British Red Cross Worker Found Beheaded In Pakistan

[folium]

There have been "political and economic means" attempted during the past 60 years or so. Think Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Palestine et al. Where has that gotten us during the same time frame?

When you say "removing any issues that can be used to prolong conflict", you seem to be saying that people and governments should take no action which might offend the extremists. Is that what you meant to say?

Political and economic means have been successfully deployed in Aceh, Malaysia, throughout Europe (ETA, IRA etc) as examples of dealing with extremism.

Addressing issues that prolong conflict is not appeasement or soft-peddling, more a case of lancing running sores like the Middlle East conflict, the India-Pakistan border dispute, or addressing economic/ethnic issues where a group is marginalised and needs to be brought in (eg Kurds of Turkey or the southern provinces of Thailand).

All in all a lifetime's work for millions but looking at such conflicts through the narrow veil of religion (pun intended) solves little and exacerbates mightily.

[Colin Yai]

I seem remember in my School days having an History lesson about the Roman Historian/Senator Tacitus AD14 to68 who said "If you want peace sometimes you have to be prepared to fight for it" I believed it then as I still do to this day ..

[folium]

I seem remember in my School days having an History lesson about the Roman Historian/Senator Tacitus AD14 to68 who said "If you want peace sometimes you have to be prepared to fight for it" I believed it then as I still do to this day ..

Ain't history fun, glad you've come round to revisiting your history books!

The actual quote is "Si vis pacem, para bellum" [if you wish for peace, prepare for war] and came from Vegetius in the late 4th century AD.

Having put such words into actions for a couple of decades I quite agree, but to quote another cliche "choose your enemies wisely, as you will become like them". Ironically an Arab proverb, date unknown, but very resonant today.

[koheesti]

The "art" of terrorism is to provoke an over-reaction by one's opponents thus validating the terrorists standpoint and advancing their cause.

No, the "art" of terrorism is to advance their cause by terrorizing the other side into doing what they want. Terrorists aren't looking validation, they are looking for submission.

[Steely Dan]

Don't you think it's the Muslims that are the cause of the conflict because of their completely unyielding behavior to some one of another faith, hence all the desecration of Christian places of worship not only in Nigeria but many other Islamic Countrys too, Many are up in arms about this pastor Burning the Quran, but say nothing when the Christian Aid workers mentioned in my link were brutally murdered for being "suspected" of distributing Bibles, for fox sake lets have some sort of level playing field .

There is no answer to that one, it's demonstrable fact. There is also an element of racism here as the victim himself was Muslim, just not born one or resembling the locals. Related but far less tragic was the American Al-Qaeda operative murdered by his supposed allies in Yemen, again, even though he had a fully developed case of jihadist Stockholm syndrome his face didn't fit. However to talk of such things is apparently racist.

[Colin Yai]

I seem remember in my School days having an History lesson about the Roman Historian/Senator Tacitus AD14 to68 who said "If you want peace sometimes you have to be prepared to fight for it" I believed it then as I still do to this day ..

Ain't history fun, glad you've come round to revisiting your history books!

The actual quote is "Si vis pacem, para bellum" [if you wish for peace, prepare for war] and came from Vegetius in the late 4th century AD.

Having put such words into actions for a couple of decades I quite agree, but to quote another cliche "choose your enemies wisely, as you will become like them". Ironically an Arab proverb, date unknown, but very resonant today.

Well it was 57 years ago and the last 2 letters of the name was US!. Edited May 1, 2012 by Colin Yai

[chuckd]

There have been "political and economic means" attempted during the past 60 years or so. Think Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Palestine et al. Where has that gotten us during the same time frame?

When you say "removing any issues that can be used to prolong conflict", you seem to be saying that people and governments should take no action which might offend the extremists. Is that what you meant to say?

Political and economic means have been successfully deployed in Aceh, Malaysia, throughout Europe (ETA, IRA etc) as examples of dealing with extremism.

Addressing issues that prolong conflict is not appeasement or soft-peddling, more a case of lancing running sores like the Middlle East conflict, the India-Pakistan border dispute, or addressing economic/ethnic issues where a group is marginalised and needs to be brought in (eg Kurds of Turkey or the southern provinces of Thailand).

All in all a lifetime's work for millions but looking at such conflicts through the narrow veil of religion (pun intended) solves little and exacerbates mightily.

