Forum posts made by nazhinaz

I believe in personal liberty, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. You should make your own choices. Trying to inhibit other people's freedom is immoral whether it is inhibiting their choice to worship or forcing one's religion on someone. I have seen many athiest zealots just as rabid and 'preachy' as any religious zealot. The way one lives their life is the best example of their beliefs is the best tool for presenting their point-of-view.

You 100% right.
Every man has the right to freedom of thought, expression and belief.
Lmitation is it should not in any way affect others belief, libert and right to expression.

Religion is one of those fascinating things that intertwines with alot of other matters in life. It developed into law, ethics, philosophy, etc.
I've also been amazed how religion was one of the first things to be developed in any civilization. Nonetheless i'm not really sure what i am. I attend a catholic school but i'm far from catholic. I prefer to watch from a distance and make note of things that might serve a purpose in some situation. It's easy to see why those people that show up at your house with pamphlets are so passionate. You're given an answer to things that otherwise would be left unanswered (in their case, they might actually just be bored). Things like what's to become of you after death. What do i need to do to be truly happy.


All organized religons are part of human evolution when mankind hardly knew sources of knowledge.
If we search some oldest links, we find that man worshiped sex organs, mainly female, which procreated his progeny.
But that was about 5000 to 3000 years before Christ. There are some caves in India and even in China which are indicative of that.
So that could be called one of the oldest religions of mankind.
Later, with slightly organized social set up, with villages coming into being and harnessing of animals, arose worship of fire, snake, sun and moon.
Still bigger settlements brought better interaction and social thoughts and pagan and monoistic religions arose.
By then harvesting as major employment had taken its roots in such social set ups.
This brought out organized Kingship which led man to follow one King on earth and one God above.
Ever since the 16th Century when mankind invented PRINTING PRESS, brought a revolution in the sources of knowledge for mankind.
Steam engine was the next turning point which ushered the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.
Industrial revolution brought forth the concepts of equality, fraternity and liberty for all, espoused by HOBBS, LOCKE, ROUSEAU, MARX, ENGLES and many others.
These concepts of equality, fraternity and liberty for all smashed the concepts of KINGSHIP on earth and A LORD ABOVE.
Thus evolved the era of human knowledge growing without fear of any retribution; without any RELIGIOUS FEARS.
No More is the ordained concept of SLAUGHTER THOSE WHO BRING FITNA (DISAGRING WITH YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEVES) as espoused by KORAN.
Thats how the societies are moving away from religious thoughts.
Now the new sources of knowledge are pushing man beyond the borders of RELIGION.

Please keep it up.
Its a very important mission.
Women are so much discriminated by males all over the World; but most of them in India, and 54 Muslim countries of the World.
Even today, Women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to drive.
Women In Saudi Arabia can't leave home without fully coverd from head to toe.
In Islam, by the ordain of Koran, women inherit 50% to their male siblings.
Males have a right to administer corporal punishment to one's wife in Koran.
These women need foremost attention.
Muslim girls rights should be strengthen as much as can be.
Please extend your support to these poor neglected lot of humanity in Muslim countries as much as you can.

We better go faster than that. In less than 6 billion years our sun will have consumed our planet and wiped out everything on Earth.

You right.
We do need to find a better alternate for homo sapiens as soon as possible.
But in the meanwhile we need to take care of the environment of the World.
By the present research in this field maybe another millinieum we might be able find the alternative for life.
We are thus left with plenty of years before the sun's glow is off.

In India breastfeeding another's kid would be considered as half kid of the girl who breastfed.

Heiniken beer.
Black label whisky with ice and water, slowly sipping at least 3 nice drinks.

So who is to decide what brings humanity forth and not back? The US? Is it so that every ideology that wants to bring in the Western values and democracy is the "right" one? Who are we to say what brings prosperity to a certain country? Democracy seems to be the better pick for us here in the west, but what right do we have to choose what type of rule they should have in Afghanistan, Iraq and any other state? That type of know it all arrogance is what has caused more shit in this world than any other ideology. This so called "good intentions"(as long as we agree that they are good intentions) have made many a highway to hell. Latest ones have been Iraq and Afghanistan.

