Im from Pak - Karachi.. Did find it funny but...

the targets for radicals and fundamentalists in Pakistan have been the people of Pakistan on majority. instead of appreciating the effort Pakistan army is putting in flushing out the fanatics, you want common people to lobby and start a civil war in the country!

tell me has there been apocalyptic events that the world faced in the recent years related to terrorism? Pakistan has.... and every other week ever since trying to get rid of the extremists!!! its easy to sit around in one's own comfy home and whine about bringing change in other societies.

Maybe people need to understand that having mercenary organizations like "Black Water" to do one's dirty jobs isn't on the agenda of all the countries!

[deleted]

The US funds the Taliban only indirectly. The US-hired private contractors have to pay possible Taliban members for safe passage of supplies in Afghanistan (stupid and wrong). The other way they fund the Taliban is by funding Pakistan, and then Pakistan funds the Taliban. There's also evidence that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency meet and share information with the Taliban.

I've only been able to find reports of Saudi Arabia citizens funding Al Qaeda, not the government. And again, British companies were accused of supplying Iran with nuclear-related materials, not the British government.

I don't want U.S. forces in the Middle East either.

There isn't any credible evidence that the CIA directly funded the Taliban back in the 80's (but I wouldn't doubt it to be true). However, Pakistan played a major role in the development of the Taliban as well; hoping to gain influence in Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew. It's lunacy to think that the U.S. could have known back then what the Taliban would have become today.

Yes, I'll always be supportive of WikiLeaks, the truth, and more open, less secretive governments. My world-view is always changing as I gain more information. Everyone's should.

Yes, Osama was trained and funded by a joint venture of the CIA AND ISI. But like I said before, there's no way they could have predicted what he would become.

Also it's not a war, it's a simple matter of law-enforcement. You have criminals in Pakistan running around killing people, so your police-force (or military. I'm not sure how things are run over there) should take care of them. Saying its Americas war sounds like you're saying that the US military should go to Pakistan and take care of them. Which nobody wants.

so basically if you are a non muslim then you are never innocent! what a great religion...naaaaat

Yeah, the US didn't want to get involved in the war until Japan rekt Pearl Harbour.

"When was the last time you heard of a Jew or a Christian stoning somebody or blowing up buildings IN THE NAME OF THEIR RELIGION?"

About a week ago when a fundamentalist Chritstian bombed an abortion clinic and killed 20 people, including 5 people who were just standing outside minding their own business. That's one example; I could continue if you like? I may not be able to find an example that killed as many people as 9/11 but that's not the issue is it? All the death tolls show is that Muslims are far more efficient at killing people than Christians; I guess that's what all that sacremental wine will do to you.

I'm not sure why your focus is narrowed solely on capital punishment. That's one instance of violence and oppression and, let's be honest, for many people of many different faiths is a moral grey area (yes I realise talking about moral grey areas to someone so clearly indoctrinated is like talking to a brick wall but hey ho it's worth a shot). The Bible endorses stoning of women, homosexuals and disobedient children, as well as the sequestering of women during their period.

Anyway I'm avoiding the real issue here. The blindingly obvious one: you clearly know nothing about Islam. Few people do and yet a few weeks of research will take you a long way.

Did you know, for example, that there is no requirement in the Qu'ran for women to wear the burqa? And that few, in fact, do? In France alone, which has a Muslim population in excess of 3 million, only 367 wear the burqa; that's a statistic so small it's barely worth registering. That's because the burqa is not a requirement of the Islamic faith; it's a cultural custom that depends on where you live and who's in charge. Did you know there are in fact more Muslim countries that outright BAN the wearing of the burqa? The only two countries that ENFORCE wearing the burqa (Iran and Saudi Arabia) combined make up less than 5% of the Muslim population. But of course it's not just the burqa that's the problem is it? Islam is universally oppressive of women, right? They have no freedom, right? We-ell maybe not. I mean did you know that of the five most populous Muslim nations FOUR of them have elected female heads of state? So come 2012 your Sarah Palin might be campaigning for an achievement that the oh-so-oppressed Muslim ladies have already achieved.

