When I said sympathy, perhaps you misunderstood how it applies.
There were those who believed removing the military threat would help take the conflict down and negate the need for bloodshed as there were many innocent people involved including children ---who this idiot was using so the military would NOT attack these criminals.
Using women and children as sort of 'come on you're not gonna do this are ya? it'll make you look bad' (which is exactly what happened)
I was in Islamabad when the whole thing took place, I believe, as I remember everyone discussing whether there was a strategy to remove everyone except the rebels before the military could go in. That's what some of the negotiations were about.
He also forced kids to do things so that the military would be less likely to attack.
(The fact that the military spent so long trying to keep from retaliating with bloodshed makes it OBVIOUS they were trying their best to make them give in or see reason.)
And as a siege cannot last forever those people would have to come out and be arrested etc on the spot.
That is where the word sympathy comes in.
There were unrealistic opinions that perhaps this could have ended without violence and people got mad at Musharraff for 'killing his own people' as he was already seen because he allowed USA to bomb a whole province (after evacuation though!). Other cities as well as other countries took in the refugees.
I spoke to one of them who saw his family farm and land for generations bombed on TV. The upheaval of such people whose whole lives were about farming and had orchards etc now having to live in tiny places, split up from family and friends often--working jobs like taxi driving--often in countries where they didn't speak the language--
That is irreparable trauma.
The sympathy also comes in because people believe ruining these innocent people's land was wrong and instead gunning them even if you lose soldiers (as Pak army was doing already) was the way to go--however how can you argue with US who you are dependent on and yet who exacerbates and breaks int'l laws without any restraint regularly?
The Lal Masjid guy capitalized on these things and decided to politicize it.
It's ironic that in Saudi the same thing happened decades ago in Makkah--
with a Saudi rebel group who took the pilgrims (imagine how many) hostage but the Saudi army were able to evacuate them and kill the rebels.
Nobody is more religious than the military who continue to fight Taliban....
so the fact that this guy tried to make it about religion and us vs them was laughable and now that these people continue to about coronavirus is mind-boggling considering that incident?
However I'm sure they see it as them being victims there too, because having such leaders and uneducated + poverty, they cannot see the nuance or wisdom in anything the govt says ever. I'm sure that's what the initial Lal Masjid leader wanted, to generate sympathy.
These clerics presenting it as onnnly 2 options and the funniest part.
Their motive should be obvious NOW to their flock--hello, you are okay to put our lives in danger on TWO fronts--virus, AND implying clashes with military (bcuz no way can anything less handle such stupidity)?
But I guess when you're groomed by manipulators, you can't see that.
edited to add: I may be mixing up the order of events as I heard a lot of opinions in retrospect as well as during
_________________
Take defeat as an urge to greater effort.
-Napoleon Hill
Last edited by blooiejagwa on 13 Apr 2020, 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
13 Apr 2020, 7:51 pm
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.
