Yes thats true. Even the most die-hard-fans of MUSH are angry over this now & i guess they have had enough of him for last 7 years. 7 years equal a two presidential terms in office in USA.

But as i see around me the same issues are not only there but are no more in PRIORITY LIST of our gov. Their priority list is privatization, BANKING, DEALS wardi and SHIT ISI instead of POVERTY,EDUCATION, HEALTH & CORRUPTION along with LAW and ORDER.

Thanks for clearing up some of your points.

Asymetrical warfare and all that? Fine (well, not really), but then accept you’re terrorists, or pro-terrorism and move on. You can’t have it both ways.

I think it’s not the term itself that matters but the connotation it brings which ScarletGuju has rightly pointed out

But labeling them as terrorists gives the moral ground to the state of Israeli, which then skews our analysis.

A lot of Israeli and Western media calls the Palestinians terrorist but it never calls the Israelis any such thing. The 1982 siege of Beirut resulted in over 10000 civilian casualties I think (a good number of which it was later found were not even killed as what would be termed as ‘collateral damage’), just last year Israel’s aggression again was unnecessary and resulted in civilian deaths. But how often have we heard about Israel being called a terrorist state. Similarly, at best Israels claim over Gaza, West Bank, Jerusalem or even other parts of former Palestine is disputed, but we don’t hear of them as a usurping power though they exercise absolute control over these parts. When people (and also the western media, the Islamic world and everyone else) decides to either group these Palestinians with the actual terrorists like Laden but refuse to treat the other side with the same ‘objectivity’ there is a problem. The word and connotation makes us lose our objectivity and like quoted above, skews our analysis and understanding. Thus we end up thinking one side is good and the other is bad. Thus one side accepting they are terrorists would amount to they accepting that they are in the wrong but the otehr non terrorist side has done nothing wrong.

That’s why I would argue with your characterization of Mandela, the Palestinians and Gandhi (#31). The ANC did not win because of an image change, but Mandela was diefied (Gandhified?) and whitewashed in retrospect, after national strikes in SA and boycotts around the world made supporting aparthied no longer cool.

I agree that suicide bombing, etc. is not the best tactic for Palestinians because it only justifies Israel’s aggression, and many segments of Palestinian society operate very differently. But labeling them as terrorists gives the moral ground to the state of Israeli, which then skews our analysis.

I won’t go into Gandhi, but we have to ask why a supposedly “nonviolent” revolution ended with the bloodbath of partition. As Gandhi himself knew, something didn’t click.

It can be used against all perceived enemies, including (the most conspicuously connected to idols) Hindus. The Bamiyan (Buddha statues) tragedy is also directly related, as are so many other historical tragedies caused by this ‘subversiveness’.

Ba, I agree with you, however, the term “root-cause” has an underlying meaning that is essentially justifying terrorism. I beleive that as long as you continue to tie terrorism to these “root causes,” it does in some way excuse the action.

I think the best course, is for us to shed light on all these issues. Israel’s actions should be examined and exposed, not in the context of Islamic radicalism, but on its own brutality. The complete fuck up in Iraq will obviously create more terrorists – stop using that as an excuse and condemn terrorism point blank, just as I criticize Israeli action, point blank – there is no justification for it and there’s no justification for blowing up civilian buses.

Didn’t mean to imply you didn’t – just wondered, since you brought in Qutb. And I didn’t realize that you were:

responding to Amardeep placing Faiz in the sufi tradition.

Not sure why idol-smashing should be seen as a worrisome theme, it’s subversiveness 101, which can of course be used against dictators as well as governments deemed ungodly (perhaps that’s why Faiz the leftist echoes themes of idol-smashing, and so many non-clerical Islamists in the Iranian revolution came from Marxist backgrounds), but it’s not a bad thing in and of itself. Oppositional themes and symbols in religious tradition can’t be carefully managed and guarded against abuse by “literalists,” nor can anything in religion for that matter – just look at the way the extremists have gone batshit over the concept of jihad.

Added the emphasis, but that’s my point exactly.

blockquote>the original poster Ba, wanted people to stop thinking Pakistanis or Muslims were terrorists. If he wants this (i.e. social perception) to happen, then at least stop trying to justify terrorism (in its typical social designation) because of their crappy situation. blockquote>

Zoroastrian, thats exactly the point. While I am saying terrorism is wrong, unislamic and needs to be opposed in a collective fashion, failing to address the root causes of terrorims is stupid. I can assure there will be tons of muslim terrorists coming out of Iraq, you have created an ideal environment for them to flourish. You have destroyed an entire genration who now have a hatred for America; they make ideal targets for Al-Qaeda recruiters. Its the same for America / Israel’s occupation of Palestine.