14 yr old school girl activist shot at in Swat Valley

[ViruRulez]

I came here after quite a long time as I was really in tears after seeing the news of her assassination attempt and then her documentaries and interviews. She was an apostle of peace for a troubled region I would say. She and her father are some of the few Pakis who are unbiased and have an open mind towards the world. And I would say that she is perhaps one of the bravest and most independent minded kids in the whole of Pakistan who has spoken the right things about Kashmir conflict and the India-Pakistan conflict. Check this following video which I found and am amazed to see such a sane voice about leaving the Kashmir conflict to status quo rather than fighting over it. Instead of being such a young kids, she advises both countries to stop fighting and reduce the defense standing and use it in eduction and poverty alleviation instead. The last part is in their local language I suppose and I did not understand but the rest is in Urdu/Hindi and makes a lot of sense. gvGZV4CFqzw These two videos are two documentaries on her and her father. Both have most parts similar. One is of NYT and the other of AZE. 9F5yeW6XFZk cxFqH06t-_E I have turned partial atheist over the years but if there is god, then hope he takes care of her and helps her in a quick recovery. In the videos, I can also see that she is also somewhat influenced by our Indian culture and writings which has perhaps broadened her mind to see the world fairly instead of being limited to a narrow Pakistani perspective. I could see her dad reading a Tagore book and with a Tipu Sultan award. Hats off to the perhaps the sanest voice in a brainwashed fanatic country.

[Pioneer]

I came here after quite a long time as I was really in tears after seeing the news of her death and then her documentaries and interviews. She was an apostle of peace for a troubled region I would say. She and her father are some of the few Pakis who are unbiased and have an open mind towards the world. I have turned partial atheist over the years but if there is god, then hope he takes care of her and helps her in a quick recovery. In the videos, I can also see that she is also somewhat influenced by our Indian culture and writings which has perhaps broadened her mind to see the world fairly instead of being limited to a narrow Pakistani perspective. I could see her dad reading a Tagore book and with a Tipu Sultan award. Hats off to the perhaps the sanest voice in a brainwashed fanatic country.

What are you saying man ? And yeah, every fanatic = typical Pakistani person and every Pakistani is an extremist. But when there is someone who stands up, oh yeah she is influenced from " our Indian Culture and writings " . Please man. I am not influenced by any of your "Indian culture and writings " and I and millions of other Pakistanis support her and her cause. What about that ?

[ViruRulez]

Where are the b.astard traitors who destroyed property, rioted, looted in India based on that you tube video? Where's the outrage now? No protest? no riots? So Youtube was offensive to the religion but the actions of Taliban is just? Selective outrage huh? Nothing from Raza Academy? Nothing from the home grown hater Zakir Naik either? strange!

Sorry but they are no way the thekedars of any religion. Just like VHP and Bajrang Dal are not the thekedars of any religion either. My dad and mom are devout Muslims though I am a partial atheist and both of them hate all such radical people and organizations such as Zakir Naik and Raza Academy. And most of my relatives do too. Having said that, I made a quick search on Google and found two protest rallies by Indian Muslims one each in Bhopal and Mumbai condemning Taliban and supporting the brave kid. Here is the video: 02AAVHwPyQI

[ravishingravi]

What are you saying man ? And yeah, every fanatic = typical Pakistani person and every Pakistani is an extremist. But when there is someone who stands up, oh yeah she is influenced from " our Indian Culture and writings " . Please man. I am not influenced by any of your "Indian culture and writings " and I and millions of other Pakistanis support her and her cause. What about that ?

I agree with you. Broad generalizations.

[Mariyam]

Sorry but they are no way the thekedars of any religion. Just like VHP and Bajrang Dal are not the thekedars of any religion either. My dad and mom are devout Muslims though I am a partial atheist and both of them hate all such radical people and organizations such as Zakir Naik and Raza Academy. And most of my relatives do too. Having said that, I made a quick search on Google and found two protest rallies by Indian Muslims one each in Bhopal and Mumbai condemning Taliban and supporting the brave kid.

Partial athiest kya cheez hai? Either you are an athiest or you aren't. Or do you believe in a non God who is partial to athiests? And :whack: :whack: Thane is not Mumbai. :mad: That's like saying New Jersey is New York, Sharjah is Dubai and Noida is Delhi. BTW I completely you re: Zakir Naik. The guy is a total nutcase. Unabashedly provocative, crass and not any kind of authority on Islam, law or world politics.

