And so another symbol of South Asian cosmopolitanism from a bygone era falls to the fundies.
QuoteTaliban in Pakistani ex-resort: `Welcome, Osama!'
By KATHY GANNON, Associated Press
MINGORA, Pakistan –Pakistan was trying to end bloodshed when it let the idyllic Swat Valley fall under Islamic law last week. Instead, it has emboldened the Taliban and prompted an invitation — however improbable — for Osama bin Laden.
The local spokesman for the Taliban, which control the valley, told The Associated Press he'd welcome militants bent on battling U.S. troops and their Arab allies if they want to settle there.
"Osama can come here. Sure, like a brother they can stay anywhere they want," Muslim Khan said in a two-hour interview Friday, his first with a foreign journalist since Islamic law was imposed. "Yes, we will help them and protect them."
Khan spoke in halting English he learned during four years painting houses in the U.S. before returning to Swat in 2002. He averted his eyes as he spoke to a female journalist, in line with his strict understanding of Islam.
Pakistan reacted with alarm to his comments, saying it would never let him shelter the likes of bin Laden.
"We would have to go for the military operation. We would have to apply force again," said Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira. "We simply condemn this. We are fighting this war against al-Qaida and the Taliban."
But it is far from clear that the government has the means to do much of anything in the Swat Valley. It agreed to Islamic law in the region — drawing international condemnation — after trying and failing to defeat the Taliban in fighting marked by brutal beheadings that killed more than 850 people over two years.
"We lost the war. We negotiated from a position of weakness," said Afrasiab Khattak, a leader of the Awami National Party, which governs the province that includes Swat. He said the region's police force is too underpaid, undertrained and underequipped to take on the militants.
At the behest of the National Assembly, President Asif Ali Zardari last week signed off on a regulation establishing Islamic law throughout the Malakand Division, a strategic territory bordering Afghanistan, and Pakistan's tribal belt where bin Laden has long been rumored to be hiding. The Swat Valley, where tourists once flocked to enjoy Alpine-like scenery, is part of the area.
Whether Swat someday proves an alluring haven for bin Laden could depend on how threatened he feels in his current location, and how successful the Taliban militants are in keeping state forces at bay there.
U.S. officials said they would work with Pakistan to make sure militants aren't safe anywhere.
"With regard to Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden, this is not a place where they should be welcome. We believe ... that violent extremists need to be confronted," State Department spokesman Robert Wood said Monday.
In an interview with Pakistan's Geo TV, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani was asked about U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke's concerns over the Swat deal.
"He doesn't need to worry about that," Gilani said. "This is our country. We know the ground realities better than he does. We will continue supporting this deal if peace comes there. I'm seeing peace is coming there."
On Friday, Taliban fighters in pickup trucks with black flags rumbled through the rutted streets of the valley's main city of Mingora, demanding over loudspeakers that shops shutter their windows and prepare for prayers.
In the city center, a district police station lay in ruins, destroyed by a suicide bomber. The only music blaring praised the Taliban and extolled the young to fight holy war.
Aftab Alam, president of the district court lawyers, took a journalist through an open courtyard and closed the door to his office before whispering in a soft, angry voice about the Taliban.
"They are more than beasts. Our government is impotent, stupid and corrupt. We are helpless (facing) this militancy," he said, calling the Taliban "barbaric" and "illiterate."
Alam said he feared for his life, "but I dare to speak because I am worried about my nation, my religion, my home."
The Swat deal comes as Pakistan's hodgepodge of militant groups appear to be growing increasingly integrated and coordinated.
The Taliban spokesman counted among his allies several groups on U.N. and U.S. terrorist lists: Lashkar-e-Taiba, blamed for last year's bloody siege in Mumbai, India; Jaish-e-Mohammed, which trains fighters in Pakistan's populous Punjab province; the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan; al-Qaida, and the Taliban of Afghanistan.
"If we need, we can call them and if they need, they can call us," Khan said.
He said his forces would go to help the Taliban in Afghanistan if the United States and NATO continue to fight there.
"You must tell (the Americans) if they want peace ... to withdraw their forces, keep them on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean," he said.
Khattak, the provincial politician, described the implementation of Islamic law as replacing traditional judges with qazis, special judges trained in Islamic law. Already, a handful of qazis have begun hearing minor cases. The deal's broker, fundamentalist cleric Sufi Mohammed, has said no regular courts will be allowed in the region.
But Khan said the Taliban envisions an even a broader system: a whole new set of laws following a strict interpretation of Islam, akin to the system Afghanistan's Taliban imposed during their 1996-2001 rule. There, the government banned music and television, restricted girls' education and women's movement and cut off limbs and stoned women to death in public ceremonies.
"We don't need just qazis. We have to change the laws," Khan said.
He said his group wants to expand Islamic law, also known as Shariah, into all of nuclear-armed Pakistan.
"You will see the National Assembly will follow after one year, two years, six months," he said. "I don't know, but they will have to pass Shariah for all of Pakistan."
Already, Taliban fighters have moved unhindered into nearby Buner district — also part of Malakand Division — declaring themselves to be the enforcers of Islamic law and threatening tribesmen.
"It used to be that you crossed the Malakand Pass to Swat and you thought, 'I am in heaven,'" said Alam, the lawyer. "Now you think, 'I am in Hell.'"
The Prime Minister seems especially delusional. The only peace this agreement will bring is the peace of death.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.abcnews.com%2Fimages%2FBlotter%2Fnm_buddha_071012_ssv.jpg&hash=142e3b57a7a7849cd2d60e7a840ee4f8d8b5dcbc)
I am beginning to agree with Huntington - a conflict between the West and Islam is inevitable.
Installing pro-West puppet tyrants (like Musharaf) is against our values, but when left to their own devices and allowed to make democratic choices, the majority of Muslims inevitably choose to live in societies that impose laws that are abhorrent to our values as well, and I cannot see how we could see them as our friends and allies, if they choose to stone women and throw gays off roofs. The only honorable and honest choice, consistent with our values, is war - perhaps a cold war, but war nonetheless.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 03:06:46 AM
I am beginning to agree with Huntington - a conflict between the West and Islam is inevitable.
How many Moslem truly fundamentalist countries are there in the world?
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAEs, Yemen (North & South).
Not exactly a tidal wave. Most countries are doing s bit of soul-searching but I'd hardly call it catastrophic.
Besides, Huntington might have written "Clash of Civilizations" but he never managed to explain what a civilization is.
Kevin
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 03:06:46 AMInstalling pro-West puppet tyrants (like Musharaf) is against our values, but when left to their own devices and allowed to make democratic choices, the majority of Muslims inevitably choose to live in societies that impose laws that are abhorrent to our values as well, and I cannot see how we could see them as our friends and allies, if they choose to stone women and throw gays off roofs. The only honorable and honest choice, consistent with our values, is war - perhaps a cold war, but war nonetheless.
Much of these Islamists are part of a legacy of the armed forces and intelligence services in Pakistan supporting Islamists in Afghanistan. They did it for over 20 years because it was a way of increasing Pakistani influence. The Taliban were basically supported by Pakistan and the Northern Alliance by Iran (which is why, in 2001, though Pakistan was our useful ally it was through the Iranian government that we began to talk with the Northern Alliance).
Now given that the problem was, for much of the 90s and for most of Musharaf's reign, how to get rid of the Islamic radicalisation of the armed forces and intelligence services in Pakistan it seems preposterous that we expected a man whose only constituency, whose only support and whose sole legitimacy came from the armed forces would be able to confront them. The problem here isn't a one-off. Musharaf's a pro-West dictator from the military, what happens when we face Zia al-Haq 2?
I don't have a problem with supporting dictators in general. I think Mohammed VI in Morocco's doing a decent job, I think Jordan's King Hassan is similarly doing a good job and I think both may transition to democracy. I think Netanyahu may make a deal with Assad and I wouldn't have an issue with supporting Assad. In a wider world I think that Communist China is probably safer than what would immediately follow, similarly Vietnam's government. I think dictatorships can be useful if they take the sort of buffer shocks of globalisation and then wither away (as has happened in some Asian states). I don't think we should support them unless they're clearly developing the country.
What I think is ridiculous, however, is the idea that we should support dictators only in the Muslim world because Muslim's are somehow constitutionally unable to have a democratic society. Pakistan is in crisis and that's a huge problem. But even in Pakistan the radical Islamists, in elections, have never won more than 18% of the vote. The same is true in Indonesia, in Bangladesh. In Morocco they've only recently cracked 10% because they've moderated their message (modelled on the Turkish AK Party, another reason I think the AKP are good).
So of the 1 billion or so Muslims (and I think this figure's very debateable, some people put the figure much higher) in the world by my count, just of big countries, around half live in relatively stable democracies that are emerging (to varying degrees) and in economies that are developing (to varying degrees). What of that, apart from praying towards Mecca, justifies thinking the people of those countries actually can't handle democracy?
