Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Developments in Pakistan

  1. Mar 5, 2009 #1


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Pakistan security is tied to its relations with India and Afghanistan, and to its on internal divisions.

    I was stunned to hear that the Sri Lankan cricket team was attacked!

    Opposition leader: Pakistan security has collapsed
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090305/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan_cricketers_attacked [Broken]

    Some people need to learn to disagree or oppose peacefully.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 5, 2009 #2
    I also read about it yesterday. It was pretty similar to the Mumbai attacks.

    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  4. Mar 5, 2009 #3
    I expect the people here believe there is nothing to be gained by peaceful opposition.
  5. Mar 5, 2009 #4


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    The Australians and the Indians had already shown the good sense not to play a test match there.

    These people apparently weren't even fans.
  6. Mar 5, 2009 #5


    User Avatar

    One wonders if it is perhaps linked to the Tamil Tigers and the recent major military setbacks they have suffered??

    The English umpire Chris Broad hasn't done a lot to help Pakistani - British relations with his accusations that the police did nothing to help. Given that 6 police officers were killed in the assault his comments seem, on the surface at least, to be quite disingenuous.
  7. Mar 5, 2009 #6


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    It was my understanding that they hadn't announced any route to the pitch, and were trying to be secure the team, jeez these guys were on scooters with backpacks full of armaments. I'd say all in all they did a pretty darn good job since none were apparently killed while the police took some heavy fire and casualties.

    I rather think it's not British-Pakistani relations damaged so much as Umpire ingratitude to those that paid with their lives to save his rear end.
  8. Mar 5, 2009 #7
    Doesn't one think terrorists have changed their attack tactics?
    This attack was also different from those common suicidal attacks. Could this be that there's different organization carrying out these attacks that has different motives and ideologies.

    Thanks to American aggressive approach, no more attacks in the west. I guess terrorists days are ending.
  9. Mar 5, 2009 #8
    A cricket game? C'mon. Don't they know that they will soon be dealing with 10s if not 100s of thousands of American troops?

    If they don't, someone should tell them.
  10. Mar 5, 2009 #9


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I hope you don't suggest that US troops invade and occupy rugged terrain filled with militants and religious fanatics, in a country that just happens to have nuclear weapons. Pakistan poses some real problems for the US when dealing with that region, not the least of which is that "official" acceptance of US drones launching missile attacks on suspected terrorists is VERY unpopular. The Pakistani government is on a tight-rope trying to avoid popular uprisings in the more urban, educated, sectors while avoiding outright rebellions from the more remote, rural areas.
  11. Mar 6, 2009 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Truce in Pakistan May Mean Leeway for Taliban

    Somehow, I don't this is going to work.

    I heard a story wear the Taliban blew up a mausoleum of a famous poet, because the family or owner allowed women to visit, and because the Taliban don't want anyone to worship (or hold in reverence) the deceased.
  12. Mar 6, 2009 #11


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

  13. Mar 6, 2009 #12
    For this Canadian, the Taliban are just not understandable.

    I just can't grasp the 'this is the way the world should be' concepts that they must have.
  14. Mar 6, 2009 #13


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I think it's a common fundamentalist trait. Look at how Christian Conservative Fundamentalists push their noses into bedrooms and schools with their notions of this is how things should be.
  15. Mar 6, 2009 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    With the critical difference that cultural norms in Pakistan condone violent methods (including acid-disfiguration, honor-killings, etc against women) to enforce the religious beliefs of the fundamentalists.
  16. Mar 6, 2009 #15
    to enforce the religious beliefs of the fundamentalists.


    I'll start here.

    Psychological traits of fundamentalism:

    a.. A strictly hierarchical and authoritarian worldview. Everything has to have a First, a Somebody in Charge. In any partnership, one partner has to have the deciding vote. Groups and societies work best with rigidly defined roles and stratifications. (There are people who believe this way who are not fundamentalists: at least, not religious fundamentalists.)

    b.. Ethical development at the "reward and punishment" stage: morality must be defined and enforced by an external authority.

    c.. A lot of guilt and fear about sex.

    d.. Basic distrust of human beings; certainty that "uncontrolled," human beings will be bad and vicious, particularly in sexual ways.

    e.. Low tolerance for ambiguity. Everything must be clear cut, black and white. Nothing can be "possibly true but unproven at this time, we're still studying it." Fundamentalists regard science as flawed precisely because science changes. (A striking characteristic of fundamentalists is that their response to any setback which may instill doubt is to step up evangelizing for converts.)

    f.. Literalism, usually including a limited sense of humor.

    g.. Distrust of their own judgment, or any other human being's judgment.

    h.. Fear of the future. The driving motivation of fundamentalism appears to outsiders to be fear that oneself or the group one identifies with is losing power and prerequisites and is in danger from others who are gaining power. This is not how fundamentalists put it.

    i.. A low self-esteem that finds satisfaction in being one of the Elect, superior to all others. It seems to be particularly rewarding to know that rich people have a real hard time getting into Heaven.

