Pakistan's Railway Minister offers $100,000 reward.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....uslims-filmmaker.html

In England there are calls for a minister to resign for verbally insulting a policeman, yet in Pakistan one of their ministers is offering a $100,000 reward to anyone who kills the film-maker of that anti-Islamic movie, it is also said that if anyone brings the film-maker to him alive, he will personally kill him his self.

But has the Pakistani government sacked him and arrested him? Not a chance.

/// A spokesman for Pakistan's prime minister said the government disassociated itself from the minister's statement. ///

Well that's cleared them of any wrong doing then.

[Gromit]

Politicians, whether they are Pakistani or British say things which are meant to garner votes. The Pakistani Minister obviously believes offering such a bounty will do him no harm at the polls.

Meanwhile, the Tory Minister didn't intend his words to reach a wider public than the unfortunate police officer who he called a 'pleb'. And is desperately trying to deny what he said.

It is a very tenuous comparison, but well done for trying anyway aog.

[pdq1]

I wonder how he would feel to have a price on his head. He should be locked up for inciting murder.

[anotheoldgit]

I am surprised that this thread has only attracted two replies so far, I wonder if the same would have happened if it had been a British or American politician who had made this criminal offer?

[FredPuli43]

Well, aog, offering bounties is not new. The US , via the FBI, offered a $25 million bounty for Osama bin Laden, but , in the end, had to send soldiers to kill him. Not sure what protests resulted from that offer..

You may say that bin Laden had plotted, and caused, murder, but, to this man, the film maker is an enemy too and someone who incites hatred against all Muslims. And we are realistic enough to accept that there will always be publicity seeking , vote seeking, fundamentalists , as well as the other kinds, and that this man is one. Hence , and presumably,we don't appear to think this worthy of much comment.

[sandyRoe]

http://www.theanswerb.../Question1172568.html

I dealt with the same topic here but the thread seems to have gone astray

[anotheoldgit]

FredPuli43

I think there is a lot of difference from an International terrorist with the blood of many on his hands, from a film maker whose subject matter didn't happen to please some highly over-sensitives, who are themselves not slow in inciting hatred against all non-Muslims.

[anotheoldgit]

sandyRoe

/// I dealt with the same topic here but the thread seems to have gone astray ///

Yes just look how it went astray I couldn't understand what it was all about.

[Zeuhl]

<an International terrorist with the blood of many on his hands>

who he aog?


Blair?
Bush?
Bin Laden?
Winston Churchill?

That sort of labelling is rather dependent on one's point of view

[anotheoldgit]

Zeuhl

/// That sort of labelling is rather dependent on one's point of
view ///

May I correct that statement?

That sort of labelling is rather dependent if one is loyal to this country or not.

[Zeuhl]

aog

<that sort of labelling is rather dependent if one is loyal to this country or not.>

that pre supposes that every <one> is loyal to <this country>

I suppose the Pakistani Railways minister believes he is 'loyal' to his country

Also, you seem to be suggesting that loyalty to particular individuals is somehow equivalent to loyalty for a country

In times of war it can be necessary for the greater good, for Leaders to send their young men out to wreak death and destruction on the cities of their enemies.

That is a description that could be applied to Bin Laden or Winston Churchill
.

[Ellipsis]

If you want to take this back to the language of Churchill's time ... would Pakistan be classed as an "ally" or not?

I think it's generally accepted that they are supposed to be an ally. Therefore for a minister in their Government to make these demands, and to remain in his job, is wrong.

I feel sorry for Raja Pervez Ashraf. It's a near impossible job he has. But "disassociating itself from the minister's statement" seems an inadequate response from an ally. We can only hope that the reason the minister is still in his job is that, somehow, it better serves the allied interests that way.

[Zeuhl]

Good point

Pakistan is a basket case though

Mind you, Churchill stomached Stalin and The Soviet Union as an ally - running Hitler a close race for the 'murderous dictator' award

[anotheoldgit]

/// In times of war it can be necessary for the greater good, for Leaders to send their young men out to wreak death and destruction on the cities of their enemies. ///

Zeuhl

/// That is a description that could be applied to Bin Laden or Winston Churchill ///

I think the connection between Bin Laden & Churchill doesn't historically work.

Now the connection between two opposing leaders such as Hitler & Churchill does.

So now we come back to loyalties, who do you think was in the right, way back then?

[Zeuhl]

aog

interesting point;

surely 'loyalties' are by definition a subjective view of being 'in the right'

For 'loyal' German Nazis, Hitler was in the right

For 'loyal' muslim nationalists Bin Laden was in the right

For 'loyal' Brits Churchill was in the right - though i think we are grown up enough to acknowledge some of the questionable things he did
(such as the PR motivated and costly attack on Monte Cassino or the carpet bombing of civilians in Dresden)

and still believe he was 'in the right'

[EDDIE51]

aog for once I agree with you. If a British or European minister made such an offer he/she would be not only be instantly out of office but on trial and facing a long prison sentence.

[emmie]

so now we have a scenario of a Pakistani minister advocating murder, all the while his people are killing one another, not exactly sure that was Churchill's aim was it. Dresden perhaps was heinous, but so was Coventry, Liverpool, London. The Germans were not known for their reticence in causing mass carnage.

At least we have seen some opposition to these death threats, but it just isn't enough. Pakistan may be a basket case as you put it, but it's a very dangerous place, with many inhabitants or so it would seem, quite happy to die for their beliefs, though going on the current news, i am not exactly sure what those are.
President Obama and Hilary Clinton have apologised a number of times, for what exactly. they didn't make the idiot film, nor will it make a jot of difference to the mindset of these people.

[FredPuli43]

Trouble for Pakistan's government is that it's a coalition, involving this man's party, that this man's family is big in Pakistani politics,that a good many Pakistanis agree with the sentiment, and even the offer, and given all that, they daren't do anything more than say they dissociated themselves from his statement. We, of course, would have a minister arrested, but such an utterance would not prove popular here and wouldn't be made by one.

[emmie]

no it wouldn't be spoken by a British Government minister.

[Zeuhl]

Maybe not em

but as posted by fred, the US put a price on the head of foreign nationals they don't like and aren't too fussy where they are struck.

<Pakistani minister advocating murder, all the while his people are killing one another, not exactly sure that was Churchill's aim was it.>

em - who said it was, nobody has drawn parallels between Churchill and pakistani minister

[emmie]

perhaps sometimes that is how it reads, that there is some correlation.


For 'loyal' muslim nationalists Bin Laden was in the right <br/> <br/> For 'loyal' Brits Churchill was in the right - though i think we are grown up enough to acknowledge some of the questionable things he did <br/> (such as the PR motivated and costly attack on Monte Cassino or the carpet bombing of civilians in Dresden) <br/> <br/> and still believe he was 'in the right'