• Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Pakistani rallies for peace

    by Rumbold
    5th January, 2011 at 8:03 am    

    Pakistan often gets a bad press. If a country was defined by media coverage, then Pakistan would be solely a land of terrorism and violence, punctuated by frequent coups, rigged elections and natural disasters. Yet the vast majority of Pakistanis reject terrorism and Taliban style government, judging by the lack of votes won by such parties in Pakistan’s history. Understandably, terrorist attacks and communal violence make headlines more regularly than an opposition to terrorism and communal violence. That is why it was heartening to see such strong support for rallies throughout Pakistan in favour of peace and an end to state and non-state repression and violence:

    The rallies took place across 108 Pakistani cities and towns.

    It brings to mind the old adage that Pakistan is a “moderate country held hostage by extremists.” Given the murder of the governor of the Punjab, a leading moderate, recently, these rallies are needed more than ever.

    (Via Rezwan at Global Voices)

                  Post to del.icio.us

    Filed in: Pakistan,Terrorism

    147 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. Bob Connors

      Pakistani rallies for peace: Pakistan often gets a bad press. If a country was defined by media covera… http://bit.ly/icXESA #homeland

    2. sunny hundal

      Blogged: : Pakistani rallies for peace http://bit.ly/ghYvft

    3. Andy Bean

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Pakistani rallies for peace http://bit.ly/ghYvft

    4. Ira

      RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : Pakistani rallies for peace http://bit.ly/ghYvft

    5. Pickled Politics » Pakistani rallies for peace | Pakistan Realtor

      [...] posted here: Pickled Politics » Pakistani rallies for peace This entry was posted in Media and tagged frequent-coups, media, often-gets, rigged-elections. [...]

    6. earwicga

      RT @sunny_hundal: New Blogpost: Pakistani rallies for peace http://bit.ly/ghYvft

    1. platinum786 — on 5th January, 2011 at 10:21 am  

      Not too many will shed a tear for Salman Taseer, Pakistani politicians have got to a point of corruption and abuse of power, that people are finding it hard to even empathise. You’ll find more tears shed for the fact an assassination occurred, rather than he who was assassinated. Everyone has their supporters and cheer leaders, I’m sure they’ll be present in numbers for the funeral.

      Pakistani society is really fed up. I participate on a Pakistani forum, not one full of regular people, it’s more military orientated, but even then when discussing political or social issues, you can see the huge frustration people have. They want to live a normal life in a normal country, but they only seem to get bad news.

      Corruption, terrorist attacks, Drone Strikes, inflation, it’s hard to find something to smile about if you are Pakistani, and it has been for a while.

      Mr Taseer presented himself as a liberal, he was socially speaking, he holidays in Europe and liked a drink. But look at these peoples political actions and activities. They’re all prima donnas, the are corrupt, they behave in a dictatorial manner, they abuse the system and anyone else they want. If you find nobody really all that bothered that he was killed by an assassin, it’s not because we’re extremists, it’s because of who was killed.

    2. earwicga — on 5th January, 2011 at 11:19 am  

      platinum786 - you are saying Salman Taseer was corrupt because of the belief that all politicians/Pakistani politicians are corrupt, yes?

    3. Sofia — on 5th January, 2011 at 11:45 am  

      I think people are bothered by the assassination. I didn’t personally like his politics or all his views, but it is crazy how murdering a politician is the only way people seem to think they can get their point across! As for the reason he was killed, it was not just because of his ‘corruption’ it was his stance on the blasphemy laws which apparently made him a valid target.

    4. Kisan — on 5th January, 2011 at 1:23 pm  

      His assassination was totally to do with the blasphemy laws and F all to do with corruption.

      Comment #1 reminds us that there are many many supporters of this type of killing for Islam even hanging out here to justify this atrocity.
      Oh and #1, yes you are extremists.

      I wrote an article that looks into the background and origin of killing for blasphemy that was kindly published here:


    5. platinum786 — on 5th January, 2011 at 1:54 pm  

      earwigca, most of Pakistan is corrupt, the politicians are just the tip of the iceberg.

      Sofia, I agree that people are bothered by his assassination, but not because Salman Taseer is dead, but because an assassination took place and a person died.

      I never meant for anyone to think he was killed due to corruption. Unfortunately not. He was killed, as his assassin admitted himself,, due to his stance on a certain Blasphemy case.

      Things are teetering on the edge in Pakistan. This is not the only time we’ll see vigilante action in Pakistan. Several cases were reported last year were neighborhoods chased down and shot dead robbers. There was the case of the two Sialkoti brothers who were killed by a massive mob.

      I don’t care about a dead politician, in Pakistan, a good politician is a dead one, for +90% of cases. The problem is the system is about to crumble.

      Qadri was not an Al Queda extremists, Qadri was a member of Dawati Islami, it’s a group with sufi origins, they do mostly charity and missionary work. It’s completely non violent. Qadri wasn’t a bum, he was a professional, an elite police officer, he was well paid, had a wife and kids, lived in a nice part of Lahore.

      When those kinds of people are taking up guns and shooting people dead, you have to worry big time. If you watch the Pakistani news channels on sky TV, you’ll note a lot of grief, morning, but also a lot of “buts”.

    6. Dr Paul — on 5th January, 2011 at 2:25 pm  

      If Taseer was as corrupt as Platinum786 suggested, then it makes it much easier for the hard-line religious types to promote the idea that calls for modernity and secularism and opposition to the blasphemy laws are nothing but part of the quest for the rich to rip off the poor.

      I support moves to challenge religious privilege and to champion women’s rights in Pakistan, but such calls have to be part of a broader campaign for social equality if they are to be able to gain mass support.

    7. damon — on 5th January, 2011 at 3:27 pm  

      Good point by Dr Paul. It’s all very well for the wealthy middle class to be more liberal, but do they do anything for the people in feudal poverty?
      I’m guessing that the most liberal people are the educated children of the wealthy elite, who are all for women’s rights and against the blasphemy law, but still like to travel separated from the poor in air conditioned seclusion in first class.

    8. Andrew — on 5th January, 2011 at 3:37 pm  

      It’s worrying that the ‘moderate’ Brelvi’s main organisation supports this killing:


      The majority of Asian Muslims in Britain are Brelvi. I wonder what their position is?

    9. platinum786 — on 5th January, 2011 at 3:49 pm  

      That stance is a political move by the Sunni-Tehreek. Asia Bibi is a christian woman who was accused of blasphemy by some women who had an argument against her. The case was taken to Court and she was sentenced her to death. Under international pressure, their were suggestions she would get a presidential pardon. To seem unswayed by external influence is a great vote winner in Pakistan right now, hence the Sunni Tehreek and other Islamic parties have protested against any such move.

      Salman Taseer supported her pardon. Most people accept that the blasphemy law is abused in Pakistan, however most people want the course of justice to take place, she can appeal in the high court, or then even in the supreme court, the presidential pardon so early in the judicial process, is seen as foreign interference. 2000 people in Pakistan were killed by drone strikes, foreign drone strikes. International opinion is not popular right now.

      Dr Paul is right. The problem is in Pakistan, there is a very limited middle class, your either poor, or incredibly rich. Those incredibly rich, are fuedal lords etc, and they are the same people who form government.

    10. Kisan — on 5th January, 2011 at 3:50 pm  

      #7, possibly unfortunately a large number may well like poster #1 support this butchery.

      #1, it is because you are an extremist that you are supporting this and slandering the victim.

      But then even Jinnah took the case of a murderer (ghazi ilm-ud-din shaheed - note the honorific titles he has due to his actions) of a blasphemer for free charging not a single paisa at the request of your national poet Allama Iqbal so it is a somewhat mainstream position to support in Pakistan.

    11. jim jepps — on 5th January, 2011 at 5:43 pm  

      Platinum “I never meant for anyone to think he was killed due to corruption. Unfortunately not.”

      “I don’t care about a dead politician, in Pakistan, a good politician is a dead one, for +90% of cases.”

      Personally I’m not very impressed by this response. It’s impossible to have a democracy where people are murdered for their political views - and those who advocated this man’s death were the down the line enemies of an open democracy with freedom of religion, thought and speech.

      The first response to this should not be to distance yourself from the victim, but to recognise the social harm this assasination does to Pakistan.

      Damon says “It’s all very well for the wealthy middle class to be more liberal, but do they do anything for the people in feudal poverty?”

      Well, those who are the victims of the blasphemy laws and religious persecution are overwhelmingly the poor - and improving that situation, whether carried out by the rich or poor - is to be welcomed.

    12. Don — on 5th January, 2011 at 7:20 pm  

      I am not surprised by Platinum’s comments. He has consistently shown a lack of empathy and a casual disregard for the deaths of those outside his own little coterie.

      I only learned about Salman Taseer a few days ago, when he defied the rightists and fanatics. I have no idea about his business dealings but Pakistan has lost a man of courage who was willing to stand up for the rights of others, knowing full well the risks.

      Such people are always in short supply and I suspect that, more than most places, Pakistan can ill afford such a loss.

    13. jeev123 — on 5th January, 2011 at 10:06 pm  

      I don’t doubt that there are those within Pakistan who wanted genuine peace and a stable foundation within to raise their families and live their lives; but the fact is you can’t justify the man’s killing because he was a ‘liberal’.

      The fact is, as with I’m sure other countries, if you have a country based on religion and religious law; by that very definition you are excluding people - seperation of Church and State is just as essential today as it was any other time in history .A blaspheme law in itself is completely tyrannical - you disagree with something therefore you’re a criminal. The fact is he stood for religious freedom (something I’ve found the Islamic community of Europe to be VERY vocal about) and yet whilst people did support this man; a fair few people saw him as ‘infidelic’ and a ‘traitor’ to Islam for not supporting a blasphemy law. Regardless of corruption or not religious freedom should be a political right and freedom not to believe in a religion is covered under that. His own bodyguard, someone who has obviously spend much time in close quarters with him, found his defence of this particular right to be the boundary.

