All is not well in the empire. From the eruption of violence in the Balkans to hot spots in Afghanistan, Haiti, and Iraq, the Bush administration is rushing to stamp out smoldering conflicts that threaten to ignite into full-scale civil wars. Even with its massive $400+ billion budget for "national defense" (roughly equivalent to the combined defense expenditures of the next 13 highest spending nations), the United States has many more overseas commitments than security dollars to fulfill them and many more conflicts to keep a lid on than forces to do it.
During his presidential campaign, President Bush promised to withdraw U.S. forces from the long-forgotten Balkans (5,000 in Kosovo and 3,000 in Bosnia) but changed his mind after he took office. He may regret reneging on that pledge. During the recent upsurge of Serb-Albanian clashes in Kosovo, the administration rushed additional peacekeeping forces to the province. In fact, the United States remains the ultimate guarantor of peace in Kosovo, a place left in limbo since 1999, when the U.S military separated the mainly Albanian province from Serbia. The same is true in Bosnia, where peacekeepers continue to keep the unfriendly Serb, Croat and Muslim factions at bay, nine years after a foreign occupation that was supposed to be gone in one.
Another "it's not over, till it's over" (and it never seems to be over) hot spot is Haiti. The United States reinstated the democratically elected leader Jean-Bertrand Aristide in the mid-1990s, then decided that other human rights abusers were more compliant with U.S. policy and pressured Aristide to leave. Presently, a meager force of 1,600 Marines is presiding over a volatile nation in which both Aristide supporters and elements of the former security forces remain armed. Using Iraq as inspiration, either group may become emboldened to challenge U.S. military authority if things fail to go their way. Aristide's claim that he was forced out of power at gunpoint by the U.S. military, whether true or not, fuels anti-U.S. sentiments, while his return to the Caribbean, could escalate Haitian turmoil and lead to civil war.
And the news gets worse. Remember Afghanistan, where the United States still has 11,000 troops? The Taliban is resurgent and violence is escalating among the warlords. Hamid Karzai, the U.S.-installed president is barely mayor of Kabul. This fractious country is another good candidate for internecine conflict.
The most likely civil war, according to many observers, could occur in Iraq, home to the fractious Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites. The United States currently has 153,000 troops tied down in what appears to be an endless, deadly quagmire against an unknown enemy. If any of the three ethnic/religious factions start warring with the other, the situation could explode. This at a time when the blowback terrorism of the Iraq War has caused some countries with forces in Iraq to pledge to withdraw their troops (Spain) or grumble that they had been misled about the Iraqi threat (Poland). But any thinning of peacekeeping forces in volatile Iraq is a major setback for a U.S.-led occupation already hanging on by its fingernails. The arrogant U.S. treatment of its allies in Iraq may make American friends reluctant to cooperate in current or future peacekeeping missions. When the Spanish decided that the cost of supporting the U.S. misadventure in Iraq had become too high, instead of thanking Spain for initially going out on a limb to become one of the few U.S. allies to provide troops, the Bush administration accused Spain of appeasing terrorists.
If any of these conflicts erupt in full-blown war, U.S. forces could be strained to the breaking point. If that's not enough, the Bush administration has continued to take advantage of September 11 attacks to spread its imperial wings even farther. The United States has constructed new military bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan to contain China from the west and protect Central Asian oil. To guard Persian Gulf oil, new bases have also been constructed in Qatar, Iraq and Djibouti. In addition to being used to project U.S. force to other parts of those regions, the bases imply a commitment to come to the aid of the specific countries. The number of new countries that the United States has pledged to defend will further increase dramatically with the upcoming broad expansion of the NATO alliance. Add those new obligations to the ongoing commitments to defend wealthy allies in East Asia and Europe, each of which require 100,000 forces. More informal military alliances exist with Israel, Taiwan and the many countries that have U.S. Marines or Special Forces helping them battle guerrillas-for example, Georgia, Yemen, Colombia, and the Philippines.
And what does the United States get for providing 350,000 forces overseas to defend the world. Not much. Despite U.S. protection, U.S. allies decline to fully open their markets to American goods and services. In fact, the United States is reluctant to pressure the allies to do so because it fears losing local military bases needed for U.S. forces to defend those countries! Thus, one can only conclude that the U.S. government perversely cares more about retaining a dangerously overextended global empire than it does about the economic prosperity of the American people.
