The Nerve of These Guys!... - Page 8

Samudra · 03-27-2008, 10:22 AM

I must apologize to Agnostic - I have left him midway into a debate on another forum. Managing a Punjabi Pakistani Lahori chick is no easy task and demands time - I'm sure we all can agree.

I'm going to running away again but let me make a point. None of the Pakistani political parties stand for moderation. Nawaz is known for his 'I love jihad' antics whilst Bhutto is the known as the mother of the T. Fazlur Rehman was quite close to Bhutto. The role of Bhutto family, Fazlur Rehman and Naseerullah Babbar in raising the Taliban are well known. I'm still at a loss to see how somebody could describe these scumbags as moderates.

Adux · 03-27-2008, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samudra

I must apologize to Agnostic - I have left him midway into a debate on another forum. Managing a Punjabi Pakistani Lahori chick is no easy task and demands time - I'm sure we all can agree.

I'm going to running away again but let me make a point. None of the Pakistani political parties stand for moderation. Nawaz is known for his 'I love jihad' antics whilst Bhutto is the known as the mother of the T. Fazlur Rehman was quite close to Bhutto.

The role of Bhutto family, Fazlur Rehman and Naseerullah Babbar in raising the Taliban are well known.

Thank You Samudra,

None of Pakistani Parties are 'moderate' by international standards not even by a mile.

gunnut · 03-27-2008, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamercube

One of the best quotes I've read on a forum for quite a while. I feel the same way many times, but have a hard time expressing it so eloquently. Bigfella, do you mind if I put this into my signature?

Before you do that, there's a misspelled word in there.

Quote:

It tells me that you are one of these people who assumes that if a person disagrees with them on one or two issues then they fit some pro forma set of opinions. This says more about your need to beat up on conveniently constructed straw men than it does about my beliefs.

Agnostic Muslim · 03-27-2008, 13:16 PM

Adux:

Actually Adux I would argue that it is you who is "misleading people who are not familiar with the politics of the region". I am not arguing that the parties I mentioned stand for changing Pakistan into a secular nation - I am not in favor of that, nor are most Pakistanis - those parties do stand for equality for every citizen of Pakistan and providing equal rights to every citizen, regardless of religion or ethnicity - a message most moderate Muslims believe is commanded in the Quran.

As we stand currently there is a lot to do to achieve that, and I would be the first to admit that any legislation that is brought about is going to attempt change incrementally, but it is nonetheless progress in the right direction. That they want to do this while retaining the Islamic character of the Country does not come across as a dichotomy to me.

Samudra's argument is obfuscation of the issue. He raises the Taliban bogey, but then by that same yardstick the US has supported, and is supporting, dictatorships (religious and secular). India supported the warlords of the Northern Alliance - does that then indicate that the parties and/or administrations running those country's at that time were against democracy and freedom? Or is it the realpolitik? Nations and governments will often do whatever they see as being in their interest, and Pakistan was no different.

Along with raising the Taliban bogey Samudra mentions Nawaz and the Mullah's. I deliberately did not mention the parties they belong to because they are of a more conservative bent. It was the PPP, MQM, ANP, PML-Q who I argued represented the moderate spectrum of Pakistan and gained an overwhelming majority.

On the issue of "proving anything" it is still your argument, you raised the issue of "widespread intolerance, so it is yor burden to prove this widespread intolerance. You attempt to do that by mentioning polls - but every poll I have seen in the last couple of years shows support for AQ/terrorism in Pakistan to be very low, in some in the single digits. Does that not counter your own argument?

Support for the Taliban is higher, but there is also a need to take a more nuanced view of that. You have to take into accoutn the opposition to the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the existing opposition to it for its support to Israel, and the idea that the Taliban represent a "freedom movement" fighting a just war against "occupation".

Adux · 03-27-2008, 13:22 PM

[quote=Agnostic Muslim;474494]Adux:

Quote:

Actually Adux I would argue that it is you who is "misleading people who are not familiar with the politics of the region". I am not arguing that the parties I mentioned stand for changing Pakistan into a secular nation - I am not in favor of that, nor are most Pakistanis -

Quote:

those parties do stand for equality for every citizen of Pakistan and providing equal rights to every citizen,

You are contradicting yourself here, I hope you know that, as long as it is a Islamic state not allowing its minorities the chance to highest office then how can it be equal. Its not, you are minorites trace their roots on those lands maybe far beyond most muslims in pakistan. There are various other examples. But then again you can continue your one-man crusade to defend the indefensible.

