* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Engr. Riaz Hussain
Consultant SEC
110 / 13.8 KV New Al-Nuzhah Sub Station, Jeddah
Please check the following link :From: Iftikhar Ahmad Suhail <iasuhaill@yahoo.com>
To: JoinPakistan <joinPakistan@gmail.com>; joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, July 25, 2011 11:09:44 AM
Subject: **JP** Any Treatment/Cure for Women in "Excessive & Irregular Bleeding in Menses" ?
I.A. Suhail,Lahore.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Never miss the opportunity to bash repoublicans, yet:
"Even a majority of Democrats — the ones who are supposed to be the
politically correct terrorist apologists — are opposed (54 percent
against it to 43 percent for it). It's worth noting that another poll
shows that, among those literally closest to the issue, the mosque has
wider support: Manhattanites back the mosque 53 percent to 31
percent."
You know, those stinking rich, republican, Manhattenites.
And THIS republican is all for it, too.
But never miss the op to turn an ABSOLUTELY non-partisan issue into a
partisan one, and make it support your view (despite it being such
utter BULLSHIT!)
On Jul 25, 9:23 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Mass Murder Is the Problemby Anthony GregoryThe emerging profile of Anders Behring Breivik is not what was first expected. On Friday, President Obama and the mainstream media immediately jumped on the murder of 92 people in Norway to affirm the war on terror's importance. Putting aside the establishment's tendency to cite both failures and presumed successes, both acts of mass violence that came to fruition and ones that were preempted, as vindication of the war on terror, we should note that the administration was politicizing an atrocity in the only way that it is ever considered appropriate: The state can respectably pat its soldiers and enforcers on the back for their waging wars and bashing heads; all other political points made in the light of mass death are considered gauche.
> Yet as it turns out, the alleged murderer is not the Islamist that so many assumed. He was, instead, an anti-Islamist of the very sort that has become commonplace in the last decade. He is a Christian nationalist worried that Muslims will overtake the West. He enjoyed the same neoconservative blogs read by millions of Americans. Despite this, his act continues to be spun as a reason to worry about al Qaeda's supposed influence in inspiring acts of mass violence, rather than as a warning about the threat of anti-Islamism.
> And that threat is real. Many Americans think that Muslims should be outright prohibited from building mosques in the United States. At least one Republican presidential candidate has articulated this position unambiguously. Conservatives ludicrously warn that Muslims will impose Sharia law through the U.S. court system, abolishing American liberty. Anyone who reads conservative message boards can sense the possibility that we are one dirty bomb away from seeing our Muslim neighbors rounded up and sent to camps. The hundreds seized without due process and detained for months after 9/11 are forgotten, but their story reminds us of how fragile liberty and tolerance can be.
> Just because Breivik has much in common with neocons and theocons, however, does not validate the left's attempt to turn this into another excuse for cracking down on rightwing thought crime. The center left always sees such incidents as a pretext for institutional resolve against "rightwing extremism" Timothy McVeighandJames von Brunncome to mind. Liberals are correct when they identify the double standard of labeling Breivik an "extremist" and bin Laden a "terrorist." They are being logically consistent when they say such "extremism" should be treated like any other terrorism. But the very scary thing about this tragedy is that the killer is not an "extremist" at all, at least not ideologically. He is not anti-government, either, despite what many good-government liberals imply. He loves Winston Churchill, like most neocons and liberals. He's very pro-Israel. His views on domestic and foreign policy and the supposed clash between Islam and the West are all too usual in Europe and the United States.
> Anti-Muslim fear is a problem in America, but it is not that disposition alone that should most concern us, and we must be careful in addressing such fear. It is everywhere and usually no direct threat to anyone, certainly no crime in itself. When Juan Williams lost his job at NPR for saying that he felt a little uncomfortable flying on airplanes with Muslims a fact that he disclosed candidly with humility toward those he felt ashamed of fearing his purge was most regrettable, for it only shut down discussion and guaranteed that civilized contemplation of these complicated issues would be unwelcome in that major media venue. It also emboldened conservatives in their anti-Muslim sentiment.
> The problem is not just fear of Muslims, but rather hateful, violent fear. Even such feelings, however, and even the most dehumanizing of thoughts, cannot be ameliorated by the very political system that encourages conflict and violence. Any attempt to turn the Utoya and Oslo tragedy into a rationale for an anti-rightwing witch-hunt would be misguided and counterproductive especially coming from the very institution, the federal government, that is more responsible for antagonism toward Muslims than any other actor on the planet.
> Indeed, even neoconservatives should be protected from government thought control, as should have the communists during the Cold War, despite both groups having very dangerous views when put into practice. It is not the thoughts but the deeds that are criminal. Mere discontent with Muslims is not the same as banning their mosques or restricting their liberties. As for Breivik, his beliefs are poisonous; infinitely worse was his acting on them to commit murder on a mass scale.
> And this is where the real cognitive inconsistency comes in. Everyone knows that Breivik's actions were unjustifiable. Everyone knows the same about those who flew the planes into the World Trade Center. But what is not as universally understood is that mass murder is unjustifiable even when conducted by executive order and carried out by men wearing uniforms.
> If not for the "terrorists" of both the Muslim and anti-Muslim variety, the war on terrorism would not be easily sustained. The relationship is mutual, as the armed conflicts incite the resentment and blowback that are in turn pointed to as the reason to continue the wars. At any rate, the war on terror itself is nothing but one act of terrorism after another, day after day. Together, Bush and Obama have probably piled up ten thousand times as many corpses as did Breivik. A week of pure terror for Oslo, London, or Manhattan resembles an average week for Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iraq, thanks to the United States's wars of liberation. Norway, too, having dropped hundreds of bombs in Obama's NATO war on Libya, is a belligerent junior partner in what many see as a U.S.-Israeli-U.K. crusade against the Muslim world.
> Sometimes the government's wars kill thousands whose lives are disregarded as "collateral damage," since the deaths were only a side effect of the main purpose of the war.This argument is weak, since the deaths are completely predictable. Moreover, many modern actions of the U.S. government involve deliberate, calculated cruelty and killing. The sanctions on Iraq throughout the 1990s directly targeted the most vulnerable segments of the Iraqi population. Misery and death were purposefully inflicted on them by the hundreds of thousands, in the hopes of prompting regime change. If this isn't terrorism, then there is no such thing.
