The Apologists Of Terrorism

[Marbles]

Here is an article showing the likes of Imran Khan and his bearded friends their ugly, hypocritical, contorted faces. Good reason he didn't win the national poll last year, or Pakistan would already have become an emirate with Mullah Omar as its defence minister.

 

To put things in context, a famous journalist Raza Rumi who hosts a talk show on an anti-Taliban TV channel was attacked a couple of days ago for speaking out against Takfiri terrorism and the oppression of minorities. Luckily he survived the attack but his driver was killed.

 

On another occasion, a Christian man accused of blasphemy was sentenced to death by a court. It's the same case in the wake of which a mob came crashing into the Joseph Christian Colony (Lahore) and burned down 100+ houses, reacting nothing but only to hearsay.

 

 

 

By Zarrar Khuhro

 

[The] false equivalence is a popular thing indeed. Take for example, the usual line about there being extremists on both sides of the ideological divide. This gem is trotted out every now and then whenever some right-winger says something particularly egregious and his minions feel the need to distract from it.

 

“Liberal extremists are as intolerant as right-wing extremists” you’ll hear them say. Maybe so, but last I checked there wasn’t a Lashkar-e-Seculari out to kill you if you happened to support the CII. [Council of Islamic Ideology, a pseudo-state organ]

 

On the other hand, speaking out against religious extremists can, and does, get you shot. Right now, such is the poison that has seeped into our collective consciousness that many out there will think Mr Rumi asked for it, and that his driver was just unfortunate collateral damage. You know, like the kind caused by drones.

 

Because if you can’t win an argument, at the very least you can muddy the waters, and there are some very real dragons in these depths.

 

Never doubt that words have power. It’s likely because of the words he spoke and wrote that Raza Rumi was attacked in Lahore last night, an attack that claimed the life of his driver. More words followed; words of condemnation, outrage and a good deal of despair

 

...what all and sundry seem to enjoy is hurling slander, invective and abuse with a sprinkling of death threats. Take, for example, that very popular “dollar khor” line that so many just love to use as an accusation to be hurled at any who may dare criticise the holy of holies.

 

To accuse someone of being in the pay of a foreign power, presumably to the detriment of Pakistan, is to accuse that person of treason. Treason, last time I checked, is punishable by death. Thus, does having such an accusation levelled (by top part leadership at that) amount to incitement to murder? Now, before the trolls sharpen their dull little claws, let’s be clear that the attackers were almost certainly not inspired by such a statement. They almost certainly didn’t get up one morning and say: “Gee, Mr Khan says those writing against him are US agents, why don’t we kill them?” That’s not how it happened.

 

But those who hurl such accusations as easily as they scratch their noses should at least be aware of the implications they are making, though I doubt if deep thinking, or thinking at all, is their forte. They are, however, enablers, and need to recognise themselves as such.

 

Then, of course, there is the counterargument: If someone is called: ‘Taliban Khan’, why can’t he repay with the same coin?

 

What after all, is the difference between labelling one person a Taliban sympathiser and him labelling his opponents US agents? Prima facie, there isn’t much difference. But if you look at consequences, then the difference is huge indeed. Calling someone “Taliban” will not cause a drone strike on his house. Calling someone a “traitorous paid agent” will in all likelihood put him or her on a target list.

 

For example, if you go out and accuse one person of being a terrorist, and another of having committed blasphemy and then wait and see who gets arrested and has his house (or entire colony as the case may be) burnt to the ground. You likely won’t have to wait very long for an answer.

 

Read full HERE

[The Green Knight]

It is interesting to me that both the victims and the terrorist supporting wahaba karaam detest Imran Khan. The wahaba are all for PML-N as its their new banu umayyad clan that oppresses all except their own indiscriminately so that much is understandable. Most Shia were born under a huge poster of Bhutto or Bibi Bhutto and remember her as "Bibi (pak)" and cry for her as much as they cry for those who are cried upon. The Araeen, Rajpoot, Rana clans are all for PML-N too. Seyyeds and Shia sort for PPP. The secular and other for, who knows. So what kind of people voted for IK, I often wonder? The overly optimist among the common people who have no tribes or clans or for-life sort of political party allegiances perhaps? And how come the army and election commission got so prudent, wise and caring for our future, almost as if they could see it, that they not only casted three times more votes than people but also tore PTI votes after sorting them out of ballot boxes. And then they let him win and take KPK. How confusing. Is KPK full of "Taliban"?

 

Personally I say to hell with politics. I'm just amused and curious.