Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 31 Oct 201

[shiv]

We've heard this and that too from Muslims too many times: 'Oh see, they are even killing Muslims'; 'Oh see they don't even discriminate if one is a Muslim' etc. We hear it in Sudan, in BD, in Pakistan, Afghanistan, in Libya everywhere.

Whoa harbans whoa!!Where? When? Please point me to admissions by Muslims that Muslims kill other Muslims? I am sure you should be able to find one such statement on the net and link it here..

[shiv]

These green-on-green start ONLY after there are no Green-on-<any other color>.

So in the period that we are talking about, clearly the theory of selective and differential approach holds -- at a macro level of course.

Are you saying that Muslims can and do kill Muslims, if you can get past this green blue yellow bullshit?

[Sanku]

These green-on-green start ONLY after there are no Green-on-<any other color>.

So in the period that we are talking about, clearly the theory of selective and differential approach holds -- at a macro level of course.

Are you saying that Muslims can and do kill Muslims, if you can get past this green blue yellow bullshit?

I could answer that if I could get past your rather offensive way of posing your question.

Please do note your being right many times, or my agreeing with you in the past, does not give you the right to be offensive now or to try and play your piskological games.

Now to answer your question -- did any one say that Muslims cant or wont kill other Muslims? I dont think anyone made that assertion, certainly not me, so I really dont know why you are asking that.

Assuming that you dont read my posts carefully -- let me quote something

Apparently there are written records clearly stating that Timur made a special effort to slaughter Hindus.

Not that he did not or would not kill Muslims. But clearly there was special love for Hindus.

Muslims get targeted only for not being pure enough AFTER all the Hindus are gone, and the population is sufficiently Islamicied that less than pure muslims can be identified.

Timur was a Muslim, I said that he would kill Muslims too. Ergo it is clear that I have already said (about 3 times now) -- that Muslims will kill muslims too.

However that is entirely not the point anyway is it -- the question is when, how many, under what conditions, scale etc etc.

[parsuram]

These green-on-green start ONLY after there are no Green-on-<any other color>.

So in the period that we are talking about, clearly the theory of selective and differential approach holds -- at a macro level of course.

Are you saying that Muslims can and do kill Muslims, if you can get past this green blue yellow bullshit?

Ya shiv ji - and how do you suppose they get to all that halal ziba good stuff. I no, shocking, but there it is.

[chaanakya]

We've heard this and that too from Muslims too many times: 'Oh see, they are even killing Muslims'; 'Oh see they don't even discriminate if one is a Muslim' etc. We hear it in Sudan, in BD, in Pakistan, Afghanistan, in Libya everywhere.

Whoa harbans whoa!!Where? When? Please point me to admissions by Muslims that Muslims kill other Muslims? I am sure you should be able to find one such statement on the net and link it here..

One I can point to at the risk of being piskoed by Shiv

However there are historical and contemporary accounts and happenings around us would provide ample examples of this.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/255704/yes- ... l-muslims/
By Daniyal Noorani

It is a sad fact, but Muslims have been killing Muslims from the early days of Islam. Out of the first four caliphs, three had Muslims involved in their murder, two of them were killed in a mosque and one was murdered while offering his prayers. The first Islamic Civil War, also called the first Fitna, started in 656, just 14 years after the Prophet Mohammad’s (pbuh) death and lasted for 5 years. A number of battles were fought during this period, in which scores of Muslims were killed by other Muslims. Unfortunately, there is precedent for Muslims killing Muslim in Islamic history.

[harbans]

However there are historical and contemporary accounts and happenings around us would provide ample examples of this.

Indeed there are plenty examples. I was only stating the obvious. What goes around. What one hears. The surprise the moderate or less pious has when he discovers Green on Green. For the more pious the less Pious is not a Muslim. For the moderate the question arises..how can a Muslim kill a non-Muslim. For the biographers of Muslim rampager's, there would be no way they would acknowledge killing of fellow muslims. Much the same way Qadri and his followers don't believe they killed a Muslim in Salman Taseer. Thus the documented self biographical evidence on green on green would be limited.

Whoa harbans whoa!!Where? When? Please point me to admissions by Muslims that Muslims kill other Muslims?

Muslims will rarely admit killing other Muslims. Taliban killing other Paki's don't consider them Muslims. Look at their statements. Thats why it's no big surprise that Muslims do kill one another. What is the moderate Muslim faction expressing surprise when that does happen..so often.

