minister at the time, maintained: "We must be aware of the superiority of our civilization, a system that has guaranteed well-being, respect for human rights, and — in contrast with Islamic countries — respect for religious and political rights." The reaction was fierce. Belgium's prime minister cautioned that such "dangerous" language "could feed a feeling of humiliation" among Muslims, an Italian opposition leader chided Berlusconi for "using terms that no statesman worthy of the name has used," and another likened him to Osama bin Laden. Berlusconi quickly backtracked, with his office citing his "deep respect for Islam, a great religion … which preaches tolerance" and "respect of human rights."

Of course, the political figure best known for bluntly comparing the Western and Islamic worlds while suffering the establishment's wrath is Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders. "We will have to end cultural relativism," he stressed in Rome last year. "To the multiculturalists, we must proudly proclaim: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Only when we are convinced of that, we will be willing to fight for our own identity."

The ancient military thinker Sun Tzu taught that victory in any conflict is achieved by understanding not merely one's adversary, but also oneself. Applied to the struggle against Islamism, this starts with Westerners grasping that which they are charged with preserving: a unique cultural patrimony — born in Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem and nurtured during the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and American Revolution — that sustains the freest and most prosperous civilization in the historical record.

Yet as the response to Guéant demonstrates, appreciation of this Western "self" has grown thin in many circles. Due to "post-modernism, moral relativism, and multiculturalism, the West has lost all self-confidence in its own values, and seems incapable and unwilling to defend those values," argues Ibn Warraq, author of Why the West Is Best. "By contrast, resurgent Islam, in all its forms, is supremely confident, and is able to exploit the West's moral weakness and cultural confusion to demand ever more concessions from her."

Warraq declares that if their system is to endure, Westerners must acknowledge that "the great ideas of the West — rationalism, self-criticism, the disinterested search for truth, the separation of church and state, the rule of law and equality under the law, freedom of thought and expression, human rights, and liberal democracy — are superior to any others devised by humankind." Likewise, it is critical to compare Western ideals to those of the Islamists, which are antithetical to liberty and increasingly threaten it. A glance at how women and minorities are treated by strict Islamic law is sufficient to expose multiculturalism's "lie that all cultures are worthy of equal respect and equally embracing of individual freedom and democracy," to quote reformist Muslim Salim Mansur.

The advance of Islamism can be checked only if the West unabashedly reasserts its core values. As feminist icon Phyllis Chesler warns in her review of Warraq's book, liberalization of the Islamic world "will never happen unless Westerners engage in the most spirited defense of Western freedoms," because "this is the best way we can strengthen our like-minded allies who are trapped in theologically fundamentalist Muslim countries." The same vigor is required at home to reverse deleterious multicultural policies that have fostered extremism, not integration. David Cameron, the British prime minister, has contended that the remedy involves "less of the passive tolerance of recent years and a much more active, muscular liberalism" that "believes in certain values and actively promotes them. … It says to its citizens, this is what defines us as a society: to belong here is to believe in these things."

At the very least, governments need to draw a clear line between Western principles that will not be surrendered and Islamist ones that will not be tolerated. Hints of the requisite approach are seen in Canada's citizenship guide, which states that the country's "openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices" such as honor violence and female genital mutilation, and the German interior minister's recent comments that "those who reject freedom and democracy have no future here."

Jihadists' ultimate success or failure at "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within" and institutionalizing Islam in its place, a goal enunciated by the Muslim Brotherhood, depends more on the West than the Islamists. It will never come to pass unless it is facilitated by a slow-motion cultural suicide at the hands of leftist elites who insist that no society is better than any other, downgrade their own civilization's accomplishments, do nothing to protect the West, and smear anybody who contradicts them.

Will the decades ahead be shaped by unapologetic pride in the West's objectively superior system, as voiced by Claude Guéant? Or will the mindset of his critics prevail, thus sapping morale, projecting weakness, emboldening Islamists, and accelerating the decay? If the former, the West will survive — because it will have chosen survival. If the latter, the new barbarians will not have to climb over the gates as in days of yore; they will simply stroll through the ones opened for them by Western apathy.

David J. Rusin is a research fellow at Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.



Someone needs to write a similar way about Hinduism and the rest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Mar 2012 11:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 6889
akashganga wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8gvVMDj0Xs&feature=related

I came across this in youtube. If posted previously then I apologize. Says he left islam and reverted back to being hindu.