The difference between terrorists and freedom fighters are as have been stated that a freedom fighter will go for military targets, while terrorists will go for civilian targets. This means that armies can be terrorists too. What is considered one of the first real terrorists attacks was after all the British bombing of Copenhagen in 1812(cba to look up the right year, but somewhere around that. At least during the Napoleonic wars). The way the Allies and the Axis decided to systematically bomb cities and civilians is by this definition also terrorism.

Its not that the values of West and USA determines what takes humanity forward.
The forward march of humanity is seen if the values of peace, freedom, equality, fraternity (in short Democracy) are preserved or enhanced.
Coz these values are cherised by a great majorit of mankind.
Coz these values are taking our economies forward.
Coz they give us equal rights to debate & discuss, disagree and still tolerate each other in a social system.
Coz these values prohibit us to cut dead enemies head.
Coz these values allow us to be either belivers or non believers in any faith and still be equal.
Coz these values respect our disagreements as much as agreements.

Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. Governments use terrorism as well. See Rumsfeld's 'Shock and Awe' in the invasion of Iraq or Israel's 'Operation cast lead'.

Right now the biggest war crimes problem we have right now is in Syria. The government is was and has always been a terrorist regime and not surprisingly, so are many of the opposition fighters.

Dropping bombs from planes on civilian populations is just as much terrorism as suicide bombing is. And trying to dress that type of military action up as 'acceptable' is one of the reasons that we find it rather hard to convince certain parts of the world that we are morally in the right.

Given the history of colonialism in the region, the West can hardly claim as much moral superiority here as you seem to imagine. Iran is in the shape it is today because the US decided to rub out the democratic government in 1953 and replace it with a dictator. Huge numbers of people died during the US occupation of the Philippines, etc. etc.

And one of the major complaints from the rest of the world is that the US still spends its time telling the rest of the world how superior it is morally and never gets round to acknowledging past sins, let alone saying sorry.

George W. Bush's torture policy was a form of terrorism. He has tarnished US prestige and probably made it impossible to actually put the remaining perpetrators of 9/11 on trial in anything remotely approximating a fair trial uless the US is willing to put the former President and his staff on trial as well.

I am also rather tired of certain US politicians such as Rudy Guiliani posturing about terrorism when they spent years helping raise millions of dollars for the IRA through NORAID.

Rather than lecturing the rest of the world about the evils of terrorism as if the US has unique expertise, it would be rather more effective if the US would spend some time listening to countries that have a longer experience of terrorism and have brought their terrorist issues to an end. Taking advice from the Israelis on terrorism is like taking advice on stopping drinking from a chronic alcoholic. The UK tried the same model at the start of the troubles and it only made matters much worse. When we switched to the West German model in '76, the so-called 'criminalization' policy, the number of deaths dropped to a third and stayed there or lower.

And before people get on their high horse and start shouting 'anti-american'. I'm one of the people who gets called on to clean up the mess left by the idiot neo-cons and their predecessors.

You absolutely right.
But what I thought best to lay down the parameter to differentiate between freedom fighter and terrorists.
The terrorism may have been or might be persued by states, like USA, Syria or those so called Mujahideen who behead the dead.
IF THE EFFORT IS TO TAKE HUMANITY & HUMAN VALUES OF PEACE, PROSPERITY AND FREEDOM, FORWARD, ITS A FREEDOM FIGHT.
IT MAY BE STATE SPONCERED OR NON STATE FIGHTERS.

Again I ask, is it your idea to use public tax dollars?
The question has been answered by another.
But my formulation is improvement human resources is a step in the right direction to improve economy in future.
I am sure this would be much better invertment than what we spend on securing thousands of ATOMIC WEAPONS across the country.
Unless we have better skilled and resouceful human resources, the potential of improving and enhancing the edge of exporting technology and hgh valued products will continue to diminish.
Education and improvement is human resources is one of the basic tasks of any State's liabilities.

So to me, most important is to INVEST MORE IN IMPROVING SKILLS, TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENT AND EDUCATION SPECIALLY HIGHER EDUCATION. "

Ok, with who's dollars?

Surely not more Public spending of Tax dollars.
This is a long term investment which is bound to bring in long term dividends.

a simple equation that rings true.
Too simpole.
Rather over simplified.
Viet Cong fought to bring in Socialism which was/is against the advancement of human values.
They were fighting against people some or large number of whom were from South Vietnam, aided by American but they were leading Vietnam back into a rural
agrarian society.
Now when Vietnam has dropped out of the so called Socialist system, it is advancing.
If one looks at things from this angle, maybe its over simplification.

