Well, they maybe. Just don't mix them with highly explosive, armed forces. Teach them to your kids. Who cares? Just spare the rest of the country! Now enough from you, obviously you're someone who has been banned before and are here to derail a thread once again!
My fault! My comment was too terse to be understood by everyone. But, I was writing in the context, not out of it.
I said look at the example of USA (democratic, tolerant) and USSR (totalitarian, intolerant to any opposition): there were sympathizer to communism in US forces and other forces or not. Were they punished for their ideology? Sympathy and collaboration in a crime are two different things, the difference that the totalitarian never understand.
You mean explosive Army (or rather implosive army)? In fact, Soviets got rid of all suspected anti revolutionist within soviet forces, so when Soviet Union collapsed, did the Soviet forces stand by the communist ideology?
What USA did: communism was proven wrong in an open debate (in their society) and the time testified that. You can (and should) do your best to prove (what you think are wrong) ideologies wrong in a democratic way and the time will prove you right.
I think the problem is here with the key word of this thread ‘sympathizers’. It should have been accomplices or collaborators. I suspect people are confusing sympathizers with empathizers- hmmm , still empathy is not a crime… (every one is innocent unless proven guilty)!?!
My point is that there might be sympathizers, but go after the accomplices; do not try to eliminate ideology- it might fire back. Counter the ideology democratically.
Please, do not let my incompetence in language eclipse your ability to read between the lines!
Wrong. Just like Zia ul Haq changed the ideological landscape of the country by embarking on his Wahabization project - promoting the ideology and thus creating sectarian/ideological fissures that exist in the country to this day - the reverse trend can be engineered over time, provided our establishment(military supprted by civilian leadership) commits to rolling back the very real nightmare conjured up by Zia, with equal zeal and effort.
Again you too missed the point! I did not say anything about starting or promoting an ideology or setting a trend, did I? I said ideology cannot be controlled (except democratically). Take your own example of ZiaulHaq: was he able to control/ eliminate Bhuttoism. He suppressed People Party and countered it with Islamization, but even today People party is in Government.
We need to differentiate between ideology, sympathy and crime, please.
In fact, intolerance and extremism (no matter pro-Taliban or anti- Taliban) is a greater threat for us and might lead to greater violence in the society.