Video: Pakistani actress destroys mullah who accused her of immorality

posted at 4:13 pm on March 28, 2011 by Allahpundit

A dozen or more righty blogs have picked this up since Jonah Goldberg posted it over the weekend, but in case you’re one of the three people who hasn’t seen it yet, here you go. It starts slow but grows more riveting by the moment; by the midway point, she’s metamorphosed into the Pakistani Wafa Sultan before your very eyes.

There are three types of prominent people in her country today, it seems: Taliban, those recently killed by the Taliban, and those being threatened with death by the Taliban. She’s in neither the first nor second category, so she must be in the third. And so she is. But not because of her defiance here; no, apparently, her “crime” was … appearing on the Indian version of “Big Brother,” which she agreed to do to prove to the folks across the border that not everyone from Pakistan is a medieval savage. Two words for the State Department in case anyone there is reading: Political asylum.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5

How, on any planet in our solar system is that not the same application?
blink on March 29, 2011 at 10:23 PM

Application is not a synonym for meaning.

Your comment was too broad because it both condemned Islam for many atrocities and because it claimed that my statement was wrong.

One more time for emphasis since you’re playing word games: That was a distortion of what I said and/or a false conclusion on your part on both counts. Did I mention that you are also inconsistent? Earlier you said:

I’m sorry that my original claim was quite narrow, and I’m sorry for refusing to expand the scope of the debate.

Later you said:

You’re right. Broaden (increase the scope) of the discussion all you want. Just don’t pretend that I’m arguing anything that I’m not.

Which is it? Sorry, I’m stupid and can’t follow a genius like you. I’m off to bed now. Hopefully my brain cells will regenerate overnight.

Buy Danish on March 29, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Application is not a synonym for meaning.

Buy Danish on March 29, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Words have different meaning depending on the way they are used – in other words – depending on the application of the word. (Do I really need to be explaining this to a grown-up?) Both uses of the word broad(en) were used (applied) to mean the size of scope.

That was a distortion of what I said and/or a false conclusion on your part on both counts.

Really?

Count 1: I’m said that your statement commended Islam for too many atrocities. How is this a distortion if you, yourself, said:

I pointed out … that there are a lot of atrocities to condemn. That was a condemnation of Islam

Count 2: I’m said that you claimed my statement was wrong. I had said:

To condemn every atrocity carried out in the name of Islam isn’t exhausting or presumptuous at all

blink on March 29, 2011 at 9:50 AM

to which you replied:

To condemn every individual atrocity would be exhausting and a full time job.

Buy Danish on March 29, 2011 at 10:00 AM

That’s implicitly saying that I’m wrong.

No distortion.

Did I mention that you are also inconsistent?

No, but you’ve said many incorrect things so you might as well add one more. By all means, hand me another effortless victory.

How is it inconsistent to say that you are free to broaden the scope of the discussion all you want while saying that I will refuse to allow the expansion of the scope of the debate?

Just because I acknowledge that you are free to broaden a discussion if you want, doesn’t mean that I will engage in such discussion – and I most certainly haven’t – much to your chagrin.

No inconsistency.

Sorry, I’m stupid and can’t follow a genius like you.

Actually, I appreciate the apology. It’s the reason that you didn’t get auto-replies.

blink on March 29, 2011 at 11:55 PM

In his Little Green Book the Ayatollah Khomeini sez that, “sex can be had with a child as young as an infant…”
Defend that Rinoguy…defend that.

Army Brat on March 30, 2011 at 2:42 AM

Count 1: I’m said that your statement commended Islam for too many atrocities. How is this a distortion if you, yourself, said:
I pointed out … that there are a lot of atrocities to condemn. That was a condemnation of Islam

Ah, you’re a prosecutor now. Pfft. First, I will be kind and won’t use “[sic]” to point out the two glaring errors in the first sentence – you know, since you’re suffering from delusions of grandeur (but I digress). Second, according to ~~Webster~~ Blink, a lot= too many? Who knew! Do I get a free subscription to Blink’s Bizarro Dictionary? Then we get to the fundamental problem that you contradict yourself there, and throughout your obnoxious commentary, when you say, “I had only made a tiny point and have continued to defend it.” Like here:

To condemn every atrocity carried out in the name of Islam isn’t exhausting or presumptuous at all – even if such atrocities were much more pervasive than you acknowledge.
blink on March 29, 2011 at 9:50 AM

You clearly imply a.) that every atrocity should be condemned, and b.) acknowledge that they are pervasive and c.) contradict your repeated (asinine!) claim you are only talking about the time needed to condemn atrocities (the “tiny point”). Autoreply…Beep Beep.

You nipped at my ankles, claiming my comment (which linked to every recent atrocity cataloged at one website) is “too broad”. Every atrocity is to be condemned except perhaps the ones I cite? You never said why, or how, or in any way tried to narrow down your objections. I then specifically cited a 3 day period, which was a very narrow period of time and events. Your response? *Crickets”*

You made stuff up out of whole cloth here:

Are you trying to change your argument? Your original argument was that it would take to long to condemn all the atrocities, but now you’re trying to claim that you’re saying that condemnations would be enough.
blink on March 29, 2011 at 4:36 PM

I never said it would take too long (which implies it’s not worth attempting), I said it would be a full time job. I never said or implied that condemnations would be enough. Indeed, I repeatedly gave reasons why the exact opposite was true.

