facebook Twitter RSS Feed YouTube StumbleUpon

Home | Forum | Chat | Tours | Articles | Pictures | News | Tools | History | Tourism | Search

 
 


Go Back   BanglaCricket Forum > Miscellaneous > Forget Cricket

Forget Cricket Talk about anything [within Board Rules, of course :) ]

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76  
Old April 10, 2004, 05:24 AM
sage sage is offline
First Class Cricketer
 
Join Date: February 16, 2004
Posts: 494

Quote:
however racism is not a part of islam, and the prophet (saw) said, "he who does not concern himself with the affairs of other muslims is not a believer."
Thank you for the Hadid Al. I donot think calling a muslim brother 'Miskeen' actually show equality. It shows supremecy. Arabs think they are superior then subcontinent muslims people. I donot think they are better then us. Arabs forget the islamic teaching themselves. They are not concerned about us as other muslim. Forget subcontinent muslim. What about arab Muslims themselves? Shiet are fighting sunni, sunni's are killing Shiets. Look at the fruitless Iran Iraq war. According to the Hadid you described, Arabs are long departed from Islam. So if I am not concerned about them that doesn't hurt me in any way.

The muslims in the united states are suffering so much since sept 11. So many muslims got deported, lost their source of income, lost jobs, denied hiring . Did the 19 muslim hijacker ever thought about the millions of Muslim at all? Where they concerned about muslim families and their consequences at all.?

Take care!
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old April 10, 2004, 10:44 AM
Zunaid Zunaid is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: January 22, 2004
Posts: 21,738

Re sage's comments.

[Iran-Iraq war: Iranians are not Arabs]

Regarding the 19 "muslim" hijackers. They should have been concerned about both innocent muslim and non-muslim lives if they were true muslims.

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Zunaid]
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old April 12, 2004, 09:56 PM
fab fab is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: June 30, 2003
Posts: 1,476

Sage,
Why should we care about the suffering of people who call us miskins, blackies etc? Coz we are human beings and have better morals than them.

Quote:
There is another way of effecting changes in the system.
Another grassroot method is boycotting. It's been two years since I last bought something made by the Coca Cola Company, Nestle, Kimberely Clarke, Johnson & Johnson, Kraft, Revlon, Estee Lauder to name a few off the top of my head..

If anyone is interested, you can read about it in the links below:
link 1
link 2

If 1 billion muslims stopped buying the crap coming out of Israel or from companies that heavily invest there - How would that effect their economy?

Off topic:
ROFL. So Arnab thinks he can win a Nobel Prize??? HAHAHAHA in what? (Given his appalling manners and nonexistent diplomacy skill it obviously isn't the Peace prize)
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old April 12, 2004, 10:39 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

I don't think I said anything about winning a Nobel prize. Where did that come from?

BTW, Nobel peace prize is a joke. Henry Kissinger got that prize, for bombing people.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old April 13, 2004, 06:16 PM
fab fab is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: June 30, 2003
Posts: 1,476

Quote:
Where did that come from?
Orphy mentioned it a few posts back.
Quote:
BTW, Nobel peace prize is a joke. Henry Kissinger got that prize, for bombing people.
Don't be daft. The fact that Henry 'bottomless basket' Kissinger got a Nobel Peace prize is a joke. But that doesn't totally nullify the prestige of the award given the long long list of genuinely deserved laureates such as Mother Theresa, Mandela, Doctors without borders, Arafat/Peres/Rabin (who actually did make some progress) etc.
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old April 13, 2004, 06:43 PM
reverse_swing's Avatar
reverse_swing reverse_swing is offline
Chief Moderator
 
Join Date: August 22, 2003
Favorite Player: Shakib Al Hasan
Posts: 5,734

they try to balance this but in fact it has lost it's credibility long before
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old April 13, 2004, 07:04 PM
fab fab is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: June 30, 2003
Posts: 1,476

Quote:
Originally posted by reverse_swing
they try to balance this but in fact it has lost it's credibility long before
Oh really. Perhaps you would care to outline who received a Nobel Peace prize that really did not deserve it (apart from Kissinger). Is the percentage of people who fall in this category higher than say, 5-10%?
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old April 13, 2004, 07:18 PM
Shubho Shubho is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: September 20, 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,833

How do you then explain the following:

Yasser Arafat - former terrorist
Yitzhak Rabin - former terrorist
Shimon Peres - former terrorist
Anwar al Sadat - military leader who was virtually forced to sign a peace accord
Menachem Begin - former terrorist
Le Duc Tho - military leader more famous for killing people
Henry Kissenger - mass murderer
Willem De Klerk - lifelong racist turned dove
The ILO - what do they have to do with peace?
Kofi Annan - what the hell did he ever achieve?
Medcins sans Frontieres - they broker peace deals?

Percentage-wise these names constitute about 10-15% of all winners.