Akash, suggest you delete this post, this is not a religion thread or a religion bashing thread, it is only about misuse of religion and extreme actions performed, exterme views and phobias faced by adherents to a religion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Mar 2012 13:48 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Posts: 1888
Location: USA
devesh wrote:
supratik ji,

when I said "deconstructing Islam", I meant the Paki case where the Paki regime specifically uses the theology and the theology backed networks to do its deeds. this is where we need to directly point out that the theology itself is used as the backbone by he Paki regime to fund its propaganda and activities.


The fact that Kashmir was a jihad and not an independence movement was also done. It was in the late 90s that Frank Pallone and Gary Ackerman, leaders of the Indian caucus, started saying the same. How do you think that happened? In fact how do you think the India caucus came into being in the first place? There are many Indians, Indian-Americans and members of the Indian establishment who are patriotic and doing their job. Those who are saying that "nothing was done" are not aware of what has been or is being done. Unless you think India can put a gun to the US's head there are limitations to what you can achieve. The US position has changed from subtly suggesting that India should give up Kashmir in the early 90s to mid 90s to it is an issue between India-Pakistan in the late 90s to indifference/complete silence now. Do you think the CIA had no knowledge about Fai's operation when everyone else thought the same right in the 90s? It has been a 20 year process where many Indians were involved backed by the Indian establishment and helped by various geo-political events and in the face of opposition from pro-Pakistan and leftist lobbies.

brihaspati,

Those are scholarly issues to be dealt with in a different context.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Mar 2012 18:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Posts: 12183
There is nothing scholarly or unscholarly about this. I clearly distinguished between decosntructing the ideology and the institutional role of that ideology as very very concretely relevant for KV Islamism and terrorism and Paki moves.

There is an institutional component that is very much inseparable from the situation on the ground - and which was never brought up in the discussions you mention - because the representatives of the Indian regime and admin were constantly on their tiptoes not to appear not-Islamophile. The theology was oh so good - none of their formal institutional good-boys were basically a mechanism to sustain the capacity for future genocide and were one way or the other sustaining the shenanigans on the ground - onlee a few army jingos and a government and a secret service - that it.


Indian "weighty" voices as supported by the regime - was aleays at great pains to disjoint the institutional forms from the terrorism, for fear of their onw internal political equations. There is no point in denying this.

No point either to swing into "scholarly" labels.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Mar 2012 19:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47
Posts: 773
If a European is to be India's de facto ruler, I would prefer Pat Condell over the Shroud. Man this piece is brilliant!!

http://dotsub.com/media/b5ee5ada-5b37-4b0b-9916-e0896337ec4b/embed/eng


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Mar 2012 19:56 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Posts: 1888
Location: USA
brihaspati wrote:
because the representatives of the Indian regime and admin were constantly on their tiptoes not to appear not-Islamophile.



The strategy was to get the job done without appearing Islamophobe. This was necessary as there was a vociferous campaign
going on in the US by leftists and others of "Hindu fascism" taking the world over soon. There were many articles in respectable American media about how Indian-Americans and middle class Indians were hardcore supporters of Hindu fascists. So the strategy was correct.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Mar 2012 20:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26
Posts: 1057
Supratik: "The strategy was to get the job done without appearing Islamophobe."

The word 'phobia', to repeat, is wholly inappropriate here. Who are Americans and Europeans to judge Indians on the approach to Islamist separatism and violence. Again, let the Americans and Europeans face a violent Islamic movement on their soil first. If they handle the matter with more maturity and balance than India has shown( and India has shown considerable poise and maturity) by all means India can learn from, or be inspired by, their example. Otherwise, their outpourings sound like so much imperious, unprincipled barking and gassing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Mar 2012 21:53 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Posts: 1888
Location: USA
I said given the situation the strategy was correct. Given that the Americans are the primary backers of Pak and are a superpower the extent of their involvement matters. Those who are aware of the situation in the 90s would know how bad the health of the military and economy was. So you wouldn't want a superpower to get involved. The Indian establishment knew that. Hence, great efforts were
put into this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Mar 2012 21:59 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27
Posts: 4707
Supratik ji,

I don't know about Ackerman and the other guy talking about Paki Jihad. even if they did, it probably was on the lines of "pak is sponsoring Jihad". I don't see any references where they make a direct connection between Islamic theology and the Paki Jihad.