> A terrorism specialist at the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment has said that Breivik's operation "seems to be an attempt to mirror Al Qaeda, exactly in reverse." Yet this description just as well fits the foreign policy of the U.S. and its satellites: Altering geopolitical realities by treating men, women, and children as disposable pawns to be targeted and liquidated. Killing people in large numbers for diplomatic reasons is the very essence of modern war. Do it without the right paperwork, and it's terrorism.
> Breivik's action separates him from the millions of bigots calling for total war but not performing it. If we look at Breivik's crimes as a problem of ideology and not only one of action then we are stuck with an uncomfortable truth: Engaging in mass violence that will inevitably kill innocent people is always wrong, and yet it is not only on the fringes of nationalist politics or on radical Islamist websites that we see endorsements of slaughtering dozens, hundreds, thousands or even more. The majority finds it defensible, even honorable and righteous, to do what Breivik did, so long as the civilian deaths are "collateral" or the result of bombings and sanctions initiated by the president and, for those who are really old fashioned or progressive, ratified by Congress or the United Nations, respectively. The greatest trouble with neoconservatism, neoliberalism, and most other statist ideologies is that they favor mass murder. It does not matter, morally, what we call it. It makes no difference who arms the bombs and who fires the weapons, whether the hatred of the enemy is instilled at boot camp or gleaned from the blogosphere.
> Many of Breivik's targets were pro-Palestinian, likely eliciting his special animus for daring to side with the cultural enemy. When a fanatic takes up arms in the delusion that he is part of the war effort, we must remember that his actions are not materially much different from those of some of the most revered warriors and leaders of history. Perhaps he is not as deluded as those who try to differentiate his freelance violence from the formal violence celebrated in parades and on national holidays.
> Of course I will be accused of the great crime of "moral equivalence" the sin of saying that deliberately killing innocent people is always immoral, no matter who does it or for what reason. So be it. In this case it will be harder for the charge to stick, for all the usual blather that typically accompanies it "they hate us for our freedom," "they want to wipe Israel off the Earth," "their religion commands them to kill us all" is the same kind of hysterical lunacy indulged in by Anders Behring Breivik before he put his ideology of hateful collectivism into action.
> <a...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
On Jul 25, 9:11 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> The Lesser Evilby Chris Sullivan
> Suppose it were possible for anybody who ever lived to be president of the United States.
> At every election, we're always told that if we don't vote for Tweedle Dum, Tweedle Dumber will be elected and the Supreme Court will be filled with activist judges or some terrible UN treaty will be pushed through or what's left of our rights will be further eroded. That's probably true in either case, but may be worse in the case of Tweedle Dumber. But what if there is a third or fourth or any number of other candidates who have no chance of winning, but are decent people with a zeal to protect individual rights -- sort of a Clark Kent of politics. Should you stick to principle and vote for them or "hold your nose and vote for Tweedle Dum"?
> Since this is all theoretical, lets say that Lucifer has the nomination wrapped up for the Evil Party and is polling something like 46% of the vote against any nominee of the Stupid Party.
> The Stupid Party has a hard-fought three way race with Hitler, Stalin and Lincoln eviscerating each other in a political gladiatorial game. As the votes are counted at the convention, the great state of Erehwon casts the winning votes for Stalin and the crowd is jubilant. Ten thousand balloons are released as fourteen tons of confetti are dropped on the delirious crowd. All the delegates agree that Stalin is the electable candidate even though some are less than convinced he can defeat Lucifer since Stalin only polls 40% in a match up against Lucifer.
> Stalin is the clear favorite among religious people since he is clearly not as bad as Lucifer and has pledged not to appoint any mass murderers or child molesters to the Supreme Court.
> Things start looking better for Uncle Joe after focus groups find that emphasizing his WW II alliance with the U.S. against Hitler plays well and old pictures are brought out showing him kissing babies. Stalin, after reinventing himself and hiring the best public relations consultants has now closed the gap to 42 – 47% against Lucifer.
> Just as Stalin starts to look like he might have a chance to catch Lucifer, disaster strikes. The Truth Party, a small splinter group of what most people would classify as extremists nominates Jesus Christ as its candidate.To make matters worse for Stalin, the Truth Party is on the ballot in 42 states, in some of which he has his greatest strength.
> The Stupid Party establishment tries to persuade the officers of the Truth Party to withdraw Jesus' nomination and throw their support to Stalin, but the Truth Party people won't hear of it. The Stupids launch an advertising campaign through a political front group advising people not to waste their vote on Jesus. Bumper stickers are printed with the slogan, "A Vote For Jesus Is A Vote For Lucifer."
> The anti-Jesus campaign back-fires and causes his numbers to go up and Stalin's to go down. Now the situation appears desperate, so the Stupids promise to balance the ticket and put Jesus on as Vice President.The Truth Party extremists remain intransigent and will not take the deal.
> Just as the nimbus clouds appear to be gathering over the Stalin campaign, Pastor Jack Agee gives it a boost by reminding his followers that Uncle Joe set up Birobidzhan as a Jewish autonomous region in the Soviet Union and has pledged increased support for Israel. Pastor Agee seems miffed that he can't get any assurance that Jesus will support Israel; in fact, he's been unable to find out Jesus' position on anything.
> Jesus seems uninterested in winning the campaign and has not made any speeches or gone to any political rallies. When located by a reporter for Mendax News Service and asked about his program, he says something about his kingdom not being of this world and also something about bearing witness to the truth; nothing very good for a soundbite.
> As the campaign is in the closing days, Stalin and Lucifer are polling within the margin of error with each other and with Jesus as a spoiler. Should good people vote for the good or for the lesser evil?http://differentbugle.blogspot.com/2011/07/lesser-evil.html
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
"Even a majority of Democrats — the ones who are supposed to be the
politically correct terrorist apologists — are opposed (54 percent
against it to 43 percent for it). It's worth noting that another poll
shows that, among those literally closest to the issue, the mosque has
wider support: Manhattanites back the mosque 53 percent to 31
percent."
You know, those stinking rich, republican, Manhattenites.
And THIS republican is all for it, too.
But never miss the op to turn an ABSOLUTELY non-partisan issue into a
partisan one, and make it support your view (despite it being such
utter BULLSHIT!)
