Bomb Blast in Crowded Daata Darbar (Shrine), Lahore

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Devil's Advocate here:

Exactly WHY are Pakistanis supposed to fight this creeping Talibanization? Are Pakistanis not Muslims? Aren't all Pakistanis supposed to be seeking the same goals the Taliban are? If the Taliban are doing so, only more aggressively, then why shouldn't Pakistanis side with the Taliban? Won't that save the Pakistani populace from further bombings and casualties?

So Solmon2 you want Pakistanis to opt that way ?

your exploiting the sorry condiotion of those innocent Pakistanis who have suffered the loss of there loved ones in the sucide bombings and terrorist attacks. Nobody has the will or strength to bring down the ravaging population who are openly blaming American WOT for this sorry condition of Pakistan .Every event brings a new momentum in the Anti American sentiments..!
Every thing education,development,economy,sports has been affected by this cancer unleashed by the US fake WOT .If you had any idea of the gravity of this sorrow incident , you wouldnt have acted so low..!
But yet again what else can be expected from an individual who openly supports Israeli cause of bringing painfull death to innocent women and childeren in Palestine with blind hypocrisy.

 

[Solomon2]

So Solmon2 you want Pakistanis to opt that way ?...your exploiting the sorry condiotion of those innocent Pakistanis who have suffered the loss of there loved ones -

I don't think we're communicating here. Apparently not many Pakistanis are familiar with the Devil's Advocate approach to argument. link Yes this is a sorrowful incident, yet that makes it a time when people are most apt to speak powerfully and from the heart.

But yet again what else can be expected from an individual who openly supports Israeli cause of bringing painfull death to innocent women and childeren in Palestine with blind hypocrisy.

Nitro, Israel and the current terror in Pakistan are connected. It is the same state of mind that enables terror against Israel's Jews and terror against the Pakistani populace. If you aren't clear about that, how can Pakistan succeed in its struggle against the Taliban?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The King David Hotel bombing was an attack carried out by the militant right-wing Zionist underground organisation, the Irgun,[1] on the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 22 July 1946.[2] The hotel was the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, the Secretariat of the Government of Palestine and Headquarters of the British Forces in Palestine and Transjordan.[3][4]

To me thats a legitmate target, that is a far cry from blowing shrines, mosques, and civilians, what we are seeing in Pakistan is a depravity and a Abomination of an Epic evil insanity.

Extending your logic then, does that make the attack on the Pentagon, Nadal Hassan's actions and the attack on the Indian parliament 'legitimate', since they were all government/military targets?

 

[sparklingway]

My dear sir, no! I perceive that the ideological response of Pakistanis to the Taliban is soft, diverse, and blunted - answered in "hundreds of ways", as you put it. I would like to see it honed to a short, sharp weapon that the majority of Pakistanis will agree with and support.

Are there not a sizable number of members here who are vocal in condemning the attacks and point out the ideological, societal and political reasons which lead to the rise of such barbarianism?

You've lost me here.

You were precisely trying to get replies that would be based on bigotry on terrorism sympathy/apologetic defense and looking forward to poking at such replies and poking holes in other half thought ones.

I'm not a seer, but I can at least identify the nature of a post especially when one knows the attitude of the person who's posting it.

 

[Solomon2]

Are there not a sizable number of members here who are vocal in condemning the attacks and point out the ideological, societal and political reasons which lead to the rise of such barbarianism?

Yes. But what values do they present to supersede those of the barbarians?

You were precisely trying to get replies that would be based on bigotry on terrorism sympathy/apologetic defense and looking forward to poking at such replies -

No, I was seeking the opposite. That's what "devil's advocate" is all about, advocating stuff you don't believe in as an aid to developing arguments against them. I was seeking answers from people like you, who might share the feelings of their heart and the reasons in their head to oppose such terrorism. I had no idea that you didn't get what I was doing and thus would respond with a personal attack.

 

[sparklingway]

But what values do they present to supersede those of the barbarians?

What do you think?

No, I was seeking the opposite. That's what "devil's advocate" is all about, advocating stuff you don't believe in as an aid to developing arguments against them.

I'm fairly eloquent in English and understand the term very well.

I was seeking answers from people like you, who might share the feelings of their heart and the reasons in their head to oppose such terrorism. I had no idea that you didn't get what I was doing and thus would respond with a personal attack.

It was not meant to be a personal attack, rather a direct response.

