Jamuka

And this is coming from a joker who quotes the BBC, what a joke. I'd rather put my money with Israeli news agencies as opposed to even British ones. So far two of your major media (BBC and the Daily Mirror) have been involved in scandals. I don't have 'hard evidence' but I have read before of civilians covering up for terrorists. Besides, we all now that fanatic Muslims will lie at any cost to further their couse. If you want to believe otherwise be my guest. Go ahead and post them. I'm a strong advocate of freedom of speech. Truth must not be hidden because of biases. Nope, you're wrong. If you're referring to Sabra and Shattilla, you're dead wrong. It is one of histories biggest lies. When it suits you, you quote the UN. The very same UN that has recognised Israel as a state. Are by any chance biased? As for Golan Heights, why don't you educate all of us here and tell us how did Israel accupy the Golan Heights? How did it come to be part of Israel? Please educate all of us here. Vanunu is a traitor to his nation and is nobody's friend. But then again, it takes 'one theif to recognize another'? As for Israel's nuclear weapon, what would you propose when you have 3 neighbours who have initiated two wars so far to exterminate you? Only a fool would rely on the UN. Technically you are right Israel has broken any treaty not to undertake a nuclear weapons program, morally you are wrong to deny a fledgling state the right to defend itself. As for lying to the US, why should it concern you since you hate them so much? Just to make a cheap point, you are willing to whore your own values and use the US being an ally to Israel as an example. Again I ask, are you biased in any way? Hello dumbo, a country is deemed legitimate when it is recognised by the UN which is what the Khalistani movementtrying to do as well. And as for the Middle East, they can kiss their Israeli neighbours backside for all the Israelis care about their supposed 'approval'. Of which I have done so many times. I trust sources from the US more then any source from the UK. Need I reiterate that two of your major media have been involved in scandals so far? Have you no shame? Rubbish! He is an Egyptian and I actually learn this through a class. I actually took a 3 credit class on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and mind you, my professor was an Iranian. If you want to believe in fairy tales, be my guest. BTW from the website you quoted.... "Led the heroic battle against the invasion of Lebanon and the battle of steadfastness during the siege of Beirut by the Israeli forces." HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!! What a joke!!! Lebanon was sponsoring the PLO which they paid dearly. BTW have you heard of the event 'Black September'? Your beloved Arafat and the PLO tried invading Jordan AFTER they were given hospitality by the royalty of Jordan. Talk about biting the 'hand that feeds you'. You truly exhibit a very warped mentality. If the US were to employ a foreign policy not to befriend any nation that is morally questionable, they would be literally freindless. Don't you even have a basic understanding of politics? Allies and pacts are formed to serve a common need. For example during the 2nd world war, the Russians were considered an ally for the Americans but does that mean Americans now support communism? The pact was formed to counter a common threat which was the rise of Nazi Germany. Then don't come here and tell us all that Israel is a terrorist state when you obviously don't even know your basics. pen your eyes, read a little. Don't simply take a side. Tell me how does Jerusalem belongs to the so called 'Palestinians'? Do you know that during the 50's it was the Jews who were referred as the Palsetinians dmbo? How is an ancient Israeli city that belonged to the Jews become the property of Palestinians when in fact there never was a Palestinian civilisation in history ever? In your entire BS of a post which is full of factual errors, you have finally gotten one thing partially right, it is the Jews who want Jerusalem. Jerusalem to the Jews is what Amritsar is to the Sikhs. It is mentioned like a millions times in the Bible (OT). But as I said, partially....The Christians too hold Jerusalem dear to their hearts. But unfortunately for the rest of the sane world, the Muslims too want it! Nowhere , not even a single time is it mentioned in the Koran yet these Camel Jockeys lay claim to something that was never theirs in the first place. Muhammad apparently had a dream that he ascended heaven on his horse El Burakh over Jerusalem when he met God. After Muhammad died under the rule of Caliph Omar the Muslims INVADED Jerusalem and the rest of Israel. As for laughing stock, can I suggets you to buy a mirror?

Living in a Bubble The BBC’s very own Mideast foreign policy. By Tom Gross The BBC: Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais, from Saudi Arabia, who opened London's biggest mosque last Friday, is a respected leader who works for "community cohesion" and "building communities." Not mentioned on the BBC: Some of the views of Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais. In his own words: In the name of Allah, the Jews must be "annihilated." They are "the scum of the human race, the rats of the world... the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs." The BBC's Charter and its Producers Guidelines state: "Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. All programs and services should be open minded, fair and show a respect for truth... [bBC reports should] contain comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the United Kingdom and throughout the world...." The BBC makes many good programs when it comes to drama, comedy, sport, and science. But its enormous news division — by far the world's biggest — is another story. Using lavish public funding (courtesy of the British taxpayer) and an unprecedented worldwide news reach (its radio service alone, broadcasting in 43 languages, attracts over 150 million listeners daily), it is — in blatant breach of its own charter — virtually conducting its own anti-American and anti-Israeli foreign policy. Anyone who doesn't agree with its policies (Tony Blair, for example) finds himself at the mercy of BBC news coverage. In January, criticisms made of the BBC in a report by an official commission set up by the U.K. government ("the Hutton enquiry") in regard to its Iraq-war coverage, were so scathing that both the chairman of the board of governors of the BBC and its director-general had little choice but to resign. Since then, the BBC has — for a while at least — been a little more adroit at disguising its prejudices. Instead much of its slant now lies in omission rather than in active distortion. "B" MOVIE ACTOR Last week, for example, almost every other news organization in the world (including those in the former Communist states) began their obituaries of Ronald Reagan by saying that many (including Mikhail Gorbachev) credit Reagan with helping to bring about the end of the Cold War. But the BBC online obituary ("World Edition," Sunday, June 6, 2004, titled "Reagan's mixed White House legacy," and running to almost 1,000 words — that's a full four pages if you print it out from the BBC website) didn't even mention the Cold War, let alone Reagan's calls to "tear down" the Berlin Wall. Instead the BBC reminded us that Reagan was "a B movie actor," and stated that as president his "foreign policy was criticised for being in disarray." Accompanying photos were not of Reagan meeting Gorbachev, but of Oliver North, and of the invasion of Grenada ("a clumsy sham," according to the BBC text). Even during his funeral last Friday, BBC World Service Radio began its bulletin by first referring to Reagan as a film actor before mentioning that he was president. When I went to interview for a job at BBC news at the end of the 1980s, the BBC interviewers (comprising several senior news producers) literally scoffed at me when I suggested, in a mild way, that perhaps the BBC might devote a little more coverage to the eastern bloc. But then the Cold War plays a very small part in the worldview of the BBC. They seldom showed signs of caring much about hundreds of millions of people living under Communist dictatorship then, and they are still very reluctant to acknowledge that it happened, let alone their own failings in reporting it. I mention this because it helps explain the bubble they live in today with regard to the Middle East and Arab world. A bubble which has led them to seek to undermine, even delegitimize Israel, the region's sole democracy, while at the same time bending over backwards to excuse extremist Islamic clerics, and the worst of the Arab dictators. The BBC doesn't seem to care that — as Jonathan Kay of Canada's National Post once put it — if Robert Mugabe walked into an Arab League summit he would be the most democratically legitimate leader in the room. The BBC's attitude appears to be that: Arabs don't deserve to have their human-rights situation mentioned. As far as their reporting is concerned, women, gays, and others don't deserve rights in Muslim countries. PREACHING HATE FROM MECCA Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais (referred to in the introduction to this article, and whose surname has also been transliterated by MEMRI and others as Al-Sudayyis [1]) is not just any imam, and his hate-filled sermons are not just delivered in some peripheral setting. He is the preacher at the Grand Al-Haraam mosque — the most important mosque in Mecca, the very heart of Islam. "Read history," implored al-Sudais to his massed ranks of followers in another of his sermons, on February 1, 2004, "and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil fathers of the Jews of today, who are evil offspring, infidels ... calf-worshippers, prophet-murderers, prophecy-deniers...the scum of the human race whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs.... These are the Jews, a continuous lineage of meanness, cunning, obstinacy, tyranny, licentiousness, evil, and corruption...." Al-Sudais has repeated these words, or close variations of them, at several other sermons in recent years. It is because of these and other calls for violence against Christians, Hindus, and Americans, that the Canadian government last month denied al-Sudais a visa to enter Canada. But none of this seems to have penetrated the BBC bubble. In its reports last weekend on TV, radio, and online, on Sheikh al-Sudais's visit to Britain, in which he lead 15,000 worshippers at prayer at the opening of the enormous new six-story Islamic center in east London, the BBC mentioned none of this. BBC Online for example, last Saturday, gave the impression that al-Sudais was nothing but a benign, kindly cleric promoting (to quote the BBC) "community cohesion" between Muslims and their neighbors. "The centre was opened as Friday prayers took place, led by one of Islam's most renowned Imams, and celebrations will continue throughout the weekend," said the BBC. "Worshippers had come to hear Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais, Imam of the Ka'ba, Islam's holiest mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia.... With many unable to enter the new centre, some worshippers took to praying on a street behind the mosque using prayer mats and even newspapers." We are told that the center "will bolster London's reputation as a vibrant and diverse international city" and has a "spirit of modesty." At the side of the BBC website, a video clip was flagged with the caption: "The BBC's Mark Easton: 'Events like today offer grounds for optimism.'" It would be hard to imagine the BBC completely omitting diatribes such as al-Sudais's had they been made by a Christian leader — or had a prominent Israeli rabbi said anything similar about Muslims. IS SOMETHING HAPPENING IN SUDAN? The BBC efforts not to "offend" Arabs extremists even extend to their reports on ethnic cleansing and genocide. On both the occasions in the last week when I heard BBC World Service Radio refer to the ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing in Sudan, the BBC took scrupulous care to avoid saying who the perpetrators were (they are Arab militias) and who the victims are (hundreds of thousands of Black Sudanese Africans — Muslims, Christians, and Animists). The BBC didn't make any mention whatever of the long history of mass slavery in Sudan, carried out by Arabs with non-Arabs as their victims; nor of the scorched-earth policies, and systematic rape being carried out there by Arabs. Yet in one of these very same news bulletins, the BBC mentioned that "settlers" in Gaza were "Jewish" and the land they were settling is "Palestinian." I don't think I have ever heard the BBC refer to settlers in Gaza without mentioning their ethnicity or religion — which is, of course, relevant to the story (though many would dispute the historical and legal accuracy of referring to the territory as Palestinian). But the BBC doesn't appear to think ethnicity is relevant when it comes to real killing or ethnic-based cleansing. That is apart from situations elsewhere, in which non-Arabs are perpetrators. In one of the very same bulletins in which the BBC failed to mention the ethnic make-up of perpetrator and victim in Sudan, it made sure to let us know that "Bosnian Serbs have admitted for the first time their role in the massacre of Bosnian Moslems a decade ago." In another report last week, a BBC correspondent casually referred to "a fanatical rebel group" in Uganda. This contrasts with the term "Palestinian resistance group" that BBC reporters often use to describe Hamas, a group the BBC clearly doesn't find fanatical at all. SO HAMAS ARE NOT GUILTY? But then Hamas (along with Yasser Arafat, one of the most vicious murderers of Jews since Hitler) appear to enjoy a certain degree of sympathy at the BBC, which throughout the past four years of Israeli-Palestinian violence has constantly tried to obscure the true nature of the group by using misleading language. There are innumerable examples of this; they occur almost daily. "Over the years, Hamas has been blamed for scores of suicide attacks on Israel," says the BBC, thereby trying to suggest to listeners and viewers that Hamas has perhaps been wrongly accused of such attacks (even though Hamas itself has proudly and repeatedly claimed responsibility for them in mass celebratory rallies in Gaza, Jenin, and elsewhere.) Two Palestinian gunmen opened fire indiscriminately in the heart of the northern Israeli town of Afula, killing two young Israeli civilians and wounding over 50 others. They themselves were then shot dead by Israeli policemen. The headline on the BBC website read: "Four Die in Israel Shooting Rampage," suggesting that four innocent people had died, possibly at the hands of the Israelis. Again, when suicide bombers killed 26 Israeli civilians in attacks on Jerusalem and Haifa, the word "terror" was used by the BBC only when describing Israel's retaliatory (and largely non-lethal) attacks on Palestinian military targets. (By contrast, the BBC didn't hesitate to use the word "terrorism" last week, when one of its own correspondents, Frank Gardner, was shot and badly wounded by an al Qaeda gunman in Saudi Arabia.) Some of the foreign BBC staff are quite open about their sympathies for Hamas. The senior BBC Arabic Service correspondent in the Gaza Strip, Fayad Abu Shamala, told a Hamas rally on May 6, 2001, (attended by the then Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin) that journalists and media organizations in Gaza, including the BBC, are "waging the campaign [of resistance/terror against Israel] shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people." The best the BBC could do in response to requests from Israel that they distance themselves from these remarks at the time, was to issue a statement saying, "Fayad's remarks were made in a private capacity. His reports have always matched the best standards of balance required by the BBC." Indeed, today, three years later, the BBC is continuing to use Abu Shamala as much as ever. He was, for example, one of the BBC reporters in Gaza last month, who contributed to the BBC's highly slanted reporting (on both the BBC English and Arabic services) of Israel's operation to root out Hamas bomb-makers in Rafah in the southern Gaza. A MINUTE'S SILENCE FOR SHEIKH YASSIN Back in London, BBC staff are careful to promote sympathy for Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups in more subtle ways. Jenny Tonge, a Liberal Democrat member of the British parliament, declared in January that she would consider becoming a suicide bomber if she were Palestinian (and subsequently led a minute's silence in March — in the House of Commons no less — for the deceased Hamas leader Sheikh Yassin, who issued orders for dozens of suicide attacks against Israeli civilians). Since then, Tonge's invitations to appear on BBC have noticeably increased. She was sacked by the Liberal Democrat party leader as parliamentary spokesman for children's issues for these remarks, but this hasn't bothered the BBC, who now invite her on both radio and TV to discuss the Middle East. In one case, in February, BBC Radio 4's Flagship morning news program Today actually sent her off to "Palestine" (at the BBC's expense), after which they broadcast her "diary," in which she further defamed Israel and reiterated her sympathy for suicide bombing. She has also repeated her support for suicide bombers on air on the BBC on other occasions. Similarly, there is the case of Oxford University literature lecturer Tom Paulin — who among other things has compared Jewish settlers to Nazis, has said they should be "shot dead," compared the Israeli army to Hitler's SS, and said he could "understand how suicide bombers feel." He continues to be invited as a regular guest commentator by the BBC; indeed, he is one of the two or three most frequent contributors to their most widely screened program on the arts. DON'T MENTION LIMB AMPTUTATION Those who dare criticize Arab extremism are dealt with somewhat differently by the BBC. For example, Robert Kilroy-Silk — who does not appear on BBC news but hosted a daytime chat show — was immediately taken off air after he wrote in a non-BBC newspaper article in January that Arabs were "suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors." He swiftly apologized and the newspaper in question acknowledged that he had written "Arab governments" and this was inadvertently changed to "Arabs" as a result of an editing error. But Kilroy-Silk was rapidly sacked by the BBC nevertheless. However, Kilroy-Silk's remarks — as many Arab moderates who welcomed them, such as the Egyptian human-rights campaigner Ibrahim Nawar, have pointed out — were not wholly inaccurate. Limb amputation and repression of women are enshrined in Saudi law, and suicide bombing of Israelis and Americans strongly encouraged by some in government circles. Paulin's comments, on the other hand, were both blatantly biased and incendiary. Kilroy-Silk — whose article appeared just a few days before Tonge's suicide-bomb remarks — apologized. He said he "greatly regretted the offence caused" by his remarks. But this wasn't enough to satisfy the BBC. Paulin and Tonge have offered no such apology; but then the BBC gave no indication they would expect one. When Harvard University later withdrew an invitation for Paulin to lecture, the BBC seemed to think it was all a bit of a joke. BBC news online commented: "[Paulin's] knockabout style has ruffled feathers in the US, where the Jewish question is notoriously sensitive." "THE STUFF OF LEGENDS" The BBC rarely misses an opportunity to denigrate Israel or its prime minister. One program even staged a mock "war crimes" trial for Ariel Sharon. (The BBC verdict — that Sharon has a case to answer — was never in doubt.) Yasser Arafat, though, receives a very different treatment. One particularly cosmetic exercise was a 30-minute BBC profile of Arafat which described him as a "hero," and "an icon," and spoke of him as having "performer's flare," "charisma and style," "personal courage," and being "the stuff of legends." Adjectives applied to him included "clever," "respectable," and "triumphant." He was also inaccurately referred to as "President." [2] This was broadcast on July 5, 2002 — just two weeks after President Bush had called for a change in Palestinian leadership following revelations about Arafat's links with suicide-terror attacks. But then the BBC knew that they would get this kind of approach when they asked the notoriously anti-Israeli journalist, Suzanne Goldenberg (formerly Jerusalem correspondent for the London Guardian, now the Guardian's Washington correspondent) to make the program. A particularly blatant example of bias, perhaps, but not an isolated one. The BBC rarely mention Arafat's dictatorial rule, his endemic corruption, or the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade — the terror group he set up after launching the current Intifada, a group which, in recent months, has outstripped Hamas in the number of terror attacks perpetrated against Israeli civilians. As for Hamas, Sheikh Yassin was recently described by one of BBC radio's Gaza correspondents, Zubeida Malik, as "polite, charming and witty, a deeply religious man." DID SOMEONE SAY DOUBLE STANDARDS? The BBC's double standards are clear to almost everyone except, it seems, the BBC itself and its sympathizers in the press. A BBC spokeswoman for example, told the Guardian (May 23, 2002) after the BBC was accused by British Jews of being a prime force in inciting renewed anti-Semitism in the U.K., that "The BBC's reporting about the Middle East is scrupulously fair, accurate and balanced." The official BBC line has not changed since then, even after the scathing criticism of the Hutton report. Such are the level of arrogance and the spirit of denial that permeate the BBC newsroom. Indeed, recent denials of political bias have been stronger than ever. Of course, the BBC would be in danger of losing its enormous public funding if they were admitted. For a short while after the Hutton report was published in January, BBC staff were a little more careful in their attacks on Israel. But recently they have returned to old ways, with at least four anti-Israeli TV documentaries airing in recent weeks. That makes a total of 20 major documentaries the BBC has made on Israel since 2001 (all but one attacking Israel.) That is three times more than the number of documentaries the BBC has made on any other single country, with the exception of Britain. Meanwhile, to my knowledge, the BBC has made no documentaries about human-rights abuses in the Arab world; or about Palestinian schoolbooks; or about the Palestinian Authority's incitement of the Palestinian population; or about the Palestinian Authority's funding of terrorism allegedly with the use of European Union aid funds. The problem is not that every individual correspondent is biased. Whereas some, such as Orla Guerin, make almost no attempt at balance, others, such as James Reynolds in Jerusalem, do make a genuine effort to be fair. The problem is that the culture that permeates the BBC, a habit of thought that has become engrained throughout the network, allows only one worldview, in which the U.S. and Israel are vilified well beyond any reasoned or justified criticism of anything these states have actually done. Hiring practices reinforce this. Recently, Ibrahim Helal, editor in chief of the much-criticized al Jazeera TV network was hired by the BBC World Service Trust. The job the BBC wanted him for? To advise on balance in Middle East coverage, and head "media training projects," i.e. to train BBC (and perhaps other journalists) into "understanding the Middle East better." OCCUPIED WEST BANK OF THE SAHARA? This culture makes it all but impossible for anyone who thinks differently to gain or hold a job at BBC news. Who at the BBC can name the leader of the Polisario Front, fighting for independence against a 25-year Arab occupation of the Western Sahara (a territory bigger than Britain)? Who at the BBC has done a report about all the Arab settlers that the Moroccan government has been bussing into the area to take the land of the indigenous Saharawi people, since Morocco annexed it 25 years ago? This article has been limited to BBC news programming. But even elsewhere there is anti-Israel (and some would argue anti-Jewish sentiment). Each summer, for example, BBC Radio 3, a station largely devoted to classical music, carries a broadcast of "The Proms." The Proms are a British institution, a jovial annual event at the end of the British summer during which classical favorites and (on the Proms' final night) tunes such as "Rule Britannia" and "Land of Hope and Glory" are sung by the audience with great fanfare and light-hearted flag-waving at the Royal Albert Hall in London. Yet on the evenings of August 13 and August 20, 2002, the BBC Radio 3 producers decided to fill the time during the interval in their live broadcast (there are no commercials on the BBC) with a recitation of poems that compared Israeli actions to those of the Nazis and asked Holocaust survivors why they had "not learnt their lesson." A GLOBAL PROBLEM The BBC's Middle East problem is not just a British problem but also an international one. The BBC pours forth its worldview not just in English, but in almost every language of the Middle East: Pashto, Persian, Arabic, Turkish. Needless to say it declines to broadcast in Hebrew, even though it does broadcast in the languages of other small nations: Slovene and Slovak, Macedonian and Albanian, Azeri and Uzbek, Kazakh and Kyrgyz, and so on. (It doesn't broadcast in Kurdish either; but then the BBC doesn't typically concern itself with the rights and aspirations of persecuted Kurds in Muslim-majority states like Syria and Iran. We didn't hear much on the BBC, for example, when dozens of Syrian Kurds were killed and injured by President Assad's regime two months ago.) Throughout the world the BBC enjoys exceptional influence. An article last month in the liberal Israeli daily Haaretz, for example, quotes a leading Lithuanian campaigner against anti-Semitism as saying that inflammatory and biased international BBC news coverage against Israel was helping to revive anti-Semitism in Lithuania against those few Jews remaining who were not murdered in the Holocaust. The English-language version of the BBC seems to be just the tip of the iceberg. My friend Kamran al-Karadaghi, an urbane, moderate, and thoughtful Iraqi, who was for a decade the political editor of the Arabic-language newspaper al-Hayat in London, and who until last week served as head of Radio Free Iraq, tells me that the BBC Arabic-language service is not just far worse than the English-language BBC. It is "even worse," he says, than al Jazeera, in the vitriol it pours out against America and Israel. Footnotes [1] For more on these and other quotes, see here and Steven Stalinsky's "Kingdom Comes to North America" (after which the Canadian government rescinded al-Sudais' visa request). [2] For many other examples contrasting BBC coverage of Sharon and Arafat, see the well-compiled reports by London lawyer Trevor Asserson at www.bbcwatch.com. — Tom Gross is a former Middle East correspondent for the London Sunday Telegraph and the New York Daily News. Among his previous pieces for NRO are "All The News That's Fit to Print? The New York Times and Israel" and "Jeningrad. What the British media said." http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gross200406181018.asp

