Jump to content

Jamuka

Members
  • Posts

    176
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jamuka

  1. I fully support to the series of events following what happened. Why is Gurpreet such a hateful person and why is she targeting her own community?
  2. God help Micheal Moore the fatso... and meanwhile... BAGHDAD, Iraq Nov 16, 2004 — Al-Jazeera television said Tuesday it received a videotape showing the slaying of a woman believed to be hostage Margaret Hassan, the longtime director of CARE in Iraq. Hassan's family in London said they believed she was dead. The station planned to broadcast parts of the video later Tuesday. CARE said in a statement, "It is with profound sadness that we have learned of the existence of a video in which it appears that our colleague Margaret Hassan has been killed. … The whole of CARE is in mourning." The 59-year-old Briton was abducted in Baghdad on Oct. 19, the most prominent of more than 170 foreigners kidnapped in Iraq this year. Her captors later issued videos showing her pleading for Britain to withdraw its troops from Iraq and calling for the release of female Iraqi prisoners. Video May Show CARE Director Being Killed Video May Show Iraq Aid Worker Killed -Husband Marines Investigate Shooting of Wounded Iraqi Jihad Ballout, an Al-Jazeera spokesman, said the station received the tape a few days ago but had not been sure of its authenticity. "We invited British diplomatic officials to come and view it," he said. "It's now likely that the image depicts Mrs. Hassan." Her four brothers and sisters said they believe Hassan is dead. "Our hearts are broken," they said in a statement. "We have kept hoping for as long as we could, but we now have to accept that Margaret has probably gone and at last her suffering has ended." The family did not indicate why they now believed Hassan was dead, but said: "Those who are guilty of this atrocious act, and those who support them, have no excuses." On Sunday, U.S. Marines found the mutilated body of what they believe was a Western woman on a street in a Fallujah during the U.S. assault on the insurgent stronghold. Besides Hassan, the only Western woman known held was Teresa Borcz Khalifa, 54, a Polish-born longtime resident of Iraq who was seized last month. Al-Jazeera reported on Nov. 2 that Hassan's captors had threatened to turn her over to followers of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Al-Zarqawi and his men have been blamed for numerous deadly car bombings and the slayings of foreign hostages, including three Americans and a Briton. More than 170 foreigners have been kidnapped in Iraq this year; more than 30 of them have been slain. Born in Ireland, Hassan also held British and Iraqi citizenship. She lived in Iraq for 30 years and married an Iraqi. In its statement, her family said: "Nobody can justify this. Margaret was against sanctions and the war. To commit such a crime against anyone is unforgivable. But we cannot believe how anybody could do this to our kind, compassionate sister. "The gap she leaves will never be filled." http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=256919
  3. Ok, sorry brothers. It really does not matter who is wrong or right here but with utmost humility I hope Sikhphilosophy, JSB and Mehtab accept my sincere apologies. I humbly apologise.
  4. Consider it 'SEWA'! I am nobody but that does not stop one from pointing out an odd behaviour. After all, this IS a discussion forum. No? The last time I checked in a discussion forum, one should be able to express oneself to the fullest? Am I right? Did you even read what I said or do you usually lose your head at the slightest criticism brough forth toward a member of the Sikh faith or Sikhism? I woudn't be the leat bit surprised if I were in front of you right now, you would not hesitate to resort to violence. Keep it up bafoon! It is no wonder that Sikhs are exchanging blows over the petty issues; ie making the langar halls with or without chairs! Keep up your idiocity! This is the precise attitude that has kept us backward and this is why we have no homeland to call ours simply because of stupid bickering over petty issues! You obviously have not gained from Guruji's teachings! You can go to a devout Christian and tell him on his face that Jesus is a liar and he will still behave in an examplary manner, will still call you a brother and debate with you with civility. You will almost never find that attitude or humility among todays Sikhs for we are too busy judging others and losing or heads over trivial and petty issues. It's no wonder that Christian nations are the most powerful on this planet today. More anger resulting from insecurity. Yes, never critisize lest you want to go home in a body bag. Am I right? No freedom of speech for we are surrounded by insecure idiots like you with short tempers. Aaaaah, the age old Punjabi custom of putting words into someones else's mouth. Thank you! Yes, I have. I have learnt that despite great teachings from our Gurus, we still have donkeys like you in our midst. We need to conduct studies and find out why is that. Maybe you can help. Read carefully what I said before simply losing your head. The topic at hand has nothing to do with religion per say but Mehtab HAD to bring it in and use his experience with falling in love with Guruji's picture and passing off that as fact. This is a discussion and if somebody wants to contribute, he or she has to be prepared to be critisized as well even if one were to use Guruji's name. I did precisely that but idiots like you cannot take any criticism when it touches Sikhism. You obviously do not understand the rules of engagement in a discussion. You're an idiot 'par excellence'! Secondly, claiming that one was inspired to embrace a religion based on a picture or drawing IS stupid. What if archeological findings prove that Guru Gobind Singh ji was physically defect in some way. Will that diminish your faith in Sikhism? How superficial AND stupid! Is this what Guru Nanak Ji brought to the world? It's quite sad you do not see this point for you are too busy judging me. I am not a learned Sikh scholar but I think I understand the gist of Sikhism better then you.
  5. 'Shalom' brother! I am a big fan of Israel and I recognize it's right to exist. We Sikhs can learn a lot from the Jews. From what I see, we have many similarities. Hopefully we can all learn from you.