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 03:06:46 AM
I am beginning to agree with Huntington - a conflict between the West and Islam is inevitable.
Too late, Obama already declared that we never have been and never will be at war with Islam.
Quote from: Eochaid on April 21, 2009, 03:33:09 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 03:06:46 AM
I am beginning to agree with Huntington - a conflict between the West and Islam is inevitable.
How many Moslem truly fundamentalist countries are there in the world?
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAEs, Yemen (North & South).
Not exactly a tidal wave. Most countries are doing s bit of soul-searching but I'd hardly call it catastrophic.
Besides, Huntington might have written "Clash of Civilizations" but he never managed to explain what a civilization is.
Kevin
Learn to read, please. I didn't say all muslim countries are fundamentalist - I said those who are allowed to be democratic and are not propped up by the West (like Iraq) are.
Name as many muslim countries that are democratic, non-fundamentalist and not actively supported by the West.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 05:02:57 AM
Name as many countries that do not fit my criteria of either (1) being "truly fundamentalist" and (2) not being run by dictators or governments that are actively supported by the West.
Indonesia, many countries at the North-coast of Africa and a few in the ME. Depends what you mean by dictators and "actively supported".
In Indonesia, many islamic parties just lost the elections.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 05:02:57 AMLearn to read, please. I didn't say all muslim countries are fundamentalist - I said those who are allowed to be democratic and are not propped up by the West (like Iraq) are.
Name as many muslim countries that are democratic, non-fundamentalist and not actively supported by the West.
Oh Marty, it's so cute when you try talking politics with grown-ups.
OK, here goes:
Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Bosnia, Indonesia, Bengladesh, Kosovo, Maldives, Senegal, Mali, Tchad, Comoros, Albania, Burkina Faso...
I left out all authoritarian regimes and all countries where democracy wouldn't survive without western military support.
Kevin
Neither Kosovo nor Muslim Bosnia would exist without Western Support.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 21, 2009, 05:40:05 AM
Neither Kosovo nor Muslim Bosnia would exist without Western Support.
We're not discussing how these countries got their independence.
I'm just proving to Marty that Moslem democracies don't automatically bring Islamists to power.
Kevin
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 03:06:46 AM
I am beginning to agree with Huntington - a conflict between the West and Islam is inevitable.
Installing pro-West puppet tyrants (like Musharaf) is against our values, but when left to their own devices and allowed to make democratic choices, the majority of Muslims inevitably choose to live in societies that impose laws that are abhorrent to our values as well, and I cannot see how we could see them as our friends and allies, if they choose to stone women and throw gays off roofs. The only honorable and honest choice, consistent with our values, is war - perhaps a cold war, but war nonetheless.
And then they realise they made a horrible mistake.
Like all evil regimes radical islamic ones won't last long.
Hey Eochaid, I fully agree with your point, but let's just say that your definition of "democracy" is a *little* bit broad. :P
Quote from: Tyr on April 21, 2009, 05:51:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 03:06:46 AM
I am beginning to agree with Huntington - a conflict between the West and Islam is inevitable.
Installing pro-West puppet tyrants (like Musharaf) is against our values, but when left to their own devices and allowed to make democratic choices, the majority of Muslims inevitably choose to live in societies that impose laws that are abhorrent to our values as well, and I cannot see how we could see them as our friends and allies, if they choose to stone women and throw gays off roofs. The only honorable and honest choice, consistent with our values, is war - perhaps a cold war, but war nonetheless.
And then they realise they made a horrible mistake.
Like all evil regimes radical islamic ones won't last long.
Iran's regime has been around quite a while.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2009, 05:53:06 AM
Iran's regime has been around quite a while.
30 years is not a while.
And it is deeply unpopular.
Quote from: clandestino on April 21, 2009, 05:51:59 AM
Hey Eochaid, I fully agree with your point, but let's just say that your definition of "democracy" is a *little* bit broad. :P
Democracy Index 2008 (http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/25828/20081021195552/graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy%20Index%202008.pdf).
They list 30 full democracies, 50 flawed democracies, 36 hybrid regimes and 51 authoritarian states.
Lets have a look at my list, with democracy score:
Albania (5.91)
Algeria (3.32, fail)
Bengladesh (5.52)
Bosnia (5.70)
Egypt (3.89, fail)
Indonesia (6.34)
Kosovo (not scored yet)
Lebanon (5.62)
Malaysia (6.36)
Mali (5.87)
Morocco (3.88, fail)
Senegal (5.37)
Tunisia (2.96, fail)
Turkey (5.69)
I admit some of the countries failed the democracy test, but other Moslem countries I didn't mention actually passed the test: Mali, Tanzania, Ghana, Palestine etc.
Kevin
I really don't care if Muslim countries are free as long as they can control those people that are trying to blow me up.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 05:02:57 AM
Name as many muslim countries that are democratic, non-fundamentalist and not actively supported by the West.
Indonesia, Bangladesh, Senegal, Turkey, Mali (or Mauritania, I always get the two mixed up, one's a democracy the other's an unpleasant military dictatorship), Kosovo, arguably Bosnia and Lebanon, Malaysia (to some extent), arguably Nigeria and Tanzania. Off the top of my head, that is.
I can't believe Malaysia's democracy is less flawed than Turkey's :o
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2009, 01:40:20 PM
I can't believe Malaysia's democracy is less flawed than Turkey's :o
That's because the people making the ratings are idiots. Malaysia is a great place, but being more free than Turkey is a joke.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2009, 01:39:13 PMMali (or Mauritania, I always get the two mixed up, one's a democracy the other's an unpleasant military dictatorship)
Mauritania is a racist authoritarian military regime where Arabs stomp all over the black man.
Mali is a free and noble republic which if it did not have unfortunate things like practically universal female genital cutting would be an African paradise.
Amadou Toumani Touré is the George Washington of Africa...at least so long as he actually steps down once his term expires in 2012 :P
Quote from: Queequeg on April 21, 2009, 05:40:05 AM
Neither Kosovo nor Muslim Bosnia would exist without Western Support.
And Turkey receives both Western support and until recently hasn't been a democracy, but a military dictatorship with a semi-democratic process. Once allowed the total freedom of choice, the people have elected... wait for it... islamists!
Quote from: Tyr on April 21, 2009, 05:59:24 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2009, 05:53:06 AM
Iran's regime has been around quite a while.
30 years is not a while.
And it is deeply unpopular.
:lol:
Quote from: Eochaid on April 21, 2009, 06:17:03 AM
Quote from: clandestino on April 21, 2009, 05:51:59 AM
Hey Eochaid, I fully agree with your point, but let's just say that your definition of "democracy" is a *little* bit broad. :P
Democracy Index 2008 (http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/25828/20081021195552/graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy%20Index%202008.pdf).
They list 30 full democracies, 50 flawed democracies, 36 hybrid regimes and 51 authoritarian states.
Lets have a look at my list, with democracy score:
Albania (5.91)
Algeria (3.32, fail)
Bengladesh (5.52)
Bosnia (5.70)
Egypt (3.89, fail)
Indonesia (6.34)
Kosovo (not scored yet)
Lebanon (5.62)
Malaysia (6.36)
Mali (5.87)
Morocco (3.88, fail)
Senegal (5.37)
Tunisia (2.96, fail)
Turkey (5.69)
I admit some of the countries failed the democracy test, but other Moslem countries I didn't mention actually passed the test: Mali, Tanzania, Ghana, Palestine etc.
Kevin
Palestine is not a country. AND it uses sharia.
You: fail.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2009, 01:39:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 05:02:57 AM
Name as many muslim countries that are democratic, non-fundamentalist and not actively supported by the West.
Indonesia, Bangladesh, Senegal, Turkey, Mali (or Mauritania, I always get the two mixed up, one's a democracy the other's an unpleasant military dictatorship), Kosovo, arguably Bosnia and Lebanon, Malaysia (to some extent), arguably Nigeria and Tanzania. Off the top of my head, that is.
Last time I checked Nigeria was applying sharia law in the muslim part of it.
Quote from: Tyr on April 21, 2009, 05:59:24 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2009, 05:53:06 AM
Iran's regime has been around quite a while.
30 years is not a while.
And it is deeply unpopular.
30 years is actually a pretty decent amount of time IMO. The regime's grip on the country remains very solid, regardless of how unpopular it is with some Iranians.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 21, 2009, 05:40:05 AM
Neither Kosovo nor Muslim Bosnia would exist without Western Support.
Yes but he was saying that said country would collapse into a dictatorship without western support.
Quote from: derspiess on April 21, 2009, 02:27:22 PM
Last time I checked Nigeria was applying sharia law in the muslim part of it.
Nigeria is infected with a cancer that spreads ignorance and general stupidity and will eventually destroy the host. I speak, of course, of oil.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 02:26:13 PM
Last time I checked Nigeria was applying sharia law in the muslim part of it.