[shiv]

Are you saying that Muslims can and do kill Muslims, if you can get past this green blue yellow bullshit?

I could answer that if I could get past your rather offensive way of posing your question.

Sorry for being offensive, but it looked like you were shying away from calling a spade a spade. Muslims do kill Muslims. Regularly.

Fine. Once we get past that we get onto the next step.

Why do Muslims kill other Muslims? I thought Islam promises them freedom from all that. Nothing of the sort. Islam only scares the crap out of Muslims so they can't complain. They have to say "Religion of pace. Religion of tranquility. And try and show unity when they are in a mob.

Muslims need to look at their own religion which is far from perfect and throw out the bullshitting. As long as we back them up in the story that that religion really works we are only postponing the inevitable need to tell Muslims up front that Islam is a problem. It promise to kill Muslims who do not bullshit about Islam's greatness. Why are we backing up their story?

[RajeshA]

But sir Isn't that a whole lot of crock? Haven't we spent thousands of posts on BRF dissecting the way islam causes one man/group to dominate over others, using any schsim he can to kill fellow kafirs, opponents and Muslims alike? Muslim son kills father. Uncle kills nephew. Shia kills sunni. Sunni kills Ahmedi. Isn't that what we observe throughout out the Islamic world and islamic history? Where does all this gyan and analysis go? What on earth do we even discuss all that here for if we dismiss it in a trice? It is all Maya. We have already agreed that Islam is good. It works as advertised. Muslims favor Muslims. And Muslims agree with that.

I am asking you. is islam really as good as you make it out to be? It it really working as advertised - as you claim it to be when I argue that it is not? I say it is not. And there is no way that you can show that Islam is not as good and effective as you advertise it to be unless you are willing to admit that the buggers have no hesitation in killing each other.

Sorry OT.

Let's see if I too can get my point across.

1) In the one instance, Islam extols the pious to kill the Kafirs. This they do gladly and appropriate themselves of the victims valuables in the process - land, wealth and women, and sometimes freedom too.

2) In the second instance, Islam degenerates the humanity in the Muslim, such that he is tempted to kill, maim, rape, enslave any other human being including other Muslims. Islam does not condone that, but he does it nevertheless. In fact Islam does give him an indirect sanction to do so, due to the fact that Islam differentiates different levels of piety - the momeen, the munafiqeen, the murtads! Using such legalistic leeway the degenerate can justify their violence on other Muslims as well. And as the justification passes the test (of their own making), their actions are considered to be even in the interests of Islam.

The issue here is that the Islamic Pious need to avail of the second attitude only if they have no Kafir to prey upon! If there are Kafir around, their Islamic duty viz-a-viz the Kafir and their degenerate urges both can coincide in their choice of Kafir prey, which is the preferable target!

[shiv]

Muslims will rarely admit killing other Muslims. Taliban killing other Paki's don't consider them Muslims. Look at their statements. Thats why it's no big surprise that Muslims do kill one another. What is the moderate Muslim faction expressing surprise when that does happen..so often.

Do you believe that this is a human fault - because the killed people were really not good Muslims? Or is there a fundamental problem with Islam?

[harbans]

Do you believe that this is a human fault - because the killed people were really not good Muslims? Or is there a fundamental problem with Islam?

Of Course there is a fundamental flaw in the doctrine that promotes that behavior. It's all over the net.

[shiv]

The issue here is that the Islamic Pious need to avail of the second attitude only if they have no Kafir to prey upon! If there are Kafir around, their Islamic duty viz-a-viz the Kafir and their degenerate urges both can coincide in their choice of Kafir prey, which is the preferable target!

How do you make them see the truth in this? Do you do it by agreeing with their denial that they kill fellow Muslims and say they kill kafirs (which they agree with anyway), or by pointing out on their faces that they are liars.

[shiv]

Do you believe that this is a human fault - because the killed people were really not good Muslims? Or is there a fundamental problem with Islam?

Of Course there is a fundamental flaw in the doctrine that promotes that behavior. It's all over the net.

The doctrine has a name doesn't it? Islam is a religion that promotes murder of non Muslims and of Muslims who can be declared non Muslim or unfaithful just before being killed, raped or punished.

Why is it that we always harp on the part in italics and let Islam off the hook for violence as a religious requirement. We are basically letting Islam off the hook by not being honest and up front about the doctrine of murder that is being promoted as Islam. And we have the gumption to call all sorts of others as dhimmis.

