Pakistan should never have been set up in the first place.
Pakistan should not exist.
Obviously I don't mean it should be razed to the ground.
I mean it should have remained part of a larger, secular-state India.
Under such a system, Pakistani Muslims
would have more freedom and human rights
than they have at present, not less.
It was a disaster for the world
(and for Christians and Hindus and Ahmadis
and secular Muslims in Pakistan)
that this violent, repressive Muslim sectarian state was split off from India.
Pakistan has been involved in near constant violence and oppression ever since,
and today is one of the world's leading
incubators of global Islamic terror.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban currently have their best sanctuary in Pakistan.
Let’s first abolish Pakistan by Petra Marquardt-Bigman, 4 Oct 2013,
points out that abolishing Pakistan
makes far more sense than abolishing Israel.
After decades of Pakistan promoting terror and oppression,
"one could easily imagine that if Pakistan didn’t exist, the world might be a much better place… But of course, it is completely out of the question to entertain such a thought in polite company".
If Pakistan was abolished and folded back into India, its people would have more human rights not less.
I imagine that it is the no.1 taboo in Pakistan. That Pakistan was a bad idea.
(No.2 is that Allah does not exist and Islam is false.)
2 year old Christian toddler
was raped in Pakistan in April 2004
because her father would not convert to Islam.
Rapes and forced conversions of Christians and Hindus
are common in Pakistan.
The little girl is damaged for life:
"Neha might never be able to conceive a child as her internal soft organs are damaged."
The pedophile rapist, Abid Hussein, was imprisoned,
but the family had to flee Pakistan under death threat.
They now live in freedom in Canada.
As One Free World International says:
"No longer having to live their lives in the shadows, Neha and her family are embracing their new lives in Canada, where they can practice their religion without fear of persecution or retaliation."
78 percent of Pakistanis support death for apostates.
83 percent support stoning for adulterers.
On the other hand, there is increasing opposition to the Taliban as it threatens to take over Pakistan
(despite the fact they agree with the Taliban on sharia).
In 2008, only 33 percent had a negative view of the Taliban. In 2009, this is up to 70 percent.
Killing Afghans is fine, but not Pakistanis, it seems.
In 2008, only 34 percent had a negative view of Al Qaeda. In 2009, this is up to 61 percent.
Killing Americans is fine, but not Pakistanis, it seems.
In 2004, an appalling 41 percent said suicide bombing that targets civilians in defense of Islam
can often or sometimes be justified. In 2009, this is down to 5 percent.
Finally think about it for 5 minutes, did you?
Pakistanis say India is a bigger threat to the nation than the Taliban
or al Qaeda.
64 percent regard the U.S. as an enemy.
Religion as mental illness:
The floor tiles of a Pakistan bank look a bit like the word for "Allah". So Islamist religious maniacs respond in June 2011 by ... suicide bombing the bank!
A bank guard was killed and four others were injured.
The bank's president says there was never any intention to disrespect the fictional being:
"We are Muslims and can never think of the disrespect to the name of Creator".
But nothing is enough to satisfy the religious mania that Pakistan has been encouraging and supporting
since its creation in 1947.
points out the irony:
"In a situation reminiscent of how rampages protesting the Florida Qur'an burning actually wound up burning untold numbers of Qur'ans as collateral damage, apparently blowing up what was taken to be Allah's name made up for the sacrilege of Allah's name appearing on the floor."
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (died 1908),
founder of the Ahmadiyya branch of Islam.
The Ahmadis - unlike mainstream Islam - do genuinely
appear to be peaceful and opposed to violence (jihad).
As a result, mainstream Islam hates them,
and kills them.
They may be anti-jihad,
but it is not clear the Ahmadis are anti-sharia.
Ahmadis may themselves support oppression.
Wanting God to destroy critics of Islam:
The Ahmadis don't believe in jihad, but they want God to take violent action against critics of Islam.
The head of the Ahmadis warns Geert Wilders, 19 Oct 2011,
"that if he continued to defame Islam and the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) then he and other like-minded individuals would be humiliated by God Almighty.
You, your party and every other person like you will ultimately be destroyed."
This will happen by Ahmadis praying, apparently.
"His Holiness explained that the destruction of such individuals would be achieved through prayer alone
... We have no worldly power, nor will we ever use any worldly force."
So he wants God to carry out violence against critics of Islam,
though he will not take action himself?
Zafar attacks any speech that conflicts with the religion of Islam.
Yet he seems not to want it banned.
"Islam does not prescribe any worldly punishment for unseemly speech. So people who insult should not be persecuted."
If he really believes this, he needs to express it differently.
He needs to clearly condemn Islamic blasphemy laws, and say that,
while as a believer he of course hates speech insulting of his religion,
free speech is an important principle of a free society and he believes in it.
He absurdly claims that the Prophet Muhammad tolerated
free speech and criticism,
which is clearly not true.
But that is what one would expect a believer to say, I suppose.
a Christian jailed for "blasphemy".
I donated $100 to the campaign for his release.
He is now free.
a Christian woman arrested in 2009 and sentenced to death in 2010 for "blasphemy".
The terrorist state of Pakistan jailed her for her religion from 2009 to 2018,
she was acquitted by the Supreme Court.
Pakistan court sentences Christian couple
Shafqat Masih and his wife Shagufta
to death, Apr 2014, for allegedly sending "blasphemous text messages".
tortured the husband and threatened to rape his wife.
12 year old Christian girl is
kidnapped in Dec 2010, gang raped for 8 months, forcibly converted to Islam, and "married" to her Muslim rapist.
Instead of arresting everyone involved, the police say she is now married and belongs to her rapist.
"The police have warned the Christian parents that it would be better to hand over the girl to her 'legal' husband (the rapist) otherwise a criminal case will be filed against them.
... The Christian family is in hiding from the rapists and the police".
"The children were preparing for mass ... The loud cheers became terrified whimpers when suddenly four men, one of them with an axe, barged into the church.
The men slapped the children, wrecked the furniture, smashed the microphone on to the floor and kicked the altar."
Aren't they the brave men, attacking children.
Imagine if Christian men attacked Muslim children in a mosque!
Hundreds would die in riots.
The Islamic thugs said they were angry about the "noise" disturbing their prayers.
Of course, that is a lie.
The thugs were really angry about the existence of Christians.
an 11 year old Christian girl with Down's Syndrome arrested for "blasphemy" in Pakistan, Aug 2012.
the local Christians were then threatened by Islamic extremists who
wanted to burn down their village.
300 people left their homes and were in hiding due to the threats.
The police officer who arrested the child
and jailed her
"150 people had gathered .. where the neighborhood's Christian population lived and threatened to burn down their houses.
"The mob wanted to burn the girl to give her a lesson," he told CNN.
Other Christian families living in the area have fled fearing a backlash, he added."
So compared to the mob, this sharia-enforcing bastard is the good guy!
Let's Buy Pakistan's Nukes, Bret Stephens, December 16, 2008.
Proposes removing nuclear weapons from one of the world's leading incubators of terror
in return for money.
"This is the deal I have in mind. The government of Pakistan would verifiably eliminate its entire nuclear stockpile and the industrial base that sustains it. In exchange, the U.S. and other Western donors would agree to a $100 billion economic package, administered by an independent authority and disbursed over 10 years, on condition that Pakistan remain a democratic and secular state (no military rulers; no Sharia law). It would supplement that package with military aid".
Pakistan is already an Islamic state with sharia law:
All of the Islamist terror groups above want the same thing -
to oppress Pakistanis under the jackboot of sharia law.
And the great irony is - Pakistan is already ruled by sharia law.
So why do the above fight and die, when their goal has already been met?
It may surprise you that these poorly-educated religious maniacs
are not driven by some sort of logical, well-thought-out grievance.
Rather, the above groups kill ultimately
because they like killing
- because they have an ideology that loves killing,
and doesn't know how to do anything else.
Their violence is not because that is "the only way",
or they are "poor",
or they have tried everything else
(or anything else).
Rather, their ideology (Islamism) generates violence because
that is its nature.
Or, in a nutshell, India
is not the cause of the appalling Islamic terror problem in Pakistan.
on how Pakistan thinks America is not doing enough killing
"Islamabad has complained that America launches drone attacks
only on Al-Qaeda suspects, not on the Pakistani Taliban."
says the U.S. military classified the ISI (Pakistan intelligence agency) as a terrorist support entity in 2007,
and used association with it as a justification to detain prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.
Pakistan arrests those who betrayed Bin Laden to the Americans. It's pretty clear which side they're on.
"instead of hunting down the support network that allowed Bin Laden to live comfortably for years, the Pakistani authorities are arresting those who assisted in the raid that killed the world’s most wanted man."
Shakil Afridi, the doctor
jailed and tortured by the terrorist state of Pakistan
for helping find Bin Laden.
Interview with Shakil Afridi, published 10 Sept 2012.
The ISI regards America as the enemy:
“I tried to argue that America was Pakistan’s biggest supporter – billions and billions of dollars in aid, social and military assistance -- but all they said was, ‘These are our worst enemies. You helped our enemies.’”
The ISI funds the Haqqani Network terrorist group.
Pakistan is a state sponsor of terror.
"Pakistan’s fight against militancy is bogus. It’s just to extract money from America".
Whether Pakistan gets serious about
the Islamist terror it has encouraged,
now that it threatens Pakistan itself,
remains to be seen.
Pakistan takes out an ad in the Wall Street Journal on 11 Sept 2011, saying that they are suffering from the jihadist terror that they encourage.
It is true that they are suffering.
It is their own fault, for decades of support for Islamic terror, but they are certainly suffering.
It is not true that they are fighting jihadism.
They are funding and encouraging it.
Pakistan is the world's main incubator of Islamic terror.
It is no coincidence that Bin Laden was found living in Pakistan.
All terrorism in India comes from Pakistan.
Half of the terror in Afghanistan comes from Pakistan.
Image and comments here.
One comment says:
"The only good thing about this ad is the money spent here cannot be used to train killers."
Parody of the above ad.
parodies Pakistan's "fight" for and against Islamic terror. ""These are highly dangerous men," he continued, "who will be taken out at 5:23 a.m. I repeat: The strike begins at 5:23 a.m."
Pasha said that in addition to U.S. Apache helicopters circling Razmani to prevent the escape of any terrorist operatives, the ISI would be setting up extensive checkpoints on all roads leading north, south, and west out of the town."
Unfortunately, the last line is not a joke:
"As of press time, the U.S. has given Pakistan more than $20 billion in aid since Sept. 11, 2001."
Who I block:
I will debate almost anyone.
I love ideas.
I will not debate (and will block) people who:
(a) target my job,
(b) target my appearance, or:
(c) libel me (such as call me racist).
I will not debate such people.
I will block them.