On Jul 25, 9:23 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Mass Murder Is the Problemby Anthony GregoryThe emerging profile of Anders Behring Breivik is not what was first expected. On Friday, President Obama and the mainstream media immediately jumped on the murder of 92 people in Norway to affirm the war on terror's importance. Putting aside the establishment's tendency to cite both failures and presumed successes, both acts of mass violence that came to fruition and ones that were preempted, as vindication of the war on terror, we should note that the administration was politicizing an atrocity in the only way that it is ever considered appropriate: The state can respectably pat its soldiers and enforcers on the back for their waging wars and bashing heads; all other political points made in the light of mass death are considered gauche.
> Yet as it turns out, the alleged murderer is not the Islamist that so many assumed. He was, instead, an anti-Islamist of the very sort that has become commonplace in the last decade. He is a Christian nationalist worried that Muslims will overtake the West. He enjoyed the same neoconservative blogs read by millions of Americans. Despite this, his act continues to be spun as a reason to worry about al Qaeda's supposed influence in inspiring acts of mass violence, rather than as a warning about the threat of anti-Islamism.
> And that threat is real. Many Americans think that Muslims should be outright prohibited from building mosques in the United States. At least one Republican presidential candidate has articulated this position unambiguously. Conservatives ludicrously warn that Muslims will impose Sharia law through the U.S. court system, abolishing American liberty. Anyone who reads conservative message boards can sense the possibility that we are one dirty bomb away from seeing our Muslim neighbors rounded up and sent to camps. The hundreds seized without due process and detained for months after 9/11 are forgotten, but their story reminds us of how fragile liberty and tolerance can be.
> Just because Breivik has much in common with neocons and theocons, however, does not validate the left's attempt to turn this into another excuse for cracking down on rightwing thought crime. The center left always sees such incidents as a pretext for institutional resolve against "rightwing extremism" –Timothy McVeighandJames von Brunncome to mind. Liberals are correct when they identify the double standard of labeling Breivik an "extremist" and bin Laden a "terrorist." They are being logically consistent when they say such "extremism" should be treated like any other terrorism. But the very scary thing about this tragedy is that the killer is not an "extremist" at all, at least not ideologically. He is not anti-government, either, despite what many good-government liberals imply. He loves Winston Churchill, like most neocons and liberals. He's very pro-Israel. His views on domestic and foreign policy and the supposed clash between Islam and the West are all too usual in Europe and the United States.
> Anti-Muslim fear is a problem in America, but it is not that disposition alone that should most concern us, and we must be careful in addressing such fear. It is everywhere and usually no direct threat to anyone, certainly no crime in itself. When Juan Williams lost his job at NPR for saying that he felt a little uncomfortable flying on airplanes with Muslims – a fact that he disclosed candidly with humility toward those he felt ashamed of fearing – his purge was most regrettable, for it only shut down discussion and guaranteed that civilized contemplation of these complicated issues would be unwelcome in that major media venue. It also emboldened conservatives in their anti-Muslim sentiment.
> The problem is not just fear of Muslims, but rather hateful, violent fear. Even such feelings, however, and even the most dehumanizing of thoughts, cannot be ameliorated by the very political system that encourages conflict and violence. Any attempt to turn the Utoya and Oslo tragedy into a rationale for an anti-rightwing witch-hunt would be misguided and counterproductive – especially coming from the very institution, the federal government, that is more responsible for antagonism toward Muslims than any other actor on the planet.
> Indeed, even neoconservatives should be protected from government thought control, as should have the communists during the Cold War, despite both groups having very dangerous views when put into practice. It is not the thoughts but the deeds that are criminal. Mere discontent with Muslims is not the same as banning their mosques or restricting their liberties. As for Breivik, his beliefs are poisonous; infinitely worse was his acting on them to commit murder on a mass scale.
> And this is where the real cognitive inconsistency comes in. Everyone knows that Breivik's actions were unjustifiable. Everyone knows the same about those who flew the planes into the World Trade Center. But what is not as universally understood is that mass murder is unjustifiable even when conducted by executive order and carried out by men wearing uniforms.
> If not for the "terrorists" of both the Muslim and anti-Muslim variety, the war on terrorism would not be easily sustained. The relationship is mutual, as the armed conflicts incite the resentment and blowback that are in turn pointed to as the reason to continue the wars. At any rate, the war on terror itself is nothing but one act of terrorism after another, day after day. Together, Bush and Obama have probably piled up ten thousand times as many corpses as did Breivik. A week of pure terror for Oslo, London, or Manhattan resembles an average week for Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iraq, thanks to the United States's wars of liberation. Norway, too, having dropped hundreds of bombs in Obama's NATO war on Libya, is a belligerent junior partner in what many see as a U.S.-Israeli-U.K. crusade against the Muslim world.
> Sometimes the government's wars kill thousands whose lives are disregarded as "collateral damage," since the deaths were only a side effect of the main purpose of the war.This argument is weak, since the deaths are completely predictable. Moreover, many modern actions of the U.S. government involve deliberate, calculated cruelty and killing. The sanctions on Iraq throughout the 1990s directly targeted the most vulnerable segments of the Iraqi population. Misery and death were purposefully inflicted on them by the hundreds of thousands, in the hopes of prompting regime change. If this isn't terrorism, then there is no such thing.
> A terrorism specialist at the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment has said that Breivik's operation "seems to be an attempt to mirror Al Qaeda, exactly in reverse." Yet this description just as well fits the foreign policy of the U.S. and its satellites: Altering geopolitical realities by treating men, women, and children as disposable pawns to be targeted and liquidated. Killing people in large numbers for diplomatic reasons is the very essence of modern war. Do it without the right paperwork, and it's terrorism.
> Breivik's action separates him from the millions of bigots calling for total war but not performing it. If we look at Breivik's crimes as a problem of ideology and not only one of action then we are stuck with an uncomfortable truth: Engaging in mass violence that will inevitably kill innocent people is always wrong, and yet it is not only on the fringes of nationalist politics or on radical Islamist websites that we see endorsements of slaughtering dozens, hundreds, thousands or even more. The majority finds it defensible, even honorable and righteous, to do what Breivik did, so long as the civilian deaths are "collateral" or the result of bombings and sanctions initiated by the president – and, for those who are really old fashioned or progressive, ratified by Congress or the United Nations, respectively. The greatest trouble with neoconservatism, neoliberalism, and most other statist ideologies is that they favor mass murder. It does not matter, morally, what we call it. It makes no difference who arms the bombs and who fires the weapons, whether the hatred of the enemy is instilled at boot camp or gleaned from the blogosphere.
