Jamuka

Mod Note: Your post was deleted, such 'slandering' shall not be tolerated.

If I'm not mistaken, semite means mix. In short Arabs and Jews are not a pure race. Why are you so bloody intolerant? Aryans ARE a race wheather you like it or not and Punjabis may not be the real thing but they definitely are close. If I'm not mistaken Punjabis are either Indo Aryans or Scythians. If you ask me, the theory of Punjabis being descendans of Scythians makes more sense to me. What is wrong in discussing history? The problem is that we are surrounded by sensitive people who believe that any discussion on race amounts to racism. No it's not and I know that for a fact.

Forgive me for asking such a dumb question but isn't the Dasam Granth not excepted or is it excepted? I read somewhere that it's been corrupted by pseudo Sikhs who were actually Hindus. Am I right?

Again, this is what I said. Do you understand the meaning of the word 'appreciate'? In Islam, there is Darul Islam and Darul Harb. Little does a fool like you not realise that while you choose to remain unbiased, Islam has differentiated between Muslims and Non Muslims. BTW you are definitely not biased. I laugh so hard every time I come across characters like you who claim to be neutral but in actually are far from it. A few question if you don't me asking i) How is it biased? Is it biased because it is a an Israeli website? If you are convinced that the sources of my articles are biased, you then should be able to point out the biases and the lies, right? So why don't you walk the walk and point out the bias and the lie? BTW how is a website biased by reporting an actual event that took place? Please enlghten my narrow mind and point out the bias. I await your reply. ii) What does it matter who is the source from? So if Kushwant Singh wrote a book about the Sikhs, would you deem it bias as opposed to a book written by Macauliff? Woudn't you at least read the article/book and find the flaws in it instead of writing it off claiming it to be biased just because the source is not to your liking? Who is with the narrow mind now, you or me? iii) You talk about bias when major medias such as the BBC and the Daily Mirror have been caugh lying with their pants down to the public. So if even the Beeb cannot be trusted, who can we trust? The please point out the bias. I keep an open mind and listen to what ever anybody has to say. I don't look at the source first to decide if the information provided is biased or not. So who here is with a narrow mind? Actually it was the other way around. I have printed something that you don't quite agree with or probably goes against your value system. You could not find fault with it so you blame the website. Muslims frequently resort to such tactics when they are cornered. The solution is for you to either point out the bias and if you or not able to do so, admit to yourself that it must be the truth or close to it. I have not spammed, I have posted articles that are against your belief system. Should I stop because I have hurt your ego? No. I will not allow my Sikh brothers and sisters to be led astray by your God of political correctness and will let them judge for themselves what is the truth and what isn't. In fact I would welcome you to post anything with open arms as I am an advocate of freedom of speech and wholeheartedly agree with Voltaire to defend your right to express your opinion even if I may not agree to it. Now don't you think thats fair or do you believe in fairness? Look who is being intolerant now.

Hardly so dude. No point debating with someone who's already made up their minds, no? I disagree, you do have a very narrow mind. You are quick to come to the conclusion that any discussion taking place on race is racism. The word racism itself have been literally raped by these politically correct types. I heard that somewhere in another part of the world our very own PC crowd are requesting the local goverment to change the color of trash cans from black to another color. They actually believe the color of the trash cans (Black) signifies that Black people are trash. I suspect you would probably agree with them. Foolish you say? I tell you now, what does it matter who is the messenger? Isn't the messege itself that is important? Our resident bozo here made some ludicrous claims about Debka files. Ok, thats all fine and dandy and I actually appreciate it but why did he not critisize the article itself? If one believes the message is false, then why don't they prove it wrong? The fact of the matter is this 'O learned sage', those who critisize the messenger without critisizing the message is one who cannot counter the points brought forth, so he/she will get personal. And to your earlier question My answer is yes. I will at least analyze whatever one has to say despite it's source. Unlike you, I believe in keeping an open mind. If Ted Bundy wrote a book countering Einsteins theory of relaitivity, would you quickly discount it just because it is written by a serial killer? I think you're well read but yet I find your sense of logic really stupid. What does it matter who claimed what? If you told me the world was square, I would research and see if this is true. Only those who cannot counter your assertion will get personal and question who you are as opposed to what you say. BTW the Quran states that the world is flat. What is your opinion of the author of this book, may I know? Have you tried alligning your car wheels when the arm is bent? You see, if the arm is bent, no matter how many times you rotate your wheels or allign them, they will always pull and will not remain straight. I notice this same type of nature being exhibited by some of us here. No matter what you tell them, they always believe in their own preconcieved notion of what is reality. To them I say 'you are right and I am wrong' and let them be on their way so that their ego may remain intact.