What if I said to you: what's the most prevalent religion in Arab countries? That'd be easy, right? Islam, of course! Well not quite. Only 20 percent of the entire world's Muslim population are Arab or North African. As a handy measuring stick; 22 percent of the world's Christian population are African, but when you think of Christians you don't immediately think of some bloke in Africa do you? 61.9% of the Muslim population (i.e. a SUPERMAJORITY) hail from the Asia-Pacfic region. Indonesia is home to more than 200 Muslims and the Indian subcontinent has roughly half a BILLION Muslims. And interestingly enough 10 percent of the world's Arab population are Christian. That's about 14 million people meaning that there are 1 million more Arab Christians than the entire world's Jewish population.

And of course, returning to the topic of violence, it's well known that Muslims were the most barbaric, bloodthirsty, violent warmongers of the Middle Ages, right? Well maybe not. Y'see ol' Mohammed laid down some pretty clear rules about fighting in the name of Islam including the following:

- No killing of any women, children, the elderly or innocents (innocents were definied as religious leaders of ANY religion, monks or similar and non-combatants. Basically if someone wasn't trying to kill you first you couldn't kill them).

- No wanton killing of livestock or other animals.

- No burning or destruction of trees and orchards.

- And no destruction of wells.

Of course once Mohammed was dead that's when the Muslims made their biggest territorial gains, so they must've disposed of those rules and kicked things up a notch at that point, right? Well actually, not right. Cause Mohammed's successor went as far to take the original rules and codify them as standard for his army. He even added another one which specified there was to be no mutilation of combatants. Such was the strict nature of Islamic warfare that reknowned military historian E. Alexander Powell once said of the Muslim army conquering Europe: "exhibited a degree of toleration which puts many Christian nations to shame." The honour code was rooted in a long held Islamic belief that other communities should be treated with respect and tolerance. So while Christian crusaders were behading anyone who didn't agree with their beliefs and tossing their heads about like over-sized hacky sacks the Muslim army spent most of their time feeding the armies of their defeated enemies.

And then there's my favourite assumption. Which you've already written a diatribe proving you believe in it. Namely: that Islam is opposed to any sort of scientific progress. Simply untrue in every sense of the word. A recent poll on evolution showed that 45% of Muslims "believed evolution was the best explanation for the origin of human life" which is pretty promising considering the poll showed only 24% of Christians believed the same. And historically they have a hell of a track record. Science and mathematics wouldn't exist as we know it without Islam. They INVENTED algebra for starters. During the Islamic Golden Age they also invented chemistry (so they may not have invented the planes that they're all so fond of bombing [of course!] but there wouldn't be much in the way of fuel without them)and made significant advances in the arts, geography and exploration, architecture, philosophy, medicine and health, and urban development. They also had the most comprehensive and economically sound system of social welfare the world has seen. Do you know what the caliphates did first after conquering a country? They built libraries and schools. It's a well-held belief in the historical community that had Muslims succeeded in conquering Europe the Italian Renaissance would have been unnecessary.

Of course none of this excuses the terrible atrocities committed by a minority of Muslims, supposedly in the name of Islam. But there's the rub isn't it? I mean if you take into account all of the above and what's happening with Islam now you find yourself in another one of those grey areas don't you? One of those tricky moral ambiguities.

As I see it there's two things you can do when faced with a moral ambiguity. You can ignore one side of the ambiguity and turn it into a false dichotomy. This is most often done by people who are just frightened of the grey areas so pretend they don't exist and feel much more comfortable only seeing the black and the white and merging the grey into one category of the other. They're not all religious, but religion, with its often binary approach to philosophy, can certainly exacerbate such ways of thinking. The other option is to embrace the ambiguity; sure it's frightening and it's complicated and it's difficult but I generally tend to find less people get hurt and it helps you to grow as a human being.

But hey, whatever. The information is out there for you to find. You can use it or you can ignore it. I'm not responsible for your actions, but I wish you all the best for the future.


"People always sing 'Part of Your World' at auditions... that's why I only know one lyric."