Anybody who is dealing with this issue of lal masjid on humanitarian grounds or exposing the "hypocrisy" of the liberals is engaging himself/herself in a meaningless exercise. No matter how sincere they are in their approach and emotions, it shows their complete lack of knowledge of the complex structures of society and how ideological movements emerge in the certain phase of civilizations.

It is evident by the human history that clash is inevitable in ideologies. Ideologies are bound to clash otherwise they are not ideologies. There is no "peaceful" ideology in the abstract sense. Every ideology on this planet is expansionist. Every civilization has its historical ’sub-consciousness". It is kind of organism. Now another civilization (western) is penetrating in Islamic civilization and now like an individual’s sub-consciousness its defence mechanism is resisting the alien culture, which it doesn’t find compatible with its values no matter how attractive jargons it carries.

So at the end the end of the day it is all down to the ideology you support. You have to have clarity what ideology you are going to follow and support. No ideology is Moral or Immoral in the isolated way. Every ideology has its own moral system based on its philosophical basis but no ideology construct its philosophical basis on its moral philosophy (it another thing whether an ideology’s philosophical basis ‘unconsciously’ inspired by the value system it ’justifies’ both pragmatically and intellectually)

I am not against hamidm2 because he opposes lal masjid clerics or he justifies and celebrates their killings, its his right because he is openly against Islam and all its offshoots (except naqashbandi version)I oppose him because he is my opponent. He has no sympathy with the people who are killed in lal masjid, Iraq and Afghanistan. It shows his clarity that he is not dealing with this issue ethically he is looking it as an ideological clash.

I have no sympathy with lal masjid people and the students who are killed there even though I support them (though i have different version of Islam, at least intellectually) because I know it’s inevitable. People, here, who are talking ’dukh dard’ bhari baatain and are in a position of neither here nor there are nothing but confused souls who are captivated by the kanjarpan of western values and at the same time are unable to get rid of their own ’backward’ values. There is no third way. Choose your pick. By making "tarka" of all these things you can solve your own psychological conflicts and justify your confusion by considering it ’diversity, but it has no practical value.

But the problem is with pseudo like pervez hoood who claims to be pacifists but always in support of the killings of Muslims. He has picked and chosen kind of value system and thinks that by shedding some crocodile tears for humanity and some ’liberal’ values his entire BS is justified and valid ,intellectually.

This man always pretends himself to be a great intellectual but whatever he is unable to ’comprehend’ properly with his dimwit intellect he rejects that out rightly even if it’s a highly philosophical system e.g. for example post-modern theory of knowledge and sociology of knowledge. This third rate pseudo intellectual thinks that he is out to create awareness in people and everyone else is doing "jhak baazi" .Pervez hoodbhoy.. ...The philosophical developments you reject in one sentence (all what you are capable of) are so technical and highly philosophical that it would be impossible for you to understand them even in "saat janam". What do you think of yourself that you have the authority of rejecting whatever you want and others are bound to follow it? Just once.....pervez....just once....produce a research paper of worth-publishing in international philosophical journal(or even in a serious philosophical conference) just once......on any topic you want.....If it is published there I would be the first one to follow you.