OPINION

That Sinking Feeling

March 04, 2009
thedeskjockey

A day after the terrible attacks on Sri Lanka cricketers in Pakistan, the emotion has perhaps settled a little, but the strange sense of hopelessness has not. As I sit today reading through the details coming in through various outlets, it feels that there is no way you can be ready for this despite 60+ years of terrorism. And while I grow weary at the renewed finger pointing across the border (haven’t we had enough of that in the last 4 months?), a couple of things don’t make sense to me at all

1) Why would the terrorists, who have unashamedly killed innocent women and children before, have any qualms about killing high profile cricketers? If their intent is to destabilize the ruling powers, anyone is fair game. So where does the confidence on cricketers being safe, come from?

2) Why is it important to stage cricket games to prove a point? When did cricketers become diplomats or statesmen for their countries? And what if the tour had gone without incident? All it proves, and has proved in the past, is that the security was tight or the terrorists didn’t think it worthy enough of their time. It doesn’t automatically make Pakistan a safer place, nor does it force other countries to reverse their decisions. This leaves the door open to just one disturbing possibility – money.

The Indian team luckily or prudently decided not to tour Pakistan. And the thought of seeing Tendulkar’s and Dhoni’s name substituted for Samaraweera and Paranavithana fuels the worst of what-if fears in us. However, the biggest losers in this are Pakistan cricket and the state of Pakistan as a whole. And somehow, I feel sad for the people living in the country; saddled with the worst of regimes, facing the worst of uncertainties, and living in fear of the worst of the backlashes from the rest of the world.

Several years back, when I was still in university, I had the pleasure of having a Pakistani as my neighbor. Now like the average Indian who viewed their country through the same blood tainted lens the politicians paint for us, I was a little vary and perhaps remained even a little distant to him. However like all guys in general we bonded one day over a glass of vodka (which I was surprised that he was willing to drink despite his religion), a guitar and a lot of good food. And while discussing various topics in general, we inevitably came to the subject of tensions between our countries. And he made a few points that touched me immensely. He said, “I am proud to be a Pakistani, yet there is no one who appreciates that”. “People here in the US have sympathy for the Iraqi, muted admiration or fascination for the Iranian and are just in plain awe of the Indians and Chinese. But when I mention that I am a Pakistani, they reserve their contempt masked by patronizing dismissal only for us”. And he continued by saying that one day, he wanted to see his own country stand tall for its achievements and not its dubious relationships. He said that the average Pakistani is yearning to be a citizen of the world and not unofficially belong to the official “Axis of Evil”. And finally I asked him if he would ever marry an American and he said he would, if she would convert to Islam. What about an Indian? He said he could never return to his country. And that saddened me because I might have given the same answer regarding marriage to a Pakistani. As much as we would like to break our shackles, we still feel incredibly burdened by our past.

That is precisely why I don’t feel the necessity to call out the hollowness of calls to visit the country. Neither do I want to succumb to the urge to wrap this situation in an incredibly funny yet disturbing way. Because the fault does not lie with the people making these calls. Because as much as we are led to believe that Pakistan’s failure lies in harboring and nurturing terrorism, that notion is fundamentally wrong. Their failure lies in its inability to give the average citizen the opportunity to flourish and prosper in this world. Its failure lies in its inability to clearly define a vision for its country. And its failure lies in ignoring the basic pillars that build a successful state of governance – education, infrastructure and economy. By allowing the military to rule the roost at the forefront or behind the scenes, they pretty much guaranteed that they would always make the wrong friends – the Taliban, or make friends for the wrong reasons – the USA.

And not all countries are completely successful at containing terrorism and unrest. India’s extreme economical progress masks a lot of its own problems with the Hindu fundamentalists and Naxalites. Even the USA with all its mighty technology and prosperity could do nothing to contain the widespread crime, rioting and looting in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Eventually, when you remove hope from a person, he/she very rapidly descends down a path of destruction. Now apply that to a significant majority of a country’s population and you get one giant terrorist state.

