Grim Reaper Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Thats a categoric lie because when i asked you the question of culpability' date=' you simply ran away.[/quote'] I haven't ran away, I'm still here, just that you think I run away since you don't hear the stuff you want to hear. The US is not responsible for this at all. If you give a gun to a murderer who already has weapons and the intentions to kill anyway, it makes no difference. That's just the answer to your logic, not that your question in the way posed is even correct to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 If you give a gun to a murderer who already has weapons and the intentions to kill anyway, it makes no differenceFalse. First off, in my analogy, the murderer has an stick- you gave him a gun. This is PRECISELY what the US did and before the US involvement from the 1960s, there was no islamic terrorism in cell-type 'blow myself up' and indepently organized scene. It very much makes you culpable and if you give a gun to a murderer, you are an acessory to murder. Any court of law will conclude thus. Thus, US is very much culpable for the Islamist terror unleashed on the modern world and like i said- i feel no sorrow for the deaths of US soldiers or US casualties in this 'war on terror'- you reap what you sow. US played a large part in creation of this monster- now they are paying the price for it. Anyways, we are specifically discussing the program MB talks about in the OP. If you havn't seen it, i suggest you shut up with your contrived drivel. If you have seen it- then come to the table and show us what exactly is the falsehood/misinterpretation shown in the program. I get the distinct impression that you are a conservative thumper who just made a knee-jerk comment without even seeing the program on discussion here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim Reaper Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Nope you are wrong. The US did not cause this, the terror from Islam began far back in 635. Long before the US ever came into existence. You can give a gun to anyone, if can either form a hero or a villain. Whatever the outcome, the one who makes the choice if fully responsible. It is the terrorists who choose to blow themselves up in the hope of gaining 72 virgins and dying for their so called God. The US has nothing to do with that and therefore is not to blame in any way. As you hold no sorrow for the US troops, I hold no sorrow for anyone that is killed by the US army in this war on terror/evil. A price is being paid and it must in order to combat evil, the US is paying a heavy price but if it means to destroy evil, so be it. Again, I already answered the question and the program is just a pro-liberal/evil, anti-conservative/good, pack of junk. The program is about showing that the threat is not real, what a load of delusional idiotic crap to spread upon people. And the funny thing is that people like you buy into it. Are you any better than the terrorists yourself? I wouldn't be surprised to see you fly a plane into a building and blow yourself up in the middle of innocent people. If you haven't learned anything by now and keep ranting on in the way you are, I can't help but feel you are just some terrorist/pro-Islamic extremist/liberal/evil maniac who just can't accept what is truly happening. This is what causes me to say long before, that no matter what you say or do, the real truth will never be altered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 The US did not cause this True. But US helped it along grandly along the way. Thus very much culpable. You can give a gun to anyone, if can either form a hero or a villain. Whatever the outcome, the one who makes the choice if fully responsible. It is the terrorists who choose to blow themselves up in the hope of gaining 72 virgins and dying for their so called God. The US has nothing to do with that and therefore is not to blame in any way. US gave a lot of guns to fundamentalist Islamic nutters, who`d already declared their intent on blowing everything `non-muslim`up to high heavens. US gave guns to fundie muslims after 1400 years of precedence of what Islamic nutters do when armed. Therefore, US is fully culpable for aiding and abetting terrorism and terrorists. A price is being paid and it must in order to combat evil, the US is paying a heavy price but if it means to destroy evil, so be it. Evil shall never be `destroyed`until the US falls down and breaks apart. Don`t worry- the Mexicans will do that for the world. The program is about showing that the threat is not real, what a load of delusional idiotic crap to spread upon people. False. Nowhere does the program say or imply that the threat is not real- it is your interpretation of the wordplay `nightmares`on the title of the program- yet another implicit proof that you are yapping like a fanatic without even seeing the program. Are you any better than the terrorists yourself? Oh yes, better than the terrorists AND their aiding-abetting USA idiots. Better than US terrorists too. Which is why i have nothing to do with violence. I wouldn't be surprised to see you fly a plane into a building and blow yourself up in the middle of innocent people. Shows how little your know of me and how little you understand my principles. Bottomline is, one terrorist bunch is attacking a terrorist nation thats producing war criminals for presidents, cooking up excuses to invade other countries on a back of LIES and a government that did experiments on its own people...Can`t say i am very annoyed at US getting its comeuppance. I can't help but feel you are just some terrorist/pro-Islamic extremist/liberal/evil maniac who just can't accept what is truly happening. Pfffft....there are three major evils plaging the world today - Islamist terrorism, USA and China`s totalitarian push. This is what causes me to say long before, that no matter what you say or do, the real truth will never be altered. Likewise and right back at you. Nomatter what a neo-conservative brainwashed by Fox says, the real truth will never be altered. Pity that you