      I would hope many would mourn; perhaps not for the corruption of man but for his vocality in asserting basic political rights and trying to push Pakistan towards a freer future.

    14. platinum786 — on 6th January, 2011 at 8:59 am  

      Jim, I don’t think you know enough about the Pakistani political class to understand why people distance themselves from them.

      Here is a video of a Pakistani politician, on TV, declaring that corruption is a right of the government.


      Here it is reported in English…


      A government Minister expressed those views. Salman Taseer like him, was a multi millionare. They’re not the only ones, but they are so comfortable with it, now they can declare it on national TV. There was no uproar in Parliament, no investigation. It’s a matter of fact.

      In Pakistan, a country where the average day labourer earns Rs 200 a day, petrol costs 80Rs a litre. Sugar costs over 100Rs a kilo currently, that’s nearly the same price we buy it at in the UK (£1 is 133Rs).

      In these conditions, how can you expect the general populous to really care about politicians?

    15. joe90 — on 6th January, 2011 at 10:39 am  

      The killing of salman taseer was a reaction to pak government losing it’s majority this week with mqm group leaving coalition. The opponents in punjab seizing on opportunity to weaken the gov with this killing putting the ruling PPP on even more shaky ground.

      The coverage of mr taseer by the media is one sided in my view, portraying him as a mother teresa type liberal champion. In punjab he was the right hand man of president asif zardari probably the most corrupt individual alive today. You cannot be an associate of asif zardari and not be corrupt yourself it come’s with the territory.

      Having said that i would not wish a death like that on individuals like mr taseer. I would prefer the corrupt political class to be bought to trial and do hard time in prison where they belong.

    16. Kisan — on 6th January, 2011 at 2:20 pm  

      #14 & #15 are both Islamic fanatics who rejoice in this killing.

      Taseer is a hero who put his life in danger to help a hapless woman facing death for no real crime.

      This killing makes very clear the ugly face of Islamic fanaticism but we have apologists for it trying to slur its victim.

    17. platinum786 — on 6th January, 2011 at 2:45 pm  

      Yes that right, we need an Indian to give expert opinion on Pakistan since all us Pakistani’s who don’t agree with you are terrorists.

    18. Kisan — on 6th January, 2011 at 4:53 pm  


      Play the race card why don’t you.

      People like you and Joe certainly are in the terrorist mould.

      Pakistan lost one less non-terrorist at the hands of one of your fellow fanatics and you join the jihad by smearing the man.

      Stick with the Zaid Hamid videos and your military forum where you can share cute banter like this:

      Good riddance to this enemy of the Prophet (pbuh), Islam and Pakistan.

      Several sections of Pakistan’s Criminal Code comprise its blasphemy laws.[4] § 295 forbids damaging or defiling a place of worship or a sacred object. § 295-A forbids outraging religious feelings. § 295-B forbids defiling the Quran. § 295-C forbids defaming Muhammad (saw).

      This guy wanted to abolish all that

      Jan 4 2011, 08:04 AM
      Well, reason or no reason, a dead politician is a good politician.

      Asian Union
      Jan 4 2011, 11:57 AM
      GREAT KILL !!!!

      All current Politicians, Bureaucrats, Rulers, Army looters and corrupts MUST SEE what SALMAN TASEER (A RICH CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT) took with him after his DEATH - NOTHING…ALL Empty Hands !!!

      Stop looting and destoying Pakistan Greedy Pakistanis !

      I agree a Good Politician is a Dead politician!!!

      Good Riddance of a womaniser, drunk Terrorist !!!

      A little further down another Islamic fanatic posts the obligatory photos of Salman around wine and his daughters in short skirts to further justify the kill.


      Yes Mr786 you are most certainly extremists.

    19. earwicga — on 6th January, 2011 at 6:09 pm  

      Kisan - the thread doesn’t read that platinum786 is a crazed extremist. It is available for all to read. Interesting you didn’t choose to quote this from platinum786

      I’m torn morally with these kinds of actions.

      It’s not right that 1 person takes the law into their own hands and commits murder. What kind of precedent does it set? These actions are acceptable only in failed states/societies.

      On the other hand, we no longer have Salman Taseer robbing the country, that’s a major positive.

      The assassin is no hero as far as i am concerned. Thanks, but not in my name. Does the end always justify the means? I don’t think so. On the other hand, if I had witnessed this murder, I wouldn’t have told anyone anything.

    20. egg@derby — on 6th January, 2011 at 6:20 pm  


      If you trawl the archives on here you will see posts by platinum786 from the PDF forum comparing jews to cockroaches, mocking “Kike” memorial day and calling Hindus “Bhindi rats”.Also on desimalai he’s quite fond of calling black people “Niggers”.

      He might not be crazed, but he is a bigot.

    21. earwicga — on 6th January, 2011 at 6:23 pm  

      Ok, thanks egg@derby. I’m not condoning platinum786 at all, but I dislike selective quoting.

    22. Don — on 6th January, 2011 at 6:38 pm  


      You see that as a moderate comment? A guy is murdered specifically because he opposed killing people for blasphemy and platinum is ‘morally torn’ about it? But not so morally torn that he wouldn’t keep quiet if he knew anything about it and repeatedly expresses satisfaction at Taseer’s death.

      You are still relatively new here and probably weren’t around when we first became aware of platinum’s comments on his military forum on such things as the holocaust and Indian victims of terrorism. He tries to tone it down here, but he’s a nasty piece of work.

      Platinum, could you tell us clearly and directly what your own views are on the blasphemy laws? Regardless of your allegations of corruption against Taseer, which I suspect to be a hypocritical red herring.

    23. Don — on 6th January, 2011 at 6:39 pm  


      beat me to it.

    24. earwicga — on 6th January, 2011 at 6:55 pm  

      Don, I had thought that platinum was young and stupid and enjoyed sounding off on the internet. I didn’t know he was racist. The point still stands, I dislike selective quoting. I read the ‘morally torn’ comment in the context of the many many comments I have read about ‘good ole’ leftie’s’ feelings of joy when they found out about the Brighton bombing. And also the parties to be planned for Thatcher’s death. I don’t do the former, but the latter is fine with me.

      I would too be interested in Platinum’s views on the blasphemy laws, and his views on how politicians such as Imran Khan and Sherry Rehman should proceed.

    25. Don — on 6th January, 2011 at 7:18 pm  


      Was that selective quoting? If someone says something which clearly reveals their position are you obliged to also cite everything else they have said? As you say, the thread was available. The passage you cited did not strike me as contradicting the more damning quotation. Just a more weasely way of expressing it.

      Selective quotation surely is aimed at misrepresenting the individuals views - quote mining, if you like - which Kisan, in my opinion, did not do. Platinum is indeed young and stupid, but also viciously racist.

      I’m not sure the Thatcher analogy works, given the reason for Taseer’s murder.

    26. Refresh — on 6th January, 2011 at 7:18 pm  


      Take it from me, I wouldn’t rush to thank egg@derby.

    27. egg@derby — on 6th January, 2011 at 7:21 pm  

      ^Your reason being?

    28. earwicga — on 6th January, 2011 at 7:23 pm  

      Fine. I thank nobody. I hate you all and you are all wrong.

    29. egg@derby — on 6th January, 2011 at 7:27 pm  
    30. Rachel — on 6th January, 2011 at 9:25 pm  

      Earwicga should probably also be morally torn. On the one hand she wants to protect Asia Bibi from Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, on the other hand she has no problem with the concept of ‘Muslim lands’ as espoused by Moazzem Begg and Cageprisoners. Go figure!

    31. platinum786 — on 6th January, 2011 at 9:36 pm  

      If anyone wants to know my views on the blasphemy laws, please feel free to ask my stalkers. :)

    32. platinum786 — on 6th January, 2011 at 9:49 pm  

      I qoute myself;

      We’re all getting carried away over a murder. This guard is no hero, he is a murderer. He didn’t gun down Salman Taseer or any other politician over the endless corruption, over the abuse of the awam, he decided to shoot him dead because of his opposition to the Blasphemy law, a law which is abused in Pakistan to threaten religious minorities. Look at the morality of the so deemed hero, abuse of insaans, not an issue, an alleged insult, a political opinion however, intolerable for him. Nonetheless I’d give him a medal, a bronze one…

      The way i see it;

      - A murder was committed, we all agree murder is bad.
      - A man took the law into hi own hands, we all agree that isn’t positive
      - Salman Taseer was shot dead, most of us, me included, really couldn’t care.

      Had it been a non political person who was killed, I would have wanted this guard to hit the gallows, but since it’s a Pakistani politician, i don’t care.

      We all need to relax a bit. Have ur opinions, express them, don’t shoot anyone over them, like the guard did, unless it’s a Pakistani politician.


      It is a truly sad reflection on governance in Pakistan, that it’s citizens would actually for a moment consider murder as an acceptable form of justice.

      This is what the political elite have created for themselves. Ironically, it is the level of justice most of the citizens have been receiving for decades.

      If anyone is actually interested in the opinions of Pakistani’s, it might be an idea to read the topic. Not all of it is pretty reading, but then neither is pickled politics.

      Just to clarify, I’m not entirely opposed to blasphemy laws, they’re not a very liberal thing, but the world on whole doesn’t but liberal values. In Pakistan however it is abused. It’s worth noting nobody has ever ben executed due to it. However in Pakistan, where police officers and judges in lower courts can be bought, people are often victimised against using this law. It needs to be repealed.

      Pakistan needs to re-look at it’s own identity. Most people want an Islamic form of government, that shouldn’t be formed on a constitution built on english law and bigs of religious law flavoured to suit a military dictator.

