On Egyptian bombings


by Sunny
28th April, 2006 at 3:21 pm    

“You just proved the Israeli have divine supernatural powers,” I said. “In less than one week, they somehow managed to convince five men to blow up themselves. Now, that’s something!”

Why are Arabs and Muslims more inclined to believe in the most absurd conspiracy theories ever? I believe there are two main reasons. First, genuine accurate information is hard to be found in our region. Conspiracy theories flourish in an environment of biased and regulated information. Second, we as a nation, and especially the intelligentsia and religious leaders among us, do not want to admit that we have a terrorist problem as well as a greater problem in our culture and currently practiced religiosity.

Nations develop and flourish when they admit their wrongs and work on finding solutions for them. We have seen how those who claim to be adherents of Islam blow up themselves to kill others in areas stretching from Bali to New York. And judging from the supply chain of suicide bombers in Iraq, it is crystal clear that the world now has a surplus of these murderers.

This is by the Egyptian blogger Big Pharoah on this CIF article. The man speaketh the truth.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Current affairs,Middle East






55 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. NorahJones — on 28th April, 2006 at 3:59 pm  

    A case of sticking head in sand.

  2. Justforfun — on 28th April, 2006 at 4:17 pm  

    Why are Arabs and Muslims more inclined to believe in the most absurd conspiracy theories ever?

    I would beg to differ – Iranians are the masters of conspiracy theories and believe the most absurd theories, no nation can hold a candle to the joy that that they get from coming up with the best conspiracy theories and that is even Iranians who have access to all the information and sources that they could want .

    Conspiracy theories flourish in an environment of biased and regulated information. Perhaps they do but they also flourish because people enjoy spreading gossip and excercising their minds by making connections between things. Evolution has hardwired the human brain to get a enjoyable ‘kick’ out of seeing patterns and making patterns , even where no patterns exist. And this enjoyment can overide any derire to actually believe the truth which can be so boring. Far better to live in the opiate world of the global conspiracy…..

    Justforfun

  3. Jai — on 28th April, 2006 at 4:26 pm  

    In his most recent statement (the one just prior to the Egypt bombings), OBL claimed that there was a Zionist-Crusader-Hindu conspiracy.

    The mind boggles. Paranoid and delusional, much ?

  4. Eric — on 28th April, 2006 at 4:35 pm  

    Cool!

    I want a Zionist-Crusader-Hindu T-shirt to go with my Zionist-Crusader-Neocon T-shirt.

    Or how about the Zionist-Crusader-Hindu-Neocon-Christian-Shiite-Sufi-Sikh conspiracy?

  5. Sunny — on 28th April, 2006 at 4:45 pm  

    Don’t forget the Buddhists dammit! Everyone forgets them :(

    What I found most hilarious about the OBL video was that afterwards both even the Sudanese and Hamas people distanced themselves from him! Does OBL have any friends left?

  6. Justforfun — on 28th April, 2006 at 5:10 pm  

    And judging from the supply chain of suicide bombers in Iraq, it is crystal clear that the world now has a surplus of these murderers.

    An interesting way of looking at it -

    I remember when thefirst suicide bomber went off in Iraq I did not think they would be able to sustain the level for long because surely the would run out of volunteers. But it has gone on and on – so

    Is there a queue ? (hopefully an orderly queue )

    or

    Is there some sort of pyschological manipulation of ordinary “non-suicide” fighters that is undertaken on them over time and they are brainwashed into becoming suicide bombers?

    or

    Is the tactic like the IRA used where you hold a taxi driver’s family hostage, pack his car full of semtex and send him off to a check point and then remotely blow him and the car up? or a derivative of this?

    Just a few question spinningh around in my head

    Justforfun

  7. sonia — on 28th April, 2006 at 5:56 pm  

    “Conspiracy theories flourish in an environment of biased and regulated information”.

    ooh that’ll be why folks in the US love them so much!

    heeh he

  8. Bikhair — on 28th April, 2006 at 6:02 pm  

    Yes, rumors are terrible. The Quran speaks about rumors. Anyway whats wrong with conspiracy theories anyway. Arent the EU in league with the Arab world to Eurabify Europe: Protocols of the elders of Daru-Salam. Then we have Jihad of the womb. You people in the West have relatively few excuses for the crap you believe yet you believe it. Sometimes political victories are more important than truth.

    But lets not change the subject here. Takfiris= bad; Islam =good.

