the hate mongers among us... yes, us...

[Kulapavana 0]

Source: The Guardian

Published: July 13, 2005 Author: Vikram Dodd

 

 

 

A Muslim man has been beaten to death outside a corner shop by a gang of youths who shouted anti-Islamic abuse at him, the Guardian has learned.

 

Kamal Raza Butt, 48, from Pakistan, was visiting Britain to see friends and family. On Sunday afternoon he went to a shop in Nottingham to buy cigarettes and was first called "Taliban" by the youths and then set upon.

 

Nottinghamshire police described the incident as racially aggravated, not as Islamophobic, angering Muslim groups and surprising some senior officers.

 

They say it was not connected to a backlash against Muslims following the London bombings, which has seen mosques firebombed and Muslims attacked in the street.

 

On Monday the case was discussed at the Muslim Safety Forum, where senior police officers and Muslim community representatives meet.

 

Senior sources who were at the meeting last night said it was the view of all present that the killing was a hate crime triggered by his faith.

 

Muslim leaders last night said the killing and the fact that it was Islamophobic would heighten anxiety in their communities, which was already high before the London bombings and which has deepened with every report of attacks.

 

Nine youths, some of them juveniles, have been arrested by police, who are appealing for witnesses.

 

According to several sources, the man had gone to a shop around 4.30pm on Sunday to buy cigarettes, and the youths had asked him to hand them over.

 

When he refused they shouted that he was Taliban, a reference to the hardline Muslim government that ran Afghanistan and harboured al-Qaida terrorists.

 

The man was punched and fell to the ground and later died in hospital. Police have yet to officially announce the results of a postmortem examination.

 

Azad Ali, who chairs the Muslim Safety Forum, said: "You can't class this as racist, there was no racist abuse shouted at him, it was Islamophobic.

 

"It is good the police have made arrests. We are disappointed that they have misclassified it, especially after all the advice to be more alert to Islamophobic hate crime."

 

Planning for the aftermath of a terrorist attack on Britain has included extensive work on limiting any backlash and assuring Muslims, already distrustful of the police, that they could expect protection from any reprisals.

 

Guidelines from the Association of Chief Police Officers say forces should identify religious hate crimes and be open about it, because that may help their investigations and reassure the communities affected.

 

Mr Ali added that the murder would stoke fears among Britain's 1.6 million Muslims: "This has sent shivers down the community. People are very worried, if this is the start of an escalation."

 

A police source said there was no clear evidence linking the murder to the backlash against Muslims after the bombings.

 

Superintendent Dave Colbeck, of Nottinghamshire police, said: "It would be inappropriate to comment on the possible motive.

 

"It is a localised incident and we are not looking at it as anything other than an isolated incident."

 

[Guest guest]

I Was a Teenage Terrorist

 

In 1996, Abdurahman Khadr, then 13-year-old terrorist-in-training, stood face to face with his idol: Osama bin Laden. Before long, Khadr would join the ranks of al-Qaeda’s jihad in Afghanistan, fulfilling the calling of his hard-line Islamist family by waging war against the hated Americans. Now, after a stint at Guantanamo Bay prison, Abdurahman will become an American hero—at least if Hollywood has its way.

 

The June 5 edition of Variety reports that a movie deal is in the works about the 21-year old lapsed-terrorist’s life. Paramount Pictures has even enlisted the Oscar-nominated screenwriter Keir Pearson to turn Abdurahman’s story into a script. The movie will reportedly find a feel-good lesson in Abdurahman’s journey from bin-Laden’s training camp in Afghanistan, through Guantanamo and Bosnia to Toronto, Canada, where Khadr, having allegedly renounced his terrorist ways, now resides with other members of his family.