    33. damon — on 6th January, 2011 at 10:14 pm  

      That Pakistani Defence force website that earwicga put up is interesting.
      I do wonder how the country is split in it’s political views. That site shows bitter oposition to the corrupt rulling class - and isn’t going to mess about with liberal democracy. Stong Islamic rule will sort things out. Why are they going to have any time for the pampered middle class who think that the law forbidding the defiling of the Quran should be repealed and that unbelievers should be free to insult the prophet?

      There were young lawyers who were there when the killer was being taken into custdy, who said they supported him fully and would defend him for free.

    34. Rachel — on 6th January, 2011 at 10:32 pm  

      Why did a comment suddenly disappear? Oh yeah, forgot what its like here on PP!

      But let’s not leave the racist Platinum to have the last word (and by the way, people have died because of the blasphemy law).

      Will my comment go if I explain it to you? I also criticised you and Sunny, who can’t see the distinction between a liberation struggle and one for ethnic cleansing (‘Muslim lands’ being a concept no less potentially murderous than ‘India for the Hindus’ Israel for the Jews, or an ethnically pure Serbia). I don’t see how you can see no problem with this concept then kill be concerned about the fate of minorities in Pakistan.

    35. Don — on 6th January, 2011 at 11:47 pm  


      You don’t have stalkers, you just have people who know who you are.

      I quote myself;

      We’re all getting carried away over a murder.

      No, I’d say the response so far has been disapointingly slow, given the nature of this site.

    36. Refresh — on 6th January, 2011 at 11:50 pm  


      I can’t say I understood most of your comment but this bit I think I can explain:

      ‘Why did a comment suddenly disappear? Oh yeah, forgot what its like here on PP!’

      I think Earwigca (as an aside) asked of Don whether it was OK to email him directly and Don being the gentleman that he is and not wishing to disappoint, responded in the affirmative.

      That would account for two comments removed as a part of housekeeping.

    37. Don — on 6th January, 2011 at 11:59 pm  

      I’m not entirely opposed to blasphemy laws, they’re not a very liberal thing, but the world on whole doesn’t but(have?) liberal values

      True, not a very liberal thing. That’s very astute of you.

      It’s worth noting nobody has ever been executed due to it. But often lynched or assassinated. And you have no fucking problem with that?

      It needs to be repealed.

      Watch yourself. That opinion can get you killed.

    38. joe90 — on 7th January, 2011 at 12:11 am  

      Post #16

      rejoice in killing hmmm make up stories is your hobby is it?

      according to your view “calling a corrupt politician a corrupt politician” makes me a terrorist lol nice logic dude.

      You should stick to reading the sun newspaper you plonker.

    39. platinum786 — on 7th January, 2011 at 8:31 am  

      For these people joe it’s a game, they’re not Pakistani, they have no interest in the future of Pakistani’s, they’re only interest is that the entire world follows the same model of governance they do and holds the same values they do. Unless of course you’re a dictator useful to the western world.

    40. Boyo — on 7th January, 2011 at 9:08 am  

      The Islamists on this forum blame it all on corruption, naturally, as to do otherwise (ie it was actually to do with hard-line Islam, whatever the sect) might taint their ideology with an indelicate ignorance. It’s ok to kill to rid the country of “corruption” however, while at the same time cowing dissent and moving one step closer to the dream.

      When the corrupt politicians are cleansed and “proper” Islam imposed, then there will be no corruption. There will be peace and prosperity. And when there is not, it will be the fault of the West, or the improper application of Islamist policies.

      It’s an old, old story.

      What I thought was saddest is the suggestion that the killer won the agreement of his colleagues in advance not to kill him. Hence the 27 shots fired were all his, in to the body of his victim.

      All because his victim sought to defend the rights of a working class woman subject to malicious allegations. Really, the Prophet would certainly have stood on her side, I’m sure.

    41. Sarah AB — on 7th January, 2011 at 9:17 am  

      platinum - it isn’t necessary to have precisely the same model of governance as the UK to avoid sentencing people to death for blasphemy. And you can strongly object to the conduct or views of a politician and still unequivocally condemn his assassination. (As Sofia @3 does of course.)

    42. Sofia — on 7th January, 2011 at 10:01 am  

      Kisan your comment about islamic fanatics really doesn’t help matters and as far as I know, being an Indian is not a ‘race’…you sound a bit like you were ranting
      Rachel I personally think you are mixing up views on ethnic cleansing vs countries where the majority of people are of a particular religion already. Pakistan was never supposed to be an ‘islamic’ country per se, it was a vision to allow those who followed the muslim religion to not feel persecuted in regional states where they would have been a minority in an undivided India. Jinnah is probably rolling in his grave to see what has happened to this vision.

    43. Kismet Hardy — on 7th January, 2011 at 10:13 am  

      I interviewed Imran Khan a while back (the Seatless in Islamabad dude who used to play cricket and shag fine totty), and this quote stuck with me: ‘Whenever Pakistani people have been given the choice, they have always voted liberal.’

    44. Ravi Naik — on 7th January, 2011 at 10:40 am  

      For these people joe it’s a game, they’re not Pakistani, they have no interest in the future of Pakistani’s, they’re only interest is that the entire world follows the same model of governance they do and holds the same values they do.

      Yes, because it is best for Pakistan and Pakistanis to have the same values as you do, like saying that it is not ok to murder someone unless he is a pakistani politician, or think that blasphemy laws are OK as long as they are not abused. I mean, blasphemy laws are abusive by nature! And did I understand you correctly that you want to award a bronze medal to the murderer?

    45. Boyo — on 7th January, 2011 at 10:50 am  

      Pakistan certainly matters to people in the UK, given the size of the Pakistani community. It also matters to the world, given its nukes. It matters because of its engagement in Afghanistan and the blurred borders - both geographical and personal - between the Pakistani state and terrorism. The West will become more unstable as Pakistan does. The border of Pakistan ends in the City of London or New York. They may as well be intent on lynching this poor woman in Stoke Newington.

      So yes, callous self-interest plays a part. But how interested are you in Rwanda Platinum? Or Zimbabwe? Or Burma?

    46. Rumbold — on 7th January, 2011 at 11:04 am  

      The Pakistan Defence Forum does have some chilling views on there- but I am comforted by the idea that someone somewhere in a security agency is watching it.

    47. Rachel — on 7th January, 2011 at 11:25 am  

      Sofia@42 - no, I understand the difference between a Muslim majority country, like Pakistan, which doesn’t imply any particular political system, and the idea of ‘Muslim lands’ which is a concept espoused by religious reactionaries (it’s counterpart on the subcontinent being ‘India for the Hindus’ which is a slogan of Hindu fascists). It’s Earwicga and Sunny who don’t understand this difference.

      Anyway, it’s somewhat tangential to this thread, but it’s just so typical of Earwicga to not get where people such as Platinum are coming from.

    48. Sofia — on 7th January, 2011 at 11:29 am  

      I disagree that the concept of ‘muslim lands’ is somehow the same as ‘India for the Hindus’ - or israel for the jews. In my opinion it simply describes a geographical notion of where people of muslim origin live in a majority. Where there is a significant minority present, I would think that this would not be a muslim land in the same way I would say India cannot be a ‘hindu land’

    49. Trofim — on 7th January, 2011 at 11:40 am  

      “I disagree that the concept of ‘muslim lands’ is somehow the same as ‘India for the Hindus’ – or israel for the jews. In my opinion it simply describes a geographical notion of where people of muslim origin live in a majority”.

      To me, and, I suspect, for most people, the word “land” or “lands” when preceded by the name of a religion or adjective of nationality indicates not merely a numerical majority, but also carries connotations of exclusivity, ownership, possession or appropriation - even dominion over others living there.

    50. joe90 — on 7th January, 2011 at 11:41 am  

      post #40

      So this guy was shot for defending a working class woman was he. Wow thanks for the insight i didn’t realise the murky world of pakistani politics was that simplistic lol.

    51. Rachel — on 7th January, 2011 at 11:42 am  

      I think that ‘Muslim lands’ or ‘Islamic lands’ as they are used on the Cageprisoners website, since they are used interchangeably, means something different to just a geographical area with a majority Muslim population.

    52. Sofia — on 7th January, 2011 at 1:00 pm  

      oh of course it’s the islamification of countries where muslims live right

    53. Boyo — on 7th January, 2011 at 1:42 pm  

      @50 no of course not - he was shot because he was “corrupt”, and deserved it, right?

    54. platinum786 — on 7th January, 2011 at 2:27 pm  

      You people need to get back to basics, like try to read. Evidently some of you E-stalk me, you should know better than those who don’t.

      I didn’t justify the murder, I didn’t blame it on anything other than religious extremism, I simply said, this is one death in Pakistan, that I’m not too fussed about.

    55. damon — on 7th January, 2011 at 2:59 pm  

      I simply said, this is one death in Pakistan, that I’m not too fussed about.

      Even though his death was a blow and (and a threat) to liberalising tendencies? Where people were afraid to go to his funeral for fear that they might be targeted too.

      Does anyone know a good source of information on Pakistan? Is there like a New Statesman kind of magazine or paper or a Liberal Conspiracy type website that people know of?

    56. joe90 — on 7th January, 2011 at 6:56 pm  

      post #53

      your insight into pakistani politics is outstanding thanks for the laugh.

      post #54

      I hope people are not hypocritical and feel equally outraged about the NATO drones which have killed over 2000 people. Majority of them civilians in last 2 years in north pakistan.

    57. Jai — on 7th January, 2011 at 7:10 pm  

      Does anyone know a good source of information on Pakistan? Is there….a Liberal Conspiracy type website that people know of?

      The following superb Pakistani website, and its Lahore-based author, are particularly well-known internationally:


    58. Mook — on 7th January, 2011 at 7:40 pm  

      Boyo #40
      “All because his victim sought to defend the rights of a working class woman subject to malicious allegations. Really, the Prophet would certainly have stood on her side, I’m sure.”