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by Shubho]
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old April 13, 2004, 07:31 PM
reverse_swing's Avatar
reverse_swing reverse_swing is offline
Chief Moderator
 
Join Date: August 22, 2003
Favorite Player: Shakib Al Hasan
Posts: 5,734

what about these highly controversial Nobel Peace Prize Winners?? Can u give me any valid reason considering their life history?

SHIMON PERES (FM of Israel) - ?

YITZHAK RABIN (PM of Israel)- ?

WILLEM DE KLERK (President of the South Africa) - what about his past history?

AUNG SAN SUU KYI - totally political reason

MIKHAIL SERGEYEVICH GORBACHEV - same

DALAI LAMA -same

ANWAR SADAT(President of Egypt) -?

MENACHEM BEGIN (PM of Israel) -?
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old April 13, 2004, 07:36 PM
reverse_swing's Avatar
reverse_swing reverse_swing is offline
Chief Moderator
 
Join Date: August 22, 2003
Favorite Player: Shakib Al Hasan
Posts: 5,734

Quote:
Originally posted by Shubho
How do you then explain the following:

Yasser Arafat - former terrorist
If Arafat is terrorist then all our 71's freedom fighters are terrorists too.

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by reverse_swing]
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old April 13, 2004, 07:38 PM
fab fab is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: June 30, 2003
Posts: 1,476

For starters, the nobel Peace prize isn't solely meant for "PEACE" per se, as mentioned in their website:

"Nobel simply stated that prizes be given to those who, during the preceding year, "shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind" and that one part be given to the person who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." "

It doesn't mention anywhere that the laureates need to be lifelong saints or
buddha-esque paragons of virtue. I believe the main objective is to acknowledge substantial achievements made within the previous year.

Quote:
Yasser Arafat - former terrorist
Yitzhak Rabin - former terrorist
Shimon Peres - former terrorist
Can you deny that the above three did not do "the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." in the preceeding year they received the award?

Quote:
The ILO - what do they have to do with peace?
Medcins sans Frontieres - they broker peace deals?
Can you deny that the above two orgs didn't "confer the greatest benefit
on mankind"?

Quote:
Kofi Annan - what the hell did he ever achieve?
So you think Annan and the UN didn't do "the most work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."? Tell me you are joking.

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by fab]
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old April 13, 2004, 07:47 PM
reverse_swing's Avatar
reverse_swing reverse_swing is offline
Chief Moderator
 
Join Date: August 22, 2003
Favorite Player: Shakib Al Hasan
Posts: 5,734

Did Mr. Kafi take any initiative to stop America's Iraq attack?

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by reverse_swing]
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old April 13, 2004, 08:34 PM
Rubu's Avatar
Rubu Rubu is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: February 15, 2004
Location: Michigan
Favorite Player: Tamim Iqbal
Posts: 8,198

Quote:
Originally posted by reverse_swing
Did Mr. Kafi take any initiative to stop America's Iraq attack?

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by reverse_swing]
Mr. Kafi is a joke, and so is UN aka

UNfair.

giving noball (please, its not typo this time) price for peace is also a joke for most of the time. i read these line somewhere but forgot where, u might find it relavant:

If u kill one person, u are a brutal murderer.
If u kill 10 persons, u are a dirty maniac.
But if u kill 10,000 or more, human civilization grantees u that u'll called for the geneva peace convention.

[not exact wording, but the same theme]

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by AgentSmith : adding the disclaimer!]
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old April 14, 2004, 05:00 PM
Zunaid Zunaid is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: January 22, 2004
Posts: 21,738

A single death is a tragedy; a million
deaths is a statistic. - Stalin
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old April 16, 2004, 03:54 PM
Nasif's Avatar
Nasif Nasif is offline
Administrator
BanglaCricket Development
 
Join Date: October 4, 2002
Location: USA
Favorite Player: Mashrafe Mortaza
Posts: 8,656

Although the article is old, I thought it might be worthwhile to put it here. Might shed some light on who are the real racist and barbaric people.

The article is from:
http://www.mediamonitors.net/khodr49.html

As it is very long, I am just posting only small part here.



Sharon to Peres: "We Control America"
Congressional Pandering to Israel proves him Right

by Mohamed Khodr

On October 3, 2001, I.A.P. News reported that according to Israel Radio (in Hebrew) Kol Yisrael an acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and "turn the US against us. "Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying "don't worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America."

"The Israelis control the policy in the congress and the senate."

-- Senator Fullbright, Chair of Senate Foreign Relations Committee: 10/07/1973 on CBS' "Face the Nation".

