Raju

PM IN PARLIAMENT: Govt will respect perceptions, sentiments of parliament and the Sikh people.

BREAKING NEWS: MANMOHAN SINGH ON NANAVATI REPORT IN PARLIAMENT: Govt will take all possible steps to reopen cases against those persons NAMED in the Nanavati report. Govt also to consult law ministry to bring 84 guilty to book.

It is EXACTLY this sort of attitude that has bought the world to this sort of situation today. So are you going to 'talk sense' with someone who considers you as kufar and not even worth a human being. You think people are wasting all these lines for nothing, and you have all the answers don't ya ?? Trust me you'r not the first to go down that line.

Old testament is a compilation of ancient tales and practices of- and borrowed from the ancient hebrews, Assyrians, Greeks, Chaldean etc among other numerous Christian communities that existed at that time in and around the region. All of the practices mentioned in the old testament clearly have pre-christian origins.

Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa MP is right now venting in Parliament. Everybody is listening with their heads bowed down. Manmohan Singh was also present in parliament and Dhindsa also pointed out that it is a shame that even a so-called Sikh Prime Minister can't deliver justice for the sikhs.

nice question ! To understand Congress, you have to understand its sycophantic culture. Tytler I believe was just an enthusiastic pawn during 84 riots. The mastermind behind the riots was someone else higher, and the needle of suspiscion falls squarely on a person called R. K. Dhawan who was Indira Gandhi's personal secretary. Now R. K. Dhawan was as much personally aggrieved by his boss's death as much as he wanted to prove sycophantic points with the next-generation and thus he masterminded the riots. Most people in Congress inner circle and politics in general know about his role but there is no conclusive evidence against him. Nobody ordered Dhawan to promote violence at that level, but no one had the guts to stop it either because if a mob is running loose then they can turn on to anyone at any time. Now if the Congress acts decisively against Tytler, then he is surely gonna expose the role of higher up's and that could chiefly be R. K. Dhawan and a few other sycophants. And not only would that be terribly embarassing for Congress but would also prove to be a big dilemma for Sonia. Sonia's dilemma is that if she does not stand by past Congress sycophants then the sycophantic culture of the party and loyalty towards dynasty will be destroyed or eroded. Future sycophants will think twice before pledging loyalty to the Nehru-Gandhi family. Tough luck !

Adam and Eve is not just a story. Earlier even I thought that it was just a story. But when I learnt that the name Adam is derived from the Hindu name for Shiv je viz 'Ardhanareeshwaram' (obviously a tongue twister) and whom the babylonians shortened and called Adham and greeks called Adam. It is a tale present in way too many cultures to be just a story, though it is really old and there are a lot of discrepencies in how different societies relate the tale, but the common strand in this is just too strong to be dismissed as a story. I called the story of Adam and Eve in the Bible as just another story because the Bible nor the greeks from whom the Bible took the story from are not the original bearers of this tale. Bible just has another version of the original story. The closest to the original story is probably with the hindus somewhere.

Guys plz read the above article very carefully because it explains many things !

This is a very good & enlightening article: Why don’t Muslims integrate into Western societies? Islam itself is entirely responsible for the failure of Muslims in Infidel lands to integrate. And here is why: 1) Islam itself teaches Muslims to be suspicious of, to hate, to refuse to trust, to offer only feigned friendship to, all non-Muslims. There are passages all over the Qur'an and Hadith about this. "Take not the Christians and Jews for friends, for they are friends only with each other." "Smite the Unbelievers wherever you find them." Not much room for nuance there. The stories in the Hadith about the triumph over, and the killing of, and the seizure of women and property from, non-Muslims whom Muhammad believed he and his men were entitled to attack (even if those in question had done nothing to them) further encourages such an attitude. Then there are all the stories about Muhammad himself. What does it mean to someone to learn that Muhammad watched with satisfaction as 600-800 members of the Banu Qurayza, bound and helpless, were decapitated one by one? Does that encourage peaceful co-existence, or that famous "convivencia" that supposedly was such a heart-warming feature of Islamic Spain -- which for some has become the model of what they apparently see as an inevitably-islamized Europe? If so, they should read a little more deeply into the history of Islamic Spain (hint: do not believe a word from that sentimentalist Maria Rosa Menocal, "Director of the Whitney Center for the Humanities" at Yale University -- ca en dit long about the state of American education). It may be quite hard to work for Infidel employers, or to get along well with Infidel fellow-workers, if one is constantly offering only ill-concealed -- or at times well-concealed -- hostility. Nor does the Muslim sense of Muslim entitlement make it easy for Muslims to endure, or to endure with good grace, such an arrangement: Islam by right should dominate, Muslims should rule, it is contra naturam, against all that is right and just, for Muslims to have to accommodate themselves to non-Muslim customs and laws and ways of behaving. If they must, they should only do so temporarily -- until Muslims are sufficiently powerful, which can happen long before they are an absolute majority. Just look at all the demands made constantly, so that Infidels begin to behave, even when they need not, as dhimmis: willing to placate, to make excuses for, to bend over backwards for, Muslim outrages in deed or in word or in attitude – outrages that may be obvious to all those who have kept their wits about them. 2) Inshallah-fatalism. The deep belief in the will of Allah, of Allah ta'ala (Allah Knows Best), of references in every greeting, paragraph, sentence, 3) The habit of submission -- of mental submission -- does not encourage skepticism, liveliness, "thinking outside the silly box" and so on. The habit of mental submission encourages -- the habit of mental submission. This can limit entrepreneurial activity, just as the sullen dislike of one's status, of the status of Muslims who do not lord it over non-Muslims but must adjust, can help to explain the difficulty of employing Muslims in a non-Muslim workplace. 4) Why should Infidels wish to employ Muslims? Why should they wish to create an unpleasant work environment for themselves? Fetish-worshippers of diversity may wish to do so: a newspaper, say, that thinks the "best way" to cover Muslims is to hire a Muslim (which is, in fact, probably the worst way, if it amounts to the usual apologetics and misinformation). Sometimes, of course, one is dealing with those who either hide very well, or may in fact not feel -- as "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims -- the hostility toward non-Muslims that Islam inculcates. But even those who never go to a mosque may at times engage in a sudden flaring-up, a sudden note of hysteria, when the subject of Islam is even tangentially raised -- as if it is simply a subject completely off-limits for Infidels. And nowadays, how can one discuss anything in the world's news without discussing Islam? One sees this reaction even in some of the seemingly most Westernized, most sophisticated, and suavest of Muslims -- a sudden rage, a sudden rush of furious defensiveness that overcomes the truth, that makes even someone who a minute ago was so calm, so rational, so seemingly part of the smae moral and intellectual universe -- and who a minute before might have been attacking aspects of Islam himself -- will, if an Infidel agrees with the attack, or dares to add his own two-cents' worth to the discussion, will withdraw into a circling-the-wagons mode. 5) Muslims through time and space lived in the lands they conquered through the loot acquired from non-Muslims, and they continued to exploit those non-Muslims thorugh the jizyah, and in other ways. As historians of India well know, the Hindus were initially subject to mass execution and mass enslavement. Some of those enslaved converted. Others did not wait to be enslaved, but converted after witnessing the realities of life under Muslim rule. But the Mughal -- and even the earliest Muslim rulers from the initial conquests -- realized that if the only possible choices open to Hindus -- as non-People of the Book (ahl al-kitab), they were not permitted to live and practice openly their religion -- were death or conversion, then there would ultimately be no non-Muslims left to be exploited economically for the purposes of the Muslim state. This could end the fabled Mughal luxury, the famed Mughal magnificence that so entrances certain writers (as the upscale, and more scholarly, Barbara Cartland of Mughal India, William Dalrymple). Hindus were accorded "honorary" status as dhimmis, not because of Muslim mercy, but because by so doing, the ruling Muslims could economically exploit them through the jizyah (which the tolerant, syncretistic Akbar managed to temporarily suspend -- one more reason why Akbar is remembered fondly by Hindus, and despised by Muslims). Another way of finding loot, or slaves to exploit, were the constant series of slaving raids. Islam created slave societies -- slaves on horseback, slaves in the harem, slaves to build the palace of Moulay Hasan or the Taj Mahal. Everywhere, slaves from non-Muslim lands -- from black Africa by the tens of millions, slaves from the Slavic lands and Georgia and Circassia, by the many millions, and slaves taken over centuries by raiding parties that landed, destroyed villages, and seized villagers up and down the coasts of Western Europe. This too was a source of wealth, and in fact the corsairs that left ports in North Africa, especially Algiers, continued to raid Christian shipping until two things -- the American military response to the Barbary Pirates, and then the seizure, by the exasperated French, of Algiers in 1830, which put an end to the corsairs and their officially-sanctioned raids on Christian cargoes and enslavement of Infidel sailors. The corsair-piracy has stopped, or found new means of expression, but the jizyah, in disguised forms, has continued. Arab and Muslim states have economies that depend heavily on one of two things: 1. The oil and gas-rich Muslim states depend on this manna from Allah -- which is exactly how they see it. They do not regard this accident of geology as an accident of geology, but as a sign of Allah's favor -- why else should so much of the oil lie under the lands of dar al-Islam? 2. The Arab and Muslim states that do not possess oil wealth, instead of having the oil-rich Muslim states share that wealth, have managed to get on the Infidel list of countries deserving of foreign aid. Suddenly that supposed loyalty of the umma al-islamiyya seems to disappear when it comes to oil money, save for the sums given to reward suicide bombers among the "Palestinians," and of course for any significant arms projects. No matter how corrupt, how full of anti-Americanism and antisemitism these societies may be, Western money keeps pouring in: to Egypt ($60 billion from America alone), to Pakistan, to Jordan, and to the shock troops of the Jihad against Israel, the local Arabs who after 1967 were carefully renamed as the "Palestinian people" so as to disguise the essential nature, and ultimate aims (not exactly concealed, by the way) of the Arab war on Israel, an Infidel sovereign state in the midst of dar al-Islam that must, in Arab and Muslim eyes, go -- sooner or later. It is a matter of pride. It is a matter of self-esteem. It is a matter of how the Arabs and the Muslims see themselves. What else could possibly matter? The $9 billion pledged by the G-8 at Gleneagles to keep afloat a non-viable state, or a state that will only be viable at the expense of tiny Israel, because for some reason everyone has ignored the real history of that area, the demographics, the nature of land ownership, and as well has decided to apply rules about territory either captured from an aggressor, or if not captured directly, assigned to one of the winning members in a coalition -- rules that have been applied after every war. For how else did Italy acquire the Alto Adige, which when it was handed over had a population that was 97% German-speaking and ethnically part of Deutschtum? Yet who among us thinks Italy was not entitled