have no inkling what the real truth is though. Make no mistake- i laugh and feel happy when Islamist terrorists are caught or blown up or eliminated- but i laugh and feel happy too when American terrorist soldiers get blown up or are dragged along the ground like a dead piece of meat. I have no love lost for either of these demons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 . but if this intro on that site(See below) is anything to go by whats the relevance of this video w.r.t the situation faced by India considering that we are going thru this nonsense for many many centuries ... even before the evil nation of Amreeka existed ? Everything here does not begin or end with India. The program,power of nightmares, is primarily directed at how American plutocracy has managed to chip away at the fundamentals of democracy and human freedom, in large part by whipping up a lot of scaremongering amongst its populace. It is about tracing the history of individualistic Islamic terrorism, which is a recent phenomena. How it may relate to India and Indians is learning about how the beurocracy can manipulate the scenario to get people living in a state of perpetual heightened fear from a largely non-existent threat. And what do the Neo Liberalists (more like Ivory Towerists) have to say about the abject and total failure of Gandhism which was also experimented upon the beloved Jihadi's ? That is nothing but radical hinduvta propaganda to justify their own little genocides and terrorism campaigns. If hinduvta is genuinely concerned about controlling Islamic terrorism, they would not be conducting retaliatory genocides and mass killings. That they do, is simply demonstrative of them being nothing more than Hinduism's counterpart to fundamentalist Islamists. If Hinduvta is/was concerned about controlling the violence of Islamism, they would be trying to get Islamist perpetrators to justice, holding sting 'Tehelka-like' operations to expose precise masterminds and islamic intellectuals sympathetic to radical Islamism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim Reaper Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 lol Nothing is more amusing right now than you trying to deny the truth. You are better off denying planes can fly or humans can walk. People like you are what make terrorists, lets see how far evil and your support for it will go against good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Nothing is more amusing right now than you trying to deny the truth. Havn't denied any truth here mate. You are the one denying a simple truth that if you aid/equip the fanatics, you are culpable too, just like how a court of law will find you an accessory to murder if you give a gun to a known criminal and he/she kills someone. People like you are what make terrorists, lets see how far evil and your support for it will go against good. LoL...no people who see the world in black-n-white of 'good vs evil' are the prime candidates for aiding and abetting terrorism as long as the terrorists pick an agenda suitable enough. And again, i am not interested in cheap-shots, if you can debate points with me, bring them to the table instead of just simple name-calling. I can easily prove that US isn't all that hunky-dory 'good guy' as neo-con brainwashing here leads one to conclude and that they are very much the one and the same as the Al-Qaeda terrorists- what perhaps makes the US govt. worse is that their pretentiousness of being good-guys- at least Al-Qaeda is honest and direct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim Reaper Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Nope, you've been corrupted by Islamic maniacs or Liberals which is why you fail to see it. The US is the good guy which is fighting evil. Of course the bad guy will think that the good is truly the bad one or is no better, just like your thinking. However as I said before, that doesn't change the truth. No matter how much one believes that the good is evil, it will never ever actually make it evil. It will satisfy your mind as you fool yourself and other idiotic followers, but don't expect it to work on the ones who don't live in such a delusional state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Got to agree .. USA is the good guy fighting evil. After all , in a drunken stupor , Bush/Cheney combo playing Russian Roulette choose the lucky Iraqis (looks like needle got struck in Iraq) and decided on their behalf to liberate them .. Sorry citizens of Saudi , Pakistan ,Jordan , Kuwait etc .. you guys will have to wait for the luck of the draw :D ..Oops ..I forgot that they are all allies in the war against terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Better to live in AC Ivory towers than glass houses lest you cast the first stone ...:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 did you even understand what I wrote ? :cantstop::haha: Did you ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 I did that you live in a glass house and I live in a Ivory tower... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 and beats me how you arrived at the converted and armed to kill bit , but whatever ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 ]because from your posts its apparant that Rop = a cute teddy bear that is being crushed mercilessly by the evil nation of United states and is in danger of extinction ... :two_thumbs_up: Huh ... I don't recall commenting on ROP in this thread... and from your posts it is clear that USA foreign policy is noble and it is a fight between good over evil . I got to agree .. :D Let's see what we got here .. 1 .They supported Bin laden and his rag tag Mujahideen against Russia and thus helped in the nascency of Tailban . 2. They supported Pakistan over India during the three wars , Kargil being the exception. Heck they arm them even now . The last time I checked Pakistan got 20 billion dollars in defense deal , surely you need that kind of money to fight terrorism , right ? Heck , please explain how the F-16's they supplied will help pakistan in their war against terrorism ? 