Who Decides?

Letter to Daily Times:

Sir,

In the wake of the AQ Khan scandal, with it becoming clear that Dr. Khan sold
nuclear technology to Iran, the Pakistani government should seriously consider
re-examining its stance on Iran`s nuclear program. The Iranians, like every
country that has ambitions to become a nuclear power, have stated that their
program is for civilian use, an argument that the Pakistanis also used in the
nascent stages of their program. The real purpose, however, is clear; to make
weapons of mass destruction.

Pakistan must work with the International community to ensure that Iran`s
nuclear program does not translate into a full-fledged weapons program. We
already have a strong neighbor on our East in India, and with relations being
strained with Afghanistan, a nuclear-armed Iran can pose serious challenges to
Pakistan`s interests. We must remember that Pakistan and Iran were essentially
fighting a proxy war in Afghanistan in the mid-1990s, so the notion that a
`brotherly` Muslim country would not challenge Pakistan`s interests is untrue,
as is also evident from Pakistan`s troubled relations with Afghanistan.

Pakistan has good relations with Iran and must continue further improving this
relationship, but must oppose any further nuclearization of a neighborhood that
is heavily armed. Our Iran policy (especially in relation to its nuclear
program) should be based on the realities of realpolitik, not the myths of an
Islamic Ummah.

Regards,

Taimur M. Khan
USA

re: Omar R. Quraishi # 177

I am really glad that you brougt up the issue of hate speech, slander and libel and statements made in malice.

All these ingredients were present in Dawn`s reporting of the crisis in East Pakistan and how it talked about the Bengalis. Where was the concern for hate speech, malice, slander and libel, when the Bengalis were being demonized by the West Pakistani press? :)

Ciao

re: Omar R. Quraishi # 177

Who decides, what is free speech?

As to issues of slander et al, there are laws to deal with them. Hate speech, slander and libel and statements made in malice need to be proven first in a court of law. The right to be protected from such speech does not and should not take importance over the right to freely express an opinion. Either a speech is free or it is not.

Ciao

actually ferozk -- i dont agree with your view of free speech at all-- it seems to ignore the fact that there is something called one`s right to be protected from hate speech, slander and libel and statements made in malice -- interesting you hold these views, because in your estimation the media should be free to say whatever it wants then -- also, strange that you perhaps would know that when one chooses to live in organized or civilized society one has to give up some freedoms, so that the society has some semblance of order -- i can see there are no limits on chowk -- but its clear that according to chowk`s own guidelines there are limits -- the fact that they are not enforced or that you think that there should be no limits is immaterial to my previous posting -- and by the way ferozk, using your own logic, if i am to leave chowk when i dont like it, you are also not to tell or advise anyone on whether they should leave or come to chowk -- man, i wonder who sounds like a teacher here ... it does seem that what you said earlier about pink floyd`s The Wall came from personal experience --

re: Omar R. Qurarishi # 175

Free speech has to be unfettered. As to to racial and personal slurs, they should not be banned. Banning speech, for any reason, is an appeasement to a subtle sense of politically correct behavior. It is censorship in its most basic characteristics.

On Chowk, there are no limits and neither should there be any limits on speech.

A person is never forced to stay at Chowk against their wishes and if they stay, they should not foist their sense of morality as the commonly accepted standard of behavior on Chowk and that applies to speech on Chowk. Omar, you have the choice to make yourself comfortable or uncomfortable at Chowk.

Omar, as a rule of thumb, you are your own judge of how to respond on Chowk and how to react on Chowk. You should set your own limits and when they are violated, leave Chowk, but do not force Chowk to judge what is and should be the morality of its interactors. Morality differs with personality and should be left to an individual personality to judge.

Ciao

this is an email i just sent to temporal sahib -- i assume he is one of the editors of this site -- here it is, i think it`s relevant enough to be posted on this board :


Dear Temporal Sahib (don`t know your real name),

I have one question to ask here. Very basic and very simple. What are your website`s policies regarding hate speech and personal slurs? Is there a written down policy agreed upon by all the editors? If so, could you email me a copy?


Regards,
Omar R. Quraishi
Assistant Editor
Dawn Group of Newspapers,
Haroon House,
Dr Ziauddin Ahmed Road,
Karachi, PAKISTAN
+92-21-5670001

re: Romair # 172

Romair, I would have to to disagree with you.

The majority of the United States` population still believes in the perception that Iraq is linked with Al-Qaeda and that the insurgency is a resistance by the terrorists who are pro-Saddam Hussein and thus, anti-democratic. The majority of the United States` public believes that perception and it is the perception, and not the reality, which is causing them to support the war and the occupation in Iraq.

