Christian couple tortured and burned to death in Pakistan

- And I can imagine how irritating that must be to Germans.

- One man's excuse is another man's explanation/valid factor/cause/etc. If explain the rise of Bolsheviks with the 1905 Revolution, life under Tsarist rule in the 19th c., anti-Communists immediately begin covering their ears, "blah blah more excuses there is no justification for Lenin and Stalin etc." If I educate Arabs on the history of Zionsim, more ears are covered "the Jews are evil why are you telling us this BS?" There are excuses and justifications for ideologies, and then there are discussions among people of various backgrounds backed with real-world accounts to explain the rise of certain social behaviour so we may learn from history.

I didn't say and have never claimed that these Cold War policies were the sole reason for the issues in the country. This post is a supplement to all the ones I've made on here over the years on Islam - which I hope you recall. There is no justification for Nazism. There is no justification for Islamic extremism. That doesn't mean that people one day wake up and behave entirely different. I provided those reasons which have been sorely lacking.

- Completely disagree. Your intense dislike for the ideology (but not the Muslims themselves) is blinding you and making you think in binary (good times with no Islam/bad times with Islam). Islam was practiced in all of these countries before the rise of extremism. Do you think it was on hiatus from 1920-1975? The extremist brand of Islam came to the forefront because the conditions were ideal: no central authority on retranslating/reinterpreting, declining public education and literacy, billions of petrodollars for the advocates of Wahhabism, authoritarian tyrants backed by the US, social injustice, etc.

- Why do you assume I meant there isn't any mob rule in Pakistan today? Y'all were saying Pakistan should never have been made in 1947. The mob rule in Pakistan is a new phenomena (this stuff didn't happen in the 50-70s). The mob rule by Hindus which Jinnah feared was manifested before Partition so his suspicions were reasonable. And of course, Partition itself proved his fears were correct.

There have been several thousand Muslims killed in India since 1947. Until the 80s, the country was pretty good so Muslims made the right choice in 'seceding' from a safety standpoint. It's only now that mob rule from Muslims is a threat to minorities and any Muslim that doesn't subscribe to the mob's interpretation of Islam.

 

Wtf? How do you function in society?

 

What? How am I victimizing myself? Since when did providing historical context = excuses/justification = self-pity, diversion, etc.

From < 35 years ago:
1980 Moradabad
1983 Nellie
1989 Bhagalpur
1992 Bombay
2002 Gujarat

If these dates mean nothing to you, then I'm wasting my time. You are too out of touch with India and Pakistan, or you're trolling/not interested in sincere debate.

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=9307419&postcount=5

I posted this in reply to you from that other thread. Never got a response. Judging by your patronizing remarks here, I assume you didn't, and I wasted 5 minutes typing that for you.

And cut the 'son' crap. No one knows how old anyone here is. Maybe I'm arguing with a ******* 25-year old who's never studied World History in depth, or maybe I'm chatting with old Bernard Lewis.

 

I think the only thing we are disagreeing about is that I say "Islam" and you say "the extremist brand of Islam".

So we both agree that the extremist brand of Islam is responsible for the problems. In addition, you state several reasons why the extremist brand of Islam became so powerful.

My take is that yes, these reasons were contributing factors, but by far the most important reason "the extremist brand of Islam" was able to become so powerful is: Islam.

What do I mean by this? Well, what Bill Maher stated: It's connected tissue. Extremist Islam could not have become that successful in these countries if Islam had not already been there. There are many shared beliefs and it is only a matter of degree as to when it starts to be considered "extremist" or "just Islam". Many Muslims, like Erdogan, argue that there is no such thing as "extremist Islam", but only one Islam. In fact, many so-called "moderate Muslims" still prefer Al Qaeda and ISIS to Israel - because they are also Muslims.

Yes, Islam was practiced in these countries from 1920 to 1975 - but it was held in check. Just like it used to be held in check in Turkey. Those are the only times a society and an economy could function and actually become quite successful. As soon as Islam goes from a spiritual guide to an all-encompassing ideology where Sharia law reigns, disaster happens. That's because Sharia law itself is a set of rules from more than a thousand years ago, based on the moral values some people perceived as the right ones during that time. It's not enlightened. It's cruel, and it is beyond medieval.

The longer Erdogan is in power in Turkey, the more Turkey will head down the path of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

 

/thread

ATW believes that the only major event that happened in the Middle East and South Asia over the past couple of decades was the introduction of Islam.

 

I guess the moment when you read that post, you decided to post your ignorant /thread and stopped reading, and proceeded to make up yet another statement I did not make, just like FranchiseBlade. That's all you guys have?

Thanks for the rep, by the way.

 

No problem. You're quoted, by the way, saying exactly what I said that you said that you're saying you didn't say.

 

You should be banned.

Spoiler

Or at least controlled somehow.

 

The legal system didn't order the killing of those people, vigilantes did that and many (article said 460) have had a criminal case filed against them.

The acts are deplorable, but it sounds like the Pakistani government is pursuing justice for the victims.

