Muslims just can't get a break can they?

[Terill]

.....and you explect me to read that?

You know I don't think this this is the entry page for the junior novelist society

[malice2501]

decided to remove myself from this thread, sorry for taking it off course.

[Mistral]

i dont remember saying they didnt attack isreal, read my post. i stated that arabs didnt INVADE. Invade is a term used to state that the land belonged to them. Considering the land was Arab before the Jews moved into the space, it's not an arab invasion, instead its a Jewish one.

Are you saying that any demographic shift is an invasion, because we are talking about a demographic shift that has an origin over a century, now. Mind you, that that word also has particular military connotation. I guess Poland invaded Silesia, and worked with Russia and Lithuania to invade East Prussia, both of which are demographic shifts that happened just after WW2. Oh, and the French invasion of Alsace-Lorraine. There's also Pakistan and India invading each other at the same time after that partition, no? Oh, and all those Jews escaping the Arab nations...that must have been the Arabs invading Jewish lands just as much as Jews invading Arab lands, only all the more so, since more Jews were displaced than Arabs in the 1948 war, and under similar circumstances as well. But it's perfectly fine to displace the Jews, since they don't belong. Never mind that they bought that land, worked that land, lived on that land for multiple generations, just as much as Arabs had. Your attempt to use the connotations of "invasion" in support of your claims are rather...unsubtle. Well, at least you aren't shouting for all of those lands to be judenfrei. You're just arguing poorly against Israel's policy (I assume) to avoid taking in more than a limited number of people from an ethnic and religious group which is causing massive trouble in their nation (the main reason they are less than anxious to welcome back those Palestinian refugees...a pity that the PLO has refused every single offer Israel has made, even the one that restores almost all of their land to sovereignity, including half of Jerusalem, no? As I recall, they not only refused that offer, but they actually started an entire Intifada right after it).

Sweet! Lets pick one word and write a thesis about it! Fucking A man!

Only because you chose a really poor word, as I said. I don't like absolutes, especially when you're talking a history where such an absolute is simply silly, and since I was already making a long post, it didn't hurt to just stick that onto the tail.

EDIT:

decided to remove myself from this thread, sorry for taking it off course.

Ah? Indeed, fair enough. No conclusion, but since this entire bit was a bit of a digression, that's fine. I suppose I should remove your original post from above, then, but...meh.

[malice2501]

Ah? Indeed, fair enough. No conclusion, but since this entire bit was a bit of a digression, that's fine. I suppose I should remove your original post from above, then, but...meh.

nah, just decided that i am jaded in this conversation, and nothing can really change that. No need to spout out my feelings of injustice when its not even on topic.

[Xaenn]

And Xaenn could you fanetically spell your name for me?

Zay - en.

[Dingy]

Qur'an. Thank you Dingy.

Okay, TO THE POINT OF THE THREAD- Saudia Arabia, and other nations with Holy sites, should have some kind of police or medical crew on-hand when something like a pilgrimage or holy day happens/occurs. That or they need to have some kind of "no running law".

345 people died, in a damn stampede. That doesn't happen in Asia, Africa, or Europe (I won't say the 'A' word cause thats just gonna throw the topic off again.)

Police may be to much. The city ought to just widen the roads.

It's actually quite a huge flyover, and since my challenged brain can't imagine how big it really is, all I can say is, a 2 storey flyover sounds pretty demn big, though maybe not enough for the number of people who need to access it.

Apart from that, the 'no running law' would be a little difficult to implement considering the running didn't cause the stampede, it merely exacerbated it, which is the case in most stampedes and even if there was a law in place, people who're running for their lives, really won't think about their leg's getting chopped off in the bargain for breaking the law; ] It was actually very much like a traffic jam, as cruel as it may seem to call a horde of bodies that, and they should actually ban people from carrying their luggage everywhere (which the Saudi govt. claims is already a rule), which seems to be the cause of the stampede.
Moreover, if my information is correct, I think, Saudia Arabia already has a quota system to manage the number of pilgrims that come in every year i.e., every nation is allowed 1000 pilgrims for every million in population.