to, and should return to Austria, the Sudtirol it possesses? And what of all the changes in borders after World War II, and the expulsion of ethnic Germans from Czechoslovakia (3 million Sudeteners), from Poland, and elsewhere, not to mention land taken (Kaliningrad was once Kant's Koenigsberg)? Yet the Americans and Europeans pay the jizyah to the "Palestinians" and are fearful of stopping, just as they continue to pay Pakistan, the supporter and promoter of the Taliban, the supporter and promoter of Dr. A. Q. Khan (without whom North Korea would not be the problem it is today). We continue to engage in bribery instead of reading Pakistan the riot-act, threatening to destroy not only its military (withholding all parts, all future deliveries) but also its economy (no one has to buy the child-labor textiles and rugs of Pakistan, and while that economy -- that is, while its zamindars -- are prospering, that can be ended in a minute). Within Europe, the Muslims have the same attitude. The property and women of the Infidels belongs to them. There is nothing wrong with taking Infidel property. There is nothing wrong with raping Infidel women. It is not an accident that 70% of the prison population in France is Muslim; that 70% of the rapes of women in Scandinavia are by Muslims; that the drug traffickers in Holland, and the spacciatori di droga in Italy, are Muslims -- no, this should not surprise. What does surprise is the failure of the non-Muslim world to understand that this all fits into, and can be explained by, a coherent ideology that makes it virtually impossible for Muslims -- to the extent that they remain full believers, or turn into full believers -- to ever comfortably fit into, or ever accept, Western or other non-Muslim societies, mores, manners, laws, or ever to accept the idea of living in a society where the Infidel ways, the Infidel understandings, are to be permanent. This rankles Muslims. This is not right. The world belongs in the end to Allah, and to his people. It is to them that the property and women of others belongs. Not every Believer feels this, but in the canonical texts, and the tenets logically derived from them, and in the attitudes and atmospherics to which those tenets and the whole system of Islam gives rise, these views are not strange but natural and familiar. And then there is another problem: the problem of the "moderate" Muslim -- which is to say, the relaxed, or unobservant Muslim, the Muslim who may not act according to the tenets of Islam today, but may suddenly acquire a deep psychic need to return to Islam, for whatever reasons. When one is in mental disarray, and happens to be a Muslim, provided with a Total Explanation of the Universe, and a Complete Regulation of existence, one can quite easily come to view the universe through the prism of islam. And it need be nothing political -- nothing in the newspapers -- that sets one off. A death in the family, the loss of a job, the failure to get into a certain school, the perception that others do not share one's worldview and see no reason to accommodate themselves, and of course the depression that can come upon so many of us, Muslim and non-Muslim, at any time -- are all cause for alarm. But non-Muslims provide their own answers, their own home remedies, as they can, and those answers, and their affixing of blame for their problems, can be as various as their parents, their spouses, their children, their siblings, their employer, The System, the stars, Fate, their cholesterol level, their serotonin level, even -- at times -- themselves. Muslims have only to look to the one thing that always presents itself to be blamed: the Infidels. Their wiles, their whisperings of Shaytan, their decadence, their indifference, their whateveritis of which Infidels are guilty. And once a non-Muslim Muslim, a "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim, begins to redsicover Islam, to return to Islam, he can turn into that other thing -- a Muslim Muslim. And that is the problem, the permanent problem for Infidels, who have done nothing to deserve this ever-ready, this omnipresent blame. There is no solution. Reducing Muslim numbers, and Muslim power, and ensuring that the Infidel lands do not engage in some kind of attempt to win Muslims by changing their own laws and customs, but remain implacably themselves, or perhaps deliberately Islam-hostile rather than Islam-friendly, so that those who now claim that they are "thinking of leaving" really do leave -- would anyone wish to stop them -- should be the goal of Infidels, engaged only in defending themselves against the carriers of Jihad, all over the world.