  9. Don — on 28th April, 2006 at 6:05 pm  

    ‘You people in the West …’

    Have you moved and not told us?

    ‘the crap you believe …’

    Now that’s verging on the ill-mannered.

  10. Amir — on 28th April, 2006 at 7:43 pm  

    1. Why are Arabs and Muslims more inclined to believe in the most absurd conspiracy theories ever?

    A multiplicity of factors: decades of the most vile and outrageous state propaganda, the politicization of the Mosque and its dominance in civil society, state-controlled media outlets, newspapers and television networks, heavy censorship, and the non-existence of pluralist politics. Nasser believed that Arab politics needed to be fired by modern ideas like self-determination, socialism and Arab unity. And before oil money turned the gulf states into golden geese, Egypt was the undisputed leader of the Middle East. But guess what…It failed. Socialism produced bureaucracy and stagnation. And rather than adjusting to the failures of central planning, the economies never really moved on. The republics calcified into dictatorships. Third World ‘nonalignment’ became pro-Soviet propaganda. Arab unity cracked and crumbled as countries discovered their own national interests and opportunities. Read this.

    2. Conspiracy theories flourish in an environment of biased and regulated information.

    I couldn’t agree more. Number of frequently cited academic papers per million people in 1987: the United States (42.99), Israel (36.63), Switzerland (79.90), Egypt (0.02), Saudi Arabia (0.07), Kuwait (0.53), Algeria (0.01). The buying and selling of books presents an even more dismal picture. A listing of 27 countries, beginning with the United States and ending with Vietnam, does not include a single Moslem state. The Arab world translates about 330 books annually, one-fifth of the number Greece translates. The accumulative total of translated books since the Caliph Maa’moun’s time [the ninth century] is about 100,000, almost the average that Spain translates in one year!!! Read this.

  11. Bikhair — on 28th April, 2006 at 8:45 pm  

    Don,

    My hypocrasy is none of your dam business nor does it change the truth of what I am saying.

  12. Don — on 29th April, 2006 at 12:24 am  

    I’m having that put on a T-shirt.

  13. Yusuf Smith — on 29th April, 2006 at 11:02 am  

    In my experience, Muslims everywhere are receptive to such theories, not just those exposed on a regular basis to Arab government propaganda. When it concerns terrorism, the main reason is that these acts almost invariably make life more difficult for Muslims, both by destroying their livelihood and by precipitating state crackdowns, and are never targeted at enemies of common Muslims. The targets are always large groups of innocent people, such as tourists, or people who are simply in the extremists’ way, like Iraqi police recruits. In some cases, the acts are politically convenient for the affected country’s government (for example, legitimising the invasion of a country or legislation which curtails civil liberties and makes surveillance of people easier, or taking people’s minds off the dubious methods by which a government got elected and its less than spectacular record since), or involve people nobody on earth believed would get involved in terrorism (such as Asif Hanif, who when in London was known for frequenting Sufi gatherings). At the end of the day conspiracy is a fact of life, and Muslims are generally inclined to assume good of other Muslims unless proof of the opposite exists, which is why Muslims were at first (and in some cases still are) reluctant to believe that a Muslim group masterminded and carried out such acts as the 9/11 attacks.

  14. Jay Singh — on 29th April, 2006 at 11:20 am  

    At the end of the day conspiracy is a fact of life

    So you believe in them yourself Yusuf?

  15. Roger — on 29th April, 2006 at 5:07 pm  

    What is islam- and every other revealed religion- but a conspiracy itself? An open conspiracy so open that it does not even recognise it. Given the supposedly obvious truth of their beliefs and the fact that god is supposedly on their side the only reasonable explanation for their failure to make headway is that they are opposed by another conspiracy “Allah”, we are told, “is the best of plotters”, so all they can do is conspire against the conspiractors.
    This doesn’t just apply in religion. Two of the greatest conspiracies in history- the Nazis and the Communist party- both said and believed that they were actually struggling against evil conspiracies.

  16. Chris Stiles — on 29th April, 2006 at 7:53 pm  


    Why are Arabs and Muslims more inclined to believe in the most absurd conspiracy theories ever?

    It’s probably not a coincidence that much of that part of the world was – for millenia – ruled over by empires in which intrigue, informants, and secret policemen played a large part.

    On a similiar note look at Latin America, where they’ve replayed the Inquisition every few decades over several hundred years.

