rrrajesh.yadav
Regular Member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2016
- Messages
- 128
- Likes
- 515
......................
Armed Rebels Attack pedestrians on London Bridge
- Thread starter airtel
- Start date
......................
lcafanboy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2013
- Messages
- 5,811
- Likes
- 37,279
Gurdwaras In UK Offer Shelter To London Terror Attack Victims
In a show of unity, Sikhs posted maps that could locate nearby Gurdwaras which were open to help those who were in need during the early hours of the morning, the metro.co.uk reported.
Edited by Revathi Hariharan | Updated: Jun 04, 2017 19:46 IST
Seven were killed and dozens injured during the attack on London Bridge and nearby market
London: Just twelve days after the deadliest attack in Britain since July 2005 where 22 people were killed in an attack at Manchester Arena, UK was attacked yet again. Mirroring the acts of kindness displayed during the Manchester attack, Gurdwaras in London opened their doors once again, to the victims stranded after the terror attack in the city by offering them shelter and food, according to media reports.
Almost immediately after the attack was reported at London Bridge and the market nearby, Sikhs from the area tweeted that their places of worship were open to those, who needed help during the aftermath of the attack.
In a show of unity, Sikhs posted maps that could locate nearby Gurdwaras which were open to help those who were in need during the early hours of the morning, the metro.co.uk reported.
Londoners also took to Facebook to update its new feature which helped people offer help to those stuck in and around the London Bridge.
In addition to offering shelter, locals began offering food, clothing, and even carried out blood donations for those in need.
Over 25,000 Sikhs are to gather at Trafalgar Square in central London to pay their respects to the victims of 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
"Having discussed arrangements for the Remembrance and Freedom event with the Metropolitan Police last night and this morning we have come to the mutual decision that the event today (Sunday 4 June) will continue," the Sikh Federation UK said.
"This sends a strong message to all terrorists that they will never stop us remembering the tens of thousands of Sikhs who lost their lives in 1984," it said.
"It will also be an opportunity to remember and to stand shoulder to shoulder with the innocents killed and injured in the last few weeks in Manchester and London," the Sikh Federation UK said.
Three knife-wielding attackers wearing fake suicide vests unleashed a terror rampage through central London, plowing a van into pedestrians on the London Bridge and then went into to a nearby market where they randomly stabbed multiple people, killing seven and injuring 48 people.
The three terrorists had been shot dead.https://www.google.co.in/amp/m.ndtv.com/world-news/gurdwaras-in-uk-offer-shelter-to-london-terror-attack-victims-1707776?amp=1&akamai-rum=off
Here's one community muslims which is on a killing spree across the world in the name of religion and another Sikh community which is helping people in the hour of need. Hats off to India's Sanatan Dharm from which all 4 communities Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain were born which are most tolerant and helpful to humanity.
In a show of unity, Sikhs posted maps that could locate nearby Gurdwaras which were open to help those who were in need during the early hours of the morning, the metro.co.uk reported.
Edited by Revathi Hariharan | Updated: Jun 04, 2017 19:46 IST
Seven were killed and dozens injured during the attack on London Bridge and nearby market
London: Just twelve days after the deadliest attack in Britain since July 2005 where 22 people were killed in an attack at Manchester Arena, UK was attacked yet again. Mirroring the acts of kindness displayed during the Manchester attack, Gurdwaras in London opened their doors once again, to the victims stranded after the terror attack in the city by offering them shelter and food, according to media reports.
Almost immediately after the attack was reported at London Bridge and the market nearby, Sikhs from the area tweeted that their places of worship were open to those, who needed help during the aftermath of the attack.
In a show of unity, Sikhs posted maps that could locate nearby Gurdwaras which were open to help those who were in need during the early hours of the morning, the metro.co.uk reported.
Londoners also took to Facebook to update its new feature which helped people offer help to those stuck in and around the London Bridge.
In addition to offering shelter, locals began offering food, clothing, and even carried out blood donations for those in need.
Over 25,000 Sikhs are to gather at Trafalgar Square in central London to pay their respects to the victims of 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
"Having discussed arrangements for the Remembrance and Freedom event with the Metropolitan Police last night and this morning we have come to the mutual decision that the event today (Sunday 4 June) will continue," the Sikh Federation UK said.
"This sends a strong message to all terrorists that they will never stop us remembering the tens of thousands of Sikhs who lost their lives in 1984," it said.