  6. Well for starters the analogy of comparing your experience in falling in love with Guru Gobind Singh ji's painting with the topic at hand (love at first sight) was plain stupid. It is like comparing apples to oranges. BTW how does one embrace a religion based on a picture? I mean seriously, if you came across a beautiful picture of Jesus Christ, would you convert to Christianity? In order for me to prove how stupid this analogy was, I had to go to your 'level'. Glad to be of service.
  7. Yawn....another cheap tactic to gain converts. How pathetic.
  8. Mehtab wrote That picture is merely an artist depiction of how Guru Gobind Singh Ji might have looked. We have no real idea how they really looked. What if historians and archeologists come across new findings that proves that our Guru were physically ugly? Will you then leave Sikhism? Sukhi wrote Hmmmm, it appears that we do! This is a cause for a celebration! Mehtab wrote Yes Mehtab, I've 'been' there. I too was once extremely infatuated by one lass and I too thought this was 'love at first sight' for me. Two years of pure hell have made me a wiser person now. Please note, I don't believe that there is absolutely no cases of 'love' at first sight but in general I truly do not believe it exists. It is just a fantasy of ours, it's more romantic to meet a partner this way so we entertain our ego to this nonsense. Adminji wrote Dear administrator, do you by any chance have the English translation of the abover mentioned verse? Jogi wrote Yes, very true. As mentioned earlier, I've been there. It's nothing but what you say of it. All of you who believe that after watching movies like 'Sleepless in Seattle' and 'Titanic' and believe that you will have the same kind of experience just because you have a crush on another person. My advice to you is that, be ready for a shock of your life! In the real world, there is no such thing. Maybe it does happen randomly but in the majority of love affairs out there, it does not. I too was under this same delusion for a long time. I thought arranged marriages was totally 'uncool'. I am now proud to say I am 'sober' from my own delusions and believe that arranged marriages ain't such a bad idea although it may not be the best option.
  9. True love has nothing to do with 'sight'.
  10. Trying to be something or someone else is usually a sign of INSECURITY. I suspect these Canadian youth are children of parents migrating straight out of Punjab. Their parents must be typical FOB's (Fresh of the Boat) or must exhibit strong FOB behaviour. In order to make sure they are not identified as FOB's these Punjabi youth have decided to act all Black since they themselves are not White. And as simply as you want it you will not simply get it because 'Politically Correct' is against the very nature of being a human. You are trying to stifle the right for others to express themselves to the fullest simply because what he or she has to say is not very 'nice'. In fact judging from Khalistani47's post, the opposite has happened. I hope you learnt something from this thread. LOL!!!!!! LOL!!!!! What an outburts!!!! My punjabi sucks by I sure as hell know what 'kuthiz' means!!! Man AK you are funny!!! LOL!!!!!! Tupac is cool!!!
  11. We must be allowed to criticise Islam By Will Cummins(Filed: 11/07/2004) In the time of Marcus Aurelius, Christianity was a growing force within the Roman Empire. His ministers asked him if the state should join the non-Christian majority in attacking the new religion, or seek to protect it. The Emperor's reply is found in his Meditations. The state's response to Christianity, he said, or to anything else, should be determined by one simple question: "What is the thing in itself? What does it do?" Today, the Government faces a similar dilemma regarding Islam. In response, the Home Secretary announced plans last week to make vilification of Islam a crime. He insisted that his law to "ban incitement to religious hatred" was meant to defend every faith. However, only Muslims have asked for immunity. The legislation would "close a loophole", David Blunkett observed, because inciting hatred of people on racial grounds is illegal in the UK, but inciting hatred of them on the grounds of belief is not. The problem is that a virulent hatred of Muslims can no more be racism than a virulent hatred of Marxists or Tories. Nobody is a member of a race by choice. Such groups are protected from attack because it is unfair to malign human beings for something they cannot help. However, nobody is a member of a community of belief except by choice, which is why those who have decided to enter or remain within one are never protected. Were such choices not open to the severest censure, we could no longer call our country a democracy. It is a red herring for supporters of Mr Blunkett's law to say that Muslims should be shielded by the race laws because Jews and Sikhs are. It is the racial persons of Jews and Sikhs that are protected, not their beliefs. In any case, Sikhism and Judaism are race cults which actively discourage converts. It is almost impossible to become a member of either religion unless you are racially Jewish or Punjabi. They are diametrically opposed to inclusive ideologies like Christianity or Islam, which seek to convert everybody. Some propose special protection for Muslims by saying that Islam is a racial identity because three of the four schools of Islamic law enjoin faithful Muslims to murder anyone who wishes to leave the faith, thus limiting every Muslim's freedom of action. But is this a point in Islam's favour? And is this the sort of religion we want to throw people into prison for condemning? To argue that Islam should have special protection because it is a "religion" while Marxism or Conservatism are "merely philosophies" is equally specious. All that divides a religion from a secular ideology is something whose existence - supernatural support - is disputed by adherents of the latter. To privilege supernatural belief-systems by law would be to impose the view of the faithful about this on everyone, the situation that prevailed in the Middle Ages. This time, it is Islam, not Christianity, that New Labour wants to impose on Christendom. A society in which one cannot revile a religion and its members is one in which there are limits to the human spirit. The Islamic world was intellectually and economically wrecked by its decision to put religion beyond the reach of invective, which is simply an extreme form of debate. By so doing, it put science and art beyond the reach of experiment, too. Now, at the behest of Muslim foreigners who have forced themselves on us, New Labour wants to import the same catastrophe into our own society. In a recent television panel, Iqbal Sacranie explained why