'The War Is Not Over'

Romney wrote:

1. It was respecting the prophet Muhammad.

Wahhabism does not believe in idol worship so they destroyed the dome of the prophet.

2. You are probably right the two Egyptians were secular and not believers.

I still find it strange that even after graduating university with high honors they never heard of Moses.

MUQ, You must be cousins to the Hasidic Hebrews because they study the five books of Moses in the Torah everyday?

Hadith is not the word of God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Abd ...

Ans.

01. How can you respect Prophet Mohammad PBUH by violating his express command? He NEVER asked anyone to built any building on any grave.

In face he cursed the people who construct buildings on graves of prophets and make it as a place of worship.

You say Wahabism does not believe in Idol worship, is there any Muslim who believes in Idol Worship?

PS: You still did not tell me what is a Wahabi. No I do not want to go to Wikipedia link. I want to listen from you.

02. If those Egyptians did not hear about Moses, it showed that they did not even opened their Quran!!

It is strange but it is not unblieveable. There might be some "Christians" who never knew who was Jesus Christ.

And there are Billions of Christians who still do not know the "True Personality of Jesus Christ". Otherwise they all would be Muslims!!

03. Hadith is usually the sayings and action of our Prophet. They are also based on revelation from God, but they are not "Spoken Words of God".

So Hadith are words and actions of our Prophet, Peace be on him, preserved in many authentic books of Hadith.

frank wrote:

<quoted text>
You got caught in your sandbox again old fool :-)

Why blame me when you can't answer the question?

Why do you hate the ones that made it on their own?

One of my initial very radical plans (2009, perhaps) is now being considered, since regular quantitative easing is an abject failure. Not sure if this has to do with my classic liberal approach to economics, or not.

No longer a joke, notably.

Suddenly, quantitative easing "for the people" seems possible

Last week I discussed in this column the idea that the vast amounts of money created by central banks and distributed for free to banks and bond funds – equivalent to $6,000 per man, woman and child in America and £6,500 in Britain – should instead be given directly to citizens, who could spend or save it as they pleased. I return to this theme so soon because radical ideas about monetary policy suddenly seem to be gaining traction. Some of the world’s most powerful central bankers – Mario Draghi of the European Central Bank last Thursday, Eric Rosengren of the Boston Fed on Monday and Mervyn King of the Bank of England this Wednesday – are starting to admit that the present approach to creating money, known as quantitative easing, is failing to generate economic growth. Previously taboo ideas can suddenly be mentioned.

Rosengren, for example, suggested that the Fed should expand the money supply without any limit as long it sees unnecessary unemployment. Draghi has similarly promised to spend whatever it takes to prevent a euro breakup, although politically his ability to do this remains in doubt. Most interesting was a speech by Adair Turner, chairman of Britain’s Financial Services Authority and leading contender to be the next governor of the Bank of England. This speech strongly challenged the pervasive complacency of central bankers and called for new ideas that might combine central-bank money creation with government decision making on how to bypass banks and inject this money into the non-financial economy of consumption, investment and jobs.

The radical alternative discussed here last week – QE for the People (or QEP, for short)– would bypass banks completely by distributing newly created money straight to the public. It is not yet on anyone’s agenda, but neither is it any longer dismissed as a joke.

http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/201...

Of course, I expect Frankly, MacRango, and Sandy to firmly object.

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Ans.
01. How can you respect Prophet Mohammad PBUH by violating his express command? He NEVER asked anyone to built any building on any grave.
In face he cursed the people who construct buildings on graves of prophets and make it as a place of worship.
You say Wahabism does not believe in Idol worship, is there any Muslim who believes in Idol Worship?
PS: You still did not tell me what is a Wahabi. No I do not want to go to Wikipedia link. I want to listen from you.
02. If those Egyptians did not hear about Moses, it showed that they did not even opened their Quran!!
It is strange but it is not unblieveable. There might be some "Christians" who never knew who was Jesus Christ.
And there are Billions of Christians who still do not know the "True Personality of Jesus Christ". Otherwise they all would be Muslims!!
03. Hadith is usually the sayings and action of our Prophet. They are also based on revelation from God, but they are not "Spoken Words of God".
So Hadith are words and actions of our Prophet, Peace be on him, preserved in many authentic books of Hadith.

