Mission Accomplished II

zeemax #279 So you

1. Recognize that justice can only be served within a proper legal framework.

2. Do not deny that maulvis and military have (through sharia and through overthrow of the constitution and through issuance of ordinances) severely damaged the legal framework within Pakistan. Do you deny that the US and indeed virtually all developed countries have vastly more effective legal frameworks than Pakistan? Or indeed than any of the despotic regimes prevalent in arab countries?

Put 1. and 2. together, and the logic is inescapable - justice is served far more often in the US and in developed countries than in Pakistan or the Arab nations. And this is confirmed through observation of today`s realities - the reality of the oppression and harassment of women in Pakistan and the arab nations, particularly true for women from poor families. the reality that Pakistani women, where they have a choice, seek to get a divorce in US courts than in Pakistani courts. The reality of false witnesses that is prevalent in Pakistan. The reality of landlordism. A thousand other ugly realities that I dont see you or masadi or echoboom or urstruly or anyone else being concerned about.

As for the US and Israel acting within legal frameworks - I was referring obviously to legal frameworks within the country - the examples I gave (theft, murder) being part of such internal legal frameworks. I am not going to get into a discussion on international law with you since I have other things to do. Nor indeed is international law as well established as national law, given the reality of state sovereignty.

But rest assured that regardless of what you think, no one would confuse Arab or Pakistani governments as being the custodians of international law, just as no one would confuse muslims today (and i say this with sadness) as being the bastions of legal frameworks and justice.

My last post on the subject. You are welcome to agree or disagree.

Zeemax writes <<< Masadi,

I have to say this. You are much ahead of your time. Perhaps that`s the influence on you of C. Wright Mills, but he was way ahead of his times as well. In any event I applaud and salute your efforts. >>>

Thanks for the supportive post, Mills was way ahead of his times and is very relevant in understanding today`s world. The posted article under was written by Alexander Cockburn and not by me.

Re: # 282

Zeemax,

Pl mind your language.

BTW, it`s not dilemma but a fact.

I was expecting Mr. Ahmed32 to respond as well.

#281 by Folio

Stop creating false dilemmas in place of arguments ... you idiot ...

This is what Rev.Zeemax has to say:

>>>I believe that ANY MUSLIM, who does not support Jihad when Muslims are being driven out of their lands and pushed against the wall everywhere, is an `Uncle Tom`.<<<

I quoted the newsline of Guardian dated 18th Aug 2006, where it was reported that Iran is bombing Kurds.

Pl somebody tell, if the Kurds does qualify to be Muslims and their fight is Jihad? Moral grandstanding of Iran in Lebanon is bizarre, except that it`s a potential Shia country in the making on the lines of Iran.

#277 by masadi

Masadi,

I have to say this. You are much ahead of your time. Perhaps that`s the influence on you of C. Wright Mills, but he was way ahead of his times as well. In any event I applaud and salute your efforts.

You said:

Henry Kissinger, the crackpot realist supremo, announced after that onslaught that he could see ``a fresh beginning`` emerging from under the rubble. True in a way. What sprouted from under the rubble was Hezbollah.

What emerged beneath the rubble was a bit more than Hazballah. What emerged was the catalytic synergy of the Islamic Spirit; to resist and to fight.

It was destined to be that way.

#276 by tahmed32

...that is why we have legal frameworks...

tahmed, please quote me one, just one instance, where US+Israel has obeyed any single tenet of International Law. Just one please.

And, we are not talking about Pakistan. We are talking about the global plight of Muslims right now.

First there were 24, now there`re 11, out of which 8 are supposed to have been actually involved in planning `mass murder on an unimaginable scale``

The charges are: (according to independent.co.uk)

* The charge alleges they: ``On diverse days between January 1 2006 and August 10 2006 conspired with other persons to murder other persons.``

How?

* The second charge against the eight alleges: ``On diverse days between January 1 2006 and August 10 2006 with the intention of committing acts of terrorism engaged in conduct to give effect to their intention to smuggle the component parts of improvised explosive devices on to aircraft and assemble and detonate them on board.``

Intention to smuggle?

* The other three charged include a 17-year-old male, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, who is accused of an offence under section 58(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Yes, but what is the charge?

* The charge alleges that on a day between October 1 2005 and August 10 2006 he had in his possession a book on ``improvised explosives devices, some suicide notes and wills with the identities of the persons prepared to commit acts of terrorism and a map of Afghanistan containing information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism``.

Hmmm....in possession of a book and a map of Afghanistan plus some suicide notes and wills of other people? Not his own? Was he collecting this stuff as souvenirs?

* The other two charged are Cossar Ali, 23, of Walthamstow, and Mehran Hussain. They are accused of an offence contrary to section 38b(1)(a) and (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Section 38b(1)(a) and (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000 are having ``information which they knew or believed might be of material assistance in preventing the commission of another offence and failure to disclose it as soon as reasonably practical.``

Cossar Ali, a 23-year-old mother of a six-month-old son, has been charged with the above. Perhaps her Hubby was chatting on the internet and she failed to disclose it.

These are the charges laid on the final 11 out of 24. Do these charges warrant an imminent attack on UK/US airspace? Checking of baby-milk?

The fact is each one of the eight persons is a conspiracy charge, which can be laid against anyone. The charge against the other three are complicity by failure to disclose the conspiracy, which was bullshit anyway to begin with. What were they supposed to disclose?

So there it is. Just as I had said ten days ago.

Watch this space.

Pardon this extra space, but this is a relevant article

Bush, Rice and Israel`s Hack Legions
The Triumph of Crackpot Realism

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

The frayed threads anchoring the American government to reality have finally snapped, just at the moment radiologists are reporting that Americans are getting too fat to be x-rayed or shoved into any existing MRI tube.

The gamma rays can`t get through the blubber, same way actual conditions in the outside world bounces off the impenetrable dome of imbecility sheltering America`s political leadership.

Twenty-three years after one of America`s stupidest Presidents announced Star Wars, Reagan`s dream has come true. Behind ramparts guarded by a coalition of liars extending from Rupert Murdoch to the New York Times, from Bill O`Reilly to PBS, America is totally shielded from truth.

Here we have a Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, who gazes at the rubble of Lebanon, 300,000 refugees being strafed with Israel`s cluster bombs, and squeaks happily that we are ``witnessing the birth pangs of a new Middle East.``

Here we have a president, G. Bush, who urges Vladimir Putin to commence in Russia the same ``institutional change`` that is making Iraq a beacon of freedom and free expression. Not long after Bush extended this ludicrous invitation the UN relayed from Iraq`s Ministry of Health Iraq`s real casualty rate, which was running at least 100 a day, now probably twice that number.

Iraq`s morgues reported receipts of 3,149 dead bodies in June; over 14,000 since the beginning of the year. Senior Iraqis in the government confide that break-up of Iraq into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish enclaves, each protected by its own militias, is now inevitable. Iraq as a viable country has been utterly destroyed, with even vaster carnage coming up over the horizon, and here`s the numbskull President touting it as an advertisement for American nation-building at its best, and inviting its prime minister to Washington to proclaim Iraq`s approaching renaissance, all in sync with the U.S. 2006 election campaigns.

Here we have a Congress which reacts with outrage when America`s picked man in Iraq, Prime Minister al-Maliki, states the obvious, which is that Israel`s attack is ``dangerous`` and that the world community is not doing enough to curb Israel`s destruction of Lebanon....

With Bush and Rice and the policy-makers and intellectual courtiers surrounding them, crackpot realism is the prevailing mode.

``Crackpot realism`` was the concept defined by the great Texan sociologist, C. Wright Mills in 1958, when he published The Causes of World War Three, also the year that Dwight Eisenhower sent the Marines into Lebanon to bolster local US factotum, Lebanese President Camille Chamoun.

``In crackpot realism,`` Mills wrote, `` a high-flying moral rhetoric is joined with an opportunist crawling among a great scatter of unfocused fears and demands. .. The expectation of war solves many problems of the crackpot realists; ... instead of the unknown fear, the anxiety without end, some men of the higher circles prefer the simplification of known catastrophe....They know of no solutions to the paradoxes of the Middle East and Europe, the Far East and Africa except the landing of Marines. ... they prefer the bright, clear problems of war-as they used to be. For they still believe that `winning` means something, although they never tell us what...``

The Israeli elites, so habituated to selling intransigeance to their ever- receptive opposite numbers in Washington, are now crackpot realists themselves to the very core. Their generals bellow about dumping ten rockets on south Beirut for every one landing in Israel and are astounded when people start talking about the fact that exacting reprisals on a civilian population -- which is what the onslaught has been all about -- is a war crime.

Israel is systematically trying to destroy Lebanon as a functioning social and economic entity, cleanse the south and reoccupy up to the Litani River The head of Lebanon`s Industrial Association, Charles Arbid, told Agence France Presse on July 24 that Israel`s strategy is to destroy the whole chain of manufacturing, from production to distribution. Bridges, airports, roads, trucks, ports have been methodically attacked.

Israel`s hack legions here recycle the usual mad nonsense about extirpating the terrorist seed, just as they did in 1982, when Henry Kissinger, the crackpot realist supremo, announced after that onslaught that he could see ``a fresh beginning`` emerging from under the rubble. True in a way. What sprouted from under the rubble was Hezbollah. Only crackpot realists think they can suppress that inevitable cycle.

#274 do you think anyone on earth will deny that he is against injustice?

differences come in what one considers to be injustice and in what one considers to be the proper way to fight it. even a thief no doubt ``rationalizes`` (at least to himself) his theft in terms of social injustice. even a killer no doubt ``rationalizes`` (at least to himself) his murder in terms of revenge. that is why we have legal frameworks - the ones that dictators and priests in pakistan have been busy destroying under the guise of ``national interest`` and ``sharia``.

#273 by tahmed32 #271 dost mittar:

There is only one Islam, the one in the Quran.

Will wonders never cease. That`s what Masadi always says and I do NOT agree with him ... and here`re yourself, the great Liberaloon, agreeing with our Masadi ...

Will someone catch me? I`m gonna fall .....

#272 by tahmed32

tahmed, if you call yourself a Muslim, do you really reject resistance against injustice? Or, in your view, there actually is no injustice and Muslims are just whiners everywhere?

Perhaps the latter is true.

#271 dost mittar: There is only one Islam, the one in the Quran. And the message is very simple - namely, that it is the individual responsibility before God to understand it and to act accordingly. That is all I am saying.

You will not find anyone who calls himself a muslim who will deny that the above. But he/she will merely ignore it. So, it is not a question of my ``converting`` anyone to any version of Islam.

The problems come, like I said, because through the centuries ``muslim traditions`` that have arisen out of a culture of kingships and professional priesthoods that have arisen that have made a christmas tree out of this simple proposition. A labyrinth of loopholes from that most difficult thing of all for a characterless individual to accept - individual responsibility before God, with no ``sharia`` or ``aalim`` to hide behind on the Judgement Day.

#270 zeemax: So, you say that you took the position that Gauhar`s definition of an uncle tom fit me and hamidm. But didnt actually call me an uncle tom. The distinction you make escapes me, I am sorry to say. I hope this is not your concept of logic.

In any case, like I said, namecalling (directly or indirectly) doesnt bother me.

tahmed32#268:

I was obviously not referring to tahmedi Islam which has so far found only two converts - hamidm and me. :)

#262 by tahmed32 #255 zeemax:

I was referring to your post #237 where it was you - not Guahar, who mentioned me (and hamidm).

Post #237 is reproduced below:

#237 by zeemax on August 21, 2006 10:36am PT
Tahmed14 and Hamidumdum2 have taken the position which I had pointed out in my #216:

There is no dearth of the Uncle Tom type of Muslims many “gainfully employed” in North America and Europe who pass off under the label of “scholar”, and more in Muslim countries in the guise of “moderate” and “liberal”, all of whom would happily assist America in this nefarious enterprise.

Now where have I called you an Uncle Tom above?

I did say however that you and hamidm have taken the position as pointed out by Humayun Gauhar (in #216).

Please be logical.

Having said the above, I believe that ANY MUSLIM, who does not support Jihad when Muslims are being driven out of their lands and pushed against the wall everywhere, is an `Uncle Tom`.