deepak1977

because the world values diamonds more than the congolese

just a note, the LTTE has carried out MORE suicide bombings than hamas has carried out in the two intifadas. also the LTTE was responsible for destroying the world trade center(the one in sri lanka) and killing former indian prime minister rajiv gandhi. ever tiger is required to wear a cianide capsule around their neck, incase they are captured. even their leader, vellupillai prabahkaran wears one. however, keep in mind during the 1980's india sent in "peace keeping" soldiers into sri lanka. the suicide bomber that actually killed gandhi was raped by indian soldiers. infact most of the "black tigers" were girls that were raped by indian and/or sri lankan soldiers or were guys who's female relatives were raped. the tamil-sinhala divide has it's roots in colonialism. the british kept the tamils in the farms, while favoring the sinhalas.

hockey: rangers-devils rangers-islanders devils-flyers habs-leafs oilers-flames habs-bruins senators-leafs red wings-aves blues-blackhawks

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

MICHIGAN SUCKS GO BOSTON U!!!!!!!!!

don't bet on it. first, only the hardline hindu groups are supporting this access, which means if they don't control the parliament, then the access will die. congress party has never had a good relationship with israel. second, india does a lot of business with the arab world and has always had good relations with them. go to the persian gulf states, go to iraq, northern africa, and you will see indians. indians are everything from laborers to businessmen. india depends alot of income from these expats, they're not going to ruin it.

how in the world does a person who yells, "it's soldiers like you, that we lost the war" to a disabled vietnam vet on national tv, gets books published. plus, the bottom line in chile, is that the us government supported the overthrow of a democratically elected government, by the military.

couldn't say it better, all of the blueshirt faithful is going to miss #35. damn jim dolan and slats for screwing up richter's career by never getting any good D-men to protect the rangers' zone:mad:

the bouldering cave

when is deep dish spinning at the roxy? can somebody give the info about it? thanks:D

a couple years ago, sasha said in URB that american dj's don't get the credit that they deserve. they don't just copy what they're doing in europe, american dj's are actually creating sounds that are distinctivley their own. and this is so true, there too many european dj's that are overrated(eg. tiesto). i am also guilty of overrating european dj's and undervaluing american dj's. btw, that's a cool site, i hope to check out some of the events soon.

"I will be loyal to the America of the true traditions; to the America of the abolitionists, of Harriet Tubman, of Thaddeus Stevens, of those who fought for my people’s freedom, not of those who tried to enslave them. And I will have no loyalty to the Forrestals, to the Harrimans, to the Wall Streeters..." Paul Robeson

peace can work, because it has worked in the past. from 1997-2000, israel was the most secure it ever was, while the PA had the most autonomy it ever had. however, isreal kept building settlements in the west bank & the gaza which ignited the second intifada. since 1993, israel has doubled the number of settlements, violating the oslo accord which ordered israel to stop the construction of settlements.

are the ones i've been to

say we do drill in alaska, who said we're going to get the oil??? private corporations are doing the drilling, and they have the right to sell the oil to the highest bidder. other countries will also compete for this oil, and they can outbid us. the oil amount is limited there, and it will take some time before things get established. this is going to make the cost of extracting the oil higher, making the prices higher. as result it is the corporations that profit and not the american people.

with all this concern for children, are we going to have bills that address the real needs of children. we have millions children without health insurance, enough to eat, attend schools that don't have adequet funding, and suffer other effects of poverty. the missing children cases that come on the news make great made for tv movies. but the truth of the matter is, the majority of the missing children in the country are not kidnapped by some psychopath, but by their parents who are in a custody battle. infact the elizabeth smart cases make up less than 10% of the kidnapping cases in the country.

being american of indian origin, i have access to a lot more info concerning the fighting. i personally know people who fought in the 1971 war and people who were in gujarat state last year during the riots, where hindu mobs killed over 2,000 muslims.

THERE IS BLOOD ON INDIAN HANDS TOO!!! indian soldiers are notorious for gang raping kashmiri women. indian security forces have executed prisoners of war. the indian army has hired death squads to carry out their dirty work, such as torture and making people "dissappear". the kashmiri people have different opinions about the rebels, however they all loathe the indian army.kashmir has the highest concentration of soldiers in the world. the indian government has failed to give the kashmiris why so many soldiers are stationed there. the indian government also fails in giving the kashmiri people reasons for staying with india. since 1947, the kashmiri people have been lied to by the indian government, have been denied to heard, and the government has refused to hold people accountable for crimes against kashmiris commited by indian soldiers. human rights watch have successfully docmented the attrocities carried out by BOTH the indian army and the pakistani backed rebels. http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/kashmir/militias.htm