 

For his participation in the project, Khadr will be generously rewarded: The National Post, quoted by Daniel Pipes, reports that Abdurahman—the “good son” of the Khadr family—could earn as much as $500,000 when the movie debuts sometime around 2006. Daily Variety, also quoted by Pipes, suggests that the deal may be worth in the "mid- to high-six figures.” The producers hope Johnny Depp will star in the lead. Vincent Newman, president of Vincent Newman Entertainment, who bought the rights, is quoted hailing Khadr’s “a classic black sheep story—a story about the rebel of the family.” Khadr meanwhile has reserved the rights to develop the screenplay. Variety notes that “it appears it will follow the storyline that makes him look best....”

 

Khadr certainly has his work cut out for him. The tale of a young rebel who never reconciled himself to his family’s extremist ways may set the hearts of Hollywood producers aflutter. But it would be difficult to tell a story more incompatible with the facts of Khadr’s life.

 

The Khadr family name first became widely known in Canada in 1996, when Abdurahman’s father, Ahmed Said Khadr, a Canadian citizen, was arrested in Pakistan for his role in bombing the Egyptian embassy. Canada’s then-Prime Minister Jean Chrétien personally pressured Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto during face-to-face meetings in Islamabad, and won Ahmed’s release. Egyptian-born Ahmed Said Khadr’s career in terrorism can be dated to the 1980s, when he befriended Osama bin Laden during the jihad against Soviet forces.

 

When the Taliban captured Kabul in 1996, Ahmed moved his family from Canada to Afghanistan, where they could be closer to bin-Laden. Abdurahman and Abdulla, the eldest of Khadr’s sons, duly attended an al-Qaeda training camp at Khalden, Afghanistan, receiving a solid grounding in terrorist ideology and weapons training. So intimate were the ties between the Khadr family and bin Laden that in January of 2001—eight months before the 9-11 attacks--the Khadr’s attended the wedding of bin Laden’s son, Mohammed. In 1999, bin Laden had attended the wedding of Abdurahman’s sister Zaynab, an Islamic fundamentalist whose faith in bin Laden’s murderous vision remains unshaken. Little wonder that Abdurahman today describes his family as an “al-Qaeda family.”

 

The family makes no attempt to hide its sympathy for the terrorist chieftain. In a February 2004, interview, Zaynab and her mother Maha spoke openly about their bin-Laden connections. Bin-Laden, they insisted, loves children and is quite the family man. Zaynab stressed that “it was very important for him to sit with his kids every day at least for two hours in the morning after their morning prayer. They sit and read a book at least. It didn't have to be something religious. He loved poetry very much….” Indeed, they claim bin-Laden, far from a murderer, was the consummate family man: “He loved playing volleyball and loved horse riding. And he'd do it, I mean amongst people he was not Osama bin-Laden. He was just Osama, just a sheikh. And kids played around him. Kids would go shake his hand. He played volleyball with them or just horse race with them. Just, he was just a normal person. And they'd go shooting he'd go with them. If he missed his target they'd laugh at him and stuff like that.”

 

Abdurahman’s brother, Abdullah, also harbors fond memories of bin-Laden: “He never jokes, very quiet person, very polite,” he told CBC News in March, adding that bin Laden “Can be a saint, something like a saint. I see him as a very peaceful man.”

 

Abdurahman’s champions in the movie business have been less-than-eager to draw attention to such remarks, clashing as they do with the image of a reconstructed terrorist-gone-good that will underlie the future film. Instead, attention has been fixed on a CBC documentary on the Khadr family that premiered on CBC and PBS Frontline this spring. It features Abdurahman, in full confessional mode, saying: “I admit it that we are an al-Qaeda family. We had connections to al-Qaeda.” Abdurahman also stresses that he disobeyed his father’s directives to become a suicide bomber. “(I am) a person that was raised to become an Al Qaeda, was raised to become a suicide bomber, was raised to become a bad person, and I decided on my own that I do not want to be that,” he has said.