      Given his reaction to a pregnant slave woman murdered by her master as mentioned in post #99 of the thread earwicga linked to, maybe not.

    59. Don — on 7th January, 2011 at 7:41 pm  

      I hope people are not hypocritical and feel equally outraged about the NATO drones which have killed over 2000 people. Majority of them civilians in last 2 years in north pakistan.

      I hope so, too. But I’m not sure how it is relevant. Taseer was murdered for opposing blasphemy laws, not because of drones or corruption. The killer seems to have been very clear about that. Those who praise the killer are very clear about that. Those, such as yourself and platinum, who want to minimise the importance of the murder are less clear but seek to divert the discussion from the key motive. You imply that anyone who argues that this was a Very Bad Thing must be motivated by hypocrisy, ignorance and malice.

      That is not the case. If corruption and governmental complicity in drone attacks were the issue or motive, then every pakistani politician would presumably be riddled with bullets. By their own security. You and platinum might see that as desirable or at least not regrettable, but the isn’t the discussion we are having.

      I doubt we’ll ever see eye to eye, joe, but I suspect (and hope) that you agree that killing people because they said or did (or were accused of saying or doing) something which could be interpreted as disrespectful of a religion is appalling. That position does not need an intimate knowledge of contemporary pakistani politics.

      If you do agree, would you be prepared to stand up and say that? In Pakistan? And would this killing make it more or less likely that you would stand up? His party has already run for cover.

    60. damon — on 7th January, 2011 at 8:33 pm  

      The following superb Pakistani website, and its Lahore-based author, are particularly well-known internationally:


      It looks very interesting Jai - cheers, I’ve earmarked it.
      Now to find out how much sway those views have in the country, over those on the Pakistan Defence website.

      And in what percentages, and what kind of class of people. If it’s the rich that are the most socially liberal, as they are into personal freedom and a bit of hedonism like they have experienced on their holidays abroad, then that’s progress of a kind perhaps, bit will be limited as long as most people are poor - and perhaps resentful of the rich.

    61. halima — on 7th January, 2011 at 11:46 pm  

      I recently returned from a holiday in Pakistan and came away realising what a lot of ignorance I had about this country - as you do when you actually find out something tiny about the country you visit on holiday. Still, Pakistan appeared more interesting and complicated than I’d ever imagined. Countries like India or Bangladesh or Nepal didn’t appear to me as unfamiliar, or, if they were, I could pick up the Economist guide and make sense of it, but this doesn’t appear to be true of Pakistan. The most obvious fact is its diversity - even the Islam in the South is different from the Islam in the North. Nothing surprising about that, why would I expect a country the size and the diversity of Pakistan to be similar in its views from one part of the country to another. The people I spoke to on the streets, with my dwindling Urdu from the Chinese border into Pakistan, North West Frontier Province ( now named Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) through to Islamabad on the road all shared concerns about governance and internal tensions. The average person on the street is as ever struggling with hunger, the need to access health care and education, and see the economy grow. One wonders why Pakistan is so mis-understood when there are so many British Pakistanis among our networks.

      Pakistan does get bad press. I never thought I’d ever see a place as beautiful as the Himalayas in Nepal. Turns out there is: Pakistan in the North. While hardly any tourists visit, partly because it’s hard to get insurance now, there is a steady stream of Japanese tourists, especially older Japanese tourists.

      The country’s attraction is natural beauty at its best and most raw.

    62. Shamit — on 8th January, 2011 at 12:58 am  

      Millions of people were dying in the floods and many more innocents getting caught up in the crossfire between security forces and terrorists in Pakistan - neither the liberal intelligensia nor the powers to be give a crap about their death.

      Politicians and the nexus between feudalism and politics have ensured that vast numbers of parents are forced to hand over their children to madrasahs to get a square meal a day.

      Neopitism and corruption have taken the country to the brink where the common people yearn for army rule - vast majority of young men in the country have no employable skills and the only thing they have read is the Koran and understood completely screwed up interpretations from barely literate immams. And the politicians have not only tolerated this shit they have enabled this hijack of Islam and Pakistan.

      Taseer did not object when PPP introduced these blasphmey laws and made them punishable by death - neither did he object to the continuous plunder of the country by the PPP elite. Nawaz Sharif and his cronies are no better either.

      Shere Rahman or Taseer may have liberal streaks within them but they have never ever raised their voices for equity education and opportunities for all except for in political rallies.

      Joe90 is an idiot and he is a closet Islamist who thinks Afghanistan had nothing to do with terrorism but Platinum’ points should not be discarded so easily. He makes some good basic points - Taseer was a non entity and so is Imran Khan - and no matter how much I hate saying this the only institution that remotely functions within that society is the Army.

      However, with people like Kayani and his generation soon retiring - you would get the Zia’s protege generation who are now the majors and the colonels - who are far more fundamentalist in nature than the Musharraf’s or the Kayanis. And there is no civil society to counter this - the civil society that exists is a small elite hanging around in their posh Clifton garden houses while their offsprings have safe havens in US, UK and various other places. And politicians are a key reason why Pakistan does not have democracy or civil society or basic education and health care and opportunities.

      So where is Platnum wrong? Don’t equate him with Joe90 - I think Platinum’s thoughts have evolved over the years and while I might disagree I do believe he makes good points.

      And on the death of a nobody politician (you become governors i South Asia when you have no ability to win elections) while regrettable - the political class of Pakistan has no one but to blame themselves along with Zia Ul Haq.

    63. joe90 — on 8th January, 2011 at 2:09 am  

      post #62

      says the secular extremist who thinks the violence in Kashmir has nothing to do with indian security forces and is the fault of its neighbors.

    64. Refresh — on 8th January, 2011 at 2:24 am  

      The problem here is that no one has all the answers. There are complexities which we don’t know about, there are players we rather not talk about and there is a blindness on all sides which no one will acknowledge.

      Firstly, Mr Taseer’s murder has to be condemned absolutely. Even if he was a part of the system of corruption that passes for governance in Pakistan. Apart from it being just wrong that a life is extinguished, it takes the country many steps back. Fear is the most corrosive of forces pitched against civilisation. And Mr Taseer’s murder was not just the taking of one life, it was a message to everyone else.

      Many crimes were committed in taking of that life.

      It does not matter whether the assasin acted alone, all the evidence suggests otherwise, the intended consequences affect everyone. So killing of this politician for THAT reason is a heinous crime.

      Those complicit in it, and the immediate ones are the rest of his bodyguards, are accessories if not co-conspirators. And those who used this case as a political football to the extent of offering a bounty are despicable and contributed to the crime equally.

      That said, it is wholly wrong to acknowledge only this death without having any response to the regular carnage wrought by drones.

      Further, the worst form of ignorance is the one deliberately disseminated. It is of no use having a go at Pakistanis when your shibboleth is challenged and you will not stand by them or even begin to understand when theirs are under constant attack and their lives and livelihood are permanently at risk. Anything else is a dialogue between the deaf.

      The ignorance no one seems to want to acknowledge is the genesis of the blasphemy laws. They were part of Gen Zia ul Haq’s turning of a friendly outward-looking nation into a factory for processing the poor into cannon fodder to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

      Zia himself came to power illegally and sustained his position through the judicial murder of the ousted Prime Minister Zulfikar Bhutto. Only Wikileaks focussed on that period will really help set the record straight. It is inconceivable that his hanging would have gone ahead if it had not suited Kissinger.

    65. AbuF — on 8th January, 2011 at 8:01 am  

      I just love the way that the resident Islamists on this site try to wiggle out of condemning an assassination *without reservations*… anyone might think that actually the likes of Joe90 and Platinum actually rather approved of killing people on supposed religious grounds.

    66. Boyo — on 8th January, 2011 at 8:48 am  

      I think the point that seemingly all his bodyguards were complicit is the key point. If you can’t trust them, it’s over frankly.

      I don’t disagree that there is a time and place for democracy and military rule can serve a purpose - but I’ve heard the same things about the Pakistani military, who are cut from a more fundamentalist cloth than before. Fundamentalism per se is not necessarily a problem, but their ambitions seem inherently aggressive, ie they seek solutions by force, be it in supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan, or terrorist incursions elsewhere. This does not appear to bode well for the future.

    67. Kisan — on 8th January, 2011 at 8:48 am  

      Regarding good sources for info on Pakistan, I find the following useful:



      For example they have several articles up on the Taseer assassination and informed commentary on those articles.


      Nadeem Paracha is a good author to read up on:

      His article on the political parties is a good intro:

      His satirical dictionary for understanding terminology in modern Pakistani debate is also a good read:

    68. Shamit — on 8th January, 2011 at 3:34 pm  

      Refresh makes excellent points and I tend to agree with them. However, the truth of the matter is that Pakistan is a danger to itself and to others. And it is a failed state in every possible way -

      And why its a bigger threat than others because its got nuclear weapons -

      I have no confidence in Pakistan’s civil society - lawyers who are supposed to be officers of the court and the rule of law were putting garlands on the assasin as he was brought to court.

      Some parts of the Pakistani state still continues to support terrorism with material, intelligence and logistical support and I am sorry but sympathies do evaporate when a country does those things.

      How do you turn it around? How do you deal with the challenges of no education and a vast number of young people brainwashed in Madrassahs?

      Kayani is rightly concerned that the US wants to denuclearise Pakistan - but the US is right - first before a single aid dollar or pound is given to Pakistan, it should be stripped off its nuclear weapons. It trains and harbours terrorists who have committed heinous and continue to commit heinous acts. So while there is a lot of sympathy for normal Pakistanis there is very little sympathy for the state or the religious mob it produces.

      Joe90 - Kashmir problem is mainly due to bad handling by India however even the latest uprising was funded and it has been proven. Even separatists leaders who wanted independence were killed by cross border militants - India has a lot to answer for in Kashmir but much less than the thugs of Pakistan.