Quote:

regardless of religion or ethnicity - a message most moderate Muslims believe is commanded in the Quran.

Oh, lets forget kaffir episode. Its never in the Quran.

And for the rest of the post, as i said use'em on people who dont know the region.

Agnostic Muslim · 03-27-2008, 13:45 PM

I am not contradicting myself - I don't see an issue with a moderate Islamic State providing equality in law and rights to all people irrespective of religion or ethnicity. Spiritually yes, you could argue that Muslims believe their religion is the "only true one" and that "they alone shall recieve God's favor" - but that is no different from any other religion, and that should not prevent moderates from extending all rights to all people politically, in this life.
That is the promise of the "liberal/moderate parties in Pakistan".

From the PPP manifesto:

Quote:

The first principle of the Party is: Islam is our Faith. Islam teaches brotherhood, love and peace. Our Faith places a responsibility on each citizen to reach out in a spirit of accommodation and tolerance to all religions and sects and to treat people of all faiths with respect, enabling them to enjoy religious freedom and equality before
the law.
The message of Islam is the message of Peace. It is a message of brotherhood and tolerance. These are symbolised in the words and verses of Data
Sahib, Shah Abdul Latif of Bhittai, Baba Farid Ganj Shakar and Lal Shahbaz Qalander.

The second principle of the PPP is: Democracy is our Politics. The PPP’s commitment to freedom and fundamental rights, including freedom from hunger and want, is written in the blood of its martyrs and in the red marks of lashes on the back of its workers. It is written in the suffering and sacrifice of Quaid-e–Awam, who faced the gallows refusing to bow before tyranny, defending the human rights of our citizens to the last breath.

The third PPP principle is: Social Democracy is our Economy. The PPP aims at creating a just and equitable society with equal opportunity for all its citizens.

The final principle of the PPP is All Power to the People. Only the people have the right on earth to determine their destiny and chart the course of their Nation. All organs of State must be answerable to the Court of the people in an election or through their legitimately elected representatives in Parliament.
http://www.ppp.org.pk/manifestos/2008.pdf

I don't see anything in the above arguing for intolerance towards non-Muslims.

Quote:

And for the rest of the post, as i said use'em on people who dont know the region.

I afraid I can't do that, since you have already beaten me to it. I understand that there are some here who share your hatred, and cheer lead your efforts, but that doesn't make your argument any more valid.

On the poll issue:

Quote:

Terror Free Tomorrow's poll also found that Pakistani's public support for radical Islamic groups -- including al Qaeda, its leader Osama bin Laden, and the Taliban -- has significantly dropped in the past five months.

In August, 46 percent of Pakistanis polled in a TFT survey said they had a favorable opinion of bin Laden; that dropped to 24 percent in last month's poll. Support for the Taliban dropped during the same time period from 38 to 19 percent.
In the News Archive - Polls: Musharraf, al Qaeda losing support

It would be even more interesting to find out whether those that did support OBL thought he was responsible for terrorism and 911.

I'll see if I can dig up some more recent and more detailed polls.

chankya · 03-27-2008, 14:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agnostic Muslim

It would be even more interesting to find out whether those that did support OBL thought he was responsible for terrorism and 911.

...because he's otherwise known for what? Hosting the cartoon matinée show?

Agnostic Muslim · 03-27-2008, 15:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chankya

...because he's otherwise known for what? Hosting the cartoon matinée show?

Who knows - I do know that visiting my family a summer or so ago, my "hell raising, liberal educated, girl dating" younger brother and his friends got into a yelling match with me over the fact that I had bought into the American conspiracy to blame OBL.

If nothing else, knowing my brother and his liberal views and life, that was an eye opener about how much the perceptions of the West were distorted.

Adux · 03-27-2008, 15:37 PM

Ag.Muslim

I have stated my views and you have as usual floated around with no answers, And I and most of the world are very well versed in the lovey dovey nature of muslims of today and especially pakistan dangerous history and contribution to this tiny blue planet.