[RajeshA]

The reason why Muslims do not want to revisit the phenomenon of Muslims killing other Muslims is because

a) Murtadi is accepted: They will have to admit to the non-Muslims that there are Muslims (victims) who were considered less than pious and as such had to be killed. As such it was the failure of Islam to instill the faith in the hearts of the Muslims.

b) They will have to admit that Muslims can be killed at all by other Muslims, when the pact was that by converting to Islam, the faithful would be exempt from such treatment.

c) Murtadi is not accepted: They will have to admit that there are Muslims who can illegitimately kill other Muslims. So the refrain is that "a Muslim cannot have committed such an act!".

d) They will have to admit that their society which ought to be governed by Shariah did not conduct a free and fair judicial process against those Muslims who were considered munafiqueen or murtads. Then there will be outside scrutiny of their legal process.

All are uncomfortable facts, so better not to comment upon them!

[shiv]

The reason why Muslims do not want to revisit the phenomenon of Muslims killing other Muslims is because

a) Murtadi is accepted: They will have to admit to the non-Muslims that there are Muslims (victims) who were considered less than pious and as such had to be killed. As such it was the failure of Islam to instill the faith in the hearts of the Muslims.

b) They will have to admit that Muslims can be killed at all by other Muslims, when the pact was that by converting to Islam, the faithful would be exempt from such treatment.

c) Murtadi is not accepted: They will have to admit that there are Muslims who can illegitimately kill other Muslims. So the refrain is that "a Muslim cannot have committed such an act!".

d) They will have to admit that their society which ought to be governed by Shariah did not conduct a free and fair judicial process against those Muslims who were considered munafiqueen or murtads. Then there will be outside scrutiny of their legal process.

All are uncomfortable facts, so better not to comment upon them!

Better for whom not to comment upon it?

[harbans]

The doctrine has a name doesn't it?

Yes Islam, aHadith, Bukhari, Ali, Muslim..the 'Hypocrite' (the muslim who didn't like waging war with Mohammed) was abused repeatedly by Mohammed himself as worse than the Kufr. They have been promised hell. So just praying 5 times a day and being plain pious doesn't match up to Allah's standards as given by Mohammed. This is not me saying this. This is in the doctrine itself. Even if 99% Muslims themselves are pious and peace loving a 1% who really acts the 'Dada' and forms a group of like minded will create havoc and unsettlement in society till it veers on the pious or literal part of interpretation of the doctrine. The Taliban in Pakistan are right. The GOP is not implementing Sharia. They are not executing blasphemers like Aisa Bibi. People like Taseer support the blasphemers. The Talib are outraged that Kufr have been allowed on their pious land by the GOP. That is the Hypocrite according to them and the literal interpretations of their Holy Books. Unless one goes after the doctrine itself, one cannot eliminate Terrorism emanating from the Islamic world. I thought that folks here understood that well. Would really like to know what you're driving at.

[shiv]

The doctrine has a name doesn't it?

Yes Islam, aHadith, Bukhari, Ali, Muslim..the 'Hypocrite' (the muslim who didn't like waging war with Mohammed) was abused repeatedly by Mohammed himself as worse than the Kufr. They have been promised hell. So just praying 5 times a day and being plain pious doesn't match up to Allah's standards as given by Mohammed. This is not me saying this. This is in the doctrine itself. Even if 99% Muslims themselves are pious and peace loving a 1% who really acts the 'Dada' and forms a group of like minded will create havoc and unsettlement in society till it veers on the pious or literal part of interpretation of the doctrine. The Taliban in Pakistan are right. The GOP is not implementing Sharia. They are not executing blasphemers like Aisa Bibi. People like Taseer support the blasphemers. The Talib are outraged that Kufr have been allowed on their pious land by the GOP. That is the Hypocrite according to them and the literal interpretations of their Holy Books. Unless one goes after the doctrine itself, one cannot eliminate Terrorism emanating from the Islamic world. I thought that folks here understood that well. Would really like to know what you're driving at.

Well we have mostly been insisting that Muslims have been killing non Muslims and protesting any suggestion that Muslims kill Muslims? What is the purpose of hiding facts about he violence of Islam? Muslims are forced to do that. But non Muslims? Why?

[harbans]

Muslims are forced to do that. But non Muslims? Why?

Shiv Ji, i have no clue why we should hide facts except..these i can post:

1. Fear.
2. Political correctness.
3. Ignorance.

Meanwhile a good link posted on the other thread..