Islamic headgear is not essential Amir Taheri (archive) August 19, 2003 | Print | Send France's Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin has just appointed a committee to draft a law to ban the Islamist hijab (headgear) in state-owned establishments, including schools and hospitals. The decision has drawn fire from the French "church" of Islam, an organisation created by Raffarin's government last spring. Germany is facing its hijab problem with a number of Islamist organisations suing federal and state authorities for "religious discrimination" because of bans imposed on the controversial headgear. In the United States several Muslim women are suing airport security firms for having violated their first amendment rights by asking them to take off their hijab during routine searches of passengers. All these and other cases are based on the claim that the controversial headgear is an essential part of the Muslim faith and that attempts at banning it constitute an attack on Islam. That claim is totally false. The headgear in question has nothing to do with Islam as a religion. It is not sanctioned anywhere in the Koran, the fundamental text of Islam, or the hadith (traditions) attributed to the Prophet. This headgear was invented in the early 1970s by Mussa Sadr, an Iranian mullah who had won the leadership of the Lebanese Shiite community. In an interview in 1975 in Beirut, Sadr told this writer that the hijab he had invented was inspired by the headgear of Lebanese Catholic nuns, itself inspired by that of Christian women in classical Western paintings. (A casual visit to the National Gallery in London, the Metropolitan Museum in New York, or the Louvres in Paris, would reveal the original of the neo-Islamist hijab in numerous paintings depicting Virgin Mary and other female figures from the Old and New Testament.) Sadr's idea was that, by wearing the headgear, Shiite women would be clearly marked out, and thus spared sexual harassment, and rape, by Yasser Arafat's Palestinian gunmen who at the time controlled southern Lebanon. Sadr's neo-hijab made its first appearance in Iran in 1977 as a symbol of Islamist-Marxist opposition to the Shah's regime. When the mullahs seized power in Tehran in 1979, the number of women wearing the hijab exploded into tens of thousands. In 1981, Abol-Hassan Bani-Sadr, the first president of the Islamic Republic, announced that "scientific research had shown that women's hair emitted rays that drove men insane" (sic). To protect the public, the new Islamist regime passed a law in 1982 making the hijab mandatory for females aged above six, regardless of religious faith. Violating the hijab code was made punishable by 100 lashes of the cane and six months imprisonment. By the mid-1980s a form of hijab never seen in Islam before the 1970s had become standard gear for millions of women all over the world, including Europe and America. Some younger Muslims women, especially Western converts, were duped into believing that the neo-hijab was an essential part of the faith. (Katherine Bullock, a Canadian, so loved the idea of covering her hair that she converted to Islam while studying the hijab.) The garb is designed to promote gender Apartheid. It covers the woman's ears so that she does not hear things properly. Styled like a hood, it prevents the woman from having full vision of her surroundings. It also underlines the concept of woman as object, all wrapped up and marked out. Muslim women, like women in all societies, had covered their head with a variety of gears over the centuries. These had such names as lachak, chador, rusari, rubandeh, chaqchur, maqne'a, and picheh among others. All had tribal, ethnic and generally folkloric origins and were never associated with religion. (In Senegal, Muslim women wear a colourful headgear against the sun, while working in the fields, but go topless.) Muslim women could easily check the fraudulent nature of the neo-Islamist hijab by leafing through their family albums. They will not find the picture of a single female ancestor of theirs who wore the cursed headgear now marketed as an absolute "must" of Islam. This fake Islamic hijab is nothing but a political prop, a weapon of visual terrorism. It is the symbol of a totalitarian ideology inspired more by Nazism and Communism than by Islam. It is as symbolic of Islam as the Mao uniform was of Chinese civilisation. It is used as a means of exerting pressure on Muslim women who do not wear it because they do not share the sick ideology behind it. It is a sign of support for extremists who wish to impose their creed, first on Muslims, and then on the entire world through psychological pressure, violence, terror, and, ultimately, war. The tragedy is that many of those who wear it are not aware of its implications. They do so because they have been brainwashed into believing that a woman cannot be a "good Muslim" without covering her head with the Sadr-designed hijab. Even today, less than one per cent of Muslim women wear the hijab that has bewitched some Western liberals as a symbol of multicultural diversity. The hijab debate in Europe and the US comes at a time that the controversial headgear is seriously questioned in Iran, the only country to impose it by law. Last year the Islamist regime authorised a number of girl colleges in Tehran to allow students to discard the hijab while inside school buildings. The experiment was launched after a government study identified the hijab as the cause of "widespread depression and falling academic standards" and even suicide among teen-age girls. The Ministry of Education in Tehran has just announced that the experiment will be extended to other girls schools next month when the new academic year begins. Schools where the hijab was discarded have shown "real improvements" in academic standards reflected in a 30 per cent rise in the number of students obtaining the highest grades. Meanwhile, several woman members of the Iranian Islamic Majlis (parliament) are preparing a draft to raise the legal age for wearing the hijab from six to 12, thus sparing millions of children the trauma of having their heads covered. Another sign that the Islamic Republic may be softening its position on hijab is a recent decision to allow the employees of state-owned companies outside Iran to discard the hijab. (The new rule has enabled hundreds of women, working for Iran-owned companies in Paris, London, and other European capitals, for example, to go to work without the cursed hijab.) The delicious irony of militant Islamists asking "Zionist-Crusader" courts in France, Germany and the United States to decide what is "Islamic" and what is not, will not be missed. The judges and the juries who will be asked to decide the cases should know that hey are dealing not with Islam, which is a religious faith, but with Islamism, which is a political doctrine. The hijab-wearing militants have a right to promote their political ideology. But they have no right to speak in the name of Islam. Amir Taheri is an Iranian journalist and author of 10 books on the Middle East and Islam. He can be reached through www.benadorassociates.com. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestCo...i20030819.shtml