Adux · 03-27-2008, 15:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agnostic Muslim

Who knows - I do know that visiting my family a summer or so ago, my "hell raising, liberal educated, girl dating" younger brother and his friends got into a yelling match with me over the fact that I had bought into the American conspiracy to blame OBL.

If nothing else, knowing my brother and his liberal views and life, that was an eye opener about how much the perceptions of the West were distorted.

And that my dear fellow, is not the fault of the west rather the lack of education. And there is a difference between a Muslim liberal and other liberals. A muslim liberal according to our standards would be right wing hawk.

Agnostic Muslim · 03-27-2008, 15:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adux

Ag.Muslim

I have stated my views and you have as usual floated around with no answers, And I and most of the world are very well versed in the lovey dovey nature of muslims of today and especially pakistan dangerous history and contribution to this tiny blue planet.

You have indeed stated your views, but you haven't validated them. The closest you came to them was your "I'll show you polls" bluster. And guess what? The polls show that "intolerance and support for terrorism" is not widespread.

Your arguments about the moderate political parties have been answered - with the manifesto of one even. Yet the best you can do is; "don't try to hood wink ignorant Westerners - I on the other hand have a complete handle on the truth, but never mind me justifying it".

My brother, his friends, and many other Muslims who buy into the "conspiracy to blame America" are simply the other side of the coin of educated people in the West and people like you, who will continue to hold onto flawed opinions because it serves to perpetuate their world view.

Quote:

A muslim liberal according to our standards would be right wing hawk.

I am not concerned with your standards - I am concerned with equal rights and equality of laws for everyone - and the PPP manifesto validates my argument.

You live in a world of black and white, reality is almost always Grey. If you are incapable of analyzing events with a nuanced view, there really isn't much to discuss - just like there wouldn't be much for me to discuss with Pat Robertson or Mullah Omar.

Adux · 03-27-2008, 16:33 PM

Quote:

Aani_Fatimah_Khatoon 1 week ago

Everyone knows what the call to prayer is. It's ALWAYS in Arabic, even in foreign countries. And if portions of the Melkite Catholic Pre-sanctified Liturgy were broadcast on loudspeaker in their native Arabic (yes, there is a Catholic church the official language of which is Arabic), what outrage would you have seen.

This is about: "Hey, we'll prove we're multicultural by letting you do a Muslim call to prayer, after which you can claim that Harvard is dar-al-Islam forever, when we wouldn't think of letting a rabbi perform a Bat Mitzvah on the steps of Widener. And that's because we're scared to death that if we don't pander to your every wish, you'll bomb something."

Get real. Everybody knows what it means — or they should, which is why I'm glad the authors wrote this piece and explained what is being said. Is Nazi screed less offensive if it's spoken in German.

I think we should handle it this way. We've just had Islam Awareness Week. Now let's have, and turn the Yard over to all the following groups for a week.

Judaism Awareness Week
Zionism Awareness Week
Hindutvu Awareness Week (expect a riot from Muslims on this)
Roman Catholic Awareness Week
Southern Baptist Awareness Week *
Nation of Islam Awareness Week *
Confucianism Awareness Week
Buddhism Awareness Week (the Chinese government will send a letter to Dr. Faust complaining)
Ismaeli Awareness Week (the Saudi government will send a letter to Dr. Faust complaining)
Neo-Nazi Awareness Week
Hinduism Awareness Week (the Muslims from India will send ... well, you get it)
Goddess Religion Awareness Week

You will NEVER get the Fellows of Harvard University to allow the Jews, the Southern Baptists, the Hindutvu or the skinheads to have an "awareness" week, and likely not the Catholics, either. Why? Because anti-Christian and anti-Israel sentiment runs high among liberals—and the Nation of Islam, the Southern Baptists, and the skinheads have racist views.

But does it occur to Harvard that having an Islam Awareness Week would offend feminists and humanists who believe women should have equal rights? or the Jews, whom HAMAS declared last week should be exterminated to the last person and said it was a REQUIRED view of all Muslims?

