India-Pakistan talks: the endless cycle

I am only calling a spade a spade...

Re:manto#488

[...I suppose when you are the follower of the Exclusivist Racist Casteist Hindu fascist bigot Gandhi ...]

Yaaawwwwnnn!! There are already 488 interacts to this article. You came in rather late to the party here to begin another typpical 400 interact puke session with your trademark bold fonted insults to Gandhi. You might want to consider Gill sahib`s board or someother board higher up on the homepage for these antics.

You know it is just damn right disappointing to return to chowk after an absence and find BJKumar, the Hindu equivalent akin to the fat Nazi from American History X, and similarly motivated Hindu fascists still trying to impose on chowk populace his regurgitation of Gandhian defaecation.

I suppose when you are the follower of the Exclusivist Racist Casteist Hindu fascist bigot Gandhi ... that truly bigoted little Hindu fanatic who believed that black people were subhuman and caste system was the true expression of humanity.... you need to repeat your hogwash again and again.

Somethings will never change.

Re: # 488 Manto

Poor prattler, how thou talk`st!

#485 by subhashjoshi

I thought you were only unhappy about the four witnesses law. Are there any other you wish us to amend?

Re: # 487 Zeemax

I take back my comment about discrimination against Ismailis. Looks like they deserve it.

A supporter of political party Sunni Tehrik kicks a poster of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf during an anti-government rally in Karachi December 3, 2006. Islamist parties in Pakistan are demanding to scrap a bill that curtails the scope of Islamic laws on rape. REUTERS/Athar Hussain (PAKISTAN)

#479-483 by subhashjoshi (yes ... all five of them)

I didn`t relize that #472 would act like that much of a red chilli ... sorry.

But what can I say in response to either of above since you yourself admit in one of these that you don`t have any sources of your own; that frankly you don`t care; that you don`t think you have time to read who and how many were killed in a godforsaken place called Bajaur. And despite all that, you continue to make allegations. Out of thin air?

Indeed, what can I say. You`re right about that!

Cheers ...

Re: # 484 zeemax

Once a pakistani always a pakistani. Read #479 and #483 was just Hello and Goodbye, but you chose to call that ``mirchi lagna``. Hahaha. My bad.

For other three please count your three 472, 473, 478.

But why do you maintain a STUDIED silence on other LAWS in that godforsaken hellhole that you fondly call Pakistan? Are they allegations out of thin air?

Anyways yaar, don`t take it to heart. You have your problems, we have ours. Chowk is just a TP.

Bye for today. Enjoy your skirmishes at other thread.

#477 by CoolAL

I thought that the law was amended to require only two witnesses now as opposed to 4. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Ok please stand corrected. The effect of the amendment is to remove rape from the hudood ordinance altogether and place it in the regular penalc code where it can be prosecuted like any other crime through an FIR lodged by the victim.

P.S. Please tell Mr. Joshi as well as he wasn`t aware of this development ...

Re: # 478 Zeemax

I saw pictures of hordes of Mad Mullahs tearing their beards over repealing of something called hudood shudood. Is it that? If so, then how long will Praiz Musharraf take to buckle under, any guess?

Re: # 478 Zeemax

Hohoho....I am here to bask in the sunshine of your erudition. But first give me some time to go thru all the posts since yesterday.

---

3) LAW demanding FOUR MALE WITNESSES

What law? It doesn`t exist anymore. Do you read the news? It has been amended NOT to require any such thing. Besides whatever excuse for a law it was, it was neither voted in by representatives of the people, nor debated in the country. It was an ordinance by a sole person i.e. the military dictator appropriately named Zina(bil jabr)-ul-Haq.

---

I thought that the law was amended to require only two witnesses now as opposed to 4. Please correct me if I am wrong.

#473 by zeemax

Thank you for proving my point. It was a Lady Police Officer assigned to oversee women`s protests. Not some swarthy darogas assigned to manhandle college girls and aim for their `buxom bums`.

Oh come on now! Will you now say a lady police officer tearing off a woman`s clothing is better than a policeman hitting a woman with a lathi? And are you arguing that there are no Paki policemen who hit women? If it is so, I have nothing more to argue with you.

#471 by harish_hyd

Thank you for proving my point. It was a Lady Police Officer assigned to oversee women`s protests. Not some swarthy darogas assigned to manhandle college girls and aim for their `buxom bums`.

And you may ask Asma Jehangir how many lady police officers she hit since you`re at it. She`s kind of famous for doing that and provoking altercations for good copy.