Fight Hudood, Protect Women

#307 by bjkumar re #282 by ZahraJ

Yeah those almond eyes ... guess his nieces inherited those .. or was it the other way around? That old nanga fakir inherited those from his underage nieces whom he used to fingerfuk in bed?

#306 by tahmed32

Not at all. It is good history of all this `drama` .. but has either proposed anything to be done further than having orgasms over reversing a known flawed law?

#282 by ZahraJ on March 10, 2007 10:49pm PT

[ I also see depth in Gandhi Jee`s eyes. In fact, he has nicely shaped almond eyes. Is that common among Indian men?]

My dear, you need to see a bit deeper than the superficial, and remember, that person belonged to a time when it was one country.

Re: # 307

bjkumar - I think you have an issue reading between the lines. But that`s ok, you cannot be master of everything :)

Thanks.

zeemax #302 in summary: this article provides an overview of the struggle against oppression and harrasment in pakistan. it clearly identifies the role of zia, the religious parties on the one hand and the struggle of the women of pakistan on the other. and it correctly concludes with It has been a long fight. But it is not over yet.

Do you see a problem with any of this?

#304 by tahmed32

Forget bjkumar ... he`s inconsequential to this discussion. May I have a reply to #302 please?

zeemax #299 i suggest we bring this discussion between you and bjkumar beyond the school playground level. :-)

(i forgot the key word - bjkumar - in the post below.)

zeemax #299 i suggest we bring this discussion beyond the school playground level. :-)

#300 by tahmed32

Can you sum up what the author is saying and what zahraJ is saying?

I need this because I don`t know what`s the point. The hudood ordinance has already been amended a few months ago with regard to rape .. so what next are they proposing?

#298 Tauheed sahib

I agree about the scourge of ``bride burning`` and fetus-killing, although one may disagree about their extent. But please remember, unlike Hudood, these are not state-sanctioned. (Thanks for mentioning these, I have been thinking of penning a piece on related topics and will get around to it on ``one of these days``! :) )

In your second paragraph, you say not much different from what I said - but you prefer different semantics. Semantics do not change the reality.

zeemax: you cant simply wave off what zahraj or the author are saying by calling it ``fashionable``. the fact is that women in pakistan are at the forefront of in the battle against oppression of poor women in pakistan, in the streets, in the courts, and what zahraj and the author are saying reflects the same struggle on chowk.

only a baigharat people would lightly take the oppression of women - whether in the form of hadood laws, or harassment in other forms.

#298 by tahmed32

tahmed .. you have to understand that this liar bjkumar is now desperate after having fallen from his lofty imagined perch to the status of a proven liar and a plagiarist and having become a pariah (with no thanks to me) so all he can do is try to gain attention with arjun-like tactics .. and with that the best he can become is another arjun who`s the most ignored interactor on chowk.

So ... I pity bjkumar ... so should you ...

bjkumar: if pakistani women from poor families suffer under hadood, then indian women from poor families suffer due to ``bride burnings``, and millions of unborn females from middle class families never are allowed to develop beyond the fetus stage.

and the only reality this arjun-like talk of pakistani being refused visas points to is the ill-wishes and spite that too many indian men display on chowk. dont fall to their level, and see the world the way it is - while no doubt there is greater security concern when it comes to travellers from muslim countries, the broader reality is very different from this.

#287
Who is the author?

(You did not write it yourself, by any chance?) :)

#293 by tahmed32

tahmed ... always beware of munafiqs like teshah who try to defame Islam by lies ..

#292 by tahmed32

If you`re a patriot, you would know what I`m saying.

CJs dismissal had nothing to do with the Mukhtaran case. I quoted it just to shame the autor and begum ZehraJ who don`t know diddly squat about what`s really wrong with this country. They`re all shedding crocodile tears because it is fashionable for begmaat.

CJ`s dismissal is about a pending unpublicised case before him about president holding two offices on which he was about to decide ... that`s why all this haste.