I am not against Muslims. I condemn Islam with all its derivatives and those who support and promote it. Muslims are patients and Islam is a disease. You want to help the patients to rid themselves of the affliction. You want to eradicate a horrifically communicable disease. Although many prefer to tackle the militant version of Islam “Islamism,” for all intents and purposes, there is no sharp demarcation between, Islamists, Jihadists and Islamism. One and all are progeny of Islam itself. Any differences among the three are of degree and not kind. When one addresses Islamism and jihadism, their source is also addressed.

Regrettably, Islam cannot be reformed. Keep in mind that Islam claims it is the perfect eternal faith for mankind. Splits have occurred and will continue to occur in Islam. Yet, reformation has not happened in nearly 1400 years and is not going to happen. Islam is carved in granite, just the way it is. No change. Allah’s book is sealed.

In the monumental task of dealing with Islam and its variations, every individual, group and government must combine their resources and energies to prevail. We must urge all people to resist Islam’s encroachment and not be deceived by its sanitized version presented in non-Islamic lands. The destiny of civilized life hangs in the balance. Shirking of this responsibility would be an unpardonable act of every enlightened human being and organization that values human liberty and dignity.

http://amilimani.com/2011/11/islam-was- ... not-for-me

[parsuram]

shiv ji: I take it that by "we" you refer to a generic "we". I mean, most every one on this forum will agree emphatically that muslims kill muslims. And about all thinking, rational muslims (almost an oxymoron, but not quite - there are exceptions) - will just as emphatically lament that muslims kill more muslims than are killed by the rest of the world put together. The only problem is the main stream population of muslims, who justify killings of muslims based on some fatwa, some saying of their only book, and so on. The problem is that Islam, this pathetic so called religion sanctions killings. That alone gives a lie to the claims such as that islam means peace; islam is a religion of peace; muslim men can fly through the air; muslim women lay eggs every day; islam is a religion in the normally acceptable sense of the word; et cetera et cetra - we can keep adding more unbelievable statements here, they will all be eqally unbelievable. Here is the murder weapon: ISLAM SANCTIONS KILLINGS

[shiv]

There is a fear that we are playing into the hands of extremists if we stop saying that non Muslims are being killed and admit that Muslims are being killed.

We are not. By not pointing out the obvious contradiction of Islam we are protecting it and perpetuating the lies that are told. There are a series of lies that are told. "Islam is a religion of peace". It is not. "Islam respects women" It does not. "Islam promotes equality". It does not. "Islam promotes brotherhood of man" It does not. and so on..
When we stop short of pointing out Islams flaws and merely complain that "They" are killing "us" it allows Muslims to stick to their fiction.

"islam is the best religion on earth. very child is born Muslims but gets taken astray. Once you follow islam you get peace. You get equality. You get brotherhood. And women are respected. And yes, non Muslims are attacked, because they are against God. the solution is to join us. Join the brotherhood, Join Islam"

What is wrong with that? You know it. It's bullshit. But you can't say it unless you say it fully. Islam attacks and threatens Muslims so they just have to tell lies. As long as the whole groups sticks to the bluff, all is well. Anyone who leaves the bluff is killed.

That is why it is important not to tell half truths. Islam may be dangerous to non Muslims,. But it as violent with Muslims. It is a flawed faith that has come down through the ages. Muslims need to face up to that.

[Lalmohan]

certainly amongst christians sectarian violence was historically far more brutal and ugly than 'normal' violence - probably because it was driven by a special passion. perhaps the same is true for islam as well? religions based on exclusion must logically fight against those that are against the exclusion (and the excluded) but logic breaks down (and is replaced with passion) in the case of "traitors"
hinduism doesnt seem to suffer from this (particular) problem

[Prem]

Individuals Simply Love Acting Murderous and accepting such aspiration and practice as normal lower human standards,dignity and intellect. IMO, ours concern are limited to South Asia only. No one has seen, touched , experience ,learned or acted as per Final Deen of Man, Real Islam and at least i dont forsdee any one achieving suich perfection in next few milleniums. Its a perfect desert mirage ,playing games with weaker,mediocre minds. Instead of quenching the spiritual thirst it rely on killing the thirst and drying of human soul. Since the subject is under discussion i.e folks debating have not made up their mind and not come to conclusion , what's the solution. One , 2 or many solutions , in steps or simultaneous act of transformation like butterfly..