"It will also be an opportunity to remember and to stand shoulder to shoulder with the innocents killed and injured in the last few weeks in Manchester and London," the Sikh Federation UK said.
Three knife-wielding attackers wearing fake suicide vests unleashed a terror rampage through central London, plowing a van into pedestrians on the London Bridge and then went into to a nearby market where they randomly stabbed multiple people, killing seven and injuring 48 people.
The three terrorists had been shot dead.https://www.google.co.in/amp/m.ndtv.com/world-news/gurdwaras-in-uk-offer-shelter-to-london-terror-attack-victims-1707776?amp=1&akamai-rum=off
Here's one community muslims which is on a killing spree across the world in the name of religion and another Sikh community which is helping people in the hour of need. Hats off to India's Sanatan Dharm from which all 4 communities Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain were born which are most tolerant and helpful to humanity.
mendosa
Regular Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2017
- Messages
- 382
- Likes
- 1,402
This is not a right categorization of extremism because it slots a massive group into just two set of binaries : gun wielding Muslim and unarmed Muslim. It does not account for the several layers of indoctrination and behavior patterns.
What you are referring to is only the final refined product of the Muslim machinery which is the AK47 wielding terrorist, (the AK47 may very well be funded by the CIA), but this ignores the fertile breeding ground which mainstream Islam provides for such a crop to be harvested. (Yes, mainstream Islam and not 'extremist Islam' or 'Wahabbized Islam' or 'misguided Islam' as western politicians call it. There is enough murderous history to these people even before the USA was born.)
Please see this 5-part series, it's a highly accurate condensation of facts.
If you take 10,000 poppy plants, you can get 100 kilograms of poppy nubs out of it. If you grind 100 kilograms of poppy nubs, you get 5 kilogram opium pulp. Now, the final stage of this potent opium may have been processed in an American lab, but blaming just the final product gives a clean chit to the farm which grows the poppy in the first place.
Islamic terrorism is just like that.
There are various stages of indoctrination. It starts with basic intolerance of other worldviews which is the core of mainstream Islam.
Stage 1 : Muslims who innately believe that all disbelievers are enemies and will burn in hell after death, which is manifested in rejecting and refusing to participate in other community events. They might not say it our loud but their actions say it all. They avoid confrontation so they remain under the radar, but they continue holding those beliefs. This is mainstream Islam followed by most Muslims. When you further refine it, it becomes..
Stage 2 : Muslims who say "we must support those Mujahids who are sending the disbelievers to the gallows", which is manifested in popular support for terrorists on social media and in society. A classic example of this is how 30k people gathered to bid farewell to Yakub Menon. Here, you can say that Yakub was a terrorist armed by the enemies of India, but what about the 30k? is there any excuse to let them off the hook, just because they do not carry guns? they are as much culpable as Yakub, but if we go only by the limited definition of a terrorist as a person who carries a gun, these people get a free pass.
When you further refine it, it becomes..
Stage 3 : "We must personally take action to send disbelievers to hell". These are the people you are referring to.
The first stage is where most mainstream Muslims are by default of being Muslim. The second stage is where the peaceful seculars Taquiyya-baaz people are, the third is actually a minority who wields guns who are nothing but cannon fodder for the cause of Islam but it is the first two stages which is the cause of the problem.
When people say that Muslims aren't doing enough, they are not referring to the third group of people but the subterfuge of the first two groups of people who do not carry guns but provide all kinds of moral and material support for the final crop of jihadis to be harvested. The examples of 'good Muslims' fighting the bad ones are actually Shia-Sunni sectarian conflicts. The good Muslims are not fighting on behalf of a secular state or to protect other minorities or to restore peace and order. They are fighting under the flag of their own sect for sectarian reasons.
I'm all for giving the benefit of doubt but I'm not for repeating the same mistakes over and over again. The Islamic world has tried their experiment with secularism in various countries and they have summarily been defeated by their innate tendency to go back to a regressive form of Islam every time. It is a good indicator that these people are beyond reform and we cannot be giving them the benefit of doubt anymore. Just check the progress that was made by Turkey under the secular leadership of Ata Turk, and how quickly it was reversed by the Islamists. Same happened with Egypt's tryst with secularism, and Indonesia and Iraq (nationalist Ba'ath party versus Sunni Islamists), Iran (Secular Shah versus his successor Ayatollah Khomeni).