 

Nor is that the only inconsistency in Abdurahman ostensibly inspiring biography. Following his 2002 capture in Afghanistan, Abdurahman was turned over to U.S. forces. An interrogation yielded that the young jihadist boasted close connections to the top echelons of al-Qaeda leadership. An offer from the CIA followed: a $5,000 initial bonus for his cooperation and an additional monthly stipend of $3,000 to show American investigators the locations of some al-Qaeda members’ former Kabul safe houses. Abdurahman agreed. The story of a chastened militant working with the U.S. in atonement for his past sins was born.

 

But the story does not withstand serious scrutiny. On July 21, 2003, after a few months of “cooperation” while in US custody, Abdurahman’s CIA handlers sent him to Bosnia. His mission: to seek out al-Qaeda operatives and use their “pipeline” to make his way to Iraq. And that’s when the myth of his “cooperation” began to unravel. In Bosnia the CIA showered him with money but, Abdurahman, finally free of US confinement, decided to get out. “I can't do this anymore,” he explains in the CBC documentary, “So I went [and] I called my grandmother.... When I (later) met [the CIA] I told them I talked to my grandmother last night and she told me that she was going to talk and she was going to say everything. So they said let's see what happens.” Abdurahman’s grandmother, herself sympathetic to al-Qaeda, quickly obtained the assistance of Canadian attorney Rocco Galati and found ready contacts at the Washington Post which obligingly produced a November 26, 2003 article.

 

Recounting his conversation with his CIA handler, Abdurahman said: “So in the morning the news started coming out and we met again the next night. So he told me yeah, it's out in the Washington Post and in this and that. You need to move out of the house, the apartment you're living in. We're going to move you out today....”

 

On November 30, 2003, Abdurahman arrived in Toronto after walking away from the CIA and entering the Canadian embassy in Bosnia. The CIA, out-maneuvered by the Khadr family and their media contacts, had to cut its losses. Abdurahman’s escape was the only substantial product of his cooperation. Of the CIA money he said, “…don't think you're doing me a big favor by giving me that money. I'm doing you a big favor by working for you….”

 

Since then, Abdurahman has focused his energies on undermining U.S. efforts in the war on terror. Beyond complaining about the “unjust” treatment of his “al-Qaeda family”, he has taken to railing against the “harsh” conditions at Guantanamo Bay: “They never told me it would be as harsh as it became....They never told me you're going to be on concrete for 24 hours and if something went wrong, you're going to be on concrete again for 48 hours. They never told me any of that.” Abdurahman also claims that Guantanamo detainees are mostly harmless: “80 percent of people that went to Afghanistan...They've had enough. If you put them back in their countries they won't do anything.” Abdurahman’s appeal on behalf of the prisoners is hardly disinterested. His 18-year-old brother Omar was captured in Afghanistan, July 27, 2002 after allegedly throwing a hand grenade which killed Sergeant 1st Class Christopher J. Speer, a U.S. medic. Omar is now Canada’s only known detainee at Guantanamo.

 

Does Abdurahman’s family believe he truly abandoned his terrorist habits? Abdurahman’s sister Zaynab, for instance, insists that he never had any intention of cooperating with the CIA: “As long as he didn't really help them. If he did, I'd be really ashamed of him. If he just fooled them, I don't mind it. If he really did something, I'd be ashamed of him.” Abdurahman’s mother Maha agrees: “He used his intelligence and it's okay,” she said. Abdurahman, for his part, has cast doubt on his made-for-T.V. conversion. “I'm my father's son,” he explained in the CBC interview with Terrance McKenna. His father gave up the terrorist’s life only in October, 2003, when a gun battle with the Pakistani military ended it permanently.

 

Of Sgt. Speer, Zaynab says, “…(Omar) killed an American soldier. Big deal.”

 

In a recent interview, Abdurahman addressed his father’s death. “To my father and to my mother, this is the ultimate in being an Islamic family because to them, dying all of us in the war against America, you know, is just being the top family because we all died in a way, you know, in fighting against American you know. Can you ask for more than that?”

 

Well, yes: How about a $500,000 contract to make a Hollywood movie celebrating the new ‘man of the house’ in Canada’s infamous Khadr “al-Qaeda family.”