I seem remember in my School days having an History lesson about the Roman Historian/Senator Tacitus AD14 to68 who said "If you want peace sometimes you have to be prepared to fight for it" I believed it then as I still do to this day ..

Ain't history fun, glad you've come round to revisiting your history books!

The actual quote is "Si vis pacem, para bellum" [if you wish for peace, prepare for war] and came from Vegetius in the late 4th century AD.

Having put such words into actions for a couple of decades I quite agree, but to quote another cliche "choose your enemies wisely, as you will become like them". Ironically an Arab proverb, date unknown, but very resonant today.

Would you care to share with us how you have put such words into actions for a couple of decades?

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted.

[geriatrickid]

Political and economic means have been successfully deployed in Aceh, Malaysia, throughout Europe (ETA, IRA etc) as examples of dealing with extremism.

Addressing issues that prolong conflict is not appeasement or soft-peddling, more a case of lancing running sores like the Middlle East conflict, the India-Pakistan border dispute, or addressing economic/ethnic issues where a group is marginalised and needs to be brought in (eg Kurds of Turkey or the southern provinces of Thailand).

All in all a lifetime's work for millions but looking at such conflicts through the narrow veil of religion (pun intended) solves little and exacerbates mightily.

The conflicts you refer to were often had economic roots. The Irish troubles had religion on the surface, but really it was an issue of the overthrow of the Government of Eire as well since the IRA wanted to replace the Irish government. At its core, the Irish troubles sprang from real and perceived social inquities. Same for Malaysia, where today, the Chinese and Indian ethnic groups suffer from government mandated discrimination. The Kurds in Turkey is all about the Turks trying to control a region and people that were at one time independent and that are of a different culture.

What we see in Pakistan is a group of thugs intent on imposing their specific religious views on others. It's as simple as that. Attempts to win the hearts and minds of such people by offering economic opportunities will not work, There is no point in offering modern gadgets to people that live in the stone ages and still wipe their arse with their hands. as much as I regret the loss of life of the aid worker, it was expected. Pakistan is a screwed up state armed with nuclear weapons and throwing money and aid to it is just delaying the inevitable. What I find amazing is that India and Pakistan have the same origin. Yet India with one of the largest muslim populations in the world is able to maintain a semi democratic government, and a semi free press along with some respect for fundamental civil rights. Pakistan cannot. India has not suffered from military coups, but Pakistan has. India's government is not dominated by doctrinair muslims, while Pakistan is. That says it all. It also explains why it is to be expected that more aid workers will end up dead in Pakistan.

[Colin Yai]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...h-asia-17907674 another interesting link concerning this tragedy, I just hope the perpetrators of this horrible crime are brought to justice, some one out there knows who is responsible ,whether they will render information about who did it is quite another matter!. Edited May 1, 2012 by Colin Yai

[Colin Yai]

Political and economic means have been successfully deployed in Aceh, Malaysia, throughout Europe (ETA, IRA etc) as examples of dealing with extremism.

Addressing issues that prolong conflict is not appeasement or soft-peddling, more a case of lancing running sores like the Middlle East conflict, the India-Pakistan border dispute, or addressing economic/ethnic issues where a group is marginalised and needs to be brought in (eg Kurds of Turkey or the southern provinces of Thailand).

All in all a lifetime's work for millions but looking at such conflicts through the narrow veil of religion (pun intended) solves little and exacerbates mightily.

The conflicts you refer to were often had economic roots. The Irish troubles had religion on the surface, but really it was an issue of the overthrow of the Government of Eire as well since the IRA wanted to replace the Irish government. At its core, the Irish troubles sprang from real and perceived social inquities. Same for Malaysia, where today, the Chinese and Indian ethnic groups suffer from government mandated discrimination. The Kurds in Turkey is all about the Turks trying to control a region and people that were at one time independent and that are of a different culture.

What we see in Pakistan is a group of thugs intent on imposing their specific religious views on others. It's as simple as that. Attempts to win the hearts and minds of such people by offering economic opportunities will not work, There is no point in offering modern gadgets to people that live in the stone ages and still wipe their arse with their hands. as much as I regret the loss of life of the aid worker, it was expected. Pakistan is a screwed up state armed with nuclear weapons and throwing money and aid to it is just delaying the inevitable. What I find amazing is that India and Pakistan have the same origin. Yet India with one of the largest muslim populations in the world is able to maintain a semi democratic government, and a semi free press along with some respect for fundamental civil rights. Pakistan cannot. India has not suffered from military coups, but Pakistan has. India's government is not dominated by doctrinair muslims, while Pakistan is. That says it all. It also explains why it is to be expected that more aid workers will end up dead in Pakistan.

Good post!, What more can anyone add I ask myself!!. Edited May 1, 2012 by Colin Yai

[Colin Yai]

http://www.nytimes.c...02pakistan.html Hmm it would appear the words written by GK in his excellent post #39 are not with foundation!, whether masses of aid to Pakistan is having the right effect according to this is highly doubtful, like a few other Country's giving aid is like pouring water into a bottomless bucket. Edited May 1, 2012 by Colin Yai

[Naam]

There is no point in offering modern gadgets to people that live in the stone ages and still wipe their arse with their hands.

there is also no point in ridiculing people who, after a dump, spread the shit remains evenly with paper instead of using their hands and water to clean their <deleted>.

[Steely Dan]

There is no point in offering modern gadgets to people that live in the stone ages and still wipe their arse with their hands.

there is also no point in ridiculing people who, after a dump, spread the shit remains evenly with paper instead of using their hands and water to clean their <deleted>.

Your misguided scatological equivalence arguments help demonstrate exactly why there is a clash of civilizations. Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram and the Taliban are like peas in the same pod, negotiating with a totalitarian ideology is as futile as Chamberlain or Molotov negotiating with the Nazis. It is also a fact born out by opinion polls that the likes of the Taliban do enjoy considerable support in the Islamic world.

[Scott]

This thread has degenerated into the usual posters, with their usual agendas arguing completely off-topic.

The topic is about a Red Cross Worker who was beheaded. There was a thread sometime ago about toilet habits around the world. This isn't it.

Posting suspensions will be given for continued off-topic posts.

[OzMick]

There have been "political and economic means" attempted during the past 60 years or so. Think Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Palestine et al. Where has that gotten us during the same time frame?

When you say "removing any issues that can be used to prolong conflict", you seem to be saying that people and governments should take no action which might offend the extremists. Is that what you meant to say?

Political and economic means have been successfully deployed in Aceh, Malaysia, throughout Europe (ETA, IRA etc) as examples of dealing with extremism.

Addressing issues that prolong conflict is not appeasement or soft-peddling, more a case of lancing running sores like the Middlle East conflict, the India-Pakistan border dispute, or addressing economic/ethnic issues where a group is marginalised and needs to be brought in (eg Kurds of Turkey or the southern provinces of Thailand).

All in all a lifetime's work for millions but looking at such conflicts through the narrow veil of religion (pun intended) solves little and exacerbates mightily.

The collapse of muslim extremism in Aceh was a direct result of the tsunami and the subsequent arrival of aid from both Oz and the US. The devastated locals were exposed to the "Great Satanists" who gave the aid and assistance while asking nothing in return. When compared to the extremists who have "taxed" food and financial support for decades, the transparency of the extremists' lies was obvious, and support evaporated virtually overnight.

[folium]

There have been "political and economic means" attempted during the past 60 years or so. Think Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Palestine et al. Where has that gotten us during the same time frame?

When you say "removing any issues that can be used to prolong conflict", you seem to be saying that people and governments should take no action which might offend the extremists. Is that what you meant to say?

Political and economic means have been successfully deployed in Aceh, Malaysia, throughout Europe (ETA, IRA etc) as examples of dealing with extremism.

Addressing issues that prolong conflict is not appeasement or soft-peddling, more a case of lancing running sores like the Middlle East conflict, the India-Pakistan border dispute, or addressing economic/ethnic issues where a group is marginalised and needs to be brought in (eg Kurds of Turkey or the southern provinces of Thailand).

All in all a lifetime's work for millions but looking at such conflicts through the narrow veil of religion (pun intended) solves little and exacerbates mightily.

The collapse of muslim extremism in Aceh was a direct result of the tsunami and the subsequent arrival of aid from both Oz and the US. The devastated locals were exposed to the "Great Satanists" who gave the aid and assistance while asking nothing in return. When compared to the extremists who have "taxed" food and financial support for decades, the transparency of the extremists' lies was obvious, and support evaporated virtually overnight.

Bit more complicated than that. Aceh was predominantly a separatist rather than religious conflict and was a continuation of the struggle against colonial Dutch rule and Aceh's peripheral status and neglect within Indonesia.

The key players in the separatist struggle remain key players in Aceh's politics today, and the ruling political party (PA) morphed from the separatist GAM, so hardly a case of extremists losing popular support. See links below, including the role of private organizations in conflict resolution, which is even being attempted in respect of the Taliban. No overnight successes predicted but emphasises the political/economic nature of such settlements.

http://www.economist.com/node/4194634

http://www.economist.com/node/18895458

[koheesti]

There have been "political and economic means" attempted during the past 60 years or so. Think Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Palestine et al. Where has that gotten us during the same time frame?

When you say "removing any issues that can be used to prolong conflict", you seem to be saying that people and governments should take no action which might offend the extremists. Is that what you meant to say?

Political and economic means have been successfully deployed in Aceh, Malaysia, throughout Europe (ETA, IRA etc) as examples of dealing with extremism.

Addressing issues that prolong conflict is not appeasement or soft-peddling, more a case of lancing running sores like the Middlle East conflict, the India-Pakistan border dispute, or addressing economic/ethnic issues where a group is marginalised and needs to be brought in (eg Kurds of Turkey or the southern provinces of Thailand).

All in all a lifetime's work for millions but looking at such conflicts through the narrow veil of religion (pun intended) solves little and exacerbates mightily.

The collapse of muslim extremism in Aceh was a direct result of the tsunami and the subsequent arrival of aid from both Oz and the US. The devastated locals were exposed to the "Great Satanists" who gave the aid and assistance while asking nothing in return. When compared to the extremists who have "taxed" food and financial support for decades, the transparency of the extremists' lies was obvious, and support evaporated virtually overnight.

Apparently, all that free aid to Pakistan after the big earthquake a few years back didn't buy much good will. Then again, maybe they would hate us even more if we hadn't helped out?

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.

[Steely Dan]

There have been "political and economic means" attempted during the past 60 years or so. Think Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Palestine et al. Where has that gotten us during the same time frame?

When you say "removing any issues that can be used to prolong conflict", you seem to be saying that people and governments should take no action which might offend the extremists. Is that what you meant to say?

Political and economic means have been successfully deployed in Aceh, Malaysia, throughout Europe (ETA, IRA etc) as examples of dealing with extremism.

Addressing issues that prolong conflict is not appeasement or soft-peddling, more a case of lancing running sores like the Middlle East conflict, the India-Pakistan border dispute, or addressing economic/ethnic issues where a group is marginalised and needs to be brought in (eg Kurds of Turkey or the southern provinces of Thailand).

All in all a lifetime's work for millions but looking at such conflicts through the narrow veil of religion (pun intended) solves little and exacerbates mightily.

The collapse of muslim extremism in Aceh was a direct result of the tsunami and the subsequent arrival of aid from both Oz and the US. The devastated locals were exposed to the "Great Satanists" who gave the aid and assistance while asking nothing in return. When compared to the extremists who have "taxed" food and financial support for decades, the transparency of the extremists' lies was obvious, and support evaporated virtually overnight.

Bit more complicated than that. Aceh was predominantly a separatist rather than religious conflict and was a continuation of the struggle against colonial Dutch rule and Aceh's peripheral status and neglect within Indonesia.

The key players in the separatist struggle remain key players in Aceh's politics today, and the ruling political party (PA) morphed from the separatist GAM, so hardly a case of extremists losing popular support. See links below, including the role of private organizations in conflict resolution, which is even being attempted in respect of the Taliban. No overnight successes predicted but emphasises the political/economic nature of such settlements.

http://www.economist.com/node/4194634

http://www.economist.com/node/18895458

As an aside Aceh province adopts Sharia law, unlike the rest of Indonesia, so I'm not sure how this fits with your assertion that Aceh was not an example of religious conflict. It is therefore arguable that it could be chalked up as a success story, unless surrender of human rights counts as negotiation.

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/shariah-in-aceh-eroding-indonesias-secular-freedoms/391672

P.S This is my sole comment on Aceh, I just thought I'd throw it in as it is relevant to your discussion.

Edited May 2, 2012 by Steely Dan

[Scott]

It's not relevant. The thread continues in an off-topic manner.

You have been warned. Again.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts have been deleted.