Link of Dr. Farhat Hashmi, cassettes in Urdu Lectures
For women and girls. Open and listen carefully.
http://www.farhathashmi.com/dn/Marriage.aspx
muhamamd Masood Sipra
Gulshan-e-Jamal
Friday, January 7, 2011
**JP** Marriage
Re: The New Republican Congress Begins....say hello to...........
Hello Dena!
Thank you for a very thoughtful, responsive reply, and I apologize if I offended you! You raise some excellent, thought provoking points, many of which I am in total agreement with.
By no means am I a "Colin Powell Defender"; but I do think that the speech that Mr. Powell made to the United Nations which you reference has been over-criticized, and in general, the Bush Administration, (of which, as a conservative, I can find a whole bunch of faults with!) has been thrashed beyond what was called for, and by many who either choose to forget the facts of what was transpiring in the particular time period, and/or don't have a clue about what was going on in 2002/2003 from an internatonal standpoint.
The facts are that Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party who controlled Iraq had used weapons of mass destruction against the Kurds, the Shia and against the Iranians. There is no quesiton that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. It was in fact American and European Nation-States who sold him the ingrediants for the biological weaponry. No question, Hussein and Iraq used weapons of mass destruction on numerous occasions.
The preponderance of intelligence was that Hussein was reconstituting these weapons, despite the United Nations ban on such weaponry, and despite the voluminous inspections that Iraq refused to comply with. It was not only the United States intelligence who had this information, but it was also the Russians, the British, the French, the Germans, the Sudanese, the Egyptians, the Saudis, and every other Nation-State that has an intelligence agency.
There was some debate about how far Hussein had gotten on the nuclear front, but there was really no question that Iraq was in fact pursuing nuclear weaponry. Some saying that with foreign help it could be a year; others saying it would be several years.
So my point is this. When then Secretary Powell appeared before the United Nations, no, it's simply not the case that there was, if you're in a position of decision-making, evidence to say that it was likely that Hussein and Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. It is also incorrect to say that Mr. Powell's information came from only one source. It was the belief from most all of Western Civilization that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
This is where I refer to revisionist history. It's easy to Monday Morning Quarterback today, in January of 2011, but I believe that Mr. Powell was convinced, as he has said recently, that there was a legitimate belief of the danger posed by Iraq.
Now, what we found is that he was indeed breaking out of the constraints that had been put there — we all know the scandal of oil-for-food — that he was not as far along in that reconstitution as the intelligence had suggested. But the idea that somehow Saddam Hussein was not pursuing or was never going to pursue weapons of mass destruction, I think, is as misplaced as an argument that he had fully reconstituted.
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Dena Liles <60sactivist@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Keith,Truth Sojourner <<<< What do you think this means? I dictate your truth, I am absolutely 100% positive that I know the truth, that I do not continue to try to find truth? You know what? after a little thought about this I wasn't on a Hummer to see the 2 traveling chemical lab trucks, come to think of it neither were you?Yes, I've been to the Moonbattery site, but for the life of me (since I went back to try to find why I was on that site) I can't remember. I have a mass in my brain and sometimes my short term memory escapes me. Obviously it wasn't too awfully interesting. It sounds as if you know the answer to that. I have an open mind, so I visit other's sites (read and listen, etc.) to try and get incite or maybe even change my mind, but I don't snap to judgement and decide that I believe anything to be 100%. If I do that, then I will lose my capacity to learn anything else on that subject matter.And by the same token, there are those in Western Civilization that are truly baffled by the naivety of those who cannot see the threat posed by Islam, <<< This baffles you? Then you need to back up and start all over again because you have obviously gotten lost by the way side. But it is not Islam it is people who use a religious book to justify slaughter IMHO.Once again, a post from August, 2008, and the old adage, "Everything Changes.....Nothing Changes...." <<< I prefer to say that the only thing you can count on is change!Real American Patriot: "So, you discount his predecessor, President Clinton's, the CIA's, the M-5's, the Mossad's, the Saudi's, the Russian's, and the Sudanese claims, as well as Saddam Hussein's own claims, and the fact that many of Iraq's known weapons of mass destruction are still unaccounted for, when you make a statement that President Bush lied?" <<< Well Good God Almighty they are still searching and haven't found them in a decade? Maybe they will find them when some more of the ice melts.Kinder, Gentler Tree Hugger: "Bush lied". <<< I never said Bush lied, but somebody sent Colin Powell out there to say it. He didn't have the authority to do it!
