American Shithole

High Culture, Religion, Philosophy and Esoterica.
User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1707
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Example of long memories

Post by cassowary » Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:21 pm

My friend Neverfail,

Here is an example of the region's long memories of Islam. This article appears in a Sikh website talking about Muslim genocide committed centuries ago.

Excerpt:
With the invasion of India by Mahmud Ghazni about 1000 A.D., began the Muslim invasions into the Indian subcontinent and they lasted for several centuries. Nadir Shah made a mountain of the skulls of the Hindus he killed in Delhi alone. Babur raised towers of Hindu skulls at Khanua when he defeated Rana Sanga in 1527 and later he repeated the same horrors after capturing the fort of Chanderi. Akbar ordered a general massacre of 30,000 Rajputs after he captured Chithorgarh in 1568. The Bahamani Sultans had an annual agenda of killing a minimum of 100,000 Hindus every year.
You do not believe that people in the sub-continent would remember the violence done a thousand years ago by long-dead Islamic warriors, but they do - just as Muslims in the Mid East still recall the crusaders.

Another excerpt:
These contemporary records boasted about and glorified the crimes that were committed – and the genocide of tens of millions of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhist and Jainist, mass rapes of women and the destruction of thousands of ancient Hindu / Buddhist temples and libraries have been well documented and provide solid proof of the World’s biggest holocaust.
The reminders are everywhere - a Muslim victory tower in Calcutta, a mosque built over a Hindu temple and horrors forever seared in their collective memories.

I think the politically correct western newspapers have overlooked this. Their black and white take of events in Myanmar is that the Burmese are bad; the Muslims are victims. It is not so simple. It failed to explain why fear and loathing of Islam runs deep in this part of the world. This is why the Burmese are conducting ethnic cleansing. But I guess the western press is not allowed to say bad things about Islam's ugly history.

If I were reporting the news, I would be more nuanced. While condemning the ethnic cleansing, I would also tell the viewers why there is fear and loathing of Islam in the Indian subcontinent.

neverfail
Posts: 1740
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Example of long memories

Post by neverfail » Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:54 pm

cassowary wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:21 pm
My friend Neverfail,

Here is an example of the region's long memories of Islam. This article appears in a Sikh website talking about Muslim genocide committed centuries ago.

Excerpt:
With the invasion of India by Mahmud Ghazni about 1000 A.D., began the Muslim invasions into the Indian subcontinent and they lasted for several centuries. Nadir Shah made a mountain of the skulls of the Hindus he killed in Delhi alone. Babur raised towers of Hindu skulls at Khanua when he defeated Rana Sanga in 1527 and later he repeated the same horrors after capturing the fort of Chanderi. Akbar ordered a general massacre of 30,000 Rajputs after he captured Chithorgarh in 1568. The Bahamani Sultans had an annual agenda of killing a minimum of 100,000 Hindus every year.
You do not believe that people in the sub-continent would remember the violence done a thousand years ago by long-dead Islamic warriors, but they do - just as Muslims in the Mid East still recall the crusaders.

Another excerpt:
These contemporary records boasted about and glorified the crimes that were committed – and the genocide of tens of millions of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhist and Jainist, mass rapes of women and the destruction of thousands of ancient Hindu / Buddhist temples and libraries have been well documented and provide solid proof of the World’s biggest holocaust.
The reminders are everywhere - a Muslim victory tower in Calcutta, a mosque built over a Hindu temple and horrors forever seared in their collective memories.

I think the politically correct western newspapers have overlooked this. Their black and white take of events in Myanmar is that the Burmese are bad; the Muslims are victims. It is not so simple. It failed to explain why fear and loathing of Islam runs deep in this part of the world. This is why the Burmese are conducting ethnic cleansing. But I guess the western press is not allowed to say bad things about Islam's ugly history.