In the wake of these attacks, it is obviously easy to want to isolate Pakistan from the rest of the world. However an isolated Pakistan is not only ripe for the taking for the likes of JeM, LeT, Harkat and the Taliban, but it also means that India would become the new Israel – having Pakistan, Bangladesh, China and Sri Lanka as our neighbors.

And that possibility is a lot more disturbing than the current state of affairs.

the desk jockey is a software engineer by vocation, a critic by nature and a writer by desire. He resides in Los Angeles, CA.
eXTReMe Tracker
Keep reading for comments on this article and add some feedback of your own!

Comments! Feedback! Speak and be heard!

Comment on this article or leave feedback for the author

#1
SanjayTheAtheist
March 4, 2009
06:45 AM

It shows that the terrorists had their attack already planned, and were waiting to launch it against the Indian team, to slaughter them. But because the Sri Lankans showed up in India's place, they were hit by the attack instead.

The jihadi terrorists probably figured that with all the cricket fans in India, there would be widespread outrage among the Indian public over the slaughter of India's national team.

#2
Ledzius
March 4, 2009
07:59 AM

"And finally I asked him if he would ever marry an American and he said he would, if she would convert to Islam."

This single sentence speaks volumes about everything that is wrong with their attitude towards life. And they are paying the price for it (and deservedly so).

I have several relatives who have married Westerners, but religion was never made an issue in any of the cases. The spouses never had to convert, nor did they ask my relatives to get converted to Christianity. On the other hand I have come across many Muslim guys who had fallen in love with Hindu women insisting that they convert to Islam too.

In short, their religion takes priority over every other thing in their lives. This is an empirical fact with Muslims. Till this stupid obsession with their religion continues to exist, they will dig themselves deeper and deeper into a hole.


#3
Kerty
March 4, 2009
10:56 AM

This is usual root-cause pseudo commentary about terrorism and Pakistan that we heard in the aftermath of Mumbai. These empty-heads never give up even on the face of one harrowing terrorist act after another. Blah Blah, it is all the fault of poverty, hopelessness, economic deprivation, lack of education and blah blah - never mind they are the predictable end-results of ideology Pakistan is pursuing.

The end game is that world must not react. World must not punish. After a brief moment of outrage and condemnation, world must move on as if nothing happened. World must pour billions in aids to boost Pakistani state. World must empathize with Pakistanis who refuse to shed this terrorist ideology - or else they will turn to terrorism. This tired, contrived and circular logic does not bother apologists of Pakistan one bit. They must seek moral equivalency with India - with those pesky Hindu fundamentalists and bloody Naxlites/ Maoists. These fifth columnists are more worried about world reacting to this jehadi ideology which buttresses their own political ideologies in India and elsewhere. They dread world seeking to isolate this terrorist ideology from Pakistan and deal a blow to it. And that is lot more disturbing than actual terrorist events.

#4
kaffir
March 4, 2009
11:26 AM

"Eventually, when you remove hope from a person, he/she very rapidly descends down a path of destruction. Now apply that to a significant majority of a country's population and you get one giant terrorist state."


What hope was removed from Osama Bin Laden - a multi-millionaire - that compelled him to carry out his terrorist activities? And why and how did the removal of hope from OBL get adopted by others who blindly followed his orders?

How about Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who studied at London School of Economics?

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who studied at a college in North Carolina?

Ayman Al Zawahiri who came from an upper middle class background and was a surgeon?

Mohammad Atta who had a degree in architecture and studied at Technical University of Hamburg?

Most earthlings would likely give up their left nut to get the opportunities at education and furthering their lives that these blokes got, and wouldn't give up hope after getting these opportunities.

'the desk jockey' needs to do some homework or display some intellectual honesty in her/his post.

#5
kaffir
March 4, 2009
11:33 AM

Ledzius, you bigoted Islamophobe, you!!

#6
kaffir
March 4, 2009
11:58 AM

Ledzius, my comment # 5 was tongue-in-cheek, just in case you thought otherwise. :)

#7
the desk jockey
URL
March 4, 2009
02:32 PM

@Ledzius - When my friend mentioned about his wife converting to Islam, he didn't mean it in a religious fundamentalist way. He said it in the the context of having a partner with whom he could have a common spiritual connection. That is his preference. And that preference should be given as much weight as if you would have said that you wanted a partner with whom you shared interests or someone who you could see spending your life with. Why does wanting to have a common religion drive such extreme reactions?