      YOu know why there would never be a fucking referendum dumbass - because Pakistan never withdrew its forces and therefore violated the security council resolution.

      And when the only friend who is willing to defend the country openly is China - you know you have some problems. China does not care too much about Pakistan - it wants to use Pakistan to continue to harrass India but that strategy is not doing very well.

      And you are an idiot and you are a follower of the likes of Anjem Chaudhary - you may not be a terrorist but your sympathies lie with those who wants to harm Britain - so fuck off

    69. Shamit — on 8th January, 2011 at 3:48 pm  

      One more thing - all those who talk about the drone attacks - while it is sad when an innocent life is lost - it is prudent to use drone attacks to kill terrorists who go and hide in heavily populated civilian areas.

      And as far as I am concerned, if drone attacks help us save lives of one more British or US soldiers - so be it.


      And what is more funny is when Pakistani civil society talk about democracy and genocide. Mujibur Rehman won the majority but was denied the right to be Prime Minister of Pakistan -

      The Pakistani establishment committed genocide in Bangladesh and wanted to wipe out all intellectuals - and the fundamentalists of the religion in both Pakistan and Bangladesh played a key role in that as well.

      So its not a problem that cropped up today - its been there for ages and Pakistan has continually refused to play by international rules.

      What about nuclear proliferation? So please Pakistan rallying for peace is an oxymoron of the highest order.

    70. earwicga — on 8th January, 2011 at 6:35 pm  

      And as far as I am concerned, if drone attacks help us save lives of one more British or US soldiers – so be it.

      And as far as I am concerned, if killing husbands help us save lives of one more wife - so be it.

      So many other scenarios could be inserted, and none would be right. Neither is your comment Shamit.

    71. Don — on 8th January, 2011 at 6:43 pm  

      And as far as I am concerned, if drone attacks help us save lives of one more British or US soldiers – so be it.

      Can’t agree. At the cost of scores or hundreds of civilians? I wish the troops in Afghanistan well and hope they come back safely, but they are all trained volunteer soldiers. I would like to think, and in fact I do, that the vast majority of British troops would completely reject the concept that civilian lives were expendable if it gave them a combat edge. Human shields, pushing them through minefields, that sort of thing. Given the ‘collateral damage’ this strategy entails I’d put it in that category.

      it is prudent to use drone attacks to kill terrorists who go and hide in heavily populated civilian areas.

      Did you actually mean to say that? I mean, yes, I can see the case for a remote and very clearly identified staging post or training camp, if the intelligence is meticulous. But heavily populated civilian areas?

      Please, tell me that was some sort of typo.

    72. Kisan — on 8th January, 2011 at 6:48 pm  

      Regarding Imran Khan and this law. He is playing a double game.

      His own party Tehreek-e-insaf has supported strikes to protest AGAINST any modification of the blasphemy laws.

      Here in his party forum his followers are supporting the law:

      Here in his forum is a video of his party representatives at a rally in SUPPORT of the blasphemy laws:

      This man has demanded imposition of sharia:

      Here he is blasting secularists and liberals and praising the implementation of sharia in Swat:

      Imran Khan is actually part of the far right Islamist wing of Pakistani politics.

      He has no honesty. The man who cannot admit paternity of his own daughter has no moral authority on anything and no integrity.

      I hope the above links clear up confusion of Imran Khan somehow going to fix up these blasphemy laws as misunderstood above.

      Also, he happens to be a racist bigot too. Here he is in action spewing racist comments:

    73. Refresh — on 9th January, 2011 at 2:06 am  


      ‘…anyone might think that actually the likes of Joe90 and Platinum actually rather approved of killing people on supposed religious grounds.’

      Anyone would not think that, but I am convinced that you would like them to think it.

    74. Cluebot — on 9th January, 2011 at 4:00 am  

      It is inconceivable that his hanging would have gone ahead if it had not suited Kissinger.


      Bhutto was hanged in 1979, during the administration of President Dhimmy Carter.


    75. AbuF — on 9th January, 2011 at 6:48 am  


      Well, clearly you would not want people to think that…

      Might I recommend a brief course in English idioms - it being a rather idiomatic language; something that clearly escapes you.

    76. AbuF — on 9th January, 2011 at 6:51 am  

      That said, it is wholly wrong to acknowledge only this death without having any response to the regular carnage wrought by drones.

      Yes, after all, drones target people because they defend others against barbaric blasphemy laws. [sarcasm off]

      Whataboutery gone mad.

    77. joe90 — on 9th January, 2011 at 10:24 am  

      # post 68

      so aswell as having extremist neo con views you also decide to put on your nationalist cap to again what a plonker.

      When women are raped and protesters shot by indian security forces blaming pakistan is most stupidest comment ever.

    78. AbuF — on 9th January, 2011 at 2:44 pm  


      Yet you have here supported blasphemy laws and engaged in the sort of mealy-mouthed exceptionalism one might expect from someone who, in truth, rather supports the idea of the extra-judicial killing of people with whom you strongly disagree.

      I note the application in your post of “neo-con” and “nationalist”. Surely you missed out “zionazi”?


    79. fred — on 9th January, 2011 at 4:05 pm  

      Abu F
      “I note the application in your post of “neo-con” and “nationalist”. Surely you missed out “zionazi”?”

      And you missed out “dhimmi” though your far right anti-Muslim friend cluebot didnt at #74

    80. AbuF — on 9th January, 2011 at 4:09 pm  

      I think you are absolutely delicious, fred; and I would like to take you out on a date with other bondage freaks into neo-con zionazi perversion just like me… eat me: I’m chocolate [sarcasm off].

      *feels this might go over fred’s angry, yet beautifully tousled, yet rather empty, young head…*

    81. Kisan — on 9th January, 2011 at 5:31 pm  

      24. earwicga — on 6th January, 2011 at 6:55 pm
      I would too be interested in Platinum’s views on the blasphemy laws, and his views on how politicians such as Imran Khan and Sherry Rehman should proceed.

      How this is proceeding is that Imran Khan is working in the opposite direction as Sherry Rahman.
      Khan’s website has the latest news of him SUPPORTING the blasphemy law:

      Justifying the existence of the blasphemy laws, Khan further said that, “Even England has the blasphemy law and there is a sound reason for this… Allama Iqbal proposed a bill in the 1920?s Punjab legislative assemblies, which provides punishment for anything being said against any religious personality.”

      Meanwhile Sherry Rahman is now the subject of fatwas declaring her a non-Muslim. A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is an apostate and the punishment for apostasy is death. The fatwas call for killing her:
      KARACHI: After the assassination of Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer, it has been reported that fatwas are being issued against Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) leader Sherry Rehman, declaring her a non-Muslim and demanding death sentence for her.

      Daily Times has learnt that the imam of Sultan Masjid has issued a fatwa and another has been published in a pamphlet and distributed by the Tanzeem-e-Islami (TI).


      I hope any confusions about Imran Khan and his stance on the blasphemy law are laid to rest.

    82. Refresh — on 9th January, 2011 at 7:02 pm  


      ‘Idiom’ - I had to look it up, and I am glad I did:

      •parlance: a manner of speaking that is natural to native speakers of a language

      So what was it you were inferring, that I am unlikely to understand you and your use of the english language?

    83. Refresh — on 9th January, 2011 at 7:15 pm  


      ‘The Ford administration attempts to pressure Pakistan to give up these attempts, and in a meeting in August 1976 Secretary of State Henry Kissinger will offer Pakistan over a hundred fighter planes in return for its giving up the efforts. He will also threaten to “make a horrible example” of Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.’

      More interesting reading from here:



      From the same link:

      ‘May 18, 1974: India Tests First Nuclear Device India detonates a nuclear device in an underground facility. The device had been built using material supplied for its ostensibly peaceful nuclear program by the United States, France, and Canada. The test, and this aspect of India’s nuclear program, is unauthorized by global control mechanisms. India portrays the test as a “peaceful nuclear explosion,” and says it is “firmly committed” to using nuclear technology for only peaceful purposes.
      Kissinger: ‘Fait Accompli’ - Pakistan, India’s regional opponent, is extremely unhappy with the test, which apparently confirms India’s military superiority. Due to the obvious difficulties producing its own nuclear bomb, Pakistan first tries to find a diplomatic solution. It asks the US to provide it with a nuclear umbrella, without much hope of success. Relations between Pakistan and the US, once extremely close, have been worsening for some years. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger tells Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington that the test is “a fait accompli and that Pakistan would have to learn to live with it,” although he is aware this is a “little rough” on the Pakistanis.’

      I don’t believe proliferation is an issue that can be addressed as neatly as you would like, given the introduction of WMDs into the region leads back to the US.

    84. Shamit — on 9th January, 2011 at 7:21 pm  

      I am not here to win a popularity contest - and Pakistan is a failed terrorist state with nuclear weapons and have been a rogue state for years.

      Yes - it had helped the West but funds that were supposed to have been used for fighting Soviet Union was used to support terrorism.

      Even today every terrorist plot in the UK has a Pakistani connection and fundamentalism is rife in the country and it should be denuclearised.

      And, a lot of people in Pakistan support aid and help terrorists - and fundamentalists are with the knowledge of some parts, if not all parts of the state, are harbouring terrorists including the fuckers who planned and controlled the entire 26/11 and many mnay many more.

      So don - no it was not a typo - and Earwigca - the real fucking world does not operate in an idealistic paradigm that you seem to believe in.

      And as I have said before the bloke in the White House is 1 billion times more lefty and liberal than you would ever be - and has done more for the left causes - rather than writing okay. And there is good reason to use drone attacks and irrespective of what you say or do - it would continue and rightly fucking so.

      And I am with the bloke in the White house - if that offends your sensisbilities fine - And Pakistan should be denuclearised otherwise you would face nuclear armaggeddon. And that would save Pakistan - otherwise believe me whoever is in the White House or in Beijing or in New Delhi - they might be forced in a position where they would have to consider nuking the fucking country.