and when you say "not appearing as Islamophobe", that pretty much proves the point: successive Indian govts have never been interested in exploring, let alone pointing out, the link between Islamic theology and the activities of Paki Jihad. "appearing as Islamophobe" is an excuse which justifies this inaction.

and are you sure the US has given up on Kashmir? that's a stretch. there is a still a steady stream of "scholarly articles" from authors who are bigshots in US establishment, which keep advocating that "India needs to be more open about Kashmir". No, Kashmir is still on the table. they haven't given up on that yet. by detaching Kashmir, India becomes a glorified poodle. sure, all the 10% growth will continue, but ultimately it won't be translated into strategic and geopolitical success or "expansion".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Mar 2012 22:08 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38018
pgbhat wrote:
Talking about divorces, deobandi jokers are at it again. :roll:
Drunk hubby says ‘divorce’ thrice, Deoband says it’s valid
Quote:
“Three talaqs took place on your sister and she became haram for her husband...talaq takes place by mobile and in the state of drunkenness,” the seminary said in its answer.

Implying that the “talaq” was irrevocable even though the husband was now feeling guilty and wanted to continue to live with her, the seminary said that the divorced woman would have to marry some one else after the “iddah” (the three month period, a woman must observe after a divorce during which she cannot marry another man) was over.

“If the second husband dies or he divorces her after having marital relations then after completing iddah she may marry her first husband,” the seminary said further in the “fatwa”.



I though the book says one has to be in sound mind while declaring talaq.

Also above advice given to the Safavid Shah of Persia made him turn Shia in the late 1400s.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Mar 2012 22:34 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Posts: 1888
Location: USA
devesh wrote:

I don't know about Ackerman and the other guy talking about Paki Jihad. even if they did, it probably was on the lines of "pak is sponsoring Jihad". I don't see any references where they make a direct connection between Islamic theology and the Paki Jihad.

and when you say "not appearing as Islamophobe", that pretty much proves the point: successive Indian govts have never been interested in exploring, let alone pointing out, the link between Islamic theology and the activities of Paki Jihad. "appearing as Islamophobe" is an excuse which justifies this inaction.

and are you sure the US has given up on Kashmir? that's a stretch. there is a still a steady stream of "scholarly articles" from authors who are bigshots in US establishment, which keep advocating that "India needs to be more open about Kashmir". No, Kashmir is still on the table. they haven't given up on that yet. by detaching Kashmir, India becomes a glorified poodle. sure, all the 10% growth will continue, but ultimately it won't be translated into strategic and geopolitical success or "expansion".



American establishment don't care about "deconstructing Islam" unless it somehow affects them. Otherwise they wouldn't have initiated and backed the Afghan jihad. As I have already said it has been a collective effort of 20 years by GOI and his friends. So
the accusation of "inaction" is incorrect. The US strategy currently i.e. post-9/11 is to not back jihad anywhere. However, it could change if the geo-political situation changes. The recent arrest of Fai suggests that they are currently disinterested. There primary concern has shifted to stabilizing Afghanistan and saving Pakistan from collapse. They have been in bed with Pakis for 60 years. So there are many pro-Pak elements in the establishment. So you will hear there voices from time to time. Doesn't mean we should slacken in future.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Mar 2012 22:47 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38018
Devesh, What do you know about deconstruction theory? Its by Jaques Derrida.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Mar 2012 23:23 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27
Posts: 4707
ramana garu, not much.

supratik ji,
once again, you are quoting the "deconstructing Islam" out of context. My point was that Indian babus have not done enough to directly point out the links between Islamic theology and Paki Jihadism. all this of course, doesn't mean that US would have done anything even if Indians did all that. My original point was to not lambast "lazy" Indians for "not doing enough", b/c US/UK policy of supporting Islamism goes back a long time. but that doesn't mean that Indian establishment shouldn't do its job in explaining the problem to its own people. and this is where the "establishment", including the policy babus, has failed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Mar 2012 23:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27
Posts: 4707
Supratik wrote:

American establishment don't care about "deconstructing Islam" unless it somehow affects them. Otherwise they wouldn't have initiated and backed the Afghan jihad. As I have already said it has been a collective effort of 20 years by GOI and his friends. So
the accusation of "inaction" is incorrect. The US strategy currently i.e. post-9/11 is to not back jihad anywhere. However, it could change if the geo-political situation changes. The recent arrest of Fai suggests that they are currently disinterested. There primary concern has shifted to stabilizing Afghanistan and saving Pakistan from collapse. They have been in bed with Pakis for 60 years. So there are many pro-Pak elements in the establishment. So you will hear there voices from time to time. Doesn't mean we should slacken in future.



