If I hear this phrase again, I think my head is going to explode. There is no leading from behind. That is a mealy-mouthed, chicken $hit phrase invented by Obama and the Left. If "O" can't lead from the front resign.
One would feel for them -- completely unequipped to understand, as they are -- were it not that they insist on imposing it on the rest of us.
[Tolo News] The release of an anti-Islamic movie and caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad go against the civil and political rights of people where the offending material was released, Afghan media watchdog Nai CEO Abdul Majid Khelwatgar said Thursday.
Speaking at a meeting for International Journalism day, Khelwatgar said that the release of the film "Innocence of Moslems" in the US and offensive cartoons of Prophet Mohammad in a French magazine went against the US and French civil rights conventions, adding that which harms other religions is against all international conventions.
"Article no. 2 of the political and civil rights of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights prohibits the release of anything that harms race, identity, or religion. Anything which incites political and religious violence," Khelwatgar said.
The Nai chief also raised concerns about the apparent rise of violence against journalists but said that in some cases the lack of a code of conduct contributed to the violence against them.
"At least 20 percent of the violence against the journalists is a result of the lack of a journalistic code of conduct," he said.
Nai made the comments after an anti-Islamic film produced in the US was released last week, resulting in violent demonstrations throughout many Islamic countries including Afghanistan.
It comes the same day that hundreds of people protested in the Afghan capital again, burning flags and images of Barack Obama Why can't I just eat my waffle?... . However, by candlelight every wench is handsome... it was a controlled protest without the same level of violence the capital saw on Sunday when as many as 50 police were maimed trying to contain the behaviour crowds.
Officials from Afghanistan's Reform Association also condemned the publication of the caricatures in a French magazine Thursday urging for the urgent prosecution of the producers of such acts.
The simplest solution is for Islamic radicals and those bothered by this sort of anti-islamic act to return to islamic countries and burn the airports, radio and television stations, and anything that might show them accidentally display such acts.
At the same time let any non-muslims or true moderats (known as sane) people leave.
It is perhaps a feature of human life that the things you laugh at as a kid are the things you tend to be, do or think as an adult.
As a kid who was always very interested in both politics and economics, my favorite objects of derision were the gold bugs and the UN opponents. As we know more about the UN, from the rampant corruption that vanishes billions and manages to make things even worse in the third world countries and other kakistocracies in which it purports to intervene to child prostitution and exploitation of natives by UN troops or envoys, I find myself thinking the old guys who said "UN out of the US" were perhaps much brighter than I gave them credit for. (To be honest, unlike most of the kids today who are getting this soft-lit version in school and the idea the UN is some kind of super hero -- I never thought it was good for much but talk-talk, but I thought as such it was inoffensive, and perhaps a show of good will.)
I'm afraid that we are going to have to endure a period of falling wages and rising prices for some time.
We have deep structural problems with our economy as we make a painful and cumbersome shift from manufacturing to whatever it is going to be our future.
I don't see any meaningful changes or even honest talk about what is going on between our 'leaders', I don't think they know any more than us about what is going on or where we need to get ourselves in order to recover. They are stabbing in the dark and in a bit of a panic at this point. I don't think trying to save a few billion here or there is going to do the trick, we are going to have to devise and implement an entirely new paradigm to deal with the realities of this new world. This has been a long time coming and is very overdue. We are still struggling to get things back to the way they were before 2006, I think that might be wasted effort, we should be looking ahead.