Hey, MUQ, what's your take on the Bodo Tribe/Muslim violence in your own country? Is this ethnic cleansing or just ancient tribal tradition?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/10/us-...

Sharia law and justice descends on rebel held Syria.

No Geneva Convention here, is there?

I'm wondering why Big O would arm rebels he couldn't really tolerate morally.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-...

All is fair in proxy war, I'm assuming, eh Frankly?

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Ans.
01. How can you respect Prophet Mohammad PBUH by violating his express command? He NEVER asked anyone to built any building on any grave.
In face he cursed the people who construct buildings on graves of prophets and make it as a place of worship.
You say Wahabism does not believe in Idol worship, is there any Muslim who believes in Idol Worship?
PS: You still did not tell me what is a Wahabi. No I do not want to go to Wikipedia link. I want to listen from you.
02. If those Egyptians did not hear about Moses, it showed that they did not even opened their Quran!!
It is strange but it is not unblieveable. There might be some "Christians" who never knew who was Jesus Christ.
And there are Billions of Christians who still do not know the "True Personality of Jesus Christ". Otherwise they all would be Muslims!!
03. Hadith is usually the sayings and action of our Prophet. They are also based on revelation from God, but they are not "Spoken Words of God".
So Hadith are words and actions of our Prophet, Peace be on him, preserved in many authentic books of Hadith.

1. No, Wahabbi destroyed the dome on Muhammad's house because they do not believe in idol worship.

2. There are many Christians who are lukewarm unfortunately.

John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

3. Thanks for educating me on Hadith. I thought Hadith had many contradictions because it was passed down verbally from person to person.

Wahabbi is an ultra conservative Sunni Muslim practised in Saudi Arabia.
Maybe the better word is Salafi.

arbitrageur wrote:

<quoted text>
Why blame me when you can't answer the question?
Why do you hate the ones that made it on their own?

Like I said, you're stuck in your sand box of silliness! No one hates 'the ones that made it on their own' it is a figment of the wingnuz's universe -- it is absurd!

President Barack Obama, twice now, sent a jobs plan to Congress that ask them to sign a number of provisions urgently, including extending the highway bill, the payroll tax deduction, and an increase to that deduction for both employees and employers, Corporate tax reform, the repatriation of offshore profits (amounting in the Trillions) at a reduced rate. Small business and investments in physical infrastructure topped the list, along with a focus on small businesses. Lo and behold, the smirking, insolent GOPers killed it – clearly, the Republicans are economic arsonists!

American ‘exceptionalism’ at its best?
Racist Tweets after U.S. Soccer Victory over Japan:“Japs” & “Pearl Harbor”.
http://www.japanprobe.com/2012/08/10/racist-t...

frank wrote:

<quoted text>
Like I said, you're stuck in your sand box of silliness! No one hates 'the ones that made it on their own' it is a figment of the wingnuz's universe -- it is absurd!

I'm still surprised you can answer any questions.

So, then, do you hate the ones that didn't make it on their own, like Kerry, or do you really like them?

arbitrageur wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm still surprised you can answer any questions.
So, then, do you hate the ones that didn't make it on their own, like Kerry, or do you really like them?

Aww, he's all miffed because I don't wanna play in the sandbox ...

frank wrote:

<quoted text>
Aww, he's all miffed because I don't wanna play in the sandbox ...

It's okay to take your marbles and go home early, Frankly.

You follow yourself there, you can't hide. Enjoy.

President Obama loses his sense of balance

President Barack Obama, like many of us, dislikes much of what he drinks from the news spigot. As the New York Times reported this week:

Privately and publicly, Mr. Obama has articulated what he sees as two overarching problems: coverage that focuses on political winners and losers rather than substance; and a “false balance,” in which two opposing sides are given equal weight regardless of the facts.

Before I continue, I’ll give you just a moment to guess which of the two opposing sides the president thinks is being given “equal weight” but does not deserve it. Need a little more time? Just another second? O.K.…time’s up! The president thinks the press is allowing his unworthy, mendacious Republican opponents to nullify the truths he speaks from the Oval Office. Obama has expressed these views in meetings with columnists on both the left and the right, according to the Times. It peeves him when reporters give equal weight to both sides when one side is factually incorrect and when they blame both parties when one party is to blame. Obama’s specific beef, it seems, is coverage of health insurance legislation and the stimulus package.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told the Times that the president believes the press engages in false balance so they can say both sides are equally wrong or both are equally bad, which allows the press, said Carney, to “look high-minded.”

http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/08/0...