So, I would suggest this. If Harvard wants to turn the Yard over to religious groups, do it fairly. If Harvard doesn't want to examine a religion for supremacist views, the running of an extrajudicial police force worldwide, denigration of and a required tenet of war against non-practitioners, anti-woman and anti-gay laws, death sentences issued by religious authorities, and anti-freedom of speech tenets like holding apostasy and disallowed speech (blasphemy) and requiring beheading for them — then Harvard should allow all other groups to do the same, without passing any judgment at all about whether they advocate racial, gender, or ethnic disparity — or violence towards non-adherents.

Are you willing to give the microphone to a neo-Nazi who quotes a speech from Hitler on loudspeaker in German? You think nobody will get the message?

Do it for everybody if you'll do it for one and make your position clear. If we will not examine Islam for who it offends, but give it a pass simply because it's a religion, then I think that the Southern Baptists should have the same right.

Yes, I'm being facetious.

* This one will come with racist views, but nobody will mind, because we're just all ever-so, ever-so tolerant all of viewpoints, right?

* Ditto.

Quote:

Espada ...

Telling the truth isn't hatred. Telling the truth offers the possibility that Muslims living under repressive regimes that will be there, West or no West, as long as mullahs and imams run the countries according to anti-human rights extreme shari'a law.

Now, either the issue is people's freedom and their right to a rights-based culture. "Democracy" won't necessarily work in cultures, like Iran, where "democracy" is defined by who the Guardian Council and Ayatollah Khamenei decide are appropriate candidates or in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood has been organizing for 50 years to take the first election and declare shari'a law and slap every woman in the country into cover overnight.

Rights-based culture is a human right, and therefore those Islamic countries which refuse to provide it, engaging instead in dicta that guarantee male supremacy (female suppression being the last and most virulent form of peonage) and the rule of religious, not civil, law.

Now you can get that or not, but I completely resent your intimating that because I speak out about it I am bigoted, something I believe you also intimate is a moral condition of the authors of this editorial. Perhaps this is sour grapes, growing more acidic every time they refuse (which I believe is their right) to publish (free) your conspiracy theory mania.

But that's not actually what I think ...

I think you're taqqiyah.

Quote:

Now, next time Harvard thinks about doing this, note:

According to the Umdat al-Salik, o11.5, issued by Al Azhar University in Cairo, the ultimate authority on all things Sunni Islamic, in order for a church or temple or synagogue to be allowed in a non-Muslim land, there are RULES:

(1) The ringing of CHURCH BELLS and the displaying of crosses is FORBIDDEN.

(2) No other house or worship of any kind may EVER have a steeple, temple spire (Hindu), puja, totem or any other kind of symbol of its presence higher than the minaret that calls Muslims to prayer.

There are at least 120 other rules about what is NOT allowed of worshippers of other religions. Because in Saudi Arabia and Iran conversion to other religions is apostasy, punishable by death, I think the case is already made. At least in Malaysia all you get is a year in a "re-education" camp. Ask Lina Joy, an adult and supposedly fee woman, what it feels like to be forced in to "Islamic education school" every day for six months.

Now, next time Harvard decides to have an "Islamic Awareness Week" I hope they will take these pertinent points into consideration.

reply

I have nothing else to say.

Adux · 03-27-2008, 16:40 PM

Thank God, Harvard and America's finest is not lost to Liberal nuts, and this coming from a Arabian Muslim Woman.

Quote:

Aani_Fatimah_Khatoon 1 week ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Espada ...

Actually, in Darfur, the NIF — the National Islamic Front, which is an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood's 50-year plan and which is 100% funded by the Saudis — declared war against all MUSLIMS who would not toe the Wahhabi line, and then all Christians and Nubian animists. The number of dead is well over the UN estimates, and may be as high as two million — with as many as five million replaced.

It is an absolute fact that Sayed Qutb, one of the MB's principal ideologues, was ALL about returning women to the strictures imposed upon in the period prior to the introduction of the Egyptian constitution in 1900 and the subsequent unveiling.

Every time you spew screed on this board, I answer with facts and real history.

You want to prove that 9/11 is a Zionist-American plot so you can absolve the Muslims who spend four years planning it, took credit for it, and raised funds on films of it so you can make a false case that Americans have no right to point out the shortcomings of a religious establishments that makes war on non-adherents and directly subjugates 1/5 of the world's women.

No sale.