The best euphemism for Islam is the fact that in Turkey, it was the military (1%) which was the force which protected secularism and it was the civilian masses which turned to jihadism (99%). It is the Muslim masses who have always been a bigger problem compared to the gun totting Muslims.
Muslims and Jihadi terror are not two separate things. They are two sides of the same community. As long as they are in a minority and not confident of winning a decisive war against the majority, they play along and pretend to be against 'jihadi terror' while actively using the jihadi terror as a carrot-and-stick mechanism to get the majority to make concessions ("if you don't listen to my demands then our misguided youth might join those evil jihadis and swell their ranks, so please obey our demands" that is how the mainstream political parties like PDP and NC blackmail you by playing the 'jihadi' card). The moment they become majority, they throw out the kaffir minority.
Education does not cure this disease, it only becomes an enabler for further Taquiyya. Saif Ali Khan is an educated Muslim and when it came to naming his son, he chose a name which deliberately dissociates the child from an Indian identity and associates him with a Muslim invader. Education is just a tool for earning bread and butter. We don't teach moral science in schools so there is no reason to believe that formal education will override the religious indoctrination the kid receives at home.
Last edited:
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,594
@mendosa,
King Richard the Lionheart, a Christian Crusader, took many Muslim prisoners, and one day, chopped their heads off.
Just saying.
Cherry picking historical facts, while true, does little to help. Look at the big picture. What you are doing is called confirmation bias. You are only picking examples that bolster your hypothesis, and ignoring other examples that weaken your hypothesis.
No one is denying the violent aspect of Islam, but it is there in every religion.
Please read my previous point. Who or what dragged so many progressive and liberal Muslim countries back to the stone ages? I could cite Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, and now Syria. Who is doing this, and why? Oh, and by the way, why don't we have these so called "rebels" in Saudi Arabia? Why in the progressive Muslim countries only?
That you could write this paragraphs proves that you have not read my previous posts. Give it a shot.
Alternatively, you have read my post but don't want to acknowledge these Muslims who are fighting Islamic terrorism, because, it does not help further your hypothesis.
King Richard the Lionheart, a Christian Crusader, took many Muslim prisoners, and one day, chopped their heads off.
Just saying.
Cherry picking historical facts, while true, does little to help. Look at the big picture. What you are doing is called confirmation bias. You are only picking examples that bolster your hypothesis, and ignoring other examples that weaken your hypothesis.
No one is denying the violent aspect of Islam, but it is there in every religion.
Please read my previous point. Who or what dragged so many progressive and liberal Muslim countries back to the stone ages? I could cite Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, and now Syria. Who is doing this, and why? Oh, and by the way, why don't we have these so called "rebels" in Saudi Arabia? Why in the progressive Muslim countries only?
Your three stages exclude those Muslims who are actually fighting Islamic terrorists, unlike you and me who are pontificating from the comfort of our homes.
That you could write this paragraphs proves that you have not read my previous posts. Give it a shot.
Alternatively, you have read my post but don't want to acknowledge these Muslims who are fighting Islamic terrorism, because, it does not help further your hypothesis.
mendosa
Regular Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2017
- Messages
- 382
- Likes
- 1,402
Not agreeing is not the same as not acknowledging. 'Acknowledging' assumes that it ought to be true by convention. It's only an opinion, not a hard fact. I read your post and disagree with it.
RE : It is easy to spread chaos with brainwashed zombies.
RE : Who or what dragged so many progressive and liberal Muslim countries back to the stone ages?
Of all the Muslim countries who were 'dragged' into chaos, there is none which didn't get dragged voluntarily. They themselves created fertile ground for the CIA to recruit them. In the end, can you say that the CIA forced reluctant Mujahids to take their offer of free AK47. I've seen those before-after images of Afghan girls going to college in the pre-Soviet era, but those are caricatures created to create shock value. Quantitatively the number of Afghan girls attending formal schooling in 1970 was less than 10% of the total population. Incidentally, the total literacy rate in Afghanistan in 1970 itself was 18% (reverse google this phrase, there are multiple citations for it).
Taquiyya-baz narratives cite American meddling as the prime and the only reason for the downfall of erstwhile liberal Muslim states by parading these before-after photos but they weren't any more liberal back then either.