      Grow the fuck up people - and that country has gone to the dogs - I have a lot of sympathy for the plight of the country but unfortunately their country has been hijacked for a long time.

      It has committed genocide, proactively supports killing innocent people through terrorism and has been doing so for decades and threatens the UK’s national fucking security and our lives here. It has started nuumerous wars - never wins one though -

      So, drone attacks should and will continue - so get the Pakistani state to get terrorists out of civilian areas - but who is a civilian - couple of years ago - remember what happened in the mosque in Islamabad.

      So I would not apologise and I could not give a shit if my comments hurt your sensibilities - what is right and what is wrong? Do you have any clues.

      Joe90 and his cronies call themselves British but want to blow us up - they want to convince us Afghanistan had nothing to do with terrorism and the loony left buys into it and I am sorry I refuse to be a part of that.

      Finally, I do not apologise for what I said before - and I stand by them. So sue me or shoot me - I don’t care.

    85. Shamit — on 9th January, 2011 at 7:27 pm  

      Refresh -

      India’s nuclear capability was very much indigenous and screw the fucking link you put up - because neither the CIA nor the MI^ had any fucking clue that India was going to test - because it built it. So shove that link up your ass - you can impress idiots who have not done much reading but I know what I am talking about. I can provide ten thousand other links which says otherwise - don’t believe everything you read on the internet.

      And guess what it was a Muslim in India who headed the bomb project - called Abdul Kalam who also became the President of India and is probably the most respected and loved President of all times because of his ethos

      And Pakistan’s AQ KHAN conducted nuclear proliferation all by himself - without the state he just did it all by the himself.

      Again as I said shove it and peddle your falsehoods to others who would believe it.

      Drone attacks should and must continue until Pakistan state wakes up and sorts itself out - and not a single penny in aid should be ghiven to that country until it gives up nuclear weapons.

      And I stand by it.

    86. Don — on 9th January, 2011 at 7:32 pm  

      No-one here wants to sue you are shoot you. Just disturbed that you think the best way to extract terrorists from civilian areas is to throw ordinance into those areas.

      That’s a good way to make terrorists.

      Grow the fuck up people

      I’m all grown up. Seriously, I am. It is not a mark of maturity to disregard the human cost of an ideology. Quite the contrary.

      Joe90 and his cronies call themselves British but want to blow us up

      Not really. I don’t agree with Joe or platinum, but that is ridiculous.

    87. Don — on 9th January, 2011 at 7:33 pm  

      Nt ‘are’. ‘or’.

      Edit funcion, please.

    88. Don — on 9th January, 2011 at 7:33 pm  

      ‘function’ ‘Not’ Damn.

    89. Shamit — on 9th January, 2011 at 7:34 pm  

      And your idiotic notion about bringing India into the equation when discussing Pakistan shows your stupidity.

      India is one of the fastest growing economies with massive financial clout and military power - despite all its problems it is moving forward with a billion people in a secular democracy - and India is not a pariah in the international community - infact everyone wants a piece of the economic action

      India should no way be equated with a failed fundamentalist state like Pakistan which fails to feed or provide security or education or health to the vast majority.

      India has got poverty but Bihar is in a better position than probably Lahore or Karachi. As I said shove it

    90. Shamit — on 9th January, 2011 at 7:37 pm  

      Don -

      I am not a blood thirsty vampire and neither is President Obama.

      Terrorists will go and hide in civilian areas aided by the ISI and parts of the Pakistani state - so how the hell do you take them out when parts of the state are protecting it.

      Its sad that drone attacks have to be opted in - because it is the only option right now. I would rather have drone attacks than put boots on the ground in Pakistan.

      And as I said how are you going to deal with the terrorism issues that affect us in this country and the US - when the fucking failed state (almost like somalia) would not deal with it.

    91. Cluebot — on 9th January, 2011 at 7:38 pm  

      ‘He will also threaten to “make a horrible example” of Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.’

      Bhutto was hanged in 1979.


      Nineteen Seventy-Nine.

      Please try again.

    92. Shamit — on 9th January, 2011 at 8:10 pm  

      More importantly, while like many I feel for the plight of the ordinary Pakistanis - Obama’s first job is to protect the Americans and Cameron’s jobs is to keep us safe -

      And saving one American or British life should and must be their priority - and so while I feel bad and have nothing but sympathy for ordinary Pakistanis - if their state allows terrorists to hide in their community there’s not much Obama can do.

      Or do you want boots on the ground? Pray tell me.

    93. Shamit — on 9th January, 2011 at 8:20 pm  


      you make the mistake of equating joe90 and Platinum

      I don’t and I stand by what I said about Joe90.

      And if pragmatism and realism is immature - I am proud to be one - and the President of the United States agrees with my assessment - and who the hell are you?

    94. earwicga — on 9th January, 2011 at 8:33 pm  

      Kisan, I did look at all the links you posted before re Imran Khan. I could only understand the two English ones, and obviously find it odd that Imran Khan’s party would of been part of protests against changing the blasphemy law.

      Sherry Rehman isn’t the leader of the PPP either.

    95. Refresh — on 9th January, 2011 at 8:54 pm  


      I think the link talks about material provided by the US, France and Canada. That should not take away any pride you may have in India’s own abilities. Although pride is the last thing that is appropriate when it comes to WMDs.

      The bit I don’t understand is your grudging acceptance that Pakistan was enlisted and funded to take on the Soviet Union as a proxy for the US.

      And how did it do that?

      It turned it into a religious conflict, between the godless and the godfearing. I am reluctant to offer you more links as you dismiss them far too easily. But here is one in any case:


      I also recall reading a link where the evangelicals in the US also sent money for the mujahideen.

      I do believe there is some merit in understanding how we got here, and if it has to go back 30, 50, 100 years so be it. There is no point in talking about denuclearisation and proliferation without appreciating why they had them and how they got them in the first place.

      I find your escalation from drones to nukes particularly chilling.

      Here is a something that is worth reading


    96. Refresh — on 9th January, 2011 at 9:00 pm  

      ‘Joe90 and his cronies call themselves British but want to blow us up’

      I think that would be defamation.

      I am not sure whether that needs to be edited out from a legal standpoint or not, but it would be worth checking.

    97. Refresh — on 9th January, 2011 at 9:02 pm  

      ‘Bhutto was hanged in 1979.


      Nineteen Seventy-Nine.’

      Yes that’s right.

    98. Shamit — on 9th January, 2011 at 9:07 pm  

      “I find your escalation from drones to nukes particularly chilling. ”

      I don’t like it but I do bloody worry about it - if Pakistani nukes fall in the wrong hands or there is a coup for a much more fundamental regime which is backed by extremists - or extermists get their hands on the nukes - it would be dangerous for the region and the world.

      And for once India and China would want that threat to be eradicated - extremists in Pakistan see attacking India as a religious duty - just imagine if they have nukes to support that ambition.

      Unfortunately, there would be nuclear armageddon and while India and China would lose a lot of people and land - Pakistan would be wiped out of the map. That is something no one wants.

      Hence it would be best for the region and more importantly for the people of Pakistan if it destroys its nuclear capability. India is not bothered about Pakistan - its concern is China and Pakistan is now facing an existentialist threat from within.

      if India is threatened with nuclear weapons - US/China/India would work together and Pakistan and its population would be wiped out - but parts of the ISI and the extremist community honestly believes God would save it. I doubnt it and I don’t want that to happen because it would set the world back many many years.

      So I am not calling for anyone to nuke the country but if Pakistan continues in this trajectory - that is a conclusion one must contemplate and its not pretty.

      No aid should be given to Pakistan until it gives up its nuclear weapons - otherwise it would not destroy India but it would destroy Pakistan.

    99. Shamit — on 9th January, 2011 at 9:10 pm  

      As far my statement against Joe90 goes - I take full responsibility for it. PP is not responsible for it.

      His comments make him a terrorist sympathiser who believes Afghanistan had nothing to dow ith 9/11 and Afghanistan under the Taliban was not a threat to the world and he firmly believes the US and the UK are the ones that are the biggest terrorists.

      If he or you or anyone with a dodgy handle and lack of courage to write with their own names want to sue me - you can sue me and I would take my chances and I would win.

    100. Shamit — on 9th January, 2011 at 9:15 pm  

      Funny its okay to write a post about how David Miliband has blood on his hands and there is nothing wrong with it but accusing joe90 of sympathising with terrorists is defamation.

      Refresh - you really take the piss.

    101. Shamit — on 9th January, 2011 at 9:21 pm  

      and on top he has accused me of being a neo con who wants to kill innocent people - but you had no problems with legalities then sunshine.

      So you want to play legal ball - post with your real name and I suggest so does Joe90. If you cannot don’t try to play the legal game with me.

      And shove your righeous attitude where the sun don’t shine.

    102. Don — on 9th January, 2011 at 9:58 pm  


      Get back to me when you are coherent.

    103. Shamit — on 9th January, 2011 at 10:22 pm  


      Apologies for getting personal with you - you do not deserve it.

      On the drone attacks though - I am sorry but there is no alternative unless the Pakistani state sorts itself out and stops supporting terrorism proactively.

      And a couple of years ago, militant extremists came within a 100 miles of Islamabad - let’s not forget that and its not only me but far more important people are worried about the security of Pakistani nukes.


      Okay and also I would ammend my statement about Joe90.

      The beliefs expressed by Joe90 are similar to that of Anjem chaudhary and others who don’t mind carrying the British passport but want to harm us - hope that satisfies everyone’s sensibilities.

      But he ain’t getting any apologies from me and any lawsuit would be very much welcome -


    104. earwicga — on 9th January, 2011 at 10:42 pm  

      Shamit - I suppose you reject the suggestion that killing indiscriminate numbers of civillians will only encourage the sort of scenario and conclusion you worry about?