the reason why kashmir is so valued by both india and pakistan, is not for cultural or religious reasons. rather for geographic reasons. look at a map of pakistan, and you will see the lifeblood of pakistan is the indus river. every town there lies on the indus, or it's tributaries. the source of the indus river lies in kashmir, where india has built dams. these dams have a serious effect on the indus, thus effecting the water concerns of 100's of millions of people. the people of the southern state of sind are often at odds with the northern punjabis, because the sindhis do not get enough water when the indus reaches sind. for india, kashmir was a buffer zone. in 1947, when india became independant, it was surrounded by 3 hostile states. pakistan to the west(and east at that time), china to the north(india and china fought a war in 1962), and the ussr was just a hop skip and a jump from india(eventually ussr and india would become strong allies). kashmir seperated the indian core from the rest of these outside forces. with the fall of the ussr and chinese realations have somewhat thawed(however indian defense minister, george fernandes has called china, "enemy #1"), kashmir has a new value for india. natural gas & oil, india can have pipelines go through kashmir from the central asian states, iran, and iraq, leaving pakistan out of the picture. this is why pakistan supported the taliban in afghanistan, because they wanted pipelines to go thorough afghanistan and into pakistan, instead of going into pakistan. the taliban ensured the pakistani government, that the pipelines would go to them. well, here's another angle to look at things.

national identity of the kashmiri people would not be in questioned. for indian secularists, they need not worry that india is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state, even without kashmir. india has the second largest muslim population in the world, second only to indonesia. even a kashmirless india would still have more muslims than the arabian penninsula. only 80% of india's population is hindu, 15% is muslim, 2%christian, 2%sikh, 1% other(zorastrians, jains, buddhists, and amnists). also for indian muslims, they do see themselves as indian, despite efforts by hindus to undermind their patriotism. the loyalty of indian muslims to india is probably the greatest achievement of the gandhi-nehru congress. the credence to the "Two Nation Theory" died in 1971 with the independence of bangladesh. from 1947-1971 there were two pakistans, east and west. the easterners felt isolated and marginalized in pakistan. the awami league in bengal led an uprising which was put down by pakistani forces. this led india to join the bengalis and overthrow the pakistani forces in bangladesh. even to this day there is hostilities between pakistan and bangladesh.

U.S. Muslim leaders reject Bin Laden call AMERICAN MUSLIM NEWS BRIEF | 2/14/2003 (Jim Remsen, Philadelphia Inquirer) - Although most Muslims repudiate bin Laden, they have not been able to escape his taint since the Sept. 11 attacks, noted Osman bin Bakar, a scholar at Georgetown University's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. "Every time he opens his mouth, it puts Muslims in difficulty," Bakar said. "It puts pressure on the Muslims here to disassociate themselves from what he is saying." Muslim leaders contacted yesterday emphatically distanced themselves from bin Laden and his latest call to suicide attacks and other terrorism. "We're Americans. We don't go for that," said Marwan Kreidie, spokesman for the Al-Aqsa Islamic Society, a North Philadelphia mosque with many Arab and Arab American members… Many Muslims disagree with U.S. foreign policy, "but that does not mean they listen to a person who is an outlaw and is doing things totally contrary to whatever Islam stands for," said Masood Ghaznavi, board chairman of the American Muslim Society of the Tristate Area… Such talk is "silly" and "only aggravates the situation," Kreidie said. "We don't need Osama bin Laden to tell us about the problems with what Israel and the United States are doing and the Palestinian rights to a homeland. "He is hijacking the religion and trying to hijack the Iraq situation, just like he hijacked the Palestinian situation before this."

when you are indian, you don't have to worry about tanning:D

nobody is appeasing anybody, because the un had not allowed saddam to invade another country. despite what you think of the inspections, they did strip iraq's military capabilities and prevented iraq from building even more military arsenal. if iraq's military capabilities are such a threat to the region, then why did turkey refuse to allow american military on it's shores, despite of the fact it would recieve over $30billion? sure there is a worry about the possibility of al-qaeda of aquiring weapons of mass destruction, especially if things get worse in pakistan. however, we have gotten to obcessed with the possibility of their persuit of wmd's, that we forget that the world trade center was brought down by conventional means, as well as the bombings in bali, southern philippines, and other acts of terrorism. /B] the three states that have fully and openly supported the creation and rise of al-qaeda are: saudi arabia, pakistan, and the us. however, using your twisted logic that supporting terrorist was good thing as long as they were killing the big bad commies. nevermind, that we completley ignored the moderates in afghanistan who too wanted the soviets out of afghanistan.