RE : why don't we have these so called "rebels" in Saudi Arabia?
Saudi Arabia has a more homogeneous demography than any other state. It is nearly 90% Sunni.
The other 'liberal states' had a wider fault line so they fell first. The US may have been an enabler but the biggest argument that goes against the Muslims is that, for example, in case of Afghanistan, if they didn't want to willingly become Mujahids, they could have simply cut a deal with the secular Soviet Union, could they not? why did they take weapons from CIA if they were so liberal and peaceful? Soviet Union could have given them protection from the CIA AND they would have also helped the secular Muslims finish off the Islamists and then the Afghans could have claimed credit for being liberal. The fact that they took up the jihad route at the drop of the hat, and this applies to all Muslim nations which collapsed, shows that the external enabler was only auxiliary, at best.
In the cold war, if the Afghans allowed the Soviets to place missile defense system in Afghanistan and the US was stopped in its tracks, then the subsequent US interventions of Iraq, etc wouldn't have happened. Even the collapse of Soviet Union itself is a good example of Muslim treachery. Most of the Soviet desertions happened because the appeal to religion proved stronger than their national or political identity. The first people to desert the Soviet Union were the secular Muslim principalities of Soviet Union.
RE : I could cite Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, and now Syria. Who is doing this, and why?
Just let that sink in. Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan These people were touted to be the LEAST radicalized and most liberal sections among all other Muslim groups and even they were susceptible to a call for religiously influenced betrayal of their motherland. Compared to them, Afghanistan and Egypt were relatively more notorious. Even Egypt had the Islamic Brotherhood which predates the CIA's plan to topple Islamic countries by several decades.
I can accept that Syria and Libya were legitimate victims of Western greed, the former for oil and influence and the latter because Gaddafi was going to start the gold coin standard. But the others? Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, they are victims of terror in the same way Pakistan keeps claiming to be victim of terrorism. They are a victim of their own terrorism.
What are your views on Indonesia? Indonesia was a supposedly liberal nation which has held on to its Hindu roots, Sanskrit names etc, but when war broke out in 1965, Indonesia sent a cable to Pakistan volunteering to attack and capture Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
What about Jordan? their secular prince actually supplied planes to Pakistan during 1965 and 1971 war against India. UAE sent a squadron of planes.
Iran supplied free oil to Pakistan to fight 1965 war. This was when the secular Shah was ruling Iran much before the Islamist revolution.
What does this indicate? even when they appear to be peaceful, secular and docile, they still see Indians as enemies.
What about Turkey? who meddled in Turkey? The military tried and tried hard to keep Turkey secular as per Ata Turk's wishes, but eventually their innate jihadi tendencies have won. There is no CIA ploy here.
The CIA is no saint but give credit to the jihadis for their jihad, they might feel offended. There are hardly any innocent Muslim sects, except maybe the Yazidis, Baloch or Kurds, incidentally, none of them are nation states (yet). The only way to stop jihad is to first accept the fact that there is a problem and that mainstream Muslims are the cause of it, and not look at them as victims. Not doing so actually fuels the Wahabbi victimhood narrative of clash of civilizations. If global jihad has to be stopped, then the dissidents among them must be given a platform (read : a nation state of their own). Whatever be the case with Syria, now that it is destroyed, it is better to use it as an opportunity to carve out Kurdistan instead of rebuilding Syria to its former size. Then use Kurdistan as a launching pad to keep Turkey on the boil. This will keep them out of India-Pakistan affairs. Use this opportunity to snatch Balochistan.
Whatever land the Muslims have acquired is by military conquests. It needs to be reversed for the ideology to be contained. It cannot be contained using counter-propaganda narratives alone. To that end, the US meddling in these nations is a welcome development. One never knows when a war may break out between India and Pakistan, and when that happens, it is necessary that all Muslim nations be busy licking their wounds, to prevent them from ganging up on us like they did in 1965 and 1971.
India should play both sides against each other. One one end we must accuse the US of violating international norms, and on the other end we must not take any concrete steps to prevent the US from continuing to do so.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2014
- Messages
- 31,927
- Likes
- 148,108
Yup, I agree...