"I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy [in the Middle East] not approved by the Jews..... terrific control the Jews have over the news media and the barrage the Jews have built up on congressmen .... I am very much concerned over the fact that the Jewish influence here is completely dominating the scene and making it almost impossible to get congress to do anything they don't approve of. The Israeli embassy is practically dictating to the congress through influential Jewish people in the country"

-----Sec. of State John Foster Dulles quoted on p.99 of Fallen Pillars by Donald Neff

The long history of bipartisan Congressional support for Israel led former Secretary of State James Baker to call the Congress "The Little Knesset" after Israel's Knesset (parliament) in Jerusalem. Congress's embarrassing and unpatriotic display of allegiance to a foreign country that is dependent on American largesse and support is the unknown scandal to the American people. With the media's strong, biased and sympathetic portrayal of Israel while simultaneously denying any opposing view of Israel or human pictures and stories of the endless suffering of Palestinians, its no wonder that we the American people are so unaware of the true face of Israel. Thus shockingly but not surprisingly only 4 % of the American people are aware of Israel's 34 year brutal military occupation of the Palestinian people.

Only at times of war and threat upon the U.S. does our Senate ever exhibit the strong bipartisanship support of America it regularly provides Israel. Despite our current crisis in airline security, Congressional political bickering continued for weeks between Republicans and Democrats placing American lives at risk while foreign aid to Israel was quick and automatic (about $6 Billion), even at a time the Congress is telling us of budget deficits and lack of money for the unemployed American workers. As an American I am outraged at the blind historical allegiance our Senators have provided Israel while they neglect many of our pressing domestic issues such as airline security, Social Security and Medicare Reform, Education Reform, Health Insurance for needy Americans, Money for Dilapidated Schools, and Prescription Coverage for our Elderly. Our Congress operates on the premise that most Americans are disinterested in foreign policy thus they have a vacuum to provide Israel with blank checks and our latest F-16 fighter jets that Israel uses to kill Palestinian civilians. They depend on our media to keep us uninformed and distracted with Sports, Harry Potter, and scandals.

During America's war on terrorism, President Bush and Secretary Powell have worked hard to keep a fragile coalition among the 55 Arab and Muslim nations. To do that they've finally listened to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, other European and Arab leaders and reengaged in the MidEast peace process. Bush has ignored the Israeli Palestinian conflict since taking office thus allowing Sharon to reconquer and reinvade Palestinian territories during this Intifada that has cost over 800 Palestinian lives and 175 Israeli lives with hundreds of Palestinian homes demolished.

For the first time Bush uttered the word a "Palestinian state" (is it conceivable that the President of the most powerful nation on earth doesn't even dare utter these two words). Powell has repeatedly criticized Israel for its assassination policy, its house demolitions, its invasion of Palestinian controlled territory, while he and Bush have repeatedly asked Sharon to pull out of Palestinian territory, Sharon simply ignored them and even compared them to Nazi appeasers. None of Sharon's rebuttals of the American President during this crisis even generated any criticism from our brave Congress. No one can imagine any other country able to tell its benefactor "take your demands and shove it."

Now the stage is set for the much awaited Powell speech, a new initiative on the Middle East on Monday, November 19, in Kentucky. It's been billed as a historic speech. According to the British Telegraph site (telegraph.co.uk) on November 18, Powell's original aim was to set out the administration's vision for the creation of a Palestinian state, including complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank, to be followed by peace negotiations on "final status" issues such as borders, refugees and the fate of Jerusalem. He has been encouraged by signs that moderate Arab states will recognize Israel and its continued right to exist if the Palestinians decide to do so themselves, an essential element of any peace agreement. Even Iran's long standing opposition to the Peace Process was dropped when last week President Mohammad Khatami of Iran said: "If the Palestinians accept this issue we will respect the wishes of the Palestinian nation."

However, and as is customary whenever there is a possibility of Israel being criticized, the Pro Israeli forces come out in force to pressure the White House to tone down or modify its wording. Due to intense pressure from Congress, the media, and the powerful American Jewish lobby, the White House has intervened to tone down Powell's speech on the Middle East planned for November 19. President George W Bush is believed to have blocked Powell from putting too much pressure on Israel to make concessions in the search for peace. As a result, according to Washington officials the watered down speech is "less of a new initiative and more of a general call for people to buck up their ideas".

Continue...
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old April 16, 2004, 04:12 PM
Arnab Arnab is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069

Palestine:

Religion ---> blindness in reason ---> stupid barbarism

Israel:

Geopolitical objectives ---> denial of morality ---> methodical barbarism

----------

The methodical usually wins against the stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old April 16, 2004, 07:51 PM
Mridul Mridul is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: September 18, 2003
Location: Brampton, Canada
Posts: 1,082

Quote:
Originally posted by Arnab
Palestine:

Religion ---> blindness in reason ---> stupid barbarism

Israel:

Geopolitical objectives ---> denial of morality ---> methodical barbarism

----------

The methodical usually wins against the stupid.

You do not know...who will win....God Knows Best
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old April 21, 2004, 12:23 PM
mzia mzia is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: April 7, 2004
Posts: 1,099

Quote:
Originally posted by reverse_swing
Did Mr. Kafi take any initiative to stop America's Iraq attack?

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by reverse_swing]
Yes he boldly uttered that if it not stop he will not contest for next term selection. I don’t know where I got it…
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old May 11, 2004, 09:34 PM
Nasif's Avatar
Nasif Nasif is offline
Administrator
BanglaCricket Development
 
Join Date: October 4, 2002
Location: USA
Favorite Player: Mashrafe Mortaza
Posts: 8,656

General Who Made Anti-Islam Remark Tied to POW Case
By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army general under investigation for
anti-Islamic remarks has been linked by U.S. officials to the Iraqi prisoner
abuse scandal, which experts warned could touch off new outrage overseas.

A Senate hearing into the abuse of Iraqi prisoners was told on Tuesday that Lt.
Gen. William Boykin, an evangelical Christian under review for saying his God
was superior to that of the Muslims, briefed a top Pentagon (news - web sites)
civilian official last summer on recommendations on ways military interrogators
could gain more intelligence from Iraqi prisoners.

Critics have suggested those recommendations amounted to a senior-level go-ahead
for the sexual and physical abuse of prisoners, possibly to "soften up"
detainees before interrogation -- a charge the Pentagon denies.

Congressional aides and Arab-American and Muslim groups said any involvement by
Boykin could spark new concern among Arabs and Muslims overseas the U.S. war on
terrorism is in fact a war on Islam.

"This will be taken as proof that what happened at Abu Ghraib (prison) is
evidence of a broader culture of dehumanizing Arabs and Muslims, based on the
American understanding of the innate superiority of Christendom," said Chris
Toensing, editor of Middle East Report, a U.S.-based quarterly magazine.

One Senate aide, who asked not to be identified, said any involvement by Boykin
could be explosive. "Even if he knew about the abuse, that would be a big deal,"
he said.

Boykin has declined comment, and defense officials could not say what the extent
of his involvement or knowledge about the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners might
have been.

Boykin touched off a firestorm last October after giving speeches while in
uniform in which he referred to the war on terrorism as a battle with "Satan"
and said America had been targeted "because we're a Christian nation." He said
later he was not anti-Islam or any other religion.

President Bush (news - web sites) distanced himself from Boykin's remarks, but
the Pentagon said it would not fire the general, who played a role in the 1993
clash with Somali warlords and the ill-fated hostage rescue attempt in Iran in
1980.

CALLS FOR REASSIGNMENT

Hussein Ibish, communications director for the Arab American Anti-Discrimination
Committee, said his group and others had repeatedly called for Boykin to be
reassigned to a less sensitive job until the Pentagon inspector general
completes his investigation of Boykin's remarks.

Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites) Chairman John Warner and
congressional Democrats have also urged Boykin to step aside, but the Pentagon
has defended his right to free speech.

Defense officials said the IG investigation, begun last fall, was nearly done
and a report could be issued next month.

"I'm not saying Boykin is directly responsible. ... But there is a collective
failure here," Ibish said. "There is a tolerance in our society, in our
government, in our media for hateful rhetoric when directed against Arabs and
Muslims.

"It definitely contributes to a climate in which these young MPs apparently felt
it was ... OK to abuse Muslim and Arab men like this."

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations, chided
the Pentagon for not acting promptly to discipline Boykin and the delayed
engagement of top military leaders on the prisoner abuse scandal.

"It creates a climate in which ... the perpetrators believe they're carrying out
the policies of those above them, whether those policies are explicit or not,"
Hooper said.



Source: Reuters

[Edited on 12-5-2004 by nasif]
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old May 11, 2004, 10:34 PM
fab fab is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: June 30, 2003
Posts: 1,476

Nasif
I understand that you are trying to highlight the other barbarians who reside on this planet with us. But that is beside the point of what was intended to be discussed. What others are like have little to do with most of the points on my list..

I recently read in a messageboard somewhere, many Americans' response to the barbarism shown by the their army. It was basically 'but but these people were working for Saddam, and they tortured other iraqis too'... THAT is irrelevant, wouldn't you say?
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old May 11, 2004, 10:56 PM
Nasif's Avatar
Nasif Nasif is offline
Administrator
BanglaCricket Development
 
Join Date: October 4, 2002
Location: USA
Favorite Player: Mashrafe Mortaza
Posts: 8,656

I agree with you. Barbarism cannot be justified with any rationalization. "They worked for saddam" is not a reason. In my posts I was trying to show that barbarism is a human psyche issue, it will show its evil claws when ever it can find a suitable host. It is not limited to any religion or race.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
BanglaCricket.com
 

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Partner Sites | Useful Links | Banners |

© BanglaCricket