the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), the organisation he leads, had pushed for this legislation. The British should be allowed not to believe in Islam, he said (thanks, Mr Sacranie!), but they should not be permitted to "criticise" it. Ken Livingstone has gone even further. On Wednesday, the Mayor of London welcomed to City Hall the Qatari divine Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi, according to the MCB "an Islamic scholar held in great respect throughout the Islamic world". Basing his teaching on Islam's holiest texts, Dr al-Qaradawi has urged his fellow Muslims to beat their wives; to use child suicide bombers to kill female and infant civilians; to murder Jews, homosexuals and British servicemen; and to colonise, desecrate and usurp Christian Rome. Mr Livingstone said that the newspapers that had condemned Dr al-Qaradawi for such views "showed why this legislation [blunkett's] is necessary". It was the critics of Dr al-Qaradawi's beliefs, Mr Livingstone insisted, who were, as the Muslim Association of Britain put it, "the image of evil". Dr al-Qaradawi, a mainstream figure in a major religion, had endorsed Jew lynching and wife beating: Mr Livingstone seemed to imply that, like Islam, such activities should therefore be above criticism. This brings us to the nub of the issue: the fact that Islam's teachings are completely unlike those of other faiths. The Government shows no sign of understanding this. Defending his proposed legislation, Mr Blunkett, for instance, said: "It applies equally to far-Right evangelical Christians as to extremists in the Islamic faith." But what "far-Right evangelical Christian" has ever proposed or endorsed anything as horrifying as what the moderate Muslim regards as normal? In Roman Polanski's film Chinatown, the villain, John Huston's "Noah Cross", murderous tycoon, asks the private detective character, played by Jack Nicholson: "Exactly what do you know about me, Mr Gittes?" "Mainly that you're too respectable to want your name in the papers," Gittes replies. "Course I'm respectable!" Cross exclaims. "I'm old! Politicians, ugly buildings and whores all get respectable if they last long enough!" The same is true of religions. Our rulers know as much about Islam as Gittes knows about Cross: that it has been "around long enough" (since the seventh century); that it "doesn't want its name in the papers" (except on its own terms); and that it is sanctified by the principle, central to multiculturalism, that any civilisation, however repulsive, has the same value as any other, however benign, and is entitled to protection and praise simply by virtue of existing. Unfortunately, to paraphrase Noah Cross in his warning to Jake Gittes: "You may think you know what you're dealing with, Mr Blunkett - but, believe me, you don't!" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh.../11/ixhome.html
  12. Please don't tell me how to behave in this forum for it does not belong to you. I did not 'attack' anybody. I was merely sharing my thoughts with another member and the last time I checked, I'm allowed to do so. Don't get your 'kashera' in a twist just because you do not agree to my comments that you deem 'useless'. Meanwhile, get lost and leave me alone! Anyway Bambookat here is an article I would like to share with you. What do you think about it? Any truth to it? THE NEW SOCIAL CANON OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS by Dan Rowden, 1994 Of recent times the more strident protagonists of Political Correctness have sought to mount a literary defence of this new and increasingly insidious social theology. It is my expressed hope that the more rational members of our disturbingly apathetic society will view such utterings with the caution they deserve. It seems to me that Political Correctness is one of those sugar-coated principles that, in theory, presents itself as a philosophy of reasonable persuasion, but in practice manifests as a philosophy that seeks instead to - compel. The various defenders of the faith wish to argue that correct speech is simply about showing consideration, both for the feelings of the subject (wherein a person or persons are involved), and for the factual propriety of the substance of one's statements; they would have us believe that such linguistic rectitude is indicative of an enlightened society. This view is, to me, both highly debatable and problematic, not to mention pretentious . . . If it were indeed the case that Political Correctness was a philosophy that merely sought to reasonably persuade the individual that studious attention to the nature of one's language was a desirable thing, it wouldn't be so bad. It is clearly the case, however, that PC has become something far other than this. What we now have is a social philosophy that has shifted its ground, and has moved from an ethic of persuasion to one of compulsion. The fact that individuals now face possible disciplinary action, if not outright dismissal, at their workplace, and in a more general social sense, have various swords of litigation hanging over their heads, makes palpable the truth of this evolutionary move. This applies most particulary to social commentators of various kinds and certainly to broadcasters in the media, who, I would think, are acutely aware of these facts. This simple reality aside, even the moral invective with which PC's defenders ply their trade and denounce the hapless fools who dare speak as their conscience demands, is evidence of this change in the ethic of PC. Even the name of the principle itself is cause for concern: Political Correctness - precisely whose politics, and whose notions of correctness are we talking about here? It is imperative also, that we differentiate clearly between people's "sensibilities" and their "liberties". It should be noted that the manner in which one expresses one's views impinges only on another's sensibilities, and does not, unless such views are acted upon, and with the intent of some form of imposition, diminish anyone's liberties. If an individual wishes to suggest that women are inferior to men (or vice versa), or that the Pope is the incarnation of the proverbial anti-christ, it is their inalienable right - not only to think such a thing, but if their conscience demands it be said, to say such a thing, and to do so by whatever means are available to them; and I might add, to do so with impunity. The fact that it may strike a dull chord with a particular individual is ultimately a problem for that individual and their private insecurities. The old line about someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre simply doesn't apply in this context, because such an act is calculated to cause an affray and therefore impinge on people's