[Mariyam]

What are you saying man ? And yeah, every fanatic = typical Pakistani person and every Pakistani is an extremist. But when there is someone who stands up, oh yeah she is influenced from " our Indian Culture and writings " . Please man. I am not influenced by any of your "Indian culture and writings " and I and millions of other Pakistanis support her and her cause. What about that ?

I agree with you. That was a very lousy generalization. The tolerance/civilization/call it what you will of a society is gauged by how well its weakest sections are treated. In the case of Pakistan (as of India) those are women, minorities, the poor etc. The Taliban envision and want to enforce a Pakistan where 50% of your population will have no say in any walk of life. No education. No work. No say in governance. From what I read, these groups have a fair amount of popular support, though I guess events like these can't win them many fans. This is an existential struggle for Pakistan, the one that Mohammad Ali Jinnah had envisioned.

[ViruRulez]

What are you saying man ? And yeah, every fanatic = typical Pakistani person and every Pakistani is an extremist. But when there is someone who stands up, oh yeah she is influenced from " our Indian Culture and writings " . Please man. I am not influenced by any of your "Indian culture and writings " and I and millions of other Pakistanis support her and her cause. What about that ?

I am not saying that you are radical. But most kids are being radicalized in Pakistan. When you have laws such as blasphemy laws or laws where minorities are not treated equally (Ahmadis or Shias for example, other religions are even worse), then your bulk of the population is supporting radicalization. I do not respect politicians be it of whatever country or region but when Salman Taseer tried to say against blasphemy law (mind you, he did not say anything against Islam or Mohammed), he was killed and his killer was hailed as a hero. Go to youtube and you will find likes on the videos of the bloody killer who killed him and they openly support him. There were huge rallies in support of the killer. When blasphemy law was even brought as a topic for possible amendment, everybody in Pakistan seemed to be up in arms against the govt. and what I saw in Youtube and news websites are photos of huge processions by radicals in the main cities warning govt. not to change anything in the blasphemy law or to rectify it. So, what would you say on those things. I am Shunni Muslim by religion and neither a Ahmadi nor a Shia or anybody else but I like to say things in a justified manner. If you believe in right and wrong, then why was there no massive processions condemning archaic and baseless laws which are misused such as blasphemy law. Why are radicals so active in your country and that too openly? Though I am very grateful that India is different from Pakistan and that we do not face as much radicalism or problems as Pakistan but on a relook of history, I feel Pakistan and Jinnah perhaps did a huge mistake on separating from India and forming Pakistan on the basis of religion. I have extreme respect for Gandhiji and not a huge amount of respect for Nehru or any other freedom fighter (Patel and Azad are exceptions though they were also somewhat politically motivated). But one great thing that I admire all our Indian leaders is that irrespective of affiliation they never formed a country based on religion. If you think about Indian independence movement (undivided India), the Indian leaders always stood that India would never be formed on the basis of religion and religious equality would be the motto. Even during partition they could have easily formed a Hindu republic of India as Jinnah did with Pakistan. But all our freedom fighters remained always true to their words and never took unscrupulous advantage like Jinnah did. Though Jinnah did not realize the short term effects as he was a supposedly somewhat moderate compared to Pakistani standards of today but the long term effect was that Pakistan being formed on hatred, division and religion only lead to more radicalism and problems in the long run. On the other hand, though India did face initial problems for sometime but due to the strong base of secularism and equality, India progressed into a much better and peaceful country to live country. I will say that India could have still done a lot better and we should probably be comparing with US, South Korea etc. rather than Pakistan but then it is still an achievement that all religions and communities have a sense of brotherhood and Indianness. The roots of our democracy are so strong that all radical voices in India including the right wing ones of both Hindus and Muslims had to gradually had to speak about equality of all communities. On the other hand, the right wing voices in Pakistan only got strengthened and spread their radicalism with time as the roots of democracy were extremely weak and religious minded (and overthrown several times by coups). Perhaps if there would have been an united India, then the roots of democracy have been democracy in the whole of undivided India and that way the whole region would have been relatively free of radicalism and reduced the military expenditures. Though there are no qualms now but perhaps Jinnah made a mistake there. I am not saying that every Pakistani is an extremist. But still Pakistan has perhaps one of the largest ratio of citizens with extremist views compared to any democracy in the world. I have highlighted the word democracy because it is not correct to compare a democracy to a tyrannical dictator (as in some African and Middle-Eastern countries) or king.