You are right, most Muslims do not go around killing and bombing each other however, they do support those that go around bombing and killing Non Muslims. This is a fact. Come to my country and I'll show you stores selling Osama t shirts. Almost all Muslims on this planet supports Osama and Saddam and looks upon the US as the great satan. Many who live in the western democracies are oblivious to this fact.

Jt I think you've taken a side to a lot of issues so it's really a waste of time and bandwidth space to discuss this with you. You have closed your mind like a steel trap and have a very narrow mind. Anyway, the fact of the matter is this. i) This conversation did take place. I have read it elsewhere that the Iranian goverment has acknowledged this. ii) The Jews were helped by the Persians before Islam arrived there. This is a historical fact. iii) I'd rather put my money with Debka files then Al Jazeera. At least Israel is a democracy. Jews are allowed to have differing opinions among themselves. Have you heard of Jews opposing Israel and Jews for Allah? I cannot say the same for any Muslim country in the Mid East and like wise their media will be controlled or have to work within a certain framework.

The first sign of someone losing an argument is when they attack the messenger instead of the message.

The Khalistani movement can learn a lot from Zionism and the Jews.

Ok you want serious? You got it. Check this out. See what an Iraqi has to say about Bergs murder. I tried downloading the Nicholas Berg video, but it was too large for this unstable dial-up internet account. I guess part of me didn't want to watch it anyway. I remember a similar 500kB video that was sent to my email account about two years ago. I didn't know what it was, so I opened it and almost got sick to my stomach. The camera was focused on a man lying on the ground with a boot on his neck, his face down to the earth. Out of nowhere, a large knife is shown to the camera, then slowly it sinks into his neck just below the jaw line. The hand holding the knife moves it back and forth in a sawing motion while the victim screams in agony until his voice is reduced to a gurgle like sound. Eyes popping out and blood pouring from his neck. It was extremely graphic, although it was in black and white. Strange coincidence that the Nick Berg video was released almost simultaneously with the video of Palestinian 'freedom fighters' displaying the severed head of an Israeli soldier on a table. Al-Jazeera had the head blurred out, and the Nick Berg video was casually mentioned near the end of their news bulletin, and that was that. No extensive discussions with Arab 'intelligentsia' followed, no replaying of the video over and over again for days (as the Abu Ghraib images), no talk shows with enraged, fist shaking, name-calling Arab figures discussing the effect of these videos on the 'image' of the Islamic or Arab world. Just shame and guilty silence. Apparently, pictures of an American female soldier taunting a naked man with underwear on his head is much much more gruesome to Arabs. I guess not everyone is perfect. So, to distance myself from the shameful hypocritical Arab and Muslim masses. I wish to denounce this barbaric act and the pathetic ideology that fueled it, to disown any person from my part of the world who would justify it, and to offer my sincere condolences and sympathy to the family and countrymen of Nicholas Berg. And for Muslims, who are definitely going to say 'this isn't the real Islam': "When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives." Surat Mohammed:4 Grow up, and leave the 7th century. Update: Some angry readers have interpreted the above last statement as an attack against fellow Muslims. That was not what I had intended. I usually do my best to avoid theological debates on Islam for safety considerations but I'll indulge them just this once. My purpose was to point out that Islam indeed excuses such barbaric acts. This is not the same as saying that all Muslims believe in such acts or commit them, moderate Muslims exist, but Islam is not moderate. Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists have not deviated from Islam, in fact all their practices are derived from the Quran and Hadith. So yes, Islam is the problem here. Poverty, economic conditions, abuse by so called colonialism, and political frustration are not. Similar conditions elsewhere in the world have not prompted non-Muslims to commit suicide bombings or fly planes into towers. Islam, along with favourable cultural, tribal, and social values existing in the Arab world has prompted that drive. Islam and the Quran alone are not the root cause. The solution is not however to alienate all Muslims, or to expel them, or annihilate them. It is up to 'moderate' Muslims and their clerics to carefully examine their scriptures and to reform, the same way Jews and Christians did. The Quran is a book, and its tenets were appropriate for a certain era in history. Most of it does not apply today, so it is not 'untouchable'. You either believe in the whole book, together with its violent verses, or you should stop claiming to be a consistent believer. You cannot select verses which appeal to your argument and ignore the rest. How would you explain these, for instance: "The just retribution for those who fight Allah and His messenger, and commit horrendous crimes, is to be killed, or crucified, or to have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or to be banished from the land. This is to humiliate them in this life, then they suffer a far worse retribution in the hereafter." Surat Al-Ma'ida:33 "O believers, do not take Jews and Christians as allies, they are allies of one another. Those among you who ally themselves with these belong with them." Surat Al-Ma'ida:51 I can go on and on, but I would rather not. I have intensively examined the Quran and Sunna, and I might have a few things that would scare some pious believers. Maybe, some other time, when I'm in a safer environment, I would devote a website or a book to the subject. I got this from an Iraqi weblog. http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/archives/2...438915894443687 Zayed can be contacted at the above stated address.