"not backing Jihad anywhere" this is yet to be seen. by the tenor of reports emerging about US "talks with 'good' Taliban", it is pretty clear that US doesn't consider rabid Jihadism a threat. there is no such thing called 'good taliban'. yet, US is walking that line. US is quite happy, it seems, to back Jihad as long as there is a promise of Jihad not reaching its shores.

I don't share your optimism on Kashmir. I think the voices which start singing "kashmir" are real and prevalent. and are waiting for the right time. US exit from Af-Pak is a prelude to he reemergence of "Kashmir" topic. once they are out of here, they will bring up Kashmir again. this is typical Brit backstabbing behavior and America has adopted it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Mar 2012 23:39 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Posts: 1888
Location: USA
devesh wrote:
supratik ji,
once again, you are quoting the "deconstructing Islam" out of context. My point was that Indian babus have not done enough to directly point out the links between Islamic theology and Paki Jihadism. all this of course, doesn't mean that US would have done anything even if Indians did all that. My original point was to not lambast "lazy" Indians for "not doing enough", b/c US/UK policy of supporting Islamism goes back a long time. but that doesn't mean that Indian establishment shouldn't do its job in explaining the problem to its own people. and this is where the "establishment", including the policy babus, has failed.


Given that India is a "secular" country babus wouldn't be able to do it. But individuals and organizations have done it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Mar 2012 23:41 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Posts: 1888
Location: USA
devesh wrote:

"not backing Jihad anywhere" this is yet to be seen. by the tenor of reports emerging about US "talks with 'good' Taliban", it is pretty clear that US doesn't consider rabid Jihadism a threat. there is no such thing called 'good taliban'. yet, US is walking that line. US is quite happy, it seems, to back Jihad as long as there is a promise of Jihad not reaching its shores.

I don't share your optimism on Kashmir. I think the voices which start singing "kashmir" are real and prevalent. and are waiting for the right time. US exit from Af-Pak is a prelude to he reemergence of "Kashmir" topic. once they are out of here, they will bring up Kashmir again. this is typical Brit backstabbing behavior and America has adopted it.



Yes, as I said all this could change given the geo-political context of American interests. So we need to be vigilant.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Mar 2012 23:54 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38018
In GDF will start a thread on Deconstruction Theory so we can learn.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Mar 2012 00:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Posts: 12183
supratik ji,
you had insisted that "action" had been taken specifically in the direction that I had asked clarification about and my question was very specific : was the Islamic theological institutional connection to Paki and KV Islamist terrorism ever pointed out in representations and engaging the US/western estbalishment by GOI and GOI-weighted voices? Your posts avoided answering this specific question.

I showed you clearly why the west [from where this discussion originally started off - re the German] would be able to use every logic that you put forward - if you had disjointed the theology and its genocidic intent - and concentrated onlee on the Paki gov and ISI. Now you do acknowledge that the fear of appearing Islamophobe [I say fear of not appearing Islamophile] would have prevented showing connection.

Why is it so great a problem for you to recognize that - if not appearing Islamophile was such a disaster, and therefore it was soo important to concentrate onlee on the slumabad gov and its military and secret services and disjoint the theological institutional support that sustains Paki and KV terrorism irrespective of regime changes in slumabad - while at the same time giving full support to all the Indian leftist and not-so-leftits voices that vilified the majority community and laid all original sin that started off the Islamist movement apparently at the hand sof that majority community - the west can take all that from GOI and affiliates, and logically say that KV Islamists and Pak are justified in what they want?

GOI has consistently allowed legitimization of Islamist voices and demands internally and externally. Fai for example had been in the good company of intellects from India known otherwise as liberal, progressive, secular ? Why do you fail to mention that the west originally blasted both the Hindu and the Muslim - and their selective blasting of the Hindu and favouring the Muslim started off in earnest with the ammunition provided by the vicious campaigns of slective historical lying and whitewashing by regime blessed intellectuals like the Thaparites?