There will one every month in Britain from now on.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2014
- Messages
- 31,927
- Likes
- 148,108
i am more interested to see how britards handle the situation at hand...
start forming kill teams like they did in IRA days, kill teams are similar to our encounter specialists..
or
continue with this multi-kulti bullshit...
one thing is certain, jihadis are yet to start the victimhood narrative yet. it will be fun to watch how britards handle it once it starts. victimhood narrative is fundamental to jihadi narrative...
start forming kill teams like they did in IRA days, kill teams are similar to our encounter specialists..
or
continue with this multi-kulti bullshit...
one thing is certain, jihadis are yet to start the victimhood narrative yet. it will be fun to watch how britards handle it once it starts. victimhood narrative is fundamental to jihadi narrative...
Kay
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2014
- Messages
- 1,029
- Likes
- 1,354
They will talk about solidarity, defiance and strength and light candles
Kay
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2014
- Messages
- 1,029
- Likes
- 1,354
For the west, now it's political correctness before death.
Liberals are generally too arrogant to admit being wrong. With the breakdown of unions, left leaning liberals are only left with identity politics. Multinational corporations have brainwashed them with political correctness for their own benefit (cheap replacable labour).
Labour has lost the jobs platform to Tories and the right is championing Brexit.
In case of any terror attack, the comments section in Guardian and BBC is blocked.
This will not change even with Brexit. Brexit itself is doubtful - globalists won't allow it.
Voldemort
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2013
- Messages
- 1,102
- Likes
- 727
The amount of liberal crap on BBC just makes me sick. They seem more concerned about deflecting criticism on Muslims more than anything else.
They are getting some non terrorist Muslims to repeat the same old stupid lines. 'This is not Islam. They are not Muslims. Terrorism has no religion.' :blah: Makes me want to kill them.
BTW latest attackers were Pakistanis.
They are getting some non terrorist Muslims to repeat the same old stupid lines. 'This is not Islam. They are not Muslims. Terrorism has no religion.' :blah: Makes me want to kill them.
BTW latest attackers were Pakistanis.
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2016
- Messages
- 4,836
- Likes
- 10,862
Every non Dharmic religion sir, every Non Dharmic religion.
Be right back, I need to get my fiddle to play while Europe burns.
Moroboshi
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2017
- Messages
- 1,133
- Likes
- 5,709
Even worse: "gunmen". Makes my blood boil to this day.
pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,594
@mendosa,
My first comment on this topic was about the demand that Muslims should take stern action against Jihadis. I pointed that out that it is already happening.
Several posts thereafter, I am yet to see whether you agree with that or not. Just clarify, do you agree or do you disagree?
The rest of your post is basically going off on a tangent far beyond the scope of the thread, but I will point out some of the made up fantasies and set the record straight.
________________________________________
We all understand, there has to be some weakness in one for another to exploit. Even Assad said in the interview with WION the other day that there were some defects within Syria.
Please go through these following links and try to figure out what where the taquiyya-baazi is coming from.
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
Now, since you will only cherry pick those examples that further your hypothesis, I will post some counter examples:
Iraq and India: A forgotten love story - Firstpost
Saddam Hussein played down Babri Mosque incident
How Iran saved India – in 1994
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
The only way to stop jihad is by doing what the Syrians and Russians are doing, what India has been doing in J&K for decades, and what the Soviets did in Afghanistan. And to do that, we need to do exactly the opposite of what you are saying. We need to come out of the mindset that mainstream Muslims are the cause of extremism. I am totally opposed to alienating the entire Muslim world, which is very diverse, because without the support of mainstream Muslims, we cannot defeat the evil forces like ISIS, al-Qaeda and all the other evil forces.
________________________________________
As a matter of fact, what are the sources of anything you have written so far?
The concept of Clash of Civilizations came from Hans Köchler, and was resurrected by Samuel Huntington.
________________________________________
________________________________________
I will ask one final time.
Do you accept that your three stages describing Muslims was incorrect and that you take responsibility for it?
A simple YES or NO would do. I don't have time to read a long and windy treatise involving a lot of peripheral topics. Answer to the point.
My first comment on this topic was about the demand that Muslims should take stern action against Jihadis. I pointed that out that it is already happening.
Several posts thereafter, I am yet to see whether you agree with that or not. Just clarify, do you agree or do you disagree?
The rest of your post is basically going off on a tangent far beyond the scope of the thread, but I will point out some of the made up fantasies and set the record straight.