 

"nutters of God" should never be empowered in public affairs, no matter the religion they are nuts for.

 

I'm not usually one to comment here, and I can hardly be considered impartial...one of the obligatory designations of "liberal Negro" is also "communist sympathizer" or "Islamic apologist"...

...but I do think that these sentiments can't by themselves be reduced in importance to explain the ever-deteriorating mess that is becoming much of the Middle East.

And that could also be why, often, it's difficult to see what the problems are and how to go about fixing them...from our disconnected perspective.

To suggest that Islam was "held in check" is to say it has always been what its extremist strain has projected...and that could not have been true, to me, without acknowledging that colonialism or Cold War proxy rulers was the underlying cause of the "check" on radical Islam.

I don't know what people "believe" in China, for instance (Taoism or Buddhism would be my uninformed guesses)...but they seem to govern themselves very differently, at any rate, from what we would consider “normal” or democratic. China won't ever be "westernized" enough to supplant their national identity...no matter how much noise anybody in the international community makes about how little regard they may have for individual human rights.

And you don’t hear any “patriots” here looking to pick a fight with China, either. Or lament howevermany ‘gooks’ are over there getting their brains beaten in because they think their government takes a crap on them a bit too much.

It is a fearful thing, from an American viewpoint, to contemplate whatever state or states manage to manifest if/and/or/when this very public and global and 21st century-ish Islamic reformation culminates in outside of our own national interests. We spent a lot of time and money, foreign-policy wise, to "stake a claim" in the region for the past half-century or so.

And that's where our problem with this stateside lay, in my opinion.

We are in a position, rhetorically speaking, to call out barbarous or murderous behavior nationally, with respect to what happens in Pakistan like the OP illustrates, and frame the argument as something solely wrong with Islam. Bill Maher, incidentally, has as much (if not more) contempt and disdain for Christianity as he does Islam, and he notes the differences in the two religions insofar as they affect social stability.

But that’s where the mark is, to me. Islam, for all of its dysfunction and perfunctory anachronisms, is part of the bait-and-switch―Islam would only be as relevant socially as the governing bodies of the region deemed it to be.
And the “governments” weren’t ever run by Islam…at least in our lifetime…but by those who were in a position to direct the narrative toward whatever end suited them.

We missed our best chance to change the narrative after the First Gulf War. Whatever else Saddam Hussein was (and what America made him into and subsequently made him out to be), we had what amounted to an international mandate to “nation-build” Iraq as we saw fit…perhaps even stop pretending that material gain and social justice aren’t really two separate issues that weren’t going to be addressed through esoteric gobbledygook or slight-of-hand political double-dealing. We could have put the fact that “we care about people” ahead of “we care about the oil you idiots are too dumb to know what to do with”....

…and with there being no “Cold War” anymore to speak of, we could have made the transition that was necessary then (and 1000 times more necessary now) from American/Soviet posturing to egalitarian nation/states determining their own future, much easier, with Iraq as the template.

An idea we waited ten years, a “fudged” narrative and a thumbing of the nose at the rest of the world, to disingenuously implement. More of the same, unfortunately.

So, to me, the fact that someone like Saddam Hussein was ever considered a “buffer” for radical Islam’s “spread” (and someone who had no more in common with “Islam” than Mike Huckabee) by American standards, is a tone-deaf estimation of what the left hand not knowing (or caring) about what the right hand is doing devolved into here.

Monday morning quarterbacking, after all that is said.

None of the things that are happening there are excusable or tolerable. And degrees of scale, in my mind, are convenient ways to obscure truth and abdicate responsibility. Radical Islam is as much to blame as social chaos. But even without Islam (“radical” or otherwise)…if the social chaos remained…something else would have rushed in to fill the void (communism, or fascism―which is what this radical Islam is at its core anyway―anyone?).

We all are pretty good at pointing fingers and placing blame and stating the grotesquely obvious. All well and good, and self-satisfying too. But I’d like to see some solutions, myself. Pointing out a problem a hundred thousand times isn’t as consequential as fixing it once you do. And treating a symptom is not developing a cure. I like what Tunisia is doing. It may work. It may not. But they’re trying.

Tunisia-shows-there-is-no-contradiction-between-democracy-and-islam

 

From mdrowe00's article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/tunisia-shows-there-is-no-contradiction-between-democracy-and-islam/2014/10/24/2655e552-5a16-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opnsat&wpmm=1

 

2 major incidents with radicals in the last 25 years. India as a whole is safe a place for muslims to live, even if they subscribe to a sect of islam that the majority do not follow.