EDIT: Okay, I have to take the thread of-topic myself now. Dingy just said "The West". DAMNIT PEOPLE! WERE NOT WESTERNERS! WERE AMERICANS, OR DIRTBAGS, OR THE United States! WTF IS WRONG WITH U ALL!? When I talk about China I say "Chinese". When I say something about Britian, I refer to them as "British". When I have something to save about the people of India, I say "Indians" We don't use "Easterner", and we don't call ourselves "Westerners". Please show some decency and stop generalizing the whole damn hemisphere. There are other countries here you know. Ever here of Mexico? Canada? How about Brazil? Maybe Cuba? You have to have heard about Colombia somewhere along the line. Any of that ring a bell? Anything at all?

Hehe, thank you for the argument and forgive me for causing you that rage.
I was merely quoting ('West against the Rest') an idiot called Samuel Hungtington who had talked about the West being against the rest. It's not merely a geographical identity, Paladin, it's moreso a phenonmenon and an ideology which carries with it connotations of liberty, democracy, laissez-faire, technological advancement, amongst many others.
So I clarify my stance once more, I was using it in terms of a phenonmenon and not a geographical distinction, as does Huntington, and I have the same criticism as you of him b/c he describes all civilizations as Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, et al, but there is no mention of a Christian civilization, for him, it's simply The West.

Is this what they call nature/Gods way population control?

What's is so natural or Godly about this carnage? It's absolutely man-fucking-made. Who the hell tells over a billion people to go to stone some pillars and carry their luggage around with them? God? Nature?

So force is adequate for ownership? Doesn't seem very legitimate to me...

Of course it's not legitimate. And from what I understood from his post, he was attempting to say the same thing. However, I agree with you (as you already know; ) about the ownership thingy, but considering we live in a world where ideas of negative liberty pervade almost all aspects of our existence and so land being private property is almost considered natural.

Other than that, Paladin, this topic is far too delicate and diverse to be merely looked at from a single lens, so if the topic seems to, what you may think, is out of topic, don't be too surprised

[Dingy]

There's also Pakistan and India invading each other at the same time after that partition, no?

Alright, I'm actually a little afraid to argue this with you, keeping in mind, your extremely profound knowledge on most things under the sun, but I'll give you my take on it, anyway. I mean, freedom of speech, after all

There are varied views on what happened to Kashmir after Indian independence and the partition, but one which holds most validity and appears most logical and coherent with other contemporary events, is the one that Maharaja Hari Singh who was a Hindu king of a pre-dominantly Muslim state (Kashmir), chose to remain independent, which was a choice given to all princely states in 1947, first slated in the proposal of the Cripp's Mission (the other two choices were, to join the Union of either Pakistan or India). However, as he chose to remain independent, a group of Pathani soldiers aided by the Pakistani army attacked a portion of Kashmir, which was actually the first Indo-Pakistani war. Jawaharlal Nehru, the 1st Prime Minister of India, then signed the 'Instrument of Accession', a treaty whereby Maharaja Hari Singh acceded his territory to the Indian Union. By this time, however, Pakistan had already annexed a certain portion of Kashmir (present day's- Pakistan occupied Kashmir), and though Nehru appealed to the UN, which declared cease-fire, and thus, Pakistan assumed the territory it had in possession was it's to stay.

Now I can see how the Indian move would be called an invasion, i.e., if the treaty was an invalid one, but technically that's how most of the 362 princely states in post-independent India were incorporated in the Indian Union, for that was the premise already set by the legacy of the British rule.
[/off topic rant]

Edit: Apologies for the double post, I assumed someone would post before me

[legoman]

ahh fuck it....

israel did attack palestine 1st

I wasn't being arrogant, sleepy, I HAVE been told that I'm intelligent so I just mentioned that.

could you stop calling islam backward PLEASE...
just cause certain areas have their culture which I believe is backward (keeping women at home for example) doesn't mean thar islam is backward.
to further explain prior to islam, slavery was common (u can guess what female-slaves were used for), daughters were buried alive etc. and islam got rid of this in saudi arabia and a few oyher countries in less than 30/40 yrs.
so please its not really fair to call my relegion ignorant, which in effect is calling me ignorant.
it would be the same as calling catholic a relegion in which large amounts of alchol are consumed just cause some irish people drink a lot.

more points as I think of them...

oh and I should stop putting down bush ehh?
WHY?
cause he is the one responsible for all the bad coverage I'm getting and the extra racisim my family is getting?
cause he's the one responsible for bad-naming my country, my religion, my culture, my race?
yeah sure why not...

ps. bush refers to bush, blair and others. but nor americans cause they're just people like me.

also I have been asked to provide evidence 4 when I said that people were being tortured...tanks vs. kids...etc
i've see it on tv (no it wasn't 4 ratings) it was mostly video rec. from palestine.

another thing I saw on the video,
normally when people get life threatening injuries and have to be rushed 2 hospital, israeli gaurds will stop the ambulance 4 so long ythat the person dies before they get to hospital.