Fatalism and Nihilism are worthless to us. It doesn't do a damned bit of work to get us where we must go.
the US economy is facing a major structural shift. we have got to get away from being a service-based economy and back to relying on manufacturing & technology. if we can make the jump - tough as that may be - our long-term future is good. but if we fail to make the jump ... we're gonna land in a full-fledged depression. right now .. we're pretty shaky.
i find it personally disturbing that neither of the candidates are really addressing this. they're all talking about the symptoms instead of the disease.
the Fed has just gone to QE3. practically, it means that they have put our entire economy on continous (financial) life support. the trouble is - there's nobody around to pay the hospital bills that keep mounting up while they do that :-)
he West continues well into the teens of the 21st century to lose the cognitive war with the Islamist camp. The latest catastrophe of international proportions has been the attacks on 9/11 against US embassies in Libya and Egypt (two places that went through major changes during the "Arab Spring"). A combination of well-planned rocket attacks used the cover of outrage at an inflammatory movie about Islam, to kill an American ambassador and three other embassy officials. The Muslim street in the Arab world has turned violently hostile to the US, and their own leaders, when not helpless to resist, are in cahoots, even with nuclear Iran. Angry Muslim demonstrations riots spread all over the globe, and American (and Western) policy in the region is "in tatters".
The results have made clear how poorly we Westerners conduct ourselves on the global stage, and how the news media self-inflicts some of those wounds. At the heart of the drama stands a President of the US, who plays win-win checkers against enemies who play I-win-you-lose three-dimensional chess; and at the same time a Western news media which rushes to publish as news, the poisoned meat of lethal narratives.
Let's look at what happened from the perspective of asymmetrical cognitive war, in which weak aggressors use non-violent methods to at once put a much more powerful enemy in a position where he cannot use his own force, and then maximize the use of their own force, largely (at the early stages) for symbolic effect. Here al-Qaeda affiliates make a daring assault on US sovereign territory, killing an ambassador. Their cover, a movie made that outrageously insults the prophet, and predictably arouses the angry violence of the crowd. America loudly denounces the film and protests the riots, but does not make any moves to even demand the punishment of the perpetrators. Crowds who have no fear, knowing that neither the US nor government troops will not shoot back, gather outside other US Embassies in the Arab world. The riots spread to other countries.
This massive symbolic attack, on 9-11 -- if you will, this global insult to the Peace of Westphalia and the basic principles of the UN -- comes off almost as brilliantly as 9-11. You couldn't script a movie better. The POTUS loses face on a massive scale, especially in the Muslim and non-aligned world, where matters of face have enormous cultural capital. He looks like a dismaying fool to the Europeans, who are struggling with both crises in their ambitiously high-minded (win-win) projects, and their increasingly restive and aggressive Muslim immigrant populations who have failed/refused to assimilate (i.e., they, like their co-religionists back home, will riot at perceived insult).
The people even our mild-mannered administration are willing to call "the enemy" -- "al Qaeda and its allies around the world" -- carried out a brilliant cognitive war op. Right up there in the global hit parade with 9/11 and the Cartoon Riots of 2005/6. And the implications on the ground: US Embassies, our sovereign territory on foreign soil, are under threat from crowds who have lost their fear. The Arab Awakening has given power to the Islamists, who cannot control -- if they are in league with -- the Jihadis. As even the President admits indirectly, the US has lost its closest Muslim ally in the Middle East, and gained no new ones.
Before even knowing about cognitive war, we heard complaints about how poorly we in the West were conducting ours, indeed how the aughts ('00s) were the occasion of catastrophic losses in a cognitive war with a remorseless foe. Those losses were all the more inexplicable in that the foe who had "picked" this wildly asymmetrical war with us, represented every kind of value and attitude upon whose opposition the West had built the remarkably free society that we enjoy today. But, we were told by our intellectual luminaries, these folks were part of the "socially progressive, global Left".
After all, without a profound commitment to tolerance and fairness, there's no way we can hope that this, the first global millennium, can produce a peaceful and varied global culture. And yet the foe to whom we lose repeatedly on countless small and large battlefields of their choosing, embraces exactly the opposite of progressive values: misogynist, homophobe, anti-Semitic, racist, theocratic, fascist. Indeed, it's hard to find, even in the worst periods of Christian and post-Christian, paranoid, Jew hatred, anything quite as delirious as the Hamas death cult of suicide-mass-murder.