News you will not see or hear on CNN and FOX News

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/arti...

Blowback, or Impossible Dilemmas of Declining Powers

By Immanuel Wallerstein

June 14, 2012 "Information Clearing House" --

Blowback is a term coined by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that originally meant the unintended negative consequences to a country of its own espionage operations. For example, if a secret CIA operation led to a revenge attack on US individuals who were unaware of the CIA's operation, this was considered "blowback."

But these days, many of the operations are not all that secret (for example, the US use of drones in Pakistan or Yemen). And the "revenge" attacks are often publicly avowed. Nevertheless, countries don't seem to cease engaging in such operations.

We need a more useful definition of blowback to explain how and why it's occurring all over the place. I think the first element is that the countries engaging in such operations today are powerful, yes, but less powerful than they used to be. When they were at the acme of their power, they could ignore blowback as minor unintended consequences.

But when they are less powerful than before, the consequences are not so minor, yet they seem to feel the need to pursue the operations even more vigorously and even more openly.

Let us look at two famous instances of blowback. One concerns the United States. In the 1980s, the United States wished to push the Soviet Union's military forces out of Afghanistan. They therefore supported the mujahidin. One of the most famous leaders of the groups they supported was Osama bin Laden. Once the Soviet troops withdrew, Osama bin Laden created Al-Qaeda and began to attack the United States.

A second famous instance concerns Israel. In the 1970s, Israel regarded Yasser Arafat and the PLO as its principal opponent. Seeking to weaken the strength of the PLO among Palestinians, they gave financial aid to the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, known as Hamas. As Hamas grew, it did weaken the PLO somewhat. But at a certain point, Hamas became an even more vehement and effective opponent of the Israeli state than had been the PLO.

Today, everyone knows these instances. Others involving Great Britain and France could be cited as well. Nor does this end the list of blowback countries. Why then do they continue to behave in ways that seem to undermine their own objectives? They do this precisely because their power is declining.

We need to look at it as a matter of temporalities in state policy. Blowback occurs when the declining power engages in behavior that, in the short run, achieves some immediate objective but, in the middle run, makes their power decline even more and even faster, and therefore in the longer run is self-defeating. The obvious thing to do is not to go down this road any more. The covert operations no longer really work in terms of the long-run objectives of the country.

To stick with my examples: Don't President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu understand this? And if they do, why are they continuing the operations, even boasting about them? Actually, I think that both these men do understand the ineffectiveness of these operations, and so do their intelligence agencies. But they face immediate dilemmas.

(Contd.)

First of all, they are politicians, intent in each case to remain in power. Both are faced with strong political forces in their countries who think they are not hawkish enough. And neither is faced with strong political forces who want a radical revision of national policies. In shorthand, the extreme right in each country is very strong, and the left, even the moderate left, is weak. The underlying reason for this is that public opinion in neither country accepts the reality of the relative decline of the country's power.

What the leaders can do at most is to be covert about dragging their feet -- a little bit. But given the de facto transparency of their intelligence activities, they can do this only for a while. And then they find that they must pursue the policies they know won't work in the long run in order to stay in power in the short run.

There is another reason. Obama hasn't given up on one impossible dream -- restoring the United States to a position of unquestioned hegemony. And Netanyahu hasn't given up on another impossible dream -- a Jewish state of Israel in the entire former British Mandate. And if they won't renounce these dreams, they certainly cannot assist their peoples into coming to terms with the new geopolitical realities of the world-system and to the realities of their country's decline in relative power.

Immanuel Wallerstein, Senior Research Scholar at Yale University, is the author of The Decline of American Power: The US in a Chaotic World (New Press).

Copyright ©2012 Immanuel Wallerstein -- distributed by Agence Global

Arbitrageur wrote:

Hey, MUQ, what's your take on the Bodo Tribe/Muslim violence in your own country? Is this ethnic cleansing or just ancient tribal tradition?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/10/us -...

Ans.

These are the “little games” that are played in India with every now and then. Just scores of Muslims are killed in Anti Muslim riots which hardly anyone in India or outside takes any notice of.

Most of the world shuns such news as of no importance, Every now and then when the body count is more, some small items come out in world media.