"By the river of Babylon, where we have come.... Israel Defense Minister Converses with Radio Listeners in... Iran DEBKAfile Special Report December 17, 2003, 5:57 PM (GMT+02:00) This week, Israel’s Iranian-born defense minister Shaul Mofaz made the unique gesture of answering questions from listeners in Iran – in their own language - in a live broadcast over Israel Radio’s Farsi-language service. The questions came thick and fast. In answer to one, he promised everything would be done to protect the environment against radioactive fallout should Israeli forces destroy Iran’s nuclear capability. Shaul Mofaz was only six when his family emigrated from Iran to Israel. His knowledge of Farsi is rudimentary at best. But that didn’t stop the Israeli defense chief from getting his message across to a stream of callers from the Islamic Republic who appealed to him for help on Israel Radio’s Farsi service this week. One caller from a city in central Iran asked when Israel and the Jews would finally repay their historical debt to Cyrus the Great and rescue the Iranian people from the dread ayatollahs, just as US President George W. Bush had helped the people of Iraq and Afghanistan throw off their oppressors. (It was in 538 BC that Cyrus, king of Persia, fulfilling the word of God as spoken by the Prophet Jeremiah, issued a proclamation allowing the Jews to return to Zion from their exile in Babylon and rebuild their Temple in Jerusalem.) Mofaz, admitting he was not in the miracle business, wished the Iranian people success in their struggle for freedom. But then a stream of callers pleaded for Israel to intervene to help overthrow the Islamic regime. The defense minister replied it was up to the Iranian people to determine its fate. But he also mentioned the United States role in the region and said the Americans still had much work to do after prevailing in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran and Syria were still there as key elements of Bush’s axis of evil. This reply brought forth a chorus of listeners who wanted to persuade the Israeli minister that the Teheran regime was more of a danger to the region and the world than Saddam Hussein had ever been. Mofaz gently parried these demands. He also refrained from answering a listener, apparently calling from the Kurdish region of northern Iraq, who wanted a rundown of Israel’s attitude on the Kurdish question and Iraq’s future. Many of the questions focused on Iran’s nuclear weapons program. One caller wanted to know how Israel would respond to Iran’s efforts to build an atomic bomb or stage a nuclear attack. Mofaz said that, should it became necessary to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities, Israel would take steps to ensure the safety of Iranian civilians. Some callers asked for a response to the Iranian defense minister Hossein Dehghan’s statement on Sunday, December 14, that Iran had no choice but to develop increasingly powerful weapons to overcome the technological threats posed by its strongest enemies, the United States and Israel. Mofaz denied any threat. The Jewish state had no offensive intentions towards Iran; nor did it nurture any hostility toward the Iranian people. In the past, Iran and the Jewish states had enjoyed warm and productive relations. But if Israel came under attack, he emphasized, it would defend itself with all the measures it deemed necessary. A woman caller, a Muslim, then recalled tearfully the disappearance eight years ago of the son of Jewish neighbors who had never been heard of since being caught in flight across the border with Pakistan. In the last decade, 12 Iranian Jews have been caught fleeing by way of Pakistan and never seen again. Mofaz reiterated Israel’s commitment to protect Jews all over the world. He promised to investigate these cases and see what could be done to help. At the end of the 50-minute program, Mofaz said he would never have imagined the depth of sympathy for Israel entertained by ordinary Iranians - in sharp contrast to the violence and hate emitting from the rulers of the Islamic Republic. The gap between regime and people was dramatic. A lot of this sympathy is born of the Iranian people’s historic resentment of their Islamic rulers and the Arabs, who invaded their country 1,400 years ago, destroyed Iranian culture and forced the populace to embrace Islam. Israel Radio’s Farsi service has become a byword among a wide audience in Iran. Just last week, an Iranian legislator who voiced sharp criticism in parliament of the Iranian government was asked sarcastically whether he was not Menashe Amir, director of Israel Radio’s Farsi service, in disguise. Mofaz’s warm dialogue with ordinary Iranians occurred in the same week as harsh comments from Iran’s supreme leader and strongman, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on the capture of Saddam Hussein last Saturday December 12. The ayatollah voiced the wish that “Bush and Sharon” share the same inglorious fate suffered by the former Iraqi dictator. Cynically parroting the words of President George Bush about Saddam, Khamenei thundered, “The world would be a better place without them.” Tehran’s hostility is not confined to belligerent language. DEBKAfile’s military sources reported on December 15 that Russia has sold Iran advanced 300-A air defense missile systems – over Washington’s objections - to defend its controversial nuclear reactor in the southern town of Bushehr. Their deployment was discovered by chance Sunday, when two of the missiles while being installed flew out of control. One hit a minibus, killing two bus passengers and injuring 20; the second caused heavy damage to town buildings – far more extensive than admitted by Tehran. The official Iranian news agency IRNA, reporting on the incident, said a self-targeting weapon – which it did not identify -- failed to trigger its auto-destruct mechanism and slammed into the minibus. The diplomatic fallout from this discovery will be considerable. Israel too is watching Iran’s constant weapons upgrades with a wary eye. On Tuesday, December 16, Israeli Shin Beit director Avi Dichter, in a rare public appearance, named Iran as the world’s No. 1 terror state and Israel’s most dangerous security threat. Tehran, he said, targets both Israel and Jews everywhere. He cited Tehran’s hand behind the 1994 bombing of the Buenos Aires Jewish community in which 85 died and more than 200 were wounded. Dichter accused the Iranians of continually hatching trouble right up to the present. Beyond backing, financing and arming the virulently anti-Israel Lebanese Shiite terror group, the Hizballah, Tehran has marked out Israel’s Arab citizens for exploitation as a potential fifth column. He described Iranian agents are actively recruiting hirelings in the Arab community. http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=746 What do you think?