@Kerty - If I read your opinion right, you would prefer we rather isolate Pakistan all together? Or would you prefer the world got together and bombed them? Isn't this total isolation what brought about the situation that exists in most of Africa? Or is that another continent that you don't care about as it hardly affects us? The situation is analogous to a troubled relative. Would you rather help them? Or let them continue down their path of destruction? I am not saying that the approach of the US and to a large part India has done anything to help the situation as they have their own vested interests in their politics. But if you let the subcontinent rot in its current state, how long do you think before that idealogy spills over into India? Why do you think India would be immune when the rest of the subcontinent around them is burning?

@kaffir - You take the name of the fundamentalists who used their credentials to drive the hatred forward in the country. Is Ajmal Kasab from any of the universities you mentioned? It is not these people who cause the blood bath around the world. It is the foot soldiers devoid of hope and any basic way to move forward with their life, who subscribe to this twisted ideology. Do you think any of the guys above would have been successful in a country like the US or UK or even to an extent India? Why do yo think suicide bombers and terrorists come from the remotest and poorest villages? And that is the point I am trying to make. And this point is my opinion and not my intellectual dishonesty at work :).

#8
kaffir
March 4, 2009
03:09 PM

thediskjockey,

Mohammad Atta (and other 9/11 hijackers) was a foot soldier.
Kafeel Ahmad was a foot soldier.
Bilal Abdullah was a foot soldier.

All three of them with accomplishments - before they made headlines - any poor person would be envious of. And they were not poor. What's the common thread uniting puppet-masters and puppets?

Again, please do your homework and analysis instead of stopping short at contemplating or speaking some uncomfortable truths, which I know certain PC attitudes make very difficult, more so if you are surrounded by liberals in America whose grievances against American state compel them to justify actions by terrorists.

Poor Kasab. How about those unfortunate 150 or so Indians who lost their lives because of Kasab?

By the way, could you please share with us what were the circumstances in Kasab's life that forced him to come to Mumbai and slaughter innocents in cold blood?

Did the ideology of his faith play a major part in his actions - which you didn't even mention in your post?

Why do you think Dharavi residents and poor all over the world are not doing what Kasab did? According to you, they share the same circumstances.

Do you think average citizens of any other country don't experience injustice? I doubt that justice rendering mechanism works at 100% in any country. Why are these people not taking up arms and killing innocents?

Man, too many ostriches around who want to ignore the truth. No wonder terrorists thrive on such idiocy and being blind to facts.

#9
kerty
March 4, 2009
03:10 PM

"If I read your opinion right, you would prefer we rather isolate Pakistan all together?"

Nope. You have to isolate the jehadi ideology from Pakistan. Anything that empowers Military-Mullah-Moslem axis empowers Jehadi ideology. You can't wait till every single person in Pakistan becomes college educated and economically well off - because there will always be enough people in Pakistan who are not. There will always be poor people, hopeless people, village people. You can't use that as apologetics for terrorism. Therein lies the intellectual dishonesty.

#10
kaffir
March 4, 2009
03:16 PM

"And that preference should be given as much weight as if you would have said that you wanted a partner with whom you shared interests or someone who you could see spending your life with. Why does wanting to have a common religion drive such extreme reactions?"


Would you have the same response if a
a. Hindu mentioned wanting to marry someone from the same caste?
b. Hindu mentioned wanting his/her non-Hindu partner to give up his/her faith and "convert" as a condition of marriage?

Besides, if there's already a spiritual connection, why should anyone feel the need for his spouse to convert? And why not have him give up his Islamic faith and convert to his spouse's faith? That would also achieve the goal of having common religion for both. BTW, have you looked up what's the penalty for Muslims who want to give up their faith and convert to another religion?