[Kulapavana 0]

there is plenty of hate on both sides

[krsna 3]

From bbc.co.uk/news:

 

 

The fact that the bombers are believed to have been born in the UK, demonstrates that terrorism is not a result of a lack of freedom, opportunity, living in poverty, and all the other "root causes" that are touted each time there is an attack. The root cause of terrorism, quite simply, is hate. The root cause of the hate in regards to terrorism is an ideological belief in a system of moral extremes that preaches and rewards violence perpetuated by hate. Hate thrives in both affluent and impoverished peoples and nations. The only thing moral extremism needs to flourish is an open and accepting ear, and the romanticization of a cause as just and noble.

 

Severus, Montreal, Canada

[Guest guest]

and blowing up innocents. On the other side is a few miscreant hooligans with nothing better to do, and doing it without any ideology. Who is worse?

[krsna 3]

Unbelievers Cannot Touch the Quran: CAIR members will go to Hell

 

 

By Ali Sina

 

2005/07/11

 

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has launched a new campaign to distribute the Quran for free to anyone who asks for it. In their web site they wrote:

 

“In today’s climate of heightened religious sensitivities and apparent cultural clashes, now is the time for people of all faiths to better acquaint themselves with Islam’s sacred text, the Holy Quran.

 

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is proud to announce a new campaign intended to promote understanding of the Quran by distributing complimentary copies to any interested member of the American public. This campaign, titled Explore the Qur’an, serves as a response to those who would defame and desecrate the holy book of Muslims without full knowledge of its teachings.

 

False and uninformed accusations have been leveled against the Qur’an for some time. But now, this initiative places the sacred text directly in the hands of the American people and encourages all people of conscience to discover the truth about Islam. Explore the Qur’an allows the holy book to speak for itself and educate people of other faith traditions about the universal teachings of Islam.”

 

I strongly endorse their campaign and urge everyone to order as many copies as they can. I am also convinced that Quran speaks for itself. Despite the translators’ effort to dissimulate the harsh verses of the Quran, its violence and its absurdity is quite obvious.

 

Also on, June 28, 2005

 

– "A British council has presented resource packs covering the basic teachings of Islam to primary schools across the London borough of Harrow in an effort to provide a better understanding of the Muslim faith, according to a local daily. Resources for secondary schools are also being developed and will be available to schools across the borough, according to the paper.”

 

I have a problem with this program. This is called indoctrination. Children do not have the capacity to evaluate right from wrong and they can be easily manipulated.

 

However there is another fundamental problem that has been overlooked both by the CAIR and by the British “educators”. The problem is that non-Muslims are not allowed to touch the Quran.

 

The verse 9:28 says: “Verily, the Mushrikûn (unbeleivers) are Najasun (impure)”.

 

And the verse 56:77-79 says: “That this is indeed a qur'an Most Honorable, In Book well-guarded, Which none shall touch but those who are clean”

 

It is very clear that unbelievers are unclean and as such they are not allowed to touch the Quran.

 

The site al-islam.org writes:

 

“3. It is Haraam (forbidden) to make Najaasaat (impure things like blood and urine) touch the Quran.”

 

There are 11 things that are considered najaasaat in Islam. They are:

 

“1) urine 2) feces 3) sperm 4) corpse 5) blood 6) dog 7) pig 8) unbelievers 9) liquor 10) wine 11) the sweat of those who eat impure things.” www.balagh.com/english/4.htm

 

So clearly those who distribute the Quran among the unbelievers are committing a sin (doing haram) and will be punished for their transgression. What CAIR has to say about this? It seams in their zest to promote Islam, CAIR has violated the Quran. Islam must expand by sword as the Quran 2:216 clearly states, not by letting the unbelievers who are najis touch the Quran.

