Pakistan Declares Martial Law

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Dude, al-Qaeda ARE the extreme Islamists, so how would voting for them do any good in working against them? I am totally unclear of what you are talking about here. [/quote]

Who on earth spoke of voting for Al-Qaeda? Heck, I dare you to name an active political party in the whole wide world that’s affiliated with Al-Qaeda.

If you can’t distinguish between Islamists and Al-Qaeda, you are either playing dumb, can’t read, or don’t know the first thing about politics. Either way, I don’t see much room for a constructive debate with you.

22

[quote]Kamran114 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Of course, the religion starts out by saying to sign away your free will to a mystical being and His earthly representative, some local whacked out Imam.

No. That’s Catholicism. Not Islam. No Muslim has to give up his free will to anyone except God. Whether he’s a “mystical fictional being” is a whole other story.

The Brits and Israelis TRIED to civilise the Middle East and failed. We probably won’t have any better luck.

No. The Bristish tried to DESTROY the Middle East and failed. Colonizing and massacring a people who had just had their age of enlightenment isn’t civilizing. It’s called “being scared and attacking them when they’re weak so they don’t give the west a run for their money.”

I wonder how the enlightened Muslims of the earlier years of the caliphate saw the miserable Savage Europeans in their dark age. For people with assumed mental disorders during the middle ages, Muslim doctors were suggesting changes in diet, while European doctors were suggesting exorcisms!

Time to just conquer the whole region.

The Russians failed. The French failed. The British failed. The US is failing.

No, buddy. No.[/quote]

Doesn’t someone become a Muslim by surrendering their will to God? Then, since God doesn’t announce clearly His divine intentions, he puts those in obscure books. The religious person then has to be told the ‘secret meaning’ that God reveals in those books. The person who interprets and explains the meanings is…an Imam? Or a priest?

Now, the person explaining the meanings says to go fly a plane into a building.

As to the British: the British inherited one holy mess when the Ottoman Empire fell apart. Every tribal chieftain decided to attack anyone and everyone. The Middle East became a warring shitpit. The British restored order the best they could.

I suppose we’ll have to have a nuclear war before the world finally figures out that this part of the world is just plain loco and has to be ‘administered’.

23

Gkhan wrote:
I still say he is being attacked more because he is an ally of the West and the US than because he is a dictator.

Lixy wrote:
When you say attacked, do you mean:

  • Attacked by me?
  • Attacked by the quasi-totality of the world’s media?
  • Attacked by the Pakistani Supreme Court?
  • Attacked by the Pakistani people longing for democracy?
  • Attacked by his political opposition?

Gkhan wrote:
Attacked by Muslim extremists. Al-qaeda and their allies.

Lixy:
Al-Qaeda is irrelevant politically. The only country where they have a chance is Saudi Arabia because the regime there is as close to their ideology as they come.

Gkhan:
I do not know about that. The people who holed up in the Red Mosque were probably in the same league as al-qaeda.

And, really, who cares if Musharraf cracks down on al-Qaeda because he is a dictator.

Lixy:
Nobody is condemning his crack downs on Al-Qaeda. Do you even know what’s going on in Pakistan right now? Try reading a newspaper from time to time…

Gkhan:
I am well informed about what is going on in Pakistan.

It’s not like these people are upstanding, law abiding
citizens living under the heel of his iron boot. These are criminals and will and should be treated as such by the most democratic, liberal government they could possibly install.

Lixy:
Of course. And that is what’s happening everywhere. Nobody tolerates them anymore. On a side note, Saddam treated them pretty harshly until you decided to turn the place into a breeding ground for extremists.

Gkhan:
Wait, I thought you said there were no terrorists in Iraq until the US came, how, then, did Saddam treat them harshly?

Hey Lixy, this “democratic government” you want, if the Islamists sieze control, will they stomp out al-Qaeda? Why would this be a good thing?

Lixy:
What [b]I[/b] want does not matter. It’s about letting the Pakistani people determine their own destiny. Clearly, in the current state, that ain’t happening. It’s what I condemn.

To answer your question, any Islamist political party worldwide that gets elected will kick Al-Qaeda’s ass and treat them as the criminals they are. People don’t want mad men killing civilians and giving their faith a bad name.[/quote]

Gkhan:
Show me an example of where an islamist political party kicked Al-Qaeda’s ass. Most of them are teaming up with al-qaeda.

24

[quote]lixy wrote:

If you can’t distinguish between Islamists and Al-Qaeda, you are either playing dumb, can’t read, or don’t know the first thing about politics. Either way, I don’t see much room for a constructive debate with you. [/quote]

Depends on your definition of an Islamist, I guess.

25

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The Middle East became a warring shitpit. [/quote]

Could you point to a time when it wasn’t? They were either attacking each other or conquering someone.

26

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Doesn’t someone become a Muslim by surrendering their will to God? Then, since God doesn’t announce clearly His divine intentions, he puts those in obscure books. The religious person then has to be told the ‘secret meaning’ that God reveals in those books. The person who interprets and explains the meanings is…an Imam? Or a priest?

Now, the person explaining the meanings says to go fly a plane into a building.

As to the British: the British inherited one holy mess when the Ottoman Empire fell apart. Every tribal chieftain decided to attack anyone and everyone. The Middle East became a warring shitpit. The British restored order the best they could.

I suppose we’ll have to have a nuclear war before the world finally figures out that this part of the world is just plain loco and has to be ‘administered’.

[/quote]

Doesn’t someone become a Christian by surrendering their will to God? Then, since God doesn’t announce clearly His divine intentions, he puts those in obscure books. The religious person then has to be told the ‘secret meaning’ that God reveals in those books. The person who interprets and explains the meanings is…a President? Or a Draft-dodger?

Now, the person explaining the meanings says to go fight a crazy war half way around the world.

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

27

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Doesn’t someone become a Muslim by surrendering their will to God? [/quote]

Yes.

Mmmkay…

No. Prophets can do that. Imams can’t.

Bollocks! The Brits were colonizers, not “restorers of order”. You are nothing short of a mad man if you think in those terms.

28

Beowolf, I don’t think America invading Pakistan would be a good idea. Even if they didn’t have nukes, there are over a hundred sixty million Pakistanis. It’s a lot to take on. Conquering their cities would be a nightmare, study the battle of Stalingrad and you will see what I mean.

The presence of the American military in Pakistan would only inflame the present situation. I think Musharraf can control things himself.

Have you considered that this may partially be a preemptive move to get the country ready for when America strikes Iran? With the problems they are already having, it would make sense to put Pakistan on lockdown to keep things from boiling over in response.

29

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Have you considered that this may partially be a preemptive move to get the country ready for when America strikes Iran? [/quote]

HH’s wet dream.

30

Wow, I never thought about that, Sifu. Do you think that Pakistan would install marshall law on our request, or is it, as Lixy said, because Musharraf is under siege by a lot of different forces at once.

The terrorists already attacked Bhutto. Do you think her as Pres. would make any difference?

The only outcome I can see is a radical getting in control, like they did in Afghanistan, and the whole nation will rise up in Jihad against everyone and their brother.

31

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Wow, I never thought about that, Sifu. Do you think that Pakistan would install marshall law on our request [/quote]

He certainly would, but in this case, it’s got nothing to do with the US. The state of emergency was instated to keep Bhutto in check and delay the polls. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yeah…she’s more likely to represent the will of the people and not be a bloody dictator.

Nonsense. The Talibans got to power because of the war with Russia and because they had the support of foreign governments. In the post 9/11 world, nobody will ever support a similar group. Well, maybe the Saudis, but that’s another story…

32

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The Middle East became a warring shitpit.

Could you point to a time when it wasn’t? They were either attacking each other or conquering someone.[/quote]

The Ottoman Turks maintained order throughout the Empire for several hundred years. In the later years, post the Crimean War, this may not have been quite as true, as their hegemony was falling apart. Of course, losing Greece and the Balkans 30 or so years before that didn’t help.

33

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Have you considered that this may partially be a preemptive move to get the country ready for when America strikes Iran?

HH’s wet dream.[/quote]

Wrong thread:

http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=1790146

34

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Have you considered that this may partially be a preemptive move to get the country ready for when America strikes Iran?

HH’s wet dream.

Wrong thread:

http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=1790146

[/quote]

Good response.

35

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

The Ottoman Turks maintained order throughout the Empire for several hundred years. In the later years, post the Crimean War, this may not have been quite as true, as their hegemony was falling apart. Of course, losing Greece and the Balkans 30 or so years before that didn’t help.

[/quote]

The Ottomans’ history is one of constant war and conquest as is the history of Islam in general. That’s all I meant. Muslims talk about Islam like it is some great unifying force. Unification by force of arms maybe.

Great link btw.

36

I did say partial reason, not the only reason. Obviously there are problems facing Musharraf with Bhutto and the tribal regions.

I don’t think Musharraf did it because America told him to. What I was thinking was there is some coordination. That America wouldn’t just hit the Iranians without giving the the Pakistanis a heads up.

Iran does share a border with Pakistan and they are both muslim countries. To me it would make sense to have Pakistan prepared ahead of time.

Otherwise a strike on Iran could be the straw that breaks the camels back in Pakistan. If that happened the thing you are trying to prevent by bombing Iran could happen with Pakistan. Which would defeat the whole purpose.

The Russians who were working on a reactor for the Iranians have been recalled to Russia. So even the Russians are getting ready for something to happen there.

37

Police have baton-charged a rally by Pakistani lawyers protesting outside the High Court in Karachi against the state of emergency, lawyers say.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7078364.stm

38

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Beowolf, I don’t think America invading Pakistan would be a good idea. Even if they didn’t have nukes, there are over a hundred sixty million Pakistanis. It’s a lot to take on. Conquering their cities would be a nightmare, study the battle of Stalingrad and you will see what I mean.[/quote]

That could be the best thing that will happen.

Iran + Iraq + Pakistan will bankrupt the country. And hopefully lead to some changes. Revolution maybe?

Things have to get worse before the people want to make it better.

39

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
…

How many functioning democracies/republics are in the Middle East anyway? Oh, our beloved Iran has one — as long as a candidate passes muster from the Islamic Council. Maybe Egypt, where Mubarek’s son will soon be ‘President’? Pakistan? No. Hmmm…it seems the only ones outside of Israel are Iraq and Afghanistan.

Who’d a thunk it???
[/quote]

I just read a statistic that the ruling council disallowed over 99% of the candidates.

40

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
How many functioning democracies/republics are in the Middle East anyway? Oh, our beloved Iran has one — as long as a candidate passes muster from the Islamic Council. Maybe Egypt, where Mubarek’s son will soon be ‘President’? Pakistan? No. Hmmm…it seems the only ones outside of Israel are Iraq and Afghanistan.[/quote]

Lebanon? Palestine?