Order by Previous days letters
Nov 01, 2014
06:54 AM

I wish that OLI will provide us with the facility to preview and correct our posts just as some websites do. - DLN

I second that.

Bonita, Chennai
Nov 01, 2014
04:40 AM

"During the Enlightenment, historians tended to view both the Crusades and the entire Middle Ages as the efforts of (Europe's) barbarian cultures driven by fanaticism." CAIR pracharak quoting Wikipedia

1) And what did the historians of the Enlightenment say about the jihadis and the jihadi conquest of Christian countries from Spain to Byzantium? Unlike modern day multicultis, they had no illusions about the Saracen savages or their appetite for slaves and women. Here is John Quincy Adams, President of the US, on Islam and Muslims:


"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.

Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. It is, indeed, amongst the mysterious dealings of God, that this delusion should have been suffered for so many ages, and during so many generations of human kind, to prevail over the doctrines of the meek and peaceful and benevolent Jesus (Blunt, 1830, 29:269, capitals in orig.)."

As recently as a hundred years ago, Churchill compared Islam to a form of hydrophobia (rabies) that causes men to foam at the mouth violently.

Given what we see in the world even today, it is clear that people like John Quincy Adams and Churchill say the truth about Islam very clearly.

2) As for barbarism and fanaticism, it is difficult to beat concepts like "jihad," "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them," "There is no god but Allah," or the belief that this "god" permits his cult members to rape the wives and daughters of their enemies at will because it is pleasing to him.

Janwaar Bibi
BibiSarai, Iraq
Nov 01, 2014
04:23 AM

9 D Anwaar,

"God only knows what else he believes!..."

Even worse, Mr. Modi’s views echo those of Dinanath Batra. His books are now part of the curriculum in 42,000 schools across Gujarat and carry messages from Mr. Modi when he was Chief Minister. They claim stem cell research was known in the days of Kunti and the Kauravas, television was invented at the time of the Mahabharata and the motor car existed in the Vedic period. Few would deny this is nonsense. Why wouldn’t you say the same for the claim India mastered genetic science and plastic surgery in prehistoric times?


chennai, India
Nov 01, 2014
04:10 AM

Religious fanaticism has been on the upswing.

misogynist, chennai
Nov 01, 2014
04:08 AM

This daughter would never had made headlines if she were a boy.

misogynist, chennai
Nov 01, 2014
04:06 AM

Kiran Bedi was police officer for BOTH men and women, and now talks like a feminist preacher!

Shame on her.

misogynist, chennai
Nov 01, 2014
04:05 AM

28 D Anwaar

"Four facts about Sardar Patel that Modi would find disappointing..."

Sanghis like Modi are half read about the Indian freedom struggle. Mischievous people want to misinform, in order to misuse it.

The only use they have for it, is to suggest that right wing worker were more respect worthy than their leaders. And thus confuse everyone to their views, by parroting lies.

misogynist, chennai
Nov 01, 2014
03:33 AM

A swiss magazine many years ago had published the photo of Rajib Gandhi, along with others who has stashed money in foreign banks. This was also quoted by Mr.Jethmalani today in OUTLOOK in his letter to the finance minister. It is surprising that Congress party or any members of his family did not take the magazine to court then.  

george, london
Nov 01, 2014
01:47 AM

"Only an ignoramus would accept that as the major cause for the Crusades. As Wiki sums up......."

Wow. Anwaar acquires his history lessons from wiki. No wonder he comes across as a man entirely out of his depth. 

That wiki stub was probably written by a wishy washy apologist like Anwaar to obfuscate the issue. Blame Pope Urban's ambition, drag in the 16th century protestants for something that happened 500 years earlier, call the crusaders barbarians......do everything but admit that in 1065, the Seljuqs captured Jerusalem, destroyed churches and slaughtered 3000 Christian pilgrims. Big deal huh?

Why should such a minor skirmish provoke crusades? After all, hundreds of temples were demolished and hundreds of thousands of Indians were massacred, if not more. Did the Indians retaliate? No, they realised that their religions were false and rushed to embrace the only true religion that guaranteed eternal accommodation in a hedonistic paradise.

The crusaders, being barbarians, were incapable of appreciating the only true religion. That is why they launched the crusades. QED. 

