Moral Bankruptcy of Political Leadership in Pakistan

banneditem #29 Those, I am sure you will admit upon reflection, are very weak responses you provide when challenged on your contention that Pakistani people are not fit to elect their own rulers. Please re-read my post #18 and GT's post #35, because I think you need to reflect on your way of thinking.

e.g. you are simply incorrect when you say that "Bush did not get re-elected because of one state Ohio". That state would have meant nothing if he did not already enjoy a strong electoral support. And thus what I said remains true - if Americans can make a mistake by electing a disaster like Bush to be President, then Pakistanis can be allowed to make a few mistakes too - if they wish to elect a man who flashes the Quran, that is their right. As long as they can learn the hard way and remove the maulvi from power when his term is up and if they chose to do so.

And please dont think that your naukar's son is genetically inferior (as your post implies) and incapable of reaching your own lofty ideals. Such arrogance merely reflects very superficial thinking.

Breaking News....

justice Ifthikhar said today ..in hearing PML(N) top leader Hashmi..prison petition that...when he has completed his punishment ...government could not put him in jail...so..on friday..his petition will be re listened...

hope ..that ..he will be released soon....

baja dee Ifti nai sub ki....

aur Dictator gannai kai khait mai baitha Chuppa laga raha hai....

Justice Iqbal summoned NAB DG on 3rd August.....

hai..hai...hai...SC nai phar dee sab kee....

tahmed32 #18

{{And the army's job is to protect the Constitution, and make sure that elected rulers dont then try to overstay their term.}}

and #59

{{What I stated as being the proper role of the armed forces (i.e. to defend the Constitution, not overthrow it) is in fact part of the generally accepted role of the armed forces in any country!!}}

Amen to that pair of posts, Janaab Tahmed! Thank you for that stunning exhibition of the military (OK, military-descended) mind in action! What a crying shame that some bloody civilians just won’t get the point :-(.

sattar #26 Where did you read me making claims to be a humanist? I dont deal with labels, and I am not running for popularity contests that I have to prove something to strangers on chowk.

And not willing to accept "to you be your way, and to me be mine" as a way to resolve religious differences, and frustrated in my refusal to engage in further "discussion" in your aggressive attempts to get the world to acknowledge your "prophet" mirza, you now pull Nagasaki and Hiroshima out of thin air and try to force a discussion by misrepresenting what I wrote.

You are over-clever and a half!! However, while lying and deceipt on your part may impress a loser like echoboom, any intelligent individual will see through it. When there is something about Pakistan that you wish to discus other than pushing your prophet mirza (where my answer remains as provided above), and when you have overcome your tendancy to be rude and deceiptful, then perhaps we can talk. Till then - have a nice day.

#65 AlephNull: are you saying I am wrong? or merely letting of some smoke??

AlephNull:65
If you, or anyone else, have heard this joke before then you might enjoy this a bit more "in-context"

This thief who in the dead of night had broken into this house
was busy picking up his loot when he tripped and was caught by the man sleeping there.

Once caught, the thief pleaded for mercy..he would be let go if he (the thief) would do a lube job on the owner.

Well, as you can imagine , the thief did find it a bit disgusting but still not too
harsh a punishment..especially when he was also allowed to take the loot.

Once the thief was done with the reaming ,as if dreaming , the man from under him, very coquettishly inquired : " Darling! when will you be back again".
____________________________________________________________
Can you, or others, spot some context here?

dawa-i-dil,
Where are you getting all this news from?
Please post links. Thanks

tahmed,

You seem to be mischaracterizing the issue here.

But first, don’t get too obsessed with labels. By using the term “humanist”, I was referring to your claims suggesting you value innocent lives. This, as I pointed out, is not accurate. And no, I am not asking you to prove anything to anyone.

+++

Your “humanist” attitude is negated by your support for Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. If I recall correctly, your position was something along the lines that … since they attacked US, it was ok for US to bomb them.

I drew your attention to the fact that … you were confusing they with them. While they were Japanese military, trained to attack and to win wars, them were Japanese civilians: women, children, elderly, young couples, toddlers. It seemed that you failed to appreciate this distinction. And that was the travesty of your views.

Note that in addition of those instantly killed, hundreds of thousands suffered immeasurably due to trauma, illnesses, starvation, injuries, and much, much more. God only knows how many of their generations will be born with birth defects, physical and mental handicaps, life long illnesses … and much, much more.