Moderator note: Deleted Please be serious.

Haganah = Militant Hamas = Terrorists LTTE = Militant Jemiaah Islamiyah = Terrorists IRA = Militant MILF = Terrorist

Strange, when doctored pictures of alleged prisoner abuse by British GI's were printed in the Daily Mirror there was loud calls and howls from the left requesting a full inquiry. There was not a single hoot from these lefties that questioned the authencity of these pictures. FYI the chief editor of the Daily Mirror was sacked and the paper has publicly apologised. And now many question the validity of this video despite relieving the decapitated body of Nick Berg and the violent history of these terrorists. Does the name Daniel Pearl ring any bells? Is there a bias here? Naaaah, lets run along now. I know, I know, Bush and Blair are evil period. Am I right?

So, how do you know who has a ' lower rational' mind who hasn't? How do you come to this conclusion? How do we decipher if our minds are of lower rational or not? Why do we need a 'higher rational mind' to decide simple truths such as fire will burn and cold weather can cause one to have a cold? I'm assuming that by your contention that truth is relative and absolute truth can only be realised a higher rational mind? Can you name a person who has this state of conciousness? The Dalai Lama of Tibet or any of our local Sants by any chance? How do you experience this 'ultimate' truth? You believe any form of stereotyping is bad? Ok, here is an example of stereotyping; Jews are very intelligent, Blacks are good in sports and music and the Chianaman has very good Business acumen. Is there any truth to this stereotyping? I know, I know, there are dumb Jews out there, there are Blacks who are good at other thing and there are Chinaman who are not that great Business men but, I am talking about the majority. Is there any truth to the example of the stereotypes I provided? You have contradicted yourself. Ok, I've got a very simple question for you. Do you believe that Adolf Hitler and the ideology of Naziism was i) Absolutely evil ii) Relatively evil iii) A person and and the ideology who was misunderstood

MI you're giving me too much credit. This may sound really crude to you but I use my gut instinct to determine the difference between what is truth and what is a lie. Then again, it may not be so crude after all. I've read somewhere where when you resort to 'gut instinct, you're basically using your subconcious mind. And if I'm not mistaken, we are 1/10th concious and 9/10 subconcious thus the subconcious mind is far more powerful then the concious mind. Anyway, this method rarely fails me. I hope you're not dissapointed with that crude and simplistic answer. Dear Jtsingh, do you believe in the truth? Do you think if it exists or is it the imagination of the human mind and there is no such thing?