what does weapons of mass destruction-ie nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons-have to with 9/11, when the hijackers used boxcutters and shaving equipment? there are ways other than "wmd" to cause mass destruction, any smart terrorist would be more interested in looking at those methods, than going for the convential crap. none of the 9/11 terrorists had any affiliation with any rouge state, especially not iraq. the 9/11 ring leader, muhammed atta was an egyptian- egypt is an american ally w/an autocratic regime-and lived in germany, hardley a "rouge state". 15 of them came from saudi arabia, a percieved "ally" of the us. saudi arabia is a state that has been a prime sponser of radical islam. yet, downtown riyadh will not be carpet bombed. the 9/11 terrorists didn't do it in the name of a country, they did it in the name of al qaeda, a highly decentralized organization that is spread out over 60 countries. it does not make sense to bomb random nations in the hunt for al qaeda, when they are spread out. in the context of 9/11, i do not see iraq as a threat, since saddam's regime does not support al qaeda or other islamic terrorists. for saddam to do such a thing, would be suicide, and i said before saddam's first and formost goal is to protect his power. if 9/11, taught us anything, it is that this is something we cannot bomb ourselves out of. as i have stated in my preivous post, iraq does not propose a threat to it's neighbors or the us. saddam is not going to attack you, unless he percieves you to be a threat and he knows you're weak & isolated. since the end of the first gulf war, his neighbors got significantly stronger, while he has gotten weaker. saddam is a psychotic dictator, but he's not stupid. he isn't going to attack israel, when he knows israel has bigger and better nukes than he ever recieved from the united states. plus israel WILL attack iraq if they attack israel. as for north korea, they're actually seen as threat to their neighbors. the japanese are panicking, the south koreans are angry at the administration for not paying attention, and the chinese are trying their best to negotiate. for north korea, this is their only chip to play with, they do not want to be another iraq, especially since bush labeled them as a part of the "axis of evil". the north koreans want to have an agreement, where in return for not launching a pre-emptive strike, they will disarm. bush needs to negotiate with the north koreans and handle their threat, before even thinking about iraq. it's not easy, especially when dealing with the "hermit state", but it has been done before. north korea needs to be addressed, because they're an ACTUAL THREAT, the us still hasn't made the case for iraq. who needs weapons of mass destruction, when you have BOXCUTTERS!!!!!

is saddam a real threat to the us or his neighbors? a bigger threat to the saftey of americans than say: al qaeda, north korea, or the dwindling economy? saddam hussien has been a force in iraqi politics for over 30 years, and he has invaded only two countries in that time. that hardley makes him the hitler (who invaded far more countries in a 1/10 of the time it took saddam to invade iran) the media makes him to be. saddam is more of a stalinist dictator, a dictator that is more concerned with controling what he has than creating an empire. iraq did invade iran, however iran was the aggressor . the iranian revolutionary government tried to assinate top iraqi officials and conducted border raids. the iranian government tried to promote communalism among iraq's ethnic groups. ayatollah ruhollah khamenei, made it no secret that he wanted to spread the islamic revolution to iraq, afterall that's where he was in exile during the shah's regime. it was also no coincidence that saddam invaded a country that had a weakened military after the revolution and was diplomatically isolated from the rest of the world. maybe iran wouldn't be invaded, had the ayatollahs didn't throw most of the top army generals in jail after the revolution? as for kuwait, the two nations did have issues with one another over oil prices and war debts. the invasion only occured after the first bush administration stated that we will not interfere in inter-arab issues. bush could've easily prevented the invasion, however he needed to wag the dog. saddam hussien's has only attacked when he felt vulnerable and he felt he can defeat his enemy. all of his victims, whether they be iranians, kuwaitis, or the kurd were all undermatched and isolated. he never used weapons of mass destruction against those who he know can equally retaliate with their own weapons of mass destruction. he lobbed missiles at tel aviv, because israel did not retaliated-in order to keep america's arab coalition in the gulf war. this time around things are different. ariel sharon has made it no secret that israel will attack back. israel has the weapons' technology to wipe out iraq. we all know, saddam is more concerned about keeping his power in iraq than destroying israel. is he a threat to his neighbors, when turkey, saudi arabia, and israel have recieved massive military aid from the us? or iran, who has a reformist government that is more concerned about their domestic agenda than spreading the revolution. jordan and iraq share an open border, where tons of people cross the border everyday. he didn't invade jordan. if he is a threat to his neighbors, why did we bribe the turks to allow us to put military bases? the kurds in the north and the shi'as of the south are far safer now from saddam's forces, that there is a no fly zone. if it's wrong for france to profit from saddam's regime-which it is-then it's wrong for cheney to profit off saddam's regime too. infact, when he was ceo of halliburton, he violated american laws in making oil contracts with the iraqi government. i guess that's "unamerican" to point out the hypocracy of the bush administration or about corporations.