+++

I further pointed out that your view has much in common with that of suicide bombers … who, when they cannot fight an army, resort to blowing up innocent civilians. Once again, you did not comment. That was further travesty of your views.

+++

Ironically, you were cheer-leading the US war on Iraq also. You brilliantly predicted the exact days it would take the US to capture Baghdad. You tooted your horn when your prediction was met. And since then, Iraq has descended into a morass, with immeasurable human suffering. But you did not (could not?) predict the aftermath that followed.

Sahib, it is easy to win wars, which is perhaps all that you know. But winning peace is a lot more tricky, and something you know little about. Your short, snappy sentences on "democracy" do not cut it. Human existence is too complicated to be ruled by this “bumper sticker” philosophy of yours.

+++

And you are mistaken if you think I am pushing my belief here. I have mainly (perhaps only) responded to the issue of my faith when the issue was raised by others. People’s inquiries have ranged from genuine questions to belittling ridicule, and I responded accordingly.

Note that you yourself have taken uncalled-for shots at Ahamdis … but are quick to respond with “to you, your way; to me, mine” when I respond to your comments. Here again you display incompetence and an overwhelming sense of self-righteousness. Note that once again you are repeatedly raising the issue of Mirza, while cleverly slipping in your verdict … even as no one has raised the issue. This seems to be an obsession of yours, more than anyone else’s.

Sattar Bhai, I think you got 'em. But you always do run away from proving the validity of your prophet, but like u stated very aptly - is not the topic of this discussion. Good post

#69 Posted by khurram,

She watches the ticker on the news channels ... :)

sattar: I suggest you cut and paste what I wrote. I am not going to enter into a discussion on any issue with you based on what you claim I wrote.

#73 Posted by tahmed32 =,

tahmed32, actually you also condoned the bombing of Lebanese civilians ... :)

tahmed writes "Here, e.g., is the oath taken by anyone joining the US Army:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;" "

Look Einstein, what the swearing in of the US army is or is not does not form a standard of looking at the role of the military in every nation state, regardless of the fact that you worship the US elite. Please find me ONE authoritative source from contemporary history and that is a challenge where the role of the US military is defined as detecting violations of the constitution by politicians and then mobilizing for action, I ask for JUST ONE.

Further, this oath does not at all mean that the US military will meddle in political affairs once the politicians violate the constitution (as they do and are doing periodically) neither does it mean that when the politicians do adjustments to enhance or diminsh terms, this military will attack them.

The role that you were assigning to the military opens a pathway for military meddling in political affairs and leads to military dictatorship. It is neither the job of the military to interpret the constitution, nor to judge whether it has been violated or not. Its job is to stay in the barracks and defend the country against external aggression PERIOD.

There, you're outsmarted and fckd up again and you thought you had scored a big a$$ point. Pathetic fool.

tahmed writes "masadi: After responding to your post #41 below, I notice there are two more posts from you commenting on what I wrote. I didnt read them because I am not going to waste more time with you. "

Of course you wont because you are stumped! Doing your "Lakeer ka fakeer" argument about the military and the constitution didn't get you anywhere now did it. Pathetic cowards and worshippers of the West like you, are what the Quran describes as "dogs"- Zeemax will add the rest of the discription given in the analogy presented in that Quranic verse...

IN addition look at how the oath of the US military has changed through its history, no "oath" can therefore be taken as a definition of the role of the military in a democratic society, let alone the world. As C. Wright Mills correctly commented the role of the military in the US has been greatly enhanced post ww2, as the military definition of reality took hold in the US political economy, the higher military men have established a firm hold within the power elite, they move between the political directorate and heading corporations to becomming president. Therefore regardless of any oath, where "Constitution" is mentioned only symbolically, no US military has ever attacked any politician, let alone the commander in chief for violating the constitution, though this symbolism itself reveals the pathway to political interference by the US military and the oath has varied througout history. Thus tahmed doesn't have a clue about what the role of the military is, all he knows is that his gods, who sloganeer democracy, democracy have a military that talks about the constitution in its oath and therefore every military must have a role of defending the constitution. No, the military institutions ONLY role is to stay in the barracks and defend the country agianst external aggression, period.