Our losses in the first decade continue; our haemorrhaging, unabated. We have, apparently, learned nothing. And without a turn-around on the cognitive plane, we are condemned either to a world of quiet submission to a warrior aristocracy, or a bloodbath that will overtake even the Second World War's tens of millions. To contribute to having the much-needed turnaround occur while violence need not be a weapon of first resort, consider what this incident reveals about Western weaknesses in the cognitive theatre of war.
The major problem concerns how we interpret Arab Muslim political culture. Our view of the "Arab Spring," was shot through with a kind of messianic hope that our fondest beliefs -- people are the same everywhere -- were now proven by these "brave facebook protesters" who would bring "democracy" to the good people of Egypt. Now that Egyptians had "lost their fear of the government," -- what CNN and BBC commentators emphasized repeatedly during the dramatic street demonstrations -- they would choose democracy. We anticipated a huge victory for progressive forces on the planet.
And because we present ourselves as a gentle giant, which has renounced power for positive-sum relations -- we just want to be your friends, we tell the Muslim world -- we renounce the kinds of everyday violence necessary for "maintaining order" in pre-modern, alpha-male-dominated, political cultures. So our embassy guards are given unloaded guns, to ceremoniously maintain a fašade of modern civility amidst people we refuse to believe are hostile. The guards' "rules of engagement," and now, since "Arab Spring," Arab governments' rules of engagement, systematically restrain the use of force. We cannot defend ourselves on the ground in a hostile political culture, nor can we retaliate for losses.
Of course, it is all dreadfully mistaken, and the worst scenarios of the Cassandras are now coming to fruition across North Africa and beyond, even as we are radically unprepared to deal with these developments. And yet, in order to maintain our pleasant progressive fantasy, we ignored all the evidence -- of misogyny, of anti-Semitism, of anti-Americanism, of brutal religious zealotry in the "revolutionary" Arab street. And now, on the basis of a ludicrous film, they riot and threaten violence for the sake of their honor -- all behavior no self-respecting progressive would tolerate for his own people.
We were and are in part able to carry off this astonishing act of denial, to self-inflict this debilitating wound, by adopting as a firm principle: there are no significant cultural differences. All cultures are equal, and one cannot "judge" another culture, or its religion. As Sa´d insisted, the most terrible sin a (Western) progressive can make is to invidiously "other" another culture. If they behave like "enfant terribles," then we'll apologize for upsetting them in the hopes of calming them down.
While this may be a fine way to proceed with "others" of good will, its dogmatic assertion in 21st- century international relations, has forced us to ignore major hostile cultural forces which have come to the fore in the 15th century AH (1979-2076). Driven by both religious and honor-shame dynamics, Islam has produced a deeply toxic brew of tribal warrior psychosis and millennial cult of death and murder. And yet we, as our President and his top officials insists, should not discuss "radical Islam" lest we insult Muslims. Then we get slapped in the face on the global stage by the very Islamists we don't talk about.
What should we expect? Our POTUS, in order to "live up" to our democratic principles and oppose dictatorship, threw America's most reliable Muslim friend in the Middle East, the anchor of our decades-long policy in a volatile region, to the mobs bent on his public humiliation. And rather than pay attention to the fascist theocratic forces at work here, we either ignored the Muslim Brotherhood, or, when they scored huge electoral victories, we redefined them -- astoundingly -- as basically secular and moderate. We not only played "sour grapes" with our hopes of democracy, we ate the bitter grapes of our enemy's victory, and claimed they tasted okay.
In the world of honor and shame where most people live, we Americans, Westerners, progressives, come off as fools. We, on the other hand, consider those juvenile games beneath us, deny they have importance. Yes, it's true that the embassies were attacked, that the attacks continue to spread and intensify, but let's not exaggerate the damage to our position and let's not make things worse by retaliating. "Mursi may not be our ally, but we don't consider him our enemy," Obama gaudgingly admits in a brief semi-nod to reality. (What firm evidence supports the second assertion?) Obama's concern for "saving face" apparently lies with his standing among the American people, not in the world in which his "face" is ours. Indeed, the only people he has not apologized to so far, are the American people, his people. Phaeton in his father's chariot, insisting he has not lost control.
