Balochistan Liberation Army *Banned*

[wadawada]

It has nothing to do with Islam or Pakistan, unless he wishes to club all people who follow Islam as terrorists and that Pakistan is a terrorist country.

behind the lines, american policy, now visibly very influenced by zionist perspective (as opposed to potential christian neutral) means that.

islam, like all other religions, is theocratic in essence. it is very true for judaism (israel as an entity, laws, nationality, internal politics etc...), it is less true for christianity since the anti-christian forces imposed anti-religious secularism in europe, and then usa, it is true for japan (emporor legitimacy is based on the shinto mythologies and japanses culture is heavily influeced by the shinto and japanese budhist eligions) etc...


basically, the problem of secularized anti-religious west is islam itself.

the west/usa want to do to islam what they did to christianism, i.e INVENT a new religion labelled islam, but that is "tolerant in the name of Allah" to homosexuality, pornography, and anti-religious ideologies. this is failing and will fail, simply because the christianity , at the contrary of islam and judaism, have been attacked (intellectually, and then physically, by the WWs and communism that destabilized demography and social order) inside its homelands and could not responde. for islam, there are stron,ghold that cannot be touched (in this context at least), and for judaism, the ethno-religious nature of this religion make it strong.


behind her "pacific" declarations, usa is very conscious about some typical carachteristics of islam that make it difficult to "defame". this is amplified by the fact that the majority of muslims happen to live in poor countries, where they have only religion to survive.

so in order to accomplish her interests, usa (based on zionist vision) needs to have other religions as allies against islam. it is easy to have the "westernism" religion as an ally against any other religion, it is easy to have chritianity as an ennemy gainst islam, for objective reasons (the imperialist history of islam, the perception of islam as a near threat to europe, surrounding europe and even INSIDE europe) and subjective reason (the myth of islam-the-bloody religion, that generalizes and use selective-memory and double standard to "hollywoodize" , forgotting that ALL religions had their bloody empires, and have different sects, versions, and even heresies; the need to have a new mega evil ennemy after the URSS, the adoption of judeo-zionist POVs after the emergence of the judeo-christianity and since the 19th.C. the zionist christianity, amplified and personified now in the evangelical pseudo-protestant church; the failure of zionists to create a judo-chrsitiano-islamic ideology that would ease the task of both usa/west and israel, and the discovery that "if islam cannot be included inside "our" religions, it is against us)...

now, from all the remaining regional or ambitious powers, india is the best choice:

the complex history of islam in india. the recent conflicts. the proximity to the "red" china and "red" russia and the necessity to gain proximity to both there regional powers. the nature of india, i. a democracy: nothing is more easier to manupulate than democracy, nothing is more easier to destroy and blackmail, because democracy, especially in an emerging country, is influencable. india is perfect, and usa (throu its media, intellectuals, "friends" etc...) will do its possible to "win" india.

islamic hindus conflict (wether real or only mediatic/perceived) is of prime importance to the usa strategy "about" (let's say it clear: against) islam.

isa have no problem with corrupt, terrorist, or pathologic psudo-islam. (see its allies). usa have problem with islam as a viable different civilizational model.

so for usa, it has everything to do with islam, and for usa, yes, pakistan, iran...ANY islamic nation trying to be fully independant and escaping the orbit of america (which means in simple terms, opting for america's ennemies : china and/or russia) are "terrorist nations". turkey is a friend only because it serves as a military base of NATO. if ever/when turkey quit the NATO, it will join the "club" as fast as possible

This is a most flawed and unfortuante opinion expressed by Asim.
Apparently, he has made this type of a statement to provoke and sort of soft soap you to stand up for the Ummah i.e. go ballistic against India.

no way. I belive only in Alllah and muhammd is rasullullah. nothing else. i'm not manipulable, don't worry. and I never base my POV on one definitive opinion, neither or emotions. I also know (i think) how much india is a complex country, and I don't belive that the mass of indians are easily fanatizable. (but that don't means that there is no prediposition against a "target" : it's human dangerously natural predisposition of poor, afraid or people under pressure)

BUT the question is about the elites. for this, i have no opinion.

As I have explained earlier, I do subscribe to the view that religion has nothing to do with our day rote. If it were not because of religion, then where would be what is today termed as terrorism? Some clever people have used this powerful vehicle called religion and manipulate it to make people angry, disillusioned and ashamed leading to this confrontation.

communists' terrorism. anarchists' terrorism. nationalists' terrorism. racialists' terrorism.

these are not religions stricly speaking (even if the communautarian and desperate effect is extremly strong as in extreme versions of religions).

terrorism is an act, a tool. anything may justify it. you can even invent justifications later. terrorsim is void and have any meaning. why ? it is NOT representative. a representative conflict is called WAR.

terrorism is basically atheistic (whatever the declarations and the apparences are): the terrorist "forces" the destiny (considered in all religions as written by God(s) ), he is sure to "go to paradize" or "save people" or... he have no absolute faith in a religion, but rather in HIS idea.

if someone belives REALLY in Allah swt, can he CLAIM to be sure to go to apradize for SURE ? can he be so much impatient instead of beign patient (and give himself time to think) ? can he violate ALL islamic jihad rules about the war ?

