Pakistan: "Suicide attacks an attempt to defame Islam"

So this explains it all. Now that the pesky Moose Sheriff is out we can all relax. Mooseie was the whole problem all along. Excellent

This "suicide bombers" -- fanatical Muslims -- actually intend to "defame Islam" is of a ludicrous piece with those in the West, from Jim "Hiraba-not-Jihad" Guirard to P. W. Sinnger and his native informant Elina Noor, who think that the best way to make sense of, and deal with Jihad, is never ever to mention the word "Jihad" or to suggest to Infidels that just possibly the problem, East and West, flows naturally from the texts, and tenets, of Islam, and that it is silly to keep denying this.

It is understandable -- just -- why Muslims such as this Pakistani minister find themselves tied in intellecutal knots, and end up claiming that people whose entire existence is fidelity to Islam are intent on "defaming" Islam. It is not understandable why anyone sensible in the West would continue to listen to the singers-and-noors, and guirards, and think that if only we continue to play the game of let's pretend, and ignore the textual and ideological basis for the war on Infidels, and on Muslims deemed to be handmaidens of Infidels because they are insufficiently fanatical in their faith, that this will be helpful for Infidels.

Given the continued confusion, the willingness to believe the absurd, and the readiness to squander resources for policies based on an unwillingness, or incapacity, to think logically about the best ways to weaken the Camp of Islam -- see that little affair in Tarbaby Iraq, now costing more than two trillion dollars, 4,200 American lives, where hopes and dreams are lavished on the possibility of an outcome that is simply not possible (that Sunnis will acquiesce in the new order, that Shi'a will exhibit a spirit of sweet reason and comrpomise) and that, in any case, is exactly the wrong outcome if one wishes, as one should, to exploit the pre-existing sectarian and ethnic conflicts within Iraq, and the larger world of Islam).

Those insufficiently imaginative, as to what may come, and as to the various ways one might avoid it, are found even -- so one hears -- in some of the security services in Western Europe. And these people are panicked, they don't know what to do about the many Muslims in their midst, feel that it is not possible to talk straight about Islam, so that even those whose duty it is to protect the Infidels do not dare level with those same Infidels, for fear of exciting reactions -- whether of despair or violence -- that cannot be gauged or controlled. And so Islam's nature, its essence, its meaning, and its menace, continue to be hidden from widespread view, sometimes at the behest of security services run by the insufficiently inteligent, imaginative, and cunning.

A fantastic situation.

to purge the society from cancer of extremism and restore true image of Islam through collective efforts

Now what would the true image without extremeism look like? Slower bombs?

restore true image of Islam"

actually the islamists are showing the world the real image of islam, black death cult such as to make the Aztecs look like little old lady Baptists.

"... the government is making efforts to purge the society from [the] cancer of extremism and restore [the] true image of Islam...."

Sorry, can't be done. It's trying to do two opposite things at the same time; like picking up a chair while still sitting in it. Let's face it: Islam is the cancer on society, and extremism is Islam's true image.

"Suicide attacks are an attempt to defame Islam"

Quick! Get this guy on a conference call with Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, etc. He needs to explain to all of them that the policy they have been following for three decades is all wrong.

The first suicide car bombs on US and French peacekeepers in Lebanon were nothing but "an attempt to defame Islam"?

I guess being Muslim means that common sense and logic are not necessary and that the Koran and Hadith can be anything you want them to be. Anything is possible. Black is white. Up is down. Inside is outside. Words don't mean what they say. And here I thought that deconstructionist approaches were invented by Western literary professors when in fact Islam pioneered them centuries ago. Hey, live and learn.

Islam is like the 'Portrait of Dorean Gray', where the outward appearance stayed holy, while the black deeds were reflected in the picture behind the curtain. In this case the curtain of taqiyya. In the end, ugly restored it's rightful place. There really is no difference between the real Islam, and the realer one behind the curtain.
Don't forget, it turned out the 'Wizard of Oz', was a fake...