[Lalmohan]

i think the religious element is a mere smokescreen for a political (and power) aim. the mechanics of islam have evolved to provide any level of justification for a political act to be achieved, without any head scratching about higher moral truths. these mechanisms also act as motivators and justifications should the instruments of (violent) political change be reluctant in any way

looking at timur alone - until he invaded india quite late into his murderous career, he had been happily genociding the islamic people of the ottoman and safavid empires as well as assorted remnants of the chagatai khanate. he didn't hold back from torturerous murder of ottoman prisoners and the humiliation of the sultan. there was even something (from memory) about the ottomans sending forward a large "bribe" of "beardless young men" to satisfy the invaders, but these were mown down mercilessly as the timurids attacked.

his official war aims against india were to punish the shia munafiqeen and collateral ethnic cleansing of any kaffirs encountered. the real motives in my opinion were loot, plunder and keeping the boys busy with mayhem and slaughter to stop them fighting each other. his final invasion - that of china - halted in mid march when he died, and his successors immediately fell upon each other in a brutal civil war that saw the unravelling of his entire empire

the main reason that non-muslims like to gloss over muslim institutionalsied violence is that it is politically incorrect to talk about it. apparently we have all civilised ourselves such that these acts are heinous and unpalatable to us. surely, we reason - these muslim fellows are just like us, and would never really do such vile things, would they? we don't want to confront the reality of it. ergo, GWB and TB amongst many others repeating ad nauseum that Islam was a religion of peace... the Indian political mantra has been much the same since the 1930's

[Sanku]

Well we have mostly been insisting that Muslims have been killing non Muslims and protesting any suggestion that Muslims kill Muslims? What is the purpose of hiding facts about he violence of Islam? Muslims are forced to do that. But non Muslims? Why?

If I may hazard a response--

Because Non-Muslims (the tiny minority who understand whats happening here, and can read the thread without getting their brains frozen at the horrible discussion here)

1) Perhaps dont care what Muslims do to Muslims. Mainoo Ki (Whats it to me), far more worried about what Islamism is going to do to them.

2) They (such as me) perhaps do not care or have any hope what so ever that this information will have any psy-ops value even if spread liberally. Better focus efforts on spreading the information which can make a difference.

Why does it matter? To whom? In order to cut through the omerta that exists in the world in name of "equal respect for everything" ?

Nope this is not going to make a whit of difference -- IMVHO.

[parsuram]

The killings sanctioned by islam, its book, and the book's author, the profit mummad - these are at the root of all violent crimes comitted by muslims. First, the kafir is offered conversion to islam. If he accepts, well and good. If the kafir refuses islam, then the kafir may be killed with impunity. So that is the sanction to kill kafirs. What if the kafir accepts islam and becomes a muslim? If a muslim does not live according to the book and the hadiths, he may be declared a kafir by way of a fatwa. In which case, the subject muslim may be killed with impunity. This is a simple logic tree which allows killing of anyone. Muslim or non muslim. And that is what has been going on.

In the begining, at the advent of islam, the muslims were on a rampage against all others (kafirs). They were authorized to offer Life or islam. There was not any other choice. As rational beings, the vast majority of people chose islam. But now, those rational people entered a maze of incredible complexity. Their identity as muslims could be challanged on all kinds of pretexts, returning them to that fork in the road where death was an option. So it has been. But the available vunlerable kafirs have dwindled. The remaining kafirs are now under protection of other, non muslim laws. Which just means that muslims have to be declared as non muslims in order for the killings to continue. And so it has been. But why are killings sanctioned and necessary? Very simply, to acquire loot - to get some thing for nothing - so the muslim can take what does not belong to him. Simply put, this is what has driven the entire criminal enterprise. If no material property was allowed to change hands after islamic killings, the killings will screetch to a halt. The killers will not take the risk of reprisal for nothing. Yes, there would still be some based on ego, or power trips, and some based on excessive pious islamiat, but these would be a fraction of what we have based on the profit motive. Unfortunately, terrorism will continue. until such time that indoctrination of new converts, and utilization of their zeal will no longer be available to fuel terrorist acts. In order for islamic death to be brought under control and finally eliminated, it will require reprisals on a massive scale, on a scale that will deter any or all killings on any basis, islamic or not.

[Prem]

Before going further, Have any one seen,looked or found Real Islam yet after the passing of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH)? If not, it is as real as the chastity of Pakistani Musharraf,honor, dignity and truthfulness.