This is a tough one to answer. There really isn't an easy solution at this point. So many different things have combined to create this situation, many of which are still ongoing problems. Fixing one of them creates a bigger problem somewhere else. The US needs to cut its deficit, but if it cuts its spending now, it will cause more unemployment, which is already a problem. So the other way to cut the deficit is to increase taxes, but depending on the tax, that can impede economic growth as well.

Personally, the first thing I would do is cut military spending in half. It might be a harsh reality check, but the United States of America can no longer afford to have a military which is generations ahead of other countries. Reducing from spending more than all other countries combined, to spending more than any one country, would free up billions of dollars which could be used elsewhere.

The second thing I would do is increase infrastructure spending through a stimulus program. This was a very effective way for the government of Canada to stimulate the economy, and it would work in the US as well. The Canadian model called for communities to submit proposals to the federal government, and the approved projects received funding to upgrade infrastructure they hadn't been able to upgrade previously. Upgrades to bridges, highways, sewer systems, power and communications lines, and many other major projects are often put off due to a lack of funds. Giving money to local governments for these projects not only creates employment for the people doing the upgrades, but also creates business for the companies in the area who will supply the materials, tools, and administrative services for these ventures. It also creates more people in the community with money to spend on food, new clothes, cars, and other personal items. Plus, these are not just "make work" projects. Upgraded infrastructure benefits the society for years, decades, in some cases. Long after the economy has recovered and the stimulus is no longer needed.

The third thing I would do is increase income tax on anyone earning over $100,000 per year. The people of the US have had over 4 years since the crash in 2008 to show that low taxes can spur the economy, and its clear that is not working. Increasing income tax on those who can afford it allows the government to be able to afford to help the less fortunate in society.

And the fourth thing I would do is implement a national health program. This program would cover the cost of regular visits to health care professionals, health care treatment (including a program to reduce the cost of medications for consumers), and addiction treatment while also including programs encouraging healthier lifestyles for everyone. If you can't afford to pay a doctor to heal you, you can't work. Or, worse than that, you show up to work every day and spread the disease to everyone else at work. And if you can't work, you can't pay taxes to help cover the cost of running the country. If you are strung out on meth, you can't work. And again, if you can't work, you can't pay taxes to help cover the cost of running the country. Maintaining a healthy population is critical to effective production.

After that, the suggestions get into things that are more complicated to outline. More stringent regulations for financial companies. More spending on green energy to cut down on rising fuel costs that cripple so many small companies. Tighter environmental regulations which ensure long term health of communities. Better labour laws to ensure a higher minimum wage for workers. Complete overhaul of the drug enforcement system to focus on prevention and rehabilitation rather than punishment through incarceration which is extremely expensive.

That's a start.
I endorse you.
But a very important aspect that is missed is to continous improvement in the education and skills.
USA is the super power not because merely it has the largest army, the most powerful on earth.
USA is THE SUPER POWER as it leads the World in technological fields and led the World in innovation.
If USA fails in this field and our lead in technology is narrowed down, the export potential of our economy will continue to decline.
So to me, most important is to INVEST MORE IN IMPROVING SKILLS, TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENT AND EDUCATION SPECIALLY HIGHER EDUCATION.

I believe the phrase freedom fighter should not be linked with what they are fighting for.
But what objective they are out to defend is vital. Let me explain.
Mujahideen fighting to win back a conservative backward looking Afghanistan can not be termed as freedom fighters as they are not defending FREEDOM.
FREEDOM FIGHTER TO ME IS ONE WHO IS FIGHTING FOR TAKING HUMANITY FORWARD AND NOT BACKWARD.
Defence of so called motherland which is intended to take humanity back in hstory can not be termed as FREEDOM FIGHTER.
Freedom fighters should be associated with struggle to take human beings away from want, misery and from war.