Ivan Eland is the Director of the Center on Peace and Liberty at the Independent Institute in Oakland, California and author of the book, Putting "Defense" Back into U.S. Defense Policy: Rethinking U.S. Security in the Post-Cold War World.
Go back about 13 centuries and look at Raj Kumar Ashoka...he was a HINDU RAJPUT who massacred his entire family by killing all his brothers because he wanted the kingdom to be his own and no one else's. He then launched a multitude of wars and battles against his own baraderee (his own Rajput brethren), where millions of people died because of the fact that Raj Kumar Ashoka was obsessed with power and would kill anyone who challenged his authority. He was like Firaun.
The artist formerly known as Nick wanted to delve into the facts of history...well he should stop picking and choosing himself by labeling Muslims as being a certain way which is obvious and clear by his comments, time and time again....I will never stop in responding to his false claims, so he should consider giving up his attempts at brainwashing people here...not as long as I am around, too bad
All those citations used in the "swordoftruth.org" article have many conclusions which contradict the artist formerly known as Nick's presumptions and blatant generalizations. NOT ONCE in the entire article did I find a place where it says "100,000,000 million Hindu's perished" which the artist formerly known as had claimed. SO HE IS THE ONE LYING! To take an excerpt from the article He/She used:
"Now Afganistan is a Moslem country. Logically, this means either one or more of the following must have happened:
a) original residents of Hindu Kush converted to Islam, or
b) they were slaughtered and the conquerors took over, or
c) they were driven out."
What a bloody fool the artist formerly known as is, because the author of this article doesnt' even know what really happened in Afghanistan, but the artist formerly known as Nick does!
NICK IS A LIAR AND A TROLL
He has nothing better to do with his time but to dedicate his garbage life to spreading lies about Muslims.
If he wants to talk about the origins of people in Afghanistan, you should read this and see that htey have JEWISH ANCESTRY from the ten lost tribes of Israel, not Hindustani Ancestry:
Stop believing the lies posted by the artist formery known as Nick, because he only does so to contaminate the minds of people. Can you not see the way Afghani's resemble Jews in appearance? It is because the Jews were wandering and were brought through the Khyber Pass with Alexander, when the Jews joined his army and when they reached Hindustan, many settled.
Claims of Muslims slaughtering "Hindu Afghans" are false
Akbar Khan believes that the only way to discredit this article is to associate it with Hindunet. Whether or not it may also be found on Hindunet is beside the point, since the root sources of information are various reputable encyclopedias, history books and National Geographics. But as Akbar Khan admits, even he cannot deny the sources, which is why he tries continues to try to ignore them.
It is not surprising that now he has chosen a different tactic, which is to allege that I claim the article as my own work. But a less lazy reading of my prior comments (which were written in English, reveal that only I claimed to research this article. So another lie Khan is exposed.
In any event, the Moghul genocide of many centuries ago was unfortunately not the last time that the Muslim leaders of the Subcontinent committed mass murder.
It appears that the successors of the Mongol generals who conquered South Asia were no better than their ancestors.
It is quite a coincidence that hte citations used all by the artist formerly known as Nick, all somehow appear in an article by hindunet.org. Exactly all the same citations, oh yes I am sure he/she whatever whoever this person is, will deny that even if I provide the link with the exact same citations used. As if this individual is trying to claim that he/she researched this himself/herself.
Copying and pasting information cited by hindunet.org does not validate an individual's statements about an event in history...
He/she can keep calling me a liar when he/she is the one copying and pasting information as being his/her own work.
Furthermore, he claims that "Kush" is a corrupution of the word "Koh", even though "Kush" is a Persian word meaning "slaughter". But I doubt it, since the term "Koh" is used as is for the western portion of Hindu Kush, viz. Koh-i-Baba, for the region Swat Kohistan, and in the names of the three peaks of this range, viz. Koh-i-Langer, Koh-i-Bandakor, and Koh-i-Mondi. Seems to me that if the original namers of the region would meant "Koh", then they wouldn't have used "Koh" in some places and "Kush" in others.
But what is the only think that Akbar Khan cite as proof? Encyclopedia Britannica, the same source that published about the genocide of the Moghuls. Akbar Khan is picking and choosing from his own source what he wants to believe and what he doesn't, further diminishing his credibility on the subject.