Post WWII, the main material support for Islamism and justifying or legitimizing Islamism on the subcontinent - directly or indirectly has been going on under Thaparites academically and congrez-cpi-leftits in the political domain. They took great care to make the theology guiltless, and in the process obscured the fundamental driving factor behind Paki or Islamist terrrorism everywhere on the subcontinent - the theological institutional process that preserves the necessary memes to mobilize jihad.

It is not about tactical hiding or highlighting. Diplomacy is also about the constant ideological struggle to overturn the "other's" claims and make him doubt and establish your own ideas - as subversive as possible.

The strategy was not correct. It was undertaken under a tight political party control over protecting appeasement of Islamism for domestic political concerns. Also hiding the regimes own role in sponsoring the myths of a guiltless and peaceful-intent institutional theology is inexcusable. The west would look for such stuff - and GOI provided it.

Not recognizing one's own faults may help the ego - but does not help the nation to realize and seek the correct path.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Mar 2012 09:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Posts: 14820
Location: Deepest & Highest
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/world ... wanted=all
After Killings in France, Muslims Fear a Culture of Diversity Is at Risk
Quote:
TOULOUSE, France — As near to the Spanish border as it is to the Mediterranean, this sunny red-brick city has long been known as a place of welcome and diversity, far removed from the divisive politics of Paris. In contrast to much of the French south, the far right, with its virulent anti-immigrant stance, has little presence here. Nor does radical Islam.The seven brutal killings carried out this month by Mr. Merah — a 23-year-old son of Toulouse, and a professed jihadi — occurred during a divisive presidential race that had already turned toward questions of immigration and Islam. Even though investigators say Mr. Merah was effectively a lone, self-radicalized extremist, his violent ideology fits closely with some French stereotypes of Islam, and Muslims here fear that the tensions brought on by the murders may prove more lasting. “All of this does not correspond at all with what Toulouse is,” Pierre Cohen, the mayor, said of the killings. But “we’ve just come out of a very tense period,” he said. “Unfortunately, this risk exists.” Already, a false rumor has spread through the city, Mr. Cohen said, suggesting that Muslims were organizing a demonstration in defense of Mr. Merah. “Muslim leaders have denounced such attempts to exploit the killings politically. In a statement shortly after Mr. Merah’s death last week, Mohammed Moussaoui, the president of the French Council for the Muslim Faith, asked that the term “Islamism” be abandoned because it “feeds the confusion between Islam and terrorism and brings suffering to millions of Muslims who feel it important to defend the dignity of their faith and their religion.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Mar 2012 13:04 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Posts: 1888
Location: USA
brihaspati wrote:
supratik ji,
you had insisted that "action" had been taken specifically in the direction that I had asked clarification about and my question was very specific : was the Islamic theological institutional connection to Paki and KV Islamist terrorism ever pointed out in representations and engaging the US/western estbalishment by GOI and GOI-weighted voices? Your posts avoided answering this specific question.

I showed you clearly why the west [from where this discussion originally started off - re the German] would be able to use every logic that you put forward - if you had disjointed the theology and its genocidic intent - and concentrated onlee on the Paki gov and ISI. Now you do acknowledge that the fear of appearing Islamophobe [I say fear of not appearing Islamophile] would have prevented showing connection.

Why is it so great a problem for you to recognize that - if not appearing Islamophile was such a disaster, and therefore it was soo important to concentrate onlee on the slumabad gov and its military and secret services and disjoint the theological institutional support that sustains Paki and KV terrorism irrespective of regime changes in slumabad - while at the same time giving full support to all the Indian leftist and not-so-leftits voices that vilified the majority community and laid all original sin that started off the Islamist movement apparently at the hand sof that majority community - the west can take all that from GOI and affiliates, and logically say that KV Islamists and Pak are justified in what they want?

GOI has consistently allowed legitimization of Islamist voices and demands internally and externally. Fai for example had been in the good company of intellects from India known otherwise as liberal, progressive, secular ? Why do you fail to mention that the west originally blasted both the Hindu and the Muslim - and their selective blasting of the Hindu and favouring the Muslim started off in earnest with the ammunition provided by the vicious campaigns of slective historical lying and whitewashing by regime blessed intellectuals like the Thaparites?

