Selling a civil war to Pakistan

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Zyxius,

"Due process, every body should be questioning things rather than just accepting them, checks and balances, law and order, transparency, openness, accountability, fair and open trials and respect for fundamental human rights including the right to life."

I will answer your queries as soon as I have time.

Right now, let me take the thing I have quoted of your post since it requires no time off me.

Have you considered the Political IQ of the awam?

Do you think that they really are capable of even comprehending what you wish they should.

I would not know of Pakistan, but in India, they are quite clueless. All they (the vast majority who labour) care is their daily rigours of existence and nothing beyond.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Regarding my being a clone of Agnostic Muslim....we could not be further apart. He believes in bombing these people rather than the rule of law...which he equates to someone trying to walk into Taliban territory with a pair of handcuffs. We are on opposite ends of the spectrum there. As regards to the ideology; I am and always will be unflinching supporter of a Khilafa based on the examples of the Prophet (SAW) and the Khulafa Rashidun. I think Agnostic Muslim would have a heart attack if that happened. I believe in the rule of law and a just law, which I dont see anywhere around, which is why I posted what I did.

Zyxius,

Compliments on a well written and thought out first post.

I do have a grouse - that you have reduced my views to the very same absurdly simplistic level, that you suggest Niaz sahib has reduced his possible solutions (to the quagmire Pakistan finds itself in) to.

I do not always go into a nuanced elaboration of my views in my posts, sometimes merely venting the frustration I feel (at the situation Pakistan find itself in) by resorting to simplisms, and perhaps it was those posts that led you to think that I subscribe to that POV.

S-2 and Salim would indeed be mighty surprised to find out that I would rather just "bomb these people".

On opposition to Khilafat - The problem is that the description of this Khilafat you provide is such a generic and wonderful one that one would be hard pressed to find someone who would disagree. After all, who among us would not dream of a utopia?

Though for some the reality of the nature of man is a harsh reminder of why the term utopia is synonymous with unachievable.

But this thread is not about the Khilafat, unless you consider the Khilafat as part of the solution to this quagmire we find ourseves in.

I would love to hear your thoughts on how this system is to be achieved, what basic values it represents, what rights it enshrines, and how continuity for its institutions, rights and values is to be preserved, either here or on other threads.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

S-2 and Salim would indeed be mighty surprised to find out that I would rather just "bomb these people"

Not fair.

I protest!

Zyxius,

AM has left me so confused that I would not reply to your post till I gather my thoughts.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Not fair.

I protest!

Zyxius,

AM has left me so confused that I would not reply to your post till I gather my thoughts.

Wait, so what approach do you think I favor?

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Wait, so what approach do you think I favor?

Chaos with sincerity toward peace!
)

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Chaos with sincerity toward peace!
)

I suppose arguing in favor of the current governments policies would come across as that...

I really think, in light of yours and Zyxius's comments, that I must elaborate further on what I want to see done, vs what I think is the most realistic approach that can be adopted at this time.

 

[Majnun]

Zyxius,

Compliments on a well written and thought out first post.

I do have a grouse - that you have reduced my views to the very same absurdly simplistic level, that you suggest Niaz sahib has reduced his possible solutions (to the quagmire Pakistan finds itself in) to.

I do not always go into a nuanced elaboration of my views in my posts, sometimes merely venting the frustration I feel (at the situation Pakistan find itself in) by resorting to simplisms, and perhaps it was those posts that led you to think that I subscribe to that POV.

S-2 and Salim would indeed be mighty surprised to find out that I would rather just "bomb these people".

On opposition to Khilafat - The problem is that the description of this Khilafat you provide is such a generic and wonderful one that one would be hard pressed to find someone who would disagree. After all, who among us would not dream of a utopia?

Though for some the reality of the nature of man is a harsh reminder of why the term utopia is synonymous with unachievable.

But this thread is not about the Khilafat, unless you consider the Khilafat as part of the solution to this quagmire we find ourseves in.

I would love to hear your thoughts on how this system is to be achieved, what basic values it represents, what rights it enshrines, and how continuity for its institutions, rights and values is to be preserved, either here or on other threads.