#11
SD
March 4, 2009
03:17 PM

kerty: "You have to isolate the jehadi ideology from Pakistan"

How do we do that is the million dollar question. What if some Muslim fundamentalists within the region resist these attempts claiming that giving up their own jehadi ideologies is only "adopting and ensalving themselves to Western values" and foregoing their "Islamic culture"?.

I have heard quite a few fundamentalists argue on those lines about violent reactionaries in India as well. It is quite possible that similarly, what you label "jehadi idelogy" is their "culture"...just like not wearing jeans is Indian culture.

Then what do we do?

#12
kaffir
March 4, 2009
03:18 PM

Oops, that should be 'thedeskjockey' in #8.

#13
Ayan Roy
March 4, 2009
03:20 PM

Radical Islam by itself in the hands of a few mad mullahs does not have the power to churn terrorists and cause widespread destruction. It's like the barking of a few mad dogs.
On the other hand, poverty plus hopelessness by themselves devoid of any central ideology or blinding zeal is not motivation enough for a person to blow himself up causing maximum destruction. However, it's definitely fertile ground for radical, violent ideologies to take root and spread!

In my opinion, the lethal concoction, or the explosive mixture of radical Islam and hopeless poverty is the root cause for destructive terrorism all around the world.

In fact, other "radical" ideologies like Communism and Nazism have thrived and grown in a climate of poverty and/or helplessness. In this regard I agree with the author.

I do agree, that the mastermind monsters of radical Islam must be targetted and eliminated quickly and ruthlessly, so that they are not able to so gleefully exploit the poverty and hopelessness of their "believers" to further their own destructive ideologies, and keep causing deaths of thousands of innocents in the process.

But, to eliminate the 'footsoldiers', and to eliminate the problem of destructive ideologies and violence in the long term, we will have to eliminate abject poverty and hopelessness from majority of the populace of the Earth, which should be a high priority goal for all nations of the world without question. Otherwise, even if radical Islam is vanquished with a lot of effort in the near future, some new radical violent ideology may take root encashing upon the prevalent helplessness and poverty in the society and start causing more destruction again.

#14
kaffir
March 4, 2009
03:23 PM

"He said it in the the context of having a partner with whom he could have a common spiritual connection."

thedeskjockey, if having the same religion gives people common spiritual connection, why do you think Shias and Sunnis - who share the same religion - are busy killing and bombing each other?

#15
kaffir
March 4, 2009
03:31 PM

Ayan,

How many of the 9/11 hijackers came from abject poverty?

How many terrorists involved in the (failed) Glasgow airport bombing came from abject poverty?

#16
kaffir
March 4, 2009
03:39 PM

Ayan,

So if I'm poor, I'm justified in killing others? And after killing those innocents, I also get sympathy from people like you, instead of facing the consequences of my action?

#17
kerty
March 4, 2009
03:42 PM

SD

Nice moral equivalency and relativism. Just because society does not give you carte blanche on your vice culture, somehow it is akin to jehadis is intellectually dishonest. Vice culture exhibits similar jehadism akin to Islamic jehadism - they share similar tactics and goals in India and you can find them sleeping in the same bed, under same ideological and political platform in India.

#18
kaffir
March 4, 2009
03:53 PM

thedeskjockey and Ayan,

Here are the profiles of the four guys who were responsible for the London bombings. While they may not have been rich and well-off, they certainly weren't coming from abject poverty.

#19
kaffir
March 4, 2009
03:54 PM

thedeskjockey and Ayan,

Here are the profiles of the four guys (you can click on their names to read their biographies) who were responsible for the London bombings. While they may not have been rich and well-off, they certainly weren't coming from abject poverty and seemed like they had a family and a decent job.

#20
kaffir
March 4, 2009
04:12 PM

Looks like the tag didn't work. Here's the URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings#Bombers.27_profiles

#21
SD
March 4, 2009
06:11 PM

#17: My "vice" culture!! :0 Do you know me personally?!! Or are you suggesting that everybody living in the US is living a depraved life full of these "vices". I hope you are in India. Cause otherwise that would include you too. Or is this "only Americans &Westerners" your comment refers to?