    105. Shamit — on 9th January, 2011 at 11:04 pm  

      “Shamit – I suppose you reject the suggestion that killing indiscriminate numbers of civillians will only encourage the sort of scenario and conclusion you worry about?”

      I do not reject that suggestion - in fact, I agree that there is that potential danger. And rightly, we the West are worried about using drones in highly civilian areas and they are not used as indiscriminately as people suggest. However, terrorists aided by parts of the Pakistani state are now hiding high value targets in civilian areas because it is unlikely that if terrorists hide in a school - the US President is going to authorise taking out the school during day time.

      In fact, after President Obama took over he expanded the attacks to cover those that are trying to destabilise Pakistan’s civilian government with apparent support from the Pakistani army’s top commanders and civilian government.

      But either the Pakistani government is unwilling or incapable of clearing terrorists from civilian areas - what do you do then?


      Also, there is a bigger point which people fail to mention while droning about drone attacks -

      Farhat Taj, a Pakistani researcher for Pakistani Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy, published research in early Jan 2010 that civilians in Pakistan and in Waziristan support the drone attacks.


      And her analysis was backed up by Irfan hussain writing in the Dawn in Pakistan:


      So I do not accept the premise that civilians are indiscriminately being killed and that they oppose the drone attacks - its seems its the fundamentalist groups and their supporters in the West only view it as a huge problem.

      This is an article written by Farhat Taj which should be read by all who make these unsubstantiated opinions about how we are killing civilians indiscriminately:


      Yes, these are extra-judicial killings and therefore there are clear violations of human rights - but we are in a war -declared or non declared - where people who wish to harm Pakistan and us are being taken out without costing the lives of our or Pakistani soldiers.

      I have no problems living with that -

    106. douglas clark — on 9th January, 2011 at 11:10 pm  

      I spent a bit of time last night - the insomnia is back - reading through the link that earwicga kindly gave us to PakistaniDefence.com.

      Frankly, although there is a lot of bravado and bad comments on there, the general impression I got was that the people writing in the comments care about the people of Pakistan. Where the disagreements arise is over what the hell to do about it. One commentator basicaly plays devils’ advocate quite late on in the thread, starting about page 18 if memory serves, and tackles all the ‘solutions’ that other folk have offered. Whack a mole stuff really.

      My view is that he had the best of it. There is no ideal solution for Pakistan, and we are probably looking at a perfect storm of conflict between a vast range of local and international players. It should not be a game. And, by and large, these people are desperate for a solution - and I do mean desperate. Which is why some extreme opinions are expressed. What the hell would you expect when your country is been torn apart by corruption and enemies at the door?

      Reading all that stuff has made me a lot more sympathetic to platinum786 than I ever thought likely. Though the near universal xenophobia was very hard to take.

    107. earwicga — on 9th January, 2011 at 11:14 pm  

      Shamit -

      its seems its the fundamentalist groups and their supporters in the West only view it [drone attacks] as a huge problem. …

      Wow! That is an offensive view. There is no debating with you. No point at all.

      Douglas - similar to my thoughts as well.

    108. Shamit — on 9th January, 2011 at 11:21 pm  

      earwigca -


      This link - please use the whole of it before you read the dawn article and you can see what the real situation in the ground is- and both articles clearly point out the hypocricy of the Pakistani government as well as the lack of evidence on the number of civilian deaths.

      As you know, I usually do not open my mouth unless I do have some knowledge of a topic and this is no different. The whole premise that drones are killing civilians en masse is a figment of the liberal wanna be cool journalists and columnists.

      And I think you would like the works of Dr. Farhat Taj - she is much more credible source and a brave woman.


      Douglas - I too think Platinum786 makes some excellent points about the problems of Pakistani society and his youthful exuberance often masks the good insight he has on many areas.

      Others who claim to be more moderate and apparent thinkers are the ones we should worry about.


    109. Shamit — on 9th January, 2011 at 11:23 pm  


      Read the links I have put up before you make accusations about me being offensive - read what Dr. Taj wrote and not the columnists in tyhe Guardian.

      See what actually people in Waziristan feel - and argue then - or are you not willing to read something that challenges your perceptions

    110. earwicga — on 9th January, 2011 at 11:26 pm  

      Shamit - could you link again to which Farhat Taj’s article or give me the title of it so I can look it up, as your link doesn’t work.

    111. Shamit — on 9th January, 2011 at 11:27 pm  

      Or does it offend your sensibilities that people in Waziristan prefer the drone attacks than the militants or even the Pakistani armed forces.

      here is the final two parargraphs of the article:

      “What we read and hear in the print and electronic media of Pakistan about drone attacks as a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty or resulting in killing innocent civilians is not true so far as the people of Waziristan are concerned. According to them, al Qaeda and the TTP are dead scared of drone attacks and their leadership spends sleepless nights. This is a cause of pleasure for the tormented people of Waziristan.

      Moreover, al Qaeda and the Taliban have done everything to stop the drone attacks by killing hundreds of innocent civilians on the pretext of their being American spies. They thought that by overwhelming the innocent people of Waziristan with terror tactics they would deter any potential informer, but they have failed. On many occasions the Taliban and al Qaeda have killed the alleged US spies in front of crowds of hundreds, even thousands of tribesmen. Interestingly, no one in Pakistan has raised objection to killings of the people of Waziristan on charges of spying for the US. This, the people of Waziristan informed, is a source of torture for them that their fellow Pakistanis condemn the killing of the terrorists but fall into deadly silence over the routine murders of tribesmen accused of spying for the US by the terrorists occupying their land.

      The writer is a research fellow at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Gender Research, University of Oslo and a member of Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy. And she hails from the area

      here’s the title:

      analysis: Drone attacks: challenging some fabrications —Farhat Taj


      copy the whole link including the part that’s not highlighted


    112. earwicga — on 9th January, 2011 at 11:27 pm  

      ‘or are you not willing to read something that challenges your perceptions’ - Oi! I was trying to open the sodding links, in the sodding order you told me to!

    113. Shamit — on 9th January, 2011 at 11:42 pm  

      sorry just was being cheeky - okay so chill.

    114. douglas clark — on 9th January, 2011 at 11:58 pm  


      I would urge you to read - if you have not already done so - through the whole thread that earwicga linked to:


      These are desperate people watching their nation fall apart. And this is not some sort of game for them. It is their country and they can see it for the slow train crash that it is likely to become. And they are frankly searching around for a solution to what, seems to me, to be an intractable problem. On these grounds alone I am willing to cut some slack to people proposing any solution, any solution whatsoever. My point here being that nothing much should be ruled out at this stage.

      There were people on that thread that wanted a revolution, in order to:

      a) execute all politicians, presumeably including any blameless ones, a sort of French Revolution in the Orient and / or

      b) to execute all mullahs.

      That is just one dimension in a multi dimensional identity crisis.

      I used to be an anarchist - of the weekend variety - and calls for revolution are always music to my ears, but, and it is a big but, starting a revolution does not determine it’s outcome. You are basically rolling a dice and you have to be sure that any consequent outcome, any at all, is better than what you have now. Because as soon as that dice hits the crap table you have lost control. You might lose to forces that you hate even more than the corrupt politicians and the liberals. Who knows?

      What if the ‘mad mullahs’ won? Would it be better that they had an iron grip after a failed revolution?

      The interesting thing about that particular thread is that people seemed to be well aware of the risks involved in their various strategies.

      Just saying that you are right that Pakistan has got a lot of problems, it is however worth at least considering that some Pakistanis at least are as aware of the issues as you are. The immediate pain, the outcomes even, are exercising them more than the rest of us. It would be strange if it were otherwise, wouldn’t it?

    115. Refresh — on 10th January, 2011 at 12:40 am  

      ‘Refresh – you really take the piss.’

      Its unfortunate you should think that. In any case it wouldn’t be my style to use the term ‘blood on his hands’.

      I am glad you saw fit to edit out the alleged defamation, you could have been more gracious about it though. Particularly as you have no evidence to support your allegations. Which would suggest it was an attempt to shut down debate or shut out a fellow commenter.

    116. douglas clark — on 10th January, 2011 at 1:00 am  

      Refresh @ 115,

      This is more of a place where we argy bargy than invoke the law. Christ Almighty! I have been accused on a single thread of being both a Zionist and an anti-Semite.

      If we get adverts on daytime TV that say:

      “Had your knickers twisted on the World Wide Web? We at ‘insulted, of ‘course you were, will get you recompense. And at zero cost to you. Call 0800…

      Who knows, you could win millions????”

      Is that what you want Refresh? Because that is just another attempt by free speech limiting idiots like you to try to silence people you don’t agree with through legal process.

      It stinks, Refresh, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

    117. Refresh — on 10th January, 2011 at 1:16 am  

      Douglas Clark,

      We’ve both been here long enough to know argy bargy when we see it. Its not argy bargy to accuse someone of wanting to blow people up.

      I have little interest in invoking the law, but I was keen to point out to Shamit how close he was to the edge. I don’t believe labelling people helps debate.

    118. douglas clark — on 10th January, 2011 at 1:44 am  


      I have little interest in invoking the law, but I was keen to point out to Shamit how close he was to the edge. I don’t believe labelling people helps debate.

      What edge? The edge you want to limit debate to? As defined by whom?


      The legal one you want us all to skirt around? The censors charter or whatever? The McCarthy revolution of silencing folk you don’t agree with through legalistic and fucked up courts?

      Just because you say that edge exists, is it worth worrying about?

      I am quite annoyed at you Refresh, mainly because I thought you were better than this.

    119. Refresh — on 10th January, 2011 at 1:52 am  

      Douglas Clark,

      ‘The legal one you want us all to skirt around?’

      Including that one, unless you believe that it is OK to accuse people directly, not in the abstract, of wanting to kill.