What's your point? Ontario applies sharia law.
Also, Marty, of the democratic Islamic countries with the possible exception of Palestine, not one has ever elected a radical Islamist regime. As I say, even in Pakistan, the Islamists have never managed to get even 20% of the vote. So the dichotomy between democratically elected Islamists and unelected, Western supported dictatorships just isn't borne out, in any sense. It's not based in fact.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2009, 02:34:35 PM
Also, Marty, of the democratic Islamic countries with the possible exception of Palestine, not one has ever elected a radical Islamist regime. As I say, even in Pakistan, the Islamists have never managed to get even 20% of the vote. So the dichotomy between democratically elected Islamists and unelected, Western supported dictatorships just isn't borne out, in any sense. It's not based in fact.
Didn't Algeria elect one that got promptly couped?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2009, 02:38:26 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2009, 02:34:35 PM
Also, Marty, of the democratic Islamic countries with the possible exception of Palestine, not one has ever elected a radical Islamist regime. As I say, even in Pakistan, the Islamists have never managed to get even 20% of the vote. So the dichotomy between democratically elected Islamists and unelected, Western supported dictatorships just isn't borne out, in any sense. It's not based in fact.
Didn't Algeria elect one that got promptly couped?
Do you think having coups is compatible with being a democracy? Do try to keep up.
Ok let's take a closer look at your lists, gents:
Albania - not a muslim country - according to wiki 60-75% of people declare themselves as "non-religious"
Bengladesh - Homosexuality penalised by life in prison
Bosnia - only exists thanks to UN troops, too early to tell
Indonesia - only recently emerged from dictatorship, has some non-dominant but strong sharia muslim parties, will see
Kosovo - you must be joking, it's a rogue/mafia state
Lebanon - not a strictly muslim state, as Islam is not truly dominant with Christianity being quite strong; the government is based on the confessional system with each religion being given some positions
Malaysia - In five states, apostasy from islam is a criminal offense. Nigga, please.
Mali - Ok!
Senegal - Homosexuality penalised up to life in prison
Turkey - already addressed
Tanzania - equal number of Christians and Moslems - not a Muslim country
Ghana - errr bitch, 60% Christian, 16% Muslim - what are you smoking? What's next? France as a succesful muslim democracy?
Palestine - NOT a country AND has sharia
So, Kevin, my dear boy, learn what you are talking about before talking with adults.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 02:23:04 PM
And Turkey receives both Western support and until recently hasn't been a democracy, but a military dictatorship with a semi-democratic process. Once allowed the total freedom of choice, the people have elected... wait for it... islamists!
Yes but when you say Islamists I assume you don't mean the sort that are more rapidly supporting EU human rights law than any previous government and that have liberalised laws regarding women. Because I think for you to say that by 'Islamist' you mean the AK Party would be disingenuous.
Also where's the line between 'supported' by the West and 'propped up' by the West?
QuoteLast time I checked Nigeria was applying sharia law in the muslim part of it.
I think most Muslim states in Nigeria have, however they've also generally hugely modified the sense in which they understand sharia due to the unpopularity - in many states - of the original version. I remember reading an article on how, in a democracy, sharia law as practised in Nigeria had moved from a very hardline vision and how the theory was being developed here in ways that it wasn't in Saudi or Iran. As ever, in Islam, only Muslims must live according to sharia - non-Muslims have a secular legal system.
And Now for Sheilbh's list:
Indonesia - Done
Bangladesh - Done
Senegal - Done
Turkey - Done
Mali - Done
Mauritania - Probably not the one you were thinking - it has slavery, sharia, death penalty for homosexuality and apostasy
Kosovo - Done
Bosnia - Done
Lebanon - Done
Malaysia - Done
Nigeria - Muslim parts ruled by sharia (I believe there were stories of some stonings), death penalty for homosexuality and apostasy
Tanzania - One third muslims, one third Christians - not really a muslim country
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2009, 02:38:26 PM
Didn't Algeria elect one that got promptly couped?
Yep. You're quite right, I forgot all about that. But my central point has always been that the radical, nihilist, violent form of Islamism is something that has overwhelming emerged from and been based in the Arab world. I think that it's there rather than Islam that you should look and what's dangerous isn't Islam per se - Senegal for example has a unique and really interesting form of Islam that's almost entire Sufi, similarly there are incredible heterodoxies all over South Asia and Indonesia, East and West Africa - what's worrying is the Arabisation, and Saudi Arabisation, of Islam in other parts of the world.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2009, 02:50:29 PM
I think most Muslim states in Nigeria have, however they've also generally hugely modified the sense in which they understand sharia due to the unpopularity - in many states - of the original version. I remember reading an article on how, in a democracy, sharia law as practised in Nigeria had moved from a very hardline vision and how the theory was being developed here in ways that it wasn't in Saudi or Iran. As ever, in Islam, only Muslims must live according to sharia - non-Muslims have a secular legal system.
It's death penalty for homosexuality and apostasy there. But continue scrapping at the bottom of the barrel, dear.
I think this is like the third time when discussing Africa on Languish that Shielbh has tried to use Mauritania, one of the most brutally repressive countries in the world, as a shining example of Democracy. The words Mauritania and Mali do not even look the same Shielbh...besides both starting with ma-.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2009, 02:53:28 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2009, 02:38:26 PM
Didn't Algeria elect one that got promptly couped?
Yep. You're quite right, I forgot all about that. But my central point has always been that the radical, nihilist, violent form of Islamism is something that has overwhelming emerged from and been based in the Arab world. I think that it's there rather than Islam that you should look and what's dangerous isn't Islam per se - Senegal for example has a unique and really interesting form of Islam that's almost entire Sufi, similarly there are incredible heterodoxies all over South Asia and Indonesia, East and West Africa - what's worrying is the Arabisation, and Saudi Arabisation, of Islam in other parts of the world.
Neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia is ruled by "nihilist, violent" form of Islam. They are perfectly happy stoning their own rape victims, and pushing gays off high buildings, without having to institute a global Caliphate.
Jailing homosexuals is not inherently anti-democratic. The democratic countries of the West would jail homosexuals until fairly recently.
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2009, 02:55:01 PM
I think this is like the third time when discussing Africa on Languish that Shielbh has tried to use Mauritania, one of the most brutally repressive countries in the world, as a shining example of Democracy. The words Mauritania and Mali do not even look the same Shielbh...besides both starting with ma-.
LOL yeah, I mean Saudi Arabia and Iran may be awful, but they both pale compared to Mauretania - it is a country that still has hereditary slavery, with slaves trying to escape or even being disobedient being subjected to most brutal punishments from their masters, who are free to kill them at will.
Quote from: Neil on April 21, 2009, 02:56:21 PM
Jailing homosexuals is not inherently anti-democratic. The democratic countries of the West would jail homosexuals until fairly recently.
I am using harsh penalties for homosexuality as an example of these countries being islamist (religious fundamentalist) rather than anti-democratic. My point exactly is that moslems, when given a democracy, choose oppressive religious fundamentalism as their legal choice de jour.
Anyway I have always been fond of Mali, though it is one of the poorest countries in the world. As I stated its president is one of my heroes. It is proof that extreme poverty, ethnic tensions, colonialism, and Islam are not the huge obstacles to a secular Democracy people claim they are.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 02:57:10 PM
LOL yeah, I mean Saudi Arabia and Iran may be awful, but they both pale compared to Mauretania - it is a country that still has hereditary slavery, with slaves trying to escape or even being disobedient being subjected to most brutal punishments from their masters, who are free to kill them at will.
Mew! I must tell honeykitten the delightful news of this forward thinking country! Mah heart is all a flutter at thinking of moving to this country and away from the damnyankees invading my beloved south. SQUEE!
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 21, 2009, 03:00:17 PM
Mew! I must tell honeykitten the delightful news of this forward thinking country! Mah heart is all a flutter at thinking of moving to this country and away from the damnyankees invading my beloved south. SQUEE!
:lol:
Dismissing Indonesia is like saying 'East Germany has some non-dominant but staunch Communist parties, too soon to tell' in 2001. We're over a decade from Suharto's resignation and every election the extreme Islamists have lost their vote and have moderated their platform.
I would also warn against judging Muslim societies solely on their attitudes to homosexuality. I think most countries at a similar level of development, regardless of religion have similar views and legal systems. India for example, or at least half of sub-Saharan Africa.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 21, 2009, 03:00:17 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 02:57:10 PM
LOL yeah, I mean Saudi Arabia and Iran may be awful, but they both pale compared to Mauretania - it is a country that still has hereditary slavery, with slaves trying to escape or even being disobedient being subjected to most brutal punishments from their masters, who are free to kill them at will.