"Efraim Halevy (a Mossad officer since 1961 and its chief between 1998 and 2002) stated in his book: 'Man in the Shadows' that he was not privy to all the intelligence, but had personal contact with senior levels in the US sums it up that 'Given the extreme shortage of reliable information such potentially threatening issues, were the intelligence chiefs duty-bound to present their assessments to the political level regardless of how much hard material they possessed! The intelligence officer can never tell the political master that he is unable to give an estimate of a threat. Come what may, an officer has to give an estimate, even if it is largely a guess."He goes on the say: "What, then, is the role of the political level in matters such as these? First of all it is the political level that must receive the information, digest it, and set the tone for future discussions and dealings with the subjects at hand."
And one more thing: When President George W. Walker Bush said to stop Gulf War I at 100 hours, General Schwarzkopf said that if he could have I believe 2 to 3 more hours he could take Baghdad. President Bush said if we take Baghdad we will own it. That was in Bob Woodward's book: "State of Denial"Laughter is the greatest coping mechanism that we have, so I'm glad you had a good laugh. I am now going to intentionally hit the send button, and if you can't find it within yourself to speak to me (a total stranger) with some respect then we just won't!Peace,DenaOn Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Keith In Köln <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
Whoopsie, did I just hit my send button? I guess I was laughing so hard at Truth Sojouner's last missives, my apologies!I mean, when we think of TommyTomTomForNews, and his attempt at revising history, poor Tommy doesn't hold a candle to TruthSojourner, who obviously can give classes on anti-American revisionist Moonbattery, especially to the uninformed!Once again, a post from August, 2008, and the old adage, "Everything Changes.....Nothing Changes...."On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 7:53 PM, KeithInTampa wrote:
Keith Responds:
....Well, how's that for some kinder, gentler arrogance?
And by the same token, there are those in Western Civilization that are truly baffled by the naivety of those who cannot see the threat posed by Islam, to our very way of life, and who would in fact make statements like what you just made. What gets me, is the "Kinder, Gentler, Tree Hugging" faction's logic, and then, their hateful repartee when confronted with the truth.
Any time a conversation starts out with, "Bush Lied", or "Gore won the election", you know the conversation is never going to be based on fact, or logic, or anything remotely resembling a rational discourse. The conversations usually go something like this:
Kinder, Gentler Tree Hugger: "Bush lied".
Real American Patriot: "Lied about what?"
Kinder, Gentler Tree Hugger: "The war in Iraq"
Real American Patriot: "What part of the war in Iraq do you think President Bush or any of his administration lied about?"
Kinder, Gentler Tree Hugger: "Weapons of mass destruction".
Real American Patriot: "So, you discount his predecessor, President Clinton's, the CIA's, the M-5's, the Mossad's, the Saudi's, the Russian's, and the Sudanese claims, as well as Saddam Hussein's own claims, and the fact that many of Iraq's known weapons of mass destruction are still unaccounted for, when you make a statement that President Bush lied?"
Kinder, Gentler Tree Hugger: "Well, he stole the election, and all I know is Bush lied, and you are a fascist pig for not signing the petition calling for impeachment to oust the pig".
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 2:06 AM, Keith In Köln <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Truth_Sojourner <60sactivist@gmail.com> wrote:
There are a few more to add I'm sure, but I think Colin Powell should be with them. Afterall, he knew when he walked into the UN with info from only 1 source named "screw ball" as informant an used that evidence that he was not standing on his principles, but on his perceived "duty" to the military. I think he could have at least said get somebody else, and reported what he knew. Did he want to save his "military loyalty", his paycheck, or his personal character? I guess we will never know, but he did hang on to the paycheck for awhile but that was it. Just sayin' is all. --
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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
Re: House of Representatives Now Has Majority With Anti Gay Views
Tom?
Who the Fuck is "Gayapolis"??
Let's review:
"Last year's elections that resulted in the loss of the US House of Representatives to an anti- equality leadership, along with more anti-lgbt senators,"
Says who? How has this person or entity come to this conclusion? The 112th Congress has not even got their seats warmed up yet, and "Gayapolis" is clamoring that the body politic is, "Anti-Gay" already?
One would have to think that yours, (and "Gayapolis's) mind is made up, and that no matter what this recently elected Congress does, you will be opposed to whatever measures they take. Wasn't it you that was just recently calling the Republican Party the "Obstructionist Party"; and the "Party of No"? Don't you see the hypocracy?
By all accounts, the 112th Congress would appear to have this fresh new idea of upholding the United States Constitution, in particular those clauses that embrace personal protections, inherent rights and equal protections for all citizens. This is where the Gay Community is so, so, so misguided. Those who believe that they are entitled to "more" rights and privileges than the rest of Americans would portray anyone that opposes them as, "Anti Gay" or a homophobe.
