Last week’s massacre of Christians in Lahore was widely reported in American media, perhaps because this was one of the first attacks specifically directed against Christians in that regime. We saw discussions in Foreign Affairs, the Economist and US press about the failure of Islamabad’s policy of differentiating between “bad” terrorists & “good” terrorists – “bad” being those who attack the regime internally and the “good” being those who commit terrorism against India.
All these arguments are made again & again by the same people in the same media. The reason they fail is because they don’t get to the real difference between the Islamabad regime & other Muslim countries. Look at Indonesia, the Islamic country with the largest Muslim population in the world. They don’t have anything even remotely close to the horrors we see in the regime run out of Islamabad.
The root of the difference between Indonesia, other Muslim countries & the Islamabad regime is the word, the one word that is so pregnant with meaning – meaning that was originally intended to be sacred but that has degenerated into evil.
We wonder whether the people in that regime would have been this prone to evil had the new state in 1947 had been named Islam-i-stan? It was, after all, created as a state for Muslims of the Indian Subcontinent. That is why they built a new capital and named it Islam-a-bad. Why didn’t they name it Islam-i-stan?
Instead they made the enormous mistake of naming it Pak-i-Stan – the land of the “pak” people, people of religious purity. What is worse than “pak” is the fear of being “naa-pak” or the antithesis of pak.
Search You Tube for naapak/napak and you will see religious videos that discuss whether utensils used to cook naa-pak food like pork can be used after washing to cook pak food or videos that discuss whether a woman in her naa-pak state can remain in the house. These are important issues because of the deep horror associated with the “naa-pak” label.
All this gets inherited into society when a regime names its country as Pak-i-stan, the land of the “pak”. Because then the entire society gets the burden of keeping their land “pak”. This automatically means cleansing the land, the society of naa-pak elements. This justifies cleansing the society of naa-pak people like Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Sikhs.
Such religious cleansing was accomplished by giving a choice to naa-pak men – convert, leave or die. Women weren’t given a choice – they were forcibly converted or given to “pak” warriors as wives, concubines or slaves. Even today, kidnapping, rape & forced conversion of Hindu girls is practiced in the name of purifying the naa-pak in the regime that calls itself Pak-i-Stan.
Christians were, have been and are spared so far by the “pak” regime because of the need for American aid. But a new element is being added to the “pak” society – an element that prides itself in being the ultimate “pak” caliphate. The attack in Lahore was intended to kill as many Christians as possible. It was an attack by the ISIS inspired and ISIS obedient group Jamat-ul-Ahrar under the leadership of Omar Khalid Khorasani, the man who converted from Al-Qaida to ISIS.
Don’t forget that ISIS is far more focused on “pak” than Pak-is-stan regime ever was. We discussed how ISIS uses the “pak” concept on February 28, 2015 in our article ISIS Actions Against Middle East Christians & the “Pak” Principle. In that article, we quoted Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute:
- “ISIS has religious objectives, that its actions are not simply random acts of “extreme violence,” and that ISIS aims to make the region – and beyond– pure for Islam.” (emphasis ours)
That is exactly what the Pak-i-Stan regime has done for the past 67 years. By now their society is so drenched in the “pak” doctrine that it may be receptive to the even more “pak” caliphate of ISIS. That is why 100,000 pak-i-stanis attended the funeral of the assassin who killed a popular governor for his criticism of the blasphemy law.
And you couldn’t find a leader with an as appropriate name as Khorasani, after the historical Muslim province of Khorasan. That is why ISIS under the leadership of Khorasani considers Pak-i-Stan to be a mere first step in their campaign to conquer all of Asia for the ISIS caliphate.
Don’t forget this first step is the one with the 4th largest nuclear arsenal in the world courtesy of American financial aid & Chinese nuclear aid. Without getting political, this explosion in the size of the nuclear arsenal happened during the patronage of the Obama Administration. Again without getting political, who is the only presidential candidate who has been talking about the risks of NPak’s nuclear arsenal?
[embedyt] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fladOG_DFKM[/embedyt]
Editor’s PS: We are doing our part by banishing the horrific name pak-i-stan from this Blog. That is a far more heinous name & doctrine of German Nazis “master race”. We replace it with NonPak or NPak which is neutral and not a negative like Naa-Pak
Send your feedback to [email protected] Or @MacroViewpoints on Twitter