There are things that need to be answered and there are ones than are entirely useless.

If you wanted to discuss impartially, I'll take your word for it.

Exactly WHY are Pakistanis supposed to fight this creeping Talibanization?

Because they do not represent our cultural and social values and are a group of extremists who hold twisted, bigoted and irrational religious dogmas that are not compatible with our society and to our people. We have an evolving state structure of our own, we do not need a group of self styled religious revolutionaries to show us the "righteous path".

Are Pakistanis not Muslims?

There are 1.5 Billion Muslims in the world. Less than 1% of the Taliban. Being a Muslim does not and should not suggest empathy for the Taliban and in no way is suggestive of having sympathies for terrorists who blow up civilians.

Aren't all Pakistanis supposed to be seeking the same goals the Taliban are?

What are the goals of the Taliban? Establishment of an "Islamic Emirate", export of their "ideology", oppression of women, moral policing and use of violence to spread their ideology.

Pakistan has never been an "Islamic Emirate" and a majority does not wish for such a political entity. A moderate role of religion in the state apparatus is envisaged by most. Nearly 1/3rd of the people support a secular state, most support a state the abides by religious principles but have no ideological leanings about the role of religion in the state apparatus.

Even with the brutal treatment of women in Pakistan, never have women been forced to cover themselves from head to toe and never has anybody though about limiting their right to wash clothes by the river either. Such things are unimaginable in Pakistan, even after society has become more religious especially the urban middle class' increasing religiosity.

Pakistan has never supported moral policing of any kind. The "Hasba Bill" was declared unconstitutional by our Supreme Court not on religious grounds but on various constitutional guarantees of freedom.

PS: Christian Fundamentalists represent a small group in the US but are highly vocal and talk about "Christian values" and try to hijack the founding ideology of the US as being based on "Christian principles". Does this suggest a lack of separation between state and religion in the US?

If the Taliban are doing so, only more aggressively, then why shouldn't Pakistanis side with the Taliban?

Death of >30,000 Pakistanis and an economic loss amounting to around 30 Bn USD is large enough a reason to recognize their brutality, reject their ideology and hunt them down.

Won't that save the Pakistani populace from further bombings and casualties?

The earlier peace negotiations did not work either. The Taliban never abided by the guarantees and promises during their rule in Afghanistan either and nothing better can be expected of barbarians and inhumane militants.

 

[Bhim]

@Sparklingway. I take it that you are in favor of a political set up in Pakistan which is secular. But don't you think this is against the wishes of majority of people in Pakistan?
If not Islamic Emirate, but the Official name is Islamic State of Pakistan.
Of course we are having lots of other official Islamic states and Emirates, but why aren't there any Christian, Jew, Hindu States?
OK almost all are Muslims in a country, but by labeling it Islamic would make it any more Islamic? Couldn't just Democratic Republic of Pakistan done the job?

 

[sparklingway]

@Sparklingway. I take it that you are in favor of a political set up in Pakistan which is secular. But don't you think this is against the wishes of majority of people in Pakistan?

As I said people wish to see a "moderate" involvement of religion. Something more or less like it is now. Around 1/3rd support a secular state. The "khilafa" delusionals are almost entirely limited to the urban upper middle class. The working class does not give a crap about the state set up.

If not Islamic Emirate, but the Official name is Islamic State of Pakistan.

"Islamic Republic of Pakistan", at least name my country properly.

Are we ruled by a semi-secular constitutions and semi-secular penal code? Yes. Our penal codes were entirely secular until 1979. We'll see some wiping out of Zia's monstrosities in sometime.

Of course we are having lots of other official Islamic states and Emirates, but why aren't there any Christian, Jew, Hindu States?

If you're not labeling the country's name and concerned just with state religion, then there was Nepal, an official Hindu state. Then there's the Vatican (Holy See), Monaco, Costa Rica and Lichenstein as Catholic States. Cyprus and Greece have Eastern Orthodox Church as State Churches. Denmark, Iceland and Norway have Lutheran Churches.

Thailand, Cambodia and Bhutan are Buddhist States.

Israel can by most accounts be declared a Jewish state.

The role of religion in the constitution and penal codes of a country with state religion varies from country to country and so does the general religiosity of the people and role of religion in society.

OK almost all are Muslims in a country, but by labeling it Islamic would make it any more Islamic? Couldn't just Democratic Republic of Pakistan done the job?