Such statements by "Gayapolis" and other far left extremist, militant Gay organizations hurts the cause(s) for all Gays in general. It is a turn-off to the majority of all Americans, and I would think to the majority of thinking Gay Americans.
Tom, why don't you take the initiative, and condemn such organizations as "Gayapolis", on behalf of the Gay Community? Now is the time to take a stand, and stop the hate, lies and smear!
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:
We must protest loudly!
House of Representatives Now Has Majority With Anti Gay Views
This New Year brings new challenges for lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender people, but also new opportunities. Last year's elections
that resulted in the loss of the US House of Representatives to an
anti- equality leadership, along with more anti-lgbt senators, will
certainly impede - but not entirely stop - pro-lgbt federal
legislative efforts. looking at the states however, there are clear
opportunities for advancing an equality agenda, including in the area
of relationship recognition for same-sex couples. of course, anti-lgbt
forces will to try to turn back the clock at every opportunity, and
fair-minded americans will continue to be vigilant to preserve
pro-equality laws across the country.
CONGRESS
As the new Congress is sworn in this week, there is no denying that
pro-LGBT numbers have shrunk on Capitol Hill. A Human Rights Campaign
analysis shows a pick-up of 53 House seats to anti-LGBT lawmakers as
well as a 5 seat addition in the Senate. Not only do those opposing
basic equality hold positions of power as House leaders and committee
chairmen, their ranks have swollen to 225 - a solid majority of the
chamber. This presents not just a roadblock to progress but also the
threat of legislation that could be damaging to the community.
When anti-equality forces controlled Congress for a decade
(1994-2005), they stymied any progress on LGBT issues, instead making
attacks on our community part of their governing agenda. Among these
were: attempting twice to amend the U.S. Constitution to deny marriage
equality to same-sex couples nationwide; trying to strip federal
courts of the authority to hear marriage equality cases; blocking DC's
local efforts to provide domestic partnership benefits to its
employees; cutting funding for HIV prevention, research and treatment
despite a growing epidemic, while pouring federal dollars into
disproven abstinence-only programs that exclude or even denigrate LGBT
youth; and standing in the way of openly-LGBT appointees.
More:
http://www.gayapolis.com/news/artdisplay.php?artid=6140
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
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.
--
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.
Re: The New Republican Congress Begins....say hello to...........
Dear Keith,
Truth Sojourner <<<< What do you think this means? I dictate your truth, I am absolutely 100% positive that I know the truth, that I do not continue to try to find truth? You know what? after a little thought about this I wasn't on a Hummer to see the 2 traveling chemical lab trucks, come to think of it neither were you?
Yes, I've been to the Moonbattery site, but for the life of me (since I went back to try to find why I was on that site) I can't remember. I have a mass in my brain and sometimes my short term memory escapes me. Obviously it wasn't too awfully interesting. It sounds as if you know the answer to that. I have an open mind, so I visit other's sites (read and listen, etc.) to try and get incite or maybe even change my mind, but I don't snap to judgement and decide that I believe anything to be 100%. If I do that, then I will lose my capacity to learn anything else on that subject matter.
And by the same token, there are those in Western Civilization that are truly baffled by the naivety of those who cannot see the threat posed by Islam, <<< This baffles you? Then you need to back up and start all over again because you have obviously gotten lost by the way side. But it is not Islam it is people who use a religious book to justify slaughter IMHO.
Once again, a post from August, 2008, and the old adage, "Everything Changes.....Nothing Changes...." <<< I prefer to say that the only thing you can count on is change!
Kinder, Gentler Tree Hugger: "Bush lied". <<< I never said Bush lied, but somebody sent Colin Powell out there to say it. He didn't have the authority to do it!
"Efraim Halevy (a Mossad officer since 1961 and its chief between 1998 and 2002) stated in his book: 'Man in the Shadows' that he was not privy to all the intelligence, but had personal contact with senior levels in the US sums it up that 'Given the extreme shortage of reliable information such potentially threatening issues, were the intelligence chiefs duty-bound to present their assessments to the political level regardless of how much hard material they possessed! The intelligence officer can never tell the political master that he is unable to give an estimate of a threat. Come what may, an officer has to give an estimate, even if it is largely a guess."
He goes on the say: "What, then, is the role of the political level in matters such as these? First of all it is the political level that must receive the information, digest it, and set the tone for future discussions and dealings with the subjects at hand."