As far as I can see, you are right in just about every respect.
I would like to give an example.
Iran, till 1979, was actually a very powerful country and one could even go so far as to say they were a rising power. However, after the revolution, they became weak and will actually probably not even be able to defend themselves against the majority of the nations of the world.
Till happened under Ayatollah Khomeini. During the Iraq war, Saddam would not have had the audacity to attack Iran under the secular, westernized Shah, and if he had, he would almost certainly taken a sound beating. This is because Iran shot themselves in the foot when they became a religious "republic".
There is Turkey, there is England, there is Canada, there is Russia, there is China, there is even Pakistan, that are secular countries (even though Pakistan is an Islamic Republic thanks to Bhutto's appeasement of the religious sector). And these are the stronger countries, at least militarily (including Canada). And (primarily in Turkey and Pakistan) the military has been the saviour.

 

[Zyxius]

I would like to give an example.
Iran, till 1979, was actually a very powerful country and one could even go so far as to say they were a rising power. However, after the revolution, they became weak and will actually probably not even be able to defend themselves against the majority of the nations of the world.
Till happened under Ayatollah Khomeini. During the Iraq war, Saddam would not have had the audacity to attack Iran under the secular, westernized Shah, and if he had, he would almost certainly taken a sound beating. This is because Iran shot themselves in the foot when they became a religious "republic".
There is Turkey, there is England, there is Canada, there is Russia, there is China, there is even Pakistan, that are secular countries (even though Pakistan is an Islamic Republic thanks to Bhutto's appeasement of the religious sector). And these are the stronger countries, at least militarily (including Canada). And (primarily in Turkey and Pakistan) the military has been the saviour.

Really Mustafa? You are going to take an enormously complex event such as the War between Iraq and Iran and reduce that to the imaginary cause and affect that you just described. Do you really feel that in those two lines above you have proved a conclusive relationship between secularism and success?

The US is not exactly a secular country, they admit that they are based on Judaio-Christian Principles, their President takes the oath on the bible, their money says "In God we trust", some of the most powerful lobbies in that country are the Christian and Jewish lobbies, there is a huge portion of America that believe in the rapture, the US President says that he was "ordained by God"...etc etc. Cmon dude.....don't wake up and smell the coffee. Too often people voice undying support for secularism just like the mindless support for the democracy party in Pakistan in which the leader is 19 year old boy is the leader because his mother "bequeathed" it to him...and this idiot says only one thing which was incredibly hypocritical "democracy is the best revenge" (yeah...so what are you doing on that seat?) and these parrots still chant mindless support for PPP democracy.

No offense Mustafa, but the cause and affect you have described is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Zyxius]

Zyxius,



I will answer your queries as soon as I have time.

Right now, let me take the thing I have quoted of your post since it requires no time off me.

Have you considered the Political IQ of the awam?

I will respond to your question with the obvious answer, but I think I'll wait until you've responded to the points that I have raised since the answers to your question lay there.

 

[M.KHURRAM.KHAN [747 ARMY]]

WE are muslims man.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Really Mustafa? You are going to take an enormously complex event such as the War between Iraq and Iran and reduce that to the imaginary cause and affect that you just described. Do you really feel that in those two lines above you have proved a conclusive relationship between secularism and success?

The US is not exactly a secular country, they admit that they are based on Judaio-Christian Principles, their President takes the oath on the bible, their money says "In God we trust", some of the most powerful lobbies in that country are the Christian and Jewish lobbies, there is a huge portion of America that believe in the rapture, the US President says that he was "ordained by God"...etc etc. Cmon dude.....don't wake up and smell the coffee. Too often people voice undying support for secularism just like the mindless support for the democracy party in Pakistan in which the leader is 19 year old boy is the leader because his mother "bequeathed" it to him...and this idiot says only one thing which was incredibly hypocritical "democracy is the best revenge" (yeah...so what are you doing on that seat?) and these parrots still chant mindless support for PPP democracy.

No offense Mustafa, but the cause and affect you have described is absolutely ridiculous.

In God we trust does not mean a Christian God.

What is wrong with a 19 year aspiring to be a leader?

Have their not been boy Kings who have done well.

I do agree that Islamic countries are not comfortable with democracies since they are followers of an autocratic religion that lays down rules and norms as ordained including the life of the Prophet, who is taken as the Perfect Man.

As far as Bush and God is concerned, do not those of the Islamic faith use Inshallah as if it were a verbal crutch?