Post WWII, the main material support for Islamism and justifying or legitimizing Islamism on the subcontinent - directly or indirectly has been going on under Thaparites academically and congrez-cpi-leftits in the political domain. They took great care to make the theology guiltless, and in the process obscured the fundamental driving factor behind Paki or Islamist terrrorism everywhere on the subcontinent - the theological institutional process that preserves the necessary memes to mobilize jihad.

It is not about tactical hiding or highlighting. Diplomacy is also about the constant ideological struggle to overturn the "other's" claims and make him doubt and establish your own ideas - as subversive as possible.

The strategy was not correct. It was undertaken under a tight political party control over protecting appeasement of Islamism for domestic political concerns. Also hiding the regimes own role in sponsoring the myths of a guiltless and peaceful-intent institutional theology is inexcusable. The west would look for such stuff - and GOI provided it.

Not recognizing one's own faults may help the ego - but does not help the nation to realize and seek the correct path.



I don't make policy decisions. I am just explaining that something was done and why it was done. If you read my posts above I have already explained why it was not officially possible to talk about Islamic theology but that it has also been done unofficially. The fight with Thaparites is an internal one and should not be confused with foreign policy and policy within a foreign country.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Mar 2012 14:56 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Oct 2011 09:42
Posts: 741
Location: posted at one of the dozens of Indian consulates in Afghanistan
Quote:
what we have seen in Bradford West is voting along religious lines: we have sectarianism in England now.
Nigel Farage tweets
Nigel Farage - about me

I urge British govt. to open their gates so that more Pakis can migrate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Mar 2012 16:32 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 22505
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
Jhujar wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/world/europe/in-toulouse-muslims-fear-diversity-is-at-risk.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
After Killings in France, Muslims Fear a Culture of Diversity Is at Risk
Quote:
Mohammed Moussaoui, the president of the French Council for the Muslim Faith, asked that the term “Islamism” be abandoned because it “feeds the confusion between Islam and terrorism and brings suffering to millions[/b] of Muslims who feel it important to defend the dignity of their faith and their religion.”


I agree with this. There is only one word to use and that is Islam. That prevents people from saying "islamism" when they are talking about terrorism and killing by Muslims in the name of Islam, while using Islam when they are talking about non terroristic things.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Mar 2012 19:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Posts: 12183
Supratik wrote:
I don't make policy decisions. I am just explaining that something was done and why it was done. If you read my posts above I have already explained why it was not officially possible to talk about Islamic theology but that it has also been done unofficially. The fight with Thaparites is an internal one and should not be confused with foreign policy and policy within a foreign country.


You are not only trying to explain why something was done - you have studiously avoided engaging the specific question I have been consistently putting to you - that if you disjoint theology from action on and reality on ground, and yet complain about Pak, you are giving all the reasons to the west to turn around your complain aginst you and justify Paki demands.

You claim that showing the institutional and theological connection would be equal to appearing Islamophobe and that would immediately provide US excuse to blatantly intervene on Paki side. This is your claim and perhaps the GOI regime specific representation with absolutely no concrete evidence in support.

This is the specious deception that Indian foreign policy and diplomacy usually performs on its own people - by which GOI or the party behind's own domestic political concerns are covered up under such excuses, and diplomats or foreign services obviously have done their own bit in helping GOI to do that - as seen from your studious refusal to engage my question.

Even when I show you repeatedly the interconnections between theological institutional islamism, jihad, Paki terror and KV terror and Paki territorial claims and KV separatism, Thaparite whitewashing of Islamism and vilification of majority community, and congrez-leftie type skullduggery, and western response to and use of all those factors together against India - you will still try to separate them out and try to make them stand out as isolated and unrelated factors.

If this is how the Indian Foriegn Policy brain has been working to serve the political ends of their domestic masters - no wonder that Pakis stay always one step ahead, and always manage to maintain their pure demands for pure terrritory and pure justifications for pure genocide of the non-Muslim.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2012 01:27 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Posts: 1888
Location: USA
brihaspati wrote:
You are not only trying to explain why something was done - you have studiously avoided engaging the specific question I have been consistently putting to you - that if you disjoint theology from action on and reality on ground, and yet complain about Pak, you are giving all the reasons to the west to turn around your complain aginst you and justify Paki demands.


