Terrorism is Nobody's Monopoly

#292: yeah. that`s okay.

#293:
agreed.

Raw_Dust,

Allowing others to decide for you is fundamental because otherwise you loose the ehical ground for allowing yourself to decide for others. In no way am I saying that it won`t lead to strife. It will, and one should be prepared to face it. Yes, reforms will be postponed and much worse can happen. You will do what you can do and you should prepare for worse. But you cannot take away the mullahs rights to democratically win elections and legislate. What you can do is to constantly challenge them in whatever way you can, even if it means writing only in chowk. You cannot expect big changes soon. Maybe not in your lifetime, but you got to be patient and fight your frustrations. It is the liberals` Jehad.

Re 290

You are emerging not only as exceedingly prejudiced and one-sided, but also immersed in ignorance your mind conceives to be enlightened knowledge.

Re 288

there is a difference between any irani mulla style democracy for instance and liberal-democracy.

To you, then, there is either Mullah-style democracy or “liberal democracy” and there is nothing in between.

show me any place in the middle east and pakistan where a liberal democratic setup was in place ever.

And that proves “people” of ME and Pakistan do not want “liberal democracy”!

When representatives make a decision by majority, it is considered to be the rule of the majority people who elect them.

But wait, since Pakistan is not liberal democracy, then “people” don’t really matter in Hadood Law decision, do they? Then how come they do not want Hadood Law repealed?

Lastly, yes, I need to know what you mean by “liberal democracy.”

salim chauhan:
difference is not on the logistics of these two different models of democracy but on the essence. A liberal-demoicratic setup endorses that the sovereignty comes from people, irani democracy defines the source of sovereignty as Allah mian. Everything flows from here.

---

pope made quite an intuitive statement in germany:

``The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God`s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God`s will, we would even have to practice idolatry. ``

#288 Raw_Dust {``there is a difference between any irani mulla style democracy for instance and liberal-democracy.``}

Kachhi_Dhool,
Yes there is a difference - but it is nevertheless still democratic. There are fair elections and genuinely competing parties with an orderly transfer of power.

Compared to the illiterate farce of a democracy of Electoral College notoriety, where the man with the fewer popular votes, wins office, Eye Ranian democracy is worthwhile. Now if one says that there is not a wide choice of candidates and only the religious ones get to compete, have you ever scrutinized the two-party twiddle dum and twiddle dee system?

1 - there is a difference between any irani mulla style democracy for instance and liberal-democracy. I dont think you are getting it which is fine.

Pakistani constitution `73 is NOT a framework for a liberal-democracy. Ask me the ``evidence`` again if you dont know what i mean by that. Based on the history of middleeastern democracies (except turkey), my statement stands. I will change it happily if you show me any place in the middle east and pakistan where a liberal democratic setup was in place ever.

2 - When representatives make a decision by majority, it is considered to be the rule of the majority people who elect them.

HE, 277

Hamas shall not accept Israel`s right to exist until the latter accepts a two-state solution with 1967 borders.

Is that your position or is it Hamas’? If it is Hamas, can you refer me to Hamas statement to that effect, or to Hamas charter?


Re 279

For people: i gave you two examples from the elected representatives of pakistan. You are more than welcome to discard them.

First off, you gave one example, of Hadood law, in two articles. I did not see the articles discussing that people of Pakistan do not want democracy.

Ignoring that glaring hole in your argument, if elected representative make a decision (that is, representatives who represent far less than 50% of the voters) then it means to you that “people” of that country are with that minority decision?

``(1.h.) Above all, decide for yourself. Allow others to decide for themselves. It is for this right that the liberal fights.``

Yeah, but sometimes what two people decide as their very own self-actualized truths, might have to do with wreaking havoc on each other then bloodshed starts precisely in the pursuance of (1.h)

Re: # 275
[....Chowk has become more interesting...]

It sure has... people are completing each other`s thoughts and sentences a lot more now...

Re: # 282

Or just send Zeemax with a suicide vest...

mohar:
The Holy See (lol) talking about Islam, i guess in one of those divinely inspired moments:

bavarian interact on islam

#278 Mohar11 {``Yo pakis - I heard the Pope has called Mo[pubh] a bad person who brought violence and bloodshed... What do you guys have to say about that?... ``}

Mohar Bhayya,
This kraut Pope is one girly man. I say we bring back the Pollack. :)

Re: # 269 by godot.

I shall read it. Thanks.

TACTIC:

1. The liberal`s participation in this war:

(1.a.) The individual should decide for herself whether or not there is (will be) a war and if so then between whom. Next she should decide whether, or not, she should participate in this war.

(1.b.) Participating in any war without information and knowledge is stupid. In deciding whether or not to participate in this war, she should try to figure out how much does she know about this war. While books and the internet are valuable sources of information, they are not sufficient. One needs to talk to people - all kinds of people. From one`s parents, children, friends of children, parents of children, friends, colleagues, the grocery store owner, the barber, the cocaine addicted nephew, the local barber, the mullah/rabbi/priest, the estranged friend who joined the KKK/VHP/Jaish etc. Knowledge gained in the process will help you decide whether or not to participate in this war and if so then how.

(1.c.) Given one`s information, one should continuously evaluate one`s participation.

(1.d.) The war is global. One should decide for oneself where (globally/locally) to participate. The net is also to be considered a location. One should be very honest about one`s capability. One should always update on what is feasible. It is better to continue fighting in whatever way possible, than to die and stop fighting. Risky confrontations should be evaluated personally and should be taken if one personally feels that it is worth taking.

(1.e.) The war is (will be) fought in various spheres the most important being social and political. One should honestly evaluate one`s capability in contributing to that sphere where one`s relative advantage lies. Economic contribution is very important. Find out where to contribute, do not ask others.

(1.f.) Never commit to follow leaders or parties (at the least, not blindly). Never join a party that you cannot leave. Strive to become your own leader. If possible try to lead others but always allow for as much dissent as possible and always ensure that you can be replaced. Decentralization is the key. That is the only way that the weak liberals of today can fight its mighty opponents. At present, do not worry about `spies`. There is much more that the liberal can learn from them than they can from her.

(1.g.) Develop courage and confidence in yourself. Do only what you can best do. Do not be scared of ridicule and humiliation. It is okay to be scared of death and violence, everyone is. Do not believe in the glory of death. But be courageous enough to fight (impending) death and violence. To the extent possible fight through non-violent means.

(1.h.) Above all, decide for yourself. Allow others to decide for themselves. It is for this right that the liberal fights.

For people: i gave you two examples from the elected representatives of pakistan. You are more than welcome to discard them.