> Many of Breivik's targets were pro-Palestinian, likely eliciting his special animus for daring to side with the cultural enemy. When a fanatic takes up arms in the delusion that he is part of the war effort, we must remember that his actions are not materially much different from those of some of the most revered warriors and leaders of history. Perhaps he is not as deluded as those who try to differentiate his freelance violence from the formal violence celebrated in parades and on national holidays.
> Of course I will be accused of the great crime of "moral equivalence" – the sin of saying that deliberately killing innocent people is always immoral, no matter who does it or for what reason. So be it. In this case it will be harder for the charge to stick, for all the usual blather that typically accompanies it – "they hate us for our freedom," "they want to wipe Israel off the Earth," "their religion commands them to kill us all" – is the same kind of hysterical lunacy indulged in by Anders Behring Breivik before he put his ideology of hateful collectivism into action.
> <a...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
know the enemies
On Jul 25, 8:12 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Saturday, Jul 23, 2011 07:24 ETThe omnipotence of Al Qaeda and meaninglessness of "Terrorism"ByGlenn Greenwald(updated below - Update II)
> For much of the day yesterday, thefeatured headline onThe New York Timesonline front pagestrongly suggested that Muslims were responsible for the attacks on Oslo; that led todefinitive statements on theBBCand elsewhere that Muslims were the culprits. The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin wrotea whole columnbased on the assertion that Muslims were responsible, one that, asJames Fallows notes, remains at thePostwith no corrections or updates. Themorning statement issued by President Obama-- "It's a reminder that the entire international community holds a stake in preventing this kind of terror from occurring" and "we have to work cooperatively together both on intelligence and in terms of prevention of these kinds of horrible attacks" -- appeared to assume, though (to its credit) did not overtly state, that the perpetrator was an international terrorist group.
> But now it turns out that the alleged perpetrator wasn't from an international Muslim extremist group at all, but was rather aright-wing Norwegian nationalistwith a history of anti-Muslim commentary andan affection for Muslim-hating blogs such as Pam Geller's Atlas Shrugged, Daniel Pipes, and Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch. Despite that,The New York Timesis still working hardto pin some form of blame, even ultimate blame, on Muslim radicals (h/tsysprog):Terrorism specialists said that even if the authorities ultimately ruled out Islamic terrorism as the cause of Friday's assaults, other kinds of groups or individuals were mimicking Al Qaeda's brutality and multiple attacks."If it does turn out to be someone with more political motivations, it shows these groups are learning from what they see from Al Qaeda," said Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism researcher at the New America Foundation in Washington.Al Qaeda is always to blame, even when it isn't, even when it's allegedly the work of a Nordic, Muslim-hating, right-wing European nationalist. Of course, before Al Qaeda, nobody ever thought todetonate bombsingovernment buildingsor go on indiscriminate,politically motivatedshooting rampages. The NYT speculates that amonium nitrate fertilizer may have been used to make the bomb because the suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, owned a farming-related business and thus could have access to that material; of coursenobody would have ever thought of using that substance to make a massive bombhad it not been for Al Qaeda. So all this proves once again what a menacing threat radical Islam is.
> Then there's this extraordinarily revealing passage from the NYT --first noticed by Richard Silverstein-- explaining why the paper originally reported what it did:Initial reports focused on the possibility of Islamic militants, in particular Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or Helpers of the Global Jihad, cited by some analysts as claiming responsibility for the attacks. American officials said the group was previously unknown and might not even exist.There was ample reason for concern that terrorists might be responsible.In other words, now that we know the alleged perpetrator is not Muslim, we know -- by definition -- that Terrorists are not responsible; conversely, when we thought Muslims were responsible, that meant -- also by definition -- that it was an act of Terrorism. As Silverstein put it:How's that again? Are the only terrorists in the world Muslim? If so, what do we call a right-wing nationalist capable of planting major bombs and mowing down scores of people for the sake of the greater glory of his cause? If even a liberal newspaper like the Times can't call this guy a terrorist, what does that say about the mindset of the western world?What it says is what we've seen repeatedly: that Terrorism has no objective meaning and, at least in American political discourse, has come functionally to mean: violence committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes, no matter the cause or the target. Indeed, in many (thoughnot all) media circles, discussion of the Oslo attack quickly morphed from this is Terrorism (when it was believed Muslims did it) to no, this isn't Terrorism, just extremism (once it became likely that Muslims didn't). As Maz Hussain -- whoselengthy Twitter commentary on this event yesterdaywas superb and well worth reading --put it:
> That Terrorism means nothing more than violence committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes has been proven repeatedly. When an airplane was flown into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, it was immediately proclaimed to be Terrorism,until it was revealedthat the attacker was a white, non-Muslim, American anti-tax advocate with a series of domestic political grievances. The U.S. and its allies can, by definition, never commit Terrorism even when it isbeyond questionthat the purpose of their violence is toterrorize civilian populations into submission. Conversely, Muslims whoattack purely military targets -- even if thetarget is an invading army in their own countries-- are, by definition, Terrorists. That is why, asNYU's Remi Brulin has extensively documented, Terrorism is the most meaningless, and thereforethe most manipulated, word in the English language. Yesterday provided yet another sterling example.
> One last question: if,as preliminaryevidencesuggests, it turns out that Breivik was "inspired" by the extremist hatemongering rantings of Geller, Pipes and friends, will their groups be deemed Terrorist organizations such that any involvement with them could constitute the criminal offense of material support to Terrorism? Will those extremist polemicists inspiring Terrorist violence receive the Anwar Awlaki treatment of being put on an assassination hit list without due process? Will tall, blond, Nordic-looking males now receive extra scrutiny at airports and other locales, and will those having any involvement with those right-wing, Muslim-hating groups be secretly placed on no-fly lists? Or are those oppressive, extremist, lawless measures -- like the word Terrorism -- also reserved exclusively for Muslims?