3. They ousted Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh and supported the monarch Shah of Iran. 4. They supported Saddam and armed him the "Weapons of Mass destruction" during the Iraq - Iran war . 5. They support the Saudi Kingdom which is responsible for all the sick Wahabi Madrassas that came to nascency all around the world. 6. They support tin pot dictators in the Arab world in Jordan , Egypt etc . Surely you don't assume that these guys are democratically elected , would you ? 7. Let's not forget Central America. I am sure you are aware of the term banana republic . Heck , we have a bunch of tin pot dictators supported by the "good" USA in central america and so on .... BUT , I got to agree that it was a noble war , this Iraq one ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 not this thread alone but generally speaking ... if you want examples I can dig up a few threads .... And speaking about what America has done in the past few decades .... feel free to highlight what has happened to India over the past 1000 yrs (Yep 3 Zeroes) at the hands of ROP loonies.. and yet it doesnt seem to have made any difference to your ivory tower theories where Amreeka = Evil. and how many Americans live as refugees in their own country ? Yes I know they are not saints ... they dont claim that themselves ... but dont blame them for our problems which as I said goes back a thousand yrs ... They do , they claim it is fight of good over evil , which apparently you agree in this very thread .. I don't even have to dig up old posts ... You agreed with Grim Reaper when he posted "The US is the good guy which is fighting evil. Of course the bad guy will think that the good is truly the bad one or is no better, just like your thinking. However as I said before, that doesn't change the truth " .... And instead of going 1000 years back , why don't you go to the present - please answer point No 2 . "They supported Pakistan over India during the three wars , Kargil being the exception. Heck they arm them even now . The last time I checked Pakistan got 20 billion dollars in defense deal , surely you need that kind of money to fight terrorism , right ? Heck , please explain how the F-16's they supplied will help pakistan in their war against terrorism ?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 The US is the good guy which is fighting evil. LOL. Talk about typical American brainwashing or America-worshipping ( common phenomena in India these days). US - the good guys.LOL No matter how much one believes that the good is evil, it will never ever actually make it evil. Likewise. Nomatter how much one belives that good and evil exist, it will never ever actually make it so. It will satisfy your mind as you fool yourself and other idiotic followers, but don't expect it to work on the ones who don't live in such a delusional state. Which is why i am inviting you to debate me on this and you keep running away, eh ? Typical conservative git you turn out to be really- all talk and no cigar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 US has been supporting Pak ever since your beloved chacha Nehru went leftFalse. US support for Pak is very simple - its previous alliances in the middle east and (by the late 1940s), the value of OIL to the US being such that Arab nations were able to exert enough influence for the US to pick one from their own religious camp in what is, purely a religious divide at the-then scenario. Nehruvian policies did not come into play atleast till 1951- when the indian constitution was drafted for fux sake! Yet America took a distinctly pro-Pakistani flavour in 1947. You are also false in another count - America to this day is a seriously christian nation- you may not see the effects in the cities and cosmopolitan areas that much but seriously, step out in the country of US- see its small towns, boonies, etc. because thats where most of America resides, not in megalopolises. You will see this to be true. And more pertinent to this discussion, in 1947, America was even more so conservative (and also racist- this was pre-civil rights movement America, where being a black person was good enough a reason for you to be mob-lynched.).North American Protestant Christianity despite its antagonistic stance towards all other religions, still have a 'special place' for the Jews and Muslims, simply because they are monotheists/recognize the same 'God' ( jehovah = Allah = Jewish,Christian & Muslim God). It was (and still is by the way) for conservative American Christians a 'lesser evil' to pick Islam's camp. Pakistan was also far more open to whore it's economy than India was- we were concerned about our key industries instead of handing them over to the US corporate control and that in itself was another huge incentive for the Americans to favour Pakistan right off the bat. and dont tell me the Roosies were all angels shipped straight from heaven.No, they wern't. Nobody said they were and each time your choices in this stupid good-bad debates is questioned, you immediately retort like a child, with a ' don't tell me the opposition are angels outta heaven!'. Such pointless comments really go nowhere. Russian beurocracy were by no means (and still today by no means) 'Angelic' in their dealings with anyone. Important point to recognize here is that in the context of the 1940s/1950s, USSR was distinctly the 'lesser of the two evils' for India. USSR was much more vocal towards the colonies' cause even during WWII and in that timeframe USSR was much less meddlesome in international affairs- how could they, they, like the Germans, inherited a devastated country from WWII. (By the way, don't let the western media and cinematic garbage fool you- factually speaking, WWII in Europe was much more 'Russian victory' than Allied victory- the 'Eastern front' was more than three times larger than the Western front in EVERY whichw way- casualties, damage dealt to the Nazis, amount of weaponry used, length of the theatre, etc.) Unlike the US (and to large extent, the UK, since only south-central UK got bombed by the Nazis, rest of UK emerging unscathed from actual