      The other is the lazy and offensive presumption that you can call someone a sympathiser or an islamist without the need to having to demonstrate anything at all. Especially where the term has no definition and has the elasticity of chewing gum. Its feeble and you should not accept it.

    120. douglas clark — on 10th January, 2011 at 2:04 am  


      It is more debateable than:

      ‘The legal one you want us all to skirt around?’

      Including that one, unless you believe that it is OK to accuse people, directly, not in the abstract of wanting kill.

      Why is it that it is your firm conviction that that is what they are saying?

      Are you to be censored?


      They have a right of reply, here.

      So, no. You can accuse me of whatever you want Refresh, others have done it, and as long as I have a right of reply I will make the general assumption that the jury is not stupid. Lots of folk read this site, and generally speaking, they are absolutely able to see which side of any debate has justice.

      I win some, I lose some. So do you.

    121. Refresh — on 10th January, 2011 at 2:23 am  

      ‘I win some, I lose some. So do you.’

      I hope you aren’t scoring notches on your four poster. It wouldn’t be right.

      ‘What if it is your firm conviction that that is what they are saying?’

      As long as it is not me being irrational, and it is honestly held. And I can defend my comments, it shouldn’t be a problem. But it would not be acceptable if it was part of some vitriolic rhetoric.

    122. douglas clark — on 10th January, 2011 at 2:50 am  

      I hope you aren’t scoring notches on your four poster. It wouldn’t be right.

      Heh! No it wouldn’t. I enjoy learning and debating with folk here. If you’ve been around here as long as I suspect you have Refresh, you have probably watched me evolve, devolve, whatever.

      Which is to say, I have changed my mind about a heck of a lot of things.

      I have always thought that I would effect you and you would effect me. I wouldn’t bother discussing stuff here if it wasn’t for that interaction.

      For what would be the point?


      Surprisingly enough I have ideas in my head about who you are and who ‘they’ are too. I used to suspect that was just a virtual reality in my head. But I have met some of the people that comment here and they are just as nice in real life as they appear to be here. I suspect you too would be a chap I could share a cup of coffee with.

      Though we should obviously get a few beers in.

    123. douglas clark — on 10th January, 2011 at 3:08 am  

      Off topic completely,

      I think it is time for another meet up. But give me some time to find the dosh! It will cost me a fortune to get Refresh to buy me a pint!

      April or May would be good!

    124. Refresh — on 10th January, 2011 at 3:24 am  

      Douglas Clark,

      ‘If you’ve been around here as long as I suspect you have Refresh, you have probably watched me evolve, devolve, whatever.’

      You’ve had your moments. LOL.

      I agree there is no point being here if you cannot persuade and be open to persuasion.

      I like your approach, accept that people mean well but find out for yourself before you take on someone else’s truth. Its endearing and its the correct way to live a life.

      ‘I suspect you too would be a chap I could share a cup of coffee with.’

      I am sure I occasionally drive past your door and may be doing so soon, so yes coffee would be nice.

    125. AbuF — on 10th January, 2011 at 3:29 am  


      Lawfare - last resort of Islamists, everywhere. Unfortunately for you and your buddies the libel laws in UK are about to be tightened up; and you will not be able to sue everyone who exposes the religious fascism that is the real core of your theo-ideology.

      Refresh might want to look up “ïdiomatic” (adjective), rather than the noun; and get back to me - especially as he appears keen to play the race-card about this issue… really.!

      One may only wonder.

    126. Refresh — on 10th January, 2011 at 3:36 am  


      ‘One may only wonder.’

      Yes indeed!

    127. douglas clark — on 10th January, 2011 at 3:49 am  


      That was nice so it was. I love you too, arguements apart. Which was kind of the point of this forum. If I remember rightly, and I do, the whole point of this place was to let people that wouldn’t otherwise talk to each other to, err, talk to each other.

      It has had it’s up’s and it’s downs. I find the lack of a Jewish voice here quite annoying, although Katy occasionally comments.

      It is on the basis that you can say what you want to say, and then have to defend it against a whole lot of folk that disagree, that makes it interesting.

      The point is that, if one comes here for an arguement they are welcome. If they come here to tell us what to think, then fuck off.

      Seems to me.

    128. Kisan — on 10th January, 2011 at 5:49 am  

      #94, Sherry Rahman never was The Leader, she is A Leader though.

      It is absolutely not odd if you along with me understand Imran Khan as playing a double game.

      You have him quoted by Kismet Hardy as saying the Pakistani people always elect liberals (apparently seeming to approve of this) but then in Urdu to a Pakistani audience damning liberals and secularists.

      Imran Khan is often referred to as a beardless Taliban.
      He is in bed with the Islamic parties but in the West he tries to present himself as something different.

      If you had a basic understanding of the man this would not be in the slightest ‘odd’ but totally predictable.

    129. AbuF — on 10th January, 2011 at 6:35 am  

      A very useful, if worrying, article, here:


    130. AbuF — on 10th January, 2011 at 6:49 am  

      A very important article, by Awais Aftab, here:


    131. AbuF — on 10th January, 2011 at 6:51 am  

      Also discussed, here:


    132. AbuF — on 10th January, 2011 at 6:54 am  

      It is also discussed over on that website, the address of which is not viewable on this site… unless I substitute a “!” for an “i”:


    133. douglas clark — on 10th January, 2011 at 6:56 am  


      You mean a politician is two-faced?

      Thanks for clearing that up.

    134. douglas clark — on 10th January, 2011 at 7:20 am  


      It is time that Sunny Hundal let Faisal comment here again under his own name. I do not agree with the Harry’s Place shit that The Spitoon spouts, but it would be far better if it was discussed on a mainstream site such as this rather than a minority site like the Spittoon. Faisal had some good points to make before he ran off in a strop.

      But he always was a stroppy bastard, wasn’t he?

    135. douglas clark — on 10th January, 2011 at 7:38 am  

      AbuF @ 130,

      Seemed to try to comment to the effect that having you inside the choir rather than as a sort of sad external figure, a splitter even, was not in the best interests of a broad consensus. Against even the idea that there could be a broad consensus. Clearly, when someone picks up their ball and walks away from a discussion, well they might as well be Faisal, mightn’t they?

      Y’know, the wanker that started the Spittoon?

    136. Boyo — on 10th January, 2011 at 9:10 am  

      “I think that would be defamation.”

      Don’t think you can defame an animation.

      Were Joe90 a real person then it would be, although i suppose you could say it was “fair comment”.

      I miss Sid!

    137. Rumbold — on 10th January, 2011 at 9:35 am  


      Don’t mention the S-P-I-T-T-O-O-N. Otherwise you will be caught in spam (that goes any any linkages too). I have now cleared your comments.

    138. AbuF — on 10th January, 2011 at 9:53 am  


      I am not convinced by the argument that “The Spittoon” spouts any kind of shit. If you mean consistent opposition to religious fascism (from whatever quarter), then this is the sort of shit that should be spouted.

      Opposition to Islamism is not tantamount to Islamophobia. Equally, the sort of commitment to free speech, with low moderation of comments (as demonstrated by HP, for example) is not tantamount to agreement with each and every comment below-the-line.

      I do not think you have read with any degree of comprehension the article in PakTeaHouse, by Awais Aftab.

      If you had, you might have commented upon its disturbing conclusions. That would have moved on this thread. Instead, you have chosen to waste time in a rather pointless series of outbursts against another ex-contributor - one who is who presently unable to defend himself on this site.

      Think about it.

    139. AbuF — on 10th January, 2011 at 10:01 am  

      @douglas clark #135:

      AbuF @ 130,

      Seemed to try to comment to the effect that having you inside the choir rather than as a sort of sad external figure, a splitter even, was not in the best interests of a broad consensus.

      What a bizarre comment.

      Erm…No, I did not suggest any such thing, Douglas.

      I flagged a link to an extremely important recent piece of writing about the present situation in Pakistan. Anything else is a product of your clearly very vivid imagination.

    140. douglas clark — on 10th January, 2011 at 10:39 am  

      Rumbold @ 137,

      Oops! See the politics around here!

      AbuF @ 139,

      You know damn well what I am saying. I am suggesting that Sid / Faisal/ AbuF should be let in from the cold. For I think, correct me if I am wrong, that these are all nom de guerres for a single individual.

      It is pretendy stuff, I think. And I absolutely hate that. If you have something to say, then lets hear it. Banning folk for excessive swearing is one thing - fuck knows how I’ve survived - but banning people just because you disagree is another thing entirely. Unless, of course, your name is associated with the BNP when LJB gets freedom to make a tit of himself until hell freezes over. And I agreed with that.

      Correct me if I am wrong, but y’all seem to sing from a very similar hymn sheet. An identical hymn sheet even. A sort of half way to the paradise of the Euston Manifesto without, obviously, the death toll….

    141. Kisan — on 10th January, 2011 at 11:16 am  

      #133, a little more than that in Khans case.

      But to read Earwigca putting hope on the man to fix the blasphemy law was sadly a sick joke.

      I happen to be privy to a mail from Sherry Rahman mentioning support she has in private from various parties in Pakistan. Imran Khans one isn’t one of them.

      His party is very active in supporting the law.

      Put him on some media channel with a non-Pakistani audience and he’ll try to act concerned about it as he knows how to play his audiences.

      I find it very disappointing when he is quoted as some kind of upright and moral authoritative voice.

      Socialist Unity used his quotes to smear the MQM politician slaughtered in London as belonging to a party that is “a sponsor of terrorism”.

      It is representatives of Imran Khan’s party tehreek-e-insaf that is flower garlanding Baitullah Mehsud:

      Imran Khan is worse than most politicians, not just like the rest.

      I mean which other politicians can make bigoted racist jokes about the dark shade of other politicians being like Africans and still be taken as authoritative voices to be heard?

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.