The story of Adam & Eve in bible is just that. A story. It was taken from the Greeks who inturn took it from the Sumerians/babylonian who had originally taken the story from the ancient hindu. The only thing one can be sure of is that there indeed was a character called 'Adam' by Greeks and other names by others, he was not the first man on earth by any means but supposedly the first man whom God created in his own image. Make of it what you will.

Christians do not believe in prophecy either. This has got nothing to do with religion, Just look at this guy's track record. Everything that he said has come true. Add ltr: Kandola veer, let us debate about the events (preferably on another thread) and not the dates. Give the old man Nostradamus some leeway for dates because his prophecies were centuries old. His predictions for a white turban prince from Arabia has already come true, his next prediction was a blue turban king from the east (he does not say anywhere that the blue turban king was anti christ or any other crap) and lo behold our Mohnaa becomes PM. I am a believer.

Till there is life, there are always OPTIONS AVAILABLE. Don't focus your entire life on one thing only. Get to know other aspects of life as well, and be careful and you will always find something new to cheer you up. Last but not least, keep your faith because the best things happen to those who keep up their faith in God.

If you google on 'blue turban' and Nostradamus you will find lots of references to anti-christ and 'arab/moslem' leader etc. But that is not true, because all that are interpretations of various people who haven't a clue what a man living centuries years ago had said. The most likely interpretation is that the 'blue turban' guy is a great leader and will be a great leader from the east who will help in the rise of a great nation and lead his folk against the 'white turban' guys and lead them to victory. The 'white turban' guys are probably the Islamists IMO.

Man the guy has no political base. Give him some space, you are putting too much pressure on one man. And Nostradamus has predicted that the 'blue turban' leader from East would be a man of 'great scholarship' and learning. I have no doubts. Already Manmohan has won India Nuclear freedom, now he will proceed to next step all in a very subdued way. I like his subdued style, and he delivers results for the country as well. Give him 2 years, he will come out of Sonia's shadow as well. He will be on our greatest leaders.

NO Even Nostradamus predicted that the 'blue turban' leader from the east has a special place in history. Have patience guyz.

hmm...the rumor today is that Tytler is being dropped from the Union Cabinet due to the tremendous pressure being applied on Govt after the Nanavati report was published.

Jinnah ?? What exactly are his qualifications that he should be made prime minister ? He did not even spend a single damn day in jail during the entire freedom struggle. Neither did any of his partners who ended up on that side of the border. He was in cahoots with Churchill and other members of the anti-India establishment in Britain to further his own ends. His only struggle was not for freedom but for his own comforts. Why Jinnah ? and why not Bacha khan...atleast he went to jail alongside Gandhi is a far better individual than that corrupted fellow. And hello sir ! even Iraq has freedom fighters who oppose american and british colonisation of their country, it is just that the Islamists have tainted the name of the genuine freedom fighters as well. But that does not mean Iraqis have no pride and are happy under a bunch of people who have shown scant regard for Iraqi human rights and are involved in the death of atleast a million Iraqi children in the 90s. And you think everything is forgiven now ?? And as far as dialogue is concerned even we are holding dialogues with Musharraf who until yesterday was the biggest terrorist sympathizer. You are just proving my point for me.

Yes veerje it is a fact. It is written in many places in the Bible that 'I am a jealous God'. This fable starts from Egypt where Moses had to prove to the Egyptians that his God was superior to the God the Egyptians believed in. The Israelites, who as per bible were meant to be God's chosen children had to be reminded again and again not to stray from the path of God because the Israelites had a tendency towards Idol-worshipping and they along with Egyptians used to consider Idols as their Gods before Moses came into the picture. You also have to understand that the bible is a translation from Hebrew and ancient Aramaic so many times the translations might be figurative and not literal.

here is another example of british tyranny... Papers unearth connection between Jinnah and Churchill Jinnah may have tipped off Churchill on ’46 riots this shows british in thier true colours, they have used the Islamists as a pawn in their chess moves when it suited their purpose. Now the snakes whom they had fed milk have bitten the hand that fed them. This is proof enough that the British have used the Islamists to screw others around for a long long time.