[krsna 3]

 

 

A very interesting debate took place in an Islamic forum. Noora, a young woman who converted to Islam wonders whether her parents who are unbelievers are najis:

 

This is what she wrote:

 

Noora: “I read, that one of the najis things is an infidel, ya3ni who doesnt beleive in God...

 

My problem is that i am conerted, alhamdulillah (hey, NOT this is my problem, lol) and i lvie in a non-muslim family. My father is Christian (amm..at least he says), but my mother doesnt beleive in any god...May Allah Taala guide them.

 

Is my mother najisa for me...?Or...?

 

Plz, help, how is it now?”

 

Hajar: “I think if someone is najis, it doesn't matter if the person is a relative or not.

 

I am in the taqlid of Imam Khomeini(ra). His ruling was that even ahlul kitab are najis. So I've always just considered my family as najis, even though they are Christian.”

 

Noora: “Jazak Allah Taala kull khayran for the reply, sister.

 

My question is now, how should i be with her?..Namely..she cant touch my praying clothes and stuffs, can she...?

 

Allahu musta1an..May He guide her! ameen.”

 

sag_IMAM-REZA: “Imam KhameneI sais if something is wet and najis have touchd(befor and after it became wet) it you have to wash that part, but only something thats wet.”

 

Socrates: “I think Sayyid Fadhlallah's ruling in this regard appeals most to 'Aql. He says they are not physically najis, but spiritually najis because of their way of thinking”.

 

Al_Radhiy, also stresses on “rationality” although he confirms that the unbelievers are najis spiritually:

 

Al_Radhiy:, “You should act with your parents as in the Quran, i.e. like your parents !. The only Quranic restriction is when they order to do something against Islam.

Concerning the Najassa as socrates said, the rationalistic point of view is that this najassa is spiritual and not material.”

 

Hajar: is not comfortable about this “rationality” business and says Muslims should only imitate whatever their imam says:

 

Hajar: “Brothers, I think we should apply the ruling of whichever marja we follow. Trying to figure out what is a rational view is not our place. The only marja that I know of who says the kafir are not najis is Sayid Fadlullah. His ruling is below:

 

"unbelievers are also considered najis. However, it is more likely that they are tahir, be they of the people of the Book or unbelievers. That said, it is advisable, as a matter of ihtiyat mustahab, [cautiousness] to avoid them, especially unbelievers. People of the Book are those who belong to religions, such as Judaism and Christianity, that have been deemed abrogated by the advent of Islam.

 

But the majority say they are najis, even physically. They are listed as one of the inherently najis substances. The ruling from Sayid Seestani is similar,if not exactly the same,as most other marja:

 

108. The entire body of a Kafir, including his hair and nails, and all liquid substances of his body, are najis.”

 

Socrates: “The non-Kitabis (in effect, polytheists and atheists) are considered physically impure as well by most marjas. The kitabis are not counted as najis by most marjas.”

 

Inbead: “I know someone who is very close to me and is in a similar situation, parents, brothers, sisters are kafir. I asked a Maulana once about this and his reply was when they (kafirs) are wet, they are najis.

 

Then I asked him about the scientific explanation of how this comes to be. His reply was using perspiration as an example. He said the thoughts of people (any people kafir or not comes from the brain) comes from the brain, the pituitary gland is located in the brain which is responsible for starting various secretions in the body. Now if the belief of the person (kafir) is such that he does not believe in oneness of Allah, his thoughts are najis and pituitary gland and its secretions (including sweat, when he/ she is wet, etc.) are all najis. This explanation kind of made sense to me. W Allah bil Alim....”

 

[krsna 3]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4679563.stm

[Kulapavana 0]

"one side is strapping bombs to themselves"

 

and the other side engages in a wholesale slaughter (like Fallujah)

 

so, who killed more innocent women and children?

 

BOTH SIDES ENGAGE IN TOTALLY DESPICABLE BEHAVIOUR!!!

 

and both sides MUST be condemned!

 

 

and if you are looking for philosophical or religious roots of this hate: look at the original semitic roots of all these religions - Old Testament.