How does that compare to the major incidents with Muslims and their neighbors in other parts of the world? ethiopia eritrea, m.e and israel, m.e and themselves, the Balkan and Chechen conflicts trying to separate the "good" muslims from "bad", there is conflict wherever islam is involved. sometimes you gotta put down the sword, brother, and let the truth in your heart. let it fill up your life and push out the pain so you can see clearly.

democracy works in these countries because they are tolerant and secular.

democracy inc countries like pakistan, afghanista, iraq, is never going to work because an uninformed public and religion get in the way.

from that perspective, yes, i believe the muslim world that isn't heavily benefitting from oil needs to change their entire identity. clinging to the past has done nothing for them, and allowed the islamic scholars to drive them into the ground.

i do agree with this quote

you expect the backlash with america's pandering to corporate interests and using the m.e. for that. but the response has to be of a more sophisticated chord. they've got to push the bitterness out of their version of islam and find a way to work with the world, and 2014. only intense moderate pressure can do this -- right now, it isn't enough.

you throw out a lot of fluff in your posts to show your educated and well read regarding the history of the situation, but the main point flies right over your head. that is worrying, as a well educated moderate muslim.

 

simply epic

 

And about the author of that article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ennahda_Movement

Wolf in sheep's clothing. But the gullible want to fall for anything.

 

That's kind of my point in general in these threads.

Unlike ATW, I don't live in Berlin, one of the most secular places on Earth. Muslim immigrants are conspicuous in that regard there, unlike say Israel, where guys like this are important, or Ireland, where things like this and this happen, or the US where there is this, and this, and these guys.

Which is not to say ATW is wrong to highlight Muslim god-nuttery, but it's not like the Christian and Jewish ones I've encountered in my life, in the places I've lived were any less dangerous or irrational just because they weren't armed by Iran or willing to do suicide runs into buses. I've encountered Jewish extremists in Israel and Christian ones in America that were every bit as wide-eyed and willing to do harm to those not deemed part of their exclusive extra-special-to-God-club (which in every instance was clearly me) and are just as deserving of critical scrutiny.

It's also why I find it strange that religious conservatives are so quick to demand apologies from Muslims for every act of Islamic terror, as if I would hold my Catholic friends responsible for a Provo IRA bombing or protestant friends responsible for a Christian Identity bombing of a doctor who performs abortions, and it's not as though I can't go through the bible or the writings of famous theologians and find incitements to violence.

 

I wonder what ATW would say about this type of answer ...

Also, at the top of the article (if you made it that far), it says the author is Rachid Ghannouchi. And about the actual author of that article:

This is wayyy too easy. I can always count on you to fail to present a balanced perspective on anything remotely Muslim-adjacent. The guy may not be a boy-scout, but he's soooo faaaar away from the radical Islamist you wish he was.

Follow your own advice and address the content.

 

Are you claiming they are two different people? What do you mean by "actual" author of that article? It's just different spellings of the same name.

And yes, it is important to view what he is saying in the context of what he has been standing for his whole political life.

The one thing that distinguishes him from many other Islamists is that he claims that Islam and multi-party democracy are reconcilable. In that respect, he is "better" than them.

But that doesn't make him the saint gullible leftists would like to make him out to be.

He has been an enthusiastic backer of Hamas terror for decades.

In fact, he thanked the mothers of suicide bombers.

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/483.htm

I will repeat it - he is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

In his article that you guys gobbled up, he says

Oh yes, doesn't that sound nice and isn't it just what leftists want to hear so they can hold it into the faces of those who warn.

He has also said in recent past (which was also published in the Washington Post but is no longer available online):

Sounds nice, huh?

And then you have this video where he says in Arabic that "Gaza is the model of freedom today".

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/vJ4_pNibf34" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And then, your "moderate friend" said this as well:

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/a-tunisian-islamist-looks-to-the-future/

That is content. It is looking at the content of what he publishes in the Washington post in the context of what he says when he really means what he says.

The guy is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He may not be as bad as some other Islamists, but he is not your saviour to prove that Islam and democracy are compatible. He is a bigtime Hamas fan and supporter. If that is the kind of "democracy" you are a fan of, then good luck to you.

And you are either extremely gullible or you intentionally try to mislead. Your choice.

 

And for an example of how much more "tolerant" Tunisia has become since the "moderate Islamists" have taken on a stronger role:

Tunisia Bars Jews on Cruise Ship

Tunisia has barred Jews on a Norwegian cruise ship from leaving their cruise voyage and stepping foot in the country after theirboat docked in Tunis, according to B’nai Brith Canada.

“The cruise line has a responsibility to its passengers to advise them of this discriminatory policy in advance. Better still the cruise line should avoid ports that have such policies,” said Frank Dimant, B’nai Brith Canada’s chief executive.

Jewish passengers held on the ship said other passengers were enraged after they disembarked and only later learned that the Jews were not allowed to visit Tunisia.

National security forces have increasingly harassed and assaulted Jews, and one Muslim cleric has publicly called for “divine genocide” of Jews.

Tunisian Jews once enjoyed a compostable and safe life. Approximately 2,000 Jews still live on the Tunisian island of Djerba, home of the El Ghriba synagogue that dates back nearly 2,600 years.

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/tunisia-bars-jews-on-cruise-ship/2014/03/10/

 

That's very disturbing, especially considering that Tunisia is being held up as one of the "successes" of the Arab Spring and that Jews have a long history of living without much strife in a country with a reputation for tolerance.