[parsuram]

Sanku: If the reality of Islam as an ideology of killing (not a religion of peace) for profit is emphasized and disseminated, a dent might be made in its murderous activities from without. Once such a dent begins to bite, we might see long term changes begin to appear from within. But really, from the point of view of our Indian subcontinent, the best, most effective and most rapid means of bringing this criminal enterprise to an end, will be through massive reprisals. Unless those occur, the rest just represents pisising in the wind. Nothing will be achieved, other than those adamant in doing it will get their own pss all over themselves.

[KLNMurthy]

@shiv others have said this so it may be redundant but I don't understand your purpose ( I have to assume there is one) in spending so much energy shooting down the strawman of "muslims are all-powerful and monolithically committed to never harm any muslims but always kill/subjugate Hindus absolutely and under all circumstances".

Clearly only naive people incapable of handling complexity believe the strawman. I don't think you believe the rest of us to be such. So, can you please make like the Great Undercover Detective in the last scene of the movie, cast off the mask and spell out what you're really up to here?

[KLNMurthy]

Sanku: If the reality of Islam as an ideology of killing (not a religion of peace) for profit is emphasized and disseminated, a dent might be made in its murderous activities from without. Once such a dent begins to bite, we might see long term changes begin to appear from within. But really, from the point of view of our Indian subcontinent, the best, most effective and most rapid means of bringing this criminal enterprise to an end, will be through massive reprisals. Unless those occur, the rest just represents pisising in the wind. Nothing will be achieved, other than those adamant in doing it will get their own pss all over themselves.

So you want to realize the worst fears muslims that drove them to create pakistan, am I reading you correctly?

[hnair]

Why does it matter? To whom? In order to cut through the omerta that exists in the world in name of "equal respect for everything" ?

Nope this is not going to make a whit of difference -- IMVHO.

Sanku-saar, one of the core arguments that are used by EJ types is that Hindus subjugate other Hindus and the only way out is to leave "Hinduism". Now if "Green culled by Greener" is used in a similar way, the situation for the Green world becomes more urgent and pressing. Right now illiterate and indiscriminate psychopaths are pedasteled because of the assumption they won't rip out their own people's necks and hence become defenders of faith. Of course it is an uphill task to get over "he cant be a pious if he did that" sort of stone-walling arguments.

Being subjugated might seem far less dangerous than being sub-jugular veined by a fellow religionist. Just IMO etc.

[KLNMurthy]

@shiv If your goal is to persuade muslims that their religion doesn't afford them peace & protection plus the ability to lord it over kafirs as some sort of psywar what is the point of beating a bunch of BRF mostly-kafirs over the head with it?

Also, please reassure me you grok the dynamics of fascist tyranny. The masses are united by their sheer fear and their utter incapacity to think and act their way out of that fear. The only way to defeat such a society is to first organize the still-free (kafir) Other to rise and break the back of that society and give the people an opportunity for a free and fearless life. For this, the Others need to be convinced of the implacability of the fascist system; trying to argue to the Others about the harm the fascist system is doing to its own adherents makes little psychological sense unless maybe you are going for arousing the Compassionate Liberator in the Other.

[parsuram]

prem ji: And how do you come to the conclusion that there was ever any "Real Islam" - even when the murderous mummad was on the face of this earth? Almost everything he did had a double standard - one for himself, and another for everyone else. "Do mnot what I do, do what I say". This is islam in a nut shell. One might add - if you dont, I will kill you. There are so many examples of how this pbhu constantly short changed his desciples. When they noticed, he urged them to do the same to kafirs. And his sexual perversions ran his life, and the life of his desciples. that is why the entire ideology is riddled with absurd sexual rules and regulations. No, whatever that Real Islam is/was/will be, it sure was not with mummad, unless, by definition, whatever that pbhu did, that was "Real Islam". In which case, human society will be better served by following the behavior patterns of some head of a tribe of baboons or gorrilas.

KLNMurthy ji: Your comment appears quite convoluted to me. Here is how I read it. Suppose some one is apprehensive of retribution for carrying out illegal, barbaric acts, and, acting on these apprehensions, removes himself from society after carrying out reprehensible barbaric acts. Then, if society goes after that individual to catch and punish him, deliver retribution, then, you say - AHA, see, that poor fellow was right all along. You were going to do this to him. DAM right. We will bring down the wrath of god on the bstrd so not another like him will try this ever again. If I am wrong in my understanding of what you said, then maybe you can clear up your comment. Thank you.