If I were reporting the news, I would be more nuanced. While condemning the ethnic cleansing, I would also tell the viewers why there is fear and loathing of Islam in the Indian subcontinent.
Conceded that you are most likely right on the above point Cassowary. But if they are just going re-live the bitter past in order to stoke modern resentments: to fight and re-fight the wars and genocides of a thousand years ago then how are they ever going to make any progress?
Last edited by neverfail on Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

neverfail
Posts: 1740
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: the best shithole that money can buy?

Post by neverfail » Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:27 pm

This might be a little off topic but I submit it to illustrate something about the US President:

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 393899.cms

Presently there is no guarantee that Trump will persuade Congress to grant him this wish. Yet it remains to be said that in my opinion Trump is right to question why the US taxpayer should be called upon to subsidise this south Asian "shithole".

The Pakistan establishment has for decades been "playing both ends against the middle" and not just with the USA. It has taken advantage of its key geostrategic position to get whatever it can out of all of the interested foreign powers with an utter lack of any known scruples.

What Trump fails to acknowledge is that likes and dislikes have nothing to do with the effective conduct of foreign policy.. Past US administrations have kept the flow of aid going as the cost of having to do business with it (and keep it from falling into the hands of a foreign power. In the 1980's Pakistan was the indispensable conduit that permitted the CIA to get stinger missiles and other valuable arms into Afghanistan to enable the Mujahideen to wage effective guerilla warfare against the Soviet occupation. From 2001 onward it was also the supply line across which the material support for NATO troops and Afghan government forces flowed to enable them to fight the Taliban.

The ironic fact is that the Taliban itself was created and organised by the Pakistan Intelligence agency which operates as a law unto itself - just like the army in Myanmar. No Pakistan government has been able to rein it in and barring a revolution (unlikely) none ever will. It means that in all of those years in which American and other western troops were fighting the Taliban, this rogue organ of government in Pakistan was still apparently lending them support.

See what I mean about this country having an incredibly slippery (and highly dysfunctional) power establishment?

Past US administrations could not have helped but know that they were being had yet continued to furnish the aid money to what is arguably "one of the worst countries that money can buy". The reason was that this country due to its location was too important a foreign policy tool to be rejected.

The conduct of a nation's foreign policy abroad has nothing to do with approval.

Trump is right to question Pakistan's moral right to be the recipient of US aid but simultaneously has revealed his schoolboyish utter grasp of political reality.

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: the best shithole that money can buy?

Post by Milo » Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:15 am

neverfail wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:27 pm
This might be a little off topic but I submit it to illustrate something about the US President:

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 393899.cms

Presently there is no guarantee that Trump will persuade Congress to grant him this wish. Yet it remains to be said that in my opinion Trump is right to question why the US taxpayer should be called upon to subsidise this south Asian "shithole".

The Pakistan establishment has for decades been "playing both ends against the middle" and not just with the USA. It has taken advantage of its key geostrategic position to get whatever it can out of all of the interested foreign powers with an utter lack of any known scruples.

What Trump fails to acknowledge is that likes and dislikes have nothing to do with the effective conduct of foreign policy.. Past US administrations have kept the flow of aid going as the cost of having to do business with it (and keep it from falling into the hands of a foreign power. In the 1980's Pakistan was the indispensable conduit that permitted the CIA to get stinger missiles and other valuable arms into Afghanistan to enable the Mujahideen to wage effective guerilla warfare against the Soviet occupation. From 2001 onward it was also the supply line across which the material support for NATO troops and Afghan government forces flowed to enable them to fight the Taliban.

The ironic fact is that the Taliban itself was created and organised by the Pakistan Intelligence agency which operates as a law unto itself - just like the army in Myanmar. No Pakistan government has been able to rein it in and barring a revolution (unlikely) none ever will. It means that in all of those years in which American and other western troops were fighting the Taliban, this rogue organ of government in Pakistan was still apparently lending them support.

See what I mean about this country having an incredibly slippery (and highly dysfunctional) power establishment?