>
> UPDATE: The original version of the NYT article was even worse in this regard. Asseveralpeoplenoted, here is what the article originally said (papers that carry NYT articlesstill have the original version):Terrorism specialists said that even if the authorities ultimately ruled out terrorism as the cause of Friday's assaults, other kinds of groups or individuals were mimicking al-Qaida's signature brutality and multiple attacks."If it does turn out to be someone with more political motivations, it shows these groups are learning from what they see from al-Qaida," said Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism researcher at the New America Foundation in Washington.Thus: if it turns out that the perpetrators weren't Muslim (but rather "someone with more political motivations" -- whatever that means: it presumably rests on theinane notionthat Islamic radicals are motivated by religion, not political grievances), then it means that Terrorism, by definition, would be "ruled out" (one might think that the more politically-motivated an act of violence is, the more deserving it is of the Terrorism label, but this just proves that the defining feature of the word Terrorism is Muslim violence). The final version of the NYT article inserted the word "Islamic" before "terrorism" ("even if the authorities ultimately ruled out Islamic terrorism as the cause"), but -- as demonstrated above -- still preserved the necessary inference that only Muslims can be Terrorists. Meanwhile, in the world of reality, of 294 Terrorist attacks attempted or executed on European soil in 2009 as counted by the EU,a grand total of one -- 1 out of 294 -- was perpetrated by "Islamists."
> UPDATE II: This articleexpertly traces and sets forth exactly how the "Muslims-did-it" myth was manufactured and then disseminated yesterday to the worldwide media, which predictably repeated it with little skepticism. What makes the article so valuable is that it names names: it points to the incestuous, self-regarding network of self-proclaimed U.S. Terrorism and foreign policy "experts" -- what the article accurately describes as "almost always white men and very often with military or government backgrounds," in this instance driven by "a case of an elite fanboy wanting to be the first to pass on leaked gadget specs" -- who so often shape these media stories and are uncritically presented as experts, even though they're drowning in bias, nationalism, ignorance, and shallow credentialism.http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/23/nyt/index.html
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
On Jul 25, 8:23 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Mass Murder Is the Problemby Anthony GregoryThe emerging profile of Anders Behring Breivik is not what was first expected. On Friday, President Obama and the mainstream media immediately jumped on the murder of 92 people in Norway to affirm the war on terror's importance. Putting aside the establishment's tendency to cite both failures and presumed successes, both acts of mass violence that came to fruition and ones that were preempted, as vindication of the war on terror, we should note that the administration was politicizing an atrocity in the only way that it is ever considered appropriate: The state can respectably pat its soldiers and enforcers on the back for their waging wars and bashing heads; all other political points made in the light of mass death are considered gauche.
> Yet as it turns out, the alleged murderer is not the Islamist that so many assumed. He was, instead, an anti-Islamist of the very sort that has become commonplace in the last decade. He is a Christian nationalist worried that Muslims will overtake the West. He enjoyed the same neoconservative blogs read by millions of Americans. Despite this, his act continues to be spun as a reason to worry about al Qaeda's supposed influence in inspiring acts of mass violence, rather than as a warning about the threat of anti-Islamism.
> And that threat is real. Many Americans think that Muslims should be outright prohibited from building mosques in the United States. At least one Republican presidential candidate has articulated this position unambiguously. Conservatives ludicrously warn that Muslims will impose Sharia law through the U.S. court system, abolishing American liberty. Anyone who reads conservative message boards can sense the possibility that we are one dirty bomb away from seeing our Muslim neighbors rounded up and sent to camps. The hundreds seized without due process and detained for months after 9/11 are forgotten, but their story reminds us of how fragile liberty and tolerance can be.
> Just because Breivik has much in common with neocons and theocons, however, does not validate the left's attempt to turn this into another excuse for cracking down on rightwing thought crime. The center left always sees such incidents as a pretext for institutional resolve against "rightwing extremism" –Timothy McVeighandJames von Brunncome to mind. Liberals are correct when they identify the double standard of labeling Breivik an "extremist" and bin Laden a "terrorist." They are being logically consistent when they say such "extremism" should be treated like any other terrorism. But the very scary thing about this tragedy is that the killer is not an "extremist" at all, at least not ideologically. He is not anti-government, either, despite what many good-government liberals imply. He loves Winston Churchill, like most neocons and liberals. He's very pro-Israel. His views on domestic and foreign policy and the supposed clash between Islam and the West are all too usual in Europe and the United States.
> Anti-Muslim fear is a problem in America, but it is not that disposition alone that should most concern us, and we must be careful in addressing such fear. It is everywhere and usually no direct threat to anyone, certainly no crime in itself. When Juan Williams lost his job at NPR for saying that he felt a little uncomfortable flying on airplanes with Muslims – a fact that he disclosed candidly with humility toward those he felt ashamed of fearing – his purge was most regrettable, for it only shut down discussion and guaranteed that civilized contemplation of these complicated issues would be unwelcome in that major media venue. It also emboldened conservatives in their anti-Muslim sentiment.
> The problem is not just fear of Muslims, but rather hateful, violent fear. Even such feelings, however, and even the most dehumanizing of thoughts, cannot be ameliorated by the very political system that encourages conflict and violence. Any attempt to turn the Utoya and Oslo tragedy into a rationale for an anti-rightwing witch-hunt would be misguided and counterproductive – especially coming from the very institution, the federal government, that is more responsible for antagonism toward Muslims than any other actor on the planet.
> Indeed, even neoconservatives should be protected from government thought control, as should have the communists during the Cold War, despite both groups having very dangerous views when put into practice. It is not the thoughts but the deeds that are criminal. Mere discontent with Muslims is not the same as banning their mosques or restricting their liberties. As for Breivik, his beliefs are poisonous; infinitely worse was his acting on them to commit murder on a mass scale.
> And this is where the real cognitive inconsistency comes in. Everyone knows that Breivik's actions were unjustifiable. Everyone knows the same about those who flew the planes into the World Trade Center. But what is not as universally understood is that mass murder is unjustifiable even when conducted by executive order and carried out by men wearing uniforms.
> If not for the "terrorists" of both the Muslim and anti-Muslim variety, the war on terrorism would not be easily sustained. The relationship is mutual, as the armed conflicts incite the resentment and blowback that are in turn pointed to as the reason to continue the wars. At any rate, the war on terror itself is nothing but one act of terrorism after another, day after day. Together, Bush and Obama have probably piled up ten thousand times as many corpses as did Breivik. A week of pure terror for Oslo, London, or Manhattan resembles an average week for Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iraq, thanks to the United States's wars of liberation. Norway, too, having dropped hundreds of bombs in Obama's NATO war on Libya, is a belligerent junior partner in what many see as a U.S.-Israeli-U.K. crusade against the Muslim world.