Mew! I must tell honeykitten the delightful news of this forward thinking country! Mah heart is all a flutter at thinking of moving to this country and away from the damnyankees invading my beloved south. SQUEE!
What's even better (from lettow's perspective) is that the slaves are black and the owners are non-black (albeit Arab).
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 02:55:41 PM
Neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia is ruled by "nihilist, violent" form of Islam. They are perfectly happy stoning their own rape victims, and pushing gays off high buildings, without having to institute a global Caliphate.
No, neither are al-Qaeda or the Taliban. But they're pretty close.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2009, 03:02:28 PM
I would also warn against judging Muslim societies solely on their attitudes to homosexuality. I think most countries at a similar level of development, regardless of religion have similar views and legal systems. India for example, or at least half of sub-Saharan Africa.
Well, only in the case of Bangladesh their stance on homosexuality was the only thing that made me vote "nay". And that's probably because I couldn't be arsed to find more fun stuff about them.
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2009, 02:55:01 PM
I think this is like the third time when discussing Africa on Languish that Shielbh has tried to use Mauritania, one of the most brutally repressive countries in the world, as a shining example of Democracy. The words Mauritania and Mali do not even look the same Shielbh...besides both starting with ma-.
It is. I can never remember. I think I almost always think Mauritania's the good one too. And you're always the one who corrects me :hug: :bleeding:
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2009, 03:00:12 PM
Anyway I have always been fond of Mali, though it is one of the poorest countries in the world. As I stated its president is one of my heroes. It is proof that extreme poverty, ethnic tensions, colonialism, and Islam are not the huge obstacles to a secular Democracy people claim they are.
Yeah, I just read about them when researching stuff for this response and they seem surprisingly decent, for a country in the middle of nowhere and being full of Muslims. I always liked playing as them in Civ4 too. :P
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 02:58:37 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 21, 2009, 02:56:21 PM
Jailing homosexuals is not inherently anti-democratic. The democratic countries of the West would jail homosexuals until fairly recently.
I am using harsh penalties for homosexuality as an example of these countries being islamist (religious fundamentalist) rather than anti-democratic. My point exactly is that moslems, when given a democracy, choose oppressive religious fundamentalism as their legal choice de jour.
Don't you think that because you're starting from a fallacious launch point (that punishment for homosexuality can only sprout from religious fundamentalism) that your conclusion cannot be anything but wrong?
Also, one can't really equate sharia with fundamentalism, at least not if one knows what the word 'fundamentalism' actually means. This might indicate a language barrier, since your native tongue is Slavic Gobbledigook.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2009, 03:05:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 21, 2009, 02:55:01 PM
I think this is like the third time when discussing Africa on Languish that Shielbh has tried to use Mauritania, one of the most brutally repressive countries in the world, as a shining example of Democracy. The words Mauritania and Mali do not even look the same Shielbh...besides both starting with ma-.
It is. I can never remember. I think I almost always think Mauritania's the good one too. And you're always the one who corrects me :hug: :bleeding:
You should play Civ4 more. Mali had the most peaceful ruler, Mansa Musa, who always wanted to exchange techs with you, and built libraries and shit. :P
Quote from: Neil on April 21, 2009, 03:06:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 02:58:37 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 21, 2009, 02:56:21 PM
Jailing homosexuals is not inherently anti-democratic. The democratic countries of the West would jail homosexuals until fairly recently.
I am using harsh penalties for homosexuality as an example of these countries being islamist (religious fundamentalist) rather than anti-democratic. My point exactly is that moslems, when given a democracy, choose oppressive religious fundamentalism as their legal choice de jour.
Don't you think that because you're starting from a fallacious launch point (that punishment for homosexuality can only sprout from religious fundamentalism) that your conclusion cannot be anything but wrong?
Also, one can't really equate sharia with fundamentalism, at least not if one knows what the word 'fundamentalism' actually means. This might indicate a language barrier, since your native tongue is Slavic Gobbledigook.
The only two historical sources of anti-homosexual persecution in the modern world were religious fundamentalism and nazism. I don't think many of these countries are nazi, though.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 02:54:29 PM
It's death penalty for homosexuality and apostasy there. But continue scrapping at the bottom of the barrel, dear.
Well, yes and no. A recent punishment for a homosexual couple who'd lived together for 7 years in Northern Nigeria was a fine of $38 and the man, who was judged to be the corrupter, got six months in prison.
Lesbianism, under some Nigerian sharia law, is actually legal. But one woman must count as the 'man' and polygamous lesbianism isn't allowed. That's the sort of thing I mean by a developing understanding of Sharia.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2009, 03:11:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 02:54:29 PM
It's death penalty for homosexuality and apostasy there. But continue scrapping at the bottom of the barrel, dear.
Well, yes and no. A recent punishment for a homosexual couple who'd lived together for 7 years in Northern Nigeria was a fine of $38 and the man, who was judged to be the corrupter, got six months in prison.
Lesbianism, under some Nigerian sharia law, is actually legal. But one woman must count as the 'man' and polygamous lesbianism isn't allowed. That's the sort of thing I mean by a developing understanding of Sharia.
Well it's still a hellhole of a dump. :P
And, interestingly, in many courts, because of the penalties, the judges actually change the charges from 'homosexuality' to 'cross-dressing/female impersonation' which carries far less of a theoretical penalty.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 03:08:16 PM
The only two historical sources of anti-homosexual persecution were religious fundamentalism and nazism. I don't think many of these countries are nazi, though.
This is of course incorrect. It is perfectly natural for people to want to punish the other, especially the other that attacks everything that a man holds dear about himself. The need to eliminate gays can also come from a kind of 'social fundamentalism', as it did throughout the West for many years between the death of Christianity and the rise of the gay social movements in the last 40 years.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 21, 2009, 03:13:34 PM
And, interestingly, in many courts, because of the penalties, the judges actually change the charges from 'homosexuality' to 'cross-dressing/female impersonation' which carries far less of a theoretical penalty.
Well hopefully the Archangel Gabriel change the Quran to say Homosexuality is ok.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 02:50:06 PM
Ok let's take a closer look at your lists, gents:
Albania - not a muslim country - according to wiki 60-75% of people declare themselves as "non-religious"
Bengladesh - Homosexuality penalised by life in prison
Bosnia - only exists thanks to UN troops, too early to tell
Indonesia - only recently emerged from dictatorship, has some non-dominant but strong sharia muslim parties, will see
Kosovo - you must be joking, it's a rogue/mafia state
Lebanon - not a strictly muslim state, as Islam is not truly dominant with Christianity being quite strong; the government is based on the confessional system with each religion being given some positions
Malaysia - In five states, apostasy from islam is a criminal offense. Nigga, please.
Mali - Ok!
Senegal - Homosexuality penalised up to life in prison
Turkey - already addressed
Tanzania - equal number of Christians and Moslems - not a Muslim country
Ghana - errr bitch, 60% Christian, 16% Muslim - what are you smoking? What's next? France as a succesful muslim democracy?
Palestine - NOT a country AND has sharia
So, Kevin, my dear boy, learn what you are talking about before talking with adults.
Nice trolling. Futile, but nice.
Albania: 70% Moslem according to CIA Factbook.
Bengladesh: so? Since when is persecution of homosexuality incompatible with Democracy? As long as the majority of voters support the persecution it IS a democracy, however unpleasant it might seem to us.
Bosnia: emerging federal democratic republic (according to CIA Factbook)
Indonesia: agreed, but so far so good.
Kosovo: still a democracy. UN observers noted to fraud during the last (and only) elections.
Lebanon: 60% moslems. My point holds
Malaysia: so? Divorce was illegal in Irleand until 1995 and abortion, for whatever reason, still is. Because the Church says so. DO you claim Ireland isn't a Democracy.
Senegal: so? See BAngladesh
Turkey: Moslem Democrats... just the same as Christian Democrats if you ask me. Still is a democracy and has official EU candidate status. For which one of the requirements is to be a democracy.
Tanzania: still are more Moslems than Christians. And Moslems hold the economy.
Ghana: sorry, meant The Gambia. points hold
Palestine: still has an indpendent government. Still counts.
You fail because you equate Democracy with Western Human Rights. Did you even bother reading Huntington?
Kevin
Quote from: Eochaid on April 21, 2009, 03:50:17 PMYou fail because you equate Democracy with Western Human Rights.
Actually, that's not why Marty fails. He fails because he's solipsistic, intending only to justify his own prejudice. Equating Democracy with Western Human Rights is, of course, a bit of a classification error, but Marty's failings run deeper than that.
Quote from: Neil on April 21, 2009, 03:17:44 PM
This is of course incorrect. It is perfectly natural for people to want to punish the other, especially the other that attacks everything that a man holds dear about himself. The need to eliminate gays can also come from a kind of 'social fundamentalism', as it did throughout the West for many years between the death of Christianity and the rise of the gay social movements in the last 40 years.