I feel mssonary has its own specifics.
For love making its perfect, allows deepest penetration and eye to eye, mouth to mouth, breast to chest contact too.
But should we not leave the position for the mood?
As sexual partners we can go for a quickie for which maybe on all four is good and satisfying.
Simlarly cow girl, reverse cowgirl, riding, gyrating all have their specifics for certain sexual moods.
I believe the issue of sexual position should be determined by the sex partners in their specific mood and no particular positon may be offered as the best one.

Just two:
1. Never wish ill even for your worst enemy.
2. Never loose temper, be prepared to listen calmly; maybe he/she has a point to ponder.

Wow! Your first ever sexual experience, your first lay and you made the girl squirt? That's some skill you have. Everything after that must have been a letdown?
You absolutely right.
once she left me, I just masturbated and had no real pussy sex for 8 long years.
Never felt the same agan in sexual life.
She was the exceptional.
Maybe it was love that made it special.

one time a few years ago i was at church and some woman just whipped out her breast and started to feed her baby like RIGHT OUT THERE!

i dont have a problem with you breast feeding your child, but please cover up. i do not want to see it happening.

If you aroused looking at breast feeding a mom, try to thnk of your own mom.
Feeding a baby is such a beautiful act as well as so arousing.
Some years back I saw a young lady whipping her boobs (yep not breasts - as they were so glorious) out and started feeding her young baby of about 2 at Natonal Museum of History, London with hundreds around.
And no one objected to this beautiful act of feeding a baby.

I’ve never had kids so I've never breast feed before. However I have seen women breast feed a lot out in public and don’t think anything of it. I don’t think that breasts are for men’s pleasure only. Of course they can be when it’s not being used for babies. Given the fact that breast feeding should be one of the most natural things. A lot of men are just pigs including the one you mentioned.

Breasts are multifunctional.
They are and should be for sexual arousal for partners (male or female).
They are also for breast feeding the kids and maybe their dads too (if the quantity of milk is enough).
They are for the beauty and glory of a woman too.
And I believe this last fucntion (glory of a woman) preceeds all others.

Welcome to Fermi's Paradox! My own thoughts are that while it's possible only one planet out of so many hosts life, it's extremely improbably. Obviously we have to live on a planet that supports life, but even within our solar system, there are other likely candidates, includes Europa and Mars. Bacteria has adapted to the reactors at Chernobyl; I imagine they can handle something a bit chillier or hotter than Earth.

As for why there's no evidence. Well, space is an empty place, and what motivation is there to physically travel somewhere? It's like going from Argentina to Germany for a burger. If you can manage the trip, it's far, far easier to just get whatever your traveling for closer to home. Any civilization capable of interstellar travel is, judging from our experiences, capable of just making anything they want, anyway.

Why did humans first travel vast differences? Spices, missionary work, and land. There's little to no hope of finding something edible on another planet. I hope we've moved beyond proselytizing before we head to another solar system. And if you can travel between stars, you can find or make more than enough space. I just can't imagine anything that would justify the enormous investments of resources and time that interstellar travel would require.

Unmanned probes and radio transmissions are another story, but again, space is a big place...

You right; space is a big place.
But greater the challenge still greater is human responce.
The motivation to travel to India and US might have been spices and land but travelling for other planets is again the land.
The cost of travelling may be comaparable to going from Mexica to Germany for a burger; but when one can afford travel cost, why not go for a treasured burger, the Mars or such other planets.
We, humans might have to travel to other planets soon, say about 4 to 6 billion years from now.

My first ever actual sex was with my girl frend at the age of 18 when I was in uni. We both wanted it so bad and went to a remote, rarely frequented ladies toilet of the uni. She went in first and I followed her.
Both took off all clothes in a jiffy, just a kiss and hugs and I was stone hard. She was standing with her back to the wall and placed her one foot on commode to provide me space in between her legs.
I rubed onto her pussy and she guided me nto her. She was so wet that just a thrust in and I hit her cervix deep in.
First thrust and she squirted so hard, the entire floor of the toilet was soaked.
I had no idea then that girls squirt too. I wisperingly asked her if shee peed and she blushed beet red without any answer.
We did it many a time later too, in that very toilet, but in a better position; me sitting over the commode seat and she fucking me stradding.
Alas she left me for a ship owner.

Europe formed a union but they couldn't form one nation though plenty of their aspects were same.

Who on earth wants one nation?
Even Indians are not one nation.
Punjabis and Tamils are different nations.
Kashmiris and Maharashrians to are different nations.
Let them stay as different nations in a sub continent of India.