> Sometimes the government's wars kill thousands whose lives are disregarded as "collateral damage," since the deaths were only a side effect of the main purpose of the war.This argument is weak, since the deaths are completely predictable. Moreover, many modern actions of the U.S. government involve deliberate, calculated cruelty and killing. The sanctions on Iraq throughout the 1990s directly targeted the most vulnerable segments of the Iraqi population. Misery and death were purposefully inflicted on them by the hundreds of thousands, in the hopes of prompting regime change. If this isn't terrorism, then there is no such thing.
> A terrorism specialist at the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment has said that Breivik's operation "seems to be an attempt to mirror Al Qaeda, exactly in reverse." Yet this description just as well fits the foreign policy of the U.S. and its satellites: Altering geopolitical realities by treating men, women, and children as disposable pawns to be targeted and liquidated. Killing people in large numbers for diplomatic reasons is the very essence of modern war. Do it without the right paperwork, and it's terrorism.
> Breivik's action separates him from the millions of bigots calling for total war but not performing it. If we look at Breivik's crimes as a problem of ideology and not only one of action then we are stuck with an uncomfortable truth: Engaging in mass violence that will inevitably kill innocent people is always wrong, and yet it is not only on the fringes of nationalist politics or on radical Islamist websites that we see endorsements of slaughtering dozens, hundreds, thousands or even more. The majority finds it defensible, even honorable and righteous, to do what Breivik did, so long as the civilian deaths are "collateral" or the result of bombings and sanctions initiated by the president – and, for those who are really old fashioned or progressive, ratified by Congress or the United Nations, respectively. The greatest trouble with neoconservatism, neoliberalism, and most other statist ideologies is that they favor mass murder. It does not matter, morally, what we call it. It makes no difference who arms the bombs and who fires the weapons, whether the hatred of the enemy is instilled at boot camp or gleaned from the blogosphere.
> Many of Breivik's targets were pro-Palestinian, likely eliciting his special animus for daring to side with the cultural enemy. When a fanatic takes up arms in the delusion that he is part of the war effort, we must remember that his actions are not materially much different from those of some of the most revered warriors and leaders of history. Perhaps he is not as deluded as those who try to differentiate his freelance violence from the formal violence celebrated in parades and on national holidays.
> Of course I will be accused of the great crime of "moral equivalence" – the sin of saying that deliberately killing innocent people is always immoral, no matter who does it or for what reason. So be it. In this case it will be harder for the charge to stick, for all the usual blather that typically accompanies it – "they hate us for our freedom," "they want to wipe Israel off the Earth," "their religion commands them to kill us all" – is the same kind of hysterical lunacy indulged in by Anders Behring Breivik before he put his ideology of hateful collectivism into action.http://lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory228.html
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
they are no less that traitors
On Jul 25, 7:58 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> U.S. Taxpayers Finance Taliban"A year-long military-led investigation has concluded that U.S. taxpayer money has been indirectly funneled to the Taliban under a $2.16 billion transportation contract that the United States has funded in part to promote Afghan businesses." (Washington Post)They can't keep track of what they spend now.Political AccountingThere Are Human Costs to Every Government SnafuJames Bovard
> September 1999 • Volume: 49 • Issue: 9 •
> Why does the federal government, according to its own auditors, squander tens of billions of tax dollars year after year? Attempts to understand the actions of politicians and bureaucrats on the basis of private-sector decision-making are doomed to failure. Efforts to "fix" government by ending specific boondoggles are quixotic crusades. Government will continue to be profoundly wasteful because that is how politicians maximize their powera subject that interests politicians far more than do General Accounting Office reports.
> "Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind," observed George Orwell.[1]Ruth Grant wrote that "hypocrisy and politics are inextricably connected on account of the peculiar character of political relationships."[2]Since government is coercion, politics is largely the exercise of deception regarding the intended use of coercion.
> The benevolence of government rarely transcends the venality of politics. Paternalism seeks to generate mass happiness by forcibly sacrificing as many people and groups as necessary to the Greater Good. And who defines the Greater Good? The same people who benefit from maximizing the sacrifices.
> The amount of power a politician can seize over other people is inversely related to the politician's honesty. If the politician openly tells people how much more coercive power he seeks and how he intends to use it, there will likely be strong opposition to the expansion of government. Politicians rarely wish to admit that they are pursuing a larger "market share" in the life of the average citizen. Because politicians and government officials often seek more power than they publicly admit, many, if not most, of their analyses of government policies are skewed.The Social Security ModelIf a politician camouflages his plans, people may fail to resist the increased power until it is too late. This is the thumbnail history of Social Security, a program that illustrates the natural combination of paternalism and political fraud. As the Brookings Institution's Martha Derthick observed, "In the mythic construction begun in 1935 and elaborated thereafter on the basis of the payroll tax, Social Security was a vast enterprise of self-help in which government participation was almost incidental."[3]The Social Security Administration for decades told people that their payroll taxes were being held for each citizen in individual accounts; in reality, as soon as the money came in, politicians found ways to spend it.[4]Social Security Commissioner Stanford Ross, after he announced his resignation, conceded in 1979 that "the mythology of Social Security contributed greatly to its success. . . . Strictly speaking, the system was never intended to return to individuals what they paid."[5]Ross said that Americans should forget the "myth" that Social Security is a pension plan and accept it as a tax on workers to provide for the "vulnerable of our society." But Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York accurately characterized Social Security taxes as "outright thievery" from young working people.[6]American citizens now shoulder over $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities.[7]The General Accounting Office issued the first comprehensive report on government assets and liabilities in 1998and curiously left Social Security obligations out of the liability column. ANew York Timesarticle noted,A footnote in a draft portion of the report released Monday notes that after 2029, the Social Security trust fund will be "totally exhausted" and "current tax income will be sufficient to pay approximately 75 percent of the benefits due." But that is not really a liability, the administration's accounting experts explained Monday, because technically the government owes the money to itself, not the pensioners, and because Congress is free to change the amount paid Social Security recipients. After thinking about the political implications of that statement, however, more politically sensitive administration officials called reporters late Monday to stress that the government did not really have plans to cut back on Social Security payments. "It's an accounting device," one official said. "That's all it is."[8]If the defenders of Social Security insist that the fraud was justified because otherwise the American people would not have accepted the coercive redistribution scheme, the question arises: What future limits should there be on government's prerogative to deceive the people? If Social Security is an acceptable fraud, what would government have to do before it was considered to have gone too far? Social Security is a perfect symbol of political generosity: it robs scores of millions of young people, it halves the national savings rate, and thereby sabotages investment and productivity increases,[9] and it maximizes bureaucratic and political discretion over people's fortunes. If the average worker had a dollar for every time a congressman lied about Social Security, his retirement would be safe. There is no "Honesty in Intervention Act" governing new laws or political action. Current taxpayers are still paying for the lies that politicians told to get re-elected in 1936, 1938, 1940, ad nauseam. The fact that politicians replace old lies with new lies does not reduce the burden on citizens of laws that were enacted on false pretenses generations ago.Business Accounting versus Government AccountingPaternalism will always be based on political accounting, which is practically the opposite of private accounting. Businesses prosper by reducing costs, while politicians prosper by denying that costs exist. For politicians, it is more important that spending forecasts be popular than accurate. The more that politicians and bureaucrats underestimate the cost of their favored policies, the easier it becomes to hustle those policies to voters and other legislators. Medicareone of the largest expansions of government power since the New Dealsteamrolled through Congress in 1965 in part because of a spending forecast that made the expansion of handouts seem easily affordable. By 1990, however, Medicare was costing almost ten times more per year than the 1965 forecast had predicted it would cost.[10]The political concept of waste is almost diametrically opposed to the economic concept of waste. In economics if an activity produces something that other people value, it can be successful; in politics if a program garners votes, campaign contributions, or power, it is successful. Government programs are often effectively designed to waste money because politicians benefit from an inefficient, spendthrift program as much as or more than they would benefit from an efficient, well-targeted program. Congressmen brag about the amount of federal money spent in their districts, not about whether audit reports found minimal fraud.
> Political accounting means that government leaders will be ignorant or misled or dishonest about the true cost of policies they impose. The GAO's financial report concluded: "Because of the government's serious systems, record-keeping, documentation, and control deficiencies, amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements and related notes do not provide a reliable source of information for decision-making by the government or the public."[11] GAO found that "significant financial systems weaknesses, problems with fundamental record keeping, incomplete documentation, and weak internal controls . . . prevent the government from accurately reporting a large portion of its assets, liabilities, and costs."[12] Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee declared, "We are spending almost $2 trillion a year and managing a $850 billion loan portfolio based on erroneous or non-existent information. It means basically that we don't know what the government's assets are, we don't know what the government's liabilities are, we don't know what it costs to run government."[13]
> After the audit was released, a senior Clinton administration official told the Associated Press: "This is an old closet that we haven't cleaned out in 200 years."[14] If politicians are going to have the closet cleaned out only once every couple centuries, maybe they have no right to control the house. A report that should have been proof of the political class's incompetence instead merely evokes another round of promises to try harder next time.Cost Is No ObjectPaternalism presumes that government agencies judiciously weigh costs and benefits before extending their power. However, many bureaucracies have little or no curiosity about the impact of agency actions on private citizens. The House Commerce Committee surveyed federal agencies and concluded in a 1997 report, "Where costs [of regulation to private companies] are addressed, they represent only the smallest and most insignificant portion of total costs. . . . With little or no documentation on the costs of regulation, agencies have no basis to judge whether any possible benefits from a new regulation would outweigh the possible costs of the regulation."[15]Because government agencies do not have to pay for the costs they impose, they have no incentive to track the burdens. The committee warned that "federal agencies may inadvertently be exposing our Nation to incalculable economic harms."[16] The only way such government ignorance could not be harmful is if it were true that government dictates are always superior to private decisions.
> Efforts to evaluate government programs by private accounting standards are always contrary to how government agencies gauge their own successes. Government agencies measure their achievements by how much they prohibit; private companies gauge their accomplishments by how much they produce. Government bureaucracies brag about the number of fines they have imposed; private companies brag about the number of inventions they have created. Government bureaucrats pride themselves on forcing private citizens to obey orders; private companies pride themselves on discovering ways that help each person find his own path.
> Governments do not squander money in a vacuum. The more of an economy that is subject to political command and control, the greater the opportunities and prosperity forgone. Wasteful government spending crowds out productive private investment; as a result, the entire society becomes increasingly impoverished compared to what people could have achieved.
> The supposed benefits of the tradeoff between freedom and political control is based almost entirely on the bogus premise that politicians will provide more welfare (after seizing increased power over everyone else) than private citizens can generate through their voluntary agreements and hard work. A 1998 report by economist James Gwartney and colleagues for the congressional Joint Economic Committee found that since 1960, average government expenditures for the 23 major industrial countries had risen from 27 percent of GDP to 48 percent of GDP in 1996while the average economic growth rate "fell from 5.5% in the 1960s to 1.9% in the 1990s." Gwartney observed: "While growth has declined in all [23] countries, those countries with the least growth of government have suffered the least."[17] Gwartney concluded: "If government expenditures as a share of GDP in the United States had remained at their 1960 level, real GDP in 1996 would have been $9.16 trillion instead of $7.64 trillion, and the average income for a family of four would have been $23,440 higher."Squandering LivesThe failure of a government policy does not merely reduce the number of bureaucrats who receive "outstanding achievement" job evaluations. Governments cannot waste tax dollars without squandering part of the lives of the people who earned those dollars. There are human costs to every government snafu. A billion tax dollars wasted pre-empts 10,000 families from buying starter homes, or pre-empts 100,000 people from buying bottom-of-the-line new cars, or pre-empts a million people from taking a summer vacation, or pre-empts citizens from buying 40 million new books or 80 million cases of beer.
> The value of liberty and personal independence is almost never factored into the calculus of paternalism. Social scientists, politicians, and bureaucrats consider the expected benefits of any proposed new rule and ignore the effect of its forcible imposition. Every government program, every government intervention, every government penalty carries a hidden cost of pre-emption. The fact that people prefer to live as they choose and not as others command never shows up on intellectual radar screens. If the costs do not show up in the official government budget, they do not officially exist. Any government cost-benefit analysis of a proposed new rule or regulation that disregards the value of individual freedom implicitly assumes that private freedom is a good at the disposal of the political class.