There really is no difference between the real Islam, and the realer one behind the curtain.
Don't forget, it turned out the 'Wizard of Oz', was a fake...

Posted by: duh_swami

But there was a mammoth difference between the wizard and the man behind the curtain. The first was a figment of light, the second was a kindly old man (in the movie, anyway). Once revealed, by the little DOG, he fessed up.
Only the most deluded of people would say that Islam's bark is worse than its bite.

An advisor to the prime minister says suicide attacks are an "attempt to defame Islam" while a Pakistani lawmaker says honor killings are "centuries-old traditions" that deserve to be defended. "Only those who indulge in immoral acts should be afraid."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3589703,00.html

A Pakistani lawmaker defended a decision by southwestern tribesmen to bury five women alive because they wanted to choose their own husbands, telling stunned members of Parliament this week to spare him their outrage.

"These are centuries-old traditions and I will continue to defend them," Israr Ullah Zehri, who represents Baluchistan province, said Saturday. "Only those who indulge in immoral acts should be afraid." The women, three of whom were teenagers, were first shot and then thrown into a ditch.

They were still breathing as their bodies were covered with rocks and mud, according media reports and human rights activists, who said their only "crime" was that they wished to marry men of their own choosing Zehri told a packed and flabbergasted parliament on Friday that Baluch tribal traditions helped stop obscenity and then asked fellow lawmakers not to make a big fuss about it.

great site! glad i found it.

Gee, I'm so glad he didn't blame the Jooozzz...

Pakistan is certainly looking unstable.

The Sunday Telgraph reports that the Pakistan city of Peshawar may fall to the Taliban.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/2650734/Pakistani-city-of-Peshawar-could-fall-to-Taliban-as-fear-and-attacks-grow.html

Also interesting editorial on upcoming Dispatches 'Undercover mosque'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2653266/Preachers-of-separatism-at-work-inside-Britains-mosques.html

I think we should have bombed Pakistan instead of Iraq to eradicate terrorism. If I recall correctly, Butto was real instrumental in radicalizing Pakistan. She was so supporting Talibans. I believe we gonne end up in a war with Pakiland within next ten years. That is inevitable.

I think we should have bombed Pakistan instead of Iraq to eradicate terrorism. If I recall correctly, Butto was real instrumental in radicalizing Pakistan."
-- from a posting above

There is no possibility of "eradicating terrorism." It will continue as long as there are Believers who take their Islam seriously. But it is possible to diminish the harm that would-be terrorists can do. Muslim states and peoples can be prevented from acquiring certain kinds of weaponry. The Muslim presence in the West can be steadily, inexorably diminished. And finally, the same kind of deterrence that worked during the Cold War needs to be employed, for some, if not all, will be deterred, if it is clear that Muslim interests world-wide, Muslim populations within the West, for example, will bear the consequences if there are further terrorist attacks. The failure to speak openly about the kinds of measures that might need to be taken, allows Muslims to think there is no penalty to be paid, save that to be paid only by those Muslims directly participating in a particular act of terrorism. That is folly.

Warfare is always about large masses of people. Modern warfare involves inflicting pain on an enemy, an enemy defined broadly. We did not carefully avoid bombing Tokyo and Berlin because there may have been those who did not support Tojo or Hitler, Kodo or Nazism. A la guerre comme a la guerre. We did not threaten members of the Politburo alone, or members of the Comintern, or members of the Communist Party alone. We threatened the entire Soviet Union. It should be the same with the Camp of Islam. Those who fund the Jihad, or provide diplomatic, economic, or even moral support, should be regarded as we regarded, during World War II, people in German and Japanese cities. And deterrence needs to be discussed. If it is clear that the position of Islam in the West will be severely, even permanently damaged, that will make Muslims world-wide think twice about more terrorist attacks. That won't end the Jihad that is furthered by deployment of the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest (these instruments of Jihad have to be recognized, and vigilantly monitored, and cleverly countered.) But such actions, or threats of actions, against world-wide Muslim interests, will cut down on Muslim terrorism, and force Muslims in the West, who have been so abysmal in their aid to Infidel authorities, to change their behavior, and change -- out of self-interest and a sense of alarm - their tune. A change in tune should fool no one. A change in behavior should be pocketed, grimly, for it should have been exhibited long ago.