[Ahkei]

So like, luckilly they have all them towels to mop up the mess after one gets crushed.

[legoman]

Alright, I'm actually a little afraid to argue this with you, keeping in mind, your extremely profound knowledge on most things under the sun, but I'll give you my take on it, anyway. I mean, freedom of speech, after all

There are varied views on what happened to Kashmir after Indian independence and the partition, but one which holds most validity and appears most logical and coherent with other contemporary events, is the one that Maharaja Hari Singh who was a Hindu king of a pre-dominantly Muslim state (Kashmir), chose to remain independent, which was a choice given to all princely states in 1947, first slated in the proposal of the Cripp's Mission (the other two choices were, to join the Union of either Pakistan or India). However, as he chose to remain independent, a group of Pathani soldiers aided by the Pakistani army attacked a portion of Kashmir, which was actually the first Indo-Pakistani war. Jawaharlal Nehru, the 1st Prime Minister of India, then signed the 'Instrument of Accession', a treaty whereby Maharaja Hari Singh acceded his territory to the Indian Union. By this time, however, Pakistan had already annexed a certain portion of Kashmir (present day's- Pakistan occupied Kashmir), and though Nehru appealed to the UN, which declared cease-fire, and thus, Pakistan assumed the territory it had in possession was it's to stay.

Now I can see how the Indian move would be called an invasion, i.e., if the treaty was an invalid one, but technically that's how most of the 362 princely states in post-independent India were incorporated in the Indian Union, for that was the premise already set by the legacy of the British rule.

whoot. go dingy. what a calm way to explain it.
*finds a hat*
hats off to you.

personally I think both pak. and indian just want more land...
I think it'd be a good idea to just make ALL of kashmir a whole separate country, but our damn politicians are so f-ing corrupt they don't wanna let go.

[Dingy]

personally I think both pak. and indian just want more land...
I think it'd be a good idea to just make ALL of kashmir a whole separate country, but our damn politicians are so f-ing corrupt they don't wanna let go.

I think I've already expressed my views about 'wanting land' earlier. I don't believe anyone can own land, I mean, what really is the legitimacy behind the said ownership? I think Xaenn would have more lucid views on the same, so if need be, he would be the best person to elaborate.
But I don't doubt that there is no desire for more land, I simply don't understand it.
I also don't think the reason is corruption so much as it is national intergrity. Of course the whole concept of 'nation' can be debated on, however, giving away Kashmir isn't as easy as it may seem. There are many other states that would plead secession if one state is granted the same. Which is why Kashmir already has a special status in Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, however, it's almost like the situation that exists regarding Gaza, but giving away is hardly a viable option. Diplomatically and strategically, these 'new' countries would be very vulnerable to neighbourly attacks by countries because no matter how much we may bitch about it, we still live in a world where land can be owned.

Thank you: )

Umm, Paladin, just wondering why you named the thread what you did? Were you referring to the October 8th earthquake too? Because there were a lot of Hindus and Sikhs in it too.

[legoman]

I think I've already expressed my views about 'wanting land' earlier. I don't believe anyone can own land, I mean, what really is the legitimacy behind the said ownership? I think Xaenn would have more lucid views on the same, so if need be, he would be the best person to elaborate.
But I don't doubt that there is no desire for more land, I simply don't understand it.

more land = more people = more power/money (4 the greedy politicians that is)

[Terill]

if that were true china would be the most powerful nation in the world.

[legoman]

if that were true china would be the most powerful nation in the world.

hmm.
good point

but i was referring to what happens in pakistan/india

1) school is needed
2) politician gathers money to build school
3) school is built (officially) @ :

metaphysical school
fake road
non-existet place

4) kids go to above address.... find absolutely nothing.

where do u think the money went (see point 2)

[Terill]

hmm.
good point

but i was referring to what happens in pakistan/india

1) school is needed
2) politician gathers money to buy guns to get rid of children (oh and don't forget the exploding vests)
3) slaughter house is built (officially) @ :

metaphysical school
fake road
non-existet place

4) kids go to above address.... find politician with guns.

where do u think the money went (see point 2)