liberties. It is true of course that certain invective, when expressed, may arouse the passions of the more irrational members of a society, and that such passions may lead to something more overt, but we cannot seek to limit an individual's right to free speech purely upon the basis of presumed or imagined consequences. For instance, as an Atheist, and one who is utterly uncompromising in his view of metaphysical realities, I would support, without equivocation, the right of a Christian of the Fred Nile variety to publicly declare, by way of conscience, that atheists are intrinsically evil. Such a declaration would not cause me any real concern if it were not accompanied by any obvious intent to limit my personal freedoms; firstly, because I am not a hyper-sensitive, insecure milksop; and secondly, because I recognise the superiority of the importance of the principle of freedom of speech over the superficiality of individual egotisms. It is simply a fact of life, that yes, even in these wondrously enlightened times, there are people out there who are foolish and naive enough to actually believe in something. There are yet those, who, despite the best attempts at re-education by academic relativists and sundry agnostics, still insist on clinging to notions of immutable principles and values. It is patently clear to such people that PC has become a tool for the suppression of free thought and speech, more specifically of the holders of such a philosophic perspective. Though it may seem to some that the oft' analogised Spanish and Italian Inquisitions constitute a rather odious comparison, I feel that the principle is essentially the same and that to draw an homology is, therefore, quite reasonable. I concede of course that it is a matter of degree, but the reality is that we are seeing the suppression of certain individual freedoms at the impost of a particular social power; in the time of the Inquisition the tyrant was the Catholic Church; the new tyrant is society itself. Today we are seeing the tyranny of society over the individual, manifest in all its ignominy, through the advent of Political Correctness. True and consistent virtue in a society cannot be artificially fabricated, be it moral and intellectual custom, or old fashioned oppression by which we attempt this. It is utterly pointless expecting people to say one thing, when in their hearts and minds they think entirely another. A truly tolerant society is one which is tolerant even of the intolerance of its particular members. Creating a facade of social cohesion and considered tolerance by painting over reality with a candied veneer such as PC is totally without merit, and dangerously myopic. We need look no further than what was once Yugoslavia for proof of this. Generations of rivalries, prejudices, antipathies and sundry hatreds, were simply whitewashed over with the veneer of "nationhood" called Yugoslavia. It was, of course, a ridiculous contrivance, and merely created an environment in which these various tribal animosities festered and became increasingly purulent, like an infected sore that is covered by so many bandages you cannot tell what is happening underneath, until of course it is too late, and it bursts forth in all its pus-ridden virulence. It is imperative that each individual in any given society has available to them an accurate overview of the multiplicity of beliefs and principles, and yes, even the hatreds and bigotries of that society. Such a social comprehension can only come about in an atmosphere of the full and frank expression of all views - as they are truly held! - not merely as we might prefer them to be held. To imagine that people will, in time, begin to feel differently about a particular issue if they are exhorted to express their view in a particular manner, is simply inane. The truth is that people are likely to become more inflexible if they feel that the capacity to express their views as their conscience demands is being undermined. Political Correctness is a nice idea - too nice by half, methinks. Its prophets and disciples have, it seems, become far too enamoured with its (and their own) supposed virtue. This rather insipid narcissism has evolved into a particularly disquieting sense of infallibility of which even the Papacy would be envious. Let me stress, in conclusion, that it is precisely the relativism and moral agnosticism of modern academia that is the source of this foolishness. Such philosophies as those held by these modern Pyrrhonists deny any notion of an objective, absolute truth, either in a moral or a metaphysical sense; this basically means that one view is as true and valuable as another, hence no particular view should (or nowadays, can) be expressed in such a way as to imply superiority, or heaven forbid, that it constitutes a Truth! You cannot force people to be more enlightened; and to think otherwise is fatuous in the extreme. At best we can encourage people to develop a greater sense of personal integrity, in both the moral, and I think more importantly, the intellectual sense. This takes time; it requires a paradigm shift in social consciousness. It seems to me that we are indeed experiencing a shift in social consciousness, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with enlightenment. What we are seeing is the consideration of personal sensibilities taking precedence over certain personal liberties (in this case, freedom of expression). In a society that prides itself on the claim of being, as we say, "free", evolutionary back-peddling such as that which Political Correctness has become, should be regarded as intolerable - if one may be momentarily . . . incorrect.
  13. Dear moderator, I apologize for my comments. Sorry dude. Which proves my contention that there is NO such thing 'true love' ala Hindi movie style. It is the figment of man's imagination. All this moronic talk about meeting 'the right person' is pure bull. Anybody here agree with me?
  14. In short you're asking him to be 'Politically Correct'. It's amazing, one cannot even express themselves properly without some PC Nazis like you jumping on them. Who cares about stereotype OR not? What about freedom of speech? What about his right to express himself to the fullest? I bet you would have not said anything if he had claimed Sikhs were trying to behave like English gentlemen.
  15. What are you people whining about. An affair or two is no biggy for them. Of course this is reeinforced by their societies value system. Has anybody noticed, most Hollywood movies portray infidelities as some sort of romantic interlude and it's always the husbands fault. What a joke. I've seen my share of infidelities in my office so believe me when I say this, that article is pretty accurate. I get the same feeling.