An interesting read. Tell Me, Where Is the Liberal Anger About Nick Berg? Posted by Leo Lacayo Wednesday, May 12, 2004 As most Americans wind up a week of frenzied news about the ''abuse'' perpetrated by 16 soldiers out of 300,000 rotated troops in Iraq, we learn of the horrendous beheading of Nick Berg, an American small businessman helping to build the infrastructure in that country.. Where is the rage, Mr. Kerry" Where is the rage Mr. Kennedy? Do we have a reaction from the Grand Dragon, Klansman Robert Byrd? Will Michael Moore be making a documentary to place the blame on the president? The perpetrators of this horrible crime have stated that it is in retaliation for the alleged abuses perpetrated on Iraqi detainees. This is a clear sign that those who have made much hay about what happened in that compound are to be blamed. My friends in the community stood around my desk horrified as we watched the news break. The question on our minds was: When will the people of the United States understand that we are at war with evil. This is an evil like no other in our history, a powerful enemy who is bent on doing to all of us, what they did to that 26-year-old hero. Make no mistake about it, if they had each of us there we would suffer the same fate as Nick Berg, and it would be done in ''the name of Allah.'' The Senate Armed Services Committee is sitting around trying to make politics of a situation that most of us consider embarrassing at most. However, the enemy has seen the weakness in our media and our politicians. Seeing this, the barbarians perform acts like this in an attempt to weaken us even further. They want to strike fear in the hearts of Americans believing we will turn tail and run. The only problem is, they have misread the American people. This is something that we are not going to do. This beheading is just an extension of the assassination by cowards who use bombs and sniper bullets to kill our servicemen. Maybe now, some will understand that we have an enemy that must be destroyed, not just conquered, and this must be done with haste. Where is the rage--indeed! Rage lives in the hearts and minds of all real Americans, and I will not entertain any delusions of the nature of the beast we fight: it is plain evil. It will use any means to win, and we must be ready to use any means at our disposal to prevail. Otherwise, the beheadings will just be a small sample of what is to come for all of us. We must mourn our dead, but we must learn from this terrible act to stop trying to politicize Iraq and to strengthen our resolve to come together to fight the enemy. One would think that the 9-11 experience would have been pivotal in unifying Americans. Sadly, it was not. The politicians have decided to divide us into two Americas for political gain. That is just plain wrong. We must remain one people, and stop allowing the leftist political feeders from trying to blame our president for the acts perpetrated by the terrorists that we are fighting. As our election looms nearer we must do everything possible to make sure our country is led by a man of integrity, a man who does not flip or flop, a man who will bring the terrorists to justice and protect us as a people and as a country. The President of the United States needs to have the capacity to make the tough decisions and stand tall. The President of the United States must not to be a man who will turn our foreign policy over to others, or find fault with all we do. He must be a man who can bring out the best in us while bringing us together. All of this is true because we live in a time of great peril. We do not have the luxury of engaging in partisan one-upmanship. Here is more. Arab Media React Cautiously to Beheading Wednesday May 12, 2004 9:46 PM AP Photo LON846 By MAGGIE MICHAEL Associated Press Writer CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Arab news media reacted cautiously Wednesday to the videotaped beheading of an American in Iraq, with some newspapers conspicuously playing it down. Some commentators condemned the slaying and lamented that it would draw attention away from U.S. soldiers' abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Others said their opinions of the U.S. government had fallen so low that they have difficulty speaking out against the beheading. ``In normal circumstances, I could condemn the slaughtering of the American, but we are living in abnormal circumstances. I cannot condemn it now,'' said Egyptian columnist Nour al-Huda Zaki. ``The country that advocates human rights principles is now violating them and taking us back to the dark ages.'' Zaki, a senior journalist for the Cairo newspaper Al-Arabi, said she expected few Arab newspapers to cover the beheading extensively because reporting on it could be read as condemning it. Indeed, across the Arab world there were few banner headlines or televised reports about the killing of Nicholas Berg, the 26-year-old American shown beheaded in a videotape posted Tuesday on a militant Web site. The video claimed responsibility in the name of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an associate of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. A notable exception was Kuwait's Al-Siyassah daily, which ran a photo of a masked militant holding up Berg's severed head. Five of Kuwait's seven dailies published front-page reports on the killing. The biggest pan-Arab television stations - Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya - broadcast brief segments of the video Tuesday night and carried longer footage Wednesday. Neither station showed the beheading itself. ``The news story itself is strong enough,'' said Al-Jazeera spokesman Jihad Ballout. ``To show the actual beheading is out of the realm of decency.'' Arab television stations are less reluctant to show bloody images from wars than some stations in the West, but said they drew the line at showing a beheading. The presenter on Lebanon's private Al Hayat-LBC station, which led its bulletins