We can agree that the matter is now resolved. ;)
The name Hindu Kush is a corruption of Hindu Koh, meaning Hindu Mountains, as the region Swat Kohistan, and the names of hte three peaks of this range are also called Koh-i-Langer, Koh-i-Bandakor, and Koh-i-Mondi as well. This is confirmed in Encyclopedia Britannica.
I guess those who have doubts about this can negate it and take up their issues with Encyclopedia Britannica and say that they are wrong.
As for his claim that "Hindu Kush was an area named around 1000 B.C." (which incidentally is contradicted by his own citing of Encyclopdia Britannica), highly doubt it. Additionally, Britannica tries to translate the word "Kush" from Arabic, when Persian, a languages more indigenous to the area, translates it as "killer".
But since Akbar Khan likes Britannica, I will give provide some cites from Britannica as well as other sources. Encyclopedia Britannica informs that in December 1398 AD, Timur Lane ordered the execution of at least 50,000 captives before the battle for Delhi, .. and after the battle those inhabitants (of Delhi) not killed were removed (as slaves) (1), while other reference says that the number of captives butchered by Timur Lane's army was about 100,000 (2). Later on Encyclopedia Britannica mentions that the (secular?) Mughal emperor Akbar 'ordered the massacre of about 30,000 (captured) Rajput Hindus on February 24, 1568 AD, after the battle for Chitod' (3). Another reference indicates that this massacre of 30,000 Hindu peasants at Chitod is recorded by Abul Fazl, Akbar's court historian himself (4). These two 'one day' massacres are sufficient to provide a reference point for estimating the scale of Hindu genocide. The Afgan historian Khondamir records that during one of the many repeated invasions on the city of Herat in western Afganistan, 1,500,000 residents perished (5).
1. Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 th Ed, Vol.21, pp. 54-55, 1987
2. An Advanced History of India, by R.C.Majumdar, H.C.Raychaudhuri, K.Datta, 2nd Ed., MacMillan and Co, London, pp.336-37, 1965
3. Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 th Ed, Vol.21, p.65, 1987
No insinuations dear readers...there are many who have visited this site simply to run down Muslim people as being responsible for murders at Hindu Kush for example where Mongolians (Genghis Khan), Chinese, Tajikstani's, and all the people of Alexander the Great.
This is how one Encyclopedia describes Hindu Kush:
The name Hindu Kush derives from the Arabic for "Mountains of India." Its earliest known usage occurs on a map published about AD 1000.
Copyright 1994-2001 Encyclopdia Britannica, Inc.
As you can see people, Hindu Kush was an area named around 1000 B.C., regardless of how it is now interpreted, there were people who travelled and passed through this high mountainous range for hundreds of years from all over the place, East and West.
So like I said...making blanket statements like, 'Muslims killed 100 millions Hindus here' is a far cry from the reality..really, some people are out for a serious response, and I will pay attention and respond to those who try to cause mischief and spread such grand lies.
On the bright side, at least Akbar Khan has backed off his earlier insinuations that people here try to "run down" Muslims. His "mountain and molehill" comment seems to confirm how he really feels about that.
"I will give you my Ultimatum, let the Qur'an SPEAK!:"
As linguists would tell anyone, the word used in my sentence is clearly no matter of being a threat upon anyone, about any matter. "MY ULTIMATUM" is CLEARLY in a different connotation as one person who calls himself Nick Cameron tries so desperately to attribute to me. The connotation used here if ANYONE reads correctly, is clearly about myself, and tot towards anyone!!
By the wa, when you are the head of a state that plans to invade two foreign countries for hte purposes of which are still yet to be known really, and say in your speech, "You are either with 'us', or against 'us'" is a threat. As you can see, people who are American citizens living in the USA and also happen to be Muslims who have nothing in common with the so called terrorists on US officials' lists, other than their names, are being singled out as being against them. This is the bureaucratic funcionality of the democratic process...you get squeezed out and are labeled guilty until proven to be innocent...also refer to the many Guantanamo Bay inmates who after being held there for 2 years in degrading living conditions worse than the living condidions of the US trained dogs, are released and told that they have been "cleared"...OF WHAT? Obviously, when you look in realistic terms and stop dreaming the American dream, you will see that this "either you're with us or against us" is an Ultimatum with the connotation being that if you do not agree with me I will, by the clear examples listed above, do so and so to you, and many other related things like harrassing you and your family.