I wonder if the jehadis too think on similar lines: their vices versus our piety. Especially since the Koran and the Bible have their own definitions of "vice" and "virtue". If so, you may not be as different from the so-called "jehadis" as you believe yourself to be...in terms of idealogy at least.

"Nice moral equivalency and relativism"

Nice attempt at sohphism.

#22
Kaiser_Soze
March 4, 2009
08:32 PM

Islam + Poverty = Terror?

Then why is Hindu + poverty =/= Terror?

Or, how do you explain:
Islam + Saudi = Terror, (where Saudi =/= Poverty)

Seems like Terror is directly correlated to Islam.

#23
Kaiser_Soze
March 4, 2009
08:40 PM

...and further, if the above post can be negated by lack of political freedom in those societies, name a successful Islamic society that was/is actually free and democratic.

#24
SD
March 4, 2009
09:16 PM

Firstly, the equations you provide in comment 22 are way too simplistic (and a bit juvenile actually). One can only wish things were that simple.

And as for comment #23, what do you mean by "Islamic society"? There are several Muslims who live in secular, free nations and are contributing, peaceful members of such nations. Those can be termed "societies".

However if you are referring to a Muslim state which is free and democratic then I suggest you read history books. There is a country right next to India whose name begins with a P and rhymes with "Schmakistan" which is a democracy and still is an Islamic state. They are struggling against terrorism too you know. It may not seem that way but like every nation, they too need to fight and shake off the shackles of extremism and fundamentalism. Just because they are an Islamic state and terrorists originate from there does not mean all Pakistanis are fundamentalists.

By the way, if you don't know of violence for the cause of Hinduism then I must remind you of a certain Mr.Godse who decided to counter the non-violence preached in the Bhagvad Gita with a semi-automatic pistol.

On the very thread that we are all discussing "jehadis", we have people who refer to Indian women wearing jeans as "vice culture". So how are we going to change or help evolve another society if we ourselves haven't gotten there yet?

#25
Kaiser_Soze
March 4, 2009
10:31 PM

If it don't fit liberal viewpoint then its simplistic/juvenile/Sophism, eh? :-)

Your other conclusions are as laughable as -Pakistan is a democracy- statement.

Here's something more simplistic for your consumption: Poverty leads to Islamic terrorism.

I suggest YOU read Islamic history, recent or medieval. Even Turkey, a Moslem majority country, is a relatively secular society solely due to fact that Kemal Ataturk and his military Generals forcibly(literally under the gun) imposed westernization upon their societies.

So much so that he banned Fez as a symbol of Islamic imperialism. He changed Arabic script to Roman alphabets. Sharia was banished and replaced with legal system modeled after Italian system. So only when they moved far AWAY from Islamic ideology could they become a tolerant state.

Even when the Islamic Caliphate was the sole super-power of world, some of the bloodiest oppression of infidels happened under them. Read Arnold Toynbee and Will Durant("Our Oriental Heritage").

With all due respect to supporters of chaddiwallas of the Khaki or Pink persuasion, it is silly to bring those issues to this discussion.

It is also ridiculous to equate that discussion(bars, bras and chaddis) to Taliban and Al-Qaeda ideology.

Get one thing straight, it is a very realistic an assumption that Islamic radicals will use nukes(if they could) to further their agenda.






#26
kerty
March 4, 2009
10:48 PM

SD

"here is a country right next to India whose name begins with a P and rhymes with "Schmakistan" which is a democracy and still is an Islamic state.....
Just because they are an Islamic state and terrorists originate from there does not mean all Pakistanis are fundamentalists."

If they are a democracy, if they are not fundamentalists, if terrorism is not integral to its state or Islamic strategy - then they should have been able to do the following:

- be able to vote out Islamic state into secular state
- be able to crush terrorism
- be able to remove fundamentalism from power it enjoys among moslems
- be able to have friendly relations with India
- not have territorial disputes or ambitions against India

The proof of the pudding is in eating.

#27
kaffir
March 4, 2009
11:15 PM

SD, why just Godse? Afzal Guru, Chandrashekhar Azad, Madan Lal Dhingra, Ram Prasad Bismil, and Bose, to name some more. If you want to reach back into the Hindu pantheon, you'll find Krishna, Ram, Parshuram, Durga, Kali, Shiva all using violence.