Do you have even an iota of knowledge of what it was to live under imperialist Japenese rule? Do you know how cruel were the Japenese? Do you know that the Japenese would make their prisoners dig their own graves before excuting them by beheading? Have you heard of the Nanking massacres and others in countries like Korea and the entire South East Asia (Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore)? They made the holocaust look like a walk in the park. If not for the Americans these countries to this day would be living under harsh imperialistic Japanese rule. BTW the Americans at first tried getting the Japanese to surrender but they refused. American GI's were being shot at by regular civilians, not even the imperial army. This is wehn the Americans had enough and dropped the two atomic bombs. If you ask me for good measure, a third one should have been dropped as well. BTW about the alleged Abu Ghraib prisoner scandal... Iraqi Abuse Victim: I Want to Live in America He claims the torture he suffered at the hands of his American military jailers at Baghdad's al Ghraib prison was unspeakably brutal, unconscionably inhumane; so incredibly humiliating that he cannot think of moving back to his old neighborhood in Nasiriya. So instead, Hayder Sabbar Abd says he may be forced to relocate to an entirely new country - none other than the homeland of his torturers, the good old USA. Mr. Abd alleges that in Nov. 2003, U.S. jail guards beat him, stripped him naked, forced him to pile on top of other naked inmates, then posed him in positions to simulate oral sex. It was a nightly ritual that began after a prison riot in which he participated. Then, inexplicably, the excruciating torture sessions stopped. While some of his fellow Iraqis grouse that they preferred life under Saddam Hussein, Abd says that America should "pay compensation" to the prison torture victims. "He said he felt he needed to move out of Iraq," reported the New York Times on Wednesday. "Despite it all, he said he would not refuse an offer to move to America." http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/5/212154.shtml Don't take these nut cases seriously. Their numbers are dwindling as more and more people's eyes are opening to the truth about Islam. BTW did anybody hear about the latest decapitation by members of the religion of peace ; Paul Johnsons decapitation?