The problem is not that the average American believes in the lies about the war, but the real tragedy is that s/he was told to believe that there was no alternative to the lies and thus, had to accept the lies. Once s/he starts to think that there is a another explanation, the average American will demand it, not because of any moral reason or any love for the Arabs, but because the continuation of the war will impact his/her pocket book.

I agree with you in the sense that American outrage is being voiced over the lack of success in the Iraqi situation, but it is also being voiced from the unwillingness of the Americans to financially support a losing proposition in Iraq with with their tax dollars. The congress may be Republican dominated, but even they have to justify the budgetary allocations for the war, which are running in billions of dollars and they realize clearly, if the American public is unhappy, the end result might not be an American withdrawal from Iraq, but the loss of the elections in 2004.

I think, and I could be mistaken in this assumption, but the average American voter has realized the economic consequences of prolonging this war. The bottom line in this case would be that the American tax payer is not willing to fund a conflict in Iraq and that is causing the both the Republicans and Democrats to be critical of Bush and they are using the issue of Iraq Photogate as an moral excuse to voice their opposition to the Bush`s policies and thus, not be seen as less patriotic.

Ciao

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Ferozek #171: The behavior by the US soldiers is not a surprise to me, at all. I have been arguing against this war, for a long time. Specifically, because I know what the US military and political machine does. Much of the information is hidden. This incidence only has been denounced only because it came out. I am sure, it was well-known inside US military and political circles, and was accepted.

And I am sure there is a lot more of it going on.

There is a general acceptance amongst a large chunk of the US mainstream population, for treating Arabs in a particular way. People are just too politically correct, to say it. Otherwise, how is it possible that a whole war could be fought, on out and out lies. Yet the majority of the US population still supports it, knowing fully well, that it is based on lies. The only large-scale opposition has come along, when US soldiers have started being killed, i.e. not a moral opposition to the actions of the USA, but an opposition to its lack of success.

In the end, might is right. Americans are about to leave Iraq with their tail between their legs. They will have achieved none of their Machievellian objectives, and will have, themselves, installed a pro-Iran Shia govt. in Iraq. This govt. will be more anti-Israel and anti-USA than Saddam ever was.

However, the Americans are leaving, not because of any principles. But because they are being forced out, through military action of the Iraqis. No amount of photographs showing US soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners would have changed the mind of the average American voter. However, killing American soldiers seems to have changed his/her mind.

re: romair # 167

Romair, I agree with your distinction but I still tend to think of it as symbolic speech. If the idea is to showcase disapproval of an Iraqi, then urinating is a sign of disapproval and can be considered as symbolic speech. Besides, this recent wave of moral protest is simply a politically correct response to a situation.

These sorts of things were bound to happen, Romair. The United States had systemically demonized the Iraqis and dehumanized them and the United States had refused to implement the Geneva protocols in the treatment of prisoners and had fudged the status of prisoners, so to get away with its extra-legal practices. What is there to be suprised about at the treatment of the Iraqis at the hands of the Americans? The Iraqis legally had no rights and being such, why should any one care if they are urinated upon? If you dehumanize a person first, it is a bad idea to re-humanize them; it creates all sorts of problems.

In this case, we are seeing nothing more than a prelude for scape goating few persons to save the person, who is really responsible for this mess. Military discipline breaks down if the soldier sees his/her own superiors in a similar act and nothing in uniform ever ``happens`` without a reason or a permission. At least in professional armies, it is not suppsosed to happen.

The interesting thing is that these soldiers are claiming that ``I was following orders``, which means that some person okayed this sort of behavior and even more interesting, would be to see if that argument works to aqquit them of the charges. This argument did not work for the Nazis in Nuremberg. My guess is, it will work for the Americans this time. Before the release of the pictures, this sort of behavior was condoned, so why now act all morally outraged?

Ciao

Romair: I quickly skimmed through your post and concentrated on the gist vs. paying attention to each and everything you have cared to state. Keeping that in mind, point well taken! Note: If something has been put to bed, there is no need to bring that up again and again. It is in poor taste. Thanks.

ZahraJ #168: The reason I asked you whether you are the newest member of the Chowk police, is because many, if not most, of your comments have a judgemental tone to them. Including your interaction with me, on this thread. I don`t mind people being judgemental, now and then, about others. Or being judgemental, when it is done in jest. But one should not always be evluating others in a derogatory manner, or even in a non-derogatory manner. If one is bent upon passing judgement, then one should be able to accept criticism also. One should debate with others and prove them wrong. Or present a point for debate.

