Musharraf the Out-smarter

#112 Posted by zeemax on September 27, 2007 6:12:17 am



That was stupid on part of India because theirs can never be used.


really? because you, with your vast insights into geopolitics and stuff, say so?

you're the same zeemax who said pureland had the US over a barrel and Abizaid was read the riot act by mushy...a month before US forces launched a few hellfires into paki territory..and then some..

Re: # 143 GT

I believ that if democracy with in the individuals of a nation is possible then demecracy among nations is also possible. All we need is the rule of law, social justice, and equity. So why not?

Re: # 151 well said. i however, fear the day when masadi will actually insult someone, if the standard of his civilized discourse is this.

Masadi

I do not have time to address to ad hominum rebuttals "you are mullah therefore you are wrong" ah pahleeze.

and just to drag you down from your high horse, never ever forget that it was none other but moulvi in beards and chappals who caused the disintegration of your moral compass, the then superpower USSR. It does not exist anymore and it won't, ever.

Re: # 149

For some reason the following quote comes to mind:

"Never argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his own level and beat you with experience".

IN addition to #149, let me add that hiding behind the slogan of "conspiracy theory" when political history of this country with US interference and support of dictators and the themes they followed as they fcuked us up, is like an open book for all to see. Stating this (in a cheap excuse manner) also reflected rather poorly on your personality...

James Maxwell writes "Re: # 140

Sir, I do not believe in quantifying complicated socio-political issues in simplistic percentage terms.

And while I have serious issues with American foreign policy, I do not believe in vague conspiracy theories.

And I think personal insults have no place in a civilised discourse."


Einstein, I did not run a regression on "political choices" in Pakistan to give you those numbers, they were there to show that the bigger part of the problem, those that dominate our institutions, as a consequence of which we see the effects you mention are the US elite, and you have conveniently hidden them from your "picture". There was nothing "personal" in the insult either, it was based on your hypocritical rendition, which does reflect rather poorly on your personality.

Re: # 140

Sir, I do not believe in quantifying complicated socio-political issues in simplistic percentage terms.

And while I have serious issues with American foreign policy, I do not believe in vague conspiracy theories.

And I think personal insults have no place in a civilised discourse.

In addition to #146, if the "deterrence" claim was honest then doing a simple test of a device and not manufacturing a single one would be the path, but those that shout "deterrence" often build stockpiles of weapons, weapons that will "potentially" be used- the deterrence claim is hypocrisy and BS.

Urstruly writes "i do not buy the assertion "Islam does not permit it (nuclear deterrant)". There is no one innocent in the modern warfare"

You do not buy it because you're a mullah and mullahs invent their own Islam. They do not care that the Quran states that if you kill one unjustifiably it is as if you've killed all of humanity, even one is too much, and how do you justify it, you do it by saying that "they do it so why can't we"- that is no criteria for establishing what Islam is about. All your bombs and deterrence are useless when facing a major power, they will always outdo you in a barbaric manner, and your "deterrence" and barbarism of killing their civilians will only cause greater destruction unleashed on the innocents- those are the Mullah tactics of warfare and they stink at war.

In the end what works is a simple rifle and other small weapons, which give you the discetion that would be morally required in any resistance. If you abandon value of life, the basic morality that makes you a Muslim and human, what the hell are you fighting for?

Re: # 139

i do not buy the assertion "Islam does not permit it (nuclear deterrant)". There is no one innocent in the modern warfare. Show me a bomb that will sort out and kill only military personnel but not the school children around. How would you respond to carpet bombing/ would you go out and lift the tail of every individual in military camp to make sure that he is combat troop before killing him? This is sheer nonesense.

However, Islam does provide an alternative after a credible detterrent is achieved. It is in the form of international treaties and laws that lead to more civilized co-existence. Precednce was set bu Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself who formed military and civil alliance with many non muslim tribes around Medina. Otherwise in the absence of a deterrant what is the relationship between a powerful and a week? Powerful makes his own laws and yet has power not to obey them while week has no power even to invoke the law of even that of the powerful. Only a two alphabet word would suffice to elaborate that tamasha - UN.

#141 Posted by masadi:

Masadi sahib,

The guy is pleading to be beheaded and you say no! Can you please get a non-Muslim to do this worthy deed on behalf of chowk?

#134 Posted by Urstruly:

Urstruly sahib:

The issue of nuclear, hindu, muslim, india, pakistan etc. threats are easily perceivable and it would be foolish not to try to protect one's self from these threats. But, and you may agree, it is extremely important to protect ourselves from those who rule us or 'protect' us. Even if we ourselves were to 'choose' these people. Majority willing, a simple way to get rid of these 'chosen' people is through democracy.

Now democracy is something like 'competitive markets'. The very individuals who get power (social or economic) through democracy or a competitive market will try their best to thwart it. Why because monopoly over power is best for the individual who gets to use this power. Hence, making a long story short, it is not in the interest of any 'state' to foster democracy. Institutions outside, and in conflict with, the state exist or can be designed such that these protect democracy (be it for their own particular or selfish interest). Hence dissenting institutions should not only be tolerated but their existance should be made feasible.

This is my only reason in tolerating hamidm2 and mohar11.

HisEx

By the way - the jihad attacks in pakiland have increased too - much more than that in hinudland... now you pakis have two fronts to defend - hinud monsters from east, your jihadi brothers from west... actually, jihadis are everywhere these days in pakiland - including elite commandos who are blowing up each other in their own barracks...

laddu writes "Let me know your views on killing of kafirs and idolators like me in your Islam??"

Not allowed except in self defense, only allowed when you attack first wanting to kill the Muslim, this is quite explicitly stated in the Quran, unless you choose to quote a verse whose context is chopped off...

James Maxwell writes "So now we have a choice between mad fanatics who kill in the name of Allah, and street criminals who kill for the petty politics of gangster Altaf Bhai and the ISI.

Not a very appetising choice. "

Leave it to a hypocrite to present 5% of the picture, the other 95%, those that dominate the world system and Pakistan's major institution (the Army), those that kill in the name of profit and capital, the US elite are conveniently veiled from this picture. Very repulsive...

Re #134, Zeemax's post does not refer to any concept of deterrence but elation at successful first use where the other side is stumped and defeated. On a side not only the hypocritical "morality" of a Mullah will permit use of nuclear deterrence where the widescale slaughter of innocents is held as a possibility. Islam does not allow it. Just because your opponent is a barbarian does not give you an open license (in Islam) to become one yourself.