We'll tackle this on our own. You don't have to shine your "secular" stripes to me. You were born in a secular country by the accident of your birth, just like a person was into Saudi Arabia. There's no point in brandishing your secular stripes.

I'm not sure how many Indian members here would have supported a secular approach had they been born in a country that had a state religion. Would they (or would you) have supported a secular approach to the functioning of the state had you been indoctrinated with the greatness and righteousness of the approach towards a state religion?

Don't take this as a personal attack but such questions from people who I'm not convinced are entirely sure about the reasons and philosophical debate over a certain ideology irk me. Unless I'm sure that the other person has seen through all other alternate options and has reached a conclusion based on solid reasoning rather than state and cultural indoctrination, I don't like to respond to such questions.

 

[Old School]

Pakistan was created under the name " Dominion of Pakistan" from which 'Federal Republic of Pakistan' would have been the proper transition. Unfortunately, we made a lot of mistakes in the 50's.

 

[Solomon2]

Unfortunately, we made a lot of mistakes in the 50's.

Would you elaborate, please?

 

[Old School]

Would you elaborate, please?

We failed to create a comprehensive and inclusive federal constitution in 1956. The country was under constant martial law ever since it turned an Islamic Republic from Dominion of Commonwealth. Democracy was killed at birth. We also got pre-occupied with India because it would divert people's attention from the main issues.

 

[Solomon2]

We failed to create a comprehensive and inclusive federal constitution in 1956. The country was under constant martial law ever since it turned an Islamic Republic from Dominion of Commonwealth.

Did you support Ghulam Mohammad and his "Constitutional Coup"?

 

[sparklingway]

Did you support Ghulam Mohammad and his "Constitutional Coup"?

The more appropriate would be "Babu Coup". "Babu" being the revered term for the elitist bureaucracy.

 

[Old School]

Did you support Ghulam Mohammad and his "Constitutional Coup"?

These all were happening because our founder Quaid e Azam failed to nurture his democratic successor while he was still alive . Then the military junta was becoming too strong after the death of Quaid. Pakistan in those days were very similar to these days now.

 

[Bhim]

As I said people wish to see a "moderate" involvement of religion. Something more or less like it is now. Around 1/3rd support a secular state. The "khilafa" delusionals are almost entirely limited to the urban upper middle class. The working class does not give a crap about the state set up.



"Islamic Republic of Pakistan", at least name my country properly.

Sorry for the typo

Are we ruled by a semi-secular constitutions and semi-secular penal code? Yes. Our penal codes were entirely secular until 1979. We'll see some wiping out of Zia's monstrosities in sometime.



If you're not labeling the country's name and concerned just with state religion, then there was Nepal, an official Hindu state. Then there's the Vatican (Holy See), Monaco, Costa Rica and Lichenstein as Catholic States. Cyprus and Greece have Eastern Orthodox Church as State Churches. Denmark, Iceland and Norway have Lutheran Churches.

Thailand, Cambodia and Bhutan are Buddhist States.

Israel can by most accounts be declared a Jewish state.

I was indeed going by the country name, that is why I said even if it was not named as Islamic republic it would still have been the same. Just like the examples you have given

The role of religion in the constitution and penal codes of a country with state religion varies from country to country and so does the general religiosity of the people and role of religion in society.



We'll tackle this on our own. You don't have to shine your "secular" stripes to me. You were born in a secular country by the accident of your birth, just like a person was into Saudi Arabia. There's no point in brandishing your secular stripes.
I never intended to show the secular stripes, I was interested in knowing your leaning. As for the naming of country my earlier argument is valid.

I'm not sure how many Indian members here would have supported a secular approach had they been born in a country that had a state religion. Would they (or would you) have supported a secular approach to the functioning of the state had you been indoctrinated with the greatness and righteousness of the approach towards a state religion?
Again no intention of India or Indian, it was a debate on, if the name change would have made any difference. Just like you have pointed out various countries with certain .religious leaning, but with no religion prefixed.

Don't take this as a personal attack but such questions from people who I'm not convinced are entirely sure about the reasons and philosophical debate over a certain ideology irk me. Sir I didn't take it as a personal attack nor was it my intention to make any attack......Unless I'm sure that the other person has seen through all other alternate options and has reached a conclusion based on solid reasoning rather than state and cultural indoctrination, I don't like to respond to such questions.

.

Thank you very much