Why do people make a mountain out of a mole? Don't ask me, but that's their problem. But I'm always ready to speak the truth regardless.
When I say that we don't need to understand Islam, I mean we don't need to understand the finer points of the religion. This is all non-Muslims need to know:
I hear what you're saying, and I agree that it's important that we try to understand the Muslim world. Fact is that we have no choice but to reach a "meeting of minds", if you will, with other people because otherwise we will not have a lasting peace.
Nevertheless, I don't necessarily agree that we as Christians or as Americans need to understand Islam to achieve this peace. We are not in conflict with Islam so much as with the Muslim world. Besides, most of us don't understand Hinduism but we're not as frequently butting heads with the Hindu world. It is enough to know that the majority of Muslims ultimately desire peace with us, so we can build a dialogue from there.
In the end, we must all open our hearts to others in order to gain understanding, because understanding must come before eternal peace is possible.
A statement, especially in diplomatic negotiations, that expresses or implies the threat of serious penalties if the terms are not accepted.
[New Latin, from neuter of Latin ultimtus, last. See ultimate.]
Claiming that your interpretation of the Quran is an "ultimatum" is your business and I feel no need to debate you on Islam, but you can't tell us that ultimatums, like Bush's "You are either with us or with the terrorists" are not threats. You can try to redefine words if that is your wish, but you should also recognize that they are *your* idiosyncratic definitions that most of the English-speaking world does not share.
If you don't mean to make a threat, then very good I'm glad to hear that you've decided to tone down the rhetoric. Stay with the kind words over the ultimatums and all will be OK.
I gave my ultimatum, I gave my final proposition, the words of the Qur'an itself because that is what people need to study at great lengths so that Islam can be understood with a reasonable level of understanding. Some people profess that they know a lot while they don't, and some people are humble and and even though they are knowledgable, do not go out of their way to prove to others that somehow that it's either their way or hte highway. I posted those quotes from The Qur'an because it is my belief. I am not forcing you or threatening you as the one who calls himself "Nick Cameron" has tried to make it seem as if that were the case when it is not. I am simply telling you that this is what I believe in b/c it is in the Qur'an and no one can shake my belief in this glorious book.
Thanks for your reply Mebrocky, and I still ask you to provide me with a solution as to why frequent visitors to this site come here to showcase their misconception that the majority of Muslims in the world are so and so, whiel they are not? This is not the case in fact none of us know truly if they are or not a certain way until you know all of them. The best thing you can do is offer good guidance and unity - that is what I intend to do. But when people come here and say the same gobbledegook over and over without any reasonable grasp of independent thinking and study, then I must take the time to refute such statements which are false to me.
I don't think that anyone here "runs down Muslims", since after all this is a Muslim controlled website. And I have yet to see anyone here try to intimidate Muslims or bully them into submission. However, many non-Muslims have sincerely tried to explain their frustrations with the seeming indifference to their concerns emanating from the other side. Unfortunately, they are generally met with hostility and bigotry.
In the end, peace is possible only if the other side accepts the realities of Western insecurity and promises to join us in fighting it. Anyrthing else would be uncivilized.
One thing we have to remember is that even though you can face up to a bully by alerting Canadian law enforcement, America cannot face bullies that way on the global stage because, as you know, there is no global body with the power of law enforcement over countries. So the American government has no choice but to rely on it's own power to do justice for the American people. And like it or not, America presently has the power to project its long reach over every corner of the globe. That means everyone outside the U.S. can feel our presence when we act in accordance with our interests.
Is it fair? Arguably, it's not because other the peoples of the world don't have the same kind of force supporting their own interests as we do. And that makes you others feel a bit steamrolled on occasion (although I don't think you should feel that way because we're fairly benign). But until the day when we have a supernational body with power over countries that could make sure that everyone in the world is treated fairly, this is how things stand.
Hey good call on Akbar Khan, but he's not the only one. There are a lot of people here who would personally attack you just for having a dissenting view. But don't let that deter you, because it's all just words on a screen.
Fact is that there's a lot of injustice that goes on all over the world. Muslims throughout the globe love to bring up America's faults, and maybe some of that is justified, so why should we think that the Muslim world is immune to criticism? The truth of the matter is that we could all use some constructive criticism every now and then, because it can make this world a better place if people are willing to listen to sincere advice and take it into consideration.
It's the way things are.