  17. Ismaeel — on 30th April, 2006 at 1:10 pm  

    “It’s probably not a coincidence that much of that part of the world was – for millenia – ruled over by empires in which intrigue, informants, and secret policemen played a large part.”

    And of course that was never part of European life for millenia, no, no of course not.

    Conspiracies have and do exist, it’s a fact of life. The difference is between one that is a theory and one that is a fact baed on evidence.

    The Prophet (PBUH) said that “Conjecture is the worst of all false speech”

  18. Roger — on 1st May, 2006 at 11:06 am  

    “Conspiracies have and do exist, it’s a fact of life. The difference is between one that is a theory and one that is a fact baed on evidence. ” The difference is between real conspiracies and delusory conspiracies, actually. Which is this: “It must be the Israelis. They want to destroy our tourism industry.”?
    As I said, some of the greatest conspiracies in history have been inspired by imaginary conspiracies.

    “The Prophet (PBUH) said that “Conjecture is the worst of all false speech””
    Conjecture is not false speech. Conjecture is what underlies all discovery and invention. What establishes whether a conjecture is true is testing it. You cannot know whether a conjecture is “false speech” until you have tested it.

  19. Ismaeel — on 1st May, 2006 at 12:59 pm  

    No i think what you mean is a theory, conjecture is guessing at a conclusion based on bits and pieces of information.

  20. Ismaeel — on 1st May, 2006 at 1:00 pm  

    Oh yeah and secret police have played a large part in the Muslim world for over a millenia, what a load of unsubstantiated tosh.

  21. Ismaeel — on 1st May, 2006 at 1:02 pm  

    Noun: conjecture kun’jekchu(r)
    A hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)
    “he dismissed it as mere conjecture”

    A message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence

    Reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence
    Verb: conjecture kun’jekchu(r)
    To believe especially on uncertain or tentative grounds

  22. Ismaeel — on 1st May, 2006 at 1:09 pm  

    Noun: theory thee(u)ree
    A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena
    “theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses”; “true in fact and theory”

    A tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
    “a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory”; “he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices”
    - hypothesis, possibility

    A belief that can guide behaviour
    “the architect has a theory that more is less”; “they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales”

  23. Roger — on 1st May, 2006 at 3:30 pm  

    “No i think what you mean is a theory, conjecture is guessing at a conclusion based on bits and pieces of information. ”
    So is a theory. Where do your definitions come from? I agree, there is a distinction in common usage, if not in exact definition: a conjecture is an untested theory or a theory that is not fully supported by the evidence. The difference between a conjecture and a theory is one of degree, not kind. A conjecture is put forward and if it is not refuted it becomes a theory. Goldbach’s Conjecture, for example, has never been disproved but because it has never been proven- may be unprovable- it is still a conjecture despite the millions of examples that support it.
    It might be as well to check the reliability of your source and the translation for that claim.

  24. Ismaeel — on 1st May, 2006 at 3:57 pm  

    A conjecture is something which is asserted as though it were true although it does not have the evidence to support it.
    A theory is something which is asserted as a possibility waiting to be tested as to it’s truth or untruth.
    If you understand conjecture to be the as above then this is how the hadith is meant to be understood. This is the best word in english as it is used commonly fot it to be understood.

  25. Ismaeel — on 1st May, 2006 at 3:58 pm  

    And now to your strange assertation that religion itself is a conspiracy, please explain how the definition below fits with your thesis:

    Noun: conspiracy kun’spirusee
    A secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
    - confederacy

    A plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
    - cabal

    A group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose
    - confederacy

  26. Roger — on 1st May, 2006 at 8:35 pm  

    “A conjecture is something which is asserted as though it were true although it does not have the evidence to support it.”
    You really must get a better dictionary. A conjecture is not asserted as true. It is put forward as possibly true as an inference resting on existing evidence refutable by future tests. I conjecture- or hypothesise- or theorise- I leave the choice of verb to you- that the word you are looking for is rumour or hearsay. Both fit your definition much more closely.
    A conspiracy does not have to be secret or plan to carry out an unlawful act. An obvious example is the perfectly legal conspiracy to make Tony Blair leader of the Labour Party.
    An open conspiracy is precisely that- the term comes from H G Wells’s book- a conspiracy with openly avowed purposes and acknowledged members. Christianity and islam both assert openly that their pupose is to bring their benefits to the whole world; the followers of both believe that they are so obviously true and beneficial that no honest person could know about them and still oppose them. Therefore, in the eyes of some of their followers, the only reason that the world as a whole does not welcome the benefits of their beliefs is because of a malign and wicked secret conspiracy which opposes them.