Like Gujarat riot of 2002 and Bombay riots of 1993 Etc. And now in the case of Bodo killings of Muslims…when more than 75,000 peoples have fled from their homes to take shelter in near by cities…some thing filters out to world media.

Compare that to the voice raised by Indian press and world press and Indian Govt. when 6 Sikhs were killed in USA. It was as if whole Indian community was at risk. Indian PM and Indian Parliament and every one in India raised their voices.

What would have been their reactions had it been an attack on a Mosque in USA in which scores of Indian Muslims were killed. Would Indian Govt. take notice.

Our Respected and Learned Prime Minister who “spoke” to Obama to safeguard lives of Indians in USA, made an “impotent looking” comment on the Bodo Violence in India and that is all.

Thousands of muslims were killed in Burma and hardly anyone took any notice in the world.

The cheapest blood today in world is that of Muslims, any one can kill any number of Muslims any where in the world and no questions would be asked.

If they destroy as many trees, there would be protest by Green peace and who knows what… but when Muslims are killed there is no protest, not even a whimper.

It is strange that you took notice of Bodo problem in India, and I really appreciate it.

But just forget it, one more lesson to teach these “bloody Muslims” in the world’s largest Democracy.

When you add the world Democracy then you can commit no crime. Every thing is forgiven.

Romney wrote:

1. No, Wahabbi destroyed the dome on Muhammad's house because they do not believe in idol worship.

2. There are many Christians who are lukewarm unfortunately.

John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

3. Thanks for educating me on Hadith. I thought Hadith had many contradictions because it was passed down verbally from person to person.

Wahabbi is an ultra conservative Sunni Muslim practised in Saudi Arabia.
Maybe the better word is Salafi.

Ans.

1. Which Muslim believes in Idol Worship? It is a news to me that some Muslims do Idol worship. To my knowledge No Muslim should do any type of idol worship.

2. What John 3:16 had to do with our discussion by the way. It is meant to be a Lukewarm verse, asking people to just believe and do nothing else.

3. no doubt Hadith were transmitted orally for some time, but when you have strong witness and checking system, it becomes reliable. There are some contradictions in Hadiths but Islamic Scholars are there to verify and check the status of each and every Hadith.

PS: Re Wahabi, Now you have stated the truth, It is a ‘Title” which opponents have put on these people. There is no one who says I am Wahabi. It is a sort of religious abuse which people use to describe such people.

So there is nothing in reality like Wahabi or Wahabism.

Some people call themselves Salafi and it simply means that they follow on the path of earliest Muslims (Companions of prophet, those who came after them and those who came after them).

In fact every True Muslim should be a Salafi, because it is a faith based definition and not a simple Title.

frank wrote:

<quoted text>
Nixon killed 70,000 civilians in Vietnam that’s twice as many as Castro in Cuba
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ranch_...

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Ans.
1. Which Muslim believes in Idol Worship? It is a news to me that some Muslims do Idol worship. To my knowledge No Muslim should do any type of idol worship.
2. What John 3:16 had to do with our discussion by the way. It is meant to be a Lukewarm verse, asking people to just believe and do nothing else.
3. no doubt Hadith were transmitted orally for some time, but when you have strong witness and checking system, it becomes reliable. There are some contradictions in Hadiths but Islamic Scholars are there to verify and check the status of each and every Hadith.
PS: Re Wahabi, Now you have stated the truth, It is a ‘Title” which opponents have put on these people. There is no one who says I am Wahabi. It is a sort of religious abuse which people use to describe such people.
So there is nothing in reality like Wahabi or Wahabism.
Some people call themselves Salafi and it simply means that they follow on the path of earliest Muslims (Companions of prophet, those who came after them and those who came after them).
In fact every True Muslim should be a Salafi, because it is a faith based definition and not a simple Title.

1. That is why true Muslims destroyed the dome of prophet Muhammad's house. They did not want to idol worship.

2. No, JESUS wants all humans to believe and follow HIM. GOD certainly knows what is in the hearts of Men and Woman, and will judge fairly on the last day.

3. Thanks again for educating me on Hadith. It reminds me of the Jewish Tulmud and Mishnah which was also passed down orally and then written years later.

Sorry about the word Wahabi. Seems too me there is much in common with Judaism, Christianity and Islam, as well as some differences.

Can you say Paul Ryan?