This is true. South Africa's an interesting country in this respect. It's a country with very liberal and equal laws regarding homosexuality, sexual orientation is mentioned as protected from discrimination in the constitution and so on. Basically because the ANC were a liberation movement who believed that liberation and equality must mean precisely that.
At the same time South Africa has a hugely homophobic population and culture (especially because homosexuals are seen as the originators of AIDS). It's a country in which lesbians have been routinely raped, because lesbianism is because they've not been shown 'real' sex with 'real men' and gay men live under the threat of being beaten to death. South Africa's not Nazi, it's not terribly religious and it's certainly not Muslim (actually, it's Muslim population overwhelmingly votes for the liberal DA). South Africa's odd, though, because it is trying to use liberal government attitudes to nudge culture in the right direction. Generally it's the other way round.
There are only 3 types of muslims.
- Terrorists
- Little Terrorists
- Terrorist factories.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 03:06:46 AM
I am beginning to agree with Huntington - a conflict between the West and Islam is inevitable.
Installing pro-West puppet tyrants (like Musharaf) is against our values, but when left to their own devices and allowed to make democratic choices, the majority of Muslims inevitably choose to live in societies that impose laws that are abhorrent to our values as well, and I cannot see how we could see them as our friends and allies, if they choose to stone women and throw gays off roofs. The only honorable and honest choice, consistent with our values, is war - perhaps a cold war, but war nonetheless.
I totally agree.
Quote from: Siege on April 21, 2009, 09:02:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 03:06:46 AM
I am beginning to agree with Huntington - a conflict between the West and Islam is inevitable.
Installing pro-West puppet tyrants (like Musharaf) is against our values, but when left to their own devices and allowed to make democratic choices, the majority of Muslims inevitably choose to live in societies that impose laws that are abhorrent to our values as well, and I cannot see how we could see them as our friends and allies, if they choose to stone women and throw gays off roofs. The only honorable and honest choice, consistent with our values, is war - perhaps a cold war, but war nonetheless.
I totally agree.
You'd be on the other side, barbarian.
Quote from: Neil on April 21, 2009, 09:03:52 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 21, 2009, 09:02:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 03:06:46 AM
I am beginning to agree with Huntington - a conflict between the West and Islam is inevitable.
Installing pro-West puppet tyrants (like Musharaf) is against our values, but when left to their own devices and allowed to make democratic choices, the majority of Muslims inevitably choose to live in societies that impose laws that are abhorrent to our values as well, and I cannot see how we could see them as our friends and allies, if they choose to stone women and throw gays off roofs. The only honorable and honest choice, consistent with our values, is war - perhaps a cold war, but war nonetheless.
I totally agree.
You'd be on the other side, barbarian.
I AM NOT A BARBARIAN!
Quote from: Siege on April 21, 2009, 09:17:54 PM
I AM NOT A BARBARIAN!
You really are. Your attitude towards women is positively Dark Ages.
Quote from: Siege on April 21, 2009, 08:57:56 PM
There are only 3 types of muslims.
- Terrorists
- Little Terrorists
- Terrorist factories.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F8%2F82%2FAverroesColor.jpg&hash=6b26724c5909489bbd6d15eae4b126c1df4b4591)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greece-athens.com%2Fnews_images%2F40.jpg&hash=7d0911f71bec049bd77b5cb247c3c0c6a0f46983)
Queenfag, who are those?
Averros, who was very unmuslim, and who else?
Some chick that happen to be of arabic ethnicity but have nothing to do with Islam?
Averros is about as un-Muslim as you are un-Jewish.
That's Queen Rania, she's Muslim and she is wonderful.
If Averros were alive today, he would have quit Islam so long ago...
Come on dude, we are talking of a guy that admired greek clasical philosophy.
Gotta side with Siege on that one.
I wouldn't put forward Lebanon as an example either. It is a failed state born after a disastrous civil war where Iran/Syria/Hezbollah has the real power.
That's one nice-looking terrorist factory.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 21, 2009, 11:21:51 PM
That's one nice-looking terrorist factory.
Only until you feel the pain of muslim terrorism.
Quote from: Siege on April 21, 2009, 11:49:07 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 21, 2009, 11:21:51 PM
That's one nice-looking terrorist factory.
Only until you feel the pain of muslim terrorism.
Oh stop it. Queen Rania isn't a terrorist factory. :rolleyes:
Mart, how does it feel to see that Siegy is the ONLY person who agrees with you. :P
Kevin
Quote from: Eochaid on April 22, 2009, 03:30:01 AM
Mart, how does it feel to see that Siegy is the ONLY person who agrees with you. :P
Kevin
So far the only persons who disagree with me include yourself and Jacob - explain to me why should I care for an opinion of cuntslave race traitors?
Quote from: derspiess on April 21, 2009, 02:27:22 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 21, 2009, 05:59:24 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2009, 05:53:06 AM
Iran's regime has been around quite a while.
30 years is not a while.
And it is deeply unpopular.
30 years is actually a pretty decent amount of time IMO. The regime's grip on the country remains very solid, regardless of how unpopular it is with some Iranians.
30 years isn't even a generation.
Iran is a strange one. Its not a out and out Islamic fundamentalist regime, it is also partially a democracy. The presense of the democratic side and that pre-Ahmadiajad (spl) reforms were being made will make people trust in the system.
From what Iranians tell me the general feeling is also that if they were to have another revolution then the replacement would be even worse than what they have now- as happened before.
Also of course there's the golden rule that people who are well fed don't rebel.
Quote from: Martinus on April 22, 2009, 06:12:32 AMSo far the only persons who disagree with me include yourself and Jacob - explain to me why should I care for an opinion of cuntslave race traitors?
:lmfao:
And what race would that be? I thought we were talking about civilisations and intrinsic political leanings :p
Kevin
Quote from: Siege on April 21, 2009, 11:49:07 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 21, 2009, 11:21:51 PM
That's one nice-looking terrorist factory.
Only until you feel the pain of muslim terrorism.
Who cares? None of us will ever be affected by Muslim terrorism.
Update:
QuoteTaliban extend hold, advance near Pakistan capital
By ZARAR KHAN, Associated Press Wed Apr 22, 11:00 pm ET
ISLAMABAD – Taliban militants have extended their grip in northwestern Pakistan, pushing out from a valley where the government has agreed to impose Islamic law and patrolling villages as close as 60 miles from the capital. Police and officials appear to have fled as armed militants also broadcast radio sermons and spread fear in Buner district, just 60 miles from Islamabad, officials and witnesses said Wednesday.
Pakistan's president signed off on the peace pact last week in hopes of calming Swat, where some two years of clashes between the Taliban and security forces have killed hundreds and displaced up to a third of the one-time tourist haven's 1.5 million residents.
Critics, including in Washington, have warned that the valley could become an officially sanctioned base for allies of al-Qaida — and that it may be just the first domino in nuclear-armed Pakistan to fall to the Taliban.
"The activities in the Swat do concern us. We're keeping an eye on it, and are working daily with the Pakistan military," Maj. Gen. Michael S. Tucker told Pentagon reporters in a 35-minute videoconference call from Afghanistan.
Supporters of the deal say it will allow the government to gradually reassert control by taking away the militants' rallying cry for Islamic law. Many residents are grateful that a semblance of peace has returned. A handful of officials are back in Swat.
The agreement covers Swat and other districts in the Malakand Division, an area of about 10,000 square miles near the Afghan border and the tribal areas where al-Qaida and the Taliban have strongholds.
The provincial government agreed to impose Islamic law in Malakand, and the Taliban agreed to a cease-fire that has largely held.
In recent days, the Swat militants have set their sights on Buner, a district just south of the valley, sparking at least one major clash with residents. The moves indicate the militants want to expand their presence beyond Swat to other parts of Malakand at the very least, under the guise of enforcing Islamic law.Many in Buner are now too frightened to speak to reporters. However, a lawmaker from the area told The Associated Press that the militants had entered the district in "large numbers" and started setting up checkpoints at main roads and strategic positions.
"Local elders and clerics are negotiating with them to resolve this issue through talks," Istiqbal Khan said.
The militants in Buner also are using radio airwaves to broadcast sermons about Islam, and have occupied the homes of some prominent landowners, said a police official who insisted on anonymity because he was afraid of retaliation. He said the militants have also warned barbers to stop shaving men's beards and stores to stop selling music and movies.
The militants have established a major base in the village of Sultanwas and have set up positions in the nearby hills, the police official said. Militants also have taken over the shrine of a famed Sufi saint known as Pir Baba, he said.
The Taliban move into Buner left the Swat deal hanging from a thread, said Rasul Bakhsh Rais, professor of political science at Lahore University of Management Sciences.
"If the Taliban continue to expand in different directions and establish fiefdoms as they did in Swat, then probably the deal is not going to work and the government will be forced to scuttle that deal and go back to operations" by security forces, Rais said.