  27. Ismaeel — on 1st May, 2006 at 10:01 pm  

    On your very stange definition of conspiracy, we can then assert that the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, The Republicans, Democrats and even the members of Pickled Politics are also engaged in conspiracies. Then pretty much everyone is involved in a conspiracy.

  28. Chris Stiles — on 2nd May, 2006 at 1:04 pm  


    Oh yeah and secret police have played a large part in the Muslim world for over a millenia, what a load of unsubstantiated tosh.

    It was a large factor in how the various multi-ethnic empires across the middle east were kept together. Sedition had to be guarded against, and large networks of informers were the norm rather than exception.


    Conspiracies have and do exist, it’s a fact of life.

    Of course they do, but they are always rather overblown. Their power is rarely as great as that attributed to them, and they can end up serving as an excuse when they are used to explain everything.


    And of course that was never part of European life for millenia, no, no of course not.

    Of course it did. But a few hundred years of developing towards democracy reduced their scope and importance in many European countries where conspiracy theories mainly survive on the fringes. They play a greater role in the public imagination where the relationship with democracy is an uneasier one – try telling an Italian that the timing of Bernardo Provenzano’s capture was purely coincidental, or mention Susurluk to a Turk.

  29. Jay Singh — on 2nd May, 2006 at 2:09 pm  

    Ismaeel how is the washing up going? Did you find your slippers?

  30. Ismaeel — on 2nd May, 2006 at 3:29 pm  

    The concept of informants is completley seperate from the concept of secret police, so my comments still stand.

    Informants still exist throughout Europe as do intellegence services.

    Linking the existance of these bodies with conspiracy theories doesn’t make any logical sense.

    Conspiracy theories were not a major part of Muslim world in the early modern period when there was a Caliphate, however since the Muslim world was subjected to many real conspiracies such as the one between the British and the Wahabbis against the Ottomons, the Zionists and the Jordanians to create Israel, the Americans faciltating the rise of the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussain. The covert support of the Mujahideen by the CIA through the ISI, the “secret” acquiremnet of nuclear weapons by Israel etc etc then it is no wonder that people are so quick to accept their existance, because the reality of them has existed for so long.

  31. Jay Singh — on 2nd May, 2006 at 3:43 pm  

    Ismaeel when will the world become globally civil?

  32. Jai — on 2nd May, 2006 at 6:31 pm  

    Jay Singh,

    Go to Ismaeel’s blog and check out what he’s written about that little chat we had with him here on PP a few days ago. It’s under the title “Tolerance”.

    ;)

  33. Don — on 2nd May, 2006 at 6:55 pm  

    Hey, Sunny,

    Apparently you are ‘rampant’. And Jai, how dare you ‘think it’s perfectly alright if someone worships the Monkey god’. what kind of tolerance is that?

  34. Rohin — on 2nd May, 2006 at 7:06 pm  

    It’s astonishing reading. Not least because it’s jizz and it’s full of typos. Or am I being intolerant?

    Sunny stop accusing Ismaeel of wanting to blow up London – he says you said that, so you must’ve.

  35. Ismaeel — on 2nd May, 2006 at 8:46 pm  

    It’s astonishing reading. Not least because it’s jizz and it’s full of typos.

    Ah the great Pickled Politics critical analysis to the fore as usual.

  36. Jay Singh — on 2nd May, 2006 at 8:59 pm  

    Stick around Ismaeel – you’ll eventually get someone to post a comment on your blog if you keep throwing drama queen hissy fits here to get your traffic up – and then you won’t look so lonely and sad blabbering to yourself in the emptiness of nowhere.

  37. Don — on 2nd May, 2006 at 9:16 pm  

    Jay,

    Be fair, he seems to average one a month, the trenchant
    ‘ Mashallah, very good review. ‘

    I’m willing to give him credit; I think he genuinely doesn’t realise how offensive he’s being. I doubt he can.

  38. Sunny — on 2nd May, 2006 at 10:52 pm  

    Hehe. I think our friend Ismaeel is more of a rampant Islamophobe than I am.

  39. Ismaeel — on 3rd May, 2006 at 7:48 am  

    Well at least you guys are consistant. If you can’t beat someone in terms of your arguments, just resort to one of the following: ridicule, stereotype, patronise. This will keep you well clear of any difficult situations.