And the most terrible thing is, Obama lost face not only in the eyes of foes so deadly even he will admit they're "the enemy," but also to bystanders.
If you want to know who the strong horse is in the eyes of people around the globe, now in our twelfth year since 9/11, do not look to any Western figure. Our champions, like Judith Butler and Noam Chomsky, score own-goals, and we cheer them on. If this were merely a war of words, it might not be so bad, but the purpose of their war or words is to better position to strike on the battlefield. This is not a war we who treasure freedom can afford to lose.
We could straighten all this out in an afternoon simply by nuking Mecca. Not for any particular military, political, or religious reason, but simply to show them we are serious about this stuff. Lame-ass attempts at appeasement obviously don't work - and never have with bullies and tyrants. We'll give you a strong horse - in as many kilotons as it takes.
(and yes, nuking Mecca should be added to the drinks list)
How about getting us and our allies independent of ME oil? Then we don't need them and they can do what they want as long as they leave us alone, or pound sand or both.
If they persist in their bad behavior, then we get kinetic.....from a distance. They need to learn the important life skills of cause and effect. Which is a tall order for them. There are serious consequences to their present behavior.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
(Rondezvous with) Rama II
IIRC, began with a nuke device set off in the Vatican.
Now, think about that, because the story line was about humaniy's intolerance towards new knowledge; a new age approach; religion is intolerance.
The point the authors' approach was that all religeon was intolerant, yet which, at that time, was the most plausable to sell the story? Even in New Age?
Thirty (30) years later, the Policy Maker is making excuses. Unexpectedly. Spontaneously. Dasterdly. The L-Whys are inexcusable; Chef Ramsey would have fired them nevermind my ass.
Howz about, inexcusably, eh?!
Peace? Better a slave of Christiandom than a friend of the Turks.
Alaska Paul, Of all of George W. Bush's errors that is the biggest one. I can forgive kow-towing to Islam if it was just a cover while we built up our own domestic oil capacity but to kow-tow without drilling, drilling and more drilling? And building nuke plants, etc. I just don't understand that.
These things take time to build and exploit so we should have started them 11 years ago when the country would have been united behind energy independence in a way that is unlikely to happen again.
I noted the caption on the picture in the article: "The 'progressive' Left cringes before Islamism." The progressive left is always looking for some group to feel guilty about. You could add grovel, apologize, bow, to cringe. In this case the group is the Mooselimbs.
Change the argument -- in our culture, the ability of a belief to withstand ridicule is a sign of its strength. If criticism is so "hurtful" to Islam, then do Muslims really believe? Or are they simply given no choice? If they have no choice, if they are forced to practice the faith, then is it truth, or is it simply, well, submission?
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
If they truly believed they would snicker knowing their God would cause eternal torment to blasphemers. Since they are unsure they riot and try to take Earthly justice.
There is a mystery about this election. The slanted national press and Romney's weaknesses are well understood, but a large gap separates these explanations from the fact that needs explaining: this election will be close. How is that possible when Obama has shown himself to be the worst president in modern history? And when Romney (on the other hand) is unexciting but safe, serious, solid--just the right sort of man to shelter all sorts of tempest-tost Americans in a storm?
I pay no attention to the polls. Look at Gallup what happened when they came close to showing the truth. The old media is in the tank for the Democrats period. More people are now losing jobs, good jobs like coal and defense. I talked to a young woman that had to quit college and now must work full time to support her future husband and child. He just lost his computer related job with a defense company. He is now working on his masters she said. Just basics, wick program but too little to help. No extra money for anything.
Many anti Obama signs in my coal area also. I truthfully believe we will hear a loud flushing sound at election time. While still in office he will pull as many dirty tricks as he can, pardons and so on.
Reagan was behind Carter in late October in 1980. He won the election with 489 electoral votes. Carter got something like 44. Carter screwed up the Iran crisis and the economy was terrible, similar kind of phenomenon today with Obama. It's a little more complicated today as there are other factors that have entered this election.
You are not an independent voter would be my guess.
One additional feature of the 'I' voter is that they follow the crowd. If the party base gets excited that's enough for them. They'll get excited too. Worked for Reagan. Worked for Champ in '08. Not working this year, though you saw it briefly with the Ryan pick.
Also, if the Independents remain undecided at the end they overwhelmingly break for the challenger.
Reagan was exciting but he was also eminently competent and courageous enough to take a stand.
I'm afraid Romney needs to kick it up a notch or else he's going to lose the same way John McCain did. When he went in front of Univision he talked about the 100 percent. Bullshit. He had a moment of candor when he talked about the 47 percent but he let the media convince him it was a gaffe. It was only a gaffe because he let them say it was. All he had to do to justify it was ask people if they want to be dependent or independent. That's what it's all about.
The polls are bald lies. At the last instant they'll skew toward Romney to try and save some credibility, but they will never show anything but a horse race until then.
The polls show what they're paid to show -- which is exactly what you describe. The press wants to show a "horse race" -- with Obama generally in the lead -- because it brings in a bigger audience.
And, second, polls are just an example of bandwagon propaganda. "The majority are voting for Obama -- you don't want to be an outsider, do you?" It's BS.
The only honest polls are the ones the campaigns pay for -- because they pay for the accuracy and honesty. Those polls must show Romney with a comfortable lead, because most of the efforts the Democrats have made have been in getting their base excited, not in reaching out to the undecided.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
I have low expectations for the debates. I'm actually afraid Obama will mop the floor with Romney - he has no fire in his belly and seems uncomfortable coming on strong. I also want to know where Ryan has been - I haven't heard/seen much of him in over a week. He's got more of what it takes to win than Romney - put him up front!
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
It isn't that the pollsters are paid to show a horserace.
The pollsters are being paid (or lobbied) to suppress the Republican and independent vote.
The logic is simple: show that Obama (or Warren, or any other favored Democrat) is ahead, and there is a certain segment of the public who will stay home on election day. They'll say, "what's the use" and sit it out.
Sounds stupid, right? But it works.
So Axelrod and Plouffe are working hard daily on the pollsters.
Democratic client pollsters like PPP have an additional job: skew the poll averages. You've seen these averages at Real Clear Politics, etc -- they gather up a bunch of recent polls and average them for a 'consensus' number.
So if PPP, by whatever means, consistently shows Champ to be +6, and four other pollsters see it as Romney +1/0, guess what the average is. Yup, Champs keeps his lead.
The Democrats know this works: it was proven in Florida in 2000, when the Gore team had (bought) exit polls showing him in the lead and persuaded CBS to 'call' Florida early. The voters in the panhandle part of the state, in the Central time zone, still had time to go to the polls, but a number didn't. Later polling showed that the voters who stayed home rather than go vote in that last hour would have voted Bush 2:1 over Gore. Enough to tip (or solidify) the election.
A fair number of pollsters are as deep in the tank for Obama as the MSM. Remember that, and remember the Gore trick on election night: Axelrod has plans, I'm sure.
Posted by: Steve White ||
#9 JohnQC: You are not an independent voter would be my guess.
I was talking to my neighbor this A.M., a Viet vet. He said we wasn't so much voting for Romney as he was voting against Obama. I agree with him. I think what Obama is doing to this country is an abomination. We both agreed Washington is FUBAR. I will vote for the most conservative candidate that has a chance of winning. In this case it is Romney/Ryan. Independents don't have a good history of winning in this country; they tend to be spoilers--in some cases that is good. There were good people that never emerged beyond the primaries that I liked but that's the nature of the process.
