Holy War in Pakistan

[Lief Erikson]

Since the Red Mosque in Pakistan was destroyed a week ago in a battle between Islamist militants and Pakistani soldiers, violence has exploded in Pakistan, particularly in the northwest. Over a hundred soldiers have been killed in a series of attacks that have been primarily suicide bombings. It's the latest expansion of the War on Terror, I guess one could say. But it is particularly worrisome that Pakistan is experiencing this growing internal unrest, seeing as it's a nuclear armed country directly adjacent to Afghanistan and Pakistan's traditional enemy India.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It's the latest expansion of the War on Terror, I guess one could say.

Well, one could. Or one could point out that Pakistan exists as the result of muslim extremism and has had few rest periods, in its brief history, between military dictatorships and foreign aggression and has an almost unbroken history of civil war.

[Lief Erikson]

I disagree with some of your facts, but I don't really feel like getting into another history debate right now, so I hope you don't mind if I just don't respond on that. The most important point is that none of what you said contradicts what I said. Extremism does exist in Pakistan and, as you point out quite correctly, it has a history there. That extremism's presence is tied to violence in Pakistan's past, I absolutely agree. Confronting it is also part of the War on Terror, as I was saying. Our claims aren't mutually exclusive.

[durinsbane2244]

....isn't holy war an oxymoron?

[brownjenkins]

I'd say that the inflamation of extremism is a direct result of our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Violence breeds violence.

[Mari]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Violence breeds violence.

Yup, you get what you give, if someone slaps you on your right cheek, etc.

That is way too cliche...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

(It's also not really appropos; that one goes "turn the other cheek", not "slap them back")

isn't holy war an oxymoron?

Yep, just like "War on terror".

[Insidious Rex]

And what gets me is how increasingly hypocritical we look backing Musharraf’s less and less democratic tactics in trying to keep a grip on power in Pakistan because he is “on our side� (despite a truce with the northwest based Al Quaeda hiding extremists that we want to get at…) while railing on about how the most essential thing is to try to bring democracy to the middle east. You could see regime change for the worse in Pakistan because of his tactics (the same could be said for Saudi Arabia for that matter although there is no true Musharraf figure there). And all we need is for Pakistan to become a second Taliban lead Afghanistan.

[durinsbane2244]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Yep, just like "War on terror".

ha! amen.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And all we need is for Pakistan to become a second Taliban lead Afghanistan.

Wait a minute. It's coming.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Violence breeds violence.

Sometimes apathy breeds violence, too ...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Sometimes apathy breeds violence, too ...

I guess the question is, when and where are we right to intervene?

I shudder to think of what would have happened to Europe if the US hadn't waged war on the Axis powers. And I'm not sure that we 'should' have waited for the political certainty that the attack on Pearl Harbour gave us. Certainly thousands died waiting.

But I'm less sure about other wars we've waged. There's a certain point where I think sovereign nations are entitled to be as stupid and wrong in settling their problems as the average loud uncle. We cannot appoint ourselves the only parent in a world of children. That's just not how it is.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

A lot of things breed violence.

[Mari]

[QUOTE=Gwaimir Windgem](It's also not really appropos; that one goes "turn the other cheek", not "slap them back")

Yeah, couldn't really remember the English version. Thanx

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by durinsbane2244

....isn't holy war an oxymoron?

Holiness doesn't exclude violence, it just necessitates dedication and 'religiousness'.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

No. Being religious and being holy are not the same thing. Holiness being compatible with war is iffy under any circumstances, but I think that these days, with the sheer destructive capacity we command, they are essentially mutually exclusive.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Sometimes apathy breeds violence, too ...

Hey, "Keep your nose out of trouble and no trouble will come to you." To quote a very wise hobbit . . . Ted Sandyman . . .

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Well, one could. Or one could point out that Pakistan exists as the result of muslim extremism and has had few rest periods, in its brief history, between military dictatorships and foreign aggression and has an almost unbroken history of civil war.

Foreign aggression? Against whom?

Or do you mean Pakistan has been the aggressee?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I'd say that the inflamation of extremism is a direct result of our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Violence breeds violence.

Iraq, sure.

Afghanistan? I'd say that the violence there (other than the usual tribal violence they've been indulging in for thousands of years) is a direct result of the Russian invasion, which led to the growth of the mujahideen, which led to the warlords, which led to the Taliban, who were sheltering people who actually attacked America, and who refused to give them up.

[Lief Erikson]

One of the problems with democracy in the Middle East is the increasing Islamist success. Even in Turkey, it seems Islamists have made enormous gains now.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe...ons/index.html
I wonder how much of a difference this election will make in the country's policies.