  40. PapaHomer — on 3rd May, 2006 at 9:01 am  

    I thought this bit was particularly funny.

    “True tolerance and pluralism (Where different cultures and reigions live together) was embodied by the Shariah and the system of dhimmi communities, where non-Muslim communities lived ruling themselves by their own laws within Muslim lands. ”

    ahahaha…..right.

  41. Sunny — on 3rd May, 2006 at 1:52 pm  

    just resort to one of the following: ridicule, stereotype, patronise

    You mean as opposed to your policy of calling other Islamophobes and crying about how “rude” people are at you on other blogs? If you can’t handle the head Ismaeel, get out of the kitchen as they say….

  42. Ismaeel — on 3rd May, 2006 at 2:15 pm  

    If i can’t handle the heat Sunny, the heat. Like i said it’s not me who can’t handle a debate which i myself started, i have not spoken to anyone on this blog yet who when actually confronted with some points against their position which they are unable to answer do anything but resort to some sort of diversionary tactic. If i’m defeated in a point, i’ll concede it as i have done on this blog and elsewhere but no,no not the people at Pickled Politics, they couldn’t possibly be wrong about anything especially seeing as they are progressive and I am a Mad Mullah who is trying to drag them kicking and screaming into the past.

  43. mirax — on 3rd May, 2006 at 4:56 pm  

    ‘I am a Mad Mullah who is trying to drag them kicking and screaming into the past.’

    Don’t sell yourself short now, Ishmael. Life’s no fun without the crazies. Fewer newspapers would get sold and Sunny’s threads would be helluva lot shorter.

  44. Roger — on 3rd May, 2006 at 7:00 pm  

    “On your very stange definition of conspiracy, we can then assert that the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, The Republicans, Democrats and even the members of Pickled Politics are also engaged in conspiracies. Then pretty much everyone is involved in a conspiracy. ”
    Not my definition: your quarrel is with the English language, not with me. They are all engaged in conspiracies some of the time: that’s how the Conservative Party change their leaders for example. The difference with islam is that islam is a conspiracy with the purpose of bringing the benefits of muslim rule to the rest of us. The fact that most muslims don’t actually spend much time doing it reflects to their credit and humanity’s, not islam’s.
    “real conspiracies such as the one between the British and the Wahabbis against the Ottomons, the Zionists and the Jordanians to create Israel, the Americans faciltating the rise of the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussain. ”
    The British and the wahabis had interests in common in destroying the ottomans so they got together. Why not? Who do you blame? The wahabbis and British for fighting their common enemy or the ottomans for being foolish enough to declare war on Britain? There was no conspiracy to create israel between I”the zionists” and Jordan- there were attempts to get the best out of a bad situation. The US didn’t facilitate the rise of the shah- they got rid of Mossadegh, a rather different matter and then found they had no choice but to stick with the shah. In turn the mullocracy in iran conspired with the CP and other revolutionaries to get rid of the shah and then destroyed their allies. What part did the US play in the rise of Saddam? you will find that actually the Soviet union had far more influenece on the Iraqi Ba’ath party.

  45. Jai — on 3rd May, 2006 at 7:08 pm  

    Don,

    =>”I think he genuinely doesn’t realise how offensive he’s being.”

    It’s not just about being “offensive”, it’s the hypocrisy and the fact that he’s doing a huge amount of what psychiatrists term “projection”, ie. Perceiving his own negative behaviour and motivations in the very people he’s erroneously accusing.

    I don’t think he’s being deliberately malicious either, but he genuinely does not seem to realise how other people perceive his actions (objectively-speaking) and exactly why they object to his behaviour and ideas. It’s a lack of interpersonal skills and a disjoint between the reality of the other party’s actions & motivations and how he perceives all this. I suspect Asperger’s Syndrome but the sufferers of this disorder have an unusually high IQ, and I don’t know if that’s applicable here.

    =>”I doubt he can.”

    …..Which is a particular cause for concern. It’s almost like a form of emotional autism.

    For example:

    “i have not spoken to anyone on this blog yet who when actually confronted with some points against their position which they are unable to answer do anything but resort to some sort of diversionary tactic.”

    An analogy I could make is a thirsty person requesting another party for some water, then complaining about the taste and hurling abuse at them for offering the water in the first place, and subsequently being confused about why the other party refuses to give them any more water. He doesn’t realise that to a great extent he’s the root cause of the problem, and indeed that it’s his own behaviour which puts people off from wishing to discuss anything further with him. Transferring the blame for the subsequent fall-out onto the other individual or group is a convenient way to rationalise this and absolve himself of any wrong-doing (either logical or moral).