No sale on your rabid little jihad to pretend Muslims didn't carry out the attacks, the glory of which they claim at every opportunity.

No sale on being quiet about what happens to women in Islamic cultures.

No sale on shutting up while 300,000 girl students in Afghanistan have been deprived of education in the last four years by bomb attacks on their schools and acid thrown in the faces of female teachers.

No sale on being quiet about murders of male doctors treating women patients when they have nobody else to turn to.

No sale on putting a sock in it when writer, artists, editors and musicians — Rushdie, Hirsi Ali, Nasreen, Westergaard, Rose — are under fatawa (that's plural for fatwa, you twit) of death for freedom of speech.

No sale on being quiet while people like Lina Joy are placed in brainwashing "re-education facilities) if they convert out of Islam.

No sale on shutting up about the murder of the Chaldean Archbishop last week in Iraq for no other reason that that Al Qaeda wants to exterminate or scare away every Christian in Iraq.

No sale on being quiet about the 3,000 Buddhists killed in southern Thailand by Islamist nationalists in the last three years.

No sale on shutting up while Malaysia cans its women's rights bill because a radical imam promised bombings if they didn't.

No sale on hushing up while Sunni Arabs Egypt put a bill before parliament to re-legalize FGM for girls.

No sale on backing down about women's right in Saudi Arabia.

Either you believe in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for men and women and ethnic groups — or you don't.

And you don't. Because you are absolutely DELIGHTED to let all these egregious acts of violence against conscience, ethnicity, religion and gender pass.

And, in fact, you don't care about Muslims, because Muslims the FIRST victims of all of this violence by a religion now so radicalized that it is far more lust for power than spirituality by the people who make it news every day. And as one head of an NGO put it the other day: African Muslims are under so much pressure from radicals that if the people of the United States do not stand firm against this kind of terrorism, these people have no hope at all.

You, who say you are for Muslims? Well, how many Muslim feminist groups do you belong to? How much support do you give to ex-terrorists who are trying to warn us about how young men are indoctrinated, often with promises of sex after death at the time their hormones are raging. Have you seen the video shown in Saudi Arabia to prospective homicide bombers? ... or the one posted by Hamas that shows voluptuous women welcoming the now-dead "shahid" (read: murderer) as he enters Paradise to be serviced by his 72 virgins? It absolutely SHOCKS most Muslims to see the great "counselors" of Islam abused in this way.

And they should stand up. And some of them do, and many of them do not. Whether or not they take the responsibility they should, we still need to be there to help them.

You are hurting them.

Maybe if everything you said were not off-topic, anti-Semitic, anti-American and generally non compos mentis the staff of Crimson wouldn't have to remove your posts, which are apparently the same with little variation from issue to issue to issue.

And if you'd like to talk about ships ... tell me about the USS Cole, the explosion, the young sailer who was fused into the metalwork of the ship and whose 18-year-old female body couldn't be extracted without a blow-torch. Or tell me how it is that an Iraqi Al Qaeda doctor used a retarded women to take a bomb into a marketplace and kill 68 people because he was too much of a yellow-bellied coward to do it himself.

Adux · 03-27-2008, 16:41 PM

What a brave lady

chankya · 03-27-2008, 17:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agnostic Muslim

Adux:

Actually Adux I would argue that it is you who is "misleading people who are not familiar with the politics of the region". I am not arguing that the parties I mentioned stand for changing Pakistan into a secular nation - I am not in favor of that, nor are most Pakistanis - those parties do stand for equality for every citizen of Pakistan and providing equal rights to every citizen, regardless of religion or ethnicity - a message most moderate Muslims believe is commanded in the Quran.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agnostic Muslim

Who knows - I do know that visiting my family a summer or so ago, my "hell raising, liberal educated, girl dating" younger brother and his friends got into a yelling match with me over the fact that I had bought into the American conspiracy to blame OBL.

If nothing else, knowing my brother and his liberal views and life, that was an eye opener about how much the perceptions of the West were distorted.

Why do Islamic countries seem to have such a hard time with separation of state and religion?