As to the role of Bhutto, she was not the one who "radicalized" Pakistan. Pakistan radicalized itself. It was in the nature of Islam, and the "radicalization" proceeds steadily, and slowl, from 1948 on. But if one despot were to be blamed for the Return of Islam, it would be General Zia ul-Haq. Members of the Pakistani jeunesse doree, the children of the generals and zamindars and their richest hangers-on, like to tell their Middlesex or Yale roommates how wonderful and tolerant Pakistan used to be, until Zia ul-Haq came along. It's not true, it's a great exaggeration that is altogether too comforting, but it is true that Zia ul-Haq speeded up the deepening fanaticism in Pakistan, though it would have come, sooner or later, had he never existed.

Remember:

Its only a 'tiny minority of extremists' and the Islamists got only a 'tiny percentage of the vote' at the last election...!

IMO it is better that an enemy pretending to be a friend becomes a declared enemy. Maybe the gloves will come off.

One should note that General Zia ul-Huq, mentioned by Hugh above, thought very highly of General S K Malik's The Quranic Concept of War, and indeed contributed to its Introduction.

I quote, from the review of that book by Lt Joseph C Myers

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/06winter/win-ess.htm

"Zia-Ul-Haq (1924-88), the former President of Pakistan and Pakistani Army Chief of Staff, opens the book by focusing on the concept of jihad within Islam and explaining it is not simply the domain of the military:

'- Jehad fi sabilallah is not the exclusive domain of the professional soldier, nor is it restricted to the application of military force alone.

'- This book brings out with simplicity, clarity and precision the Quranic philosophy on the application of military force within the context of the totality that is JEHAD. The professional soldier in a Muslim army, pursuing the goals of a Muslim state, cannot become ‘professional’ if in all his activities he does not take the ‘colour of Allah,’
'- The nonmilitary citizen of a Muslin state must, likewise, be aware of the kind of soldier that his country must produce and the only pattern of war that his country’s armed forces may wage.'

"General Zia states that all Muslims play a role in jihad, a mainstream concept of the Quran, that jihad in terms of warfare is a collective responsibility of the Muslim ummah, and is not restricted to soldiers.

"General Zia emphasizes how the concept of Islamic military professionalism requires “godly character” in order to be fully achieved. Zia then endorses Malik’s thesis as the “only pattern of war,” or approach to war that an Islamic state may wage."

As to the role of Bhutto, she was not the one who "radicalized" Pakistan. Pakistan radicalized itself. It was in the nature of Islam, and the "radicalization" proceeds steadily, and slowl, from 1948 on. But if one despot were to be blamed for the Return of Islam, it would be General Zia ul-Haq. Members of the Pakistani jeunesse doree, the children of the generals and zamindars and their richest hangers-on, like to tell their Middlesex or Yale roommates how wonderful and tolerant Pakistan used to be, until Zia ul-Haq came along. It's not true, it's a great exaggeration that is altogether too comforting, but it is true that Zia ul-Haq speeded up the deepening fanaticism in Pakistan, though it would have come, sooner or later, had he never existed.
Posted by: Hugh at August 31, 2008 6:06 PM

MusHuntCowboy is right - while Gen Zia did re-open the doors for Hudood laws, his policy on Afghanistan was actually more moderate than Bhutto. Zia backed a Pashtun warlord Gulbuddin Heqmatiyar, a Jihadi in his own right, but after Benazir came to power, she was so intent on destroying everything that Zia had done (since Zia had executed her father) that she decided to have her ISI chief Nasiruddin Babur create the Taliban. That's what riles me about everyone who claims Bhutto was a moderate - her policies on both Afghanistan and Kashmir betrays her pretentions to that effect.

Why blow yourself up to defame Islam? All you have to do is draw a few cartoons and the world will erupt before your eyes.