ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
With or without brown sauce?
Oh, and that isn't a "balaclava" you wear, it's a gimp mask.
From Islamabad to Islamaworse
- Thread starter JHE
- Start date
With or without brown sauce?
Oh, and that isn't a "balaclava" you wear, it's a gimp mask.
Spion
I hear ya
Has anyone said that?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
No, whatever gave you that idea (besides your obviously-rich fantasy life, of course)?
It may well be "obvious", my point (which appears to have eluded you) is that there isn't necessarily a connection, hence me mentioning that you made a "blithe assumption" about there being one.
They're also a nation having internal problems with their Muslim community too. Perhaps that has something to do with it, perhaps not.
JHE
.
Yes, the gentlemen who have claimed responsibility have taken a clear stance.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7437037.stm
Unless.... unless...
Separatist Cornish Pagans are a cunning lot. They've probably decided that in some very subtle way bombing a Danish embassy and then pretending to be Islamonuts will help their dirty kuffar cause.
'Al-Qaeda' claims Pakistan attack
An internet posting purportedly by al-Qaeda in Afghanistan says it carried out Monday's car bomb attack on the Danish embassy in Pakistan.
At least six people were killed and 30 injured in the attack in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad.
The statement said it was revenge for the reprinting of a "blasphemous" cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed in Danish newspapers in February.
An internet posting purportedly by al-Qaeda in Afghanistan says it carried out Monday's car bomb attack on the Danish embassy in Pakistan.
At least six people were killed and 30 injured in the attack in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad.
The statement said it was revenge for the reprinting of a "blasphemous" cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed in Danish newspapers in February.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7437037.stm
Unless.... unless...
Separatist Cornish Pagans are a cunning lot. They've probably decided that in some very subtle way bombing a Danish embassy and then pretending to be Islamonuts will help their dirty kuffar cause.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
"Purporting".
Interesting word that, JHE. Do you know what it means?
Interesting word that, JHE. Do you know what it means?
Well sir, an example could be how you're tirelessly "purporting" to have a point.
haw, haw, haw!
What 'blithe' assumption? It's a reasonable indeed a logical assumption. Look at the facts:
* There have been big demonstrations this year in cities across Pakistan about the Danish cartoons, with Danish flags being burnt etc.
* According to the Guardian of June 3: "No group claimed responsibility but Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, recently called for attacks on Denmark following the republication of controversial cartoons of the prophet Muhammad."
And every reason to expect that such an attack would get widespread sympathy in Pakistan, even if a few bystanders might get blown to smithereens as well:
If you've got an alternative explanation that you think holds water, then share it. But don't make a big noise if you've got fuck all to say.
Spion
I hear ya
You edited just to say that? Way too laboured
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
True.
There were more last year, though.
So a man who the media call "bin Laden's number two" called for attacks, and this makes it "reasonable" and "logical" for you to assume that it must have been people responding to his call?
"Tenable" maybe, "logical" if you assume that there could be no other explanation, but "reasonable"? On your bike.
Why?
Do all Pakistanis share the same ideology as al-Zawarhi? Are they all from the same tribal group? Are they all members of the same Islamic sect?
Why not? You seem to think you've got the right to do so.
You edited just to say that? Way too laboured
I felt compelled to add the "haw, haw, haw" for comic effect.
I've half a mind that VP's just trolling really, his "arguments" would make de Beauvoir blush.
Of course it's reasonable to assume that. People reasonably assume all sorts of things, not on absolute 100% evidence, but on a balance of probabilities.
'Widespread' doesn't mean every single Pakistani. But quite a few Muslims seem to have a strong sense of honour and piety, and so take a very dim view of kuffar piss-takers. You must remember the aggravation over Salman Rushdie: Iranian clerics putting a price on his head, books being burnt in Bradford. It's the same thing with the Danish cartoons. Bombing the Danish embassy was a calculated crowd-pleaser.