    The life experience of fundamentalist that seems to encourage these traits include:

    a.. Conditional love: parents, or other authority figures, withheld love to control behavior.

    b.. Other factors -- sometimes mental, emotional, or even physical abuse -- that minimized self-esteem.

    c.. For those who grew up fundamentalist, the church was the central activity of family life, all else was subsidiary to the church, and social interaction with "non-believers" was discouraged, except when evangelizing.

    d.. Those who have converted to fundamentalism often grew up without any firm philosophical framework, or experienced some trauma that destroyed their former framework. They were at a time in their lives when they needed absolute answers.

    Fundamentalist groups reinforce these traits:

    a.. They insist on a rigid hierarchy of authority. The more extreme the group, the more authority is concentrated in one central figure.

    b.. The group, and the authority figure(s) within the group, withhold or bestow love to control behavior. Misbehaving members are cut off from communication.

    c.. They magnify current social and individual evils and dwell on the "innate wickedness of man."

    d.. Sexual "immorality" is often their central cause.

    e.. They promote a Truth which is superior to all other truths because it is absolute and unchanging.

    f.. They promote distrust of one's personal judgment, being subject instead to the given truths of the group, the judgment of the church as a body, or the proclamations of a central authority figure.

    g.. They are apocalyptic, foretelling an immanent and horrifying future which only the faithful will survive. Any disaster in the news is magnified as "a sign of the apocalypse.

    The Alternative to Fundamentalism

    Regardless of belief system, an individual is no longer a "fundamentalist" when one develops:

    a.. An unconditional self-esteem and (usually in consequence) an unconditional love of others.

    b.. A tolerance -- even enjoyment -- of ambiguity and diverse beliefs. One can cheerfully live with the fact that one's neighbor on one side believes that his little blue pickup truck is God and one's neighbor on the other side doesn't believe in God at all, and feel no compulsion to convert either of them. One is not frightened to question one's faith or explore alternatives.

    c.. Free social and intellectual interaction with others, beyond -- or even without -- evangelism.

    d.. A trust that one can "figure things out," along with a willingness to learn from others and to change one's mind.

    e.. A faith that whatever the fluctuations in life and society, things can and will get better. A feeling of personal responsibility and resolve to make it so.

    f.. A sense of humor.

    It is not necessary to abandon all personal faith and beliefs in order to be tolerant of others. The majority of the followers in any of the world's religions are able to hold a strong personal belief and not feel threatened that others hold different beliefs.

    How does anyone ever become an ex-fundamentalist? Any or all of these factors seem effective:

    a.. Relationships with "non-believers" who become emotionally valued.

    b.. Intellectual process: a build-up of contradictions between taught morality and the behavior of church authorities and members; unresolved questions in study of the Bible; what is taught about the world vs observation.

    c.. Receiving unconditional love and acceptance from a non-fundamentalist.

    d.. A strengthened self-esteem, with the loss of the need for others to be wrong.

    e.. A spiritual epiphany, with a new faith that one's relationship with God is not conditional on "perfect" faith or behavior, that it can grow and change.

    from http://anitra.net/activism/fundamentalism/psychology.html

    :approve: OK
    simple problem. Simple solution.
    Education and exposure to the world.
    Then.. Hit them with a big stick and tell them to grow up. :biggrin:
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 6, 2009
  17. Mar 6, 2009 #16


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I'm not so sure that bombing Women's Clinics and killing doctors isn't all that different, though admittedly not as prevalent and certainly not to the extremes of seeking social change through totally indiscriminate violence.
  18. Mar 6, 2009 #17


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You're right, of course. They differ only in prevalence. Still, disfiguring a woman's face with battery acid if she rejects a suitor is a particularly cruel punishment for exercising a very basic personal choice. Such a woman (victim) is often seen in their culture as "unmarriagable" and is thus abandoned by her family. I can't imagine how devastating this is to the woman who is brutally attacked and disfigured, only to be ostracized by the only people who might support her. Sick.
  19. Mar 7, 2009 #18
    I heard they were going to do the same to the man ...

    Here's one other story:
    http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\07\31\story_31-7-2008_pg7_18 [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  20. Mar 30, 2009 #19
    Analysis: Why attack Lahore?


    (Somewhat answers my #7 post)

    These kind of attacks seem to get more media focus even if there isn't much destruction.
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2009
  21. Apr 1, 2009 #20


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Pakistani militant poses growing threat to US
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_pakistan [Broken]

    The US and developed nations not only face an asymmetric war, but the enemy is amorphous. In addition to Baitullah Mehsud, I think others will compete to see who can outdo the others in terms of grand stand attacks, not only in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but throughout the world. Mehsud has threatened to attack the US, and that threat should be taken seriously.

    Insurgent Threat Shifts in Pakistan
    Assault on Police Academy Indicates Risk Has Moved Beyond Tribal Areas

    So while the attack was perhaps not strategically effective, it is symbolic and perhaps the beginning of a long drawn out process and period of instability. I'm sure India is nervously watching developments.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook