“First, It is certainly beyond me that Mr. Ahsan thinks the question is not related to what Mr. Haider wrote. I suggest, Mr. Ahsan should re-read the posts in question. “

Mr. Javed I.  Chaudry,

Your question under discussion starts with “Suppose …”, so, it is valid to understand that the question is based on your personal supposition. There is no need to re-read the post. Re-reading the same comment based on hypothesis will not transform it into acceptable facts. Thus, by re-reading the post I will not become any wiser. This tactic of asking the reader to re-read the post is equivalent to doubt his intelligence.

“Second, in case there is no connection between the two, why a question cannot be asked, if some one wants to ask one?” 

Of course any question can be asked relative or irrelative to the subject. But asking disconnected question becomes a futile effort to prove one’s point of view.

“Third, what is your definition for a “real” thing, especially when it happened to be a statement rather a thing that you can touch and hold physically. The Bush administration stated that Saddam had WMD with which he could attack USA if not attacked quickly….was that real? That statement was splashed on the same newspapers on which the 19 pictures of the unfortunate Arabs was, a year earlier.” 

Now, you are trying to explain the “real thing” with Bush’s War in Iraq. Mr. Haider or myself have not been talking of War in Iraq, when I was talking of the “real thing”, but that of 9/11 event. The proofs of its real happening have been detailed in my previous post and also by Mr. Haider in his post. 

Your detailed two paragraphs to describe the adventures of Bush in Iraq can not deny the real existence of the 9/11 terrorism and the terrorists involved in this act.  The writer is simply trying to divert our attention from the “real” to “virtual.

Above, you seem to define the “real” as something that “you can touch and hold physically”. With this restricted definition Allaah and his unseen creations will be easily excluded. Any thing exists (real) physically if its existence can be proved by any one of the five senses. Not only that, any thing which is not directly detectable with our five senses, is also real if its physical effects can be observed like electrons and waves.

“And the last point is that it is neither necessary, nor appropriate to use language, such as, “It is indeed very childish!”.  If you have a rational point, please make it in a decent and a mature manner and stay out of this “childish” business.”   

The remark “childish” should be attributed to the question asked and not to the writer. If the writer takes it for himself, who amI to object?

My best regards.

Ahsan

Strasbourg