"SALAAM. THE RANGE OF PROBLEMS AND CIVIL CONFLICTS ALL ACROSS THE WORLD WHICH DEMAND AMERICAN ACTION ARE MORE A REFLECTION OF THE SORRY STATE OF AFFAIRS IN THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES THAN A REFLECTION ON AMERICA. AMERICA IS A RELUCTANT SUPERPOWER SINCE A DEFENSE BUDGET OF $400 BILLION IS A TREMENDOUS BURDEN ON THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA."
So listen this is what I will do because people don't seem to get it through their heads that by making excuses for an oppressive force and singling out poor and impoverished persons is not a very brave thing to do, and no matter how much you tell them, they will not hear...please refer to the last 20 articles on this website in which I, Ahmed Asgher, Ahmed, Yahya Bergum, Umm Muhammad, Hudd Al'Hamd, Dino Demars, Zinedine, BNAK, and countless countless others have tried with at great lengths to EXPLAIN to those who spew venom from their mouths continuously with no blessed understanding coming from them about what we say, absolute continual denial of any solid knowledge of events in the world, which have been repeated over and over, yet continuously denied over and over.
I will give you my Ultimatum, let the Qur'an SPEAK!:
3:118 O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom.
These things and many more show a lack of a basic and very important emotion, Empathy.
When some atrocity is committed, most people on this earth feel terrible. They wish it had not happened and actually wonder if there was something they could have done different to change the outcome.
Yet when Muslims commit terrible crimes against all humans, there are celebrations in the streets.
When someone critisizes the Muslim community for not standing up for morality, the Muslim community fights back by declaring the person speaking doesn't "understand".
Don't you understand? To kill is evil, there is no excuse, there is no reason, there is not a single thing that makes it ok.
Do not talk of how "oh yes, it might be considered to be slightly wrong, but those darn American's brought it on themselves." Talk instead of how evil it is when people kill other people. Comments about American policy can wait until after the tears are shared and the innocent survivors are consoled.
If the Militants REALLY want America out of Iraq, the solution is simple.
Stop the killing. Stop all attacks of any kind. Hide all your weapons and military gear. Join up with the government and make sure that American influences are kept to a minimum. Who actually cares if some idiot American president declares the peace was all his doing? Be proud you brought about a safe place to live by your own work.
Then, when your own government is fair and does not condone killing, ask us to leave.
In a world of Eye For An Eye, the whole world will go blind. Try to let go of the past, remember it but do not let it rule you.
I'm unlikely to check this message board again soon, so if you want to reply, please us
Whatever faults people here may ascribe to you, I think you should be commended for your willingness to condemn bigotry regardless of whether it comes from Muslims or non-Muslims. Unfortunately, most of the other Muslims here do not seem to be willing to do that, at least when it comes to the bigotry of their own brethren.
Firstly, what you refer to as "third world countries" is because of your inability to think independently. Because you have been rendered intellectually derelict, you cannot fathom the fact that the place where you live right now, the USA, is in fact the third world, You see Abdullah, humanity began in these "third world countries" as u call them, therefore this is the first world (eg. China, India, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Abbyssinia). The second world is where humanity spread further and reached places in Europe (France, Germany, Poland). The third world is where humanity was, many still are, sitting as a by-product of their ancesters from the first world (eg. Britain, North America, South America). Unfortunately in all this world class designation you pride yourself on, you must realize that this third world is indeed a third world as they wiped out the original people of the Americas (The Natives Aboriginals).
As you say "unrestricted population growth" is a problem, who are you to say how many children a family can have? Are you trying say that you have the solution to creating a balanced population level in the world, the way God decrees itto be so? I beg to differ, you are just a lonely soul on a message board putting up a bunch of hysterical dreams. I mean what sort of system do you believe in...it sems like you would share the same views as a communist leadership such as that in China where families are allowed only one child...
It is indeed a sad state of affairs if you are right about Muslim youths. God willing, their thinking will change one day.
THEY WILL BE COMPELLED TO RELY MORE ON AMERICAN LARGESSE AND DEBT FORGIVENESS THEREBY MAKING THEM MORE BITTER AND HATEFUL TOWARD THEIR BENEFACTOR.
PRESIDENT BUSH IS FACING INTERNATIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN 50 YEARS IN THE MAKING THEREBY CAUSING CRISES TO POP UP LIKE MUSHROOMS.