Visakhapatnam, India
Nov 01, 2014
01:24 AM

"Nobody has ever said Gandhiji appears incomplete without Patel.".....Anwaar

This is what Gandhiji wrote in his autobiography:

"If anything, I can only claim the cleverness that is necessary for a commander in picking out men for his campaign. I was clever enough in doing that, but there too I should not have achieved anything if you had not acquitted yourselves well. I will say that without the help of Vallabhbhai Patel, we should not have won the campaign. He had a splendid practice, he had his municipal work to do, but he renounced it all and threw himself in the campaign.


Obviously, Anwaar knows more about Gandhiji than the Mahatma himself.

On a lighter note, it is amusing to see how Anwaar insists on opening his mouth wide and then promptly shoves his foot into it with alacrity. 

Visakhapatnam, India
Nov 01, 2014
01:15 AM


>> "what happened is that after the caliphate lost control of Jerusalem to the Seljuqs in 1065, horrific massacres of Christians took place"

Only an ignoramus would accept that as the major cause for the Crusades. As Wiki sums up, "Some historians see the Crusades as part of a purely defensive war against Islamic conquest; some see them as part of long-running conflict at the frontiers of Europe; and others see them as confident, aggressive, papal-led expansion attempts by Western Christendom.... Urban II sought to reunite the Christian church under his leadership by providing Emperor Alexios I with military support. Several hundred thousand Roman Catholic Christians became crusaders by taking a public vow and receiving plenary indulgences from the church. These crusaders were Christians from all over Western Europe under feudal rather than unified command, and the politics were often complicated to the point of intra-faith competition leading to alliances between combatants of different faiths against their coreligionists, such as the Christian alliance with the Islamic Sultanate of Rûm during the Fifth Crusade.....During the Reformation and Counter-Reformation of the 16th century, historians saw the Crusades through the prism of their own religious beliefs. Protestants saw them as a manifestation of the evils of the Papacy, while Catholics viewed the movement as a force for good. During the Enlightenment, historians tended to view both the Crusades and the entire Middle Ages as the efforts of (Europe's) barbarian cultures driven by fanaticism."

Your ignorance in history, just as your ignorance in politics, is motivated by your usual ignoble animus. 

Dallas, United States
Nov 01, 2014
12:55 AM

Sad that someone with 22 criminal cases registered against him becomes the CM of Maharashtra. 

Anwaar, Dallas
Nov 01, 2014
12:43 AM

> "Only she whose body is hurt, knows."

How true!

Dallas, United States
Nov 01, 2014
12:17 AM

Four facts about Sardar Patel that Modi would find disappointing

1) Patel was not enamoured of the RSS

After Gandhi's assassination, Patel wrote. "“… as [a] result of the activities of these two bodies [the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha], particularly the former, an atmosphere was created in the country in which such a ghastly tragedy became possible. There is no doubt in my mind the extreme section of the Hindu Mahasbha was involved in this conspiracy. The activities of the RSS constituted a clear threat to the existence of the Government and the State.”

2) Nehru did not steal the prime minister's crown from Patel

The simple reason as to why Nehru became PM was that he was, by far, the Congress’ most popular politician (after Gandhi, of course). Right from the 1937 provincial elections, Nehru was the party’s star campaigner, enthralling crowds with his Hindustani oratory. Patel had an iron grip on the Congress party itself but he was many miles behind Nehru as a popular leader. The Sardar himself conceded this: at a massively attended Congress rally in Mumbai, he told American journalist Vincent Sheean, “They come for Jawahar, not for me."

3) Patel bears as much responsiblity for Partition as Nehru

Whatever be the wrongs of Partition, it was a decision taken jointly both Nehru and Patel. In fact, if anything, Patel was far more receptive to the idea and Nehru only came around much later and far more reluctantly. VP Menon, the architect of the Partition Plan, informs us that as far back as December 1946, Patel had accepted the division of India while Nehru would only acquiesce six months later. Abul Kalam Azad, a staunch critic of Partition right till the very end, was disappointed with Patel’s support and writes in his memoir, India wins Freedom, that he was “surprised and pained when Patel in reply [to why Partition was needed] said that whether we liked it or not, there were two nations in India”.

4) Patel did not want the Babri Masjid demolished

In 1949, a mob descended upon the Babri Masjid and, after chasing away the muezzin, installed an idol of Ram Lalla in order to claim it as a temple. Within a month of the incident, Patel shot off a letter to the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, GB Pant warning that “there can be no question of resolving such disputes by force”. Patel opined that “such matters can only be resolved peacefully if we take the willing consent of the Muslim community with us”.


Anwaar, Dallas
Order by Previous days letters


OUTLOOK TOPICS:    a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   
Or just type in a few initial letters of a topic: