Genocidul shiitilor in Pakistan

poarta-cunoasterii, on 18 februarie 2013 - 16:48, said:

Pai eu nu te-am bagat in seama asa ca nu vad ce mare onoare mi-ai facut.
Poti sa ma pui pe ignor ca oricum nu ma intereseaza.
Tu ai prezentat un macel la adresa shiitilor si eu am prezentat cum shiiti macelaresc sunniti.
Prin urmare, nu pot decat sa urez sa le vina musulmanilor niste minte in cap sa nu se mai macelareasca intre ei.

ThinkAbout, on 18 februarie 2013 - 16:59, said:

Shiitii nu macelaresc si nici nu au macelarit sunniti, nu ai demonstrat nimic, ai pus un video indoielnic de pe youtube, poate fi oricine, cate facaturi nu sunt, eu ti-am dat fapte si istorie despre Pakistan, declaratii oficiale ale gruparii teroriste, statistici si detalii mai jos.

Is this a Sunni-Shia war or a sectarian battle? Is this Shia Genocide?
The mainstream discourse on the killing of Pakistan identifies it as either ‘sectarian war’ or a ‘Sunni-Shia conflict’. This is gross misrepresentation of the issue and provides a useful cover to the terrorists of Sipah Sahaba, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and other anti-Shia militants. The mainstream discourse propagated through media has created an impression as if it is a tit-for-tat violence which is incorrect to say the least. The easiest way to debunk this claim is to look at the number of Shia killed in Pakistan and compare than with their share in population i.e. only 20%.
The killing of Shia in Pakistan can only be described by one term and that is Shia Genocide. If this was sectarian violence, I would like to know how many suicidal attacks the Shia have launched on Sunni Muslims and how many indiscriminate bombings have the Shia carried out in Pakistan? There is not a single suicide bombing attack by the Shia of Pakistan in the history of the country. There is not a single example of an indiscriminate attack by the Shia using any method on anyone in the country. Targeted retaliation attacks in response to Shia Genocide can not be compared to an organised campaign of violence launched against the Shia. The Shia of Pakistan have been a victim of a genocide; the state has not only refused to protect them but is party to this genocide by patronizing Deobandi militants in various ways – by giving them cover, by funding them, by giving them free license to operate in the country. In such conditions, self defense is a basic right of the Shia. One can not expect 40 million people of a community to continue to suffer with no end to violence in sight. Over time, Shia organisations like Sipah Muhammad have retaliated in response to Shia Genocide. The organisation formed in 1993 operated for a few years but has been inactive in recent years – pretty much throughout after the turn of century. This is to be noted that SM only did targeted attacks on individuals (Deobandi militants of anti-Shia organisations) as retaliation tactics and did not do any indiscriminate attacks killing innocent men, women and children. Even the targeted retaliation attacks have been absent in the last few years as SM has been dysfunctional but Shia Genocide has not stopped but instead grown exponentially. If this is tit-for-tat violence, why has it not stopped and has instead gone more violent?
The United Nations Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Crime of Genocide adopted the Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948 which defines genocide as:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
( Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
21,000 Shia dead, mass killings, targeted killings, high profile killings, killing after identification as Shia…. Strong evidence of state patronage, support and funding to the anti-Shia militants groups… and with leaders of anti-Shia militant organisations like Sipah Sahaba on record having called for killing of the Shia and that they will make Pakistan hell for the Shia, what does the world wait for before recognizing this as a Genocide? Who do the blanket incorrect terms like ‘sectarian’ and ‘Sunni-Shia conflict’ serve other than the militants who kill Shia? Are we waiting for the Shia death tool to a higher number before recognizing this as a genocide?
Do we need to remind the media, academic, human right organisations and activists that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), established by the UN Security Council, in 2001 sentenced a Bosnian Serb general to 35 years in jail for “complicity in genocide” in connection with the massacre of 7,000 Muslim civilians in Srebrenica in 1995.