Check out this link and educate yourself. Plestinians are known to abuse their own young from day one.http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=20934 Errr no, it's not. Most of the time these so called innocent bystanders are not so 'innocent'. Secondly what do you propose, let those Hamas people have a fiedl day in Israel? Ok, did you like foregt to take your regular prescription of Prozac? The tortured prisoners of S.Lebanon were actually tortured by the Lebanese Christians who were taking revenge againts these Islamos. I don't believe this lie is being regurgitated again and again. As for Golan heights if I'm not mistaken, it was won in the last war between Israel against Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Needless to say, these three countries got their ass whooped by Israel and Golan Heights is fair game. Vanunu is traitor to his country. Huh?? Are we playing with a full deck of cards here? Hello! Have you heard of the UN? A country in todays world if recognised by the UN is considered a legitimate state. You just don't seem to get now, do you? A terrorist is one who specifically targets women and children which Hamas and the PLO's Fatah movement have beein doing for ages. The IDF have never been involved in any attacks specifically against civilians. Arafat was born in Egypt. The only reason he is at the forfront at Palestinian politics was because his uncle Haj Amin Husseini was the former Mufti of Jerusalem. Read history, Haj Amin Husseini was offered to live side by side with the Jews under secular rule but he refused. Instead he proclaimed he wanted a Pleastine to be formed with harsh Islamic law implemented. Anyway here is a few links a to Arafats lineage. http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/arafat.html It's a pretty warped definition but no matter, you are entitled to your opinion no matter how looney it is. You need help. Generalisation? Which planet are you living on? Islamabad is classified as a major ally for political purposes just like how China too is considered an ally dumbo. The terrorist that are being sponsored by Pakistan does not effect the US but Pakistans neighbour India. So I guess Vajpayee and Pervez Musharraff was testing their Nuclear Arsenal in the respective nations for the sake of celebrating 'holi'? Are you nuts? This is my challenge to you, show me when and where a Palestinian history or civilization ever existed? FYI dumbo the Muslims only arrived in Jerusalem when it was annexed from the Byzanteums by the Muslims under the rule of Caliph Omar in the 7th century. The Jews faced one of their worst nightamares as they were dispersed by the Muslims. The term Palestine was given to Jerusalem when the Romans annexed it. They renamed it Palestine after an ancient nemesis of the Jews, the Philistines in order to completely annex the city from the Jews and also to displace them. Ever heard of ancient foxklores 'Samson and Delilah'? Delilah who seduced Samson was a Philistinian. Please note, there no Arabs there at the time. Judaism existed a good 2000 years before Muhammad was born. With Islam came Arab expansionism which resulted in the annexation of many nations, Jerusalem included. Israel and Judah were ancient nations that existed thousand of years ago when Muhammads ancestors were learning how to tame camels. And here is a little bonus for you, even todays present day Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians and Lebanese are not native to these countries. The real Egyptians are a minority in their own country. They are referred to as Coptic Christians. Jordan never ixisted prior to the Brits arriving there. Oh I see, you're a byproduct of the BBC, the British Burqa Corporation. Just tell me this, Israel only consist 11% of the entire mid east, why can't the Muslims let then have that tiny sliver of land? After the MUslims have the entire Mid East for themselves. This Palestinian/ Israeli conflict has absolutely nothing to do with land. Please read this article and enlighten yourself. It's about Jerusalem, stupid By Michael Anbar May 19, 2004 What is the driving force behind the Arab-Israeli conflict? What is its "underlying cause"? We have witnessed in the last 85 or so years, since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, violent hostilities of Arabs against Jews in the Middle East. These hostilities have taken different shapes over the years, including: (1) Religion-incited mob riots against defenseless ancient Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem and Hebron (1929). (2) Attacks by armed, well-trained paramilitary guerillas against Jewish isolated villages and transportation (1935-9). (3) Concerted invasions by armies of the neighboring Arab countries (1948,67,73). (4) Long-range missile attacks on Israeli towns and villages (1979-81, 2001-04). (5) Arab marine commando raids from the Mediterranean, including kidnapping and murder of individual Jews (1980-2004). (6) Anti-Jewish incitement of Muslim masses by Islamic clergy throughout the Muslim world (1935-2004)). (7) Desecration of Jewish holy sites by agitated Arab mobs (2000-01), and (8) indiscriminate brutal terrorist attacks against Jewish civilians, including suicidal mass murders of non-combatants (1997-2004). Finally, (9) a relentless wave of anti-Semitism emanates in the last 20 years from the Arab world. In addition, there is a boycott of personal interactions between Arabs and Jews in international forums and ostracizing Israelis in international organizations, including certain European Universities, ostensibly because Jews are according to the Koran subhuman beings - descendents of apes and pigs. There is also a worldwide jihad - a "holy war" against all Jews and their supporters, the U.S. in particular, bombing and desecrating synagogues and Jewish graveyards and religious schools all over the world. Excuses or "explanations" in Western media for all those murderous outrages and other anti-Jewish manifestations include: (1) Sheer Islamic xenophobia as well as envy of the spectacular economic and technological success of the young Jewish country. (2) Some of the Western commentators suggest that Arab dictators use the Israeli issue to distract their masses from their oppressive misery at home. But even if the latter explanation was partially true, it does not give good reason for why the Jewish presence in the Middle East is such an effective rallying point for Arab masses in despotic regimes. And (3) the western values of Israeli society, especially gender equality, threaten the stability of Arab neighboring societies and therefore the Arab leadership must denounce Israel and its culture. Then there are "ideological" explanations: (4) Refusal to recognize pre-Islamic Jewish and Christian biblical and post-biblical histories. (5) Refusal to recognize contemporary Jews as descendent of the ancient "Children of Israel." (6) Adherence to Islamic religious tenets that mandate the elimination of "infidels" whose presence "contaminates" "Arab land" (i.e., killing of all non-Muslims who are not readily subjugated by Islam). Finally there are explanations associated with Western "political correctness" and anti-colonialism: (7) Armed rebellion against an "illegal occupation" of "Palestine" and the "national liberation" of the "Palestinians", who actually constitute just a minute fraction of the Arab nation that happens to live in the Land of Israel. Then there is (8) the need to repatriate refugees of the 1948 "Jewish aggression" (when, in fact, the Israelis were the victims of Arab aggression, fighting for their very physical survival against the armies of seven Arab countries). The different expressions of Islamic Arab anti-Jewish animosity associated with the presence of Jews as an independent political entity in their ancient homeland (Jews continued to live there under foreign occupation since their loss of independence 2000 years ago), manifest a deep-seated anti-Jewish hatred shared by the majority of contemporary Muslims, especially orthodox ones. The large variety of explanations and excuses for this underlying Arab anti-Jewish hatred strongly suggests that none of those explanations or excuses is the genuine root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The true cause has remained undeclared most probably for political reasons. It must be discerned, therefore, from Islamic and Arab inherent rhetoric and behavior rather than from Arab propaganda aimed at and echoed by Western media. Why should the presence of a small independent Jewish state in the Land of Israel be so objectionable to Muslims? Why do Arabs dream of elimination of all Jews between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean (some Arabs with the same end goal are ready "expeditiously" to conquer the Jewish state in stages, as they did to the Crusaders)? Let us remember that a key Arab demand for any settlement of the conflict is the establishment of Jerusalem as an Arab capital. Let us remember that Arafat threatened that he is ready to sacrifice a million Palestinians as martyrs to conquer Jerusalem. Let us notice that the terrorist units of Arafat's Fatah party ("Conquest" in Arabic) are called "The al-Aqsa (Jerusalem's Temple Mount) Martyrs Brigades" and the prime terrorist units of the Iranian-Syrian sponsored "Islamic Jihad" (holy war in Arabic) organization, are called "The Al-Quds (Jerusalem) brigades." The conquest of Jerusalem is evidently the key target of Arab religious and/or political aspirations. Islam is a uniquely political religion, and so its religious and political objectives are inseparable. Therefore other "reasons" for Arab violent behavior are just a cover for this true goal of the Muslims. The Arab-Israeli conflict is just one of many flash points in the global conflict between Islam and Western Civilization. However, symbolically it is probably the most critical one. The goal of the Muslims - spearheaded by the militant, conservative Wahabists - is to impose fundamental Islam on all of humanity by all means possible - including persuasion, deception, coercion or violence. Basically, Islam is a supremacist ideology that denies the validity, not to speak of equal status of other faiths, and mandates their eventual annihilation. The sovereignty of Muslims over Jerusalem is tantamount to proof of the supremacy of Islam over Judaism and Christianity. The believers in these two faiths are fatally flawed people according to the Qur'an - the Jews are subhuman beings, descendents of apes and pigs who must be killed, at least by the End of Days, whereas Christians are pagans who worship three gods, and are bound to be killed just like the Jews. Islamic sovereignty over Jerusalem is, therefore, symbolically a prerequisite of Islamic global sovereignty. This is the secret reason of the Arab assault on Israel. It is not being proclaimed to the Western public so as to sedate the Christian world until that prime goal is achieved. The militant Muslims abuse the naivety of the Vatican that, notwithstanding the embarrassment of the Pope in Damascus, does not realize that Islam has changed since the days of the Ottoman Empire when coexistence of Islam and Christianity was possible. The Catholic Church, which hardly understood the spiritual meaning of Zionism in Judaism as well as in Christianity, for that matter, has not realized that sovereignty over Jerusalem by traditional Islamists negates all beliefs about the spiritual role of Jerusalem at the Christian or Jewish End of Days. The belligerent Muslims in Arabia and Tehran manage to manipulate secular westerners who are insensitive to religion-motivated ideologies and do not care about the sovereignty of any religion over Jerusalem, and persuaded them to support the militant Islamic cause for political or economic reasons. Moreover, some atheistic westerners are even happy to see Jewish and Christian beliefs, strongly associated with Jerusalem, crushed. Unfortunately, there are many secular Israelis who do not realize the symbolic value of Jerusalem in the current clash of civilizations, and are ready to concede the sovereignty over the "Holy City" to the mortal enemies of their own 3000 year-old culture. In summary, the sovereignty over Jerusalem is the main motivation of Islamic violence against the Jews and the State of Israel. Unlike the sovereignty over Mecca or Medina, the sovereignty over Jerusalem is not essential for upholding or preservation of Islam as it is not even mentioned in the Qur'an; it is however needed as a proof of the supremacy of Islam, demonstrating Islam's ability to deprive Judaism and Christianity of their spiritual quintessence. This must be realized by the Israelis as well as by the West, which is founded on Judeo-Christian values. Loss of Jerusalem to supremacist Islam might herald the demise of Western civilization. The whole Western World must therefore defend, without compromise, the integrity of Jerusalem, the City of Peace, against the ongoing Islamic violent assault. Until the Muslims accept Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem as part of the historical rights of the Jewish nation to its ancient homeland, there will be no peace in the Middle East. On the other hand, if the Muslims accept these premises regarding the Land of Israel, there is room for coexistence of Islam with Western civilization to the benefit of both. http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?en...ws&enVersion=0&

It doesn't matter if Osama was involved in 9/11 or not. He is a terrorist who was guilty of killing many Americans. Mullah Omar was given more then enough time to hand over Osama but he refused. So Afghanistan was invaded and mind you with the help of the Northern Alliance. When the Taliban took over Afghanistan, the Afghanis who were against the Taliban managed to secure a sall portion of Afghanistan which was called the Northen Alliance.

There is a difference. Hamas specifically targets civilians with their suicide bombers whereas the Palestinian civilians killed are usually bystanders or coconspirators who were there during confrontations between the IDF and Hamas terrorists. The fault is not in the hands of the Israeli gocerment but in the hands of Hamas terrorists who hide among civilians and the civilians who harbour them. And most of the time these so called Palestinian civilians are not really innocent. I read a story where a Palestinian man killed his kids to make it look like an IDF hit. Israel is a country recognised by the world. It has every right to defend itself against terrorists even when these terrorists hide among civilians. Those Palestinian houses were housing terrorists. The latest I heard so far are now UN ambulances are being used to transport terrorists into Israel. If Israel is really a terrorist goverment, why bother doing it themselves? They might as well revive the Irgun and sponsor them to do the killing. The Irgun were an extremist Israeli terrorist organisation that existed before Israels independance. It would be better for the Israeli goverment to secretly sponsor the Irgun and then when Palestinian civilians are killed, they could just feign ignorance and tell the world that they are trying their level best to eradicate them. This is what most Muslimnations are doing. I admit I do not know much about the LTTE but at least their cause is legitimate whereas the Palestinians isn't. Arafat himself is an Egyptian. What is an Egyptian doing heading the PLO? If this conflict is supposed to be about territory, why is an Egyptian getting involved? Here is the meaning of the word 'Terrorist' by an online dictionary Definition: [n] a radical who employs terror as a political weapon [adj] characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity" http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/terrorist Exactly how does an embargo on a nation by another constitue terrorism? Please explain. By the same token do you also agree to Beasts contention that the US is a terrorist state?

As far as I remember Osama did finally agree that he was behind the 9/11 attacks. This was just prior to the war in Afghanistan. Anyway here is something on the WMD's in Iraq...http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html

I think a terrorist is one who attacks civilians as opposed to military targets in order to coerce the one that he terrorises to comply his demands. I believe that Hamas is a terrorist group whereas the LTTE are freedom fighters. At the end of the day only cowards will innocent women and children whereas real men will take on military or armed targets.

I very much doubt if she does not understand Sikhism, it's actually the other way around. She does not understand Islam! Please get her to visit www.faithfreedom.org

No need to go far just look at how the Sikhs in this forum behave and you'll know why the Sikh organizations are in such shambles. I have a friend who have embraced Christianity and I myself have attended a few Bible study classes. I think we've got much better scripture then Christianity unfortunately the Punjabi attitude of intolerance and stupidity is still rife among Punjabi Sikhs. On the other hand, Caucasians are far more mature, intelligent and tolerant then most Sikhs today. What we need a is fresh blood, converts from other races who don't carry the Punjabi baggage with them.

US threatens mass expulsions About 82,000 men registered over five months More than 13,000 Arab and Muslim men in the US are facing deportation after co-operating with post-11 September anti-terror measures, it has been revealed. They are among 82,000 adult males who obeyed a government demand to register with the immigration service earlier this year, on the grounds they come from 25 mainly Muslim countries said to harbour terror groups. Only 11 of those who registered, and of the tens of thousands more screened at airports and border crossings, have been found to have links with terrorism. The vast bulk of those facing deportation proceedings were found to have lapses in their immigration status. By co-operating fully with the demand to register, many had hoped to be treated leniently. But the immigration service - which faced a backlash after several of the 11 September hijackers were found to have been in the country illegally - says enforcement is now a top priority. Correspondents say families in immigrant communities have already started packing up to leave the country, while others are simply going underground. Mass arrests Officials told the New York Times that more than 600 Arab and Muslim illegal immigrants were deported during the first wave of expulsions after 11 September. If a loophole can be exploited by an immigrant, it can also be exploited by a terrorist Jim Chaparro Homeland Security department US tackles net security But the Department of Justice stopped releasing figures after the number of arrests reached 1,200, says the paper, and no complete statistics are now available. Last year authorities launched a drive to track down those already served with deportation orders, in which more than 3,000 arrests were made. But this third sweep for illegal immigrants seems set to produce the largest wave of deportations: 13,354 at the last count, compiled by American newspapers. "There's been a major shift in our priorities," Jim Chaparro told the New York Times. He is acting director for interior enforcement at the Department of Homeland Security - which has now absorbed the old immigration service. "We need to focus our enforcement efforts on the biggest threats. If a loophole can be exploited by an immigrant, it can also be exploited by a terrorist," he said. 'Good conscience' But critics say the latest crackdown on immigrants is unfair and racist. "People did register out of their good conscience, because they wanted to follow the rules, respect the law," said Fayiz Rahman of the American Muslim Council. He says the policy is "targeted only toward Muslims. "This is a major concern. They are planning to reduce the number of Muslims on American soil... discourage Muslim immigration, make our lives difficult." Other critics say some of those awaiting deportation had only violated immigration rules due to a backlog in processing of applications by the government. Added to the controversy is a report released by the Department of Justice on Monday, which found "significant problems" in the way many immigrants arrested after the 11 September attacks were treated. Many were chained, physically and verbally abused, held without bail and denied access to lawyers, says the report, according to news agency AFP. But immigration officials defend the clampdown on immigrants. "We get criticised every day for not following through," said Bill Strassberger, spokesman for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "We can't have a legitimate immigration system if we allow people to come and just do what they want. It's not fair to those who do comply with the rules." Read a selection of your comments below. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By the end of this we will have been apart for six months Kenneth Michael Davidson, USA My Fiancée is awaiting notification of approval to enter the United States to be married. She is Maltese and abiding the law in doing this. What took 60-90 days before 9/11 now takes 150-180 days. By the end of this we will have been apart for six months, and spent a lot of money in our efforts to bring her here and marry. We don't blame the United States goverment, we blame the people who use the Muslim religion as justification to attack and kill innocent people in the USA. So quit your whining about being the only ones to suffer due to Muslim terrorism. Kenneth Michael Davidson, USA The INS is 100% correct and within the laws of the United States. Immigrants in the United States are "guests", many of whom have overstayed their welcome. If you are in our country illegally, we are within the laws of the United States as well as international law by deporting you. Copper Hays, USA The immediate effects of such a harsh INS clamp-down will be a loss of hard-won civil rights and basic decency. The long-term effect will be a slow-down of our economy. One of our country's engines of growth is the size of the population. Our population grows both by natural birth rates and by immigration. With the INS clamping down on immigration, both legal and illegal, many immigrants will not want to come here. Add to this mix the rising star of the EU. We may find that the EU, not the US, will enjoy the next wave of prosperity that follows behind every wave of immigration. Salman Sheikh, New Jersey, USA Tens of thousands of people co-operated with authorities in good faith. 11 of them had some connection with extremists. The US is now expelling many who did what was asked of them. Their good faith has been repaid with deception. How many of these moderate, generally law abiding people will turn to extremism? How many more will see this and say "The US is unfair and unjust?" Luke Mitchell, New Zealand/ resident in UK To say that Muslims are the only group attacking the US is very wrong. What about Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma bombing) ? Was he a Muslim? Zeeshan Ahmed, US It is appalling that Arab and Muslim communities alone are being scrutinised Katy, UK The immigration service is doing its job by deporting illegal immigrants from the US. I think most people accept this as a risk when entering the country or staying on illegally. However, it is appalling that Arab and Muslim communities alone are being scrutinised. Katy, UK "To protect a few, many will suffer". Any real terrorist will be able to enter a country outside of the usual legal channels, thus how effective is this policy. It will lead to racism & xenophobia. Raja, UK Muslims should stop whining and work toward real reform of their religion. They are headed for a clash of civilizations - and clearly with their fundamentalist side bent on living like 7th century zealots - they haven't got a prayer against the USA. J Paragon, USA I agree that anybody that is illegal in a country and/or has terrorist ties (or intentions) should be deported, or imprisoned and punished; no matter what. James Shillington, Cleveland, USA I am glad they are clamping down on the people who sneak in Wesley Young, USA I am a British citizen. I immigrated to the USA nearly four years ago after following the rules. It took time, money, patience and as I was marrying a US citizen, a large amount of pain when we were apart. I am glad they are clamping down on the people who sneak in, or sneak through a loophole. If I and so many others have to suffer, work, wait and so forth, then they should too. Wesley Young, USA This disgusting action is another step in the ever-increasing chain of events that are leading to US fascism. How can people be so blind as to actually excuse mass deportations and arrests based solely on race or religion? Comparisons of the Bush regime to the early Nazis are in order. Che, USA, USA America's true colours are coming out of the 11 September backlash. Since the real terrorists are out of reach, it needs to create some fake ones to show the public it is doing something. I am not surprised by any of these INS detentions, but concerned that the nation's ideals are falling off the roof before anyone has the guts to stand up to protect and defend those. Nowadays anything goes in the name of fighting terrorism. How does that make us better than terrorists? Rezaul Khandker, USA I had to jump through masses of hoops to come to the US Lisa, USA I'm in complete agreement with these immigration officials. I had to jump through masses of hoops to come to the US, legitimately married to a US service member and I'm a British citizen! I have no time or patience for those who exploit loop holes in the system or arrive illegally without proceeding through the correct channels. Lisa, USA Attitudes clearly demonstrative of religious and racial exclusivism are readily evident in both government policy and mainstream media treatment of Arabs and Muslims in the USA today. Those of us here in the USA who work in the field of interfaith relations are increasingly concerned as our federal government, ostensibly pursuing a global war against terrorism, seems to be slipping and sliding toward religious fascism here at home. Michael Gillespie, Chair, Ames Interfaith Council, Ames, Iowa USA I am a natural born citizen who is disgusted with the way the INS treats many who walk through its doors. They are horribly understaffed and that translates into a backlog that lets good people trying to make a better life for themselves and their families into a door to government red tape. If the US government wants to do things correctly they should hire more people to process paperwork and answer phones to help new immigrants instead of spread fear through immigrant groups. This country was founded on immigrants and it constantly amazes me how many people that claim to be Americans forget that someone in their family was once an immigrant themselves. Stacy, USA The Muslim community must expect closer scrutiny Douglas G, USA The events of September 11, 2001 affected each and every person living on the planet, most particularly Americans. Clearly every nation on earth has the right to regulate those who enter through its borders. Since those who chose to attack us are Muslims, the Muslim community must expect closer scrutiny. Douglas G, USA As an American Muslim I am increasingly worried about my country's tactics. Just a few months back I had a relative coming to visit me on a legitimate visa which we had a lawyer ensure complied with American law. Unfortunately, our lawyer made a small mistake which we were unaware of. At the airport the INS officers realized that the lawyer made a mistake. While the supervisor was understanding, his subordinates were cruel, and condescending in their behaviour. My uncle was detained, not allowed to speak to anyone and prevented from taking his medicine (he is a cardiac patient). Not only that, but the subordinates had the gall to suggest that he was not ill (they said he would be lying on the floor if this was true), and that he could spend the night in jail and not worry about a hotel. He was forced to buy a hideously expensive ticket to return home. This is not the America that I grew up in. Sam, USA http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2974882.stm