Palestine is a social problem.

this is either the limited marxist view, or the "machaivelic" zionist view (i don't say that you are either, just this view is expressed by both these currents)

so to begin with: social is related to a popualtion. population=>state. we have 1 state and 1 potential one: a JEWISH state (ethnically, legally, mythologically) and an arab islamo-christian "state" (same).


ok, we can take another perspective: palestine is more "wealthy" than morocco. yes. but we have no hamas, no islamic jihad, no fatah, no massive armed militant movements. (islamists are mostly politics, and terrorists are fought).


let's suppose that you give palstinians billions. some would shut up, but the majority would be still angry.

the falsehood of economical problem is shown better by teh decolonizations : the euro-imperialism brought materian modernity to occupied lands. the peoples however we not satisfied, otehrwise, euopeans would still be ruling india and pakistan and...

It a struggle between two COMMUNITIES for the right to live on a piece of land. I will not go into this socal problem here since it will be a digression to what I am discussing. But, it has been given a religious hues on both sides of the problem. And religion being a strong elixir, irrationality on both sides have led to "defenders of the faith" on both sides. And the schism has deepened and now beyond redemption.

israel is found on religious jewish POV. (history tells us that the canaanites adn philistins are autochtonous to this land, and the nomadic israelites have invaded it based on their religion)

palestine is, for arabs, al qods/jerusalem/yerushalom.

it was also a part of islamic lands (othoman empire). one argument used constantly against this is that there is no "religious" land. but israel IS a religious land as anyone may see... (but not speak)

sure, the religious factor have amplified the problem. but religion was also a part of the problem since the begining. in fact, in the torah, Yahve (jewish god) gave beni israel the land OF cannanites, because the latters were PAGANS.

If the problem did not have a religious angle, then possibly it could have been solved. Now, it is a Jew vs Islam pwoer struggle! Bring in religion and you can forget about any solution because irrationality surfaces (like Asim's post as if India is bedevilled by the Pakistan is an Islamic country. If that was the case India would be against all Islamic countries and which is not the case).

yes. 100%. religion turns a problem to an absolute problem.

but i don't agree about the "ir/rationality" ideas. wars are not rational. they are in majority emotive: ideology, religion. the only rational wars are defensive wars. but the israeli led offensive wars, and then arabs later.

yes, pakistan and india should keep religion out of conflict as much as possible.

 

[wadawada]

As far as the US is concerned, it has always supported despotic heads of countries, be the military dictators or fraudly foisted Shieks and Shahs. The reason is simple, these Sheiks, Shahs and military or civil dictators are concerned about their countries as long as their position is safe and these frauds will do anything to ensure the same including sell their country and people for their own personal good. So, why blame the US? The US is furthering their own national interests by propping up these pretenders. And these pretenders do anything and everything what the US wants. There can be no better thing for the US. So, one cannot blame the US. People keep dogs and not Tigers as pets. Dogs after is a loyal friend!

100%

you forget 2 things however:

-the US present itself as "friendly" "democratic" "temple of freedom". so it is extremly difficult to indentify HYPOCRITE ENNEMIES. yes, people are to blame 100%. but in theory. in practice, ALL people are as easily manipulable as cats. you just need to know how to push and pull them in the way you want. political science, politicians, and political litterature existe only to achieve that aim. as long as people are not aware that they have this wekness, they'll contunie to be used.

-the power of the west and usa (and israel) is unmatchable. it is not some quantitative difference, but rather a qualitative one. it's like 2 paralle worlds : on one side, you have countries where the level of intelligence and political malice have achieved a very high level (opium wars,... false flags ..inter-tribal wars... secret servies and devlopped sceintific intel. agencies and scholars...), unparalled with the naiveté, shot sight, unfaith, cowardise, simple mindness, weakness, ignorance, unambition of the pseudo-elites of the 10th world.

you have countries who can turn the whole earth to a nuclear trash. you have other countries who are just unable to have a decent police. you have countries who know MORE about us than we can think (including a more scientific analysis of our politics/religion/ideology/history...). and other countries who simply don't care, or worse, think that there are "good and bad"...

this is a level of intellectual developpement and mental maturity. compared to the "hidden leaders" (intelligencia,s experts, think tanks ,deciders, financiers, pressure groups, maffias, ...), we are like some promitives. simply because we don't think so and that we think we are reazlly comparable to tyhem, so we don't do any effort. and they let us belive that yes, we exist ! they even put us in the same economical classifications as them for example ! just imagine : putting in the same list a country that is able to invent, manufacture, mainaint, improve alsmot all what she needs, INCLUDING NEW SCIENCES and disiplines, and otehr countries who are still not able to APPLY seriously and efficiently !

of course, no comparison is possible. as long as people leive in illusions, they will react like cats. awake, conscious people are angry and ambitious people. and only these can react as tigers.