[akshayxyz]

Partial athiest kya cheez hai? Either you are an athiest or you aren't. Or do you believe in a non God who is partial to athiests? And :whack: :whack: Thane is not Mumbai. :mad: That's like saying New Jersey is New York, Sharjah is Dubai and Noida is Delhi. BTW I completely you re: Zakir Naik. The guy is a total nutcase. Unabashedly provocative, crass and not any kind of authority on Islam, law or world politics.

:two_thumbs_up: You never disappoint. btw, he might have meant agnostic.

[Pioneer]

I am not saying that you are radical. But most kids are being radicalized in Pakistan. When you have laws such as blasphemy laws or laws where minorities are not treated equally (Ahmadis or Shias for example, other religions are even worse), then your bulk of the population is supporting radicalization. I do not respect politicians be it of whatever country or region but when Salman Taseer tried to say against blasphemy law (mind you, he did not say anything against Islam or Mohammed), he was killed and his killer was hailed as a hero. Go to youtube and you will find likes on the videos of the bloody killer who killed him and they openly support him. There were huge rallies in support of the killer. When blasphemy law was even brought as a topic for possible amendment, everybody in Pakistan seemed to be up in arms against the govt. and what I saw in Youtube and news websites are photos of huge processions by radicals in the main cities warning govt. not to change anything in the blasphemy law or to rectify it. So, what would you say on those things. I am Shunni Muslim by religion and neither a Ahmadi nor a Shia or anybody else but I like to say things in a justified manner. If you believe in right and wrong, then why was there no massive processions condemning archaic and baseless laws which are misused such as blasphemy law. Why are radicals so active in your country and that too openly? Though I am very grateful that India is different from Pakistan and that we do not face as much radicalism or problems as Pakistan but on a relook of history, I feel Pakistan and Jinnah perhaps did a huge mistake on separating from India and forming Pakistan on the basis of religion. I have extreme respect for Gandhiji and not a huge amount of respect for Nehru or any other freedom fighter (Patel and Azad are exceptions though they were also somewhat politically motivated). But one great thing that I admire all our Indian leaders is that irrespective of affiliation they never formed a country based on religion. If you think about Indian independence movement (undivided India), the Indian leaders always stood that India would never be formed on the basis of religion and religious equality would be the motto. Even during partition they could have easily formed a Hindu republic of India as Jinnah did with Pakistan. But all our freedom fighters remained always true to their words and never took unscrupulous advantage like Jinnah did. Though Jinnah did not realize the short term effects as he was a supposedly somewhat moderate compared to Pakistani standards of today but the long term effect was that Pakistan being formed on hatred, division and religion only lead to more radicalism and problems in the long run. On the other hand, though India did face initial problems for sometime but due to the strong base of secularism and equality, India progressed into a much better and peaceful country to live country. I will say that India could have still done a lot better and we should probably be comparing with US, South Korea etc. rather than Pakistan but then it is still an achievement that all religions and communities have a sense of brotherhood and Indianness. The roots of our democracy are so strong that all radical voices in India including the right wing ones of both Hindus and Muslims had to gradually had to speak about equality of all communities. On the other hand, the right wing voices in Pakistan only got strengthened and spread their radicalism with time as the roots of democracy were extremely weak and religious minded (and overthrown several times by coups). Perhaps if there would have been an united India, then the roots of democracy have been democracy in the whole of undivided India and that way the whole region would have been relatively free of radicalism and reduced the military expenditures. Though there are no qualms now but perhaps Jinnah made a mistake there. I am not saying that every Pakistani is an extremist. But still Pakistan has perhaps one of the largest ratio of citizens with extremist views compared to any democracy in the world. I have highlighted the word democracy because it is not correct to compare a democracy to a tyrannical dictator (as in some African and Middle-Eastern countries) or king.

