Army and the President

#114 Posted by Urstruly on October 11, 2007 10:49:18 am


he is killing their women and children already using airforce on 24/7 basis.


Wonder if the PAF's token women pilots are involved in the bombing..you know..you posted their pictures..

Good night everyone, later...

Hamid writes "you are a quitter - you couldn't hack it in the land of opportunity where the son of an illiterate man from domeli (my sprinkler guy) managed to go to hbs and then you got fired from preston university in gowalmandi ."

I am no quitter, I am a free man, and free men don't play by the status rules of an enslaving society and so they are punished. I was not fired from any University, and Preston is the alma mater of FerozK, don't associate it with me. Can't you see the infantile level of his comprehension and reasoning not to mention the extremely low level of his morals (as revealed by his covering up of his lies). He is not alone in this, all supporters of dictators and all enemies of the people have similar low morals. That they can put together two or three complex english sentences that have little worth as meaning does not mean they are either "intellectual" or "accomplished".

Re: 111 ; The problem with this miserable FerozK is that once he is caught in his own stupidity or ignorance, instead of owning up to it and saying, yes I was misled, I did not think about my recommendation that it would infact be rank racist and quite barbaric, he comes up with more absurdities to cover it up. Remeber the time when I proved to all here that a certain 17th amendment was illegal and hense totally within the functions of the SC to judge it thus, he says "who will amend the illegal amendment" and other such BS.

Here is the URL of his dimwitted article in which he is kissing the feet of the Americans, trying to appease them while at the same time being barbaric in his recommendation regarding the Muslims and the Muslim countries:

The Long War: Rethinking American Options in the War on Terror By Feroz R. Khan (where the R stands for Royal Liar)-
[http://www.chowk.com/articles/10780]
And here is the famous quote about putting Muslims in continent wide prisons, his "arc of instability"-

He writes : "As mentioned earlier, the United States will have to create a cordon of containment around the Muslim nations, along the “arc of instability”, from Morocco in the east to Pakistan in the west and not allow Islamic militancy to break this cordon of containment. The best way to guarantee the sanctity of such a zone of political quarantine of the Muslim world would be by applying a consistent political pressure on it and if the situation warrants, to employ military force to keep Islamic militancy and agitation bottled up inside the nations of the “arc of instability” and not allow them to infect the nations outside of this area of containment. "

Now think about these words and what he has written. What he has written in fact is a round about way of stating what Bush has been stating all along: It is better to fight them there (because them there the people are like cockroaches that can be killed at ease and made the playing field of the Islamists) than to fight them at home (because the home front is "superior")

This is what this miserable Ferozk is stating in a nut shell and HP, I don't know why and how thinks that this peon of the West will in someway help the Muslims and the people of Pakistan and the Third World....ain't gonna happen...

Re: # 110 zeemax

I can only sympathsize with your nievette. This is Pakistan we are talking about and a vicious dictator who will not hesitate a bit killing school children if he has to. Given the number of school children he has killed, it turns out that he has been eating one school child in the breakfast everyday for the past 8 years.

The plan is very simple. If the verdict comes against him. He will impose Martial Law (as if it is not the case today) for 2-3 wks. dissolve the constitution and SC. And then seek the new oath of judges under a "new" fukked up "constitution". Who is there to stop him? tribals? he is killing their women and children already using airforce on 24/7 basis. Political parties and moulvis are in his pocket and people do not trust them. Media and lawyers make some waves only because they are groups. An ordinary citizen will be kidnapped and disapperade by the agencies. Western propaganda machinery and governments want this vicious dictator imposed on us at all costs. I think the rule of Dajjal is having an absolute chokehold. People of Pakistan are left on their own. I would say, jaisa moonH waisee chupaiR. It is none other but us who have disrespected the gift that Allah had given us 60 years ago. When we had time to get rid of bastard children of East India Company i.e. NaPak fouj we didn't.

Zeemax #110 Thanks for the signs of hope in Pakistan, and I am always bullish on Pakistan. How can we lose we we are so sincere? :-)

Regarding the CD-Burners of Islamabad: If the alternative to musharraf was these pathetic individuals (who can only destroy, and are incapable of building anything other than hot air and brutalization of any poor soul unfortunate enough to fall into their hands), then most reluctantly I would have to admit that even a tin-pot self-absorbed general like musharraf is better than these losers.

Fortunately, the alternative to Musharraf's Demockery is not Mullahcracy or even BB or NS's Broken Crokery. The alternative is what I shall call "YLH ka Pakistan" (in honor of YLH, with whom I dont agree on his focus on historical personalities rather than concepts, but nevertheless whose vision of a peaceful, progressive Pakistan guaranteeing basic freedoms to all is what makes sense). And inshallah, YLH ka Pakistan will, sooner or later, replace Musharraf's Demockery and that have in place. Or even NS/BBs Broken Crokery if it should take over for a few years. No one is going to rule over Pakistan other than Pakistanis themselves.

re: Mantolives

I did not comment on this article before as I was caught up with work, and felt, that this article deserved time to be completely read and understood.

This article was brilliant and I think you are the first one to have brought up the possibility of the legal precedents, which the events seem to be establishing in Pakistan. Your conclusion were very insightful given that Pakistan was created on the traditions of the British representative government.

I am afraid that the consequences of the events of 2007, will become too expensive to afford in the years to come and the generations, after us, will pay a very heavy price for this new legalism in our history.

Will this be new the "doctrine of necessity" in a legal bottle?

Ciao

re: masadi # 94

Stop misquoting me out of context and in fact, you have an enfantile level of comprehension. Below are the paragraphs form the article and what I was arguing is that the United States will have to MILITARILY contain MILITANT ISLAM BEFORE DEFEATING IT'S POLITICAL MESSAGE AND NOT THAT MUSLIMS, AS YOU THINK, SHOULD BE PUT INTO CONCENTRATION CAMPS.

THE ARTICLE IS SAYING THAT THE BEST APPROACH TO DEALING WITH MILITANT ISLAM IS A POLITICAL PROCESS AND NOT A MILITARY ONE!.

You have totally failed to understand the article, which was a submission to my old college professor, on the question to define the goals of the United States' foreign policy in the war on terrorism. This paper, was presented as a "working" paper to debate the US foreign policy (in a conference which was recently held in Utah) since Septemeber 11, 2001 and was basically refuting the idea of United States' use of military force to solve political problems and not supporting it.

Now read the line "arc of instability" in context and not out of it, as is your habit.

"Therefore, it is incumbent upon the political process in the United States to favor such a policy and adopt it by removing from such a future policy any ambiguity of any particular political ideology, which might be ascribed to it. This policy cannot be subjected to the whims of partisan politics in the United States, and both the Democratic and Republican parties must support a consensual agreement on this policy rubric, which represents the sovereign interests of the United States, against the political ideology of Islamic militancy. The underlying rational and need behind such a political requirement is that as the “long war” endures, the scope and the frequency of military actions will give way to an increased political influence, because given the duration of this conflict, if this war is to be successful, would argue that military force will be used resist militant Islam occasionally while the war would be fought generally on a political battlefield. In a significant sense, with far reaching consequences, the role and influence of politics and military power will have to be reversed and instead of the military logic dictating the politics of fighting this war, as it is presently happening; politics must dictate the logic of using military power in fighting this war.

As mentioned earlier, the United States will have to create a cordon of containment around the Muslim nations, along the “arc of instability”, from Morocco in the east to Pakistan in the west and not allow Islamic militancy to break this cordon of containment. The best way to guarantee the sanctity of such a zone of political quarantine of the Muslim world would be by applying a consistent political pressure on it and if the situation warrants, to employ military force to keep Islamic militancy and agitation bottled up inside the nations of the “arc of instability” and not allow them to infect the nations outside of this area of containment. The key to the success of such a policy of containment and defeating Islamic militancy and its ideological philosophies, would be not to allow it to expand beyond the cordon of containment by keeping it under a political and military pressure, and once that is done, the internal contradictions in political Islam will start fissuring and the political threat of an Islamic militancy will collapse on the account of its own internal weaknesses. The most salient flaw in militant Islamic philosophy, which the United States must exploit, is that Islamic militancy draws its ideological inspiration from politics and not from Islam itself and this exploitation can be achieved through the application of military power and political influence designed to identify and discredit the political message of militant Islam by exposing the hypocrisy of its ideologically religious claims and showing them to be non-Islamic.

Once the United States adopts such a policy and it is articulated and implemented as the expression of the United States’ foreign policy objectives, it would mean that the United States will have to pay a more detailed and nuanced attention into the domestic dynamics of the Arab and Muslim societies. In this sense, the United States’ policy makers and its political leadership will have to understand and learn to appreciate the reality that Islam is not a monolithic religion, but has many political, cultural, social and ethnical variances, which allows for the existence of a plurality of antagonist opinions in Muslim nations. The sub-textual reality of this fact is that whereas, the Muslims might agree on the holistic message of Islam itself, they might not necessarily agree on its interpretative explanation. The experience of Islam, as a religion and as a cultural and social motif of life in Muslim societies differs accordingly and therefore, this difference is the sum of an evolutionary process of how Islam has been able to develop and fuse itself into the cultural, historic, social and political milieus of the lands and societies, where it developed its religious roots. It is imperative that the United States’ policy decision-makers understand this distinction, because the realization of this distinction will allow the United States to tailor its policies in a subtle manner and it would also impress upon them the futility of using military power as a “skeleton key” solution to their political problems.

As mentioned earlier, this struggle which the United States is waging against militant Islam will be a political struggle, because the United States will have to understand the myriad opinions of disagreement that exist in Muslim societies. The first logical step in this process will be for the United States to review its military policies, because the continued use of American military power, against an asymmetrically weak opponent, will be self-defeating for the United States in a strategic sense. The asymmetrical military superiority of the United States actually helps to foster a sense of grievance in the Arab and Muslim societies, which groups like Al-Qaeda employ to continually justify their armed struggle against the United States. Ironically, the overwhelming application of United States’ military power in pursuit of a political goal, is actually fermenting a sense of injustice amongst the Arab and Muslim populations and the failure of the United States to perceive this policy flaw has only helped in legitimizing a perceptional analysis in the Islamic world that the United States’ policies are against Islam and even more worse, that the United States is using its military power to destroy Islam as a religion.

Consequently, the continued use of military power by the United States will simply reinforce this perception in the minds of the Muslims and the strengthening of this perception; will only confer upon Islamic militant groups, such as Al-Qaeda, legitimacy for justifying their ideas of an armed struggle against the United States. Therefore, the bitter experience of the last five years of an armed struggle against militant Islam, in Afghanistan, Iraq and in Pakistan, concludes that United States needs to review its policy options, because it is in the interests of militant Islam to seek a prolonged military confrontation with the United States; not in hopes of defeating it, but using it as an raison d’etre to validate its own political cohesion and importance as the flag-bearer of the Muslims’ struggle for justice and respect in the world. The United States must be willing to accept the fact that militant Islam cannot, and will not, be defeated in a military sense but only though a political sense. Only a political approach towards fighting militant Islam offers the best option of removing the sense of injustice and victimization, which exists in Muslim and Arab nations due to the use of United States’ military power or the employment of such a power by the allies of the United States in the “global war on terrorism”"

I know, as is your habit, you will claim to have refuted my arguments and being the judge and the jury yourself, you will claim to be right in your arguments and you will, as ususal, insult me and call me names such as "ignoramus" or much worse.

Ciao

P.S.: Yasser et al, sorry for this longish post, but this gentleman is insufferable and his interacts do not lend themselves to a reasonable discussion of topics and I am sorry for using the "caps".

#104 Posted by tahmed32,

You have reason still for hope. Consider the following:

1) Attorney General Malik Qayyum says if the verdict is against Musharraf, there'll be fresh presidential elections and Justice Wahjih will not automatically become President.

2) The SC bench is reconstituted to make it eleven members instead of ten to forestall any split verdict.

3) BBC reports that the verdict may be a surprise for Musharraf.

4) Musharraf advises BB to delay her arrival till after SC verdict.

5) Musharraf says re his response to SC Verdict if its against him "I'll cross the bridge when I come to it".

First three point to a possibility that the verdict may be against Musharraf, while other two point to it as well BUT Martial-Law if that was to come about!

So all hope is not lost for you ... i.e. till the Mujahideen wind up the entire works and tear up all the papers after having tired of blowing up video stores :)

IB sahib,

(During my visits to India – average joe on the street blame Nehru for partition.)

I don't see any reason why anyone should "blame" anyone for partition. Partition was a good thing (although the violence was a bad thing) and whoever caused the Partition to happen should get a Nobel Peace Prize and Bharat Ratna. Muthu and I have come to the conclusion that the guy was MAJ (pbuh) and we have already both nominated him for Bharat Ratna.

Regards

Mushraff has pitfalls but does not? One can argues on the role of armed forces on politics but then Mushraff changed and put Pakistan onto the right path. The path for better administration, better economical polices social reforms, equality and freedom of expression.

It is interesting to note that IML always opted for the majority-minority paradigm. The Congress rhetoric too was is terms of the majority and the minority. Similarly, the Jamiyat al-ulama-i Hind's (JUH) theory of muttahidah qaumiyat (broadly composite nationalism) gathered for muslims living in a non-Islamic state and the Imarat i Shariah was the only one party uptill 1943 fighting for Pakistan movement and went on lengths to accuse Muslim League of ignoring the minority provinces.
The Muslim League and MAJ had continuously repeated that after Partition it would be very difficult for the Muslims in India who lived in so-called minority provinces. They systematically taught the Muslims in India to think of themselves as a minority and as a maybe unintended result taught Hindus to identify as a majority. Their predictions that minority Muslims would suffer under the domination of the Hindu majority became true in a most frightful form witnessed from the treatment of Muslim’s just after partition.

MAJ was a wise politician and he believed in that ‘politics is the art of postponing decisions until they are no longer relevant’ – he played with the British and Congress on ideas and approach to the minority post-independence but thanks to the hindu and Indian Nationalist bigots who started this campaign in 1946 with slogans like "Hindu, Hindi, Hindustan" and "Muslim Jao Pakistan Mussalman ke do asthan: Pakistan
ya Kabristhan"(graveyard)’’ MAJ was compelled to seriously think of the idea – which was used as a bargaining chip to milk the colonials and humiliate the congress – Pakistan.

To me people like Lord Mountbatten was responsible for the blood shed – after all he was had the chief-executive powers apart from that he intentionally was role as a ‘pressure group’ on Boundary Commission and National Politicians and haste of rushing for partition to be the Governor General of both country’s – is one of the root causes of Rioting in Punjab.

I say there is a reason why a hardliner like Advani come’s to Pakistan and gives statements like ‘MAJ was truly a securalist and was a hindu-muslim ambassador’ – words of a man who tried to kill MAJ in 1947. Maybe when people like masadi and hyrish age(es) and becomes hairless they would know – the role of MAJ. During my visits to India – average joe on the street blame Nehru for partition.

It is interesting to note that IML always opted for the majority-minority paradigm. The Congress rhetoric too was is terms of the majority and the minority. Similarly, the Jamiyat al-ulama-i Hind's (JUH) theory of muttahidah qaumiyat (broadly composite nationalism) gathered for muslims living in a non-Islamic state and the Imarat i Shariah was the only one party uptill 1943 fighting for Pakistan movement and went on lengths to accuse Muslim League of ignoring the minority provinces.
The Muslim League and MAJ had continuously repeated that after Partition it would be very difficult for the Muslims in India who lived in so-called minority provinces. They systematically taught the Muslims in India to think of themselves as a minority and as a maybe unintended result taught Hindus to identify as a majority. Their predictions that minority Muslims would suffer under the domination of the Hindu majority became true in a most frightful form witnessed from the treatment of Muslim’s just after partition.

MAJ was a wise politician and he believed in that ‘politics is the art of postponing decisions until they are no longer relevant’ – he played with the British and Congress on ideas and approach to the minority post-independence but thanks to the hindu and Indian Nationalist bigots who started this campaign in 1946 with slogans like "Hindu, Hindi, Hindustan" and "Muslim Jao Pakistan Mussalman ke do asthan: Pakistan
ya Kabristhan"(graveyard)’’ MAJ was compelled to seriously think of the idea – which was used as a bargaining chip to milk the colonials and humiliate the congress – Pakistan.

To me people like Lord Mountbatten was responsible for the blood shed – after all he was had the chief-executive powers apart from that he intentionally was role as a ‘pressure group’ on Boundary Commission and National Politicians and haste of rushing for partition to be the Governor General of both country’s – is one of the root causes of Rioting in Punjab.

I say there is a reason why a hardliner like Advani come’s to Pakistan and gives statements like ‘MAJ was truly a securalist and was a hindu-muslim ambassador’ – words of a man who tried to kill MAJ in 1947. Maybe when people like masadi and hyrish age(es) and becomes hairless they would know – the role of MAJ. During my visits to India – average joe on the street blame Nehru for partition.

"Demockery".

A new word from Chowk. Hope regular commentators from Pak media picks this up.

Mr. Madani #88 to Professor Masadi: You were ist exposed the elite control of Pakistani elites to supress democry.

"Democry" is indeed what we have in Pakistan - A mockery of democracy. Perhaps we can spell it correctly and call it "Demockery".

PS: Mr. Madani, this also clarifies your support for General Musharraf's Demockery.

I agree, masadi is a jerk!!!!