Religious fuckheads provoke other religious fuckheads to kill UN staff

[DotCommunist]

He is become death, destroyer of kleenex

 

[LiamO]

Illustrated version?

of course.

 

[Spymaster]

I'm off to bed with my copy of the Baghavad Gita.

Some of the positions in that could put your back out.

 

[yield]

Now I dont pretend to know much about the various strands of Islam but I had always believed that the 'Sulfis' tended to be more on the easy going side of things and yet these pricks still seem to be happy to blow them up.

Salafis are the conservative strand of Sunni Islam dominant in Saudi Arabia.

Sufis are the ones thought of as easy going mystics.

 

[Random]

Am I the only one who wonders just how much this had to do with the book burning at all? Maybe it's more to do with the fact that there is clearly a large number of pissed off people in M-i-S than them being 'manipulated' or 'whipped up' by religion? The fact that this happened in one of the most anti-Taliban areas in Afghanistan, policed by the Swedes for goodness sake, not even NAT0.

It at least shows rather drmatically that even Scandinavian led 'reconstruction' is winning no hearts and minds. Maybe because the UN is supporting the warlords running the local area?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I'm not seeing it being reported much in the western press but RIA Novosti is reporting ...

More than 100 people have died in violence in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, where eyewitnesses say police are firing on crowds with automatic weapons.

A source in Afghanistan's Interior Ministry told RIA Novosti on Sunday that the death toll had passed 100 in riots over the public burning of a Quran by a U.S. pastor.

http://en.beta.rian.ru/world/20110403/163353915.html

 

[Random]

I'm waiting for the UN to send in planes to protect Afghan civilians.

 

[Spymaster]

.... policed by the Swedes for goodness sake, not even NAT0.

It at least shows rather drmatically that even Scandinavian led 'reconstruction' is winning no hearts and minds. Maybe because the UN is supporting the warlords running the local area?

Well it's not really Scandinavian led. The Swedes have a strange relationship with NATO. They're considered a "partner" rather than a member, which means they get to pick and choose which actions to participate in. So the fact that they've chosen to be involved in Afghanistan (as they did in Bosnia and Kosovo), rather than being there to fulfill any obligation may not have done them any favours with some of the locals.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

One imagines that if anyone leads anything in that neighbourhood (i.e. Mazar) it's that evil old bastard Gen. Dostum. He's no friend of the Taliban or the mullahs though.

 

[Random]

Well it's not really Scandinavian led. The Swedes have a strange relationship with NATO. They're considered a "partner" rather than a member, which means they get to pick and choose which actions to participate in. So the fact that they've chosen to be involved in Afghanistan (as they did in Bosnia and Kosovo), rather than being there to fulfill any obligation may not have done them any favours with some of the locals.

No indeed, I imagine the local population have no idea about Scandinavia at all. But I mean that many of the local provincial reconstruction team efforts in the area are led by the Swedish aid authorites, which have a rather unique approach, attempting to disassociate themselves from the military involvement.

 

[Spymaster]

But I mean that many of the local provincial reconstruction team efforts in the area are led by the Swedish aid authorites, which have a rather unique approach, attempting to disassociate themselves from the military involvement.

Yep, gotcha.

 

[iROBOT]

Do you think these millions of Indian Muslims might have contributed in any small way to the things on your list of Indian achievements? Or do they save the brainy jobs for Hindis

Creed, race, gender have nothing to do with why India is progressing and Pakistan is not and everything to do with the dynamism of a secular democratic state verses a theocracy that bases it's laws on a dark ages document (utterly fabricated one, as we all know God is a delusion). I would argue that there's been very few theocracies that prosper anyway in modern times.

And yes the Muslims do well in India (I belive there's even been a Muslim President) and as a consequence are growing in number. Conversly, I'd like you to have a look at Pakistans minority groups (Sufis/Xtians/Buddhists/Sheiks and Hindus) at 1947 and compare their numbers/percent of population to now.

 

[yield]

Creed, race, gender have nothing to do with why India is progressing and Pakistan is not and everything to do with the dynamism of a secular democratic state verses a theocracy that bases it's laws on a dark ages document (utterly fabricated one, as we all know God is a delusion). I would argue that there's been very few theocracies that prosper anyway in modern times.

And yes the Muslims do well in India (I belive there's even been a Muslim President) and as a consequence are growing in number. Conversly, I'd like you to have a look at Pakistans minority groups (Sufis/Xtians/Buddhists/Sheiks and Hindus) at 1947 and compare their numbers/percent of population to now.

Is India a secular state?

Also you might like this thread from last year.

Arundhati Roy meets the Maoist insurgents in central India

 

[iROBOT]

It's constitution is secular. The official name is The Republic of India. (Bhārat Gaṇarājya in Sanskrit). It's does not allow the teaching of religion in any of it's schools, which is even further then the USA constitution (and one we would be advised to follow). Plus the Muslims are (by law) governed by their own family laws based on Sharia (unthinkable here). No such privalage is given to the minorities of Pakistan.

The problems with India are the problems of capitalism. Unfair distribution of wealth and land grabbing by multinationals and an inept political structure.

 

[yield]

It's constitution is secular. The official name is The Republic of India. (Bhārat Gaṇarājya in Sanskrit). It's does not allow the teaching of religion in any of it's schools, which is even further then the USA constitution (and one we would be advised to follow). Plus the Muslims are (by law) governed by their own family laws based on Sharia (unthinkable here). No such privalage is given to the minorities of Pakistan.

To be fair it sounds like you no more about the subject than me. I thought a large minority went to religious schools disproportionately Muslims?

Don't the Hindus, Parsis, and Christians also have their own family laws?

The problems with India are the problems of capitalism. Unfair distribution of wealth and land grabbing by multinationals and an inept political structure.

I agree.

 

[iROBOT]

To be fair it sounds like you no more about the subject than me. I thought a large minority went to religious schools disproportionately Muslims?

The parent is at liberty to educate/indoctrinate/brainwash their children as want. The state shuldnt pay for it. So there are private religious schools there.

Don't the Hindus, Parsis, and Christians also have their own family laws?

Yes, that's what makes it secular.

 

[yield]

The parent is at liberty to educate/indoctrinate/brainwash their children as want. The state shuldnt pay for it. So there are private religious schools there.

Yes, that's what makes it secular.

Thanks iROBOT. Sorry for taking the thread off topic.

 

[Peter Dow]

Afghan mob kills UN workers. Ban Ki-Moon to blame.

On Friday, April 1st 2011, an angry mob was incited to attack a UN compound in Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan. The mob stormed the base and 7 UN workers were killed. 4 British-trained Nepalese soldiers or "Gurkhas", Lt. Col. Siri Skare, a 53-year-old Norwegian military attaché—a former fighter pilot—seconded to the U.N., along with Joakim Dungel, a 33-year-old Swede who had been working in the human-rights office for less than two months, and Filaret Motco, a 43-year-old Romanian who headed the mission's political section.

Too much internet comment has been posted elsewhere debating the pretext, excuse or perceived insult which was used by the mob's ringleaders to incite the mob to attack. So my post is intended to leave that subject well alone.

I reject that other discussion as irrelevant to the real needs here which are a discussion of how and why UN workers were vulnerable, undefended and left to die and who is responsible.

How it went down

The Wall Street Journal: Inside the Massacre at Afghan Compound


The failures point by point

Only about 60 police were deployed, and they appeared uncertain how to respond. Initial attempts to disperse the crowd by firing warning shots appeared only to inflame the demonstrators.

Useless policing. Civil police need to keep protesting crowds or mobs intent on attack (hard to tell the difference initially) at an agreed protest line, which if passed without permission, especially in large numbers who can't be arrested then the attacking mob should be shot. It is up to the civil police to control the crowd. If they don't hold the crowd back it is the civil authorities fault when a mob gets shot down.

They phoned for help from the nearby military bases of German and Swedish forces, according to a person briefed on the situation.

Useless. Nearby is not near enough. The UN base or compound should be embedded within ISAF bases so an attack on the UN looks like an attack on ISAF, which it is.

The U.S.-led military said the situation "escalated rapidly" and that a swift-reaction team didn't arrive until after rioters were gone.

Useless. If the UN were depending on "swift" being swift enough to save them, they were wrong and misled. The UN should have leadership which tells them - you are not safe being "nearby" you need to be surrounded by a competent military defence.

Once demonstrators flooded the compound,

Useless compound defence architecture. It should be impossible for a crowd to breach a secure compound and if they try there should be fire power to kill those attempting to breach the compound or base.

a dozen Afghan police guards—the first line of defense—dropped their weapons

Useless guards. A dozen professional loyal soldiers manning 4 machine guns could probably have saved the day even at that stage.
The Afghan police are neither professional nor loyal to the UN so the UN should never have put their lives in the hands of Afghan police.

Inside the compound, a small contingent of Nepalese Gurkha guards working for the U.N. faced a conundrum: They were under U.N. orders not to open fire on demonstrators. The videos show one guard feebly trying to wave an elderly demonstrator out of the compound.

Gurkhas are not useless man for man. But 4 to 6 Gurkhas is not enough to hold off such crowd who by this time are armed with guns taken from the police.

When a mob breaches a secure compound they are clearly an attacking mob not "demonstrators". The senior members of the UN should have made that clear. If the Gurkhas had been better led they would have been able to put up more of a fight, but expecting so few of them to make up for failings everywhere else is unrealistic.

Inside the building, other attackers targeted one of the safe rooms. The door proved little protection against the mob.

Useless. Defence architecture needs to be more secure areas with secure areas. Those inside a safe room or bunker within a compound or base need to be able to kill those trying to enter the safe room.

The attackers searched the darkened bunker with a lamp and discovered Lt. Col. Siri Skare, a 53-year-old Norwegian military attaché—the former fighter pilot—seconded to the U.N., along with Joakim Dungel, a 33-year-old Swede who had been working in the human-rights office for less than two months, and Filaret Motco, a 43-year-old Romanian who headed the mission's political section.

Useless. Any defence attache worth their salt would know they were sitting in a death trap and would have refused to be responsible for such a poorly defended UN compound and would have ordered everyone out and relocated to the ISAF base.

Norway is a sick monarchy with a King of Norway who thinks it is funny or cute to appoint a penguin in Edinburgh zoo as one of his senior officers. I am not kidding.

The Norwegian military is not right in the head to have allowed UN staff into that suicidal UN compound.

Norway is responsible for the Nobel Peace prize and that is what happens to those who trust the Norwegian King, his peace prize or his military attaches. The Norwegian King gets you killed. Remember that.

Yes you can break this down into individual failures but the failure is one of leadership at the very top of the UN organisation.

If anyone is to be held responsible over this, it should be Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary General.


This is a primarily a problem of lame security at the UN compound: badly constructed, probably poorly located, insufficiently guarded, guards insufficiently armed. Poor organisation from start to finish.

All that is needed is to be better armed and trained than the attacking mob, as this video from the movie "Zulu" illustrates.



You need to have enough defensive fire power to stop as many as keep attacking

It is missing the point entirely to consider what the mind-set of the attacking mob might have been. Who cares what their motives for attacking are? It matters not when you are defending. What matters is to be armed and prepared to stop and repel their attack.

This importance of this story is the shocking fact that UN bases in Afghanistan are practically undefended and a mob could easily storm a base and kill those inside.

UN security is a joke.

The UN needs to sack the UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon for his gross incompetence in failing to defend UN personnel.

Ban Ki-Moon: totally useless.

The UN has a lot of great principles to uphold - universal human rights etc, but these need to be upheld at the point of gun, with proper military organisation, which the UN should be able to do, in principle, but with the wrong leadership, like Ban Ki-Moon's wrong leadership, fails to do.

The world's dictators don't want UN principles imposed upon their countries - they'd rather lock up or kill their political opponents - so these dictatorial governments would rather the UN was ineffectual, defenceless and impotent, like Ban Ki-Moon is.

That is why so many of the rotten governments of the world get to together at the UN to appoint such useless "hearts and flowers" types like Ban Ki Moon or Kofi Annan.

We need Condi as UN Secretary General, and I'll be her head of security, if she'll have me.

Totally awesome Condi meets totally useless Ban Ki-Moon.

Condoleezza Rice for UN Secretary General

Ban Ki-Moon is useless, he is failing to properly organise the military defence of UN workers in Afghanistan and elsewhere and UN workers are being killed like the 7 killed in Mazar-e-Sharif on Friday, 1st April 2011.

I would say the way to go would be to take advantage of the UN head quarters being in New York.

• The US President should take short-term control of UN HQ in New York, dismissing Ban Ki-moon.
• The US President should appoint Condi as acting UN Secretary General.
• Condi should appoint appropriate representatives from countries with dictatorships - so for example, the UN representative for Burma, (oops, "Myanmar" ) , would be Aung San Suu Kyi or her representative in New York, the UN representative for Libya would be the rebel leaders in Benghazi, new representatives for the Arab countries representing the "Arab Spring" revolutions and so on.
• The new UN should then hopefully confirm Condi as permanent UN Secretary General.

In other words, kick out the dictatorships and make the UN what it is supposed to be - an organisation of nations, rather than an organisation of governments some of whom oppress their own nations.

To start the process the US needs to come to its senses about Condi and stop pretending that having her out of power is in some way "a good thing".

 

[Peter Dow]

The right to protest, but not the right to kill

I am the last one to suggest machine-gunning protesters or demonstrators, having been a protester or demonstrator myself on a number of occasions.

A mob incited to lethal violence is a different thing from a crowd of demonstrators and our soldiers need to know the difference and react differently in both cases.

The defence architecture of a military or diplomatic base - that means - security barriers, fences, walls, gates, guard posts etc - needs to be carefully designed so that only welcome guests, in good order, can enter with permission.

It is the responsibility of the civil authorities on the outside to hold any angry mob back outside the exterior defence barrier.

An angry mob which breaches the defence barriers must expect to be shot.

Now, if it is some disarmed British students occupying their administrative headquarters to protest education cuts, that is different. I don't know of any occasion when the NUS has killed university administrators.

However, we are talking about Afghanistan where the locals often are armed and there is a war going on, don't you know?

The defence architecture of this UN compound in Mazar-e-Sharif, was inadequate in the extreme and the numbers, quality, loyalty and arming of the guards was also inadequate in the extreme.

This is not a case of being "wise after the event". This is basic military tactics. The UN secretary general and his senior security advisors should not have put UN staff in the hands of such poor military experts as are advising them.

The failure for appointing people who don't know what they are doing is the responsibility of the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon who the UN should sack forthwith.

 

[Random]

All that is needed is to be better armed and trained than the attacking mob, as this video from the movie "Zulu" illustrates.

Ah, but unarmed rioters can overwhelm armed defenders, as this video from Attack on Precinct 13 illustrates.

 

[Peter Dow]

Ah, but unarmed rioters can overwhelm armed defenders,

Armed defenders in a prepared defensive stronghold or fort have a huge advantage against unarmed or lightly armed attackers. It takes a special kind of incompetence for armed defenders to throw that advantage away and get themselves killed.

This is a similar kind of military incompetence to the famous military disaster of the fall of British defended Singapore in 1942 to the attacking forces of the Empire of Japan, although that was on a much bigger scale and the Japanese were armed of course.

as this video from Attack on Precinct 13 illustrates.

What video?
As I remember that film "Assault" on Precinct 13 (although there were 2 films, one in 1976 and it was re-made in 2005) the attackers were armed. Hey that was set in the USA, everyone is armed over there.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Ah, but unarmed rioters can overwhelm armed defenders, as this video from Attack on Precinct 13 illustrates.

... and a combined arms force of cartoon elephants, rottweilers and pterodactyls can overcome nazi pig-people, as this pop video illustrates.

 

[nick h.]

Is any of Dow's stuff worth reading, or should I just put him on ignore?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well, I read his stuff. He's got a very ... different .... perspective, but sometimes interesting things to say.

 

[newharper]

How it went down

The Wall Street Journal: Inside the Massacre at Afghan Compound




Useless policing. Civil police need to keep protesting crowds or mobs intent on attack (hard to tell the difference initially) at an agreed protest line, which if passed without permission, especially in large numbers who can't be arrested then the attacking mob should be shot.

Do you think these protocols should apply in London?

 

[nick h.]

Well, I read his stuff. He's got a very ... different .... perspective, but sometimes interesting things to say.

Perhaps you could summarise? Life's too short to wade through essay-length C&Ps from his bonkers blog.

 

[Peter Dow]

Do you think these protocols should apply in London?

What part of -

I am the last one to suggest machine-gunning protesters or demonstrators, having been a protester or demonstrator myself on a number of occasions.

A mob incited to lethal violence is a different thing from a crowd of demonstrators and our soldiers need to know the difference and react differently in both cases.

The defence architecture of a military or diplomatic base - that means - security barriers, fences, walls, gates, guard posts etc - needs to be carefully designed so that only welcome guests, in good order, can enter with permission.

It is the responsibility of the civil authorities on the outside to hold any angry mob back outside the exterior defence barrier.

An angry mob which breaches the defence barriers must expect to be shot.

Now, if it is some disarmed British students occupying their administrative headquarters to protest education cuts, that is different. I don't know of any occasion when the NUS has killed university administrators.

However, we are talking about Afghanistan where the locals often are armed and there is a war going on, don't you know?

The defence architecture of this UN compound in Mazar-e-Sharif, was inadequate in the extreme and the numbers, quality, loyalty and arming of the guards was also inadequate in the extreme.

This is not a case of being "wise after the event". This is basic military tactics. The UN secretary general and his senior security advisors should not have put UN staff in the hands of such poor military experts as are advising them.

The failure for appointing people who don't know what they are doing is the responsibility of the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon who the UN should sack forthwith.

- don't you understand?

But yes, my protocol which distinguishes between two different scenarios -

• protesting, demonstrating, peaceful occupation, vandalism, on the one hand
• a violent mob intent on violence, possibly lethal violence, on the other hand

- allows for the right of self-defence, using lethal violence of course.

I would hope the civil authorities would deploy enough police to steward a demo or arrest anyone trying to incite violence and defuse matters long before a mob was incited to lethal violence.

The principles of the right to self-defence are the same - it is simply that the expectation of the standard of policing which should be expected in London is different to that in Afghanistan. Normally if people are getting killed in London, it is the police doing the killing.

The other protocol I want to see in London and elsewhere in Britain would be the revolutionary republican protocol wherein the military arrest, exile, execute or assassinate the royal family, but this is a different protocol for a different topic.

 

[newharper]

What part of -

- don't you understand?

No.

• protesting, demonstrating, peaceful occupation, vandalism, on the one hand
• a violent mob intent on violence, possibly lethal violence, on the other hand.

Attacks on property, is this vandalism? Who decides?

Still it's hardly relevant as you are so clearly on the side of any authority that is prepared to quell opposition by any means necessary.

 

[Peter Dow]

Attacks on property, is this vandalism? Who decides?

The mob attack on the UN compound was not a case of spray painting "Go home infidels" and smashing a few windows. This was a determined attempt to enter a "secure" (supposedly) base wherein people are being defended.

This was not an attack on property or vandalism but a murderous mob, there is a difference, and everyone decides, gets to decide, and above all the people inside get to decide, or should.

The fact that people in their own homes in this country have used lethal violence in self-defence against burglars, who may well have also killed the residents had they been able to, and the fact that those defenders have been prosecuted and jailed shows again how rotten this kingdom is and how necessary it is to remove the royals and overthrow the kingdom to get proper republican self-defence protocols or laws in place.

Still it's hardly relevant as you are so clearly on the side of any authority that is prepared to quell opposition by any means necessary.

Again, what part of -

The other protocol I want to see in London and elsewhere in Britain would be the revolutionary republican protocol wherein the military arrest, exile, execute or assassinate the royal family, but this is a different protocol for a different topic.

- don't you understand?

The UK authorities, with their rotten incompetent police are killing peaceful demonstrators and people who aren't even demonstrating, just selling newspapers and wanting to go home or riding the London underground.

I want the UK authorities overthrown by a republican revolution.

I am utterly opposed to very many rotten fascist regimes around the world and also want them overthrown.

I am in full support of people involved in the Arab spring uprisings.

Fact is, you don't want to be bothered to read and think about what I have written.

You want to be opposed to me because you think it is trendy in this forum to be opposed to me, that is all.

The facts, my opinions, you don't know, don't want to know.

 

[dylans]

Creed, race, gender have nothing to do with why India is progressing and Pakistan is not and everything to do with the dynamism of a secular democratic state verses a theocracy that bases it's laws on a dark ages document (utterly fabricated one, as we all know God is a delusion). I would argue that there's been very few theocracies that prosper anyway in modern times.

And yes the Muslims do well in India (I belive there's even been a Muslim President) and as a consequence are growing in number. Conversly, I'd like you to have a look at Pakistans minority groups (Sufis/Xtians/Buddhists/Sheiks and Hindus) at 1947 and compare their numbers/percent of population to now.

Yes you put your finger on the heart of the issue exactly. The reason India has been a relaitively successful story in terms of democratic civilian governance while Pakistan has been a basket case is that in India national identity, citizenship itself is defined in political democratic terms. All citizens are Indian regardless of religion or ethnicity. Including, as I pointed out earlier, the Muslim population of India who outnumber Muslims in Pakistan. Think about that a moment .There are more Muslims in the subcontinent who call themselves Indian than those in a nation built for Muslims on the belief that Muslims could never be Indian. The utter absurdity of the entire Pakistan project is summed up in that example.