Wednesday with the video, said: ``We apologize to our viewers for not showing the entire tape because of the ugliness of the scene.'' Kuwait's state television broadcast news of the execution but not the video. In Jordan, state television aired its report along with a still photo from the video. The beheading got little attention in Wednesday's newspapers in most Arab countries. Egypt's leading daily, Al-Ahram, ignored the beheading. Two other major pro-government newspapers, Al-Akhbar and Al-Gomhuria, ran news agency reports on inside pages without photographs. An Al-Ahram editor, Ahmed Reda, said the news came too late for the newspaper to confirm the video's authenticity with the U.S. government. Thursday's edition of the newspaper carried a story on page four but no photograph. Newspapers in Syria, where the government tightly controls the press, did not report the beheading. Nor did any newspapers in Iraq, although that may have been because the news broke late. Jordan's mass circulation Al Rai published a report on the execution Wednesday on an inside page without a photograph. The two English-language newspapers in the United Arab Emirates ran news agency reports without photographs, one on the front page and the other on page 14. Two Arabic-language newspapers in the UAE carried brief items inside without photographs, and a third didn't mention it. Most Lebanese newspapers reported on the killing and ran a photograph of Berg sitting in front of the militants. The video was released too late Tuesday evening for Middle East newspaper columnists. But many Arabs said Wednesday the beheading drew attention from the U.S. military's abuse of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison. ``We were winning international sympathy because of what happened at Abu Ghraib, but they come and waste it all,'' Abdullah Sahar, a Kuwait University political scientist, said of the militants who killed Berg. In the video, the masked militants said they were taking revenge on Berg, of West Chester, Pa., because of the abuses at the Baghdad prison. Mustafa Bakri, editor of Al-Osboa weekly newspaper in Egypt, said Berg's execution will only harm efforts to expose American offenses against Iraqis. ``Such revenge is rejected,'' Bakri said of the beheading. ``The American administration will make use of such crimes just to cover their real crimes against Iraqis.'' Berg had wanted to help in rebuilding of Iraq WEST WHITELAND TOWNSHIP (Pennsylvania) - Mr Nicholas Berg wanted to help rebuild Iraq. Far from having opposed the war, he believed the American presence there was a positive thing, family and friends said. And he saw it as a business opportunity as well. So defying State Department warnings, Mr Berg, 26, travelled to Iraq late last year in search of work for his small Pennsylvania-based company, which builds and maintains communication towers. He did not find a job, but instead was taken captive by Islamic terrorists. His decapitated body was discovered by US soldiers on a roadside near Baghdad on Monday. Mr Berg had been detained by Iraqi police in the northern city of Mosul in March, American officials and his parents said. While he was in police custody, he was questioned by FBI agents who were trying to determine what he was doing in Iraq and whether he was an American citizen. At the same time, his parents, frustrated by their inability to find out about their son's whereabouts, filed a lawsuit in federal court in Philadelphia on April 5 asserting that he was being held by the US military in violation of his civil rights. A day later, he was released. He disappeared soon after that. Mr Berg's father, Mr Michael Berg, lashed out at the US military and the Bush administration on Tuesday, saying his son might still be alive had he not been detained by US officials in Iraq. He said if his son had not been detained for so long, he might have been able to leave the country before the violence worsened. 'I think a lot of people are fed up with the lack of civil rights this thing has caused,' he said. 'I don't think this administration is committed to democracy.' But coalition spokesman Dan Senor said yesterday Mr Berg was never under US custody. He said that to his knowledge, 'he (Berg) was at no time under the jurisdiction or detention of coalition forces'. It was unclear why Mr Berg was singled out in what the Islamic terrorists contended was retribution for American soldiers' abuse of Iraqi prisoners, and his family wondered whether the fact that he was Jewish played a role in the killing. Mr Berg, the youngest of three children, grew up in a brick and vinyl split-level house in this comfortable community. His father, a retired teacher who opposed the war, told reporters that he did not want his son to travel there. 'He looked at it as bringing democracy to a country that didn't have it,' he said. Friends and family of Mr Berg said he was a 'free spirit' who wanted to help others - working in Ghana, in one example - and that his going to Iraq fitted with that ideology. They said he supported the Iraqi war and the Bush administration. Mr Berg attended Cornell University, Drexel University, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Oklahoma, where he got involved in rigging electronics equipment while working for the maintenance department, his father said. He helped set up equipment at the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia in 2000. While at Cornell, he travelled to Ghana to teach villagers how to make bricks out of minimal material. Mr Michael Berg said his son saw his trip to Iraq as an adventure in line with his desire to help others. He said his son returned from Ghana with only the clothes on his back and emaciated because he gave away most of his food. Ms Charlotte Knighton, who taught Mr Berg in her eighth-grade science class, said he was devastated by the hunger and poverty he saw in Africa. 'Our country will be the poorer for having Nick Berg gone,' she added. -- New York Times, AP

