Pakistan to Apologise for 1971 Killings

[Safriz]

So basically what you are saying is that a certain gentleman was wrong when he said:

Mussalmans are a nation according to any definition of a nation..

1971 was a totally ethnic,and language based incident..There was no factor of religion in this..Bengalis didnt care if Pakistanis were Muslims or not.They only gave amnesty to those who could speak perfect Bengali,and killed the rest..
As for Pakistan army..they were not fighting a uniformed army.They were fighting insurgents who were civilians and from all walks of life.Differentiating between friend and foe when all look the same is not an easy task.

The certain gentleman was absolutely right..That is if we think as muslims...But when ethnicity,greed and other factors pollute our thoughts,then this law doesn't apply.

 

[U-571]

The history of Bangladesh is incomplete without India. Loathe as much as you may, but that is a fact you just can't run away from.

you mean east pakistan or bangladesh??

 

[Karachiite]

First off Bangladesh was not even in the original Pakistan plan. We might share the same religion but culturally we are way different. Its good Bangladesh is independant cuz it would be a pain in the *** to look after 150 more million people (most of them poor) and the common disasters like floods, cyclones etc especially when your not even geographically connected. But now I'm happy to know that the current Pakistanis be it Pashtuns,Punjabis,Kashmiris,Sindhis,Balochis,Urdu Speakers etc are Patriots and Pakistanis first.
And when will Mukhti Bani group and other bengali nationalist groups apologize for their crimes against innocent West Pakistanis?

 

[Tameem]

It was not a 'hypothetical' question at all.

Anyway, it was Mohammad Ali Jinnah, at Lahore Congress of Muslim League, 1940.


The history of Bangladesh is incomplete without India. Loathe as much as you may, but that is a fact you just can't run away from.

Now you Listen... Not only the Muslims of India but the whole planets are one Nation...Go ask any Muslim (any) anywhere in the world "Aren't you waiting Imam Mehdi's rein to come" and his/her answer is Yes... Anxiously....So don't beat around the bush.

Our Problems with Bengali Muslims are just temporary, and we are striving and moving in right directions. If you thoroughly read and understands all these debates between us are actually "Sole Searching" in nature of what, where and why happened between us and how to overcomes it in future.

 

[Pagla Dashu]

1971 was a totally ethnic,and language based incident..There was no factor of religion in this..

Isn't it the whole point - that there is more to human identity than just religion.

The certain gentleman was absolutely right..That is if we think as muslims...But when ethnicity,greed and other factors pollute our thoughts,then this law doesn't apply.

Its like saying that the claim 'pigs can fly' is absolutely right, that is, if the pigs could grow wings.

 

[Pagla Dashu]

you mean east pakistan or bangladesh??

I thought it was self-evident in my post, but, whatever.

 

[SMC]

Its like saying that the claim 'pigs can fly' is absolutely right, that is, if the pigs could grow wings.

I am not quite sure what exactly is being debated but this right off the bat sounds like a faulty analogy. The thing being quoted can change, the thing you mentioned cannot change.

 

[Pagla Dashu]

Now you Listen... Not only the Muslims of India but the whole planets are one Nation...Go ask any Muslim (any) anywhere in the world "Aren't you waiting Imam Mehdi's rein to come" and his/her answer is Yes... Anxiously....So don't beat around the bush.

Our Problems with Bengali Muslims are just temporary, and we are striving and moving in right directions. If you thoroughly read and understands all these debates between us are actually "Sole Searching" in nature of what, where and why happened between us and how to overcomes it in future.

It is enormously entertaining to watch the convulsion that one goes into to rationalize TNT with the reality of Bangladesh.

 

[Pagla Dashu]

I am not quite sure what exactly is being debated but this right off the bat sounds like a faulty analogy. The thing being quoted can change, the thing you mentioned cannot change.

The point is of relying on irrationality as the basis for argument. Saying that peoples (the plural is intentional) can be grouped only on the basis of religiosity, to form a 'nation', thereby ignoring people's non-religious aspirations, is as irrational as claiming pigs could fly, if they grew wings, ignoring the inevitable variables.

 

[Tameem]

It is enormously entertaining to watch the convulsion that one goes into to rationalize TNT with the reality of Bangladesh.

So Basically you(I******) are enjoying for being a "Rawan" or "Satan" in our terms...Many Congratulation to reach on your destiny.....Ha ha haaa......

 

[SMC]

The point is of relying on irrationality as the basis for argument. Saying that peoples (the plural is intentional) can be grouped only on the basis of religiosity, to form a 'nation', thereby ignoring people's non-religious aspirations, is as irrational as claiming pigs could fly, if they grew wings, ignoring the inevitable variables.

The former can indeed happen - it's possible, whereas the latter is impossible. Don't see what's irrational about that. They may have been ignoring their non-religious aspirations, but many do liked to be grouped religiously. Whereas in the your analogy, there's no way to grow wings and fly. The former can happen, the latter cannot. In fact, we've witnessed the former happening many times throughout history, while obviously the latter is impossible. It's quite obviously a faulty analogy, and a really bad analogy at best, especially considering that we've witnessed them before.

The other variables you talk about - they do indeed exist, but the variables other than those 'other variables' are compared in a fallacial way

 

[Pagla Dashu]

The former can indeed happen - it's possible, whereas the latter is impossible. Don't see what's irrational about that. They may have been ignoring their non-religious aspirations, but many do liked to be grouped religiously. Whereas in the your analogy, there's no way to grow wings and fly. The former can happen, the latter cannot. In fact, we've witnessed the former happening many times throughout history, while obviously the latter is impossible. It's quite obviously a faulty analogy, and a really bad analogy at best, especially considering that we've witnessed them before.

The other variables you talk about - they do indeed exist, but the variables other than those 'other variables' are compared in a fallacial way

The very point of the analogy is to drive home the point that peoples can't be defined in terms of a single identity marker, e.g. religion. It is as absurd as expecting pigs to grow wings and fly away.

PS: I have a feeling that you didn't quite grasp the meaning of peoples.

 

[SMC]

I am assuming that by peoples, you are referring to the individuals living within a country. I also think that's what the person that you're debating with is referring to peoples as that. If that is so, then the analogy is faulty in pretty much all ways. He's saying that muslims should put religion first and think as muslims, which definitely is possible. People can be identified under religion, why not. Sure, that's not the only thing, but it's one of the things. You're comparing something that can be done, vs something that's obviously impossible.

Well besides that peoples isn't really a word actually.

 

[Pagla Dashu]

I am assuming that by peoples, you are referring to the individuals living within a country. I also think that's what the person that you're debating with is referring to peoples as that. If that is so, then the analogy is faulty in pretty much all ways. He's saying that muslims should put religion first and think as muslims, which definitely is possible. People can be identified under religion, why not. Sure, that's not the only thing, but it's one of the things. You're comparing something that can be done, vs something that's obviously impossible.

Well besides that peoples isn't really a word actually.

You have assumed wrong, quite predictably. If you had any clue to what I'm saying you obviously wouldn't have jumped into this trying to fault that analogy. And yes, 'peoples' is very much a word. I know google wouldn't help you much with this unless you know what to look for. And no, I'm not going to help you with this.

Btw, the Preamble to the UN Charter begins thus:

'We the peoples of the United Nations....'​

 

[SMC]

Did the person you were debating use the word peoples? And if yes, did they meant the same thing you assumed it to mean? If by peoples you mean all people in this world, they yes obviously they can't be defined by religion. But I doubt anyone would say anything so stupid like that to begin with.