Then give us an alternative account <all ears>
Here's an Associated Press report which caught my eye, dated 4 June:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24976215/
No verification of authenticity, but it appears on a website 'used by Islamic militants', so at the very least it gives some idea of what's going on in people's minds.
hipipol
Peckham Wry
The Tragedy of Pakistan
Pakistan was born as compromise driven by fear that that the Muslim minority would, despite the claims of Nehru and the other "secular" Congress leaders, be oppressed by the Hindu majority in an independent India ( Little known here is the invasion by "secular" Indias troops of Hydrabad, the mass rapes etc that took place to force a Muslim majority Princely state, which had never been under Brit8ish dominion to join India but is well known to Indias Muslim population, still woefully underrepresented in positions of power)
Only Sind and the Punjab had much by the way of urban centres, but even there most agriculture was subsistence farming, there were few schools, hospitals, etc. As for the other components of the new nation, Baluchistan had until the 1890s been part of Oman and felt no connection to those to their east - the North West Frontier Province had been very, very lightly administered, if administered at all - during the 1920s and 30s bombing and military incursion were the principal tools of the British Govt in Delhi – so it is hardly surprising that the idea of Nationhood was a best fragmentary.
Since then the military have been in power for most of the time, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, along with the closeness of India to the old USSR, meant that money from the US was aimed primarily at the military, the CIA pumped weapons and training into the Mujhadeen, the ISI became inextricably linked with religiously motivated guerilla groups, (they helped create the Taliban, plus supported the Kashmir incursions both by freelance groups and even the Pakistani army, etc, etc.)
It is a militarised state where many State and independent groups see violence as the route to success.
The excuse may have been the Danish cartoons but the real tradgy is that probably only in Pakistan would that have translated into such violence
Pakistan was born as compromise driven by fear that that the Muslim minority would, despite the claims of Nehru and the other "secular" Congress leaders, be oppressed by the Hindu majority in an independent India ( Little known here is the invasion by "secular" Indias troops of Hydrabad, the mass rapes etc that took place to force a Muslim majority Princely state, which had never been under Brit8ish dominion to join India but is well known to Indias Muslim population, still woefully underrepresented in positions of power)
Only Sind and the Punjab had much by the way of urban centres, but even there most agriculture was subsistence farming, there were few schools, hospitals, etc. As for the other components of the new nation, Baluchistan had until the 1890s been part of Oman and felt no connection to those to their east - the North West Frontier Province had been very, very lightly administered, if administered at all - during the 1920s and 30s bombing and military incursion were the principal tools of the British Govt in Delhi – so it is hardly surprising that the idea of Nationhood was a best fragmentary.
Since then the military have been in power for most of the time, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, along with the closeness of India to the old USSR, meant that money from the US was aimed primarily at the military, the CIA pumped weapons and training into the Mujhadeen, the ISI became inextricably linked with religiously motivated guerilla groups, (they helped create the Taliban, plus supported the Kashmir incursions both by freelance groups and even the Pakistani army, etc, etc.)
It is a militarised state where many State and independent groups see violence as the route to success.
The excuse may have been the Danish cartoons but the real tradgy is that probably only in Pakistan would that have translated into such violence
JHE
.
Just from memory:
- The Danish embassy in Lebanon was burnt down. (And another embassy that was in the same building?)
- A nun was shot dead in Somalia (?)
You may also remember the Muslim mayhem in Nigeria after some unfortunate young woman journalist had the temerity to make the impious suggestion that Old Mo would have married one of the Miss World contestants. Hundreds died in the riots.
You are bound to remember the protests in response to Rushdie's irreverent novel. As well as the threatened murder of Rushdie, there were murderous attacks on translators and publishers. Many bookshops opted not to run the risk of stocking it.
Also, Pakistan is far from being the only Islamic country in which people can (legally) be put to death for 'blasphemy'.
In short, I do not find it at all convincing that the recent atrocity in Islamabad is peculiarly and especially Pakistani. It was in Pakistan, but such things can and do happen elsewhere.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
hipipol
Peckham Wry
Though referring specifically to Pakistan
The common thread would seem to be - re both Nigeria and Lebanon, that these are both patched together ex European colonies - places where boundaries were hurriedly set by departing "Powers", oblivious to language groups, hisroty, religion etc
Had it happened in say Saudi or Egypt then I think you may have a point
Note that those demonstrating against Rushdie and threatening to top him here in the UK were in the main of Pakistani descent
In Somalia many people are shot dead every day - the most dangerous place in the world I suspect
The common thread would seem to be - re both Nigeria and Lebanon, that these are both patched together ex European colonies - places where boundaries were hurriedly set by departing "Powers", oblivious to language groups, hisroty, religion etc
Had it happened in say Saudi or Egypt then I think you may have a point
Note that those demonstrating against Rushdie and threatening to top him here in the UK were in the main of Pakistani descent
In Somalia many people are shot dead every day - the most dangerous place in the world I suspect
JHE
.
The ones I saw shouting and marching in the East End were Bangladeshis, not Pakistanis.
Of course, in general, many were Pakistanis and others were Muslims from elsewhere in the Indian Subcontinent. That's just because the bulk of Muslims in Britain are of Indian Subcontinental backgrounds.
The protests were not just in this country or just in this country and Pakistan & Bangladesh. They were throughout the Muslim world and beyond.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
No-one is asking for "100% evidence" on this thread, but "beyond reasonable doubt" appears to be a more rational threshold to use (if we're talking about what's "reasonable", like) than a balance of probabilities (an evidential weighting British law only permits for civil matters and the disciplining of policemen, IIRC)
Widespread means "widely disseminated and distributed" (as I'e previously mentioned, most pro-"al-Qaeda" support is in the north-west of Pakistan), and having a strong sense of honour and piety doesn't make a Muslim sympathetic to the actions of fundamentalists, more likely the opposite.
Why?
I'm not arguing that the people whose ankles you and JHE are biting aren't guilty, I'm arguing that you're assuming their guilt based on frankly feeble evidence (well, JHE is relying on prejudice too, but that's by the by).
Yep, great, a web-based claim of responsibility. I got that.
And...?
Or rather in the mind of the person(s) that wrote it.
hipipol
Peckham Wry
Oh my
So your basic contention is that all Muslims are fanatical maniacs ready to kill at the drop of hat?
As there are billions of Muslims in the world but you list only 3 incidents I'd say you are rather wide of the mark on that one.
What it is true to say is that disenfranchised peoples tend to have to resort to extreme measures to be noticed - I dont see as religion specfic
Its worth pointing out that at the end of WW2 the only Muslim countries NOT ruled by foreigenrs were Saudi and Turkey - now thats the kind of thing that makes people nervous - no wonder what goes on in the West is treated with deep suspicion, I mean all those countries had been colonised "for their own good" - and a fat lot of fucking good it did em
So your basic contention is that all Muslims are fanatical maniacs ready to kill at the drop of hat?
As there are billions of Muslims in the world but you list only 3 incidents I'd say you are rather wide of the mark on that one.
What it is true to say is that disenfranchised peoples tend to have to resort to extreme measures to be noticed - I dont see as religion specfic
Its worth pointing out that at the end of WW2 the only Muslim countries NOT ruled by foreigenrs were Saudi and Turkey - now thats the kind of thing that makes people nervous - no wonder what goes on in the West is treated with deep suspicion, I mean all those countries had been colonised "for their own good" - and a fat lot of fucking good it did em
JHE
.
No, but enough to kill and terrorise.
I imagine the Muslims injured by the Islamonuts and the (Muslim) friends and relatives of the people killed by the Islamonuts are not so keen on the bombings.
It's a bit of a dull game to ascribe the belief that ALL X are Y to someone whose views you dislike.
Compare:
A: There's fucking a big problem with obesity in the US!
B: So basically you are saying that all Yanks are enormously fat. I know a Yank called Chuck Hasslebacker Jr and he's really slim. So you're wrong.
Blaming Western colonialism for the general Muslim intolerance of what they consider blasphemy or the propensity of the militant among them to use violence against those they hold responsible for blasphemy is feeble. Do you imagine Islam was better before?
There is a just a big difference between the freedoms that many Westerners take for granted and what is tolerable to the adherents to bloody Islam.
hipipol
Peckham Wry
You have a rather fixed agenda dont you?
I did not say that Western Colonial behaviour was entirely responsible for the depth of defensive reaction accross the whole of the Muslim world just that along with other historical factors it played a part
Coming over all Behemond is utterly stupid and ignores reality
The current fundementalist streak in Islam is almost entirely funded and promulgated by Saudi Wahabists and oil money, paying for Madrasas in many parts of the world, funding fundementalist groups, desrtroying Sufi shrines where ever they can I would refer you to the schisms in Europe that caused massive bllodshed after the reformation - the fact is that so long as we interfere in the internal politics of Muslim countries and attempt to impose on them a US style survival of the fittest devil take the hindmost mentailty we will continue to be targets, and to be honest as long as we behave like that we fucking deserve it
If you want to look at people being being touvhy about religion try telling some US evengelist something they dont like about Jesus - it wont be a bomb in front of the Embassy, it'll be a fucking B52 overhead.
While deranged Xtians contiue to attack Islam and the Yanks support the continues Ireali occupation of land annexed in illegal wars the west in general, which does fuck all to stop this will face the wrath of mi;itant action. I do not condoe it, these are just the facts. The current wave of militancy is based on a mix of ideas from the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, The Saliphist Movement for Preaching and Combat (Wow, Praise the Loerd and Pass the Ammunition - So very close dont you think?), Wahabi ideas of purity, all the usual utterly bollocks Judaic Abrahamic bollocks that I personally utterly despise.
I have fuck all time for bowing to some "revealed" deranged belief shown to some nomadic goat herder some 1500, 2000, or 3000 years ago, its all utter claptrap. Howver, for many people it gives their lives cohesion and sense.
Fiddle about with it at your peril
Blanket denounciation, or a blinkered idea that somehow the west is always right makes you just the same as those purport to be superior too
Chill yer tits, look at what is actually happeneing, not what the Daily Express would have you believe
I did not say that Western Colonial behaviour was entirely responsible for the depth of defensive reaction accross the whole of the Muslim world just that along with other historical factors it played a part
Coming over all Behemond is utterly stupid and ignores reality
The current fundementalist streak in Islam is almost entirely funded and promulgated by Saudi Wahabists and oil money, paying for Madrasas in many parts of the world, funding fundementalist groups, desrtroying Sufi shrines where ever they can I would refer you to the schisms in Europe that caused massive bllodshed after the reformation - the fact is that so long as we interfere in the internal politics of Muslim countries and attempt to impose on them a US style survival of the fittest devil take the hindmost mentailty we will continue to be targets, and to be honest as long as we behave like that we fucking deserve it
If you want to look at people being being touvhy about religion try telling some US evengelist something they dont like about Jesus - it wont be a bomb in front of the Embassy, it'll be a fucking B52 overhead.
While deranged Xtians contiue to attack Islam and the Yanks support the continues Ireali occupation of land annexed in illegal wars the west in general, which does fuck all to stop this will face the wrath of mi;itant action. I do not condoe it, these are just the facts. The current wave of militancy is based on a mix of ideas from the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, The Saliphist Movement for Preaching and Combat (Wow, Praise the Loerd and Pass the Ammunition - So very close dont you think?), Wahabi ideas of purity, all the usual utterly bollocks Judaic Abrahamic bollocks that I personally utterly despise.
I have fuck all time for bowing to some "revealed" deranged belief shown to some nomadic goat herder some 1500, 2000, or 3000 years ago, its all utter claptrap. Howver, for many people it gives their lives cohesion and sense.
Fiddle about with it at your peril
Blanket denounciation, or a blinkered idea that somehow the west is always right makes you just the same as those purport to be superior too
Chill yer tits, look at what is actually happeneing, not what the Daily Express would have you believe
No, I considered your attempt to win your argument by a cheap comparison with a British tabloid made you look like a smug, arrogant tosser.
Is it really that hard to understand?
hipipol
Peckham Wry
Glad you explained it
Are you young angry and spotty faced?
Or a bitter and twisted old git?
No doubt your are far more clever than I as you were able to identify smuness instantly wheras I take much longer
Either way, you seem a rather unpleasnt and uncouth individual, or to use terms you may be more familiar with, a piece of shit dangling from a goats arse, thats you that is
Are you young angry and spotty faced?
Or a bitter and twisted old git?
No doubt your are far more clever than I as you were able to identify smuness instantly wheras I take much longer
Either way, you seem a rather unpleasnt and uncouth individual, or to use terms you may be more familiar with, a piece of shit dangling from a goats arse, thats you that is
Similar threads