You are not reading my posts carefully. I have already said that a lot of things have been done within the US since the 90s and that the issues of institutional Islamist terror machinery, kashmir jihad and Pak state terror machinery have been raised consistently since the 90s during the NDA, JD and INC regimes. The fact that the Americans ignored it before 9/11 was not because the Indians did not try.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2012 03:38 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Posts: 12183
^^^Again you are carefully avoiding the issue of theological institutional connection. Of course ISI is an institution or Jamat ud Dawa is an institution. But their theological drive was not shouted about - that it was their religion which drove their hatred for India and it wa stheir religious long term objective for conquest and genocide - which was never highlighted.

As such mere institutional drives are connected in perception to specific personnel or individuals and their hatred. The mechanism of regeneration of this hatred and the tactical lines it would take in any given situation would be driven by their theological conditioining - and would be a much better predictor of Paki or KV Islamist behaviour.

If that connection was not hammered into the debate - the US would find it polemically easy to turn Indian arguments around to appeasement of individuals and institutions. Insisting on the theological drive would counter that argument since no amount of appeasement of individuals and institutions would stop sustained jihad from such societies and that needs a different policy outline altogether.

That the Americans have not really been convinced or told about the theological drive is amply apparent in their own dealings with the theology on its own soil. They simply do not understand the true nature of the theology - not even after 9/11. Just like a lot of Indian intellectual jackdaws whom other jackdaws proclaimed to be marvellous peacocks - US intelligentsia and politically connected intellect - has been largely in self-delusion mode.

Indian over-cleverness and Islamophilia actually helped reinforce western self-delusion where it could have sown the seeds of doubt if it seriosuly tried.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2012 08:22 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31
Posts: 4270
Location: Tejo Mahalaya
UQ:
Girl Scouts accommodate Muslim girl clothing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2012 09:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 22505
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
Carl wrote:

Twiggy ain't in fashion no more is she?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2012 10:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Posts: 14820
Location: Deepest & Highest
MUSLIM WOMEN PREVENTED FROM LEAVING FLOWERS AT MOHAMED MERAH'S CHILDHOOD
They Intended it as gesture to restore the dignity of uslim Community . :shock:
France is supressing free expression of Islamic values.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2012 13:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Posts: 1888
Location: USA
brihaspati wrote:
^^^Again you are carefully avoiding the issue of theological institutional connection. Of course ISI is an institution or Jamat ud Dawa is an institution. But their theological drive was not shouted about - that it was their religion which drove their hatred for India and it wa stheir religious long term objective for conquest and genocide - which was never highlighted.


No Govt unless from fundamentalist countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia would discuss religious theology in such circles e.g. when a third consul from the Indian consulate meets a Congressman or a Senator in a forum they are not going to discuss which ayat of Quran preaches violence against non-Muslims. Similarly at a fund raising dinner by a Indian-American group for a particular politician no one is going to discuss how many Jews Muhammad killed or the ideology of Maududi or Sirhindi or Rehmat Ali. Either you don't know how these things work or you are expecting too much.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2012 19:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Posts: 12183
Supratik wrote:
brihaspati wrote:
^^^Again you are carefully avoiding the issue of theological institutional connection. Of course ISI is an institution or Jamat ud Dawa is an institution. But their theological drive was not shouted about - that it was their religion which drove their hatred for India and it wa stheir religious long term objective for conquest and genocide - which was never highlighted.


No Govt unless from fundamentalist countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia would discuss religious theology in such circles e.g. when a third consul from the Indian consulate meets a Congressman or a Senator in a forum they are not going to discuss which ayat of Quran preaches violence against non-Muslims. Similarly at a fund raising dinner by a Indian-American group for a particular politician no one is going to discuss how many Jews Muhammad killed or the ideology of Maududi or Sirhindi or Rehmat Ali. Either you don't know how these things work or you are expecting too much.


There are ample means of discussing it when a liquid fuelled informal extension or even the formal core sits down. If role of saffron can be turned up by the "others" in such discussions - why do Indian counterparts simply nod in red-faced acknowledgment? The TFTA's take every opportunity to bring up the role of majority community ideology - subtly or directly - and foreign service or politicos simply agree without ever bringing up corresponding counters for the Islamic. There are ways and means of introducing this angle whenever the talk of KV comes up. IFS cadre simply refrains from it, and this comes from unwritten and sometime explicit instruction never to "hurt" Islamism proper in any possible way.

I am speaking from experience. In those situations where external expertise is mixed in - contrary voices along the line sof what I am speaking of, if at all, are invited in by TFTA's and not the Indian side - who try their best to intimidate such voices. It is all about intense need to appear Islamophile, and nothing else.