If we go for how much money rulers spent on their kingdoms then no state would have been included in any of the two countries. According to the Act of Independence of India 1947, "RULERS" were totally free to choose which country they want their kingdom to merge into, "NOT PEOPLE". Both the nations are created according to this act. If any of them refuses to follow it then its existence will be illegal and if they are following it then they should give attention to the above provision.Why are we only asking people of Kashmir? We should ask people of both the nations if they want to live in India or Pakistan if it comes to people's opinion.

If we follow those rules, what would you say about the decision of Nawab Usman Ali Khan of Hyderabad Deccan's decision to join Pakistan?
And same is true about Junagardh and Bhopal too. The rulers decided to join Pakistan at the time of Independence.
But those decisions were not valid as about 87% population of Hyderabad Deccan was non muslims.
Same is true about Junagardh and Bhopal.
Indian Prime Minister Jawahar Lal nehru was right in saying that the decision of the vast majority of population over rules the decision of a ruler.
And the great leader of India reiterated the principle of following the will of the people over ruling rulers, at the Unted Nations.
May I remind the speech of Menon, the then Foreign minister of India at the United Nations?
But lets try to understand.
Much water has flown down the Nile. Much has changed. Europe fought two World Wars and then united into a European Union.
The people of India, Pakistan and kashmir too should take a lead from that example.
SAARC was treatized but never implemented.
Let this sub continent come out of the fears of war and disunity.
Lets unite for a better future for over 1.5 billion people of the region.

We need to take the treaty between government of India and King Harising, king of Kashmir at the time of division, into account. Kashmir was merged into India according to that treaty.
Take the treaty of an alien ruler(Maharaja Gulab Sngh had purchased Kashmir from British for merely Rs. 7.5 millions) and forget over 7.5 million kashmiri people?
Would that be fair?

History is history. Time has changed. USA,UK and France are not goint open any front against any nation at all. Because they CAN'T. What do you think will such front do if it happens? Nothing. If you are talking about the world wars then I must say that you should come out of the story books. Now a days situation of the world in case of military power is pretty balanced due to nukes. No one wants to interfere between nuke possessing nations. That's why neither US, nor UK, nor France says anything about China when they often override human rights. But all these countries put pressure on Syria for the same reason. Why? Because China possess nukes,Syria doesn't. India and Pakistan both have nukes. So fronts, be calm.

Nukes are merely deterants.
Only time nukes were used was in 1945 & that too mostly to test.
I fail to understand that we are considering as a hot spot between India and Pakstan; which it surely is.
But we fail to comprehend Kashmiris as a NATION? Kashmiris are as large a nation as Romanians in Europe, if not more.
LET KASHMIRIS HAVE THEIR SAY IN THEIR DESTINY.
Just coz India and Pakistan have nukes should not crush self determination right of a nation.
Soviet Unon and USA had 1000 times more nukes together.
But did it stop Uzbekistan and others to fnd their independent destiny?
Same principle should be applied for KASHMRIS.

Solving Kashmir is just as easy as solving the issue of Northern Ireland, or giving Gibraltar back to Spain, or Puerto Rico and Guam their own independence.

The issue between India and Pakistan is NOT easy, but it does have a clear and precise origin; it was when the British Government decided "Hindustan" could not be granted independence as it was, because it would have proven to be too great a nation, both in terms of territorial extension and in terms of population. Religion has very little to do with it, other than being the official excuse.

The evidence of this is the fact that there are more muslims still living in India, than there are living in Pakistan.

I have worked with both Indian and Pakistani military, and can say, from my own personal experience and personal acquaintance with a few from both sides, that whereas India does have a proper "Officers' " caste and properly trained military, Pakistan at best can field a few hordes of houlihans and banshees. Be it from the point of view of available technology. or the capability of using it, not to mention military discipline and the art of warfare, the only reason why India could ever want to call it quits is to quell the bloodbath. Pakistanis as a culture would have no such feelings, they would simply go on and on and on until they're all dead.

From my own personal experience.
Kashmir is not only an issue between India and Pakistan.
Kashmiri people are as well an important rather the most important partners in the dispute.
Kasmir should not be taken as a pawn over the chess board of power politics of India or Pakistan.
Assertation of the will of Kashmiri people should be done through interational participation.
And Pakistan and India should be asked to follow whatever the collectve wll of Kashmiri people may be.

