West vs. "Muslim World"--lets discuss the obvious

[Bhaktajan II]

bhaktjan stated "muslim extremist are totally uneducated"

1. By "Un-educated" I was specifically referring to/What I stated:
". . . how western History/Society had lived through 100's of generations while under the thumb of successive Theo-cratic governments." [Post52].

The west fought for civil rights for the common man ---whilst the aristocracy or Weathly or elite ruling classes allowed for the labor-work-force sectors of society to be under-represented.

The west fought for civil rights & liberties of their fellow man.

STEP UP.

Chip on MY Shoulder ---Yeah! That's right! I got a chip I my shoulder and it shows. Quite noticable? Maybe it's the false-ego in me?

What OTHER KIND OF EDUCATION are you possibly referring to or think I was referring to?? Cooking Schools turn out "Educated" students al the time ---but such education is relative to making a living.

I was referring to the under-estimation of the Common Ethos of Western Society ---not Tabloid, pop-art, daily commuter-worker's concerns.

All aggressors assume wrongly that the intended victim is un-prepared, unknowing of the attackers High-Stake Self-proclaimed Greed.

The western ethos is not like those Incas & Mayans that were conquered by the Spanish Conquistadors.

The western ethos has repeatedly asserted its dominance and to presume that this status quo might be made to change is what i Stated as "un-educated".

 

[Dogbrain]

Thank you for joining in the discussion .... surely what you mean is they are run by people who do not go along with Western ideology?

So you admit that you support state-sponsored religious intolerance. That explains everything.

Perhaps that is why God told Bush to invade Iraq? Cough, cough.

Ah, yes, typical of the smooth-talking political extremist--when cornered, attack GW Bush.

Here, let me help you: GW Bush was an idiot and it was completely wrong to invade Iraq. It was a barbaric act. It was a horribly theocratic act that verged on state sponsorship of religion. Indeed, it PROVES MY POINT! State sponsorship of religion is EVIL, ABSOLUTELY EVIL. It is evil NO MATTER WHICH GOVERNMENT DOES IT.

Barbaric acts taken by Western nations DO NOT MAKE BARBARISM OF MUSLIM NATIONS ANY LESS BARBARIC--unless you subscribe to the stupid, childish, and very Al-Qaeda-ish approach of "your sins justify our sins" philosphy.

 

[Muslimwoman]

The west fought for civil rights & liberties of their fellow man.

The western ethos has repeatedly asserted its dominance and to presume that this status quo might be made to change is what i Stated as "un-educated".

Perhaps you need to check out some other history books because the ones I have show that my very small little island country ruled half of the world until very recently and it did it by force, not through civil rights.

Since it has gone on it's little civil rights trip it has legislated into such a corner that we cannot legally deport a terrorist because the Pakistani police might beat him up .... we now care more for the individual than society. If you call that progress ... I disagree.

So you admit that you support state-sponsored religious intolerance. That explains everything.

Oh dear, my bad. I thought you were actually trying to engage in debate, silly me.

 

[Dogbrain]

=
Oh dear, my bad. I thought you were actually trying to engage in debate, silly me.

In other words, when your fundamental religious intolerance and support of vile, evil, perverse, and disgusting practices like government sponsorship of religion comes to light, you sniff and pretend to injured dignity.

 

[Muslimwoman]

In other words, when your fundamental religious intolerance and support of vile, evil, perverse, and disgusting practices like government sponsorship of religion comes to light, you sniff and pretend to injured dignity.

injured dignity ... don't be silly. I am here to discuss and try to find middle ground between civilisations who are currently both spoiling for a fight. You are demonstrating that you are not here to discuss but to bark and growl your biggoted views. Personally I have better things to do.

 

[Dogbrain]

injured dignity ... don't be silly. I am here to discuss and try to find middle ground between civilisations who are currently both spoiling for a fight. You are demonstrating that you are not here to discuss but to bark and growl your biggoted views. Personally I have better things to do.

Your love of tyranny has been exposed. Prove me wrong: Is it evil for a government to sponsor a specific religion, yes or no?

If your answer is "no", then you love tyranny.

 

[farhan]

Do you know what motivates or what ideology the second group who like going round bombing things?

There are two theories around.

The first one. Unlike the western media BS, Pakistanis were very happy with Afghan Taliban, for the first time since 47 pakistan's western borders were safe (Before that there has always been an anti-pak govt in Kabul who supported separatist movements). Pakistan Taliban (called TTP) emerged after US started drone attacks in Pakistani territories, that have killed somewhere around 1000-2000 innocent people since 2004. These people in the beginning only wanted revenge for this mass-murder (a thing thats very common among Pashtuns), but since pak govt was siding with the US (They had no other choice anyways), they started killing Pakistani people to make some noise. Add the Red mosque incident to that, which killed some 500 innocent girls. Add some huge economic injustices to that. Add some misguided religiosity to that.

The second one. People who are too poor to live are being funded and trained by the western & indian agencies, to destabilize Pakisan. Thanks to these Pakistani economy is doomed (40 billion dollor loss according to govt estimates since the begining of US war on whatever), which causes Pakistan to be in constant need for loans. An easy way to subjugate people forever.

Both theories arnt necessarily mutually exclusive. They can both work with one another. Which is what I believe.

 

[Muslimwoman]

The first one. Unlike the western media BS, Pakistanis were very happy with Afghan Taliban,

Salam Farhan, thank you for your insightful answer.

At this time were women in Pakistan subject to the same bans as they were in Afghanstan (working, education, travel, etc and having to wear burqa)? Did Afghan Taliban rule spill over the border in such ways?

 

[farhan]

At this time were women in Pakistan subject to the same bans as they were in Afghanstan (working, education, travel, etc and having to wear burqa)? Did Afghan Taliban rule spill over the border in such ways?

Pakistan is atleast 5 different nations, all of them having their own culture. Cosmopolitan cities like other cosmopolitan cities, have their own cultures. More rural areas follow their own traditions. Women in Pakistan have never been banned from working, education or travel officially. But as I said before rural areas follow their own traditions, with or without taliban. In the Pashtun tribal belt, women lived as they lived in Afghanistan. In more urbanized Pashtun regions women were more free.

Although Taliban used to freely move around in Pakistan, the taliban rule didnt spill over into Pakistan. Mulla Omar has been on the record saying whatever happens in Pakistan is Pakistan's headache, I am more interested in my country.

Although Pak govt did use the religious fervor in Kashmir, & according to Chinese some unconfirmed connections between taliban & Xinjian separatists had emerged.