Past US administrations could not have helped but know that they were being had yet continued to furnish the aid money to what is arguably "one of the worst countries that money can buy". The reason was that this country due to its location was too important a foreign policy tool to be rejected.

The conduct of a nation's foreign policy abroad has nothing to do with approval.

Trump is right to question Pakistan's moral right to be the recipient of US aid but simultaneously has revealed his schoolboyish utter grasp of political reality.
Entirely correct.

I would add that Trump has also boxed in Pakistan now, so that the government there pretty much has to be uncooperative with the US.

This 'deal maker in chief' concept isn't meshing with reality.

neverfail
Posts: 1740
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: the best shithole that money can buy?

Post by neverfail » Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:20 am

Milo wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:15 am
neverfail wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:27 pm
This might be a little off topic but I submit it to illustrate something about the US President:

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 393899.cms

Presently there is no guarantee that Trump will persuade Congress to grant him this wish. Yet it remains to be said that in my opinion Trump is right to question why the US taxpayer should be called upon to subsidise this south Asian "shithole".

The Pakistan establishment has for decades been "playing both ends against the middle" and not just with the USA. It has taken advantage of its key geostrategic position to get whatever it can out of all of the interested foreign powers with an utter lack of any known scruples.

What Trump fails to acknowledge is that likes and dislikes have nothing to do with the effective conduct of foreign policy.. Past US administrations have kept the flow of aid going as the cost of having to do business with it (and keep it from falling into the hands of a foreign power. In the 1980's Pakistan was the indispensable conduit that permitted the CIA to get stinger missiles and other valuable arms into Afghanistan to enable the Mujahideen to wage effective guerilla warfare against the Soviet occupation. From 2001 onward it was also the supply line across which the material support for NATO troops and Afghan government forces flowed to enable them to fight the Taliban.

The ironic fact is that the Taliban itself was created and organised by the Pakistan Intelligence agency which operates as a law unto itself - just like the army in Myanmar. No Pakistan government has been able to rein it in and barring a revolution (unlikely) none ever will. It means that in all of those years in which American and other western troops were fighting the Taliban, this rogue organ of government in Pakistan was still apparently lending them support.

See what I mean about this country having an incredibly slippery (and highly dysfunctional) power establishment?

Past US administrations could not have helped but know that they were being had yet continued to furnish the aid money to what is arguably "one of the worst countries that money can buy". The reason was that this country due to its location was too important a foreign policy tool to be rejected.

The conduct of a nation's foreign policy abroad has nothing to do with approval.

Trump is right to question Pakistan's moral right to be the recipient of US aid but simultaneously has revealed his schoolboyish utter grasp of political reality.
Entirely correct.

I would add that Trump has also boxed in Pakistan now, so that the government there pretty much has to be uncooperative with the US.

This 'deal maker in chief' concept isn't meshing with reality.
Very true too Milo.

Yet where can Pakistan go now other than right into the arms of the PRC?

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1707
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Example of long memories

Post by cassowary » Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:58 am

neverfail wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:54 pm
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:21 pm
My friend Neverfail,

Here is an example of the region's long memories of Islam. This article appears in a Sikh website talking about Muslim genocide committed centuries ago.

Excerpt:
With the invasion of India by Mahmud Ghazni about 1000 A.D., began the Muslim invasions into the Indian subcontinent and they lasted for several centuries. Nadir Shah made a mountain of the skulls of the Hindus he killed in Delhi alone. Babur raised towers of Hindu skulls at Khanua when he defeated Rana Sanga in 1527 and later he repeated the same horrors after capturing the fort of Chanderi. Akbar ordered a general massacre of 30,000 Rajputs after he captured Chithorgarh in 1568. The Bahamani Sultans had an annual agenda of killing a minimum of 100,000 Hindus every year.
You do not believe that people in the sub-continent would remember the violence done a thousand years ago by long-dead Islamic warriors, but they do - just as Muslims in the Mid East still recall the crusaders.