You don't get it. I am not critisizing Bhai Gurdas stature or place in Sikhism. I am questioning Lalleshwaris contention about what Bhai Gurdas may or may have not said and using that as a means to stiffle any criticism brough forth against Islam. I am not going to go into the polymics of what one religion says about another for that itsef is another story. What Bhai Gurdas may or may have not said has nothing to do with one's ability at critisizing Islam or any other religion for that matter.

I have no 'bone' to pick with you Lalleshwari but for the sake of clarity let me reprint what you said earlier. There is no such thing as 'Indic civilisation' and Sanskrit is a language and not a connotation that denotes culture, people or race. The people of Cambodia and Indonesia are actually a Polenysian people whereas Afghanistanis are of Central Asian origin or Indo Aryans. The people of Afghanistan are different to people of Camboda and Indonesia as Westerners are to Africans. The Sanskrit language belong to the Indo Aryans who migrated to North India. Yes it is true that in todays Indonesian and even Malaysian vocabulary there are many Sanskrit words or of Sanskrit origin used ie Mej, Dunia, Kismat, Takdir....but that is not because they one people with one culture. It is so because of the interaction between the North of India and South and eventually South India (Chola Kingdom) to Indonesia and Malaysia. Have you heard of ancient Hindu Kingdoms in South East Asia called Ganga Negara, Majapahit, Lanka Suka...? Anyway, various other races using Sanskrit words do not denote that they are of one race and people. Today even the English language uses many words of Subcontinent origin ie Karma, Bungalow, Dungarees....so does that mean that Caucasians also belong to this fictitious 'Indic civilisation' and Sankrit culture? Your contention that Sanskrit is the 'common cultural reference' is a misnomer because Sanskrit is a language and not culture. Although language is the backbone of any culture, sharing of words between different cultures is not indicative that they now belong to one culture. Wow! Are you rewriting history? All the books and classes I have attended are of no use then! I don't know where you are getting your information from but here is what I have been taught and learnt so far, Southern Indian languages like Tamil are not Sankrit based and have a different origin to Northen Indian languages like Punjabi. Tamil today may contain many Sanskrit words as Jahan pointed out but that is because of centuries of interaction between the North and the South and not because they are part of one fictitious 'Indic culture'. There is no such thing. There is no such thing as Sankritic culture or Indic 'group' of cultures for that matter. As I said in my earlier post, Punjabi and other Northen Indian languages are of Central Asian origin which is of the same origin of European languages. Their structure is the same.This is not the case for African and Arab based languages. My professor claimed thats why Punjabis, Persians, Afghanis are able to pick up languages like English and Spanish really quick becasue their structure is the same. This is not true if ones' mother tongue is of Central Asian origin and tries to learn Arabic, they would find it very hard as the structure is different. At first I did not believe him but then I remembered I took Arabic classes when I was young and I could never learn the dang language and now I know why. When I was in the US I was picking up Spanish really quick from my Chicano friends. I believe there must be some truth to what my professors contention. You don't have to be scholar to figure that out. Go hang out with Tamils and you'll note we literally have nothing in common with them. Here is one example; Punjabis will not marry their kin to another family of same surname believing they are family whereas among Tamils a 'mama' is allowed to marry his sisters daughter! I will end my post by stainth this, there is no such thing as an Indian race or culture. It is just a nationality that have confused many.

What does it matter what Bhai Gurdas said or may have said? Are you saying that because of what Bhai Gurdas said, we cannot mentione what is written in the Quran or the Hadiths? We are now not allowed to discuss Islam anymore? Is this what you're trying to say Lalleshwari? Ooops, you shoudn't have said that Sikh Princess. Watch now how the likes of Guv will now make a complaint against you claiming you have made a racist statement. Do I see another ban? I hope not.

What a load of crock from a fool who is hell bent at wanting to be correct all the time even at the expense of the truth. The AIT theorists believe that the Sanskrit language belonged to these Aryan invaders of the north. People of Tamil Nadu belong to the Dravidian stock. Their language is totally different from Aryan based languages and this is a fact I know personally. I have actually tired learning Tamil and it was no easy feat as the structure is totally different from Punjabi. This is what I learnt from my class titled Central History during my Uni days; All European languages along with other Central Asian languages have one common ancestry and all Arab languages along with African have a different ancestry. For example, the Persian word 'Barothar' means brother in English. The structure too plays a part. Arab is written from left to right. BTW do you realise that langauge is the crux of any culture? What is culture without language? Can you please elaborate on 'Sanskrit culture'? I suspect you have never met a single Tamil nor do you know anything about their culture.

This is the Sikhism I knew before hanging out at Sikh forums then again my knowledge is pretty limited. Ali tries to open up other peoples mind to Islam but in turn closes his mind to other religions. Although I am a fan I must agree, his contention of convincing the enemy with peaceful means at all costs is ludicrous to say the least. He should go live and fight his crusade in Saudi Arabia. Let him learn firsthand the folly of his idea of fighting an evil with purely peaceful means.

There is no such thing as Indian race and culture. Prior to 1947 there never was an Indian civilisation. Lets compare Punjabis of Punjab who form the most nothern state of India to Tamil Nadu to in South India. I have met Tamils and I have to either ocnverse with them in English or some other language that is common to both of us. I do not understand a single word of Tamil nor do I understand their language or culture. The same goes for many other British invesntions ie Pakistan, Palestine, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia.....They are all nationalities and not race or culture. Jahan, are you the same Punjabi Nationalist at FFI? You must be, your posts about Punjab is as usual enlightening. Please share with us more about Punjab buddy.

Can anybody here confirm with me if this verse exists in the SGGS? I have seen it being mentioned in other forums where they claimed it is from the SGGS. He bestowed His Grace on Adam, the father of mankind, who then lived in paradise for a long time. ||2|| Pale are the faces of those whose hearts are disturbed. They have forsaken their Bible, and practice Satanic evil.