The provincial government's chief executive said authorities were prepared to use force if the Taliban didn't "pack up and go home" from Buner. But Haider Khan Hoti also pleaded for patience and rejected Western calls for a more aggressive approach.
U.S. missile attacks on militant targets in the northwest were undermining Pakistan's efforts to find a peaceful solution, he said.
"This is our country, we will have to look at our own priorities and our own interests," Hoti said. "We should not enter any friendship at the cost of our own destruction."
Since the provincial government agreed to the deal in February, Taliban fighters had adopted a lower profile and stopped openly displaying weapons in Swat as part of a cease-fire.
But on Tuesday, upon the radio-broadcast orders of Swat Taliban chief Maulana Fazlullah, the militants began roaming parts of the valley with rifles and other weapons. An AP reporter saw the patrols in Mingora, the valley's main city.
Residents from nearby towns in Swat said militants were setting up checkpoints on several roads. The residents requested anonymity out of fear for their lives.
Fazlullah ordered his fighters to withdraw again in a broadcast on Wednesday. He didn't explain why.
Swat Taliban spokesman Muslim Khan could not be reached for comment.
Khan said recently that al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and other militants aiming to oust the U.S. from Afghanistan would be welcome and protected in Swat — a statement the government condemned.
He also said the militants want to see all of Pakistan under Islamic law — a cry echoed by several other Islamist firebrands.
Rais, the professor, said there was concern that Islamists may have concluded from the Swat deal that authorities will cave in to violent demands for Islamic law elsewhere.
"They have natural allies in the religious political parties in other parts of the country. They have social and religious networks that have support their suicide attacks and attacks against the security forces," Rais said.
"It is about the identity of Pakistan and the future direction that Pakistan can take."
Associated Press writers Riaz Khan in Peshawar and Lara Jakes in Washington contributed to this report.
More bad news:
QuoteMilitants burn NATO fuel tankers in Pakistan
By MUNIR AHMAD, Associated Press Writer
ISLAMABAD – Dozens of militants armed with guns and gasoline bombs attacked a truck terminal in northwestern Pakistan on Thursday and burned five tanker trucks carrying fuel to NATO troops in Afghanistan, police said.
NATO and U.S. commanders are seeking alternative transport routes into landlocked Afghanistan amid mounting assaults on the critical main supply line through Pakistan.
Militants attacked the truck depot near the city of Peshawar before dawn, hurling gasoline bombs which set fire to the five tankers, said Abdul Khan, a local police official.
Security guards fled and the assailants made their escape before police arrived, Khan said. Several truckers drove their vehicles out of the terminal to save them from the flames, which were later doused by firefighters, he said.
NATO and the U.S. military insist that their losses on the transport route remain minimal and have had no impact on their expanding operations in Afghanistan. Most of the fuel for U.S. troops in Afghanistan comes from Central Asia.
However, a series of attacks on terminals as well as on convoys heading through the nearby Khyber Pass into Afghanistan have contributed to concern that militants could paralyze or even seize control of northwestern Pakistan.
The government faces stiff criticism at home and abroad for striking a peace deal that includes the introduction of Islamic law in the nearby Swat Valley, from where Taliban militants appear to be expanding their authority.
Officials and witnesses said Wednesday that Taliban gunmen were mounting patrols, broadcasting sermons and spreading fear in the Buner district, just south of Swat and only 60 miles (100 kilometers) from Islamabad.
President Asif Ali Zardari approved the peace pact last week in hopes of calming Swat, where some two years of clashes between the Taliban and security forces have killed hundreds and displaced up to a third of the valley's 1.5 million residents.
Critics, including in Washington, have warned that Swat could become a base for allies of al-Qaida — and might be the first domino in nuclear-armed Pakistan to fall to the Taliban.
Supporters of the deal say it will allow the government to marginalize hard-liners and gradually reassert control by taking away the militants' rallying cry for Islamic law.
Associated Press writer Riaz Khan in Peshawar contributed to this report.
Quote from: Tyr on April 22, 2009, 06:21:31 AM
30 years isn't even a generation.
Yeah, it's a generation and a half. A generation is 20 years.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 23, 2009, 05:57:54 AM
Quote from: Tyr on April 22, 2009, 06:21:31 AM
30 years isn't even a generation.
Yeah, it's a generation and a half. A generation is 20 years.
Wow you Americans breed fast.
Well all other arguments aside, with the support or lack of opposition Taliban has been getting by the government, and the advances they're now able to make, Pakistan is entering more and more "interesting" times, dangerous times.
Wait just one damned minute here!
I someone telling me that once the Taliban secured their hold on Swat after their deal with the Pakistani government, now they are trying to expand beyond it into other areas????
Why, that seems impossible, since the deal was designed to avoid just that very thing!
I kind of feel bad for Pakistan - it seems like kicking the Taliban out of Afghanistan has just meant that they've realized the tribal areas of Pakistan are a lot more of a mess anyway.
The Swat deal failed due to lack of vision. I think they should make a deal with the Taliban to give them all of the tribal areas and the bordering regions of Afghanistan for the new state of Talibanistan. That will surely satisfy them and bring peace.
Man, I wonder how much the Taliban would have to advance to trigger a preemptive Indian strike?
Quote from: KRonn on April 23, 2009, 07:14:33 AM
Well all other arguments aside, with the support or lack of opposition Taliban has been getting by the government, and the advances they're now able to make, Pakistan is entering more and more "interesting" times, dangerous times.
I read an article about this recently that I've since lost. What's really worrying is that the strategy the Taliban used to build local support could shift very easily to Punjab which has a similar rural social structure to Swat. Now Swat's tiny. It's a small part of the North-West Frontier Province with just over a million people. Punjab is massive and has a population of around 80 million.
You have two parties that either can't or don't want to push back militarily and a military that in many ways helped create the Taliban. I've not yet read a realistic or achievable idea for stabilising Pakistan far less for pushing the Taliban back a bit.
Quote from: Berkut on April 23, 2009, 08:04:51 AM
Wait just one damned minute here!
I someone telling me that once the Taliban secured their hold on Swat after their deal with the Pakistani government, now they are trying to expand beyond it into other areas????
Why, that seems impossible, since the deal was designed to avoid just that very thing!
I kind of feel bad for Pakistan - it seems like kicking the Taliban out of Afghanistan has just meant that they've realized the tribal areas of Pakistan are a lot more of a mess anyway.
The Swat deal failed due to lack of vision. I think they should make a deal with the Taliban to give them all of the tribal areas and the bordering regions of Afghanistan for the new state of Talibanistan. That will surely satisfy them and bring peace.
Whatever is the world coming to?
If you can't trust the Taliban who can you trust!
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 23, 2009, 06:01:25 PM
Quote from: KRonn on April 23, 2009, 07:14:33 AM
Well all other arguments aside, with the support or lack of opposition Taliban has been getting by the government, and the advances they're now able to make, Pakistan is entering more and more "interesting" times, dangerous times.
I read an article about this recently that I've since lost. What's really worrying is that the strategy the Taliban used to build local support could shift very easily to Punjab which has a similar rural social structure to Swat. Now Swat's tiny. It's a small part of the North-West Frontier Province with just over a million people. Punjab is massive and has a population of around 80 million.
You have two parties that either can't or don't want to push back militarily and a military that in many ways helped create the Taliban. I've not yet read a realistic or achievable idea for stabilising Pakistan far less for pushing the Taliban back a bit.
Yes, the implications have been worrying for a while now, with Taliban in safe havens in Pakistan and influencing people there, and therefor more able to work the same way on Afghan areas. I have read that Pakistani tribes have been looking at Iraqi Sunnis and their ways used for opposing AQ and extremes in Iraq, to use for opposing the Taliban. No idea how widespread it is though.
I believe the key difference is that the Taliban are able to take advantage of an almost feudal society in some parts of Pakistan. I'll try and find the article.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 23, 2009, 06:54:30 PM
I believe the key difference is that the Taliban are able to take advantage of an almost feudal society in some parts of Pakistan. I'll try and find the article.
They've also been infiltrating urban areas though.
http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/30/1469342.aspx
QuoteThe 'Talibanization' of Pakistan's biggest city
Posted: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 12:28 PM
Filed Under: Islamabad, Pakistan
By Richard Engel, NBC News Chief Foreign Correspondent
KARACHI, Pakistan – In the back of a jeep driving through Karachi, a sign on the wall of the city's famous "Village Restaurant" caught my eye. It was just a little piece of frayed white paper plastered next to the restaurant's much bigger logo, tempting customers to "Experience the Exotic of Traditional Dining."
But the printed sign expressed an increasingly urgent plea in this teeming port city, once Pakistan's capital: "Save your city from Talibanization," it said in English.