  16. LOL!!! Yes, typical 'pendu' style. LOL!!! What a great and funny story!!! I think both Sukhi and Shaka Nyorai have good points. Both are right and yet are wrong. The answer lies in the middle path, me thinks anyway. Yes it's the intentions that matter but that does not mean we should live oblivion to our true history and surround ourselves with ignorance and not question it. What our Gurus wore is important to me for it is my history and I want to know the truth and not what Sobha Singh says.
  17. Did you even read the article? It talks about a journalists bias who works for the Beeb. Doesn't that strike any warning bells? Quite simply eh? I bet you do! So I guess by your logic if Sikhawareness were to quote about the atrocities committed by Hindus against Sikhs in 1984 and Operation Blue star, it must be false because Sikhs by and large support independance from the Indian Union and this is a site run by Sikhs!! Is that what you're trying to say? Please clarify and enlighten us further. Are you joking or are you that ignorant? Go on living in your make belief world and put your head deeper in the sand pit for believe me when I say this, reality is far different from what you contend.
  18. Ok Beast I am not going to go through your posts otherwise we will be going in circles. I say let everybody here judge for themselves. Till then I hope your contention that the US is a state of terror brings you happiness and fullfillment.
  19. Now you're putting words into my mouth, where did I say such a thing? There is a difference between commenting and taking cheap shots and I'm sure old enough to know the difference. What is the 'contradiction'? It you really meant that, you would have not wrote that baloney about what our Gurus would or would have not acted in such a capacity. If you truly believe that I am my own judge, you have not bothered bringing religion into this topic. The only reason you did that was becasue you are pompous enough to believe that what YOU believe tantamounts to what the GURUS believe. Get off your high horse buddy, you are no Guru nor are you some kinda expert to know how our Gurus would have reacted in such a situation. I don't believe it, I'm actually agreeing with you! BUT does that mean the US is now a terrorists state? Is the US even minutely comparable to these tin pot dictators? The US is far from perfect but it is definitely not even minutely comparable to these tin pot dictatorships and that is a fact. Yours were not comments, they were downright slander. YYou're finding cheap shots to take at the US in order to support your looney belief that the US is a terrorist state. I guess all those American Sikhs like Rupy must be gun wielding terrorist then. I don't believe you're trying to make a 180 degree U turn. Hold on a sec buddy, lets reprint what you said again. Are you justifying the deaths of 150,000 civilians because 20,000 soldiers (American and Philipino) were killed by the evil Japanese regime? Nobody doubts these things, and in fact, we as Sikhs have more insight into massacres and slaughter than most. In our history, did Guru Gobind Singh Ji massacre innocent civilians because of Mughal tyranny? When women were captured and raped, did Sikhs retaliate in kind? No!! Our ancestors (whatever our background) were role models on how we should behave in these situations! I don't know and I could be wrong for English is my second language but by critisizing the actions of the US regarding the death of civilians and in the same paragraph you talk about how the Gurus acted in the a similar capacity, IS THAT NOT A COMPARISON???????? Are you nuts or do I have a bad comprehension of the English language??? You cannot compare the Gurus to the likes of General MacArthur or any US President, that is an insult. Now you're insulting our Gurus to substantiate your points. Maybe I should start a thread on the impact of British colonialism and it's impact on all the colonies. If it was not for the Brits, the Sikhs would be having their country in Punjab today. Yeah Beast, way to go!! What a great Sikh you are!! And who made you judge? When were you elected? What about Canada, is it's history squeky clean? Care to tell us what Canadian history and how Canada came about? Exactly what does America has to 'wake up' from? Hey Beast, why don't you enlighten us on the history of Britain? Whose past is worse, the US or the UK? Please tell us of how many people and nations that were under British colonial rule and how many millions dies and suffered under their rule. Please enlighten us all.
  20. You did not answer my question. Please tell me by what methods did you arrive to conclude that an Israeli based media 'extoles the virtous of anyone that praises Israel, and denigrates anyone who chooses to go against them'?? What were the methods used? Please enlighten us all. Did you by any chance conclude that it's bias based on the following factors? i) just because it is Israeli based thus it must be biased ii) Only British based media like the BBC (with it's untold amount of scandals) is to be trusted I wish to know your methods in deducing which media is deemed biased and whic is not. Pleas, do tell.