My argument (not in the confrontational sense of the word, but as a synonym for reasoning) was not only about time requirements, it was also very much about whether the time spent actually accomplished anything. You became very authoritarian and said you “refused” to debate anything except your idiotic “tiny”" point. Tant pis! What I wrote was not solely for your benefit. And this classic stands out:

What makes you think that I WANT anything done? I’m simply challenging the time requirements that you’re claiming.
blink on March 29, 2011 at 3:45 PM

As I noted above ^^^^ you did more than challenge time requirements. But what’s stunning is that you say it’s not time consuming to issue condemnations, but we shouldn’t think you actually want anyone to issue condemnations. Pardon me if I can’t fathom the workings of your belligerent brain, which has produced a lengthy set of argumentative comments which ultimately have no purpose.

Is it true that the 17,005 atrocities I cited since 9/11 could be condemned? Yes, of course, technically that is true. Someone could, say, check out the RofP website and issue condemnations daily at another website. So what? If you don’t want to discuss how to do it effectively so it actually accomplishes something it’s a complete waste of time. And with that I’ve wasted way too much time with you. Life is to short for your megalomaniacal-ish b.s.

Buy Danish on March 30, 2011 at 1:39 PM

You clearly imply a.) that every atrocity should be condemned

No, I don’t. You must have irrationally inferred that.

You .. acknowledge that they are pervasive

No, I don’t. You must have irrationally inferred that.

But I do account for the possibility that they may be more pervasive than the author of the statement thought – not the same thing at all.

contradict your repeated (asinine!) claim you are only talking about the time needed to condemn atrocities

Since you failed on your first two points, then this obviously isn’t logical.

I never said it would take too long (which implies it’s not worth attempting)

You said that it would be, “exhausting and a full time job.” Any jury in the country would consider that the materially the same thing.

You nipped at my ankles, claiming my comment (which linked to every recent atrocity cataloged at one website) is “too broad”

No, I claimed that your statement was “too broad” IF you didn’t mean to say that I was wrong. If you wanted to avoid saying that I was wrong, then you should have used more narrow language.

I never said it would take too long (which implies it’s not worth attempting),

I wasn’t claiming that you implied that condemnations weren’t worth attempting. I was claiming that you implied that condemnations would take too long for my statement to be accurate.

My argument (not in the confrontational sense of the word, but as a synonym for reasoning) was not only about time requirements, it was also very much about whether the time spent actually accomplished anything.

I’ve always understood your main argument. The problem was that you used broad language which ended up challenging the accuracy of my statement. You should have chosen your words more carefully or rephrased if you had wanted to avoid a debate with me.

You became very authoritarian and said you “refused” to debate anything except your idiotic “tiny”” point.

Yes, excuse me for being an authoritarian about what I will and won’t debate. I’m probably silly for thinking that I should be allowed to chose the debates that I engage in.

What I wrote was not solely for your benefit.

I know that, too. But I addressed it because it challenged my statement whether or not you had intended it to do that.

As I noted above ^^^^ you did more than challenge time requirements.

I’ve already shown that those notes of yours were in error.

Pardon me if I can’t fathom the workings of your belligerent brain, which has produced a lengthy set of argumentative comments which ultimately have no purpose.

You are not pardoned. My comments have brilliant purpose. The fact that you can’t “fathom” them doesn’t at all diminish the brilliance.

Yes, of course, technically that is true.

It’s more than technically true. It is true. And now that you admit this, you should feel stupid for having challenged me in the first place.

blink on March 30, 2011 at 2:24 PM

May I remind the combatants of the important thing: She is hot!

The Opinionator on March 28, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Agreed. She’s definitely a Ji-Hottie.

Red State State of Mind on March 30, 2011 at 5:23 PM

blink on March 30, 2011 at 2:24 PM

I never said it would take too long (which implies it’s not worth attempting)
You said that it would be, “exhausting and a full time job.” Any jury in the country would consider that the materially the same thing.

Really junior prosecutor? Exhausting, full time jobs aren’t worth attempting? Using that argument the welfare rolls should be expanding exponentially. Tell me again how brilliant you are.

Yes, excuse me for being an authoritarian about what I will and won’t debate. I’m probably silly for thinking that I should be allowed to chose the debates that I engage in.

I didn’t demand you engage in diddly squat. I linked to a website which demonstrates the sheer enormity of the problem. I wasn’t arguing with you, just providing additional context. For that you went off on me like a rabid cur and claimed I “challenged” you. How dare I!

No, I claimed that your statement was “too broad” IF you didn’t mean to say that I was wrong. If you wanted to avoid saying that I was wrong, then you should have used more narrow language.