First World Problems...
/quote]
You absolutely right.
Its first world problems.
We in our daily life proceed from thanking each other, hold the door till the next takes over and try to be first to say sorry, pardon me.
As a society we are polite, nice to each other and try to forgive and help each other.
But as citizens of first world, we take it our birth right to go into litigation for petty issues.
This is manifestation of an assertive mood as citizens of first world.
If we don't like a certain product, we may not go for it and let it be enjoyed by those who like.

Germany has shown that women can get elected to run a major country, I guess the right woman hasn't come along yet. Although I wouldn't be surprised, as others said previously, when Hilary will get nominated in the near future.
I thought the discussion was focused on US President as a woman.
Otherwise I believe India was the first to elect Indira Gandhi as its Chief Exective (Prime Minister).
Sri Lanka elected mrs Bandranaike as its Prime Minister soon.
Similarly Turkey had a female Prime Minister too.
United Kingdom also had Mrs Thacher as Prime Minister and was popularly known as Iron Lady.
Women as Chief Executives of many important countries have shown their competence, but US has yet to provide oppurtunity to any woman.

I don't think they actually care about Kashmir, most (if not all) of the rivers in the region run from Kashmir and that's what the main issue is. They should pull their troops out of Kashmir and let it be an independent state, they can create a mechanism in which both countries get the water they need without having to fight for it. However, the mistrust between the two countries runs deep so they need to first work on rectifying that.

I feel your assessment about the water being the crux of issue between the two states o India and Pakistan is not entirely correct.
It is more of an ideological issue.
India considering itself as secular state wants a predominantly Muslim Kashmir as part and parcel of SECULAR India.
Pakistan on the other hand is fighting for the two nation theory being the basis of partition of India.
Two nation theory was or is (as to me it has been drowned in Gulf of Bengal in 1971) that Muslims and Hindus are two serperate nations and
do need seperate nation states to live in.
1971 proved this theory wrong when Bangladesh ( a predominently Muslim population) seperated to form an independent country.
Had it been merely issue of water, I am sure United Nations would have come in to bring some solution; as it did in the form of INDUS WATER TREATY in 1960.

Haven't they technically been at war for decades? They do lob artillery shells at each other occasionally just as a reminder of their mutual hatred.


Hopefully the situation will diffuse itself as mutual obliteration between India and Pakistan could be a real scenario and a huge disaster.

You correct.
Both India and Pakistan had been lobbing shell accross ever since their birth.
They fought mini war in 1948 over Kashmir; India repelled Pakistani lashkars.
Again in 1965, they fought an 18 days war all over their borders; though started by Pakistan sending disguised Army men in Kashmir.
UN intervened, US stopped mlitary supplies to both the countries. War halted,
No one emerged a clear winner, though India had an edge.
Again, in 1971, India liberated (invaded) East Pakistan which became Bangladesh.
India was a clear winner with about 90,000 prisioners of war, released after about 2 years of captivity through dialogue
between Indira Gandhi & Z. A. Bhutto at Simla.
India acquired nuclear technology in 1974 although it stayed away from developing nuclear warheads.
Indian government had 5 nuclear tests in 1998, followed by 6 bombs tested by Pakistan.
Pak Army invaded Kargil heights in Kashmir, repulsed by Indian Army, killing over 3,500 Pak Army personels in the guise of volunteers.
But nukes of both countries are under tight control, developed internatonlly.
Not possible to employ nukes in such border tensions.

Again you are correct, the situation wll automatically diffuse soon.
As soon as the war mongering factions of both armies are in better senses.

Socialism seemed like a good idea, but it is possible only when the level of moral of the people is high enough and the laws are good enough. I live in China (People's Republic of) which claimed to be a Socialism, but the low level of moral and bad systems of law consumed the country bad enough to make human rights invaded and me want to flee.
Every man who has a will and determnation to work for a better future for him and mankind would flee from Socialism.
As it kills human indiviual initiative.
Human beings are not machines; they are living beings, each differing from the other.
We should let human nitiative play its role in social society.
Lets not treat 7 billion human beings as social machines.