But could the Taliban really be taking over Karachi? Karachi is Pakistan's biggest city, far from the lawless tribal hinterland along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Out there, Taliban and al-Qaida militants have carved out an independent state. In the mountains, militants have their own courts and even issue licenses to local business. Last week in the tribal area, the Taliban publicly executed a group accused of murders. In another village square, they flogged several butchers for allegedly selling the meat of sick animals. That is Taliban justice.
U.S. military and intelligence officials consider that border area to be the world's biggest, most dangerous safe haven for Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and nearly all of their deputies have been based, and may still be based, in this often impassible mountain terrain.
But I was in Karachi, a giant city on the Indian Ocean. If Karachi is being 'Talibanized,' Pakistan is in real trouble, and so is everyone else.
Growing radicalism
Karachi has a history of Islamic radicalism. Wall Street Journal correspondent Daniel Pearl was kidnapped in front of the Village Restaurant in 2002. Pearl had been meeting contacts here. They were supposed to help him investigate Richard Reid, the "Shoe Bomber" who tried to blow up an American Airlines flight from Paris in December 2001.
But Pearl's meeting was a set up. The "contacts" turned out to be fanatic militants who kidnapped and beheaded him. I was about to discover the radicals' presence in this city appears to have grown since then.
Traveling in Karachi is both overwhelming and exhausting. It is a colorful, chaotic and undeniably dirty city. Flocks of vultures circle the sky all day. Trash lines many of the streets. As we drove from the Village Restaurant, our jeep darted around swarms of motorcycles, pickup trucks, rickshaws and even a sad looking camel pulling a cart stacked with barrels.
We were headed to a neighborhood in west Karachi where I had been told al-Qaida and Taliban militants had established a safe haven. Many Pakistanis make little distinction between al-Qaida and the Taliban. Both want to destabilize Pakistan and Afghanistan, establish an even bigger base of operations and spread their aggressive, intolerant vision of Islamic law.
The majority of people in Karachi want no part of it. Karachi is Pakistan's cultural capital, the center of the nation's fashion, high-tech and media industries. But that Karachi is under siege.
After about 30 minutes in traffic, our jeep arrived at the office of a local contact in a slum in west Karachi. Fearing for his safety, he didn't want to be identified. I'll call him Malik. He would take us deep into the alleys on the outskirts of Karachi, a neighborhood filled with brick homes built around cliffs and marble quarries. It would be unwise, Malik said, to venture in alone.
"It is too dangerous," he said. "The Talibans have their checkpoints, bunkers and snipers. At night, they patrol, sometimes on horses. They are always coming out with their weapons and RPGs intimidating people."
Malik said radicals have been flooding into Karachi since this spring, moving in from the border region. The border region is now a warzone, under attack by the Pakistani military and, controversially here, by U.S. drones and Special Operations Forces (SOF) that carry out raids from bases in neighboring Afghanistan.
The Pakistani and U.S. military offensives have killed hundreds of militants, but scattered many more. Increasingly, they are settling in Karachi. Estimates of Karachi's population range from 12 to 18 million. The lack of accountability makes the city a great place to hide, unless you look like I did as I descended from the jeep dressed in khakis and a blue shirt.
Malik and I were standing in front of one of west Karachi's madrassas, a traditional Islamic school for boys.
"Are there any students inside," I asked a guard. He stared back at me blankly. In less than a minute there were about 15 people around us. Several appeared to be madrassa students who had come out to see what a foreigner could possibly want from them.
"Are you all students at the madrassa?" I asked. A few said they were.
'God willing, we will fight them'
Many Pakistanis attend madrassas because they offer free education, supplementing the government's lacking public school system. For centuries madrassas were the only form of education in the Islamic world. From Morocco to Indonesia, most madrassas have a similar layout, with a mosque at the center and classrooms upstairs. The vast majority of madrassas are moderate charities that teach religious values, the Koran and the traditions of the Prophet Mohammed.
But some madrassas in Pakistan have churned out suicide bombers indoctrinated in jihad and a paranoid but widespread philosophy that they must attack innocent civilians to defend their faith from the United States, Israel and other modern-day "crusaders."
Former President Pervez Musharraf promised to reform and regulate Pakistan's hard-line madrassas. It never happened. According to Karachi's former mayor Farooq Sattar, there are now more than 2,000 illegal madrassas in Karachi alone. This was one of them.
"What do you think of the Taliban and their influence here?" I asked the students.
More blank stares.
"What do you think about the U.S. incursions?"
That got a reaction.
"God willing, we will fight them," said one teenager with a purple scar on his chin. "They are the enemy," he said and launched into a long explanation of America's goal to occupy Muslim lands and undermine Islam. I've heard the same speech from Cairo to Lebanon, Baghdad to Riyadh. God bless the Internet.
A few minutes later my driver/fixer, a very tough guy from a very tough part of Pakistan, tapped me on the shoulder.
"I think you have been here long enough," he said. It was time to go.
But I still hadn't seen any Taliban.
Malik suggested we go deeper into the slum, to the neighborhood right under the cliffs and quarries. He was nervous about taking a foreigner, but had an idea. There was a graveyard in the area.
"We can pretend to be offering prayers for the dead," Malik suggested. "I'll pray over one of the graves and you can see the neighborhood for yourself."
Malik said praying at a gravesite would give us an excuse to be in the area and raise less suspicion.
'You should not be here'
It didn't exactly work. As soon as I stepped out of the jeep by the gravestones, I was again surrounded by a group of people. They didn't have weapons or appear threatening, but didn't attempt to hide their sympathies for the Taliban. One man proudly told me several suicide bombers had prayed in a nearby mosque.
But others were scared of the Taliban. A man who spoke English told me the Taliban were in control of the area.
"Do the Pakistani police or soldiers ever come here?" I asked him. "No, they can't come here."
"How do people feel here?"
"We are all frightened. The Taliban has taken over."
More men, athletically built in their 20s and 30s, started to arrive.
"Who are these people?" I asked the English speaker.
"They are Taliban."
"Do they understand what we are saying? Do they understand English?"
"No, but you shouldn't stay here. It is not comfortable here. You should not be here."
"Who runs this neighborhood?"
"They do."
The new arrivals didn't want to be interviewed.
"Stop asking them questions," the English speaker advised.
We left a few minutes later.
"We couldn't come here at night," Malik said as we were driving out of the neighborhood. "Now we had an excuse to come to the graveyard. But at night, there would be no reason to be here."
'It's sad'
Driving back to the hotel, I kept thinking how a neighborhood in Karachi could be so tense and apparently out of control. In less than two hours, and without any prior arrangements, we'd managed to get to an area full of Taliban supporters and where many locals were clearly terrified.
As I walked back to my hotel room, I passed an old man in the hallway.
"I didn't know you people were still coming here," he said. By "you people" I assumed he meant foreigners.
"Yes, a few. Not many of us," I admitted.
"I didn't think anyone would be coming anymore," he added, saying he was upset by the bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, one of the centers of social life for Pakistan's shrinking expatriate community.
"It's sad," he said. "It's sad it's come to this."
"Yes, it's sad," I agreed.
Ah here it is. As the Spectator put it, the most worrying article you'll read all day:
QuoteTaliban Exploit Class Rifts in Pakistan
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2009%2F04%2F17%2Fworld%2F17pstan-600.jpg&hash=76a33f8855c5c1a23c01f985cf8f67b1bc9bce44)
Around 3,000 people gathered for a rally in the Swat Valley of Pakistan on April 10 in support of the bill paving way for the implementation of Islamic law there.
By JANE PERLEZ and PIR ZUBAIR SHAH
Published: April 16, 2009
PESHAWAR, Pakistan — The Taliban have advanced deeper into Pakistan by engineering a class revolt that exploits profound fissures between a small group of wealthy landlords and their landless tenants, according to government officials and analysts here.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2009%2F04%2F16%2Fworld%2F17pstan_600.JPG&hash=f6457107bf497ff56a30c97210c6c3aa80d2fd59)
Rashid Iqbal/European Pressphoto Agency
Supporters of Islamic law on Thursday in the Swat Valley, a Pakistani region where the Taliban exploited class rifts to gain control.
The strategy cleared a path to power for the Taliban in the Swat Valley, where the government allowed Islamic law to be imposed this week, and it carries broad dangers for the rest of Pakistan, particularly the militants' main goal, the populous heartland of Punjab Province.
In Swat, accounts from those who have fled now make clear that the Taliban seized control by pushing out about four dozen landlords who held the most power.
To do so, the militants organized peasants into armed gangs that became their shock troops, the residents, government officials and analysts said.
The approach allowed the Taliban to offer economic spoils to people frustrated with lax and corrupt government even as the militants imposed a strict form of Islam through terror and intimidation.
"This was a bloody revolution in Swat," said a senior Pakistani official who oversees Swat, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation by the Taliban. "I wouldn't be surprised if it sweeps the established order of Pakistan."