I was first involved some six years ago (even after 9/11 when TFTA's had every reason to drop their shenanigans and were genuinely looking for rhetorical points to use in their own internal fights over policy - Indians were desperate to protect the actual role of Islam)- and even then I saw how hard official Indians tried to put down exposure of the Islamist theological connection from the contrary note. Even now I constantly hear surprise from TFTA's about how official Indian voices deny the role of theology in the strategic and tactical development of Paki and KV terror and long term objectives.

I have found it easier to argue and put doubts in TFTA minds than those in official Indian representations.

Please do not try to cover up the vicious political role played by the Indian establishement in favour of Islamism and especially trying to clear the theology and its institutional role in terror.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2012 22:58 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Posts: 1888
Location: USA
brihaspati wrote:

There are ample means of discussing it when a liquid fuelled informal extension or even the formal core sits down. If role of saffron can be turned up by the "others" in such discussions - why do Indian counterparts simply nod in red-faced acknowledgment? The TFTA's take every opportunity to bring up the role of majority community ideology - subtly or directly - and foreign service or politicos simply agree without ever bringing up corresponding counters for the Islamic. There are ways and means of introducing this angle whenever the talk of KV comes up. IFS cadre simply refrains from it, and this comes from unwritten and sometime explicit instruction never to "hurt" Islamism proper in any possible way.

I am speaking from experience. In those situations where external expertise is mixed in - contrary voices along the line sof what I am speaking of, if at all, are invited in by TFTA's and not the Indian side - who try their best to intimidate such voices. It is all about intense need to appear Islamophile, and nothing else.

I was first involved some six years ago (even after 9/11 when TFTA's had every reason to drop their shenanigans and were genuinely looking for rhetorical points to use in their own internal fights over policy - Indians were desperate to protect the actual role of Islam)- and even then I saw how hard official Indians tried to put down exposure of the Islamist theological connection from the contrary note. Even now I constantly hear surprise from TFTA's about how official Indian voices deny the role of theology in the strategic and tactical development of Paki and KV terror and long term objectives.

I have found it easier to argue and put doubts in TFTA minds than those in official Indian representations.

Please do not try to cover up the vicious political role played by the Indian establishement in favour of Islamism and especially trying to clear the theology and its institutional role in terror.



There are certain things you cannot do officially as explained in my previous post. You have to come to accept it even if you disagree. Those things are done unofficially which is one of the reasons why Indian-Americans are called "Hindu fascist" sympathizers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Apr 2012 00:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Posts: 12183
Quote:
Supratik wrote
There are certain things you cannot do officially as explained in my previous post. You have to come to accept it even if you disagree. Those things are done unofficially which is one of the reasons why Indian-Americans are called "Hindu fascist" sympathizers.


Possible exposure and training in official "diplomacy" will make avoidance and bypassing pointed questions second nature.

"Cannot do officially" can entirely avoid saying that such "cannot" is officially and politically imposed by political bosses important for promotions and plum postings, or that there is insufficient intellectual capacity to at all manage exposure of Islamism to a hostile audience, or that there is secret admiration or sympathy for the theology itself.

As for Indian-Americans being specifically dubbed "Hindu fascist sympathizer" - the greater accusation about this comes from Indian-Indians. I know exactly when this cacophony started - and it was led by a group whose faces are often seen in the IHC and are known to be close to certain political circles long in central power. The US reflection of this cacophony started off after the desi pack started off - and it was by the US counterpart of the same historian-politico network. In fact the discourse within US is pretty divided over this and not the homogeneous "Hindu fascist" labelling that you are claiming. This labelling comes from desi sources.

Now - pray tell us - is being known as "Hindu fascist sympathizer" problematic? And exactly in what domain does it raise problems?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Apr 2012 09:33 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31
Posts: 5912
The scourge of Mohammadden terrorism visits Thailand.

Two Car bombs planted by “Muslim insurgents” kill 11 and wound 100:

Islamist car bombs kill 11 in Thailand


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Apr 2012 19:19 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Posts: 4224
Sheldon Adelson, billionaire backer of Newt Gingrich's candidacy for president:
http://youtu.be/2EjLCRlgmqw


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3964 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 ... 100  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: nageshks, Satya_anveshi, schinnas and 27 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group