If you know the history of Pakistan, you would know that intolerance was not always prevalent. After Pakistan was born, it was doing quite well economically and socially, with society being much more tolerant, Abus Salam, an Ahmadi, was awarded the Sitara-e-Pakistan ( the highest civilian honour) in 1959, as was the case with Afghanistan at one point as well . So your theory of Pakistan being where it is today based on the fact that it was made on a religion does not hold true. The real problems started when the government of Zia Ul Haq started pumping money into madrassahs and spreading his and his Saudi friends' twisted Wahabbi ideology all around the country where it was lapped up by the uneducated. Since alot of the people in the tribal areas could not afford to send their children to normal schools, they sent them to madrassas and that is where the brain-washing began. The Islamist groups according to you have such popular support, then why have none of the Islamist parties ever been elected to office ? They have support among the tribals, the people who can relate to them ethnically and culturally. It is completely wrong to say that "most kids are being radicalized in Pakistan " You make alot of sweeping statements without actually backing them up. You seem to have alot of opinions and thoughts but don't present them as facts.

[ViruRulez]

Partial athiest kya cheez hai? Either you are an athiest or you aren't. Or do you believe in a non God who is partial to athiests? And :whack: :whack: Thane is not Mumbai. :mad: That's like saying New Jersey is New York, Sharjah is Dubai and Noida is Delhi. BTW I completely you re: Zakir Naik. The guy is a total nutcase. Unabashedly provocative, crass and not any kind of authority on Islam, law or world politics.

Partial atheist means I feel that God i.e. Allah or whatever name you call him might be present. I do not completely defy his existence. But what I feel is that religions may either be human creations or might have twisted by humans through generations to benefit their own thoughts. I respect all religions but I doubt the teachings of nearly all religions are somewhat twisted by humans or somewhat not in line with human evolution. For example, I feel Quran Sharif is nearly OK but then hadiths are twisted by various people over the centuries to benefit and reflect their own thoughts often including radical ones. And the problem is that nowadays more extremists follow and twist Hadiths for justification rather than Quran. I also base my thoughts on scientific observations. Though I do not believe religions to that extent but I also feel that if there is a true religion based on history and reality then probably that is any of the Abrahamic religions. The reason I am citing this is because there are definite proofs of the history of Abrahamic religions through history though not that clear. For example, most of the recent prophets and saints of Abrahamic religions are well proven and scripted in history but if you even take the case of the origin of human civilization in Abrahamic religions then there might be truth. For example, science tells that there were a lot more water in post-ice age period compared to the present. Though it sounds weird but Adam and Eve finding themselves on huge stretches of water on landing on earth does not conflict with that assumption. Similarly, Islamic history tells that the early humans were extremely high compared to modern humans. Islam, Bahai Faith and some Christian denominations consider him to the first prophet and several religions including Jews consider him to the first human. According to Islam, Adam was 90 feet tall and so were most other early humans. The humans supposedly reduced in height gradually with time and it became nearly stable during the first millennium only (near the last two prophets Muhammad and Jesus's time). Though never brought to fore but this is also possible with the theory of evolution. Humans probably did not need that amount of height for normal day to day activities especially when farming etc. came over and so, evolution theory might support that assumption. The oldest two major prehistoric human structures are perhaps the Stonehenge in UK and Göbekli Tepe in Turkey. Both of them were of incredible heights and it is nearly impossible for normal humans of our height with their ancient techniques to carry such heavy structures to the site of construction. Similarly, most ancient temples and constructions were made using massive stone pillars etc. and scientists still do not find conclusive evidence as to how such massive structures were moved to sites of construction. So, the theory that early humans were high enough does not conflict with the same. Again, there are massive flaws in these assumptions too. Hence, I am neither a complete athetist neither a complete believer based on science. Hence, a partial atheist is a more apt word that I like to use. Personally, I feel the best religion is that everybody should live in unity and harmony throughout the world and hatred, violence and division should end forever. Humanity is the best religion and hope everybody follows it more than their own religions.

[ViruRulez]

If you know the history of Pakistan' date= you would know that intolerance was not always prevalent. After Pakistan was born, it was doing quite well economically and socially, with society being much more tolerant, Abus Salam, an Ahmadi, was awarded the Sitara-e-Pakistan ( the highest civilian honour) in 1959, as was the case with Afghanistan at one point as well . So your theory of Pakistan being where it is today based on the fact that it was made on a religion does not hold true. The real problems started when the government of Zia Ul Haq started pumping money into madrassahs and spreading his and his Saudi friends' twisted Wahabbi ideology all around the country where it was lapped up by the uneducated. Since alot of the people in the tribal areas could not afford to send their children to normal schools, they sent them to madrassas and that is where the brain-washing began. The Islamist groups according to you have such popular support, then why have none of the Islamist parties ever been elected to office ? They have support among the tribals, the people who can relate to them ethnically and culturally. It is completely wrong to say that "most kids are being radicalized in Pakistan " You make alot of sweeping statements without actually backing them up. You seem to have alot of opinions and thoughts but don't present them as facts.

I never said that Pakistan was always so intolerant. Neither am I saying that Jinnah was so intolerant. I would Jinnah was hypocrite which would be a true statement (considering his wife and daughter case) but would never say Jinnah was intolerant. He was far more modern and moderate than most Pakistanis are even today. Some in his family and other political advisers might be a bit radical though and there are proofs about the same. The point which I stated about Jinnah was that he perhaps made the wrong decisions of "forming a country based on religion". In fact, he was in several minds I suppose during partition and as per my historic understanding somebody might have been playing with his thoughts a bit including hardliners. He at one point said secular country with equal rights just after partition and then again said Islamic Republic after a few days. A country based on religion was the problem. That is why I said the base identity of the country was wrong. If it was just another democracy then in all probably there would never have been that much radicalization. It is not as if there are or were no radicals in India or even in the West but the thing is that everyone including political parties have to change perception if they see people changing. For example, if people would have supported either a repeal of the blasphemy law or to rectify it significantly, the govt. would have done so easily. But instead people openly supported the Salman Taseer killer from what I could see in videos and news websites (mind you non-Indian sources to be completely unbiased). And regarding your point where you blame the tribals for radicalization, I do not believe those tribals who do not have money to send their wards to school would be able to afford a pricey broadband plan to watch youtube videos or comment on news websites. Check out any youtube video on the blasphemy cases and most of them support openly the Taseer killer and call him a patrot and what not. Obviously these people who write in English are not Taliban or tribal people but mainland Pakistanis who are majority radicals as proven. Be realistic man. I am not pointing at every Pakistani but to blame the tribals only is pathetic. The whole of Pakistan is extremely radicalized and I would say that 90% of Pakistanis are not even moderate to the level of Jinnah leave apart level of modern democratic humanitarian liberalism.

[Pioneer]

I never said that Pakistan was always so intolerant. Neither am I saying that Jinnah was so intolerant. I would Jinnah was hypocrite which would be a true statement (considering his wife and daughter case) but would never say Jinnah was intolerant. He was far more modern and moderate than most Pakistanis are even today. Some in his family and other political advisers might be a bit radical though and there are proofs about the same. The point which I stated about Jinnah was that he perhaps made the wrong decisions of "forming a country based on religion". In fact' date= he was in several minds I suppose during partition and as per my historic understanding somebody might have been playing with his thoughts a bit including hardliners. He at one point said secular country with equal rights just after partition and then again said Islamic Republic after a few days. A country based on religion was the problem. That is why I said the base identity of the country was wrong. If it was just another democracy then in all probably there would never have been that much radicalization. It is not as if there are or were no radicals in India or even in the West but the thing is that everyone including political parties have to change perception if they see people changing. For example, if people would have supported either a repeal of the blasphemy law or to rectify it significantly, the govt. would have done so easily. But instead people openly supported the Salman Taseer killer from what I could see in videos and news websites (mind you non-Indian sources to be completely unbiased). And regarding your point where you blame the tribals for radicalization, I do not believe those tribals who do not have money to send their wards to school would be able to afford a pricey broadband plan to watch youtube videos or comment on news websites. Check out any youtube video on the blasphemy cases and most of them support openly the Taseer killer and call him a patrot and what not. Obviously these people who write in English are not Taliban or tribal people but mainland Pakistanis who are majority radicals as proven. Be realistic man. I am not pointing at every Pakistani but to blame the tribals only is pathetic. The whole of Pakistan is extremely radicalized and I would say that 90% of Pakistanis are not even moderate to the level of Jinnah leave apart level of modern democratic humanitarian liberalism.