[KLNMurthy]

@hnair pisko strategies for making Hindus leave Hinduism don't carry over to making Muslims leave Islam in a meaningful way. They are very different animals.

[KLNMurthy]

@parasuram I wasn't judging your prescription or sympathizing with the paki, only clarifying your view. I have been coming to the conclusion that it is in fact correct to
make the worst paki nightmare--cultural annihilation--come true.

Your logic is correct and explains why the case for partition was so compelling for muslims.

[Sanku]

Why does it matter? To whom? In order to cut through the omerta that exists in the world in name of "equal respect for everything" ?

Nope this is not going to make a whit of difference -- IMVHO.

Sanku-saar, one of the core arguments that are used by EJ types is that Hindus subjugate other Hindus and the only way out is to leave "Hinduism". Now if "Green culled by Greener" is used in a similar way, the situation for the Green world becomes more urgent and pressing. Right now illiterate and indiscriminate psychopaths are pedasteled because of the assumption they won't rip out their own people's necks and hence become defenders of faith. Of course it is an uphill task to get over "he cant be a pious if he did that" sort of stone-walling arguments.

Being subjugated might seem far less dangerous than being sub-jugular veined by a fellow religionist. Just IMO etc.

hnair-ji; Parsuram-sir, KLNM, shiv-ji et al...

Sir, who are we talking of educating? Seriously?

Indians? People who have seen all what we are talking about first hand, yet have chosen to live under a self imposed Omerta of "dont see evil, dont talk evil, dont hear evil"?

Or Pakistani's, who LIVE this ideology that we talk of, but are perfectly at home with it, going to the extent of having two faced behavior to pretend otherwise?

Or the EJ who knows that the targets are the pagans because they are soft and are unprotected and can get away with their acts -- they know that they cant target the pure countries otherwise it may be them undergoing conversions.

Who?

Everyone knows. Except Indians, who wont see because they dont want to see -- even basics.

Forget the advanced topics.

[parsuram]

@parasuram I wasn't judging your prescription or sympathizing with the paki, only clarifying your view. I have been coming to the conclusion that it is in fact correct to
make the worst paki nightmare--cultural annihilation--come true.

Well, Murthy Ji: I am glad we see eye to eye on this. All I am doing on this thread is providing the rationale and justification for bringing down the paki in this manner. There are others who argue - convincingly, I might add - on the lines of the paki's own TNT arguments, but looking at it from the Hindu/Indic pov, which call for protection and nurturing the only alternate society, the Indic civilization, because that is in the best interests of human social evolution. The paki, by contrast, represents all possible forces of human devolution ever assembled together in one place at one time.

While that is an admirable goal in and of itself, my arguments are driven by old fashioned desires for maintaining a society at peace and under the rule of law. That cannot happen unless the paki and its henious acts, first by its ancestors on entering India a thousand years ago, and ever since then by its subsequent generations, culminating in the genocidal religious & ethnic cleansing of 1947 which created the montrosity called the paki, now 99% or better in muslim content. Absent retrobution of sufficient deterrant value, and with a muslim population of over 150 million of its own, India may witness another such blood bath in the future, egged on by the barbaric paki population across the artficial line drawn by the departing brits.

[RajeshA]

The issue here is that the Islamic Pious need to avail of the second attitude only if they have no Kafir to prey upon! If there are Kafir around, their Islamic duty viz-a-viz the Kafir and their degenerate urges both can coincide in their choice of Kafir prey, which is the preferable target!

How do you make them see the truth in this? Do you do it by agreeing with their denial that they kill fellow Muslims and say they kill kafirs (which they agree with anyway), or by pointing out on their faces that they are liars.

shiv saar,

if I may venture out and put up an analogy - One can give somebody Iron pills if he has an iron deficiency, but I have heard that iron would not be absorbed by the body. One needs to provide iron in a particular form in combination with other things like Orange juice, etc. which allows a much better absorption.

Therefore we must revisit our strategy of telling them the truth, or of undertaking propaganda against Islam. If we do it using our language, our arguments, our faces and our voices, the truth would simply not be absorbed. They have a filter built in which says "here comes a drone attack on their citadel of Islam! Run! Don't Listen!"

In short, what we need to tell them is the difference between the promise and reality of Islam! We need to convince them that the memes that Islam encourages are unable to deliver on the promises that Islam makes! That stretches from justice to security to family values to honest governance to Islamic domination to the defense of the momeen! We have to show that Islam is in fact a failure! It is not the people in charge who are culprits, but the memes that they have absorbed growing up!