  21. Bush and 9/11 Report: Into the Frame DEBKAfile Special Analysis June 17, 2004, 3:33 PM (GMT+02:00) The US independent commission’s interim account of the September 11 terror attacks in the United States is full of holes and inconsistencies, according to American and Israeli intelligence experts close to the war against al Qaeda. One of its least plausible claims is that Osama bin Laden had pressed to launch the strikes in the summer of 2000, shortly after Israel’s soon-to-be prime minister Ariel Sharon made a highly controversial visit to a disputed holy site in Jerusalem. Later, he pressured the hijackers to strike in May 2001 and in June and July when Sharon would be visiting the White House. Each time, he was told the commandos were not ready, the report said. A senior expert gave this comment to DEBKAfile: “We see here the outcome of a cynical attempt to link Sharon, Israel and the Jews to the September 11 atrocities. Sharon is suddenly being blamed not only for the Palestinian uprising - which was planned years before he visited Temple Mount - but is also being dragged into focus in relation to al Qaeda’s attacks on America. This twisted leap is easily traced: the US commission based its findings on the testimony of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed now in US custody after being captured in Karachi.†Many senior counter-terror officials, some of whom have had access to Shaikh Mohammed and other top captured al Qaeda operatives, have long come to the conclusion that he and others let themselves be seized for the sake of advancing a wider al Qaeda disinformation plot. Their mission is to plant red herrings in the path of US intelligence and lead its investigators away from the organization’s real operations, especially during reorganizations of the group’s command structure and terror networks. This is how it is managed. The designated sacrifice is discovered after tip-offs lead pursuers to his hideout. Under questioning, he spills the tales he has been briefed to reveal – usually about past operations - and withholds anything of real value about al Qaeda’s current activities. His interrogation is meant to divert US intelligence from noticing preparations for the terrorist organization’s next moves. Being thrown to the Americans for such missions is just as much an honor as dying in combat or a suicide terrorist attack. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed should have been expected, say the experts, to throw sand in American eyes. Instead, he found a way to link Sharon to the 9/11 attacks and get the link accepted in an official report - just as his masters in their broadcast tapes matter-of-factly tie Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kashmir, Chechnya, Afghanistan and Spain into a single package. This tie-in fits the gospel drummed into every al Qaeda member, from the chiefs to the lowliest courier, that the two enemies of Islam are the Crusaders and the Jews. By falling into the Sharon trap, the compilers of the report cast doubt on their other conclusions, although their final report due next week may make some necessary corrections. The obvious point here is if the Israeli motivation was so important in the chain of events leading up to September 11, why did bin Laden decide to attack America and not Israel? Or why not both? DEBKAfile’s experts on terrorism point to some more weak points and misses in the independent panel’s interim report. 1. It is claimed that the planning of the 9/11 attacks began in 1996. This is factually erroneous. The planning to destroy the World Trade Center began in 1991 or 1992 - at latest. Proof of this reposes in the archives of Manhattan federal court, which tried Ramzi Yousuf for carrying out the first attack in February 1993. He admitted that the bomb truck he had set up on Osama bin Laden’s instructions was meant to cause one tower to lean into the second, bringing both down. Yousuf told the court he was bitterly disappointed at having killed only six Americans when al Qaeda had counted on at least a quarter of a million dead. (Incidentally, Sharon held no official position in 1993, 1996 – or even in 2000) Bin Laden and his senior lieutenant Ayman Zuwahiri have been in operation long enough for al Qaeda watchers to understand that they never give up on a target. If they fail once, they are sure to try again – whatever the cost in the lives of their own men. The organization is motivated by religious and operational fanaticism alike. Using this dictum as a working hypothesis, the heads of the US campaign against the fundamentalist terrorists are sure they have not seen the end of al Qaeda’s attacks in America. 2. Another instance of Shaikh Mohammed’s wiles is his claim that he had initially envisioned hijacking 10 planes to target CIA and FBI headquarters, nuclear stations, the World Trade Center, the White House, the Pentagon and Capitol Hill, as well as blowing up several aircraft over the Pacific. He said bin Laden had scaled the plan down. The commission fell for this too. In actual fact, there was a much older plot that never came off to hijack 10 airliners bound for New York from the Philippines and crash them over key targets in the United States. This plot originated in 1994 – not 2001. Ramzi Yousuf was to have orchestrated the 10-plane assault from Manila after he failed to bring down the Twin Towers. Shaikh Mohammed recycled this plot and mixed it up with subsequent plans in order to muddy the trail of al Qaeda agents into America and, still more importantly, to cover up a mystery that has never been solved and which the report fails to address: How did US air control authorities and its air defenses come to be blinded to the hijackings after they were already in progress? One answer which has not been considered seriously enough is that the terrorists or their ground support commanded the electronic capabilities for jamming US tracking devices that ought to have picked up – but didn’t - the captured airliners as they cut through American air space from airport to target. The videotape the Americans found in 2001 in Afghanistan, showing bin Laden and Zuwahiri discussing their 9/11 success and how it was prepared, contradicts the Shaikh Mohammed account. They made no reference to a big plan or a small plan. Bin Laden is seen expressing surprise at how well his plan worked. He bends his hands together to demonstrate how the towers tipped towards each other - exactly as he had planned in the early 1990s. 3. The most implausible conclusion that suggests the 9/11 panel is influenced by a political agenda is its failure to find credible evidence of links between the Saddam regime and al Qaeda. It is on record that Musab Zarqawi, who is at present running al Qaeda’s terror campaign in Iraq, was seen in that country in 1996 or 1997. From 1998 to 2000, he set up a training base in the northern Kurdistan town of Biyara near the Iranian border, then under the control of Iraqi military intelligence and the Ansar al-Islam terrorist group. Iraqi intelligence officers and instructors helped Zarqawi set up laboratories in Biyara for testing chemical, biological and radiological weapons. DEBKAfile’s report appeared in September 2000, before the 9/11 attacks and well ahead of any US plan to invade Iraq. Indeed the sequence of events that blew up in the Bush term of office was busy ticking away when Bill Clinton was still president. Most authorities ignored the deadly Saddam-al Qaeda association for developing WMD capabilities then. Now too, the independent inquiry in Washington neglects to address crucial developments from the time they began evolving in the early 1990s until 2000. These happenings were pivotal to subsequent actions and to al Qaeda’s spreading menace. 