What's your point? Or are you simply playing your role of the useful idiot who takes glee in obfuscations and misdirections by bringing in irrelevant issues into a discussion?

#28
SD
March 4, 2009
11:16 PM

"be able to vote out Islamic state into secular state"

Why? Democratic is not synonymous with secular. Pakistan does not call itself a secular state. It is an Islamic democratic state.

"The proof of the pudding is in eating"

If we are using "pudding" analogies for nations then Pakistan and India, both are puddings infested with inedible components. India's "secularism" is not impeccable (most definitely not). Pakistan's democracy is ridden with problems. So like we would promptly dump such a pudding should we declare both nations terrorist states?

It is not a pudding, but a pudding in process.

All the things you listed might come with time. But if such nations are attacked/ bombed/ taken to war their people will get further alienated. Sections of the population that is innocent will harbor resentment and this cycle will continue.

Let me give you a list: If India is a secular country then they should

-reform their constitution so that "hurting of religious sentiments" is not turned into a chargeable crime. Because secular means "separation of religion from state" and also since a democracy should protect people's freedom of speech and expression as well.

-contain religious riots with law enforcement

-be able to protect people's way-of-life irrespective of individual definitions of "culture" (because a secular democracy should ideally provide its citizens with the choice of way of life, religion, culture etc)

I can list some of the things lacking in the US system as well.

But in my opinion democracy is not a perfect scenario...it is an evolving idealogy that requires work to achieve practical culmination and every nation represents such work in progress.

#29
SD
March 4, 2009
11:26 PM

kaffir: thanks for the name calling. it usually comforts me in knowing that the person does not have a point and so is using ad hominem.

pls read the comment to which my response was (#22) which used a simplistic equation to establish a relationship between Islam and "terror". My point was there have been assasins and terrorists who fought believing that they were protecting Hindutva or Hinduism. They too were radical extremists. Hence Islam is not the only religion that can be held accountable for religious extremism leading into violence.

I frankly am a bit embarrassed for you for bringing up Krishna, Kali, Shiva etc in this discussion. I am not sure why you would and then accuse me of misdirecting the thread! I am very clearly not citing all examples of "violence in Hinduism"...but specifically ones where radical believers who have conducted terrorist acts.

and if you still don't feel like I bringing anything useful to the discussion, here is a real easy tip: don't read my comments or respond to them!

#30
Ledzius
March 4, 2009
11:30 PM

"He said it in the the context of having a partner with whom he could have a common spiritual connection."

Yeah right. You really buy that, don't you?

If it were true, it shows how much warped his concept of 'spirituality' is. Spirituality doesn't come and go by changing religious labels. It is something more fundamental. If you think you and your partner cannot make a spiritual connection without her converting to your religion, then you haven't even understood what spirituality is. Of course, him coming from a close minded religion, it is not surprising at all.

But methinks that is just an excuse. In over 90% of the cases, the wife of a Muslim man is forced to convert to Islam. And their children, in almost 99% of the cases, will be brought up as Muslims themselves. This has nothing to do with spirituality, but just a general theme of Islamic dominance over other religions.








#31
kaffir
March 4, 2009
11:45 PM

SD, I'm not white man's burden, so don't be embarrassed.

"My point was there have been assasins and terrorists who fought believing that they were protecting Hindutva or Hinduism."

Yeah, that's only a hop-step-and-jump away from "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" so I thought I'd nip that in the bud and save us all some time and not derail this discussion.

By the way, ad hominem attack would be: "you are a useful idiot."

I specifically wrote: "your role of the useful idiot" which is the same as "acting as a useful idiot."

I'm clearly criticizing your behavior, not you.

But others here have made the same mistake in mis-reading what I write, and in their hurry conflate the two, so I can understand.