> Since most politicianssimply by their career choiceindicate a desire for power, any measure that increases power will be considered a success. If a policy increases the number of people beholden to them, then it is good as an end in itself. The ultimate conflict of interest that subverts paternalism is that government officials want power and citizens want freedom.
> There is no reason to expect contemporary Leviathans to become significantly more efficient in the future. The only way to fix most government programs is to repeal the underlying law and abolish the government agency. Anything less will be little more than a future full-employment program for investigative journalists.NotesGeorge Orwell, The Orwell Reader (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1956), p. 366.Ruth W. Grant, Hypocrisy and Integrity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), p. 2.Martha Derthick, Policymaking for Social Security (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1979), p. 232.Two classic books on this topic are Dillard Stokes, Social SecurityFact and Fancy (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1956) and Abraham Ellis, The Social Security Fraud (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Foundation for Economic Education, 1996 [1971])."Outgoing Social Security Head Assails 'Myths' of System and Says It Favors the Poor," New York Times, December 2, 1979.Pat Wechsler, "Will Social Security Be There for You?" Newsday, January 14, 1990.Daniel J. Mitchell and Gareth G. Davis, "Social Security Trust Fund Report Shows Need for Reform," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder#1176, May 4, 1998.David Sanger, "Glitches Galore Pop Up in Full Audit of Government," New York Times, March 31, 1998.Martin Feldstein, "Economics: His Defense," New York Times, October 5, 1980.Jake Hansen, "Medicare's Dire Outlook," Washington Times, June 3, 1995.Editorial, "What the GAO Foundor Didn'tFind," Washington Times, April 3, 1998.James Glassman, "No-Account Government," Washington Post, April 21, 1998."What the GAO Found orDidn't Find.""First Government Audit Completed," Associated Press, March 30, 1998.House Commerce Committee, Survey of Federal Agencies on Costs of Federal Regulations, House Report 97-H-272-1, January 1997.Ibid."On average, government expenditures in 1995 consumed only 20% of GDP in the five economies with the most rapid real economic growth rates during 1980–95: Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand. In these countries, the size of government in 1995 was virtually the same as in 1975." James Gwartney, "Less Government, More Growth," Wall Street Journal, April 10, 1998.http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/political-accounting/
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--CHIEF EXECUTIVE ANTI EVILS AND TERRORISM INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT OVERSEASE----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Raja Choudhary <rajachoudhary1@yahoo.com>
To: Euro Asia(Naeem) <banaeem786@gmail.com>; Journalist Hasnain <journalist.hasnain@yahoo.com>; drmohammed hasnain Siddiqui <hammedhasnain2010@hotmail.com>; """drmohammedhasnainin " " <2010@hotmail.com>" <drmohammedhasnain2010@hotmail.com>; eme.education <eme.educaton@yahoo.com>; hamza <hamza_siddiqui@hotmail.com>; Hiba Khan 2050 <hibakhan2050@yahoo.com>; Jameel Akhtar <jameel.akhtar@zishanengineers.com>; JOURNALIST HASNAIN SIDDIQUI <journalist.hasnain2010@hotmail.com>; mqm chicago <mqmchicago@aol.com=>; MQM.CO.UKmqm <MQM=mqmuk@hotmail.co.uk=>; mqmcanada <altafsmqmcanada@usa.net=>; OPTHTHPHAMA <ophthpharma@gmail.com>; """sach.yehihe@yahoo.com""" <sach.yehihe@yahoo.com>; """safeer.qureshi@tetleyclover.com.pk""" <safeer.qureshi@tetleyclover.com.pk>; ""khan_ayesha@yahoo.com"" <khan_ayesha@yahoo.com>; ""sajidawan80@hotmail.com"" <sajidawan80@hotmail.com>; ""aubaig@gmail.com"" <aubaig@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 3:17 AM
Subject: Fw: THE MOST RICHEST COUNTRY OF THE WORLD. Please forward.PEACE IS A RIGHT AND NOT A PRIVILEGE.ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE AND JUSTICE AND DOES NOT ALLOW ANY TERRORISM IN THE WORLD."Saving a Life is like Saving the Whole World." (Ref. Al-Quran, -005.032)"O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allâh, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, be he rich or poor,Allâh is a Better Protector to both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you may avoid justice, and if you distort your witness or refuse to give it, verily, Allâh is Ever WellAcquainted with what you do."(Surah Nisaa':135)Muslim brothers and sisters Salam and Non-Muslims hello:
Please read the today's news where our country, a country that we were part of before 1947--India Zindabad, Jeay India, Love India, has become so rich that it is now investing $450 Billion (Billion with Capital "B") only in one sector. Think about it; that much money only in one sector. However, in Pakistan we do not have money to buy a hot meal for our family, because "Punjabis" have destroyed and looted entire Pakistan. Punjabis have been using their "Punjabi Armies" to loot every resource of Pakistan and bring to "PUNJAB". Think about it, if Quaid-e-Azam did not include PUNJAB as a part of Pakistan, then we would have good lives as Indians.Let say it together, "PAKISTAN WAS NOT A MISTAKE, HOWEVER IT WAS THE BIGGEST MISTAKE TO INCLUDE PUNJAB AS A PART OF PAKISTAN AND PUNJABIS SHOULD BE GIVEN A SEPARATE COUNTRY IN 1947."
Pakistanis are poor because of "PUNJABIS". ALL THE PROBLEMS IN PAKISTAN ARE BECAUSE OF THESE PUNJABI PEOPLE. If you are a Punjabi, then please try to understand that all the sufferings in Pakistan is because of you and you should learn how other human beings live--go and see how Sindhi Muslims, Balochi Muslims, Pakhtoon Muslims and Mahajir Muslims live and compare your life with them--and figure out why they are not thieves and looters like you. Do you "Punjabis" have any shame at all. I DO NOT THINK SO.Since 1947, you "Punjabis" only created wars; war with Benagali Muslims, war with Sindhi Muslims, war with Mohajir Muslims, war with Baloch Muslims and war with Pakhtoon Muslims. SHAME ON PUNJABIS.http://news.yahoo.com/india-moves-open-450-bln-retail-sector-150520666.html
India closer to opening up $450 bln retail sector
AFP – 29 mins ago
RELATED CONTENT
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