No offence intended, but since you appear of the intellectual bent of mind, I thought I should give my two Paise.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

1. Do you feel that the rule of law should be abandoned? Plz answer generically and not specific to this case
2. Are not laws made for tough times and to regulate the punishments of the guilty? Plz answer generically and not specific to this case
3. Is complete openness and transparency not the best way to deal with propaganda and confusion? Plz answer generically and not specific to this case
4. Do you believe that someone who is accused of being guilty should have the right to due process in a court of law? Plz answer generically and not specific to this case
5. Do governments always tell the truth? Plz answer generically and not specific to this case
6. Does the media always tell the truth? Plz answer generically and not specific to this case
7. Are checks and balances not necessary to prevent human error or interference? Plz answer generically and not specific to this case

1. The rule of law should not be abandoned. However, when religion is paramount over the rule of law or even the Nation, what is resultant?

2. Same as #1

3. Yes, but when religion overtakes law, the Nation and life, then what is the answer?

4. As # 3.

5. No.

6. No. Ask Jana!

7. Yes.

 

[Zyxius]

In God we trust does not mean a Christian God.

What is wrong with a 19 year aspiring to be a leader?

Have their not been boy Kings who have done well.

I do agree that Islamic countries are not comfortable with democracies since they are followers of an autocratic religion that lays down rules and norms as ordained including the life of the Prophet, who is taken as the Perfect Man.

As far as Bush and God is concerned, do not those of the Islamic faith use Inshallah as if it were a verbal crutch?

No offence intended, but since you appear of the intellectual bent of mind, I thought I should give my two Paise.

Salim,

There are such deep contradictions in your statements and the values that you are professing to believe in just in those few posts of yours. However, I think the discussion of these issues, secularism, and the Khilafat are not the point of this thread which is based more on our current situation with respect to this supposed "insurgency" or "civil war", whichever you wish to call it.

I propose that we keep those issues for another thread where that would be the main theme. I have some thoughts on the subject and will respond to the points raised by you separately.

 

[Zyxius]

1. The rule of law should not be abandoned. However, when religion is paramount over the rule of law or even the Nation, what is resultant?

2. Same as #1

3. Yes, but when religion overtakes law, the Nation and life, then what is the answer?

4. As # 3.

5. No.

6. No. Ask Jana!

7. Yes.

1 & 2. Salim, let us please leave the subject of religion aside from our discussion of the law for the time being. Since you agree that the law should not be abandoned, that it is meant for the guilty, and to regulate their punishments........then you must agree that kidnapping people, murdering them, torturing people, killing innocent civilians in bombing raids, ignoring Habeas Corpus, and not taking the guilty to court are all violation of the laws?

3. You say you agree that transparency and openness are the best solution. But then you qualify your statement to say that transparency and openness should not be the policy if "religion overtakes the law". Let us replace your word religion with "group" since you obviously don't mean to say that all Muslims or all people or all faith...but a particular segment represented by a group. I don't understand how being non-transparent, secretive, and un-open could ever be a good policy...especially if you feel that the group in question that has overtaken the law is ignorant and misguided. It seems that you are contradicting your answers for 1 & 2.

4. Again, let us replace your word religion with "group" since you obviously don't mean to say that all Muslims or all people or all faith...but a particular segment represented by a group. You answer that you believe that the guilty have a right to due process in the court of law. I don't understand how you feel that this essential part of the law should be abandoned since that actually means that your answer to all of the above is actually no rather than yes. This is an essential check and balance and an essential part of due process, transparency and openness. An integral part of the values you profess to believe in.

5, 6, & 7. So you agree that media and the government do not always tell the truth and that checks and balances are necessary. I do not understand the many contradictions in your responses.

 

[Proud to be Pakistani]

A well articulated post. Appears to hit an arrow to the heart.

However, it does not appeal.

It appears more of an attempt to incite and blame everyone else.

There maybe internal dissensions, but there is no groundswell for a civil war.
The lines are not all that divided. And Pakistanis are not that foolish as you wish to make them out to be.

What I have quoted from your post, is it not the same with all countries? How is it special to Pakistan. In ever country until you are affected, you could not care less. Even in the US!!

So, you are merely trying to raise the emotional level with clever illustrations!

The same could be said of India, but nowhere are we near a civil war conditions! Same could be said of any country and still they chug along in their own miserable ways.

Yet, a good post from the journalistic point of view!

Impressive!

But the discerning will see through your points.

No offence meant. It is just that there is no scenario that suggest a civil war in Pakistan!

In any multi ethnic nation, such problems as in Pakistan will be rife!

A very nice post, I must admit!