Media: A Catalyst for Social and Political Change

:)

Re: # 20
Well still a model which takes multiple factors into account is more likely to explain things rather than one factor models. Regarding what the through scrutiny will look like in this case, think here factors are also interelated and may even be reinforcing each other so therefore it may be diffcult to isolate the contribution of one factor.

skeptical, what will thorough scrutiny look like in this case or in any other case? In general, we never look for models that explain every case perfectly.

Re: # 18
Well a through scrutiny is needed for estalishment of causation in this matter. My only point is one should avoid giving radical and one track statements-logically at least with out taking account of all empirical findings.

skeptical, when one speaks of multiple causations, one views somethings becoming more or less likely in the presence of other things, both logically and empirically. With that in mind, differences between you and hamdim may be narrowed...

I think they are just putting information and reporting it. They are more sensationalizing everything, rather than educating and creating awareness.

I think only Pakistani English channels are doing some good work.
-Raheel Lakhani

Jayp 15

Just to finally clarify my point of view, when I was talking of jihadism's connection with US I was talking about its origination and the way it was all set up with US money and traning. That is something no one denies. Regarding the notion that Pakistanis do not want that to end I will mainly try to communicate to you the opinion of general Pakistani populace. The general public is against using kind of force which involves large loss of innocent life. Let me narrate an incidence here. Some time ago when Richard Boucher was about to come to Pakistan, Pakistani Government in order to show "performance" flew F 16 targeted a building without even proper verification. Not surprisingly the building contained refugees entirely consisting of women and children. 80 people died and Government was on a back foot. That is why Pakistanis are against the kind of operation which is going on. Mind you that even during the British days was lawless and does not even come under Pakistan in a complete manner. Using blind brutal force irrespective of its merits will lead to some reaction from the public. I think reaction is thus understandable though you can argue whether it is justified or not.
Regarding Sovereignty, well every country wants it and cherishes it. I remember when Gujrat riots happened and there was international condemnation, Indian government said it was their internal issue. Now how can you expect Pakistan to be an exception when the expectation from USA is far more severe?
More over you pointed out that USA’s money was just one factor and the other was Pakistan/Islam. Since you have rather arrogantly given advice to the author in your first post that he should read and learn from your posts, being of far lesser intellectual calibre than you, I will humbly request you to read my post with open mind or rather open eyes not to learn from it but to merely see what I am saying. Read the first line of my first post. It acknowledges that Jihadism is a combination of USA and Pakistan. Than kindly see also that I have acknowledged that you are partly right but at the same time pointed out that it is just one piece of the puzzle. Social phenomenon are complicated affairs devoid of certainty that natural sciences have. That is why one has to be sceptical.
I have nothing more to add.

skeptical 3

Pakistanis have to stop blaming the americans for the jihadis. Fine they provided the money earlier, and the pakistanis produced the jihadis. Now they are providing money again to kill the jihadis and the pakistanis do not want to do that. Now they are telling, no muslims cannot kill muslims, they do not want the americans to bomb the jihadis because it is a soverignity issue.

The fact is that when the americans asked the pakis to produce the jihadis, it was interpreted as consistant with the islamic tradition, especially that pakistan was created for muslims.

So the american money was only one factor, and the other was islam. If it is all due to the american insistance, why are the pakis not finishing of the jihadis. A few carpet bom,bing like the tora bora type will end the mystic of teh tribal fighters dating back to teh alexander.

Re: # 12

GT,

... that's why i always quote the greatest sage of the twentieth century - rodney king : "people, can't we all just get along?"

.. i am convinced that once zeemax and i manage to get along on chowk and euthanisia has been legalized to put romair out of his misery, peace will rule the planet ...... this is where it all starts ...

Re: # 12
Thats good may be we are able to introduce moderation at chowk which should be the case as the site claims "unflinching idealism" since 1997

#11 Posted by Skeptical:

I have been saying things similar to what you are saying for more than a year now. It is therefore nice to have you around.

Most people have polar views. All the more reason for us to keep on yapping :)

Re: # 10
Thanks but seeing the nature of their rather extreme views I wont take the risk!! Wesay bhee both of them are to certain extent right- I am only saying that social phenonemon has multiple causes and therefore taking these polar views will not be that much helpful.

Engineering approach (a la hamid):

1. As a proportion, red coloured cars crash more often. So getting rid of the colour red will cause fewer crashes.

2. Most pedesterian killings take place on zebra crossings. So getting rid of zebra crossings will reduce the number of pedesterian deaths.

Skeptical:

Please do not stop interacting with hamid and masadi ... they are bright like you.

OK if thats your take fine!!!!
So can I also conclude that since violence has been done by lets say Tamil rebels-it means that all tamils are terrorists or merely being Tamil makes one vulnerable to terrorism!!!Or what if I say that geneocide happened in India at the time of paritition was because hinduism and Islam are both terrorist idelogies!!!!After all Hindus were also involved!!!! No I wont subscribe to that view and wont say that being a hindu at that time was the sole cause of genocide!!

Engineering logic to social phenonmenon!!!
Ok fine I wont add any more to it you are perfectly entitled to your opinions

Re: # 7

skeptical,

... i take an engineering approach to this: if everyone who drove a certain type of car got into a crash, what would you say ?... is it the fault of the driver or the car? ..... muslims are innocent - islam is the real culprit ..... unfortunately, i don't have a solution because, unlike any decent automobile manufacturer, al-lah mian is not willing to recall his product ........ so, we will keep on crashing cars and killing people until the drivers figure it out by themselves that there is something wrong with their vehicle ......

I am keeping an open mind here. The thing is that the way religion becomes one of the dividing lines rather than ethnicity. Ata, tamil etc are different in ethnic composition from the country where they are operating. I can also conveniently conclude that ethnic diversity itself is root cause of terrorism? Now is it? So lets have a single master race- you know like Nazis!!!! and do away with ethnic diversity. Will I be making a correct point my friend?
I do not totally disagree with you- all I am saying is that a phenomenon gathers force under certain conditions. Ideology of course provides the rationality to extreme actions but the militant element comes up and gathers force under particular circumstances. The problem is that you are thinking that I am totally disagreeing with you-I am only asking to be more sceptic After all what’s the difference than between you and lets say masadi (who thinks every thing is done by US elite!!!)