ha...this Nanavati is chosen for head every commission because he is obviously a malleable fellow. Added ltr: read this article if you wanna know more about the real situation. C O M M E N T A R Y Elusive justice It is going to be some time before the mass murderers of 1984 are punished. 9 August 2005: It is a shame how the Union cabinet has dismissed the Nanavati Commission report citing “credible evidence” against Jagdish Tytler and recommending reinvestigating Sajjan Kumar for their involvement in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. But this was to be expected. After years, both men were given tickets to the Lok Sabha polls, won them, and it was unlikely they would be “sacrificed” so soon, particularly after one of them, Tytler, was made a minister for overseas Indians (imagine!), and got off even after, or because, he was abusive of the Delhi chief minister, Sheila Dixit. But as it clearly looks, it is beyond Delhi politics, and involves the Gandhi family name, which is why the incredible risk the party has taken to shield two alleged mass murderers. It involves Indira Gandhi, whose assassination by her two guards triggered off the riots, and it stains Rajiv Gandhi, who succeeded her as prime minister, and made the infamous statement, “When a big tree falls, the earth shakes.” The Congress party may claim that the Nanavati Commission exonerates it, but it is not as simple as that. In one place, the commission says, “There is absolutely no evidence suggesting that Rajiv Gandhi or any other high-ranking Congress (I) leader had suggested or organised attacks on Sikhs. Whatever acts were done, were done by the local Congress (I) leaders and workers, and they appear to have done so for their personal political reasons.” But in the next sentence, this position is contradicted. “They do not appear to have done so purely for personal reasons. If they were the acts of individuals only, then the killing of Sikhs and looting of properties of Sikhs would not have been on such a large scale.” The attacks looked coordinated from somewhere on top, because Tytler was allegedly involved in leading the violence in his constituency, Dharam Dass Shastri in his own, and so on with H.K.L.Bhagat, Tajdar Babbar, and the rest. With local rivalries, they would hardly have acted at one another’s instructions, and obviously, directions were coming from the top. It is impossible that the attacks would have otherwise been so coordinated, planned and violently effected. As for the commission’s inability to find any evidence against the top Congress leadership for suggesting or organising the attacks, it is questionable if Nanavati went after getting that evidence. That evidence may have come if the commission was in a position to bamboozle the main riot accused, Tytler, Sajjan Kumar & Co., but our laws scorn, with reason, bamboozled evidence, and anyhow, the Nanavati panel had no such powers. Pogroms are not communicated on official stationery, nor may there be any recording of the orders, such things are done in absolute secrecy, with the use of cut-outs, and you may never know who sanctioned it, unless there is painstaking investigation in that direction, in the manner of the Nuremberg trials. And even there, Hitler’s closest aides denied absolute knowledge of the Holocaust. For three days, Delhi burnt with anti-Sikh violence, the President, Zail Singh, was powerless to intervene, P.V.Narasimha Rao, to his eternal shame, did not act as home minister, and Delhi Police was blatantly partisan against the community. How could all this happen without the concurrence of the Congress government? To turn the question around, if the government had no stake in the violence, why didn’t it order the army earlier than three days, why the delay? Clearly, Tytler, Sajjan Kumar, Bhagat, Shastri, the lot, were pawns, who were doing as ordered, although it is possible that in their individual zeal to show loyalty to the Gandhi family, they overdid the violence. It was state terror, no less, and only the investigation of the 1984 riots as state terror will lead us to the real murderers, and that the present regime will not allow. One of the saddest persons in all this should be prime minister Manmohan Singh, and perhaps nobody understands his predicament except he, himself. There is a tradition in the judiciary, where a judge who is even remotely connected to a case brought before him recuses from it. Manmohan Singh is a Sikh, but he is also the prime minister of India, which is a secular state. Therefore, in his position, and being the extraordinarily sensitive man he is, it is a guess, but perhaps he recused himself from the cabinet decision to give a clean chit to Tytler and Sajjan Kumar. Whatever his personal emotions in the matter, it looks as though he let the cabinet and the Congress party leadership decide the fate of the two alleged mass murderers, and upholding the cabinet tradition of collective responsibility, he went along with that final decision. Had he wanted, he could have vetoed the cabinet, but while he would have been right, a communal stigma would have attached to him. The point is not that he failed the Sikhs, by his eminently secular action, he has enabled them to hold their heads high, if anyone would trouble to understand him. But certainly the Union cabinet, and the Congress party, have failed him, and he has also been failed by the so-called secular Left. Not one Left party has expressed outrage at the exemption of the murderers of 1984, and typical of their dissembling was the CPI-M Rajya Sabha leader, Nilotpal Basu’s statement, that his party was “neither disappointed nor satisfied” with the cabinet action. The tragedy is that state terror should have ended with 1984, but it did not, because the guilty were not exemplarily punished. The Congress party believes it can get away by cooking the books in favour of murderers, but rather, its old face has come to haunt it, and it stands stripped of morality. The option now is to move the courts to try Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar for the alleged murder of Sikhs. There is credible evidence against them, and that is a hopeful starting point. It may look hopeless to speak about starting points twenty-one years after the anti-Sikh riots, but it must be understood that nations are notoriously slow learners.