[Guest guest]

has more sense than you do. You are a moral relavatist of the lowest kind. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

 

CROW EATEN HERE: This is a horror. In a column written June 28, I asserted that more Iraqis (civilians) had now been killed in this war than had been killed by Saddam Hussein over his 24-year rule. WRONG. Really, really wrong.

 

The only problem is figuring out by how large a factor I was wrong. I had been keeping an eye on civilian deaths in Iraq for a couple of months, waiting for the most conservative estimates to creep over 20,000, which I had fixed in my mind as the number of Iraqi civilians Saddam had killed.

 

The high-end estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths in this war is 100,000, according to a Johns Hopkins University study published in the British medical journal The Lancet last October, but I was sticking to the low-end, most conservative estimates because I didn't want to be accused of exaggeration.

 

Ha! I could hardly have been more wrong, no matter how you count Saddam's killing of civilians. According to Human Rights Watch, Hussein killed several hundred thousand of his fellow citizens. The massacre of the Kurdish Barzani tribe in 1983 killed at least 8,000; the infamous gas attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja killed 5,000 in 1988; and seized documents from Iraqi security organizations show 182,000 were murdered during the Anfal ethnic cleansing campaign against Kurds, also in 1988.

 

In 1991, following the first Gulf War, both the Kurds and the Shiites rebelled. The allied forces did not intervene, and Saddam brutally suppressed both uprisings and drained the southern marshes that had been home to a local population for more than 5,000 years.

 

Saddam's regime left 271 mass graves, with more still being discovered. That figure alone was the source for my original mistaken estimate of 20,000. Saddam's widespread use of systematic torture, including rape, has been verified by the U.N. Committee on Human Rights and other human rights groups over the years.

 

There are wildly varying estimates of the number of civilians, especially babies and young children, who died as a result of the sanctions that followed the Gulf War. While it is true that the ill-advised sanctions were put in place by the United Nations, I do not see that that lessens Hussein's moral culpability, whatever blame attaches to the sanctions themselves -- particularly since Saddam promptly corrupted the Oil for Food Program put in place to mitigate the effects of the sanctions, and used the proceeds to build more palaces, etc.

 

There have been estimates as high as 1 million civilians killed by Saddam, though most agree on the 300,000 to 400,000 range, making my comparison to 20,000 civilian dead in this war pathetically wrong.

 

I was certainly under no illusions regarding Saddam Hussein, whom I have opposed through human rights work for decades. My sincere apologies. It is unforgivable of me not have checked. I am so sorry.

 

Molly Ivins writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings.

 

 

 

[gHari 0]

The boy who grew up to bomb UK:

<blockquote>A series of setbacks in Hussain's life may be behind a sudden change from a British Asian who dressed in Western clothes to a religious teenager who wore Islamic garb and only stopped to say salaam to fellow Muslims.

 

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article299086.ece

</blockquote>

[Kulapavana 0]

anybody who believes US invaded Iraq to protect Iraqi people from Saddam is completely brain dead.

 

did US do anything to stop the slaughter of over 1 million people in Rwanda? how about Congo? Darfour? THAT is moral relativism of the lowest kind.

 

US "protects" Iraqis because of their oil and to remove a security risk for Israel. And of course to funnel billions of dollars to companies like Haliburton, run and owned by Bush's sponsors.

 

"best interest of Iraqi people" is the same fake excuse for this war as the original "WMD posession by Iraq".

[Guest guest]

You've shattered Random's pathetic arguments.

[Guest guest]

Kula, to eqaute Islamofascist bomber asuras with the LIBERATORS of Iraq, Afghanistan and more to come.

 

There are hundreds of thousands of Arabs that are welcoming the US and ignoring and spitting on the Kulas of the world:

 

<h2>Thank You, America </h2>

 

Arab News ^ | June 18, 2005 | Muhammad Al-Sheikh Al-Jazirah

 

 

What have the Arabs given us Saudis in comparison to what we have gained from our relations with America? I know very well that this is an extremely sensitive issue that many would hesitate to address; they are restrained by a culture of fear that prevents them from confronting controversial and sensitive issues head-on.