Why can't you have Muslim majority countries which are not officially Islamic states? One of your earlier posts seem to indicate that you think along the same lines. As I understand it, Pakistan was created so that the Muslims of India(not all but the ones who felt threatened. ) would have a land for themselves. That does not contradict a secular state in my mind. Why does it in yours? Also if you wish for such a close association between the state and religion why do you not realize that the acts of the state then reflect upon the religion. When the Islamic Republic of Pakistan supports forces that maim, kill and terrorize innocents then exactly who are we to blame? Islam or Pakistan?

Secondly your brother seems to think the west is spinning a large conspiracy the victim of which is to be Islam. Putting aside the validity of this, what is in his mind their end game? Does he dislike the west or only its actions and why? How about India?

03-27-2008, 10:22 AM	#106 (permalink)
Samudra *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 09-01-04 Location: North London Posts: 4,236 Country:	I must apologize to Agnostic - I have left him midway into a debate on another forum. Managing a Punjabi Pakistani Lahori chick is no easy task and demands time - I'm sure we all can agree. I'm going to running away again but let me make a point. None of the Pakistani political parties stand for moderation. Nawaz is known for his 'I love jihad' antics whilst Bhutto is the known as the mother of the T. Fazlur Rehman was quite close to Bhutto. The role of Bhutto family, Fazlur Rehman and Naseerullah Babbar in raising the Taliban are well known. I'm still at a loss to see how somebody could describe these scumbags as moderates. Last edited by Samudra : 03-27-2008 at 10:27 AM.

03-27-2008, 13:16 PM	#109 (permalink)
Agnostic Muslim Contributor Join Date: 12-12-07 Location: Auburn Hills Posts: 340 Country:	Adux: Actually Adux I would argue that it is you who is "misleading people who are not familiar with the politics of the region". I am not arguing that the parties I mentioned stand for changing Pakistan into a secular nation - I am not in favor of that, nor are most Pakistanis - those parties do stand for equality for every citizen of Pakistan and providing equal rights to every citizen, regardless of religion or ethnicity - a message most moderate Muslims believe is commanded in the Quran. As we stand currently there is a lot to do to achieve that, and I would be the first to admit that any legislation that is brought about is going to attempt change incrementally, but it is nonetheless progress in the right direction. That they want to do this while retaining the Islamic character of the Country does not come across as a dichotomy to me. Samudra's argument is obfuscation of the issue. He raises the Taliban bogey, but then by that same yardstick the US has supported, and is supporting, dictatorships (religious and secular). India supported the warlords of the Northern Alliance - does that then indicate that the parties and/or administrations running those country's at that time were against democracy and freedom? Or is it the realpolitik? Nations and governments will often do whatever they see as being in their interest, and Pakistan was no different. Along with raising the Taliban bogey Samudra mentions Nawaz and the Mullah's. I deliberately did not mention the parties they belong to because they are of a more conservative bent. It was the PPP, MQM, ANP, PML-Q who I argued represented the moderate spectrum of Pakistan and gained an overwhelming majority. On the issue of "proving anything" it is still your argument, you raised the issue of "widespread intolerance, so it is yor burden to prove this widespread intolerance. You attempt to do that by mentioning polls - but every poll I have seen in the last couple of years shows support for AQ/terrorism in Pakistan to be very low, in some in the single digits. Does that not counter your own argument? Support for the Taliban is higher, but there is also a need to take a more nuanced view of that. You have to take into accoutn the opposition to the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the existing opposition to it for its support to Israel, and the idea that the Taliban represent a "freedom movement" fighting a just war against "occupation". __________________ Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah Last edited by Agnostic Muslim : 03-27-2008 at 13:53 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nice article on weapons in Iraq	Captain C	Small Arms and Personal Weapons	52	02-09-2007 16:32 PM
'Nerve gas bomb' explodes in Iraq	Trooth	International Defense Topics	38	12-28-2005 10:27 AM

03-27-2008, 15:37 PM	#114 (permalink)
Adux Banished *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 07-29-05 Location: Cochin Posts: 2,931 Country:	Ag.Muslim I have stated my views and you have as usual floated around with no answers, And I and most of the world are very well versed in the lovey dovey nature of muslims of today and especially pakistan dangerous history and contribution to this tiny blue planet.

03-27-2008, 16:41 PM	#119 (permalink)
Adux Banished *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 07-29-05 Location: Cochin Posts: 2,931 Country:	What a brave lady

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)