Comments on: TXT “SWAT” TO 20222

By: Just a Thought VI

Just a Thought VI — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:08:53 +0000

[...] Babu, in re to this… Refugees are easily radicalized, and if the Pakistani army, which carries out [...]

By: back home (memorial day) « verbal privilege

back home (memorial day) « verbal privilege — Wed, 27 May 2009 03:42:09 +0000

[...] keeps growing, eight-plus years on. You might also want to take time this week to text “Swat” to 20222 and donate $5 to relief efforts for IDPs in Pakistan. It may be a long time before they can go [...]

By: Akbar

Akbar — Mon, 25 May 2009 05:59:51 +0000

“I’m not trying to assimilate you benevolently or otherwise”
Does that mean I deserve Drones?
Just kidding!

Here is the fearmonger’s guide.

“Rule #5: Whenever possible, depict opponents as part of a strong and highly cohesive movement, and preferably one united by strong ideological convictions. ”

http://greencrescent.wordpress.com/2009/05/24/tv-dinner-wars/

By: kabir

kabir — Sun, 24 May 2009 18:06:59 +0000

“I mean, how is one supposed to have an opinion on what’s happening in the Ukraine? Or are we not supposed to care or be curious about anything that doesn’t happen in our own backyards?”

You can certainly have an opinion on anything anywhere in the world. All I’m saying is that when discussing Ukraine, for example, one should listen to and reflect upon what Ukrainians think, regardless of one’s own qualifications. In this thread, you seem to be implying “I’m an academic, I know more about Pakistan and it’s issue than actual Pakistanis”. I’m saying, no that’s not always the case.

By: Spencer L.

Spencer L. — Sun, 24 May 2009 17:01:29 +0000

I meant to write “readily IF facilely caricatured”

By: Spencer L.

Spencer L. — Sun, 24 May 2009 17:00:50 +0000

Dear Akbar,
I’m not trying to assimilate you benevolently or otherwise. As for being in politics, these are political discussions, whether or not we are politicians.
I deplore the silencing of debate and I am very glad that Ward Churchill (whom I think to be a total idiot) won his case against the University of Colorado and has been restored to the faculty of that university. I think he deserves to be paid damages and that those who brought about his expulsion have a lot to answer for.
As for the total information or surveillance state, I can assure that my views (so readily of facilely caricatured as “neo-conservative”) will do me no favors in my line of work (academia).

By: Dear Spencer

Dear Spencer — Sun, 24 May 2009 13:32:30 +0000

[...] have so many interlocuters here, here, here and here that to respond to your answer to my earlier comment, I am afraid that I have to move it up here above the [...]

By: Akbar

Akbar — Sun, 24 May 2009 06:29:45 +0000

“Akbar your comment, “when you cannot tell difference between Kabir and Akbar,( whtas the difference they all look same), I guess I rest my case” is despicable.”

Spencer my apologies, as it hurt your feelings. As you see in my comment#3 I already said sorry. I had been typing and released my comments without realizaing that in your commeni, you had corrected your mistake, So this is my bad.

“I think your hyper-sensitive comments about Islamist fascism…”

This phrase was introduced by you first time in
discussion in you earlier comment #31 and I quote you

“As I said before, I don’t expect that the U.S. government (or any of the major political parties in Pakistan) to steadily and resolutely oppose what I take to be a kind of islamist fascism,”
I was merely trying to geta clear idea, what you mean by this term. I did not introduce it in the discussion.

“your paranoia about Daniel Pipes and Campus Watch together with your manifest and recurrent race-thinking speak volumes about your politics. ”

First of all I am not in business of politics. I am a physician treating HIV/AIDS patients in an Indigent clinic associated with an academic center. I see multi-ethnic (black/white/hispanic/refugees, you name it)patients, with athiest to anytype of religious persuations, gay to straight and beyond.
Secondly , I have no reason to be paranoid about campus watch and Pipes of this world. I was merely thinking about people like Norman Finklestein, Ward Churchill, Joseph Macade, Prof. Robinson etc., politicinas like senator Fullbright, Paul Findley, Cynthia Mckinney etc. And I did not Imply you will have anyrole in it what so ever but we live in age of Total Information Awareness/Survillence state.

“We’re done.”

Please do not give up on me. Believe me I am yearning for “benevolent assimilation”.

By: TV-dinner wars « The Shape Of The World

TV-dinner wars « The Shape Of The World — Sun, 24 May 2009 05:38:16 +0000

[...] see: The Lost Population and TXT “SWAT” TO 20222 at Chapati Mystery Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)“Clash” Euphemisms [...]

By: Spencer L.

Spencer L. — Sun, 24 May 2009 04:44:19 +0000

And, by the way, I think it would be more accurate to say that Faiz was a Communist in the sense of being a member of the Communist Party. Certainly, his English translator, Victor Kiernan (himself a member of the Communist underground inside the British Raj in the 1930s) speaks of him as such in his autobiographical writings. Or, at least, so I recall.

By: Spencer L.

Spencer L. — Sun, 24 May 2009 04:41:42 +0000

Marxism as a political project isn’t viable anywhere. We aren’t talking about that. One can make a Marxist argument without it being translatable into political practice. The question is whether or not as a mode of analysis it illuminates anything or not.
As for the issue of insider/outsider, tell me how experience bears on this question exactly and why the talk of insider status isn’t just about silencing others. I still don’t get it. I’ve already said that, of course, one potentially gains insight from experience (though not necessarily). What more is there to say on the subject? On the whole, that sort of talk is self-provincializing and anti-intellectual. I mean, how is one supposed to have an opinion on what’s happening in the Ukraine? Or are we not supposed to care or be curious about anything that doesn’t happen in our own backyards?

By: kabir

kabir — Sun, 24 May 2009 04:30:15 +0000

Spencer, no one is denying that Faiz Sahab was influenced by socialism. What I was trying to get at was that Marxism is no longer a viable part of Pakistani political discourse. It was at one point, but (fortunately or unfortunately) it’s not now.

I’m not questioning your right to speak on Pakistan, I just think that academic credentials are not always as good as the experiences of people who actually come from the country in question.

By: Spencer L.

Spencer L. — Sun, 24 May 2009 03:46:59 +0000

Akbar your comment, “when you cannot tell difference between Kabir and Akbar,( whtas the difference they all look same), I guess I rest my case” is despicable. I think your hyper-sensitive comments about Islamist fascism and your paranoia about Daniel Pipes and Campus Watch together with your manifest and recurrent race-thinking speak volumes about your politics. We’re done.
As for your comments about Marxism, Kabir, I would point out to you that whether we are talking about Eqbal Ahmed, Aijaz Ahmad, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Ahmad Rashid (once but no longer), Tariq Ali, or any of a number of others, the Pakistani intellectual tradition is full of Marxists and socialists (anyone who grew up in pre-Zia Pakistan would inform you of that). But I’m sure they are all just so many “westernized” intellectuals to your way of thinking. But speaking for myself, I wouldn’t want to try to understand Pakistan without their writings or the intellectual framework with which they operate.
Obviously, people who grow up in a place have a valuable and indispensable perspective. But your comments are directed at questioning my right to speak on the subject at all.

By: Akbar

Akbar — Sun, 24 May 2009 03:07:16 +0000

“The term Islamist fascists refers to a fascist brand of politics that speaks in the name of Islam. It says nothing whatsoever about Islam as a religion or Muslim people per se any more than do the terms Hindu fascism or Christian fascism. ”
So now we are talking. As we acknowledge that
1) It is a fascist brand of politics that speaks in the name of Islam.
2)It says nothing whatsoever about Islam as a religion or Muslim people per se any more than do the terms Hindu fascism or Christian fascism.
Then we can move on to the conclusion that some very cunning people are bringing their political agenda to realization by these means, right? So politics is art of possibilities. As we eastablish these are very cunning people, so they must have brains. Then we can say, may be they have some motives, demands etc, rational or irrational does not matter. That means there can be a dialogue, right? But no, at some point in history we have entered in a bizzaro world where, this “Islamist Fascism” has attained a unique, supernatural status. Only prescription the doctor says is to eradicate all who can be labelled as such, with millions dollars a piece missile if needed. There is a problem, we said it is a political startegy adopted by some, so is the military strategy the only answer and that too quick, no time to waste!Next problem is who decides who is liquidated and who is not?Who is the judge, jury, and the excutioner? Are they not the same people who told us Iraq had WMDS and Saddam is in bed with UBL. Funny part is that while CIA tortured detaines to get an Iraq link, intellectuals are assaulting everybody’s intelligence to eastablish once again that there is link between all things “Taliban”. While they chide others for harbouring US/India/… conspiracy theories, unwittingly or wittingly themselves not only believe in such theories from otherside but actively chart the course of their actions based on such . Tragedy is that they have real firepower to hurt people. So how is this consesus evolevd. From CIA torture to Yellowcake, from Judy miller/NYT to Fred Hiat, and chose your favourite neocons, they have the leading /cutting edge information tools at their hands, and That is what some are complaining about, that enough is enough. First you saved us from “Evil Empire”. And now you want to save us from your creation. (That help you to defeat the Evil Empire).
This is the question which begs an answer?

By: kabir

kabir — Sun, 24 May 2009 02:18:07 +0000

Spencer, I think whatever people’s academic qualifications, living and growing up in a particular culture gives you certain insights into that society that simply studying it from the outside cannot. Trained social scientists have a lot to add to the discussion, but they would also gain from listening to people who are actually part of the society at hand. For example, someone who grew up in pre-Zia Pakistan and then also experienced zia-era Islamization would be able to tell you a lot more about the realities than someone who simply studied Islamization from the outside.

With all due respect, as Akbar has pointed out, you have a certain “Western” framework and ideology that you are trying to apply to Pakistan and it’s not always successful.

And I think if you asked Pakistanis, they wouldn’t be pushing for Marxism or whatever, most of them (like most other people) want to get ahead in life. They would push for justice, equity,etc. but they wouldn’t express it in those terms. They would probably express it in Islamic terms. Marxism calls for religion to become irrelevent right? That’s not going to work in Pakistan where Islam is not going to become irrelevent.

By: Akbar

Akbar — Sun, 24 May 2009 02:08:14 +0000

I am sorry you beat me to my post. I accept your clarification.

By: Akbar

Akbar — Sun, 24 May 2009 02:05:29 +0000

“Akbar your complacency when you write “I think most Pakistanis are very happy with capitalism, they just want to make money, educate their children and get ahead in life” is truly breath-taking. ”

Spencer where exactly did I make these comments?

“As for your gratuitous comments about my attitudes towards “brown people,” I think you would do well to treat your interlocutors with greater respect.”

I treat my interlocuators with great respect and care. However I am sorry I cannot show any reverence to those who are not deserving of my respect, does not matter who they are. I am debating their thoughts and Ideology and not their personal life.

“Your comments about Albright, Pipes, and Campus Watch are likewise gratuitous and undeserving of reply.’
Well fair if my respected interloculator thinks so.

“The term Islamist fascists refers to a fascist brand of politics that speaks in the name of Islam. It says nothing whatsoever about Islam as a religion or Muslim people per se any more than do the terms Hindu fascism or Christian fascism. The term’s meaning is plain.”
This term was coined and has been used by thinktanks, politicians, commentatotrs, who have a certain word view. Since you used it too, so It is hard for me to discern, you mean something different by it.
But as a metter of common sense when you are dealing with a country where >97% population professes to accept some sort of Isalm as their faith, using such terms is not going to get us anywhere. Besides that people who are still using this term might just be left holding the bag, as Bush ERA terms are vanishing fast even though the policies continue.
Now when you cannot tell difference between Kabir and Akbar,( whtas the difference they all look same), I guess I rest my case.

By: Spencer L.

Spencer L. — Sun, 24 May 2009 02:00:49 +0000

Yes, Qalandar, you’re right. Sorry about that Akbar. It was Kabir who wrote the bit about people being “very happy with capitalism.”

By: Spencer L.

Spencer L. — Sun, 24 May 2009 01:58:06 +0000

Kabir, you ask, “Spencer, while no one is discounting your academic credentials, don’t you think that Pakistanis or people of Pak-origin might have a better feeling for the dynamics of their country than someone who is (arguebly) an outsider to that cultural milieu?” And the simple answer is “no”. As I wrote with reference to James Mill I don’t think that the understanding of social dynamics arises from the mere fact of living in some place or in some particular culture. In fact, I find the proposition positively bizarre. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that on the subjects under debate here I would rather hear the analysis of a trained social scientist (whatever his skin color, religion, or “culture”) than I would want to hear the opinion of someone who just happened to be Pakistani (or whatever other nationality or culture may be under discussion, including my own).
Kabir, you also wrote, “I don’t see what relevance Partition has to the topic at hand (thus I didn’t understand why Spencer brought it up in the first place)”
The reason why I brought it up (along with much else besides) was to highlight that the struggle with the Taliban is essentially POLITICAL and that, as with political struggles in the past, the sort of ethnic categories Sepoy wants to deploy are of extremely limited explanatory capacity. What I wrote was quite clear, “The linguistic and ethnic diversity of Pakistan didn’t stop the Muslim League’s (regressive) demand for Partition in the 40s, it didn’t stop the decades of military rule that followed, it didn’t stop the prosecution of the Bangladesh War, it didn’t stop Bhutto’s (again reactionary) call for Islamic Socialism, and it didn’t stop the Zia coup, so what makes you think the ethnic and linguistic diversity of the country is going to stop Talibanization?” It was a direct reply to Sepoy’s challenge: “lets cross over that Durand Line and tell me why “Talibanization” will flourish amongst Sindhis, Punjabis or Baluchis?” As I pointed out, Talibanization already flourishes in the (predominantly Punjabi) Pakistani military. Certainly, I didn’t intend to start a whole debate on the Partition. It’s hardly my fault if others want to seize upon one thing in my post and run off in another direction with it.

By: Qalandar

Qalandar — Sun, 24 May 2009 01:45:36 +0000

Spencer L: I believe the comment about capitalism/being happy with it was made by kabir, not akbar.