One cannot sit on a pedestal, and critique others, without willing to accept any criticism of one`s own writings.......I have absolutely no problem with you critiquing my replies, which is how this conversation started. People critique and even abuse my replies (and me) all the time. I don`t mind. But then you (and they) have to learn to be on the receving end also. Rather than simply adapting an attitude, and taking your basketball and going home, when something you say is critiqued.....

Romair:

Nope, Romair. I neither care for small minds nor I have much interest in their working.
And, that includes yours whenever it has no food for thought. Your post to Hamidm was simply a poor attempt at humor.

As far as Chowk Police is concerned, please do not make me feel bad. You are the only chap/boy/man to take on that role based on the number of hours he spends on Chowk. Since you have been granted a life time membership to the ya ya sisterhood club, I am sure I can share the above with you without any aain baain shaain.

Polite Wishes.

ZahraJ #161: ``You should stick to ``logic`` and ``rationality.`` Your attempts at humor or anything close to it does not come across very well. Please avoid wasting your time.``

Seems like you are still upset about the l-i-b-f comment :-) You need to get over it. It was only a joke.

Or have you become the newest recruit in the Chowk police? I think before Chowk starts banning people, it needs to set a standard for who is going to be part of the committee that gets to decide who is in and who is out. What are the criteria? Can people appoint themselves to this committee, based on their holier-than-thou superiority, of their own ideas?

Live and let live..... Judge not, lest ye be judged..... I do not agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it..... The pen is mightier than the sword.... If you can`t take the heat, get out of the sauna........Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words......Bol, kay labb azad hain tairay....Dil hay, kay mantaa nahin......tera kiya banay ga, kalia.....Yumma, Yumma, yeh khoobsurat sama.....

And all the other important stuff people said about free speech....

Ferozek #166: ``I found the whole idea of the British trooper urinating on the Iraqi prisoner disgusting and distasteful, but then that is a personal opinion. Others might disagree with me and think, it was perfectly fine.``

There is a difference between urinating on people and saying something to them. If, for the sake of argument, hamidm tried to physically urinate on me, I would cut off his......(eyelash). But if he wants to urinate on me verbally, its a free Internet, he can do so to his heart`s delight. And he does so regularly. Doesn`t bother me a bit. Seriously. And probably makes him feel a little better. What`s the harm done it that?

re: AlephNull

You have made interesting points.

re: hamid2

Trying to create a moral standard of behavior on Chowk is fraught with futility and is a waste of time. The topic needs to be debated not to arrive at some consensus but simply for the sake of the argument, which is why the article was posted. I am guessing that you did not read my post # 19, which had explained the reasons.

In fact, I would even venture and suggest that the recent exposé of the Iraqi prisoners at the hands of the American and British troops can also be classified as a case of symbolic speech. Personally, I found the whole idea of the British trooper urinating on the Iraqi prisoner disgusting and distasteful, but then that is a personal opinion. Others might disagree with me and think, it was perfectly fine.

As to the morality of Chowk, the question is whose morality will be the litmus test and will or shall be judged as Chowk`s morality? As to my morality, if I ever knew what it was, I would surely inform you. In fact, I am amoral since morality is a luxury which I am incapable of affording and I find morality to be a finely costumed excuse for hypocricy.

re: flyhighkites

Agreed.

Ciao

“This is a pure a bashing site for me, a paki bashing site, and I find it rather amusing, almost unbeleivable that some pakistanis get upset and raged by my posts.”

...not raged, unkal jay...just weary of reading the same stuff ad-nauseaum (sp?)...just as we’d get weary if pigs started to fly and you started to extol the virtues of pak in every post...i know there’s more to you than cut-n-pastes jobs from that holy grail of yours, dawn...


romair

“For exmaple, there is an interesting thing I have noticed on this site. Pakistani women have a very thin skin. They rarely interact in long debates. The moment someone passes a slur, a distasteful comment, they run for the door. However, much of the ilog is filled with Pakistani women/girls and their comments. Probably, becuase they know that no one can answer back in an ilog, or pass a rude comment against them, there.”

...thin skin, eh?...suffice to say you haven’t had to use public transport, stand in a line to pay the bills, gone to a mechanic, dealt w/a gov’t official etc as a woman in pakistan...come back when you have and we’ll deal...as far as the interaction by pakistani women on this site goes, most of us (this goes for many other interactors, i’m sure...not just pak women per se) have very little forbearance to put up w/all the b.s. here...my interaction here has gone done to practically zilch because responding to the same old claptrap only goes so far...so i just read, sigh...and continue scrolling...and what with work and trying to squeeze in a life in between a person would have to have 37 hours in a day to respond to all the drivel here...