 

[sparten]

Brig,
You forget I am Pashtun! But well I travel quite a bit all over.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Sparten,

Yes indeed I forgot.

I was having so much of problems posting on PFF owing to some technical problem (which has equally surprisingly has vanished just now) that I forgot the fact.

Interesting, I did not know that Neo was a Pathan (Pashtun), I learnt it just of now.

Both of you are so level headed and so I am getting confused about the NWFP being a hotbed of wild ones!

Though, sometimes you do go off the handle when Punjab is targeted and that is why I thought you were a Ponjabi, but Neo is cool as a cucumber!

Maybe it is the effect that the dykes may break!

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

wadawada,

An interesting intellectual discourse. Enjoyable from the academic point of view, but I don't subscribe to your views.

The modern world is very convoluted and with the Internet knowledge has broken barriers. Therefore, anything can be proved or disproved. Yet, it is an interesting discourse.

Thank you.

PS, I thought the Palestinians were on handouts and doles and banked on the munificience of the world. So, how can Morrocco be poorer than Palestine?

You don't have Hamas because of your French Connection and thus consider yourself superior culturally. And also because you have a King. He sure would like no turmoil in his Kingdom. When I was a Battalion commander in the Army, I also would brook no nonsense since it is efficiency what one is interested and that come through stability, be it whle ruling a Kingdom or running a battalion.

 

[wadawada]

wadawada,

An interesting intellectual discourse. Enjoyable from the academic point of view, but I don't subscribe to your views.

The modern world is very convoluted and with the Internet knowledge has broken barriers. Therefore, anything can be proved or disproved. Yet, it is an interesting discourse.

Thank you.

you're the welcome just another POV...

PS, I thought the Palestinians were on handouts and doles and banked on the munificience of the world. So, how can Morrocco be poorer than Palestine?

palestine receives some aid from arabsn and international organisations. technically, palestine is poor.
but in morocco, we have no ressources, we have a "cold war" for our territorial integrity, a violent climate change (rapid desertification in 30 years) and an explosive demography that is no more adapted to our new agriciltural situation (employs a huge number. fontunatly,; we begin to control it). so, morocco is -stupidly-poorer. shame.

(PS: the suffer of palestinian people is uncomparable. as it is psychological. i was not meaning a comparison is that aspect, but only to show that based of an economical argument alone, the emergence of militant islamist is unexplainable)

You don't have Hamas because of your French Connection and thus consider yourself superior culturally.

it is true that france is much less involved in "world's dirt" compared to britain and usa. good point !

but I don't understand "superior culturally". ??

but the palestinians, before the hamas wave, were so "secularized" that they were considered atheist, and lebanese Amal (before hezbollah) fought them becasue of that !! the massacre and destruction of the most effective FPLP nationalists (non islamists) movment was a priority of mossad and it's replacement with hamas (notice: FPLP was wiped off ; hamas's leaders were never hurt) was premedited. but the anger is there : people (as a mass !) tend to choose "principles" over food, when they are not starving.

And also because you have a King. He sure would like no turmoil in his Kingdom. When I was a Battalion commander in the Army, I also would brook no nonsense since it is efficiency what one is interested and that come through stability, be it whle ruling a Kingdom or running a battalion.

sure. the king have played a vital role in stabilizing the country, especially that we (and the lebanese) had the most extremist militant leftist movments of the whole arab world.

but still, you see that you took other causes (cultural, political) into account to explain the palestinians movements, vs. the moroccans. and did not restrict into the pure social (economical) argument.

once you say "there are other arguments besides the social-economical one", you already broke the marxist theory and entered in the ideological explanations.


There is an interesting thing to try to understand : depending on religion/culture, some populations are more sensible top economy vs. ideology, while others are the contrary. it would be an interesting exlanation, as Maslow showed in his pyramid that there were no universal order of priorities on earth.

 

[niaz]

I agree with the honourable members that banning any outfit has no effect whatso ever. All the banned parties re-surface under a different guise. BLA has been responsible for majority of the terrorist activities in Baluchistan. Banning BLA will solve nothing. One has to break the powers of the Baluch Sardars and win over the hearts and minds of the people that provide support to such outfits. This should be both through carrot; providing jobs, education and communication facilities as well as stick; that is once the criminals are caught, they are actually punished and not pardonned. That every one should know that damaging public property and killing will not go unpunished.