Hi Singh47 I don't know if this artivle may help but I too believe that the Hindu religion is a myth. Don't you think it's kinda starnge that nowhere is the word 'Hindu' mentioned in any of the Rig Veda, Bhagavad Gita and other 'Hindu' literature? BTW Southern Hinduism (Tamil) is not recognised by the Northerners ie Muniswaran worship, carrying of 'Kavadi'... Here is the article... The English Invention of Hinduism Non-Existence of Hinduism Before 1830 Hinduism did not exist before 1830. It was created by the English colonialsts in the 1830s. This remarkable circumstance is evidenced by the fact that none of the travellers who visited India before English rule used the word `Hindu' or 'Sanatana'. This is amply borne out by the Encyclopedia Britannica, which states : " The term Hinduism ... [ was ] introduced in about 1830 by British writers. " -- [ EB 20 `Hinduism ' 519 ] In other words, the founding father of 'Hinduism' is an Englishman ! Nowhere in the Vedas, Puranas or any other religious text prior to 1830 AD are the terms `Hindu' or `Sanatana Dharma' used. Not a single inscription contains the terms `Hindu' or `Sanatana' prior to the Muslim era. The myth that Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma existed prior to this has been discarded in many theological circles, and the fantasy that Santana Dharma is `One Religion' has been abandoned - " The term "Hindusthan" was first used by a 12th century AD Afghan dynasty of Muhammad Ghori who dubbed his new subjects "Hindus". Prior to this era, no one in any region of South Asia had ever used these terms to define themselves." There is no mention of either of these terms in "ancient Brahmanical books (the oldest of which do not predate the 11th century; also the oldest "Brahmanical" temples are all post Buddhist, after 8-9th century A.D.). Ironically, two of the three core concepts of the Poorbia Brahmanist imperialistic program of "Hindu and Hindusthan" are borrowed from post-12th century Muslim (Afghan and Mogul) regimes." --[ Khals ] In recent years has arisen the movement for a revival of Dravidian religion. Two of the main proponents of this movement have exploded the fallacy of the `Sanatana Dharma' concept invented by a European-Smarta-Brahmin conspiracy as follows - " We are cognizant of the fact that the term 'Hindu religion' can not be found before the arrival of the Europeans in India. We are also aware of the fact that it was the Europeans who coined the term 'Hindu religion' to denote the Indian religions that were originated in India and followed by the Indians. Since the term 'Hindu religion' denotes all the religions of India together, it cannot refer to any particular religion. And since the term 'Hindu religion' consists of many religions which have different doctrines and are contrary to each other, there will be leaders for each religion and there cannot be a common leader for all the religions since they are controversial to each other. For instance, how can there be a common leader for both Buddhism and Saivism, which are contrary to each other. Hence the belief that there is a common leader for Hindu religion is superstitious and displays ignorance. Hence, the statement that 'The Brahmins are the leaders of Hindu religion' exhibits ignorance and deceptive. " [ Deva ] Indeed, the Aryan race of Brahmins were never the leaders of any of the religions of Dravidian religion, Kolarian religion, Buddhism or Jainism. They were only the leaders of the 6 orthodox schools of Brahmanism, which includes Vedism and Vaishnavism - " History reveals that the Europeans coined the term Hindu religion and saw nothing wrong in doing so. " -- [ Dev ] Hinduism is hence an invention of the Europeans, nothing more and nothing less. It should more properly be subdivided into the religions of Brahmanism and Shaivism, Shaktism, Tantrism and Saurism. Greeks and Indian Religions The Aryans referred to the region now known as 'Punjab' (Persian `Land of 5 Rivers'), as 'Sapta Sindhu'. In Old Achaemenid Persian this became 'Hapta Hindwa', and 'Hindwa' then meant `Inhabitant of the Indus', completely without religious significance. In Greek 'Hindwa' became 'Indoi' (Indian), whence the Latin 'Indus' river and 'India'. The Greeks expanded the meaning of India to include the entire subcontinent. It was never used to denote any religion in Greek or Latin. The Greeks never used the word 'Hindu', nor did the Romans. Arabs and 42 Indian Religions In Old Persian `Hindwa' denoted only the 'Region around the Indus River' and not the whole of India. In Pahlavi or Middle Persian this developed into 'Hindustan' (The Land of the Indus) but still denoted only the region around the Indus river. It was later Sanskritised to 'Hindusthan'. This meaning was later distorted to denote 'Land of Hindus'. In recent years the terms 'Dravida Nadu' or 'Dravidistan' and 'Dalitstan' have been coined to denote the regions where Dravidoids and Dalits respectively are a majority. 'Sudra Nadu' or `Sudrastan' has developed as an umbrella term for Dravidistan and Dalitstan. A full one-third of all Negroes in the world inhabit this Sudrastan, and Pan-Negroism has played a considerable role in the spread of this movement. The Arabs adopted the Old Persian 'Hindwa' as 'Hind' (India) and 'Hindwi' (Indian). Neither of these words were used as applying to any religion; they were purely geographical and national terms. None of the medieval Arab travellers was aware of one single monolithic faith being practiced. In fact, all the Arab travellers referred to the Indians as practicing 42 different religions : " Ibn Khurdaba has described that in India there are 42 religions. Al Idrisi also observes that 'Among the principal nations of India there are 42 sects. Some recognise the existence of a creator, but not of prophets, while others deny the existence of both. Some acknowledge the intercesory powers of graven stones, and others worship holy stones, on which butter and oil is poured. Some pay adoration to fire, and cast themselves into the flame. Others adore the sun and consider it the creator and director of the world. Some worship trees; others pay adoration to serpents, which they keep in stables, and feed as well as they can. deeming this to be a meritous work. Lastly, there are some who give themselves no trouble about any kind of devotion, and deny everything." ' --[ Arab.p.57 ]. Al Idrisi's description of Indian religions given above presents a clear description of the many different faiths practiced in India. He has accurately described the existence of Sun-worshippers (Rajput Sauras) and Atheists (Carvakas) as separate religions. None of the Arab travellers was aware of there being only one religion in India. This proves that `Sanatana Dharma' did not exist at that time. Some of the Arab travellers even increased the number of Indian religions to 48: " The Jamiu-l Hikayat increases the number of religions in India to 48 "--[ Arab.57.n1 ] An exhaustive treatment of the Indian religions is given later on. To summarize, in the words of the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, " The word [ Hindu ] was never used in Indian literature or scriptures before the advent of Muslims to India " [ ERE.6.699 ], cf. also [ Tirtha.p.vii ]. If at all it was used in a racial sense, " the Muslim rulers used the term 'Hindu' [ correctly `Hindooi' ] to mean Indian non-Muslims only." [ Basic ] The traveller Qazwini has also described the various different religions prevalent in ancient India, clearly mentioning Brahmanism as a separate religion : " Qazwini (1203 AD - 1280 AD) says that there are various sects among the people of Hind. Some believe in the creator, but not the propher. They are the Brahmans. There are some who believe in neither. There are some who worship idols, some the moon and some other, fire." --[ Nain.230 ] Asokan inscriptions also contain the term `brahmana va sramana', indicating a fundamental distinction between the Brahminists, followers of the 6 orthodox schools of Brahmanism, and the Sramanas or `nastika' heretics. Qazwini correctly describes Brahmanism as accepting a creator - God, something which the Sramanas do not do. Qazwini's "there are some who believe in neither" almost definitely refers to these nastiks (Jains, Buddhists, Atheists). Yet another traveller Abul Faaj (988 AD) mentioned the sects of India, and was completely unaware of the existance of `One Religion': " al-Dinikitiya - These are worshippers of the Sun. They have an idol placed upon a cart supported by 4 horses. They believe that the Sun is the king of the angels deserving worship and adoration. They prosrate themselves before this idol, walk round it with incense, playing the lute and other musical instruments .. " [ Nain.228 ] . " al-Jandrihkriya " [ Chandra + kranti ] " They are worshippers of the moon. They say that the moon is one of the angels deserving honour and adoration. Their custom is to set up an idol, to represent it, on a carrt drawn by 4 ducks. In the head of this idol is a gem called jandarkit" [ Nain.229 ] [ jandarkit is moonstone, "said to emit moisture when placed in the moonlight, and believed by some to be a congelation of the moon's rays." Nain.229.n3 ] " Anshaniyya " [ Sans. Anasana - fasting ] " those who abstain from food and drink " [ Nain.230 ] " Bakrantiniya are those who fetter their bodies with iron. Their practice is to shave off hair and beard and not to cover the body except for the private parts. It is not their custom to teach or speak with anyone apart from those of their religion." [ Nain.230 ] " Kangayatra [ Gangayatra ] " scattered throughout Hind. Their belief is that, if a man commits a grave sin, he must travel to the Ganges [ and ] ... wash [in it]" [Nain.230 ] " Rahmarniyya [ Raja + Tam. manam = honour, self-respect; rajapimani = supporters of the king ] They say, "God, exalted be He, made them kings. If we are slain in the service of kings, we reach paradise." [ Nain.230 ] " There is another sect whose practice is to grow long hair." do not drink wine, ... temple on hill called hawran [ Nain.230 ] Hence, there existed at the time of the Arabs several distinct religions. This is simply because `Hinduism' or `Sanatana Dharma' had not yet been invented by the Europeans. Like many aspects of early Indology, the concept of `Hinduism' was overly simplistic and utterly baseless. According to Jawaharlal Nehru, the earliest reference to the word 'Hindu' can be traced to a Tantrik book of the eighth century C.E., where the word means a people, and not the followers of a particular religion. The use of the word 'Hindu' in connection with a particular religion is of a very late occurrence [ Nehru, p.74-75 ]. Portuguese and Gentoos The Portuguese never even used the word 'Hindu' or `Santana' or any of the variants to denote any Indian religion, proving that Hinduism, did not exist as a concept at the time of the Portuguese. Instead, they referred to the `Hindus' as `Gentoos'. Portuguese dictionaries give the following definition of `Gentoo': Gentio (Hindu, gentile, a heathen, pagan) + applied by the Portuguese to the Hindus in contradistinction to the Mouros, or Moors ie. Mohammedans. [ Asia, p.167-168 ] + Anglo-Ind. `gentoo', Konk. jintu Gentilico (`the language of the Hindus') + `em gentilico' in the Hindu or vernacular langauge + still applied to the Telugu language The word `Gentoo' still survives in usage, and is applied to the Telugus: " The word `gentoo' is used at the present time only in Madras of the Telugu-speaking Hindus and their language." --[ Asia, p.168 ] Duarte Barbosa As an illustration of the fact that Sanatana Dharma did not exist at the time of the Portuguese, a few quotations from Duarte Barbosa, a Portuguese traveller who visited India, are given. The Indians are always referred to as `Gentoos': " And before this kingdom of Guzerate fell into the hands of the Moors, a certain race of Gentios whom the Moors called Resbutos dwelt therein." [ Duarte Barbosa, ed. Dames, Vol. I, p.109 cited in Asia, p.167.n3 ] " And in this kingdom there is another sort of Gentio whom they call Baneanes." [ Duarte Barbosa, ed. Dames Vol. I, p.109 in Asia, p.167.n4 ] Contemporary Documents Documents from the early modern period also do not mention `Sanatanis'; they only mention `Gentoos': " The Originall of this Petition (to Charles II) ... is signed by 225 of the principalest inhabitants of this Island, viz. 123: Christians and 84: Gentuis 18: Moores " -- [ `Anglo-Portuguese Negotiations relating to Bombay 1660-1677' (OUP) by S.A.Khan, p.453 ] Another term used by Europeans as applying to the followers of Native Indian Religions was `Banian'. " The early European travellers applied the term [ Banian ] to the followers of the Hindu religion generally " [Asia, p.38 ] The term in fact denotes a Jain trader (from vaniyan Sansk. vanij, trader). Creation of Hinduism after 1830 by the English Colonialists The Brahmins of India actively collaborated with the English colonialists in their conquest of India. As a result, the English rewarded them by inventing the designation `Leaders of Hinduism' for their loyal servants, their Aryan Brahmin cousins. Gentoos & Anglo-Indians The English came to India after the Portuguese, and due to the immense cultural influence of the latter, the English also adopted the word Gentoo as applying to any follower of an Indian religion: " The first digest of Indian legislation, which was complied under orders of Warren Hastings and published in 1773, has the title `A Code of Gentoo Law'."--[Asia,p.168] Yule is led to believe that the English form Gentoo did not come into general use till late in the 17th century. [ Asia.168 ] Nor did the early English travellers use the words `Hindu' or `Sanatani', instead they used the Portuguese word `Gentoo': " The late scarcity of provisions necessitating us to take some cows from the Jentue inhabitants to supply the fleet... " -- [ Forrest, Selections, Home Series, Vol. II, p.31 cited in Asia,p.167.n1 ] " The Gentues , the Portugal Idiom for Gentiles, are the Aborigines, who enjoyed their freedom till the Moors or Scythian Tartars .. undermining them, took advantage of their Civil Commotions." -- [ Fryer, East India, Hak. Soc. Vol. I, p.81 in Asia, p.167.n1 ] Thus the concept of `Hindu' or `Sanatani' as applying to a religion did not exist, nor were any of these terms used by the early English colonialists. Hence, even by the time of the early English colonialists `Hinduism' did not exist. Invention of Hinduism by English Census-Compilers The English census-compilers were assigned the daunting task of conducting the Indian head-count by the British government. These people were not theologians, and coined the term `Hindu' as a blanket term to encompass several religions. Thus a `Hindu' was defined in the Census as anybody who was not Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, or Jain. It was thus an exclusivist term: Hinduism was defined by what it was not, and not by what it was. It is hence entirely unsuitable as a definition. Later the term Sanatana Dharma was invented to deliberately submerge the English creation of Hinduism. In the words of the Babri Masjid archive [ Basic ] : " Finding it difficult to get the names of the religions of these communities, the British writers gave them the word "Hinduism" to be used as a common name for all of their religions in about 1830." --[ Basic citing EB 20:581] Indeed, the concept of Hinduism was invented by the English with the ulterior motive of making their loyal servents, the Aryan Brahmins, the rulers of India. " The Europeans who came to India in 1498 A.D. for the purpose of establishing trade became the rulers of India. History reveals that the Aryan Brahmins were the supporters and assistants for the Europeans to capture the political power of India and enslave the Indians . It is a political strategy to befriend the traitors within a country in order to get its secrets and capture its political power. " -- [ Dev ] All the invasions of India by foreigners were engineered by the Brahmins. They actively collaborated with the Portuguese, helping them to conquer large parts of India. The offices of the Mughal empire were full of Brahmin conspirators. A full one-third of the British Bengal army was Brahmin. Indeed, the answer to the much-asked question, `Why has Indian history been a series of invasions ?' is `The Brahmins engineered them !' - " If the history of India is analyzed, it is revealed that the Aryan Brahmins have acted as the traitors through the ages. They also betrayed India to the Europeans. The term Aryans denote the group of people who came to India in different periods without any religion, " --[ Dev ] In this connection one need only remember that the Brahmin Canakya engineered the Macedonian invasion of India by Alexander the Great. Through his protege Candragupta Maurya, Canakya lured the Greeks deep into the Punjab. With the troops and mercenaries provided by Alexander, Canakya and Candragupta managed to overthrow the indigenous dynasty of Magadha and succeeded in imposing the first totalitarian state the world had ever seen : the Mauryan Empire. A few decades later, the Bactrian Greeks followed up on Canakya the Brahmin's open invitation, and annexed major parts of India. Ulterior Motives in Creation of Hinduism The creation of Hinduism, the subsequent formation of Sanatana Dharma and the propagation of these concepts is mainly due to vested interests with the following ulterior motives. Reward of Brahmin Collaborators - As shown above, the main motive in the English invention of Hinduism was to reward their Aryan Brahmin collaborators with an imagined leadership of all of Hinduism and by extension, all of India. Such were the services rendered to the British crown that not only were the Brahmins made leaders of India at that time, but the whole of Indian history was completely falsified to portray them as the `eternal rulers of all Hindus'. Dravidianism Suppressed - India obtained Independance from Anglo-Brahmin and Brahmin-Portuguese rule in 1947. However, the new state that arose was merely a neo-Brahminist casteocracy. One of the main `threats' to the integrity of the new Aryan Brahmin-ruled republic was the spectre of Dravidian Nationalism. The Sudroids (Dravidoids and Kolarians) represent the original inhabitants of India, who were later subjugated by the Aryan invaders. They form the overwhelming majority in Southern India, and strong demands existed for a separate Dravidian nation. Ambedkar and many others fought for recognition of the Dravidian Religion as separate from the Hindu religion, but M.K.Gandhi foiled these attempts, and succeeded in temporarily subverting the Dravidians in Hinduism. The British were reluctant to recognise the Dravidian religion, since it would have antagonised their Brahmin collaborators. This is one of the prime motives behind the invention of Hinduism. Vaishnavite Ambitions - Since the majority of `Hindus' were Brahminist Vaishnavites in any case, it was hoped that Vaishnavism would thus become a synonym for Hinduism, thereby subverting Shavism (Dravidian Religion), Smartism, etc. in one go. Christian Missionaries - The creation of Hinduism suited the missionaries who did not have to deal with any Indian theological system. Christianity historically made the greatest inroads in `pagan' (ie. religions lacking a developed sustem of theology) regions, while failing in areas where `devoloped' religions like Islam, Confucianism, etc. By creating Hinduism and submerging thereby Vaishnavism, Jainism, Buddhism, Saurism, etc. into `One Great Pagan Religion' they had to deal with `merely another pagan cult'. Hence, `Hinduism' served the interests of the Christian missionaries. English Imperialism - The creation of Hinduism entailed inclusion of the Negroid-Australoid Aboriginal Races of India as `Hindu'. Thus, English dominion in India was justified by claiming that it represented a pious mission to `civilize the pagan natives'. Aryanism Suppressed - English colonial rule was justified by the rule of `Whites' over `non-Whites'. Accepting the existence of `Aryans' in India would have meant a nullification of this justification, since a sizeable fraction of India's population would be `white' and would not require `white' Anglo-Saxon rule. The submergence of Indo-Aryans as `Hindus' served to suppress this menace to British rule. The early Arya Samajists realised this attempt to subvert the identitiy of Aryans. and staunchly opposed the use of the word `Hindu'; a move equally opposed by the British. By denying `white' status to Indo-Aryans (a fact since proven by genetics). the English justified rule over `non-whites'. Rajputism Suppressed - The Rajputs are descendants of the Scythians, Greeks, and other immigrants who entered India just prior to the rise of the Indo-Islamic Caliphate of Delhi. Throughout their history they followed their Solar religions (`saura' cults), independant of any Aryan Vaishnavite Brahmans. Yet the invention of Hinduism served to subvert Saura religion as well. Smarta Subversion - The creation of Hinduism suited the Smartas (Advaitins) most of all, since their religion was defined in terms of giving equal worship to 5 major gods of India, as well as a whole host of others. It remained a very minor religion in India, having been propagated only by Sankaracharya and being localised mainly in Kerala. The overwhelming majority of Hindus were (and still are) Vaishnavites (more than 75 %). However, the definition of `Hinduism' was essentially Smarta, and by propagating `Hinduism' the Smartas hoped to submerge their old rivals the Vaishnavites. Noted Sikh author G.S.Khalsa has amply pointed out the manner in which Hinduism was invented : " The Brahmanists came to power on the Congress elephant by deviously converting the pre-independence political debate and struggle into a communal Hindu-Muslim religious struggle. This was made possible by the master stroke of Mahatama Gandhi - the Hindu nationalist cum holy sadhu who made "Hindus" a 55% majority on paper in the 1920s upon getting the Dalits or "untouchables" (20%) dubbed as "Hindus" by the British. This coup moved the "Hindus" from 35% to a 55% majority in British India. In pre-independence India, Muslims were 25%, Sikhs/Christians/ Buddhists/ tribals/etc. formed the remaining 20%. This action, along with recognition of Congress as the sole political representative of all Indians in national matters, was a payoff by the British colonial authorities to the Brahmanist lead Congress and Gandhi for loyal services rendered to Queen and empire in supporting their WWI war effort; recruiting the "martial" communities (e.g. Sikhs, Jats, Rajputs, Gujars of Saka-origin) of the northwest and Muslims to go fight for the British Empire in Europe/ middle east; subduing, opposing, infiltrating and sabotaging other non-Congress/non-Brahmanist lead political parties and independence movements organized at home (who saw British weakness during the war as an ideal opportunity). The 55% fraudulent "Hindu pile" was little more than a political game of Brahmanist politicians and political parties in Delhi while caste Hindus would not eat/touch/marry/socialize or even worship with their "polluted" Dalits (20% untouchables) in the 1920s. After this "victory on paper", Brahmanist politicians, political parties, and organizations totally communalized pre-independence politics along "Hindu/Muslim" religious lines of "nationhood" to get on the road to empire and Delhi. " --[ Khals ] Indeed, Encyclopedia Britannica accepts that `Hinduism' is a blanket term covering several religions and does not refer to a single religion : " Hinduism is both a civilization and a congregation of religions ; it has neither a beginning nor a founder, nor a central authority, hierarchy or organization. Every attempt at a specific definition of Hinduism has prvoed unsatisfactory in one way or antoher." -- [ EB.20 `Hinduism' 519-520 ] Hinduism is not a revealed religion and, therefore, has neither a founder nor definite teachings or common system of doctrines [ 7 ]. It has no organization, no dogma or accepted creeds. There is no authority with recognized jurisdiction. A man, therefore, could neglect any one of the prescribed duties of his group and still be regarded as a good Hindu. Invention of Sanatana Dharma by Smartas Subsequent to the invention of Hinduism the followers of the different Indian religions realised that the word 'Hindu' and 'The Religion of Hinduism' were English inventions. This caused much embarassment, and many Vaishnavites, Shavites etc, declared that they were followers of different religions, which they actually are. Had this process reached its full development, there would have been no problem. However, some Smartas and other vested interests attempted to preserve the superficial unity which the English creation of Hinduism had given. Hence, the English concept of 'Hinduism' was renamed as `Sanatana Dharma' in order to fabricate a Sanskritic name for the concept. The word `Sanatana' was created in sometime in the 19th century as an attempt to replace the foreign word 'Hindu'. The non-Muslim people of the South Asian subcontinent called Hindu had no precise word for their religions [ Land ]. They were, as they are, divided into thousands of communities and tribes, each having its own religious beliefs, rituals, modes of worship, etc. The Smarta religion arose "by the 7th century, when the Smartas inistituted their worship of 5 deities, omitting Brahma, he had lost all claims as a superior diety. " [ EB 2.460 ] " The people called Hindu have nothing common in their religious affairs. 'Hinduism', therefore, cannot give any precise idea as to what it means. Attempts were made to define the term but could not succeed. " --[ Basic ] To summarise, realising that Hinduism was in fact an English invention; this circumstance becoming widely known and the cause of much satire on `Hinduism' and its English invention, the Brahmin Vaishnavas invented the term `Sanatana Dharma' in order to counter these difficulties : " Faced with this dilemma, Hindu scholars sometime use the word Sanatan Dharma (eternal religion) and sometime Vedic Dharma (religion of the Veda), etc. for their religion. But as names of their religion, these words are also untenable as they do not imply anything precise for all the people called Hindu." --[ Basic ]