The truth is the truth and can never be anything else but the truth. The question is not what the truth is but how do we see it? In the end only the truth will prevail and lies will perish.

Sorry Rupz if I have offended you in any way. But the verse by Guru Nanak Dev Ji is what it is meant to be. I suspect Guru Nanak read the Quran and realised what an ugly cult this is. e must've put that verse in so future generations may interpret as such. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Moderator Note: Jamuka, You are getting warning for posting your assumptions about Guru Nanak Dev Jee. Please, refrain from it next time. Guru Nanak Dev Jee preached Muslims to be good Muslims so don't defame his teachings.

Thank you for your very 'politically correct' interpretation BUT, no thanks buddy! If you want to delude yourself, be my guest. Read about how Ram Rae gave a similar BS answer to the Muslims and how his father Har Rai refused to see him for not telling the truth. Ram Rae would be very proud of you my friend!! Can you please point out in the SGGS, Janamsakhis or any other Sikh literature thats states as such or the Gurus have stated as such?

It is clearly stated in the Japji that Brahma, Vishnu and Parbati are Gods creations. Only fools regard them as God not realising that the true lord is behind their creation. Harmless, we need more Sikhs like you. Many here have become complacent replacing Waheguru with their God of 'Political Correctness'. Let them be and only time will tell who is ignorant and who isn't.BTW did you hear about the latest spate of violence created by the members of this so called 'religion of peace' in Southern Thailand?

Only a fool will argue with a fool so in conclusion I'll let you be.

The Gurus were NOT God! Stop Hindunizing Sikhism with your Hindu garbage! Sikhs are not supposed to even have a single picture of the Gurus. The Gurus have made explicitly clear that their role on is to spread the word of God (Waheguru). If in your heart you have put your praise to the Gurus as opposed to Waheguru, then you have failed as a Sikh. Why do Hindus have to always need some sort of idol to worship God? Why do they constantly try 'idolising' Saints/Gurus/Prophets claiming they're 'avatars' or Vishnu incarnates? Fool, when will you wakeup and see the truth?

'Mitti Musalman ki peirei paee kumiar; Ghar bhandei itan kia, jaldi karei pukar.' (Asa Mohalla 1, p-466) 'The ashes of the Mohammadan fall into the potter's clod; Vessels and bricks are fashioned from them; they cry out as they burn.' (Translation of the above) The above verse is by Guru Nanak DevJi. I wonder if Waheguru is angry with Guru Nanak for writing that verse in the SGGS. May Waheguru forgive you for your cowardice in refusing to call a spade a spade. You have taken the easy way out and have decided to 'go with the flow'. Yeah, keep saying it's a 'religion of peace' and all those liberal Dhimmis and Muslims will love you while members of this vile cult are busy killing, raping and maiming Non Muslims in the other part of the globe in the name of their cult.