Another excerpt:
These contemporary records boasted about and glorified the crimes that were committed – and the genocide of tens of millions of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhist and Jainist, mass rapes of women and the destruction of thousands of ancient Hindu / Buddhist temples and libraries have been well documented and provide solid proof of the World’s biggest holocaust.
The reminders are everywhere - a Muslim victory tower in Calcutta, a mosque built over a Hindu temple and horrors forever seared in their collective memories.

I think the politically correct western newspapers have overlooked this. Their black and white take of events in Myanmar is that the Burmese are bad; the Muslims are victims. It is not so simple. It failed to explain why fear and loathing of Islam runs deep in this part of the world. This is why the Burmese are conducting ethnic cleansing. But I guess the western press is not allowed to say bad things about Islam's ugly history.

If I were reporting the news, I would be more nuanced. While condemning the ethnic cleansing, I would also tell the viewers why there is fear and loathing of Islam in the Indian subcontinent.
Conceded that you are most likely right on the above point Cassowary. But if they are just going re-live the bitter past in order to stoke modern resentments: to fight and re-fight the wars and genocides of a thousand years ago then how are they ever going to make any progress?
The ball is in the court of the Muslim community to show that the massacres that occurred centuries ago and the ideology that motivated it is a thing of the past. But unfortunately, this barbarous form of Islam is alive and well - ISIS, Al Qaeda and other groups. So there is a lot of work for moderate Muslims to do. As Trump said, the Muslim world must drive out this radical ideology (aka classical Islam) out of their mosques. But it is an uphill struggle because Mohammed, its founder behaved like ISIS does today.

On a related matter, I see a difference in opinion between those who live in regions that do not have historic contact with Islam from those that do. In Europe, the division is stark. Western Europe tells us that Islam is a peaceful religion and welcome Muslim refugees while Eastern Europe is adamant that they do not come in.

I guess East Europe have heroes in their history books that fought Islam and martyrs that died at the hands of Islam. West Europe, apart from Spain had not been conquered. The Indian sub-continent which had for centuries experienced the brutality of Islamic conquest view Islam with fear and hatred while N America despite 911 also say that Islam is peace.

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: the best shithole that money can buy?

Post by Milo » Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:31 am

neverfail wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:20 am
Milo wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:15 am
neverfail wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:27 pm
This might be a little off topic but I submit it to illustrate something about the US President:

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 393899.cms

Presently there is no guarantee that Trump will persuade Congress to grant him this wish. Yet it remains to be said that in my opinion Trump is right to question why the US taxpayer should be called upon to subsidise this south Asian "shithole".

The Pakistan establishment has for decades been "playing both ends against the middle" and not just with the USA. It has taken advantage of its key geostrategic position to get whatever it can out of all of the interested foreign powers with an utter lack of any known scruples.

What Trump fails to acknowledge is that likes and dislikes have nothing to do with the effective conduct of foreign policy.. Past US administrations have kept the flow of aid going as the cost of having to do business with it (and keep it from falling into the hands of a foreign power. In the 1980's Pakistan was the indispensable conduit that permitted the CIA to get stinger missiles and other valuable arms into Afghanistan to enable the Mujahideen to wage effective guerilla warfare against the Soviet occupation. From 2001 onward it was also the supply line across which the material support for NATO troops and Afghan government forces flowed to enable them to fight the Taliban.

The ironic fact is that the Taliban itself was created and organised by the Pakistan Intelligence agency which operates as a law unto itself - just like the army in Myanmar. No Pakistan government has been able to rein it in and barring a revolution (unlikely) none ever will. It means that in all of those years in which American and other western troops were fighting the Taliban, this rogue organ of government in Pakistan was still apparently lending them support.

See what I mean about this country having an incredibly slippery (and highly dysfunctional) power establishment?

Past US administrations could not have helped but know that they were being had yet continued to furnish the aid money to what is arguably "one of the worst countries that money can buy". The reason was that this country due to its location was too important a foreign policy tool to be rejected.

The conduct of a nation's foreign policy abroad has nothing to do with approval.

Trump is right to question Pakistan's moral right to be the recipient of US aid but simultaneously has revealed his schoolboyish utter grasp of political reality.
Entirely correct.

I would add that Trump has also boxed in Pakistan now, so that the government there pretty much has to be uncooperative with the US.

This 'deal maker in chief' concept isn't meshing with reality.
Very true too Milo.

Yet where can Pakistan go now other than right into the arms of the PRC?
Bear in mind that they are already a vassal of the KSA.

neverfail
Posts: 1740
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Example of long memories

Post by neverfail » Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:30 pm

cassowary wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:58 am

On a related matter, I see a difference in opinion between those who live in regions that do not have historic contact with Islam from those that do. In Europe, the division is stark. Western Europe tells us that Islam is a peaceful religion and welcome Muslim refugees while Eastern Europe is adamant that they do not come in.

I guess East Europe have heroes in their history books that fought Islam and martyrs that died at the hands of Islam. West Europe, apart from Spain had not been conquered. The Indian sub-continent which had for centuries experienced the brutality of Islamic conquest view Islam with fear and hatred while N America despite 911 also say that Islam is peace.
A shrewd observation Cassowary.

A. In the case of the Western democracies: I suspect that you have lost sight of the fact that politics is a rather dishonest game. Yes, even in my country: except for the odd discordant, maverick voice like that of Pauline Hanson; our parliamentarians keep on telling us that "islam is a religion of peace". The mass media likewise take up that litany. But do they really believe the tosh that they spout? In most cases I fear not! I have reason to believe that they do that for the dual purpose of 1. calming the fears of their non-Muslim majority constituents so that these do not take matters into their own hands and commit violence against the local Muslims and 2. to calm the fears of the local Muslims to mitigate alienation and give them the feeling of inclusiveness; to disarm these of an incentive to become supporters of violently radical groups like ISIS.

Quite apart from acting like responsible leadership, a calm community is easier to manage. Opinion formers like politicians and news editors are not in the business of being soothsayers and prophets; purveyors of universal truths but are into something closer to crowd management. So they follow the path of expediency and convenience upon which as lie is as good as the truth as long as it serves a useful purpose.
..............................................................................................................

The lands of eastern Europe were right up until about 1990 under the thumb of the Soviet Union. Historically this has been the poorer and more backward half of Europe and whilst I believe that they have made remarkable [progress in the quarter century since the Soviet empire bit the dust the gap between these and the more affluent countries along Europe's Atlantic seaboard has still not closed. Succinctly, the east Europeans likely do not want to find their hard won prosperity snatched away from them by influxes of unwonted aliens.

The west Europeans are far more accustomed to having non-Western foreigners in their midst: bearing in mind that it was from these countries that around half a millennium ago ships set out into the unplumbed Atlantic Ocean to explore the World and bring home its riches. An enterprise the lands of eastern Europe were excluded from due to these being largely landlocked.
.........................................................................................................

Special mention should be made of Germany. When its leader Angela Merkel made the fateful decision that Germany should take in up to a million Syrian refugees she was thinking in terms of her country living down its Nazi past. Unfortunately Frau Merkel seems to have been very out of touch with her constituents. Many ordinary Germans disapproved even of the foreigners of Muslim heritage (such as the Turks) who had already settled in their country in large numbers so the decision to admit so many Syrians must have been the last straw.

Worth noting that the biggest public backlash came from eastern Germany - the former Communist part. The toxins left behind by a regime like that do not disappear overnight.

Germany in my eyes is a freakish sort of place. It has the strongest economy in Europe and its folk, at least on the western side of the country, enjoy living standards that are among the best Europe has on offer. Yet always memory of the two World Wars and the spectre of their national socialist past (along with fear of a re-run) hangs over what might otherwise be a very cheerful scenario like a permanent sullen, depressing, dark cloud.

Post Reply