Moral Bankruptcy of Political Leadership in Pakistan

#88 Posted by masadi,

With all due respect to tahmed32 sahib, he still needs to answer my question that while enthusiastically supporting the democracy movement in Pakistan, which political party will he vote for once his wishes come true?

In #89 read "There, three more posts, and I sure and hell know what I'm talking about " as

There, three more posts, and I sure as hell know what I'm talking about

--- Four posts..

Tahmed Regarding the example, whether its democracy, you loll out your tongue in jubilation and whether its dictatorship you still loll out your tongue in jubilation, not knowing what will benefit and what will harm and ignorning all facts of the reality, you cling to your desire to worship the US elite, you remain a miserable dog...There, three more posts, and I sure and hell know what I'm talking about

Regarding the 5 posts they did not deal with the same issue, the couple or so that did were meant not for my understanding of the issue but for enhancing my case, and so that dumb fcuks like you don't get away with slogans of democracy garbed up with legitimation for military dictatorship

Now that tahmed has been stumped, clamoring for democracy while leaving an avenue open for the military to meddle in political affairs, just like the Turkish military and its constitution mongering in order to intefere in the political, he denies that he ever said it.

This is what the lying bas**** had said on this very thread, tahmed: "And the army's job is to protect the Constitution, and make sure that elected rulers dont then try to overstay their term..."

The army has no business meddling in any affairs of the state, its job has nothing to do with the constitution, its interpretation or punishing the violaters of it, its job is to stay in the barracks, leave internal law enforcement to the police, and in the US be subservient to the commander in cheif and have no say on his term in office, while defending the country from external aggression PERIOD.

echboom: Writing anonymous abuses on chowk makes you feel good about yourself? And you need moral support from everyone in writing these abuses?

That says plenty about you, and nothing about me.

http://www.chowk.com/ interacts/9503/1/0/16#228036

Sattar, mazadi, zeemax & EVERYBODY:

This is the article when this miserable specimen called tsmithers32 licked his master's ass & felt proud that his Master dropped not one but two atomic bombs in the center of the most populated cities of Japan..

This arsehole is not with MUSLIMS..he is with the enemy!
Hope whenevr he rears his ugly head here he gets his snout rubbed & rubbed & rubbed till he forgets how to wag his tail & wiggle his behing whenever he smells his masters coming.

Just to reming everyone this baighairat got a thrashing from everyone then as well..hindus, muslims alike...Only the Ba Ba i Kanjaroon, now missing in action, the other enemy-lover tolerated this germ.

http://www.chowk.com/inte racts/9503/1/0/16#228036

masadi: and write only one post in response to #81, not 5 posts as you have been doing. If you know what you are talking about, you should not need more than one post to respond to what I write.

With no further comments ... no anologies ... I hasten to add ....!

masadi: I insist that between the two of us you are the bigger genius when you wrote The Army's job is to stay in the barracks and defend the country's borders from external aggression, period. .

I see you have quietly dropped this when presented with evidence to the contrary. That is progress I suppose.

Having dropped your absurd claim, you assign the following task to me Please find me ONE authoritative source from contemporary history and that is a challenge where the role of the US military is defined as detecting violations of the constitution by politicians and then mobilizing for action, I ask for JUST ONE.

The above assumes that I said the military can take a form of suo moto action to "detect violations" of the constitution. I never said that or implied that. So stick to what I wrote. There are no doubt valid issues of how and when the military (as per your above quote) can serve to protect the Constitution in Pakistan - but dont assume I have a view on that unless I express that.

Having made that clear (I hope), let me say that with respect to your example of a politican stepping over his constitutional authority, there are plenty of checks and balances available to Pakistan (as exemplified by the Supreme Court) that, if the Constitution was respected by the generals, would come into play to take care of the example you mention. Martial Law would in practice never take place if the generals felt bound to protect the Constitution.

7:176 If it had been Our will, We should have elevated him with Our signs; but he inclined to the earth, and followed his own vain desires. His similitude is that of a dog: if you attack him, he lolls out his tongue, or if you leave him alone, he (still) lolls out his tongue. That is the similitude of those who reject Our signs; So relate the story; perchance they may reflect.

(Quran 7:175-176)

In #76, about tahmed "Pathetic cowards and worshippers of the West like you, are what the Quran describes as "dogs"- Zeemax will add the rest of the discription given in the analogy presented in that Quranic verse..."

IN addition look at how the oath of the US military has changed through its history, no "oath" can therefore be taken as a definition of the role of the military in a democratic society, let alone the world. As C. Wright Mills correctly commented the role of the military in the US has been greatly enhanced post ww2, as the military definition of reality took hold in the US political economy, the higher military men have established a firm hold within the power elite, they move between the political directorate and heading corporations to becomming president. Therefore regardless of any oath, where "Constitution" is mentioned only symbolically, no US military has ever attacked any politician, let alone the commander in chief for violating the constitution, though this symbolism itself reveals the pathway to political interference by the US military and the oath has varied througout history. Thus tahmed doesn't have a clue about what the role of the military is, all he knows is that his gods, who sloganeer democracy, democracy have a military that talks about the constitution in its oath and therefore every military must have a role of defending the constitution. No, the military institutions ONLY role is to stay in the barracks and defend the country agianst external aggression, period.

tahmed writes "masadi: After responding to your post #41 below, I notice there are two more posts from you commenting on what I wrote. I didnt read them because I am not going to waste more time with you. "

Of course you wont because you are stumped! Doing your "Lakeer ka fakeer" argument about the military and the constitution didn't get you anywhere now did it. Pathetic cowards and worshippers of the West like you, are what the Quran describes as "dogs"- Zeemax will add the rest of the discription given in the analogy presented in that Quranic verse...