All that needs to be transported to the Muslim brains! And this can be done only by those who originate in those societies, have the background to be accepted by the public, are superb orators with good sense of rhetoric and have a security detail and connections which provides them immunity from backlash.

I personally think that Indian agencies should be nurturing young ones in Pakistan who show promise in rhetoric from an early age! I also think, Indians should take over the Urdu media in Pakistan slowly but steadily. It would also be helpful if there is some Commission set up there which records absolutely all publicly known "transgressions" in Pakistan where a Muslim gets to experience the hard truth of Islam, especially the ones about "might is right", corruption and nepotism. Every case that goes before a Shariah court or Islamic-tribal jurisprudence needs to be recorded and critiqued. And all the sorry state that Pakistan and its Islam is in needs to be put into words.

This should be for Muslim consumption. Any atrocities on non-Muslims can be left out because that is actually a vindication of Islam rather than its criticism. Some other institution should deal with that.

And we should also continue to laugh at Islam's absurdities, like the ones concerning women suckling their drivers!

The reason why Muslims do not want to revisit the phenomenon of Muslims killing other Muslims is because

a) Murtadi is accepted: They will have to admit to the non-Muslims that there are Muslims (victims) who were considered less than pious and as such had to be killed. As such it was the failure of Islam to instill the faith in the hearts of the Muslims.

b) They will have to admit that Muslims can be killed at all by other Muslims, when the pact was that by converting to Islam, the faithful would be exempt from such treatment.

c) Murtadi is not accepted: They will have to admit that there are Muslims who can illegitimately kill other Muslims. So the refrain is that "a Muslim cannot have committed such an act!".

d) They will have to admit that their society which ought to be governed by Shariah did not conduct a free and fair judicial process against those Muslims who were considered munafiqueen or murtads. Then there will be outside scrutiny of their legal process.

All are uncomfortable facts, so better not to comment upon them!

Better for whom not to comment upon it?

The power brokers in the Muslim community!

[Sanku]

Folks, let us first convince the Indians 1% of what is real. We can talk of others later.

No offense folks, but some times we really day dream about "out there stuff" -- this is one of them.

Let us just document and stick to the topic of slavery and genetic histories. May be some of us will see somewhat -- assaulting distant citadels is way too far.

[KLNMurthy]

@Sanku the documenting of slavery is not objective but an intensely political and ideological act which is why it is not widely documented at this point. What we are arguing about here is the political stance that should underlie exactly how this atrocity should be documented. There is no getting past that and simply getting on with doing a neutral documentation. Shiv has seen to it.

[RajeshA]

There is a saying in Hindi, "Sau sunaar ki, ek lauhar ki!" Translated, one can say it means, "for hundred strokes that a jeweler makes on his gold, the blacksmith just needs to hit once"! Often the saying is used in the sense, that an enemy may hit us hundred times, we need to hit just once to get the same effect.

Looking at the saying from a different angle, it can also mean that the lauhar (blacksmith) will wait till the sunar (jeweler) would have hit his hundred strokes before he hits once to even everything out.

So before hitting out at Pakistan, India may wait out a hundred attacks from Pakistan, but then Pakistan would have to pay a heavy price. Which is a comforting thought. But what if India is not paying attention and not counting the hundred strokes?

That is why it is important to document all Islamic atrocities.

[Prem]

Parsuram ji, Muslims always get away or try to get away by claiming such and such idiotic things done by them is not Islamic. This is the easiest denial method and ultimate defence. Islaam is 400% pure complete way/system of life . This makes it very hard for good Muslim to admit the shortcomings and refrom the system from 400% to 100% only. Any rational mind would have admitted that slitting the throat of any living being is not merciful act and not a good deed done on the path of spritual growth But not a singal instant of demonstratig such discriminating ability to make distinction between evil deed and good deed.
The Iranian guy Amil is half right. The cause of disease is also the cure and methods pescribed in detail to readministed the medicine by returning teh favor. Shankracharya could not have bring the end to Moghuls or others by debating . Sikh Gurus also tried the civilized methods of showing them the right path to change the mind set but in the end it was the Mother of all the Daangs, big stick of Marthahs, Khalsa, Rajputs and other NEWS Indians which uprooted and burned the poison ivy, cut the yoke of ROPE with Khanda, washed the soil polluted with Mlecch Ganda Anda and made them act like the puttar of Banda: Though now paused temporarily when the time demands fast forwarding .