"A religion is obsolete as soon as it is written"...Osho

To be honest I actually have considered becoming a stand up comedian but later decided against it. Thanks for the compliments though. I promise I will. In my opinion it is one of the best threads in this folder which is why I want to take my time in giving a proper response. You see most of posts here are made from work which is why sometimes they contain errors. Please don't get your 'kashera' in a twist. You're right nobody here compared Bush to Hitler nor did anybody claim they hated Bush. I only used those comonly said one liners used by many liberals as a means to make a point. Where in my posts did I claim you specifically said "Bush is Hitler" or " I don't hate America but I hate Bush" Here is part of what I said earlier... Where did I say that you specifically made those statements? Please point out to me where your name is mentioned. Do you actually read my posts before you reply or do you zero in on key words and make your own assumptions? I suspect this is what happened when you made that complaint against Naunidhi's supposed racist remark. I hope you are happy now that she is banned. Yes, I made that quote "I hate Chirac" as a point but you obviously did not get it. Please point to me where did I mention you making that statement. Go back and read my posts carefully before replying. BTW here is what gurdmeister originally stated. gurdmeister wrote I'm curious, who forms the American goverment if not the people of America? Is the American goverment and America two separate entities or are they one? Please show me where have I stated that I have never read the news provided by these news agencies. I notice a trend about, you seem to make a lot of assumptions and come to your own conclusions. Please buddy, read my posts carefully before responding. Now you're trying to make a comparison which btw is not comparable to what I said in a different thread to this one. Great! Should I point out the differences to you? I think not, let your puny brain undergo a bit of excercise. I'll give you a hint though and lets see if you get it. i) www.bbcbias.org & www.bbcwatch.com ii) Pierce Morgan chief editor of Daily Mirror recently sacked for printing doctored pictures despite being warned about it. It will probably take you a few days but just relax and read carefully and you wil see the difference. Actually the 'paradox' that you speak of only exists in your mind. Hey, enough with the 'compliments' already otherwise it might get into my head! And you my friend like to put 'words into my mouth', no? Where did I state I don't care? I was trying to make a point to gurdmeister that he was mistaken to believe that the US was all alone in it's endevour in Iraq. Stop making assumptions like your buddy Guv. Again you are making assumptions. Your virulent hatred for the US has clouded your mind and you literally can't see straight. Should I even bother going through the rest of all your posts? You seem to be making your own assumptions to all my posts, you might as well have a debate with yourself then. LOL! Ahem...where did I mention torture? Again, you make your own assumptions. Here is what we both said. I'm really curious, we were first addressing the justification for war in Afghanistan. Exactly how does asking me if the Gurus condoned torture fit into our dialogue so far? Now you are going off on a tangent?

The hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky by Keith Windschuttle There’s a famous definition in the Gospels of the hypocrite, and the hypocrite is the person who refuses to apply to himself the standards he applies to others. By that standard, the entire commentary and discussion of the so-called War on Terror is pure hypocrisy, virtually without exception. Can anybody understand that? No, they can’t understand it. —Noam Chomsky, Power and Terror, 2003 Noam Chomsky was the most conspicuous American intellectual to rationalize the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The death toll, he argued, was minor compared to the list of Third World victims of the “far more extreme terrorism†of United States foreign policy. Despite its calculated affront to mainstream opinion, this sentiment went down very well with Chomsky’s own constituency. He has never been more popular among the academic and intellectual left than he is today. Two books of interviews with him published since September 11, 2001 both went straight onto the bestseller lists.[1] One of them has since been turned into a film entitled Power and Terror, now doing brisk business in the art-house movie market. In March 2002 the film’s director, John Junkerman, accompanied his subject to the University of California, Berkeley, where in a five-day visit Chomsky gave five political talks to a total audience of no fewer than five thousand people. Meanwhile, the liberal news media around the world has sought him out for countless interviews as the most promi- nent intellectual opposed to the American response to the terrorist attacks. Newspaper articles routinely open by reminding readers of his awesome intellectual status. A profile headlined “Conscience of a Nation†in the English daily The Guardian declared: “Chomsky ranks with Marx, Shakespeare, and the Bible as one of the ten most quoted sources in the humanities—and is the only writer among them still alive.†The New York Times has called him “arguably the most important intellectual alive.†Chomsky has used his status, originally gained in the field of linguistics, to turn himself into the leading voice of the American left. He is not merely a spokesman. His own stance has done much to structure left-wing politics over the past forty years. Today, when actors, rock stars, and protesting students mouth anti-American slogans for the cameras, they are very often expressing sentiments they have gleaned from Chomsky’s voluminous output. Hence, to examine Chomsky’s views is to analyze the core mindset of contemporary radicalism, especially the variety that now holds so much sway in the academic and arts communities. Chomsky has been a celebrity radical since the mid-1960s when he made his name as an anti-Vietnam War activist. Although he lost some of his appeal in the late-1970s and 1980s by his defense of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, he has used September 11 to restore his reputation, indeed to surpass his former influence and stature. At seventy-four years of age, he is today the doyen of the American and much of the world’s intellectual left. He is, however, an unconventional academic radical. Over the past thirty years, the left in the humanities has been smitten by high theory, especially neo-Marxist, feminist, and postmodernist philosophy out of Germany and France. Much of this material was arcane enough in its own language but in translation it elevated obscurantism to a badge of prestige. It inundated the humanities with relativism both in epistemology and moral philosophy. In contrast, Chomsky has produced no substantial body of political theory of his own. Nor is he a relativist. He advocates the pursuit of truth and knowledge about human affairs and promotes a simple, universal set of moral principles. Moreover, his political writings are very clear, pitched to a general rather than specialist audience. He supports his claims not by appeals to some esoteric conceptual apparatus but by presenting plain, apparently factual evidence. The explanation for his current appeal, therefore, needs to be sought not in recent intellectual fashions but in something with a longer history. Chomsky is the most prominent intellectual remnant of the New Left of the 1960s. In many ways he epitomized the New Left and its hatred of “Amerika,†a country he believed, through its policies both at home and abroad, had descended into fascism. In his most famous book of the Sixties, American Power and the New Mandarins, Chomsky said what America needed was “a kind of denazification.†Of all the major powers in the Sixties, according to Chomsky, America was the most reprehensible. Its principles of liberal democracy were a sham. Its democracy was a “four-year dictatorship†and its economic commitment to free markets was merely a disguise for corporate power. Its foreign policy was positively evil. “By any objective standard,†he wrote at the time, “the United States has become the most aggressive power in the world, the greatest threat to peace, to national self-determination, and to international cooperation.†As an anti-war activist, Chomsky participated in some of the most publicized demonstrations, including the attempt, famously celebrated in Norman Mailer’s Armies of the Night, to form a human chain around the Pentagon. Chomsky described the event as “tens of thousands of young people surrounding what they believe to be—I must add that I agree—the most hideous institution on this earth.†This kind of anti-Americanism was common on the left at the time but there were two things that made Chomsky stand out from the crowd. He was a scholar with a remarkable reputation and he was in tune with the anti-authoritarianism of the student-based New Left. At the time, the traditional left was still dominated by an older generation of Marxists, who were either supporters of the Communist Party or else Trotskyists opposed to Joseph Stalin and his heirs but who still endorsed Lenin and Bolshevism. Either way, the emerging generation of radical students saw both groups as compromised by their support for the Russian Revolution and the repressive regimes it had bequeathed to eastern Europe. Chomsky was not himself a member of the student generation—in 1968 he was a forty-year-old tenured professor—but his lack of party membership or any other formal political commitment absolved him of any connection to the Old Left. Instead, his adherence to anarchism, or what he called “libertarian socialism,†did much to shape the outlook of the New Left. American Power and the New Mandarins approvingly quotes the nineteenth-century anarchist Mikhail Bakunin predicting that the version of socialism supported by Karl Marx would end up transferring state power not to the workers but to the elitist cadres of the Communist Party itself. Despite his anti-Bolshevism, Chomsky remained a supporter of socialist revolution. He urged that “a true social revolution†would transform the masses so they could take power into their own hands and run institutions themselves. His favorite real-life political model was the short-lived anarchist enclave formed in Barcelona in 1936–1937 during the Spanish Civil War. The Sixties demand for “student power†was a consequence of this brand of political thought. It allowed the New Left to persuade itself that it had invented a more pristine form of radicalism, untainted by the totalitarianism of the communist world. For all his in-principle disdain of communism, however, when it came to the real world of international politics Chomsky turned out to endorse a fairly orthodox band of socialist revolutionaries. They included the architects of communism in Cuba, Fidel Castro and Che Guevera, as well as Mao Tse-tung and the founders of the Chinese communist state. Chomsky told a forum in New York in December, 1967 that in China “one finds many things that are really quite admirable.†He believed the Chinese had gone some way to empowering the masses along lines endorsed by his own libertarian socialist principles: China is an important example of a new society in which very interesting and positive things happened at the local level, in which a good deal of the collectivization and communization was really based on mass participation and took place after a level of understanding had been reached in the peasantry that led to this next step. When he provided this endorsement of what he called Mao Tse-tung’s “relatively livable†and “just society,†Chomsky was probably unaware he was speaking only five years after the end of the great Chinese famine of 1958–1962, the worst in human history. He did not know, because the full story did not come out for another two decades, that the very collectivization he endorsed was the principal cause of this famine, one of the greatest human catastrophes ever, with a total death toll of thirty million people. Nonetheless, if he was as genuinely aloof from totalitarianism as his political principles proclaimed, the track record of communism in the USSR—which was by then widely known to have faked its statistics of agricultural and industrial output in the 1930s when its own population was also suffering crop failures and famine—should have left this anarchist a little more skeptical about the claims of the Russians’ counterparts in China. In fact, Chomsky was well aware of the degree of violence that communist regimes had routinely directed at the people of their own countries. At the 1967 New York forum he acknowledged both “the mass slaughter of landlords in China†and “the slaughter of landlords in North Vietnam†that had taken place once the communists came to power. His main objective, however, was to provide a rationalization for this violence, especially that of the National Liberation Front then trying to take control of South Vietnam. Chomsky revealed he was no pacifist. I don’t accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this—and I think we should—we have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified. It was not only Chomsky who was sucked into supporting the maelstrom of violence that characterized the communist takeovers in South-East Asia. Almost the whole of the 1960s New Left followed. They opposed the American side and turned Ho Chi Minh and the Vietcong into romantic heroes. When the Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia in 1975 both Chomsky and the New Left welcomed it. And when news emerged of the extraordinary event that immediately followed, the complete evacuation of the capital Phnom Penh accompanied by reports of widespread killings, Chomsky offered a rationalization similar to those he had provided for the terror in China and Vietnam: there might have been some violence, but this was understandable under conditions of regime change and social revolution. Although information was hard to come by, Chomsky suggested in an article in 1977 that post-war Cambodia was probably similar to France after liberation at the end of World War II when thousands of enemy collaborators were massacred within a few months. This was to be expected, he said, and was a small price to pay for the positive outcomes of the new government of Pol Pot. Chomsky cited a book by two American left-wing authors, Gareth Porter and George Hildebrand, who had “presented a carefully documented study of the destructive American impact on Cambodia and the success of the Cambodian revolutionaries in overcoming it, giving a very favorable picture of their programs and policies.†By this time, however, there were two other books published on Cambodia that took a very different line. The American authors John Barron and Anthony Paul called their work Murder of a Gentle Land and accused the Pol Pot regime of mass killings that amounted to genocide. François Ponchaud’s Cambodia Year Zero repeated the charge. Chomsky reviewed both books, together with a number of press articles, in The Nation in June 1977. He accused them of publishing little more than anti-communist propaganda. Articles in The New York Times Magazine and The Christian Science Monitor suggested that the death toll was between one and two million people out of a total population of 7.8 million. Chomsky mocked their total and picked at their sources, showing some were dubious and that a famous photograph of forced labor in the Cambodian countryside was actually a fake. He dismissed the Barron and Paul book partly because it had been published by Reader’s Digest and publicized on the front page of The Wall Street Journal, both of them notorious anti-communist publications, and partly because they had omitted to report the views of journalists who had been to Cambodia but not witnessed any executions. Ponchaud’s book was harder to ignore. It was based on the author’s personal experience in Cambodia from 1965 until the capture of Phnom Penh, extensive interviews with refugees and reports from Cambodian radio. Moreover, it had been favorably reviewed by a left-wing author in The New York Review of Books, a publication for which Chomsky himself had often written. Chomsky’s strategy was to undermine Ponchaud’s book by questioning the credibility of his refugee testimony. Acknowledging that Ponchaud “gives a grisly account of what refugees have reported to him about the barbarity of their treatment at the hands of the Khmer Rouge,†Chomsky said we should be wary of “the extreme unreliability of refugee reportsâ€: Refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocutors wish to hear. While these reports must be considered seriously, care and caution are necessary. Specifically, refugees questioned by Westerners or Thais have a vested interest in reporting atrocities on the part of Cambodian revolutionaries, an obvious fact that no serious reporter will fail to take into account. In 1980, Chomsky expanded this critique into the book After the Cataclysm, co-authored with his long-time collaborator Edward S. Herman. Ostensibly about Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, the great majority of its content was a defense of the position Chomsky took on the Pol Pot regime. By this time, Chomsky was well aware that something terrible had happened: “The record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome,†he wrote. “There can be little doubt that the war was followed by an outbreak of violence, massacre and repression.†He mocked the suggestion, however, that the death toll might have reached more than a million and attacked Senator George McGovern’s call for military intervention to halt what McGovern called “a clear case of genocide.†Instead, Chomsky commended authors who apologized for the Pol Pot regime. He approvingly cited their analyses that the forced march of the population out of Phnom Penh was probably necessitated by the failure of the 1976 rice crop. If this was true, Chomsky wrote, “the evacuation of Phnom Penh, widely denounced at the time and since for its undoubted brutality, may actually have saved many lives.†Chomsky rejected the charge of genocide, suggesting that the deaths in Cambodia were not the result of systematic slaughter and starvation organized by the state but rather attributable in large measure to peasant revenge, undisciplined military units out of government control, starvation and disease that are direct consequences of the US war, or other such factors. After the Cataclysm also presented a much more extended critique of refugee testimony. Chomsky revealed his original 1977 source for this had been Ben Kiernan, at the time an Australian graduate student and apologist for the Pol Pot regime, who wrote in the Maoist-inspired Melbourne Journal of Politics. What Chomsky avoided telling his readers, however, was that well before 1980, the year After the Cataclysm was published, Kiernan himself had recanted his position. Kiernan had spent much of 1978 and 1979 interviewing five hundred Cambodian refugees in camps inside Thailand. They persuaded him they were actually telling the truth. He also gained a mass of evidence from the new Vietnamese-installed regime. This led him to write a mea culpa in the Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars in 1979. This was a left-wing journal frequently cited by Chomsky, so he must have been aware that Kiernan wrote: “There can be no doubting that the evidence also points clearly to a systematic use of violence against the population by that chauvinist section of the revolutionary movement that was led by Pol Pot.†Yet in After the Cataclysm, Chomsky does not acknowledge this at all. Kiernan later went on to write The Pol Pot Regime: Race, Power and Genocide under the Khmer Rouge 1975–79, a book now widely regarded as the definitive analysis of one of the most appalling episodes in recorded history. In the evacuation of Phnom Penh in 1975, tens of thousands of people died. Almost the entire middle class was deliberately targeted and killed, including civil servants, teachers, intellectuals, and artists. No fewer than 68,000 Buddhist monks out of a total of 70,000 were executed. Fifty percent of urban Chinese were murdered. Kiernan argues for a total death toll between April 1975 and January 1979, when the Vietnamese invasion put an end to the regime, of 1.67 million out of 7.89 million, or 21 percent of the entire population. This is proportionally the greatest mass killing ever inflicted by a government on its own population in modern times, probably in all history. Chomsky was this regime’s most prestigious and most persistent Western apologist. Even as late as 1988, when they were forced to admit in their book Manufacturing Consent that Pol Pot had committed genocide against his own people, Chomsky and Herman still insisted they had been right to reject the journalists and authors who had initially reported the story. The evidence that became available after the Vietnamese invasion of 1979, they maintained, did not retrospectively justify the reports they had criticized in 1977. They were still adamant that the United States, who they claimed started it all, bore the brunt of the blame. In short, Chomsky still refused to admit how wrong he had been over Cambodia. Chomsky has persisted with this pattern of behavior right to this day. In his response to September 11, he claimed that no matter how appalling the terrorists’ actions, the United States had done worse. He supported his case with arguments and evidence just as empirically selective and morally duplicitous as those he used to defend Pol Pot. On September 12, 2001, Chomsky wrote: The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton’s bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people. This Sudanese incident was an American missile attack on the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, where the CIA suspected Iraqi scientists were manufacturing the nerve agent VX for use in chemical weapons contracted by the Saddam Hussein regime. The missile was fired at night so that no workers would be there and the loss of innocent life would be minimised. The factory was located in an industrial area and the only apparent casualty at the time was the caretaker. While Chomsky drew criticism for making such an odious comparison, he was soon able to flesh out his case. He told a reporter from salon.com that, rather than an “unknown†number of deaths in Khartoum, he now had credible statistics to show there were many more Sudanese victims than those killed in New York and Washington: “That one bombing, according to estimates made by the German Embassy in Sudan and Human Rights Watch, probably led to tens of thousands of deaths.†However, this claim was quickly rendered suspect. One of his two sources, Human Rights Watch, wrote to salon.com the following week denying it had produced any such figure. Its communications director said: “In fact, Human Rights Watch has conducted no research into civilian deaths as the result of US bombing in Sudan and would not make such an assessment without a careful and thorough research mission on the ground.†Chomsky’s second source had done no research into the matter either. He was Werner Daum, German ambassador to Sudan from 1996 to 2000 who wrote in the Harvard International Review, Summer 2001. Despite his occupation, Daum’s article was anything but diplomatic. It was a largely anti-American tirade criticizing the United States’ international human rights record, blaming America for the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, accusing it of ignoring Iraq’s gassing of the Kurds, and holding it responsible for the purported deaths of 600,000 Iraqi children as a result of post-1991 economic sanctions. Nonetheless, his comments on the death toll from the Khartoum bombing were not as definitive as Chomsky intimated. Daum wrote: It is difficult to assess how many people in this poor African country died as a result of the destruction of the Al-Shifa factory, but several tens of thousands seems a reasonable guess. The factory produced some of the basic medicines on the World Health Organization list, covering 20 to 60 percent of Sudan’s market and 100 percent of the market for intravenous liquids. It took more than three months for these products to be replaced with imports. Now, it is hard to take seriously Daum’s claim that this “guess†was in any way “reasonable.†He said there was a three-month gap between the destruction of the factory and the time it took to replace its products with imports. This seems an implausibly long interval to ship pharmaceuticals but, even if true, it is fanciful to suggest that “several tens of thousands†of people would have died in such a brief period. Had they done so, they must have succumbed to a highly visible medical crisis, a pandemic to put the SARS outbreak in the shade. Yet no one on the spot, apart from the German ambassador, seems to have heard of it. Anyone who makes an Internet search of the reports of the Sudanese operations of the several Western aid agencies, including Oxfam, Médecins sans Frontières, and Norwegian People’s Aid, who have been operating in this region for decades, will not find any evidence of an unusual increase in the death toll at the time. Instead, their major health concern, then and now, has been how the Muslim Marxist government in Khartoum was waging civil war by bombing the civilian hospitals of its Christian enemies in the south of the country. The idea that tens of thousands of Sudanese would have died within three months from a shortage of pharmaceuticals is implausible enough in itself. That this could have happened without any of the aid organizations noticing or complaining is simply unbelievable. Hence Chomsky’s rationalization for the September 11 attacks is every bit as deceitful as his apology for Pol Pot and his misreading of the Cambodian genocide. “It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies,†Chomsky wrote in a famous article in The New York Review of Books in February 1967. This was not only a well-put and memorable statement but was also a good indication of his principal target. Most of his adult life has been spent in the critique of other intellectuals who, he claims, have not fulfilled their duty. The central argument of American Power and the New Mandarins is that the humanities and social sciences had been captured by a new breed of intellectuals. Rather than acting as Socratic free thinkers challenging received opinion, they had betrayed their calling by becoming servants of the military-industrial state. The interests of this new mandarin class, he argued, had turned the United States into an imperial power. Their ideology demonstrated the mentality of the colonial civil servant, persuaded of the benevolence of the mother country and the correctness of its vision of world order, and convinced that he understands the true interests of the backward peoples whose welfare he is to administer. Chomsky named the academic fields he regarded as the worst offenders—psychology, sociology, systems analysis, and political science—and held up some well-known practitioners, including Samuel Huntington of Harvard, as among the worst examples. The Vietnam War, Chomsky claimed, was designed and executed by the new mandarins. In itself, Chomsky’s identification of the emergence of a new type of academically trained official was neither original nor radical. Similar critiques had been made of the same phenomenon in both western and eastern Europe for some time. Much of his critique had been anticipated in the 1940s in a book from the other end of the political spectrum, Friedrich von Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, which identified the social engineers of the welfare state as the greatest internal threats to Western liberty. Chomsky offered a leftist version of the same idea, writing: There are dangerous tendencies in the ideology of the welfare state intelligentsia who claim to possess the technique and understanding required to manage our “postindustrial society†and to organize the international society dominated by the American superpower. Yet at the very time he was making this critique, Chomsky himself was playing at social engineering on an even grander scale. As he indicated in his support in 1967 for the “collectivization and communization†of Chinese and Vietnamese agriculture, with its attendant terror and mass slaughter, he had sought the calculated reorganization of traditional societies. By his advocacy of revolutionary change throughout Asia, he was seeking to play a role in the reorganization of the international order as well. Hence, apart from occupying a space on the political spectrum much further to the left than the academics he criticized, and apart from his preference for bloodshed over more bureaucratic techniques, Chomsky himself was the very exemplar of the new mandarin he purported to despise. He was, in fact, one of the more successful examples of the breed. There has now been enough analysis of the Vietnam War to demonstrate conclusively that the United States was not defeated militarily. South Vietnam was abandoned to its fate because of the war’s political costs at home. The influence of radical intellectuals like Chomsky in persuading the student generation of the 1960s to oppose the war was crucial in elevating these political costs to an intolerable level. The result they helped produce, however, was far worse than any bureaucratic solution that might have emanated from the behavioral sciences of the 1960s. From our present vantage point, we can today see the long-term outcome of the choice Chomsky posed in 1967 between the “comparative costs†of revolutionary terror in Vietnam versus the continuation of private enterprise agriculture in the Philippines. The results all favor the latter. In 2001, the average GDP per head in the Philippines was $4000. At the same time, twenty-five years of revolution in Vietnam had produced a figure of only half as much, a mere $2100. Even those Vietnamese who played major roles in the transformation are now dismayed at the outcome. The former Vietcong General Pham Xuan An said in 1999: “All that talk about ‘liberation’ twenty, thirty years ago, all the plotting, all the bodies, produced this, this impoverished broken-down country led by a gang of cruel and paternalistic half-educated theorists.†These “half-educated theorists†were the very mandarins Chomsky and his supporters so badly wanted to succeed and worked so hard to install. As well as social science practitioners and bureaucrats, the other representatives of the intelligentsia to whom Chomsky has long been hostile are the people who work in the news media. Although his politics made him famous, Chomsky has made no substantial contribution to political theory. Almost all his political books are collections of short essays, interviews, speeches, and newspaper opinion pieces about current events. The one attempt he made at a more thoroughgoing analysis was the work he produced in 1988 with Edward S. Herman, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. This book, however, must have been a disappointment to his followers. Media studies is a huge field ranging from traditional defenses of the news media as the fourth estate of the democratic system, to the most arcane cultural analyses produced by radical postmodernist theorists. Chomsky and Herman gave no indication they had digested any of it. Instead, their book offers a crude analysis that would have been at home in an old Marxist pamphlet from the 1930s. Apart from the introduction, most of the book is simply a re-hash of the authors’ previously published work criticizing media coverage of events in central America (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua) and in south-east Asia (Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia), plus one chapter on reporting of the 1981 KGB-Bulgarian plot to kill the Pope. To explain the role of the mass media, Chomsky and Herman offer their “propaganda model.†This claims the function of the media is to amuse, entertain and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfil this role requires systematic propaganda. This is true, they maintain, whether the media operate in liberal democracies or under totalitarian regimes. The only difference is that in communist and other authoritarian societies, it is clear to everyone that the media are instruments of the dominant elite. In capitalist societies, however, this fact is concealed, since the media “actively compete, periodically attack and expose corporate and governmental malfeasance, and aggressively portray themselves as spokesmen for free speech and the general community interest.†Chomsky and Herman argue that these attacks on authority are always very limited and the claims of free speech are merely smokescreens for inculcating the economic and political agendas of the privileged groups that dominate the economy. The media, they note, are all owned by large corporations, they are beholden for their income to major national advertisers, most news is generated by large multinational news agencies, and any newspaper or television station that steps out of line is bombarded with “flak†or letters, petitions, lawsuits, and speeches from pro-capitalist institutes set up for this very purpose. There are, however, two glaring omissions from their analysis: the role of journalists and the preferences of media audiences. Nowhere do the authors explain how journalists and other news producers come to believe they are exercising their freedom to report the world as they see it. Chomsky and Herman simply assert these people have been duped into seeing the world through a pro-capitalist ideological lens. Nor do they attempt any analysis of why millions of ordinary people exercise their free choice every day to buy newspapers and tune in to radio and television programs. Chomsky and Herman fail to explain why readers and viewers so willingly accept the world-view of capitalist media proprietors. They provide no explanation for the tastes of media audiences. This view of both journalists and audiences as easily-led, ideological dupes of the powerful is not just a fantasy of Chomsky and Herman’s own making. It is also a stance that reveals an arrogant and patronising contempt for everyone who does not share their politics. The disdain inherent in this outlook was revealed during an exchange between Chomsky and a questioner at a conference in 1989 (reproduced in Chomsky, Understanding Power, 2002): Man: The only poll I’ve seen about journalists is that they are basically narcissistic and left of center. Chomsky: Look, what people call “left of center†doesn’t mean anything—it means they’re conventional liberals and conventional liberals are very state-oriented, and usually dedicated to private power. In short, Chomsky believes that only he and those who share his radical perspective have the ability to rise above the illusions that keep everyone else slaves of the system. Only he can see things as they really are. Since the European Enlightenment a number of prominent intellectuals have presented themselves as secular Christ-like figures, lonely beacons of light struggling to survive in a dark and corrupting world. This is a tactic that has often delivered them followers among students and other idealistic youths in late adolescence. The phenomenon has been most successful when accompanied by an uncomplicated morality that its constituency can readily absorb. In his ruminations on September 11, Chomsky reiterated his own apparently direct and simple moral principles. Reactions to the terrorist attacks, he said, “should meet the most elementary moral standards: specifically, if an action is right for us, it is right for others; and if it is wrong for others, it is wrong for us.†Unfortunately, like his declaration of the responsibility of the intellectual to speak the truth and expose lies, Chomsky himself has consistently demonstrated an inability to abide by his own standards. Among his most provocative recent demands are for American political and military leaders to be tried as war criminals. He has often couched this in terms of the failure by the United States to apply the same standards to itself as it does to its enemies. For instance, America tried and executed the remaining World War Two leaders of Germany and Japan, but failed to try its own personnel for the “war crime†of dropping the atomic bomb on Japan. Chomsky claims the American bombing of dams during the Korean War was “a huge war crime … just like racist fanaticism†but the action was praised at home. “That’s just a couple of years after they hanged German leaders who were doing much less than that.†The worst current example, he claims, is American support for Israel: virtually everything that Israel is doing, meaning the United States and Israel are doing, is illegal, in fact, a war crime. And many of them they defined as “grave breaches,†that is, serious war crimes. This means that the United States and Israeli leadership should be brought to trial. Yet Chomsky’s moral perspective is completely one-sided. No matter how great the crimes of the regimes he has favored, such as China, Vietnam, and Cambodia under the communists, Chomsky has never demanded their leaders be captured and tried for war crimes. Instead, he has defended these regimes for many years to the best of his ability through the use of evidence he must have realized was selective, deceptive, and in some cases invented. In fact, had Pol Pot ever been captured and tried in a Western court, Chomsky’s writings could have been cited as witness for the defense. Were the same to happen to Osama bin Laden, Chomsky’s moral rationalizations in his most recent book—“almost any crime, a crime in the street, a war, whatever it may be, there’s usually something behind it that has elements of legitimacyâ€â€”could be used to plead for a lighter sentence. This kind of two-faced morality has provided a model for the world-wide protests by left-wing opponents of the American-led coalition’s war against Iraq. The left was willing to tolerate the most hideous acts of state terrorism by the Saddam Hussein regime, but was implacable in its hostility to intervention by Western democratic governments in the interests of both their own security and the emancipation of the Iraqi people. This is hypocrisy writ large. The long political history of this aging activist demonstrates that double standards of the same kind have characterized his entire career. Chomsky has declared himself a libertarian and anarchist but has defended some of the most authoritarian and murderous regimes in human history. His political philosophy is purportedly based on empowering the oppressed and toiling masses but he has contempt for ordinary people who he regards as ignorant dupes of the privileged and the powerful. He has defined the responsibility of the intellectual as the pursuit of truth and the exposure of lies, but has supported the regimes he admires by suppressing the truth and perpetrating falsehoods. He has endorsed universal moral principles but has only applied them to Western liberal democracies, while continuing to rationalize the crimes of his own political favorites. He is a mandarin who denounces mandarins. When caught out making culpably irresponsible misjudgments, as he was over Cambodia and Sudan, he has never admitted he was wrong. Today, Chomsky’s hypocrisy stands as the most revealing measure of the sorry depths to which the left-wing political activism he has done so much to propagate has now sunk. http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm

Who cares why? The point is that the US was not alone. Many anti war leftist have tried to single out the US making it look like they were all alone. No it was not childish. The French are nothing but backstabbers who were againts the war simply because of their secret oil deals with Saddam. Ditto for Germany and Russia. Resolution 1441 clearly states that non compliance constitutes an act of war. The UN inspectors were kept out of Iraq for 11 years and yet the French and the Germans refused to take any action. Their hypocrisy is undeniable. Who cares of proof? What was the agreement between the UN and Saddam when Iraqi forces were kicked out of Kuwait? Did they comply? How did the UN react when Iraq did not comply? I don't care about Scott Ritter, Micheal Moore, Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman and the rest of these liberal looneys. I've read their garbage before and see their hypocrisy as clear as daylight. It is sad that you don't. You're just saying that now because you can see the outcome. You probably like the rest of the peacnicks simply opposed the war to look fashionable. Havent you heard, it's pretty fashionable these days to simply critisize the US at every turn! Do you honestly believe that POW's under the care of the US is even minutely comparable to POW's under Saddams regime? BTW don't bother quoting the Guardian, The Daily Mirror, BBC and all the rest of those biased left media to me. Now I understand why you're so deluded. Yes they are better so why are the media and the liberals so biased against the US? Are you trying to imply that having better standards equates being judged differently compared to ruthless regimes? If that is the case, what incentive is there for the US to be better then these regimes? It makes more sense if the US were to mirror these dictators. Will you be this judgemental if it was Russia that invaded Iraq? I ask you this, when Saddam was busy gassing all those Kurds, where was that famed liberal rage and why had the media not highlighted this? Why did the media not highlight this with the same gusto and zeal as they are when the US is at fault? The very fact that morons out there have the gall to call the US a terror while keeping mum to the atrocities committed by tin pot dictators is proof of this. If you think that the US is even minutely comparable to Saddams regime, I feel sorry for you for having a very skewed sense of morality. Who cares what he meant. That statement is ludicrous to say the least and no matter what you will defend him for saying it for you too are guilty of taking a side. I'm not going to read his garbage. People like him are undeserving of their citizenship. BTW the 'coveted' Palm D'Or prize at the Cannes which if I'm not mistaken is hosted by the French was given to him purely on political reasons and that is a fact. Even terrorists like Arafat has won the 'coveted' Nobel 'Peace' prize and I ain't impressed. BTW here is a bit about your Michael Moore. and what a liar he is. Michael Moore and Me From the May 31, 2004 issue: An encounter with the Cannes man. by Fred Barnes 05/31/2004, Volume 009, Issue 36 A FEW YEARS AGO Michael Moore, who's now promoting an anti-President Bush movie entitled Fahrenheit 9/11, announced he'd gotten the goods on me, indeed hung me out to dry on my own words. It was in his first bestselling book, Stupid White Men. Moore wrote he'd once been "forced" to listen to my comments on a TV chat show, The McLaughlin Group. I had whined "on and on about the sorry state of American education," Moore said, and wound up by bellowing: "These kids don't even know what The Iliad and The Odyssey are!" Moore's interest was piqued, so the next day he said he called me. "Fred," he quoted himself as saying, "tell me what The Iliad and The Odyssey are." I started "hemming and hawing," Moore wrote. And then I said, according to Moore: "Well, they're . . . uh . . . you know . . . uh . . . okay, fine, you got me--I don't know what they're about. Happy now?" He'd smoked me out as a fraud, or maybe worse. The only problem is none of this is true. It never happened. Moore is a liar. He made it up. It's a fabrication on two levels. One, I've never met Moore or even talked to him on the phone. And, two, I read both The Iliad and The Odyssey in my first year at the University of Virginia. Just for the record, I'd learned what they were about even before college. Like everyone else my age, I got my classical education from the big screen. I saw the Iliad movie called Helen of Troy and while I forget the name of the Odyssey film, I think it starred Kirk Douglas as Odysseus. So why didn't I scream bloody murder when the book came out in 2001? I didn't learn about the phony anecdote until it was brought to my attention by Alan Wolfe, who was reviewing Moore's book for the New Republic. He asked, by email, if the story were true. I said no, not a word of it, and Wolfe quoted me as saying that. That was enough, I thought. After all, who would take a shrill, lying lefty like Moore seriously? More people than I thought. Moore's new movie attacking Bush was given a 20-minute standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival. Moore has described the movie as breaking new ground and revealing new facts, but the accounts by reviewers suggest it merely provides the standard left-wing, conspiratorial critique of the president. Reviewer Lou Lumenick of the New York Post, who gave Moore's previous movie Bowling for Columbine four stars, said the anti-Bush film would be news only "if you spent the last three years hiding in a cave in Afghanistan." Still, I suppose it's not surprising they loved it in France. In publicizing the movie, Moore has been up to his old dishonest tricks. Just before the screening at Cannes, he charged that Disney had told him "officially" the day before that it would not distribute Fahrenheit 9/11. Moore said this was an attempt to kill the film. He indicated a newspaper article had the correct explanation of Disney's decision: "According to today's New York Times, it might 'endanger' millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will 'anger' the governor of Florida, Jeb Bush." Later, in a CNN interview, Moore admitted he'd learned nearly a year ago that Disney would not distribute the movie. By pretending he'd just gotten word of this, Moore was involved in a cheap publicity stunt. And it wasn't the New York Times that said, on its own, that Disney feared losing tax breaks. It was Moore's agent who was quoted as saying that in the Times. Disney denied its president Michael Eisner had told the agent of any such fear. "We informed both the agency that represented the film and all of our companies that we just didn't want to be in the middle of a politically oriented film during an election year," Eisner told ABC News. Where does this leave us? I think it's time for Moore to be held accountable. In Stupid White Men, he has 18 pages of "Notes and Sources," but he offers no evidence for the sham interview with me--no date, no transcript. How could he, since the interview never happened? I have just the person to look into Moore's lies and distortions. Al Franken has taken special interest in public liars, writing a bestseller called Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Al, the Moore case is now in your court. Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard. http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=2115 An American who hates Bush cannot be dubbed a hater of the US simply because he is an American himself. Comprehende ese?? Do you see the fallacy of your silly argument? If I were to state "I don't hate the Sikhs but I hate Guru Gobind Singh Ji", now would not that statement be contradictory? How can one claim he does not hate Sikhs and yet hate Guru Gobind Singh Ji when he was one of the ten Gurus of Sikhism? Ditto for claiming "I don't hate America but I hate Bush". Hating Bush is equivalent to hating America because at the end of the day, President Gerge W. Bush is a President of the United States of America elected by the people of America. It is one thing to protest on the streets and show your concern about a war that you do not agree to but, it is quite another when one makes dubious statemenst like "Bush is like Hitler" and "America is a terror state". Try to see the difference. I for one do not believe the Americans will take this nonsense from non Americans anymore. Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky are people of the past, mark my words. In time to come we will be witnessing a new America, one that does not chastise itself in the international arena that are filled by hypocrits and bigots. Read what I said earlier and see the difference between critisizing a countries policies and making blanket statements like "I hate Chirac". You need help. Same old gibberish lefty drivel that sounds like a broken tape recorder. You woudn't be able to since you yourself are flawed and have no idea what logic is. I suspect you do that quite a bit, rolling on the floor that is. Get this through your head Sukhi, there are no absolutes in this world and yet sometimes there are. There is no one rule to measure everything but yet sometimes there is. You seem to be under the delusion that your preconcieved notion of what is reality is true while what others hold are false without providing any proof to your assertions. I'm sorry but you are wrong to believe that. Yes and have endless debates while a menace like OBL is free to strike again. That is exactly what the UN did while millions of Bosnians and Kosovians were being killed. Finally the US had to come in with the help of NATO and not the UN. You seem to exhibit a very biased view towaqrd the US. In every war innocent people will get killed but this is not the way to measure if the war was good or bad. When the Gurus opposed Mulim oppression and during the battles that ensued, were there no innocent lives that were killed? Were the Gurus wrong in fighting oppression and waging war aginst tyranny? Answer my question first and stop making assumptions. That is probably why you have a very skewed opinion of the Iraqi war. It was not a personal attack. Such remarks are befitting of a lunatic so what I had said was actually made in earnest.

I'm guessing you have first hand knowledge to make such dubious remarks? This is not a popularity contest. BTW do you think the US will not survive just because US hating nations like your country does not show any sympathy to it's citizens who are beheaded live in front of a video cam? FYI over 60 countries in all supported US war in Iraq. Please read up on Iraqi history before making ignorant statements. Have you heard of Nuri al Said and the fate of the Iraqi royalty? Afghanistan was harbouring Osama Bin Laden who was undeniably the mastermind behind 9/11. The Taliban was given ample time to hand over Osama and the war could have been avoided. Mullah Omar refused and even challenged the US. Tell me hero, what would you have done of you were in Bush's shoes? BTW do you know how cruel the Taliban was? Do you know that even Sikhs living Afghanistan were persecuted? Afghanis by and large supported the war which is why the war in Afghanistan was a joint effort between US forces and it's allies and the Northen Alliance. Afghanistan under Hamid Karzais leadership finally has some semblence of a democracy. Do you care or you only show concern when the US is at fault? You hate yourself? I suggest taking a cold shower. What a joke, while Iraqi prisoners under Saddams rule was fed alive through plastic shredder machines a few cases of American GI's mistreating POW's and you now believe they are even comparable. Did you know how Iraqi's lived under Saddam's rule? Do you know about the millions of Kurds, Shiites and Marsh Arabs who were brutally killed? How do you think Saddam got his nickname 'Butcher of Baghdad'? Do you honestly believe the US is even minutely comparable to Saddams regime? Believe me when I say this, if the US is like how you say it is, there would be no Canada today. Canada would be annexed and be forced to join the American Union. You obviously have not heard of Salam Pax. For once I actually agree with you. Such a warped mind in this day and age is unbelievable. Are you sure you're not residing in a mental asylum? As Americans would say, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Hating the Bush is hating America. Bush haters like you need to realise that the American people have voted for Bush and thats that. Hating Bush is equivalent to hating America period. Yes you are right. Had Russia invaded Iraq, would it have attracted this much criticism? No. Everybody would have kept mum just because the Russians don't give a damn. America needs to become mean like Russia and China. These US haters will one day be sorry for the stance they are taking today. LONG LIVE THE YANKS!!!

When I took a class titled 'Central Asian History' I was told by my professor that Punjabis are descendans of Aryan stock. But I had my doubts so I did a bit of reading. There is a new theory that Punjabi are descendans of Scythians. You claim that Punjabis are not a homogenous group and I wholeheartedly agree. My grandmother looks Chinese and she has no known Chinese mix in her and yet she was a a full blooded Punjaban! And then I've come across pure Punjabis who look European. If I'm not mistaken, Scythians are not a homogenous group which is why I believe the Scythian theory makes more sense. The next question we need to ask ourselves are, are Punjabis not homogenous because of different tribes/races getting together to form todays Punjabis OR Punjabis have intermarried with various other races that invaded Punjab in the course of it's history. No it has been not. You've been brainwashed from a young age to believe that any attempt to study the human race amounts to racism. I'm curious, can you please point out the hatred in this thread topic? So are all those scientists who do studies on race and genetics are racist? Did you know that certain races are more prone to certain deseases and studies have helped them to counter them? Do you realise how ludicrous your assertions are? FYI I had to undergo plastic surgery on my nose when I was 18 but I had to wait until I was 21 because of my race. Apparently Asian noses stop growing at the age of 18 but not people of Aryan/Indo Aryan/Punjabi stock or whatever you want to call it. Had my doctor not been aware of this, the surgery would have been a complete disaster. There is nothing wrong in wanting to study the human race. It is a fact that we humans belong to different races and thats that. I suggest you seek counseling or psychiatatric help to combat your hyper sensitivity to this subject matter.