And one more thing: When President George W. Walker Bush said to stop Gulf War I at 100 hours, General Schwarzkopf said that if he could have I believe 2 to 3 more hours he could take Baghdad. President Bush said if we take Baghdad we will own it. That was in Bob Woodward's book: "State of Denial"
And one more thing: When President George W. Walker Bush said to stop Gulf War I at 100 hours, General Schwarzkopf said that if he could have I believe 2 to 3 more hours he could take Baghdad. President Bush said if we take Baghdad we will own it. That was in Bob Woodward's book: "State of Denial"
Laughter is the greatest coping mechanism that we have, so I'm glad you had a good laugh. I am now going to intentionally hit the send button, and if you can't find it within yourself to speak to me (a total stranger) with some respect then we just won't!
Peace,
Dena
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Keith In Köln <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
Whoopsie, did I just hit my send button? I guess I was laughing so hard at Truth Sojouner's last missives, my apologies!I mean, when we think of TommyTomTomForNews, and his attempt at revising history, poor Tommy doesn't hold a candle to TruthSojourner, who obviously can give classes on anti-American revisionist Moonbattery, especially to the uninformed!Once again, a post from August, 2008, and the old adage, "Everything Changes.....Nothing Changes...."On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 7:53 PM, KeithInTampa wrote:
Keith Responds:
....Well, how's that for some kinder, gentler arrogance?
And by the same token, there are those in Western Civilization that are truly baffled by the naivety of those who cannot see the threat posed by Islam, to our very way of life, and who would in fact make statements like what you just made. What gets me, is the "Kinder, Gentler, Tree Hugging" faction's logic, and then, their hateful repartee when confronted with the truth.
Any time a conversation starts out with, "Bush Lied", or "Gore won the election", you know the conversation is never going to be based on fact, or logic, or anything remotely resembling a rational discourse. The conversations usually go something like this:
Kinder, Gentler Tree Hugger: "Bush lied".
Real American Patriot: "Lied about what?"
Kinder, Gentler Tree Hugger: "The war in Iraq"
Real American Patriot: "What part of the war in Iraq do you think President Bush or any of his administration lied about?"
Kinder, Gentler Tree Hugger: "Weapons of mass destruction".
Real American Patriot: "So, you discount his predecessor, President Clinton's, the CIA's, the M-5's, the Mossad's, the Saudi's, the Russian's, and the Sudanese claims, as well as Saddam Hussein's own claims, and the fact that many of Iraq's known weapons of mass destruction are still unaccounted for, when you make a statement that President Bush lied?"
Kinder, Gentler Tree Hugger: "Well, he stole the election, and all I know is Bush lied, and you are a fascist pig for not signing the petition calling for impeachment to oust the pig".
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 2:06 AM, Keith In Köln <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Truth_Sojourner <60sactivist@gmail.com> wrote:
There are a few more to add I'm sure, but I think Colin Powell should be with them. Afterall, he knew when he walked into the UN with info from only 1 source named "screw ball" as informant an used that evidence that he was not standing on his principles, but on his perceived "duty" to the military. I think he could have at least said get somebody else, and reported what he knew. Did he want to save his "military loyalty", his paycheck, or his personal character? I guess we will never know, but he did hang on to the paycheck for awhile but that was it. Just sayin' is all. --
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.
--
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.
--
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.
**JP** FW: main veya nahi krawana...little cute sikh child very hilarious
Dear all
Please see and listen
From: tayyab masood sipra MBA London [mailto: sipra__jat@hotmail.com ]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 3:25 AM
To: daddy; adil masood sipra; Talat Sipra
Subject: main veya nahi krawana...little cute sikh child very hilarious
| | main veya nahi krawnRa [i don't want to marry] little cute child ... |
![main veya nahi krawnRa [i don't want to marry] little cute child ...](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vf57HtKGTXFgexfQCx7Kq8qQ7hnwoREevNExgTP1049G7hNV8tGxBjoNipGZe-TecD1DXrhj8G9x61BHbyYjpK0PFHVw3uFWUFVPsjeH5WUqIQUoqtoFJtK2UDXcimK5LLZESvu0BOLKMUMFxs2FIAg8fyndE_57SA3nPPaXVzwzkxaLeMVBN4n_Rcex6ZsQ6BUWDWiV5kyU_MpcK-SbRRwL6CqURdLI45cc5-AzNaB2BKQh6JPrexLqcdp5fQKdYS40NMOViycqCkZWR8jAM=s0-d "main veya nahi krawnRa [i don't want to marry] little cute child ...")
main veya nahi krawana........little cute sikh child very hilarious
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)