 

The late King Abdul Aziz, the founder of modern Saudi Arabia, was a resourceful and far-sighted statesman when he chose the Americans rather than the British to come and search for oil in the Kingdom. He did so despite Britain at the time being an important force in the region with its colonies and dependencies surrounding the infant kingdom. The politics of the time plus the colonial legacies of both Britain and France made King Abdul Aziz distance himself from them and look to the New World.

 

Not long after the Americans and their expertise arrived, oil was gushing from beneath the desert sands and the development of the modern Saudi state began. Following World War II, the Arab countries had to choose between the two different world systems &#65533;communism or capitalism. King Abdul Aziz chose capitalism, the West and America in particular. Thanks to this relationship that has lasted for more than six decades, we Saudis were able to invest oil revenues in building our country. King Abdul Aziz laid the foundations for a consistent Saudi foreign policy that held the Kingdom&#58808; interests above other considerations.

 

These are the reasons why the Kingdom flourished while other countries went down or teetered on the verge of collapsing. Those countries bet on the wrong horse and did not realize that survival lies in economic development and modernization. They chose to confine themselves in a cocoon and remain isolated from the rest of the world, blinded by the illusions of nationalism and other false ideologies. It was indeed very strange to hear those fragile regimes labeling themselves progressive while calling us reactionary.

 

We must admit that our relations with America were the cornerstone for our development and progress. In return, we must ask what we have gained from our relations with the Arab world. Speaking frankly and unequivocally, all we got from them was trouble. Our brothers, as they call themselves, conspired against us, attacked us and used all the means at their disposal to derail our plans for unity.

 

History has proven that Arab nationalism is a destructive ideology. We, Saudis, must set our priorities and carefully read history to extract its lessons while, at the same time, endeavoring to build something new that does not take anything for granted &#65533;as has been the case in the past &#65533;but that thoroughly debates and analyzes everything. We must rely on an ideology that treats the national interests of this country as the top priority.

 

 

[gHari 0]

That prophetic rock video by Prince really foreshadowed the latest story of the UK teenager who went all religious and then chose the suicide path to paradise. I'll bet when he changed schools the kids teased him with "Saddam Hussein" jokes until he just bloody hated them all. The Cinnamon Girl video can be seen at music. or WinAmps.

 

I fear this is not the end of the terrorist from our kindergarten class.

 

[Kulapavana 0]

prabhu, I dont mind being called names by you or being spat on by ignorant people for the "sin" of expressing my opinion. I try to live my life speaking honestly and being impartial to various camps of materialists. I cherish the association of non-envious devotees and avoid contacts with people who hate, for they are the source of evil in this world.

 

Big time demons manipulate naive people so they will serve their purpose - thus, all of them incure bad karma.

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

I know you know - I see it in these other strings...

[Guest guest]

..... can't think of any.

[Guest guest]

But how else will those given to murder, rape and theft turn to God?

 

What Vaisnava will kill you for Krsna? Only the psychos.

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

...oh don't forget - evangelical domination....

[Guest guest]

look in the mirror there in lays the demon boys go figure it is the qualification to become a vaisnava being the most fallen don't continue to fool your self don blaming others for your poor mis-fortune

[Guest guest]

you go on and on about everything we are sorry for your poor situation it must be hell thinking some one is listening to everything you say ...can we say paranoid

what in hell would anything you say and do be of interest to anyone else ?oh the government did it ....ooooooohhhhhhh

[Guest guest]

you guys should look in the mirror and you poor boy should do something about you face sinus BUG

[Guest guest]

it is fitting guest you would post your hate crime against bhakta don thus exposing your own face of kali in this perticular thread.

 

the hate mongers among us........

 

J.S das

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

Are you some bent stalker or what?