The Taliban's ability to exploit class divisions adds a new dimension to the insurgency and is raising alarm about the risks to Pakistan, which remains largely feudal.
Unlike India after independence in 1947, Pakistan maintained a narrow landed upper class that kept its vast holdings while its workers remained subservient, the officials and analysts said. Successive Pakistani governments have since failed to provide land reform and even the most basic forms of education and health care. Avenues to advancement for the vast majority of rural poor do not exist.
Analysts and other government officials warn that the strategy executed in Swat is easily transferable to Punjab, saying that the province, where militant groups are already showing strength, is ripe for the same social upheavals that have convulsed Swat and the tribal areas.
Mahboob Mahmood, a Pakistani-American lawyer and former classmate of President Obama's, said, "The people of Pakistan are psychologically ready for a revolution."
Sunni militancy is taking advantage of deep class divisions that have long festered in Pakistan, he said. "The militants, for their part, are promising more than just proscriptions on music and schooling," he said. "They are also promising Islamic justice, effective government and economic redistribution."
The Taliban strategy in Swat, an area of 1.3 million people with fertile orchards, vast plots of timber and valuable emerald mines, unfolded in stages over five years, analysts said.
The momentum of the insurgency built in the past two years, when the Taliban, reinforced by seasoned fighters from the tribal areas with links to Al Qaeda, fought the Pakistani Army to a standstill, said a Pakistani intelligence agent who works in the Swat region.
The insurgents struck at any competing point of power: landlords and elected leaders — who were usually the same people — and an underpaid and unmotivated police force, said Khadim Hussain, a linguistics and communications professor at Bahria University in Islamabad, the capital.
At the same time, the Taliban exploited the resentments of the landless tenants, particularly the fact that they had many unresolved cases against their bosses in a slow-moving and corrupt justice system, Mr. Hussain and residents who fled the area said.
Their grievances were stoked by a young militant, Maulana Fazlullah, who set up an FM radio station in 2004 to appeal to the disenfranchised. The broadcasts featured easy-to-understand examples using goats, cows, milk and grass. By 2006, Mr. Fazlullah had formed a ragtag force of landless peasants armed by the Taliban, said Mr. Hussain and former residents of Swat.
At first, the pressure on the landlords was subtle. One landowner was pressed to take his son out of an English-speaking school offensive to the Taliban. Others were forced to make donations to the Taliban.
Then, in late 2007, Shujaat Ali Khan, the richest of the landowners, his brothers and his son, Jamal Nasir, the mayor of Swat, became targets.
After Shujaat Ali Khan, a senior politician in the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, narrowly missed being killed by a roadside bomb, he fled to London. A brother, Fateh Ali Mohammed, a former senator, left, too, and now lives in Islamabad. Mr. Nasir also fled.
Later, the Taliban published a "most wanted" list of 43 prominent names, said Muhammad Sher Khan, a landlord who is a politician with the Pakistan Peoples Party, and whose name was on the list. All those named were ordered to present themselves to the Taliban courts or risk being killed, he said. "When you know that they will hang and kill you, how will you dare go back there?" Mr. Khan, hiding in Punjab, said in a telephone interview. "Being on the list meant 'Don't come back to Swat.' "
One of the main enforcers of the new order was Ibn-e-Amin, a Taliban commander from the same area as the landowners, called Matta. The fact that Mr. Amin came from Matta, and knew who was who there, put even more pressure on the landowners, Mr. Hussain said.
According to Pakistani news reports, Mr. Amin was arrested in August 2004 on suspicion of having links to Al Qaeda and was released in November 2006. Another Pakistani intelligence agent said Mr. Amin often visited a madrasa in North Waziristan, the stronghold of Al Qaeda in the tribal areas, where he apparently received guidance.
Each time the landlords fled, their tenants were rewarded. They were encouraged to cut down the orchard trees and sell the wood for their own profit, the former residents said. Or they were told to pay the rent to the Taliban instead of their now absentee bosses.
Two dormant emerald mines have reopened under Taliban control. The militants have announced that they will receive one-third of the revenues.
Since the Taliban fought the military to a truce in Swat in February, the militants have deepened their approach and made clear who is in charge.
When provincial bureaucrats visit Mingora, Swat's capital, they must now follow the Taliban's orders and sit on the floor, surrounded by Taliban bearing weapons, and in some cases wearing suicide bomber vests, the senior provincial official said.
In many areas of Swat the Taliban have demanded that each family give up one son for training as a Taliban fighter, said Mohammad Amad, executive director of a nongovernmental group, the Initiative for Development and Empowerment Axis.
A landlord who fled with his family last year said he received a chilling message last week. His tenants called him in Peshawar, the capital of North-West Frontier Province, which includes Swat, to tell him his huge house was being demolished, he said in an interview here.
The most crushing news was about his finances. He had sold his fruit crop in advance, though at a quarter of last year's price. But even that smaller yield would not be his, his tenants said, relaying the Taliban message. The buyer had been ordered to give the money to the Taliban instead.
The ending's a bit of a damp squib but they whole thing's worrying enough.
Very worrying, indeed.
Karachi's where India's got a bunch of atom bombs aimed, so fuck it. They'll all be rad-waste anyways.
I wonder; what was the status of Pakistan, the tribal areas and the Talbian pre-Afghan invasion?
Quote from: Tyr on April 24, 2009, 10:15:43 AM
I wonder; what was the status of Pakistan, the tribal areas and the Talbian pre-Afghan invasion?
As mentioned a bunch of times, Swat was a vacation area, especially sine Kashmir has been a warzone for a lot longer.
That said, this is the traditonal route of invasion from the Steppe, has been since the Vedic tribes, history of danger.
Is the situation in Pakistan a mortal threat? America speaks!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q79sFakmv4&feature=player_embedded
QuoteTaliban cornered in NW Pakistan by angry locals
By MUNIR AHMAD, Associated Press
ISLAMABAD – A group of Taliban fighters under siege by hundreds of angry tribesmen tried to sneak to another village in northwest Pakistan, only to find themselves cornered there too, an official said Tuesday.
A citizens' militia that sprang up over the weekend to avenge a deadly suicide bombing at a mosque in Upper Dir district appeared unwilling to stop pursuing the Islamist fighters, underscoring the rising anti-Taliban sentiment in Pakistan.
The growing pressure on militants who have held sway in parts of Pakistan's northwest comes as the army bears down on their one-time stronghold in the Swat Valley region. Talk has also turned to the possibility of another operation against al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in the nearby tribal belt along the country's border with Afghanistan, something U.S. officials privately say they would like to see.
Some 1,500 tribesmen laid siege to several villages known as Taliban strongholds in Upper Dir over the weekend, eventually cornering militants in Shatkas and Ghazi Gay villages. By Tuesday, some of the Taliban tried to get away to Malik Bai village, which the tribesmen also encircled, police official Fazal Rabi said."About 200 Taliban have been surrounded by the militia" in the villages, Rabi said.
Officials have said the Taliban carried out Friday's mosque bombing that killed 33 in the town of Haya Gai because they were angry that local tribesmen had resisted their moving into the area, where minor clashes between the two sides occurred for months. Rabi said the tribesmen had sworn on the Quran that they would not let the militants go unpunished.
At least 13 insurgents have died in the fighting since Saturday.
The citizens' militia, or lashkar, was using its own weapons and had no police backup, Rabi said.
The army's chief spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, on Monday urged civilians to consider the kind of rule the Taliban was trying to impose — they stand accused of whippings and beheadings in the name of Islamic law in Swat — and join the fight against them."Citizens should ponder upon the way of life they are introducing, if that is acceptable to us," Abbas told the News1 television network. "If not, they have to raise a voice against them, they have to rise against them."
Washington strongly backs the Swat offensive, and officials have said privately they would like Pakistan to follow up by launching an operation in nearby South Waziristan tribal region, the main base for Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud.
The government has announced no plans to attack the area, where al-Qaida fighters also are believed to be operating.
Pretty significant change in attitudes towards the Taliban by some Pakistanis. In the past six months or so I've read that there were some uprisings, militias forming, that some Pakistani village/tribal leaders were looking at what the Sunnis did in Iraq to oust AQ and were trying the same. So we'll see how this goes, see if enough people oppose the Taliban or see if the Taliban have enough support to hold their own. Either way I'd think this has changed the dynamics of things and that at least a sizable number of Pakistanis in the affected regions are fed up enough to rise up.
Quote from: KRonn on June 09, 2009, 08:35:21 AMEither way I'd think this has changed the dynamics of things and that at least a sizable number of Pakistanis in the affected regions are fed up enough to rise up.
And I think that the Taliban seizing Islamabad's favourite holiday spot made the government and army take the threat a bit more seriously.
Though I believe the overwhelming majority of US military aid to Pakistan is still spent on that essential front of the war on terror, the Indian border :(
The best way to get rid of the Taliban is to put them in charge for awhile.