I didn’t say you were wrong, you paranoid freak. It wasn’t about you. I already told you that. I guess it’s hard for a narcissist like you to believe that something isn’t about them, or something. And I don’t need you to lecture me about how to write. That paragraph^^^ is hardly the epitome of coherence.

It’s more than technically true. It is true. And now that you admit this, you should feel stupid for having challenged me in the first place.

You know where I erred? In assuming that you actually cared about results. For you the mere act of taking 3.2 seconds and condemning an atrocity on a website is all that’s necessary. It matters not a whit if no one reads it (the tree in the desert thing). Maybe a shrink can figure you out. Is there a condition called equineposterioritis?

Buy Danish on March 30, 2011 at 6:18 PM

Exhausting, full time jobs aren’t worth attempting?

Buy Danish on March 30, 2011 at 6:18 PM

If you’re characterizing something as an exhausting, full-time job then it should not be inferred that you are recommending that such job be done. It might not have been your intent to imply that, but your language choice certainly does just that.

I didn’t demand you engage in diddly squat.

I never claimed that you did demand that I engage in anything. I merely reiterated that I would not. My fingers are crossed that you’re smart enough to know the difference, but my confidence in you is quite low.

I wasn’t arguing with you….I didn’t say you were wrong

Again, that might not have been your intent, but your language choice did otherwise. It’s as if you’re attempting to disassociate yourself from shooting someone by claiming that you were aiming at a different target. While you might not be guilty of a crime, you certainly should accept responsibility for the shooting. I believe that you weren’t aiming at me, but I still had to call you out on your negligent aim.

For you the mere act of taking 3.2 seconds and condemning an atrocity on a website is all that’s necessary.

I never said this, you idiot. I’m saying that taking 3.2 seconds to condemn an atrocity is a condemnation. I have never once characterized the quality or adequacy of such condemnation in fulfilling any purpose other than it being a condemnation.

Maybe a shrink can figure you out.

Any IQ administrator can figure out our problem. They would conclude that I’m a clinical genius and you’re clinically feeble minded.

blink on March 30, 2011 at 7:22 PM

blink on March 30, 2011 at 7:22 PM

If you’re characterizing something as an exhausting, full-time job then it should not be inferred that you are recommending that such job be done. It might not have been your intent to imply that, but your language choice certainly does just that.

Bull****. As I’ve repeatedly noted I was making a point about the sheer number of atrocities which occur. Sorry that was too nuanced for you. Earlier comments (not to you! It’s not all about you!) talked about what needed to be done as did subsequent comments. I also note the irony that it’s you who doesn’t actually want to do anything.

I never said this, you idiot. I’m saying that taking 3.2 seconds to condemn an atrocity is a condemnation. I have never once characterized the quality or adequacy of such condemnation in fulfilling any purpose other than it being a condemnation.

Yes, I know that you never said that. You don’t care about results. 3.2 seconds was actually quite generous time allotment under the circumstances. You’re just blowing cosmic smoke while contemplating your navel, arguing about whether something theoretically could be done, regardless of its efficacy. If I was slow to catch on to this because I expect commenters to argue in good faith, not just perform masturbatory ego-stroking exercises.

Any IQ administrator can figure out our problem. They would conclude that I’m a clinical genius and you’re clinically feeble minded.

I think you’re clinically insane. You spend thousands of words and hours arguing about NOTHING. It’s like a Seinfeld episode gone bad. I’m not going to get into an idiotic discussion about who has the higher IQ with an anonymous commenter who can make any claim with no burden of proof. I do know that you’re two smart by half as Rush likes to say.

Toodles. This conversation is officially over.

Buy Danish on March 31, 2011 at 7:49 AM

Toodles. This conversation is officially over.

Buy Danish on March 31, 2011 at 7:49 AM

Great news if true.

As I’ve repeatedly noted I was making a point about the sheer number of atrocities which occur.

I’ve always known the point you were trying to make. In other words, I always knew the target you were aiming at. The problem is that your aim and accuracy sucks. You need to: 1) think more before you write; and 2) learn how to assure that your writing accurately reflects your thoughts.

Again, you hit the wrong targets. That’s your fault. I have to call foul when I’m shot even if I’m hit by friendly fire.

It’s not all about you!

A guy complaining that he was shot by someone aiming at a different target doesn’t think it’s all about him. I’ve made it clear from the beginning that I knew that your intentions didn’t include me, but I’m not surprised that you’re incapable of grasping the concept.

I was slow to catch on…

This is one of your few accurate statements about your exchange with me. I’m quite sure that you’re often slow to catch on.

I expect commenters to argue in good faith,

I was arguing in good faith. I challenged someone else’s comment on its accuracy. You carelessly aimed and poorly fired shotgun fire in my direction.

You don’t care about results.

I do care about results, but that wasn’t the point I was defending.

I think you’re clinically insane.

This certainly wouldn’t be the first time this type of inaccurate diagnosis has been attributed to a clinical Genius, and I would never expect anyone that’s Feeble Minded to be capable of avoiding such a classic mistake.

blink on March 31, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5