Gandhi, Udham Singh et al were freedom fighters, just like the present day Iraqi freedom fighters. And the brits treated the Indians exactly like the americans treat the present day Iraqis, you do know that americans held dialogue with Muqtada Al-Sadr even when they were waging a war with his force. That is realpolitik. Though I agree that the brits were pretty civilized when compared to the Islamists and other scoundrels. But that said the brits were and are cunning scoundrels, they had no problems when the Islamists were directing their fire outwards, now that their own house is on fire they have woken up. If you are specifically talking of India's experience then read this as a good example of british cunning. look who is laughing now ..

Gupt daasan daas you'r right. When Adam & Eve where in the garden of heaven, Lucifer tempted Eve through the prohibited tree of the apple, and that is how Eve conceived and introduced the evil gene into human beings. That is also why Eve and her descendents hardship on earth was proportionately increased as compared to Adam's.

yasmin sister, I am sorry if I hurt your feelings but I have to say this bout Islam that for a long long time people have given muslims opportunities that they haven't given anybody else. In west and elsewhere muslims have been given a special place and been allowed to follow their customs and their way of life to the 'Tee'. Govt's bend over their backs to accomodate muslims but the same gesture was/is not shown back by your co-religionists. You know how muslim countries treat kufar or non-muslim, and you also know how they expect that all non-muslim countries should treat them with equality, democracy, freedom etc. And for all this non-muslim or kufar's are paid back with bombs and murder. Now situation has come to such a pass that all peple who have a background remotely similar to muslims are becoming a target. I am sure you won't blame them if they have to take preventive measures for themselves to prevent them becoming a target for the deeds of your co-religionists. Now I am just pointing out that obvious double-standard, I am sorry if it hurts you.

The brits have indulged in grandstanding and statesmanship when Islamists sitting in their country supported all their little terror wars around the world. These are the people who supported the murderers when they were killing babies and children and women in various places around the world. If you have studied Islamists carefully, they are a breed that is NEVER SATISFIED in whichever country they might be. Islamists themselves say that they are part of some 'global ummah' and they have no boundaries. The brits were until now sponsoring this hypocrisy....until ofcourse eventually the tables turned on them. 112989[/snapback] It comes down to abrahmic faiths (islam, christianity and judaism) all three are guilty of spreading global terrorism and hate for people who do not follow their faith. I been researching judaism and noticed it has very similar hateful verses in the torah against anyone non-jewish and refers to them as "goyiem" which is the same as Islam's use of the word "kufr" or "kafir". And with christianity it generally says you can not find God unless you accept Jesus as your saviour and only through him can you find God. 113001[/snapback] You are right ! But how many jews blow themselves up and how many say "Jehovah is great" when they blow up all manner of people. Even the most radical of them seem to have a conscience that is eons greater than your average Abdul. As far as christian countries like american and britain go, unless their own country was being attacked they were quite happy when chechens were blowing up children and babies in Russia or when the pakistanis were sponsoring islamic terrorists in Sinkiang, China and Kashmir and other places in India. Their supposedly moral outrage was only heard when their own countries were attacked. As you sow, so shall you reap.

Yes, it is true that Christ flinched when he was in pain. But I don't know what exactly you are arguing on and on about ? You are arguing the supremacy of sacrifice on "Whose sacrifice is greater" ? This is not my actually not my style, and I do not argue on such things like 'proving whose sacrifice was greater' and going all out to prove which prophet was superior because each prophet has a particular message for a particular period of time and for a particular group of people who are in need and in a particular situation. But as a last post on this topic, I will say that the sacrifice of Christ created the strongest and mightiest kaum this earth has ever seen. Let that be proof enough of his sacrifice.