combat), USSR didn't inherit a country with its infrastructure, economic manpower & resources all intact- their nation was devastated and except for a few isolated spots of civilization in vast Siberia, almost all of the heavily industrialized & populated areas of USSR were decimated. As a result, they were a weaker presence in the international relations field- it was not until atleast a decade later, in the late 1950s, when USSR was able to match USA in key areas of showdown/competition. This by the way, is not googled info, this is fairly routine info gleaned from most Canadian International Relations graduates. Feel free to question this- i can easily direct you to published & acclaimed papers on this by some extremely well educated people. USSR was also far keener to form economic relations with India as well as military relations. So based on the-then standing, with USA already leaning towards Pakistan due to Arab (particularly, Saudi & Egyptian) pressure, USSR keener to economically trade with India as well as less concerned about our Internal policies & society, India had its task cut out for her- USSR was a very logical choice for India to gravitate towards. And yet another masterstroke of Nehruvian politics was the fact that unlike Pakistan's clear declaration of worship towards USA, India still played the 'non-aligned movement' card on the official front- perfect hedging of bets and saving face in the same go- clearly favouring Soviets to the US and yet not spelling it out like the prevaling 'pick your camp' mentality of the world back then. PS: I can't help but look at the pitiful lack of intellectual thought in some critical fields as far as India and Indian education or political mentality goes. These days, its 'hip' for Hinduvta fools to try and tear down the image of Gandhi and Nehru. Its curious that some completely under-educated people here (who have very little in the way of formal education or meaningful contactual knowledge) decry Nehru's politics and policies as some sort of 'small-minded self-serving interest at the expense of the nation & sensibility'. Its curious because I know for a fact that Indian education system in these fields suck balls. Yes, it is true that India produces excellent education in linguistics & science but Indian universities are pathetic in their education of Arts & Humanities. It is pitiful, because while the idiots from this particular camp from a nation where education on these topics ( Politics fall under Arts btw) is distinctly third-world jump up and down in glee trying to dress Nehru down, most western Universities of offer case-studies of Nehruvian politics as classic hallmark case of brilliant politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Now lets look at something closer to home ... why did Gandhi support the Radical Khilafat movement ? Why did Gandhi veto the idea of moving all muslims to Pakistan even though that was what they wanted and voted in overwhelming majority especially when most senior leaders adviced him not to do it ? Because not only was Gandhi far more qualified (he was a Barrister by education, champ) than you in logic, he was also far more politically aware than you are. Gandhi's goal was independence from the British. From the start, his goal was for a free India and since the last 'empire' (Mughal Empire is the LAST empire in Indian history to have a clear line of descendence and claim to the empire's throne) had been wiped out completely, he chose 'democracy' as the most logical conclusion. However, his focus was independence from the British and that is only complete when British have handed over power and left. To his goals, a nation dividing itself on ANY sort of basis- be it religious or even cultural- is anathema, since this, if not addressed, would have destroyed India's independence momentum. This is fairly simple to see- a nation under subjugation from a foreign power cannot afford to start dividing itself while still struggling for independence. For this plays PERFECTLY into the hands of 'you lot will kill each other if we didn't keep the peace' thought of the British- not just on a world scene, but in India itself. Gandhi was also a far more moral man than you or I am, so i suggest you do not try to sully the name of one of India's greatest sons- far greater than any of your Hinduvta intellectuals or leaders or most of your 'favourite kings/legendary heroes' anyways. Its strange to see Indians themselves sully the name of Gandhi, from utter ignorance, where in most foreign nations of the world, people who are aware of Gandhi hold him at an extremely high regard by and large. Speaks a lot about your ignorance, innit ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 And he failed miserably on both counts (1) looking for united india : needless to say failed (2) looking for no blood-shed in name of religion: again failed miserably Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Gandhi was also a far more moral man than you or I am' date=' so i suggest you do not try to sully the name of one of India's greatest sons- far greater than any of your Hinduvta intellectuals or leaders or most of your 'favourite kings/legendary heroes' anyways. [b']Its strange to see Indians themselves sully the name of Gandhi, from utter ignorance, where in most foreign nations of the world, people who are aware of Gandhi hold him at an extremely high regard by and large. Speaks a lot about your ignorance, innit ? There is a phrase in my part of the world - Haathi chale bazaar kutta bhaunke hazaar. As in when an elephant walks the streets thousand dogs bark. I dont quite see criticism of Gandhi as strange, just as I dont find criticism of Nehru strange. The critics are often absent minded right wingers who has one-track mind. The worry of course is that such right wing loony number continues to grow by the day, which in a way is not strange considering how the trend cuts across religion and different part of the world. Today it seem we are going back to 19th century(or before) with people getting religio-fascist. xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts