The bomb attack on the Danish embassy killed six people and wounded nearly 30 in Islamabad yesterday, [see yesterday's post]. Although the blast appeared to target the embassy, [a car bearing a fake diplomatic license plate reportedly held about 55 pounds of explosives], no Danish citizens were killed or injured, reported BBC News. Instead the majority of the dead were Pakistanis, including two policemen, a cleaner at the embassy and a handyman. The attack was quickly condemned by the obvious parties – Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen called the bombing “cowardly” and affirmed it would not change Denmark’s policies, while The News quoted White House spokeswoman Dana Perino telling reporters, “We condemn the terrorist attack, there is no justification for it…The president has been briefed, he offers his condolences to victims of violence and their families…” Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir expressed a similar sentiment in his statements, noting, “The president, the prime minister, as well as the foreign minister, have all very strongly condemned this terrorist attack… and our hearts go out to the families of the victims.”
Although officials made the expected remarks following the bombing – condemning the attack, offering condolences, and affirming that they were not caving to terrorist threats – I feel that the government lost an opening to take a stronger stand against Islamist militancy. Although the perpetrators seemed to be targeting foreign nationals, Pakistani civilians were the victims. They were not just collateral damage – they were innocent people whose families will mourn their passing. They were the faceless casualties of yet another attack in Pakistan. This fact should also have been addressed in Pakistani official statements to delegitimize this militant ideology. This incident presented an opportunity not only to showcase the holes in extremist militant rhetoric, but to distance ourselves further from the perpetrators of such crimes. Our government should emphasize that these groups are not friends of Pakistan, are not within our definition of what it means to be Muslim, and furthermore, are hopefully not the same people that we are negotiating with.
[...] no Danish citizens were killed or injured, reported BBC News. Instead the […] Read more at: CHUP! – Changing Up Pakistan Tagged as: anders fogh rasmussen, bashir, bomb attack, collateral damage, condolences, [...]
I completely agree; I cant help but think the greatest blow one can strike at these ‘extremist’ groups is to take away any kind of support they might have amongst the people. By underlining the fact that these acts of violence kill innocent civilians, Pakistanis, Muslims even, you undermine any kind of legitimacy they may have in the eyes of the average person. The recent elections seemed to show diminishing support for these groups amongst the people of Pakistan, and that was a hopeful development, and I feel like this movement away from extremism and towards a more moderate stance should be encouraged and embraced by the government. The people have seemed frustrated with the government’s inaction and/or failures to provide them with the infrastructure they need, from education to everyday safety, and the more frustrated they get, the more they will turn to other options for governance and control, namely, violent extremists. The government in my humble opinion needs to step up its support for its people, by loudly condemning actions that kill innocents, as you said Kalsoom, and promising to do more to protect its citizens.
The question I pose to you in how does one combat such actions when you do not know who the enemy is?
I think part of the problem in tackling the issue is that these militant groups have been labelled together as “Islamic militants” without understanding that they have different objectives and different principles. This bunching of militant organizations does not allow us to accurately engage/dismantle any of these groups because our responses do not work across the board.
But that is all besides the point- the point being why is this sort of thing becoming normal and when will the common man, woman, and child be safe…
Yes, I agree – hence my recent question posed to Farhana Ali [http://changinguppakistan.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/a-security-experts-perspective-on-pakistan/]. When asked who are these militants, she noted:
“The militants are a kaleidoscope of groups/networks; they are not all hard-core militants nor all non-violent individuals. What is clear is that the militants all agree to a system of governance that falls outside the state’s purview and Constitution. The militants abide by a structure, law, culture, and even religious dogma that differs from Pakistanis not living in the tribal areas, which separates them from the average Pakistani. Bear in mind that there is and always has been three kinds of Taliban: Afghani, Pakistani, and Punjabi. They all converge on certain issues but also widely differ. And their leadership varies, ranging from local emirs in charge of given territories (i.e., villages), though there is a loose pyramidal structure (top-bottom approach) that can been seen in the form of a Jihad Counsel (for Kashmiri-based groups) and Shura Council (for Afghan/Pak-based Taliban groups).”
The problem is that we paint these militants into a polarized black-and-white bubble – so deciphering who the enemy becomes increasingly complicated in politically acceptable jargon.
[...] è un blog da seguire se si è interessati al Pakistan. Il suo modo di interpretare le reazioni all’attentato contro l’ambasciata danese è di conforto. La sua [...]