Re: Who are these Jihadi terrorists?
Ravage have you seen what is happening in Haiti? Sudan? Chad? Cambodia under Pol Pot? These regimes are destablized because there is no counter to whatever group is running amok. Is it the same for Pakistan? If you look historically at other countries who suffered such upheavals like Algeria, they stayed perfectly in tact. Secondly how do you define the word destablize? Because the way the modern media/US governments and think tanks use is a complete break down of the political and military institutions of the country with no system of control and no player strong enough to counter the threat of these Jihadis. That is what the NYT, CNN and US presidential hopefuls actively imply and state when they say the Jihadis are a threat and can destablize Pakistan. Do you agree with that?
Define destablization, if it is as I have stated above then most certainly it will not be a destabilizing factor, as Foreign troops in Waziristan will firstly not lead to a dismissal of the current government. It will not erode the strength of the military and it certainly will not affect the functioning of any government.
For you destabilization seems to be effectively Jihadies taking over Pakistan. For me destabilization is more akin to the word defined here:
become unstable; "The economy destabilized rapidly"
make unstable; "Terrorism destabilized the government"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
The litany Khehkeshan mentioned, and the stuff that happens routinely in NWFP is what I could consider "destabilization". Peshawar, for example, or Swat, are destabilized areas.
However, we can stop quibbling over semantics. If you think that is destabilization, then no, I dont think the terrorists can conquer Pakistan. They can however, kill a lot of people, screw our economy, impose draconian, idiotic laws (such as girl schools being dismantled) in parts of the country where they achieve dominance (such as Swat) and intimidate people in areas elsewhere (such as Peshawar) through violent means.
Wanting jihadists dealt with does not necessarily mean agreeing with Biden et al. It can just mean you want to eliminate the taleban parallel governments in Waziristan which are responsible for bombing civilians in Pakistan and abroad.
Wanting jihadists dealt with also means hoping Mush/army/police will do a better job dealing with these criminals. You say its the police's fault for running away in Swat, sure I agree with you there. But that just means I want them to be tougher on the jihadies.
You want us to be "severe" with the terrorists while not bombing their families. Do you feel that brilliant idea did not occur to the people in charge, or do they simply have a penchant for bombing families? If they do, what is their motivation? Do they frame the pictures of the families they killed after they bomb them?
Everyone would like this settled without the loss of lives even. Based on Pakistan Army's performance in the region so far though, it seems like the taleban leadership in Waziristan is unlikely to come in before a court in order to hear charges. Theres going to have to be a military operation.
[quote]
I expected better from you Ravage. Please tell me where I say that these Jihadis are the choice for the new governance we have.
[/quote]
You talked about a more Islamic government while discussing the Jihadi terrorists. Unless that was a coincidence and had nothing to do with the shared aims (i gave you the benefit of doubt by not presuming shared means) with the Jihadies then it doesnt make sense to talk of both in the same breath. Unless you specify otherwise ordinary, non ESL passing people like me will guess that you probably mean to couple the two discussions.
[quote]
Secondly ravage this is Pakistan, where people do not vote for issues, they vote for dynasties. You know very well that people have areas that will vote for them simple because of who their grandfather was. So by no means are voting standards in Pakistan any indication of a strong opinion. Secondly I do agree that religious parties are not mainstream and the are never going to be. But that is not because the people do not want religion to be an aspect of the government. But rather they do not want the perverted form these parties will provide to be in power.
A simple litmus test. Go to anybody in Pakistan and ask them if they would agree to something as simple as say that Islam is not the religion of Pakistan. Lets see what kind of reaction you get.
I am sad to see though that you fall in to the same old category of people that see religion politically as a negative issue. But that what happens when people spend too much time in the west.
[/QUOTE]
You read too much into my posts. Just because I say that religious parties are marginal in their votebank doesnt necessarily mean I oppose religion in politics, or laws derived from religious views of a society. I think we should have (edit)certain Islamic laws. You cite Malaysia as an example of a model Islamic state. I think some of our religious people would find Malaysia to be a flawed role model, given the licensed nightclubs operational there. I probably wouldnt want Pakistan to be like Malaysia in that particular respect. I think laws enacted by MMA after they got mandate in NWFP are fair game, their expected popular-repeal is also fair.
Rahi baat voting patterns ki.. I think if an ideology grabs people where it matters, they change their voting behaviour. All things the same they'd vote for the guy whos grandfather they knew, but sometimes people do vote for issues, even in Pakistan. Bhutto, for example, got a massive mandate for social change. In pre-71 Pakistan, the same was for Awami League. In the last elections, all allegations of manipulation notwithstanding, MMA winning in NWFP was reflective of the province's popular opinion.
Your litmus test is pretty silly. Pose any question in a similarly emotive manner and you'll probably get the answer you want to hear. Reminds me of Zia-ul-Haq's referendum question. People in general do want a religious society, but if they wanted sharia laws (edit) as commonly defined, banks wouldnt be profitable in Pakistan, cinemas/movie shops/cd shops wouldnt be filled. Jihadies wouldnt need to burn all that stuff, it just wouldnt be commercially viable. MMA was elected in NWFP on a foreign policy matter, and they're losing their votebank there because they imposed unpopular rulings like dont play music in minivans.
