digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at csmonitor.com

Pakistan's 'Gandhi' Party Takes on the Taliban

csmonitor.com — The Awami National Party, which leads the ruling coalition in the crucial North West Frontier Province, espouses a nonviolent approach to tackling extremism.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • suzywang3000, on 05/05/2008, -11/+15I'll put my money on the Taliban...
    • nbyn, on 05/05/2008, -6/+2Taliban by 13-1/2 points
    • nirav72, on 05/05/2008, -6/+2Yup..they'll get their non-violent arses handed back to them.





    • isage, on 05/05/2008, -0/+24I'm sure you would have put your money on the British during Gandhi's days too.
      • mm911, on 05/05/2008, -4/+5The British didn't have "God" whispering orders in their ear.
        • Dundasbro, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5I'm pretty damn sure they did actually, as well as their wallets. But hey, they were bringing "civilisation", which was their moral duty and all that.
      • Herrold, on 05/05/2008, -4/+3British did not employ suicide bombings. You are comparing a legitimate nation state with a group of radical islamists. Two very different entities.
        I can see one suicide bomber sitting down in the middle of a peaceful protest ending this as a viable option.
        • gnomead, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5Although I'm not suggesting that peaceful protests are a viable option, it's incorrect to assume that the British were above massacre (look up Jallianwala Bagh massacre in which hundreds of my countrymen and women were killed in cold blood by the British) and it was as much a 'legitimate' nation state as slavery was a 'legitimate' social-economic system.
        • kkapoor, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5I suggest you read up on your British Imperial history. The British employed draconian tactics during their rule in India and elsewhere.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_mass ...
          You don't have to be a fundamentalist to execute innocent people.
      • whatthefu, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Yeah I mean historically speaking going against the British Empire wasn't a good idea. He had balls.
    • DarkPrincess74, on 05/05/2008, -4/+0Maybe the Gandhi party could form a basketball team and then challenge the taliban to one game where the winner gets the country. Sure sure, the taliban would play dirty but in the end the gandhi party would win. Life is exactly like the movies right?
    • Nowaiman, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1i'll put my money on my hat
    • sweetholymosiah, on 05/05/2008, -7/+3You ***** Americans are so ignorant as to compare peoples lives to a spectator sport, and laugh in amusement? The Christian Science Monitor offers an honest account of politics in Pakistan, and the portrayal of a democratic movement toward peace.
      Best excerpt: "Terrorist ideology is completely anathema to tribal ideology"
      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anathema
    • swrostmore, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Your ideological kind has put quite a lot of money on them already, Wang.
  • plarp, on 05/05/2008, -4/+34gandhi is back and this time he's out for blood
  • PhattyPhattMatt, on 05/05/2008, -7/+6The best way to handle this situation is to ask yourself the question, WWCND?
    "What Would Chuck Norris Do?"
    • AzureRise, on 05/05/2008, -3/+4He'd try to convert them all to Christianity because he's an intolerant prick?
      • PhattyPhattMatt, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Or second option:
        Give everyone a total gym and a work out DVD to help them get into shape.
        • AzureRise, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3Only job he can get nowadays.
          • PhattyPhattMatt, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3It's better than the one I have...
    • JulyZerg, on 05/05/2008, -1/+6Chuck Norris died when he endorsed Huckabee...
      • AzureRise, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2And when he said he wanted to tattoo in God we trust on the forehead of every atheist in America. So much for tolerance and separation of church and state.
    • frontalpha, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0He's got a point. that was funny.
  • GregIsLegend, on 05/05/2008, -3/+2There's a first.
    • zombies187, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Actually, there is near round the clock peaceful protests in the middle east its just that the media does not report on peaceful protests. I think this sends the wrong message to the world. It says that only violence gets our attention.
  • itsthebrod, on 05/05/2008, -7/+5While Gandhi's methods were respectable, this can only end badly... Fighting violent extremism with passiveness? You can't argue logic with the illogical I say...
    • zombies187, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I can't argue with that.
    • frontalpha, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0same.
    • liquidpele, on 05/06/2008, -1/+0Yes... yes you can if you're not stupid. People generally aren't stupid, and I doubt these people are going to willingly sacrefice themselves, they just believe in non-violence, it doesn't mean they're going to try and get themselves killed.

      A bit offtopic, but have you watched "The kit runner" movie? It's supposed to be pretty accurate, and I never realized how much the taliban resembled the jews in monty python while they were stoning some people... seriously, we all laugh at monty python, but they were pretty dead on.... pretty sick *****.
  • KillaJazzBass, on 05/05/2008, -3/+9I was asking when the Ghandi philosophy would be applied again for almost a decade.

    Good luck and my prayers are with you.
  • nirav72, on 05/05/2008, -18/+4Gandhi and Pakistan shouldn't be used in the same sentence. Ask any Indian and they'll tell you that Pakistan is anti-everything Gandhi represented.
    • rohan1234, on 05/05/2008, -1/+14Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, leader of the ANP, was awarded the Bharat Ratna. you're just spreading mindless nationalism.
    • dubhousing, on 05/05/2008, -2/+5Agree with rohan. Partition alone does not justify this kind of hostility. It's an awfully broad-brush way to read these events; this is, after all, an avowedly Gandhian party.
    • sweetholymosiah, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5I'm amazed you've used three massively unfair generalizations in ONE SENTENCE
    • RobotCitizen, on 05/05/2008, -1/+6Your mentality is part of the reason that Indo-Pak tensions persist. No nation or people are all good or all bad.
    • iizh, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1This movement is respectable but it will die down as soon as some mullah calls it "un-Islamic" and its members start getting murdered left and right. That's how things go in the tribal areas of Pakistan.
    • Sabretou, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2Strange, you used "Pakistan" and "Gandhi" in the same sentence TWICE. Fail much?
  • caleb4mj, on 05/05/2008, -6/+4***** extremists, violently!
  • DulcetTone, on 05/05/2008, -4/+1Good luck with that.
  • mille716, on 05/05/2008, -4/+5This just in, the Awami National Party has been blown up.
  • fleischner, on 05/05/2008, -4/+4Gandhi wasn't facing throat-cutting, head-chopping religious maniacs. The premise (and the inevitable comments to come) shouldn't be equivocated.
    • zombies187, on 05/05/2008, -1/+6Ummm thats exactly who he was facing. The British are not the Taliban but still...
    • ishwarchand, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Zombie is right. While we can never really relate Britishers to maniacs, the ideology was the same. Colonialism started off as the "White Man's Burden" where he had to civilize the non-white people. Nobody had asked them for their help but they did it in any case. Imperialism is an offshoot of colonialism. Same is the case of Taliban, though in reverse order. Taliban was started by America to counter Russian invasion of Afganistan (right after Vietnam, US couldnt have fought directly). However, once this was achieved, they started spreading their message of God. And now they had become powerful enough to curb any rebellion which says that their teachings of God is wrong.
      So yeah, Gandhi sort of faced what ANP is facing.
    • ortucis, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2@ fleischner
      Do they teach you ANYTHING in school about rest of the world?
  • stutimandal, on 05/05/2008, -9/+2Gandhi was anything but _non-violent_. He helped Britons by ordering Indian army to help Britain during the 2nd world war. In 1948, he ordered the Indian troops to fight against Pakistan, when Nehru wanted to demonstrate peacefully.

    People in the world need to read non-storybook type history.
    • Nowaiman, on 05/05/2008, -1/+8in 1949 he ordered a cheese pizza
    • dinoboy, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4Would you mind giving some credible evidence your idiotic claims? Explain to me, how could Gandhi, a moderate revolutionary leader, in jail, *order* an army that was under British control?

      Once again, Nehru was the "Prime Minister". not Gandhi, at the time of partition. Gandhi never had direct control of army to do anything, let alone order them to war. Do you even know one of major reasons for his assassination? He was killed by a Hindu extremist because he was planning to go to Pakistan the week after he was shot.

      You Sir/Madam should read something other than what you are reading.
    • swrostmore, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3Congratulations, you've watched Penn and Teller's Bullsh*t. DIAF.
    • zombies187, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1What does that prove? That we should be violent?
    • mydigg1012, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Did you get your facts from Dick Cheney's book?
    • ishwarchand, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4Yes, Gandhi did say that we should fight in WWII because he did not believe that what Hitler was doing was right. He also argued against the Britishers that they are doing the same thing to them what Hitler was doing all over the world. The condition was that the Indian army would fight under protest with the promise that Britain would turn over powers after WWII. While its unsure whether Britain ever agreed that they would tun over powers after WWII, they did agree to 'look into it'.
      Also, he never ordered the invasion. In fact, it was the Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir who approached India after tribal Pakistani forces attacked Kashmir. India agreed to protect them only if they ceded to India. How was Gandhi even involved in 48 when the forces were sent 47.
    • frontalpha, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1If what you say is true maybe he became friends with the British after his initial rebellion. The British are one of the best people that ever lived compared to Hitler.
    • Sabretou, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3When did Gandhi, a social activist and a lawyer get a military commanding position?
  • tantive5, on 05/05/2008, -2/+3Hopefully they are more serious about stopping the Taliban than Dubya
    • liquidpele, on 05/06/2008, -1/+0So... they're going to get more than sending about 25,000 troops over there?
      Don't get me wrong, Dubya is a moron, but he did a lot more for Afghanistan than other countries have besides the British. Of course, then he did the Iraq thing, but that's another story...
  • decay, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Everyone knows brute force is the solution!

    Wait...
  • frontalpha, on 05/06/2008, -2/+0I'm sorry for those Pakistanis. There all going to die and get slaughtered.
    • liquidpele, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0I think you'll find most people aren't stupid enough to walk into a slaughter they know is coming.
      They may loose lives, but they'll gain members faster in my opinion.

      Besides, what's the other option? give money and weapons to a rival warlord? Yea, tried that. It doesn't seem to work all that well in the long run.
  • pyite, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1It is not a good idea to call it the "Gandhi" party. He was not very popular with Pakistanis. Kind of like Winston Churchill with the Irish. I'm not sure if there is an American equivalent, maybe Benedict Arnold (proper historians - please correct me if I'm wrong)
    • ortucis, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Pakistan was the part of India to begin with, so he could be popular with everyone you don't know about.. which is about everyone.
      • pyite, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I feel kind of like Stephen Colbert talking about his "black friend", but this is from someone who grew up there. Gandhi was the leader when they split away, so understandably he is not quite as revered with Pakistanis than everyone else.

        Maybe King George III is a better comparison?
  • shodhansaher, on 05/18/2008, -1/+0Do not ever, and i mean EVER! Mention Gandhi and Pakistan in the Same sentence. A lot of Indians died and suffered a lot to win our independence and Pakistan stood against everything Indian. Ask any Indian how important Gandhi is to them. Even if this was a joke, it's not funny!

  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.