4. Neither has the panel found evidence that the Saudi government “as an institution or senior officials within the Saudi government†helped finance al Qaeda before September 11. This conclusion makes a careful point of referring to al Qaeda – not Osama bin Laden, whom Saudi intelligence most certainly did supply with funds. The Saudi ambassador to London, Prince Turki bin Faisal and brother of Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal, was until August 9, 2001 the omnipotent chief of Saudi intelligence and maintained close ties with the CIA. It is common knowledge in Saudi Arabia and among Middle East intelligence and political circles that Prince Turki lost his job because of his close relations with the bin Laden clan. Through them, he stayed in touch with Osama and use roundabout channels to send him money. The interim conclusions reached by the 9/11 commission make sense only if it is presumed that the panel was set up to whitewash certain American and Saudi political and intelligence bodies and pin the entire blame for al Qaeda’s attacks in America on the Bush administration – incidentally dragging in the US president’s ally, the Israeli prime minister. However, as a state commission charged with an independent inquiry into the causes that led up to this cataclysmic disaster, the panel is far from fulfilling its mandate. Indeed, its findings are just as misleading as Shaikh Mohammed must have intended. The captured terrorist has accomplished his mission admirably. http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=865
  22. I'm curious to know your methods at how you decipher what IS a credible source and what ISN"T. Please enlighten us all. There is an old American saying and it goes like this "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a duck". And here is more on your beloved Beeb. The New York Times covers up for Palestinian child bombers By Alex Safian June 21, 2004 Used by permission of CAMERA - Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. Why do Palestinian children become human bombs, willingly strapping on suicide belts and slipping into Israel to kill as many Jews as possible? That's the key question which the New York Times has once again failed to answer, this time in an otherwise informative story by Greg Myre - "Israel Says Children Enlist Children as Suicide Bombers," June 13, 2004. While Myre pulls no punches when it comes to telling readers how Palestinian children are now recruiting their classmates and cousins to become suicide bombers, he shies away from telling readers why Palestinian kids have taken up this grisly task. In Myre's rendition the child recruitment is a mystery -- he reports only that "some Palestinian leaders have condemned the use of teenagers, and opposition to the practice is widespread among ordinary Palestinians ..." Could the Palestinian kids have been indoctrinated in their schools? Myre casts doubt on this, reporting at face value the claims of one Palestinian school official that he tries to keep politics out of the classroom, "This place is for education and we don't want to talk about politics." Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. Far from being opposed to child suicide bombers, Palestinian society and Palestinian leaders revel in child "martyrdom," and the Palestinian media and schools do all they can to encourage a cult of death among children. The paramount Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, for example, stated in an interview on Palestinian TV that: ... this child who is grasping the stone, facing the tank, is it not the greatest message to the world when that hero becomes a shahid [martyr]... We are proud of them ... (PATV, Jan. 15, 2002 cited in Ask for Death, Palestinian Media Watch.) While Arafat's words certainly carry weight among Palestinian children, perhaps the most effective recruitment tool has been music videos which are broadcast for hours on end by official Palestinian television (there is no independent television under Arafat's rule). The videos are a call to death and martyrdom for Palestinian children, promising the glories and pleasures of heaven to the young "warriors for Allah": How sweet is the fragrance of the shahids, how sweet is the scent of the earth, its thirst quenched by the gush of blood flowing from the youthful body. (Quoted by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook in the Jerusalem Post, January 29, 2004) Another music video also aimed at children and broadcast repeatedly told young viewers that: Oh, young ones: Shake the earth, raise the stones. You will not be saved, O Zionist, from the volcano of my country's stones. You are the target of my eyes, I will even willingly fall as a shahid [martyr for Allah]. Allahu akbar [god is great]! Oh, young ones! (Quoted by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crookin the Jerusalem Post, June 2, 2004) Yet another music video shown repeatedly on Palestinian TV centered on a Palestinian child who had been killed at the start of the present violence in October 2000. A young actor portrays the child in paradise, flying a kite and running on the beach, and encouraging other Palestinian children to follow him in martyrdom, "I am waving to you not in parting, but to say, 'Follow me.' " (Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook in the National Post, April 8, 2004) As for the claim that Palestinian parents oppose such suicide bombings, news reports, including in the Times, indicate the opposite. For example, a few months ago Myre's colleague James Bennet reported that "Many Palestinian parents have praised their sons and daughters for carrying out suicide attacks, hailing them as heroes and martyrs." (New York Times, March 25, 2004) Palestinian support and encouragement for child suicide bombers is an ugly reality. The Times' reluctance to deal with this ugly reality will help only to perpetuate it. http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?en...s&enVersion=0&-
  23. 13:15) Hamas: BBC reporter expressed solidarity By Douglas Davis LONDON Ã A senior BBC correspondent in the Gaza Strip is reported to have told a Hamas gathering that journalists and media organizations are "waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people." The alleged remarks, by BBC Arabic Service correspondent Faid Abu Shimalla, were reported on the Hamas Web site, which said they were made at "an impressive and well-attended ceremony" earlier this month to honor some 140 Palestinian, Arab, Islamic, and international journalists and attended by Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. A BBC spokesman last night confirmed to The Jerusalem Post that Shimalla has been the Gaza Strip correspondent of the BBC Arabic Service for the past five years, but he said the BBC was unable to locate the Web site and could not comment further. He noted, however, that Shimalla is "a senior and experienced journalist who knows the requirements for impartiality." At the ceremony, Hamas official Ismail Abu Shanab said journalists should be honored for "the special role they have played through their cameras, pens, and skills, as well as through their rare courage and daring which they have demonstrated by their joining the nation struggling fiercely against the enemy." He praised their "accurate depiction of the terrorism employed by the Zionist enemy and its vile crimes, as well as the outstanding courageous portrayal of our children and martyrs." Speaking on behalf of the journalists, Shimalla, who is described as a correspondent of the BBC, thanked the Hamas movement for holding the event, "despite the pace of current events and the sensitive circumstances applying to journalists and media organizations, which are waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people." http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/05/24/L...News.26879.html
  24. You dare call others ignorant when I've corrected so many factual errors in your posts? Is that some kinda alcohol? Citizens who supported the evil and cruel Hirohito. It is easy to sit on your fat ass in good old England and ridicule the actions of the one power that freed so many nations under cruel Japanese rule. None of your family members or friends were killed by the Japs in the 2nd world war so you take cheap pot shots at the US with absolutely no inclination of what you're talking about. Ok, what would YOU have suggested the US do in the 2nd world war? What would your suggestions be? Your ignorance is astounding to say the least. Please before you go about ridiculing the actions of the US in the 2nd world war, get your facts right. Your knowledge is literally zilch and yet you go on slandering. I am not going to bother spoonfeeding you with detailed information by I will give you a clue...Iwojima. Remember, Google is your friend. Beast, have you had any family members and friends under Japanese rule in the 2nd world war? Honestly apes and monkeys are far more humane then you will ever be, at least they know how to differentiate between an evil snake that is about to kill them and a friend from the rest of the ape family. You obviously don't. Your IQ level is lower then an apes. At least when you save a wild ape from a mortal enemy, it will remember you for that deed unlike you. How dare you of people judge me when you have made such irrisponsible statements like the US being a terrorist state!!!! Who made you judge??? The US is home to millions of Sikhs today who are living prosperous lives because of it's leniant Green Card program and it's policies of treating it's citizen the same reagardless of race, color and creed. Don't use the Gurus name in front of me. I will not debate with you on what the Guru Gobind might or might have not said in such a case because if I could, I would be a Guru myself, NO? How do you know what Guru Gobind Singhji might have done in such a situation? How arrogant of you to think that YOU would know how the Guru would have acted. Be careful, don't let your ego get the better of you. LOL!!! Try to understand this Guv, at the time the Japanese of those days are not even comparable to todays Japenese. They were far more crueler then Hitlers Nazy army. Millions of Asians were killed, maimed or raped by the Japenese imperial army. Have you heard of the term 'comfort women'? Have you heard of Nanking massacre? The Western world only knows about the holocaust but does not realise that the holocaust was a Sunday picnic compared to what the Japense did in Asia. I have got friends who have had their family members killed by them. Everybody seems to be under the delusion that the Japenese Imperial Army was not supported by the Japanese people and the same for Nazi Germany. Hello, where do you think the members of the army come from? Another planet? It is fact that almost all Germans and Japanese supported Hitler and Emperor Hirohito. The bomb was dropped because the Japanese refused tp surrender. Civilians were signing up to be Kamikaze pilots and they would ram their planes into US American aircraft carriers. Thousand of US soldiers were stilled being killed despite the Axis losing the war. The bomb was the only way that finally brought the evil Hirohito regime to it's knees. Aaah Sukhi, did you like just do some naam simran? Why all of a sudden the benevolent attitude? Dearest CanadianJAtti, why the anti American stance? You are so far off base it's not even funny. Just to let you know, I work for an American Corporation while living in a 3rd world country and I thank God I have a job with a US multinational. In my country all the goverment jobs are given to the Muslims. Minorities like me can only hope survive by securing a job with a foreign company. It is an undeniable fact that it is better to work for multinational compared to a local company. A local company will suck your blood dry. Work finishes at 5:30pm but don't hope you can go back for the boss expects you to stay until 7:30pm. What can you do? Nothing. Only in an American multinational there is fairness and guidelines are set so that employees are not treated like shit by the bosses. There are surveys conducted annually among employees and if management does not meet the minimum criteria, they might get the boot. We even have like a Union within the company. I tell you, no local or gevermental company in my country shows this amount of respect to it's employees. I am speaking from first hand experience. Nobody is excusing it but what I am personally shocked at is the blatant bias in which the US is critisized at every turn while tin pot dictators get a free pass. At the most you willl hear a YES BUT...aaaah the famous yes but. This is downright unfair and dirty. Do you not get fed up of your lies? FYI Germany is one of the richest states in the European nation. You will only understand the implication of your BS if it was YOUR family members and friends that were killed by the Japs. Enjoy the freedom you possess to slander the US. If you had made those statements about the Japs in a country like Korea, you would probably get your ass whooped. I sleep easy at night for I have my priorities right. I am not filled with hate for a nation that has done me no harm unlike you. All this blatant anti Americanism can be blamed squarely on the left in the US. That will soon end. Like I said earlier, enjoy your time slandering the US as much as you want, that will soon change. Mark my words, in time we will witnessing a change among Americans and they will not be so nice anymore. It is already happening. Good lord Beast now you're comparing the US goverment to our Gurus!!! The US Goverment is made up of regular people like you and me and you believe that they and their actions are comparable to our Gurus??? Please realise this, you nor me nor anybody else is uncomparable to them for they were highly enlightened souls. None of us can ever compare to them unless you are arrogant ot believe otherwise.
×
×
  • Create New...