World Affairs Board - View Single Post

Agnostic Muslim · 03-27-2008, 13:16 PM

Adux:

Actually Adux I would argue that it is you who is "misleading people who are not familiar with the politics of the region". I am not arguing that the parties I mentioned stand for changing Pakistan into a secular nation - I am not in favor of that, nor are most Pakistanis - those parties do stand for equality for every citizen of Pakistan and providing equal rights to every citizen, regardless of religion or ethnicity - a message most moderate Muslims believe is commanded in the Quran.

As we stand currently there is a lot to do to achieve that, and I would be the first to admit that any legislation that is brought about is going to attempt change incrementally, but it is nonetheless progress in the right direction. That they want to do this while retaining the Islamic character of the Country does not come across as a dichotomy to me.

Samudra's argument is obfuscation of the issue. He raises the Taliban bogey, but then by that same yardstick the US has supported, and is supporting, dictatorships (religious and secular). India supported the warlords of the Northern Alliance - does that then indicate that the parties and/or administrations running those country's at that time were against democracy and freedom? Or is it the realpolitik? Nations and governments will often do whatever they see as being in their interest, and Pakistan was no different.

Along with raising the Taliban bogey Samudra mentions Nawaz and the Mullah's. I deliberately did not mention the parties they belong to because they are of a more conservative bent. It was the PPP, MQM, ANP, PML-Q who I argued represented the moderate spectrum of Pakistan and gained an overwhelming majority.

On the issue of "proving anything" it is still your argument, you raised the issue of "widespread intolerance, so it is yor burden to prove this widespread intolerance. You attempt to do that by mentioning polls - but every poll I have seen in the last couple of years shows support for AQ/terrorism in Pakistan to be very low, in some in the single digits. Does that not counter your own argument?

Support for the Taliban is higher, but there is also a need to take a more nuanced view of that. You have to take into accoutn the opposition to the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the existing opposition to it for its support to Israel, and the idea that the Taliban represent a "freedom movement" fighting a just war against "occupation".

03-27-2008, 13:16 PM	#109 (permalink)
Agnostic Muslim Contributor Join Date: 12-12-07 Location: Auburn Hills Posts: 461 Country:	Adux: Actually Adux I would argue that it is you who is "misleading people who are not familiar with the politics of the region". I am not arguing that the parties I mentioned stand for changing Pakistan into a secular nation - I am not in favor of that, nor are most Pakistanis - those parties do stand for equality for every citizen of Pakistan and providing equal rights to every citizen, regardless of religion or ethnicity - a message most moderate Muslims believe is commanded in the Quran. As we stand currently there is a lot to do to achieve that, and I would be the first to admit that any legislation that is brought about is going to attempt change incrementally, but it is nonetheless progress in the right direction. That they want to do this while retaining the Islamic character of the Country does not come across as a dichotomy to me. Samudra's argument is obfuscation of the issue. He raises the Taliban bogey, but then by that same yardstick the US has supported, and is supporting, dictatorships (religious and secular). India supported the warlords of the Northern Alliance - does that then indicate that the parties and/or administrations running those country's at that time were against democracy and freedom? Or is it the realpolitik? Nations and governments will often do whatever they see as being in their interest, and Pakistan was no different. Along with raising the Taliban bogey Samudra mentions Nawaz and the Mullah's. I deliberately did not mention the parties they belong to because they are of a more conservative bent. It was the PPP, MQM, ANP, PML-Q who I argued represented the moderate spectrum of Pakistan and gained an overwhelming majority. On the issue of "proving anything" it is still your argument, you raised the issue of "widespread intolerance, so it is yor burden to prove this widespread intolerance. You attempt to do that by mentioning polls - but every poll I have seen in the last couple of years shows support for AQ/terrorism in Pakistan to be very low, in some in the single digits. Does that not counter your own argument? Support for the Taliban is higher, but there is also a need to take a more nuanced view of that. You have to take into accoutn the opposition to the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the existing opposition to it for its support to Israel, and the idea that the Taliban represent a "freedom movement" fighting a just war against "occupation". __________________ Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah Last edited by Agnostic Muslim : 03-27-2008 at 13:53 PM.