Shia Genocide in Pakistan – 21000 killed

Obfuscation and Role of Media
International media have usually described the Shia killing either as ‘sectarian’ or as ‘Shia-Sunni conflict’. A lot of this remains lack of knowledge as many international journalists do not clearly understand the details of sectarian divide in Islam, the history and politics around it and dynamics of it in Pakistan’s political scene.
The local media, both print and electronic, either obfuscate the Shia killing by using the said terms or completely ignore it. Two methods are used to ignore Shia genocide i.e. not publishing/airing the news or by hiding the Shia identity of the victims and calling them mere ‘afraad’ (persons) killed while clearly the intent to kill them was their Shia belief. A prime example of this was Kohistan massacre when passengers enroute Gilgit were offloaded their buses, identified as Shia (using names on NIC or physical marks on back) and then killed after identified on spot. The news was aired on media but none of the TV channels mentioned the Shia identity of the victims, so much so that they did not even use the word sectarian.
Similarly, to report the killing of Hazara Shia of Queta, the media have repeatedly hidden their Shia identity and called them Hazara, building a discourse that they are killed for their ethnicity and not their Shia belief. Again, completely incorrect and done on purpose. This helps none but the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi militants who have been active in Baluchistan and have taken responsibility for almost every attack on the Hazara Shia. They kill them for their Shia belief and media make everyone believe it is an ethnic issue. The little chance of any pressure on LeJ through public or authorities is non existent because it is not presented as violence based on Shia belief but mere ethnic violence which has become somewhat acceptable in Pakistan’s psyche.
Without doubt, the media have played a dangerous role by obfuscating Shia Genocide and pushing it under the carpet which has resulted in more Shia killings and a discourse being built in mainstream that Pakistan goes through a tit-for-tat Shia Sunni violence which is incorrect.
Pakistan’s media hides the Shia identity of victims even when they are killed after identifying them as Shia [YouTube, FB Video]


How have the Shia reacted to Shia Genocide?
Shia in Pakistan lack a central political leadership who can speak on behalf of the oppressed Shia community in an effective manner. Some of them suffer from Stockholm syndrome while others don’t seem to realize the gravity of the situation and act appropriately. The Shia have shown exemplary courage and steadfastness facing this genocide as they have remained largely non-violent and have protested peacefully for their rights. The recent years have seen some trend setting political activism by Pakistani Shia community. Throughout the year 2011 and 2012, the Shia held protests across the country and elsewhere in the world. The video below highlights the peaceful protest movement the Shia across the world in year 2011 and 2012.
Shia women remained at the forefront of the political activism and campaigns against Shia Genocide. From historic Karachi dharna of 2012 winters to protests in Lahore, Karachi and international cities post Quetta massacre, thousands of Shia women participated actively. The dharna in Karachi which continued for 50 hours saw thousands of women participating with their children. Words can not describe the courage of women in the families of victims of Alamdar Road Quetta massacre who remained in the sit-in protest for four nights and thousands who joined them across the globe.

Shia women participation in Shia Genocide protests
Peaceful Global Protest Movement by Shia – 2011/2012 [YouTube, Facebook Video]

2012/2013 ‘Winter of Discontent’ deserves a special mention. The trigger for these country wide and global protests was the Quetta massacre of the Shia when more than a 100 were killed in twin boming attacks on Alamdar Road Quetta targeting Hazara Shia. 1000 Hazara Shia have been killed in Balochistan which are part of the total 21,000+ Shia killed. After the attack, the families of the victims refused to bury their dead and organised a sit-in protest on the site of attack with more than 80 dead bodies. They demanded action against Lashkar-e-hangvi and anti-Shia militant organisations, end of the provincial government and more. They were joined by protesters across the country: thousands gathered at Governor House Lahore and Liberty Chowk, several protests were held in Karachi including Bilawal House. There were reports from nearly a 100 cities of Pakistan where protests were held. Similarly, international cities across Europe, Scandinavia, Americas and Australia registered protests. As a result, the provincial government in Balucistan was dismissed but action against anti-Shia militants still remains a pending demand to be implemented.
One important and crucial dimension of the recent political activism of the Shia community against Shia Genocide was some bold statements by Shia leadership. MWM issues some challenging statements to the Pakistan’s security establishment clearly showing their discontent with the state and articulating clearly, for a change, that Pakistan state (security establishment) is party to Shia Genocide.

mai multe despre istoria si evolutia acestui genocid aici: http://blog.ale.com.pk/?p=2262

Edited by poarta-cunoasterii, 18 February 2013 - 17:09.

Negarea asta a adevarului cum ca nici un shiit nu macelareste sunniti te discrediteaza
Shiiti de la hezbollah macelaresc sunniti in Siria impreuna cu shiiti iranieni ai garzilor revolutionare
Mai mult shiiti iraqieni impreuna cu shiiti iranieni macelaresc sunniti in Iraq
Raman pe pozitie, sper sa le vina mintea in cap musulmanilor sa nu se mai killereasca intre ei.

ThinkAbout, on 18 februarie 2013 - 17:12, said:

Asta e musamalizarea situatiei intr-un discurs vag si nedocumentat. Citeste ce ti-am dat si apoi mai vorbeste. Tie iti convine, in ura ta declarata fata de musulmani, sa promovezi ideea ca musulmanii se ucid intre ei, dar uite ca nu e asa, in Quetta pakistanezii sunniti moderati, crestini si shiitii protesteaza impreuna impotriva salafitilor si a organizatiilor islamiste.  In Iraq cati shiiti sunt ucisi zilnic si cati sunniti? Hai sa facem o statistica. E raport de 1 la 10000. Ce savant shiit a sustinut vreodata uciderea sunnitilor? Nici unul, orice act criminal a unui shiit a fost aspru condamnat. In Siria armata lui Bashar ucide, nu au gasit nici macar un singur shiit iranian sau libanez mobilizat pe front, de aceea se si prelungeste conflictul si nu se intervine din afara. Lasa propaganda si incearca sa fii om. Macar intr-un caz unic precum acesta.

poarta-cunoasterii, on 18 februarie 2013 - 17:18, said:

Haaaalt
Ura fata de musulmani este ceva
Ura fata de faptele unor idioti musulmani care se detoneaza prin piete publice in numele lui allah este altceva.
Pe cei din urma nu-i iubesc ba chiar le si combat practica.
In rest nu te mai bag eu in seama, din lipsa de atentie te-ai pus pe insultat
Asa ca insulta ca-ti convine
Urarea mea ramane, sper sa le vina musulmanilor mintea in cap sa nu se mai killereasca intre ei
Daca-i uram exprimam opusul, babel-ule

poarta-cunoasterii, on 18 februarie 2013 - 14:08, said:

Cam astia sunt genul de indivizi pe care-i genereaza pretinsa religie a pacii...interesant paradox!

poarta-cunoasterii, on 18 februarie 2013 - 16:48, said:

Da' tu îi reprezinti?

poarta-cunoasterii, on 18 februarie 2013 - 16:48, said:

Mai, e limpede ca tu te pricepi mai bine ca Khomeini si Khamenei la ideologia siita!

Edited by SophistiKat, 19 February 2013 - 00:05.

SophistiKat, on 18 februarie 2013 - 23:36, said:

Sunt o minoritate, dar una agresiva si care creeaza probleme. Nu reprezinta toti musulmanii.
Da, mai mult decat tine, asta e sigur.
Fiecare marja are perspectiva sa, nu sunt obligat sa urmez o marja care nu ma reprezinta si care e atipica in peisajul shiit. Asta pe verificate.

Edited by poarta-cunoasterii, 18 February 2013 - 23:44.

poarta-cunoasterii, on 18 februarie 2013 - 23:44, said:

Îmi place, religia pacii e flexibila, nu exista un consens, fiecare cu propria sa perspectiva...

În orice caz, daca fiecare siit e liber sa urmeze orice ayatollah doreste, atunci opiniile lui Khomeini si Khamenei sunt la fel de valide precum cele ale oricarui alt mar'ja. Sa nu uitam ca cei 2 au sustinut pedeapsa cu moartea pt. apostazie si adulter, iar casatoria cu fete de 6 ani o considera ca fiind perfect acceptabila.

Si pâna una alta nu mai vorbi tu în numele islamului caci în mod sigur nu reprezinti musulmanii care nu urmeaza acelasi mar'ja ca tine! Infatuatule...

Edited by SophistiKat, 19 February 2013 - 00:06.

SophistiKat, on 19 februarie 2013 - 00:04, said:

Islamic, opiniile lor sunt valide pentru cei care le urmeaza si sa nu crezi ca au verdicte diferite cand e vorba de viata religioasa, de felul in care te rogi, dai danie etc. Divergentele au aparut din cauza implicarii lor politice si a verdictelor aferente.
Nu exista diferente semnificative intre celelalte marja, perspectiva atipica a fost a lui Khomeini, nu a celorlalti.

@Sofi

Ar trebui sa fii de acord cu mine, ca daca toti islamicii sau macar siitii ar fi ca si poarta, ar gandi ca el, lumea islamica ar fi mai buna, nu crezi?

mario_bril, on 19 februarie 2013 - 02:23, said:

Mai buna pentru cine?

Poarta este pentru introducerea legii sharia, care o fi buna pentru musulmani, dar numai pentru aia care militeaza in favoarea sa din confortul oferit de societatile occidentale, laice.

Ca sa fie clar, nu am nimic impotriva ca musulmanii sa isi urmeze legile religioase, atita timp cit nu le impun cu forta (inclusiv propriilor copii). Ori, o societate care adopta legea sharia ca lege a statului tocmai asta face - baga religia pe gitul oamenilor cu forta.

In rest, nu prea imi dau seama cum gindeste, pentru ca nu ne spune. Faptul ca unii urmeaza o marja, iar altii alta marja, nu comunica absolut nimic despre marja respectiva. Poarta sustine ca nu toti shiitii il urmeaza pe Khamenei, dar nu ne spune ce crede el personal despre acesta. Nici ce crede despre Hezbollah. Nici ce crede despre sunniti, sufiti, ahmadi, alawi. Nici ce crede despre anumite aspecte ale culturilor si societatilor din tarile predominant musulmane. Nu e obligat sa ne spuna, dar asta inseamna ca nu pot sa-i dau dreptate, pentru ca nu stiu ce si cum gindeste in probleme esentiale.

poarta-cunoasterii, on 19 februarie 2013 - 00:10, said:

deci admiti ca o solutie primordiala pentru pacea zonei ar constitui-o separarea religiei de celelalte puteri in stat, inclusiv cea politica. cu alte cuvinte, abolirea shariei.

Pisa4you, on 19 februarie 2013 - 09:30, said:

Ce vad eu aici este ca ai o gandire deziderativa de genul islamici=dusmani=teroristi=shiiti=poarta. Ori cu astfel de tipare de gandire nu poti ajunge la vreun consens. Nu faci decat sa agiti spiritele. Eu l-am citit de cateva ori, si raspunsurile lui pe care le-am citit eu, erau de genul islam=religie=cultura proprie=intelepciune=shiism=pace. Acum fiecare poate intelege ce vrea, insa daca imi dai un singur exemplu in care el promoveaza ura, intoleranta, xenofobia sau mai stiu eu ce lucruri negative, voi fi de acord ca eu am gresit si ca nu am inteles ce spune.

Edited by mario_bril, 19 February 2013 - 11:17.

mario_bril, on 19 februarie 2013 - 11:02, said:

valoarea de adevar a propozitiei de mai sus este aceeasi cu valoarea de adevar a urmatoarei propozitii

comunism=oranduire sociala dreapta=proletcultism=egalitate pentru toti=bunastare

ambele clameaza in teorie acesteea. si practica ne demonstreaza ca ambele mananca ra*at.

i pup u, filosofel.

nazdaq, on 19 februarie 2013 - 11:13, said:

Discutam de principii si nu de aplicarea acestora gresita in practica. Sa nu imi spui ca nici tu nu reusesti sa te pastrezi obiectiva...

mario_bril, on 19 februarie 2013 - 11:16, said:

sa mori tuh ca islamul se vrea un printzip si nu o religie politica!
ia fuji mata si intreaba-l pe poarta/ascary/miz/alti mohamedani contaminati ideologic daca islamul este utopic, neaplicabil si ar trebui redus doar la principii. si ele la randul lor utopice si nepracticabile. vezi ce-ti raspund ei si-apoi vino la mine cu dintii in batista.

"aplicarea gresita"
cum adica aplicare gresita, mario? asta prevede sharia, asta se discuta.

Edited by nazdaq, 19 February 2013 - 11:26.

nazdaq, on 19 februarie 2013 - 11:23, said:

Eu pot muri dar nu vad la ce ti-ar folosi...
Islamul este o religie. Atat. Ca unii au pus-o in practica mai bine sau mai rau, e cu totul alta problema. Si cum nu vedem consens ideologic, se pare ca doar unii au aplicat gresit niste principii ale acestuia in mod barbar. Ca respectivii au fost interesati sau doar tembeli, e o alta problema. Nu islamul in sine este cel care a generat problema. Ci lipsa de cultura a maselor ceea ce a permis celor ce s-au erijat in conducatori sa ii manipuleze prin intermediul religiei islamice. Islamul nu este utopic cata vreme are un sens si scop escatologic.

mario_bril, on 19 februarie 2013 - 11:38, said:

1.  ...Este o religie întunecată și păgînă împotriva lui Hristos!

2.  Islamul este utopic pentru că este satanic, așa încît se îndreaptă spre haos
și va pica într-un final cu tot cu diavolii care îl animă.

De departe cel mai jegos, infect și diabolic lucru mi se pare ca cei înstăriți sa aibă mai multe femei, haremuri...
iar restul, cei mulți, să se „reorienteze”...

Nu pot să-ți înțeleg escatologia   asta a ta Bril.
Și mai vine și Mizrah și zice... „lasă că le este bine acelor femei, că sînt respectate, că n-au griji...”
...adică e o cireadă happy
Dar fără să privească TOT tabloul absurd și diavolesc...

Edited by ioham, 19 February 2013 - 12:49.