On the whole, Indian identity is embracing and inclusive. Pakistan however was a separatist project that specifically denied that aspect of Indian identity.As such it was from birth an anti democratic project. Pakistan itself represents the rejection of the secular political democratic ideal of nationhood. It spits in its face.

Jinnah said that Muslims were not and could never be Indian solely by the fact that they were Muslim. Their religion made coexistence impossible and survival demanded separation. (an argument mirrored interestingly by Pakistan's nemesis Israel)While the Indian concept of nationhood embraces diversity, celebrates it in fact. Pakistan denies it and instead presents a notion of nationality based on a supposed religious commonality alone. But once it was born Pakistan faced the problem that its premis was false. Religion is not nation. and in a country like Pakistan religion proved to be a divisive not an inclusive identity when it became the basis for citizenship. Noone could agree which Islam was to be embraced by its citizens and no one could agree which Islam was to be the basis of Pakistans laws and institutions. and the Islam of some was the blasphemy of others. Jinnah initially wanted Pakistan to be a secular state in a bizarre sectarian imitation of Nehru. Years later realising Pakistans existential contradictions Zia attempted to create national identity by imposing a vicious reactionary theocraticy onto Pakistan. Neither succeeded in overcoming Pakistans fundamental flaw however and of course they couldn't because the flaw was Pakistan itself

The very reason for Pakistan was false. In a nutshell Muslims are not a nation (any more than Jews are a nation in the zionist narrative) They are followers of a religion There are Muslim citizens of most countries on the planet and their religious identity and national identity hold no contradiction. To create a country solely on the basis of religion and then leave more Muslims in the nation you are leaving just adds to the absurdity. Worse, most people who voted for Pakistan were minority communities in India. Communities that were afraid for their lives in the escalating communal violence. But these minority Muslim areas were precisely the areas that were not transferred to Pakistan which was based on majority Muslim communities. Thus the people who chose Pakistan remained Indian.

To add a final insult the communities who did pack their bags and leave india to join the geographic areas that became Pakistan, the migrants who were the true believers in the Pakistan ideal(known as Mohijirs) have since declared themselves Pakistans 5th nationality. Even the true believers reject Islam as the basis for national identity.

In Pakistans case, the claim to religious national identity was built on social and political absurdity but on geographical absurdity too. Remember Pakistan initially included East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. Two wings East and West seperated by a thousand kilometres of Indian territory, two peoples different in every sense but one held together by the tenuous claim that Islam was enough to unite them. A claim dealt a real blow early on when West Pakistan after years of oppressive behaviour committed horrendous atrocities on its "brother" Muslims ( or more accurately "sister Muslims given that mass rape was one of the principle crimes committed by West Pakistan troops) in the East and East Bengal Separated to become Bangladesh.


What a total and utter disaster from day one. If India is a celebration of the bourgeois democratic political ideal. Pakistan is its criminal brother who long ago walked out the door and sits in the shed staring into the house with envy and anger and bitterness and despair nurturing his hurt and plotting to return to burn the house down out of spite .

But this is an important point to bear in mind. The failure of Pakistan is not a failure of Islam in itself. The religion followed of the people of that country is not the cause of the problem. The attempted creation of a nation state with that religion as the sole basis for its existance and the only basis on which to build national identity is the problem. Not religion but religious nationalism. We must be careful here. Anyone blaming Jews or Judaism for the crimes of the Israeli state would and should be called an anti semite. The fault in Israel is not judaism but the religious nationalism at the heart of Israel idea namely Zionism. and It is at Zionism that the finger of blame should point not at Jews. . In exactly the same way, it is religious nationalism not religious belief that has created the mess that is Pakistan. Blame religious nationalism not Muslims for the failure of Pakistan.
.
The best thing that could happen to Pakistan is if it just packed it in said sorry and returned to India (and Baluchistan to Afganistan) where its citizens really belong. In fact I will be bold and make a prediction that Pakistan will cease to exist in the next 50 years. It will either tear itself apart in an orgy of regional blood letting and civil war or in its desperation it will launch a suicidal war against India. The result will be the end of Pakistan

( i have just realised that this lengthy post is probably a massive derail. So if it is ok I may remove it later and put it in the Pakistan blasphemy thread. Sorry I get carried away sometimes)