    But again, like you I don’t think he’s consciously aware of doing all this, assuming that he’s telling the truth. It’s a lack of self-awareness, empathy, and emotional sensitivity (towards other people), not necessarily deliberate maliciousness. However, it is worrying that he perceives any act of compassion towards him as being “patronising” or driven by some other sinister motive.

  46. mirax — on 3rd May, 2006 at 7:55 pm  

    Jai, Ishmael should now be properly grateful for the freebie indepth pscho-analysis and clinical assessment.
    Can’t wait to see him express his thanks…:-)

  47. Jai — on 4th May, 2006 at 10:10 am  

    Mirax,

    I’m sure he’s thinking of a suitably devastating riposte ;)

  48. sonia — on 4th May, 2006 at 11:01 am  

    hmm you know im not really sure about this constant school kid playground dynamics..
    of course its very interesting – microcosm and all that sort of thing.

    “But a few hundred years of developing towards democracy reduced their scope and importance in many European countries where conspiracy theories mainly survive on the fringes”

    :-) well that might depend on how one defines ‘fringe’
    ( as with all these things!!) perhaps all the Knights Templar enthusiasts would disagree? then again, isn’t everyone a Grail theorist nowadays? ;-)

  49. Ismaeel — on 4th May, 2006 at 11:05 am  

    “The British and the wahabis had interests in common in destroying the ottomans so they got together. Why not? Who do you blame? The wahabbis and British for fighting their common enemy or the ottomans for being foolish enough to declare war on Britain? There was no conspiracy to create israel between I”the zionists” and Jordan- there were attempts to get the best out of a bad situation. The US didn’t facilitate the rise of the shah- they got rid of Mossadegh, a rather different matter and then found they had no choice but to stick with the shah. In turn the mullocracy in iran conspired with the CP and other revolutionaries to get rid of the shah and then destroyed their allies. What part did the US play in the rise of Saddam? you will find that actually the Soviet union had far more influenece on the Iraqi Ba’ath party. ”

    Don, there was a very strong conspiracy between the Jordanians and the Zionists to create Israel, many books have been documented about it, which we were referred to in university. This meant that in the 1948 war Jordanian troops never advanced beyond the pre-agreed border the King had made with the Zionist authority, being the best equipped and trained of the arab armies, it helped turn the war in favour of the Zionist militias.
    The fact that the US helped the Shah of Iran came to power is also well documented. The fact that western governments were complicit in allowing the armed forces to overthrow democratically elected governments in Turkey and Algeria because they were Islamic based parties. The fact that have been complicit in preventing any real democracy coming to Egypt, Jordan, KSA etc whilst banging on about the lack of it in Iraq.
    I don’t want to get into the rights and wrongs of it all here, my point was these were conspiracies according to anyone’s definition and because the Muslim world has been so subjected to them in the last hundred years, then it is natural that people in those countries are going to be more likely to believe conspiracy theories. If it had been the other way around, it would be a european problem.
    i don’t have a problem with the english language, i gave you a dictionary definition, you were the one who refused it because there is a book called Open Conspiracy: which actually proves by it’s title that an open conspiracy is an exception, otherwise it would need the prefix: open.

    Jai, the fact that you keep on feeling the need to continue to patronise me with your psycho-babble and refuse to admit any wrongs of your own in provoking the argument on the other thread, speaks volumes about you. I don’t want to get into a personal argument with you about your personality. It is telling though that when people can’t win a debate that they have to resort to character assasination.

  50. Jai — on 4th May, 2006 at 3:10 pm  

    Ismaeel,

    You’re continuing to prove my point with every single word you say – especially as you have been repeatedly guilty of everything you are accusing me of (it was as predictable as clockwork that you would attempt to use your usual technique of turning things around at me and merely paraphrasing my own statements – I’m already 10 steps ahead of you), and indeed “character assassination” is the tactic you used to deflect any questioning on the origins and veracity of Islam, instead of merely stating the evidence and then politely agreeing to disagree. A particularly nefarious move on your part, considering that nobody here said anything negative whatsoever about Mohammad, and indeed continued to refrain from utilising such gutter tactics despite your continuous ranting about the Sikh Gurus. Of course, inside your own head you are unable to comprehend this (along with the actual reasons why people such as myself are not interested in engaging in any further theological “debate” with you), but I think we’ve all established that already. However, I’m sure it all makes perfect sense to you within the confines of whatever is actually going on inside your mind.