The debate is not about determining between agreeing and acknowledging. My point was simple. You mentioned three stages of Muslims, and you excluded those Muslims who are actually fighting Islamic terrorists. You had the opportunity to correct yourself and accept your mistake in omission. That you refuse to do so proves that it was not a mistake in omission, but a deliberate omission.
________________________________________
Already answered.
________________________________________
Who said American meddling is the "prime" and "only" reason? Who used the words "prime" and "only?" Please answer this question.
We all understand, there has to be some weakness in one for another to exploit. Even Assad said in the interview with WION the other day that there were some defects within Syria.
Please go through these following links and try to figure out what where the taquiyya-baazi is coming from.
- 1950s and 1960s Egypt: When Arab Modernity Allowed Bikinis
- Afghanistan in the 1950s and 60s
- From locals doing the 'Tehran twist' to students sporting mullets and miniskirts: Fascinating photos reveal life in Iran before the revolution
- 1960s Libya: A Glimpse of Life Before Gaddafi
- Coming to Syria, check the Syria thread. Not going to repeat something that has been repeated again and again. There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See.
Agree.
________________________________________
Ok, but I am not sure how this relates to what I am trying to say.
________________________________________
The following Soviet Republics were first to leave the USSR:
- Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic
- Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic
- Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic
- Azeri Soviet Socialist Republic
- Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic
- Kyrgyz Soviet Socialist Republic
- Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic
- Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic
Read whatever I have posted above and let that sink in.
________________________________________
They were touted? No, they were liberal.
________________________________________
So were many other countries. I have written a lot about Saudi financing of the spread of Wahhabi ideology. Let's not waste time on things that we agree on.
________________________________________
Of course, it was solidarity motivated by religion.
Now, since you will only cherry pick those examples that further your hypothesis, I will post some counter examples:
Iraq and India: A forgotten love story - Firstpost
Saddam Hussein played down Babri Mosque incident
How Iran saved India – in 1994
________________________________________
Yes, they do. Religion is certainly a motivator. My very first comment was about jihadis so no one is denying the motivation provided via religion.
________________________________________
You are asking questions here. What is the answer? What are the facts? Provide links and make sure they are correct, not conjured up like some of the instances I have pointed out in red above. Yes, the Muslims Brotherhood faction won today, just like the Secularists have been winning since Ataturk. History is not ending today.
________________________________________
No human being born on this earth is innocent. The question is, who is causing the most of the harm.
________________________________________
No, I cannot accept something that is not proven to be true. I cannot only look at the examples you want me to look at. I will look at the big picture. It is not a binary. It it far more complicated.
The only way to stop jihad is by doing what the Syrians and Russians are doing, what India has been doing in J&K for decades, and what the Soviets did in Afghanistan. And to do that, we need to do exactly the opposite of what you are saying. We need to come out of the mindset that mainstream Muslims are the cause of extremism. I am totally opposed to alienating the entire Muslim world, which is very diverse, because without the support of mainstream Muslims, we cannot defeat the evil forces like ISIS, al-Qaeda and all the other evil forces.
________________________________________
I am not aware that "The Clash of Civilizations" is a Wahhabi narrative. Where do you get these from? What is your source?
As a matter of fact, what are the sources of anything you have written so far?
The concept of Clash of Civilizations came from Hans Köchler, and was resurrected by Samuel Huntington.
________________________________________
So did Alexander. He was not a Muslim. So did Chandragupta Maurya. He was not a Muslims. So did the Americans with the Native American territories. Territories are almost always obtained by military conquest (I did not use the word "only," lest you claim so at a later time.). So, your attempt to insinuate that it is a purely Muslims' problems is disingenuous at best.
________________________________________
So, we have come to the end of this long collection of hypotheses, with a lot of unsupported claims and deliberate omissions of facts.
I will ask one final time.
Do you accept that your three stages describing Muslims was incorrect and that you take responsibility for it?
A simple YES or NO would do. I don't have time to read a long and windy treatise involving a lot of peripheral topics. Answer to the point.
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2016
- Messages
- 4,836
- Likes
- 10,862
Sir ji, all the quoted text shows is that Muslims are human beings affected by greed as well. You mean to be surprised that an Islamic country made a deal with the Kuffar for a few $$ and a vote in the IAEA?
"Now, the wheel has come full circle. Iranian officials say their gesture was not reciprocated, and accuse India of “backstabbing” by voting against Iran at the IAEA"