I am not saying that it is only the tribals, but that they might support extremist groups because of their cultural and ethnic connections as well as the fact that they turn to madrassas. As for your last point, give me break. Are you telling me because you read some comments on a website related to Salman Taseer's killer that the whole of the country is extremely radicalized ? The images of Salman Taseer being showered with praise is indeed disgusting and I am not denying that but you cannot seriously say with a straight face that the majority of the country are extremists. Just because the crazy ones get the most lime-light does not mean that they are the only ones. There are countless sane voices in Pakistan that do not get their share of tv-time. Why ? Because no one cares about normal views, everyone likes the crazies. If I were to go on to any youtube video regarding Indians and see some of the comments there I would say the majority of the country is uncooth and scum-like. Would that be true ? No. But that is how you are presenting your viewpoint

[ViruRulez]

I am not saying that it is only the tribals, but that they might support extremist groups because of their cultural and ethnic connections as well as the fact that they turn to madrassas. As for your last point, give me break. Are you telling me because you read some comments on a website related to Salman Taseer's killer that the whole of the country is extremely radicalized ? The images of Salman Taseer being showered with praise is indeed disgusting and I am not denying that but you cannot seriously say with a straight face that the majority of the country are extremists. Just because the crazy ones get the most lime-light does not mean that they are the only ones. There are countless sane voices in Pakistan that do not get their share of tv-time. Why ? Because no one cares about normal views, everyone likes the crazies. If I were to go on to any youtube video regarding Indians and see some of the comments there I would say the majority of the country is uncooth and scum-like.

Even if you leave the comments, check the number of likes in the videos of Pakistani people who were openly supporting the killing. Also check the videos of that Qadri and all his videos had overwhelming amount of likes compared to dislikes. If your statements would have been true, then normal non-radical internet savvy Pakistanis would have disliked Qadri videos or blasphemy law support videos rather than majority of them liking such videos. On the other hand, any debate against that killer guy Qadri or the blasphemy law had significant amount of dislikes. Again, do not say that only radicals or tribals use internet. To be honest, internet is mostly used in any country by the somewhat progressive and developed sections of society (especially true in 3rd world countries). So, if the majority of progressive Pakistanis are radicals then I should perhaps change that figure I stated earlier to more than 90%. I am not counting most of the brainwashed radical population who perhaps would feel internet is also not right and hence, won't use it. And how do they take out such large processions and gain support in your capital cities as was shown anti-blasphemy procession videos including AZE. In fact, you should be somewhat proud that though I do not respect Jinnah but still I consider him to be more moderate than 90% of Pakistanis today though he was there 60s years ago. Again, that also states the condition of Pakistan today and why the motto and base of the country was so wrong when formed.

[Clarke]

Oh yea, very very peaceful crowd they got, especially since $h1T hit the fan. As long as the victim was the 1nf1dels, its ok/don't care/its justified. Look at the trends over the years; blatantly obvious what happened when the bombs started going off on their own turf: Wait until this particular $h1t hits the fan, see the support for the heinous ideas fall as well:

[Pioneer]

Even if you leave the comments' date=' check the number of likes in the videos of Pakistani people who were openly supporting the killing. Also check the videos of that Qadri and all his videos had overwhelming amount of likes compared to dislikes. If your statements would have been true, then normal non-radical internet savvy Pakistanis would have disliked Qadri videos or blasphemy law support videos rather than majority of them liking such videos. On the other hand, any debate against that killer guy Qadri or the blasphemy law had significant amount of dislikes. Again, do not say that only radicals or tribals use internet. To be honest, internet is mostly used in any country by the somewhat progressive and developed sections of society (especially true in 3rd world countries). So, if the majority of progressive Pakistanis are radicals then I should perhaps change that figure I stated earlier to more than 90%. I am not counting most of the brainwashed radical population who perhaps would feel internet is also not right and hence, won't use it. [b']And how do they take out such large processions and gain support in your capital cities as was shown anti-blasphemy procession videos including AZE. In fact, you should be somewhat proud that though I do not respect Jinnah but still I consider him to be more moderate than 90% of Pakistanis today though he was there 60s years ago. Again, that also states the condition of Pakistan today and why the motto and base of the country was so wrong when formed.

And again you are using dislikes/likes as a basis for the labelling on an entire country. I'm trying to tell you how irrational that is. There could be several reasons for those "figures". Maybe the only people who did watch such videos were people who supported Mumtaz Qadri. There are so many factors in this. Search for polls done in Pakistan regarding extremism and you will find the majority agreeing that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are a negative influence. Again about your point on the processions you are selectively picking and choosing. Why don't you speak about the mass gatherings wishing Malala well all across Pakistan ? Women , children and men coming out to speak against the Taliban, news anchors, politicians, people from the entertainment industry aswell. What about those people ?

[Clarke]

Search for polls done in Pakistan regarding extremism and you will find the majority agreeing that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are a negative influence.

Numbers posted with trends over the years.

[Pioneer]

Numbers posted with trends over the years.

http://original.antiwar.com/eli-clifton/2010/07/30/poll-pakistanis-dislike-us-taliban-and-al-qaeda/ http://www.gallup.com/poll/126602/taliban-increasingly-unpopular-pakistan.aspx

[bangladeshifan]

is she dead?!!!

[badmash]

I agree with you. That was a very lousy generalization. The tolerance/civilization/call it what you will of a society is gauged by how well its weakest sections are treated. In the case of Pakistan (as of India) those are women, minorities, the poor etc. The Taliban envision and want to enforce a Pakistan where 50% of your population will have no say in any walk of life. No education. No work. No say in governance. From what I read, these groups have a fair amount of popular support, though I guess events like these can't win them many fans. This is an existential struggle for Pakistan, the one that Mohammad Ali Jinnah had envisioned.

you have to live in Pakistan to know the mindset of the people there. I would say about 2 percent probably support taliban and that is at most. The problem is that if a handful of people out of a whole lot of peaceful people start killing and bombing important landmarks in the cities, it gives the impression that everyone supports taliban and that is why they are able to carry out such attacks, which is not the case. even in Malala's case, the army got rid of the taliban presence there and for the last 3-4 years there was no major terrorist attack but you cannot control every single person.. the taliban managed to send out two people in the village. IMO you can't just eleminate the taliban in Pakistan...because the 2 % of population = 3 000 000 people, as long as there is that support, taliban will keep on recruiting those suicide bombers. What you have to do is change the mindset of those people. Military action will fk you over just like how the USA is fked over in Afghanistan. Win back those 2% of people and eleminate the taliban.

[ViruRulez]

And again you are using dislikes/likes as a basis for the labelling on an entire country. I'm trying to tell you how irrational that is. There could be several reasons for those "figures". Maybe the only people who did watch such videos were people who supported Mumtaz Qadri. There are so many factors in this. Search for polls done in Pakistan regarding extremism and you will find the majority agreeing that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are a negative influence. Again about your point on the processions you are selectively picking and choosing. Why don't you speak about the mass gatherings wishing Malala well all across Pakistan ? Women , children and men coming out to speak against the Taliban, news anchors, politicians, people from the entertainment industry aswell. What about those people ?

Sorry but your argument just does not make sense. AFAIK Pakistan is also a third world country and you are saying that only the radicals in your country use Youtube and other popular websites and must have watched the videos. Sorry but your argument is baseless. Fact is that most in your country supported Salman Taseer killer and are hardliner radicals. In fact, your statements above show that Pakistanis are not only radicals but perhaps the biggest hypocrites on earth. I knew Jinnah was a big hypocrite as I pointed earlier and have always done but it seems Pakistanis followed perhaps this hypocrite trait to the most rather than following his somewhat moderate character. In fact, they seem to have excelled at hypocrisy a lot more than Jinnah did. By your own confessions and pointers above, most Pakistanis are extremely hypocrites who rather choose radicalism as per their own convenience. The Pakistanis and Pakistani army are ass-whipped by Taliban and Al Qaeda at many instances and so, it is but obvious that many of them would be against them. Same is the case with Malala where it is convenient to support her. But when there was time to support repealing of blasphemy law or criticizing Qadri then you conveniently became radicals as that is the actual character of Pakistan i.e. radicalism and extremism. Thanks for adding another point. Most Pakistanis are not only extremists and radicals but also some of the biggest hypocrites on earth.