    It’s a classic Asian trait, and one which some (by no means all, or even most) members of certain other belligerent groups around the world are also prone to; their behaviour is perfectly fine until someone else actually questions the grandiose rhetoric and exaggerated claims, at which point all the ‘bukwaas’ begins.

    I am fortunate enough to have known extremely devout, committed Muslims who are among the most decent, humble, honest, warm-hearted and utterly trustworthy people one could ever hope to meet. I count myself truly lucky to have encountered such individuals in my life, and for their part they embraced me as a brother. You, sir, are not even remotely in the same league as them.

    I don’t know if you’re genuinely detached from reality to the point of being delusional, or if you are indeed deliberately lying to pathological levels. In any case, considering how much hypocrisy, distortion, and misinformation you have been propagating both here on PP and throughout your own blog, I can now honestly say that I would have difficulty believing anything you say at all, even if you were to take on oath on the Quran.

    Carry on, Ismaeel sahib; I’m sure there’s an audience for you somewhere.

  51. Rohin — on 4th May, 2006 at 3:12 pm  

    Guys, I’m going to close comments unless you stop.

  52. Jai — on 4th May, 2006 at 3:22 pm  

    Rohin,

    I think Ismaeel seriously needs a ‘reality check’, but I have no wish to hijack any threads or indeed converse any further with him. The cards are already on the table for all to see.

    I will therefore say nothing further on the matter, as requested.

    Waheguruji Ka Khalsa, Waheguruji Ki Fateh.

  53. Ismaeel — on 4th May, 2006 at 3:53 pm  

    LOL, Jai finally shown urself in your true light. MashaAllah truth stands clear from falsehood.
    By the way although my father is Sri Lankan, i was brought up by my English mother in a wholly english culutral manner. So there goes your nonsense diagnosis. It does however disclose your own self-loathing, care to share any more.
    Oh and emphathy etc, tell me are you are a qualified psychiatrist and if so do you think it is
    1) ethical to diagnose a patient’s mental and emotional problems on a blog?
    2) to diagnose someone who hasn’t asked for your diagnosis?
    3)helpful to someone who truly has got mental and emotional problems to present them to him on a blog?

    I think that puts your empathy nonsense into perspective. You did attack the Qur’aan and the veracity of Islam long before i said anything about your Gurus, none of whom i insulted personally, but rather asked questions about. Questions you were unable to answer and decided instead to take this so called emphathy route.
    Take a long look in the mirror before you start accusing other people of things and attacking them personally.
    To be honest i couldn’t care less for your opinion of me, but i think it is important to highlight your intellectual dishonesty.

  54. sonia — on 4th May, 2006 at 4:41 pm  

    ‘classic asian trait’ – ?!

    there are some seriously stereotypes floating around this blog continuously.

    ‘belligerent groups’ – ?

    Perhaps the world needs a crash course in social psychology – homo sapiens, individuals, peer pressure, the ‘dynamics’ of groups vs. understanding them as some fixed container with a label on the side.

    we keep coming back to this static labelling of ‘race’ and ‘groups’.

  55. Shiv Malk — on 8th May, 2006 at 10:39 pm  

    I wrote this soon after 9/11 and much of it still holds true:

    The world has gone crazy. 5000 businessmen and military personnel die and suddenly we are at war. With, whom? In what way? With a prime suspect who no one has any proof of guilt and who himself denies responsibility. More people die each day from starvation or bad water as a result of IMF loans yet were are all the three minute silences for them. Over 1.5 million children have died in Iraq as a direct result of the American imposed embargo. Which CNN viewer knows their suffering, much longer and much more painful?

    It is sickening watching countries who poured vitriol on the U.S. in their daily papers for years, suddenly Kowtowing to it’s demands and sending in messages of condolences. It is disgusting watching the press of the supposedly “free and civilised” world printing such obvious propaganda and attempting to rile masses to whatever cause the Whitehouse may choose. Where are those questions like “why did this happen”? Why is the press simply Muslim bashing? Where’s all the reflection that’s supposed to happen at a time like this? Why is no one noticing what’s happening in Palestine?
    Someone needs some sense right now.

    Shiv Malik
    ShivMalik@hotmail.com

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.