#32
Kerty
March 5, 2009
12:07 AM

SD

We are discussing issues related to Pakistan and terrorism, not India. Pakistani jehadism suffers from incurable fixation to frame all its issues in the context of India. Parity and equivalency with India remain its sole reference in all its debates. Sure India has all kinds of problems of its own, but this is not discussion about India and its problems. It can not be a precondition that unless and until India does or solves so and so, because so and so happens in India, that Pakistan should be excused from tackling terrorism. There can be no parity, equivalency or linkage between what India does and what Pakistan must do.

In the aftermath of terrorist event, the friends of Jehadism come out with predictable litany of root-cause pre-conditions and apologetics to blame everything else but Jehadism to do damage control for Jehadism, to make the case for not upsetting the jehadi apple cart, to deflect arguments and call for action, to tag on their own pet causes and grievances as preconditions for tackling the issue of terrorism. That is why it has grown into a big monster. If Pakistan does not devour this monster, it will devour Pakistan. And if Pakistan does not pull the trigger on this moster, India certainly will.

#33
dark lord
March 5, 2009
01:56 AM

Frankly, i have no clue about this discussion.
But i fell people should be careful before dumping stats such as this

>>In over 90% of the cases, the wife of a Muslim man is forced to convert to Islam. And their children, in almost 99% of the cases, will be brought up as Muslims themselves. This has nothing to do with spirituality, but just a general theme of Islamic dominance over other religions.

#34
Ledzius
March 5, 2009
03:49 AM

Agreed, the exact numbers may be somewhat different, but the crux of my statements are valid. For example, please go through the appendix of the book The Demographic Siege by Dr.Koenraad Elst here-

http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.org/books/demogislam/appendix.html

The very first sentence is - "One of the most painful aspects of Muslim demographic warfare is the open attempt by Muslims to grab non-Muslim girls to use them for their own demographic ambitions, meanwhile also inflicting a good dose of humiliation on the accursed kafirs. "

Those who still believe it has got to do with "spiritual connection" are either incredibly naive or trying to fool themselves.

#35
SD
March 5, 2009
10:03 AM

kaffir: "SD, I'm not white man's burden, so don't be embarrassed"

Huh? What? What does this statement even mean? How and why does "white man" come into the picture?! Or do you believe everyone who has an opinion contrary to you is a "white man"?

I also hope you know what "embarrassed for you" means. It means, you have made such a misplaced statement that I cannot help feel embarrassed for you. It does not mean I feel responsible in any way of your gaffe.

And I am not interested in arguing technicalities with you as far as name-calling goes. The term Idiot with reference to another commentator is ad hominem. I don't care if it was "my role" or my intelligence you were insulting.

kerty: "We are discussing issues related to Pakistan and terrorism, not India"

Comment #22 to which my response was is not discussing terrorism in Pakistan but terrorism w.r.t Islam. Islam is not localized to Pakistan and neither is terrorism. My response was to his statement.

Ledzius here is arguing that wanting to marry a Muslim person makes someone a fundamentalist and is not about a spiritual connection. There are plenty Hindus who state the same thing....shaadi.com would clue you in. In fact they even go so far as to narrow down the caste, gotra etc. Is that fundamentalist too or because that is Hinduism that translates to "spiritual connection"?

I am not arguing with you guys here. I am mostly just curious.

#36
kaffir
March 5, 2009
11:26 AM

"The term Idiot with reference to another commentator is ad hominem."


Says who? The PC police? Context matters.

#37
SD
March 5, 2009
11:45 AM

kaffir "Says who? The PC police? Context matters"

Says me...since it was directed at me. Context should not matter as far as name-calling is concerned.

Ad hominem is commonly defined as "criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument in an attempt to discredit the argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim"


You words: "Or are you simply playing your role of the useful idiot who takes glee in obfuscations and misdirections by bringing in irrelevant issues into a discussion?"

No counter arguments against my claims and instead a criticism of me. This is defined as ad hominem.

Says me.

#38
kaffir
March 5, 2009
12:22 PM

"No counter arguments against my claims and instead a criticism of me."

Nope. It was a criticism of your behavior, and not you as a person, which is exactly what I said in #31. You are conflating the two. But feel free to take umbrage and remain miffed - that's your prerogative.

Add your comment

(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/8901)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.






Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!