[Dawn] IF you need any proof that Mr Imran Khan ... aka Taliban Khan, who who convinced himself that playing cricket qualified him to lead a nuclear-armed nation with severe personality problems... is not ready to wield power, much less execute complex 'plans' for the economic revival of this country, look no further than the conundrum in which he finds himself in the ongoing talks on selecting an interim prime minister.
First Mr Khan complained on various TV talk shows that the two big parties -- the PML-N and PPP -- were not reaching out to him when deciding on the interim prime minister.
Then we hear from the PML-N that Mr Khan had provided them with names of his preferred candidates. Then Mr Khan denied having any contact with the PML-N. Then the latter released the two names in question, and also revealed the names of the people through whom Mr Khan's wishes had been communicated.
So has Mr Khan been talking on the sly with the very party he loves to vilify? And if so, why is it so hard for him to admit it? And why would he complain that the big parties are not consulting him when deciding this important matter?
The fact is that Mr Khan has painted himself into a corner and cannot figure out how to get out of it. He has presented himself as a candidate above politics, but at the same time has to navigate the facts of life in a parliamentary democracy, which are always negotiated. Now that the negotiations have begun, and will only grow in scope and complexity as the election cycle unfolds, he is left fumbling for a response.
There is plenty that is going to be negotiated from here onwards. A date for when the polls will be held is next on the agenda, after the composition of the interim government has been agreed upon, and at least one party -- the PML-N -- has already announced its preference for the date to be "no later than January". Does Mr Khan intend to participate in these parleys, or does he intend to sit them out too?
Of course, the real negotiations will begin after election day. A lot will depend on the new parliamentary arithmetic that emerges from the election, but notice once again how the PTI is the only party that has revealed what its post-election strategy is going to be.
In multiple forums, Mr Khan has clearly stated that his party will either form the next government on their own or will sit in opposition. On no account, he says, will his party consider becoming a coalition partner with the PML-N or the PPP, although in a June rally in Mirpurkhas he opened the door to forming a government with the Jamaat-e-Islami ...The Islamic Society, founded in 1941 in Lahore by Maulana Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, aka The Great Apostosizer. The Jamaat opposed the independence of Bangladesh but has operated an independent branch there since 1975. It maintains close ties with international Mohammedan groups such as the Moslem Brotherhood. the Taliban, and al-Qaeda. The Jamaat's objectives are the establishment of a pure Islamic state, governed by Sharia law. It is distinguished by its xenophobia, and its opposition to Westernization, capitalism, socialism, secularism, and liberalist social mores... This is vintage Khan: no compromise, no middle ground, no negotiation. This is either supreme self-confidence or supreme amateurishness. It makes no sense in a parliamentary democracy to tie your own hands by staking out such rigid positions so early in the game.
One is also puzzled by his insistence that the mainstream parties like the PML-N- and PPP are responsible for the mess the country is in, but the JI is not. If the mainstream parties are morally repugnant, how come there's no feeling of shame in walking to the residence of Sheikh Rashid to form an electoral alliance?
By insisting on forming his own government, with only minor parties as allies, Mr Khan is trying to create a moment whose last parallel was seen in the 1997 elections, when Mr Sharif's PML had swept into power with a massive mandate -- a two-thirds majority in parliament. But it's important to note an important difference between that election and this one. At that time, Mr Sharif's party was the only one contesting in Punjab besides the PPP, whereas this time there are four major parties in the biggest province , an unprecedented state of affairs in Pakistain's political history.
Since Punjab's share of seats in the National Assembly is critical to building a viable majority, and since it is unlikely that any one player is going to sweep the province the way Mr Sharif did in 1997, it follows that no single party will emerge with the numbers to 'go it alone' in the aftermath of the election.
It will take deft negotiation to form the next government, and skilful politics to hold it together, but Mr Khan has already opted out of the process saying time and time again that he will not enter a coalition with the mainstream parties.
[Dawn] THE Maldives stand on a knife edge. At stake is its hard-won liberal democracy, forged from the ruins of a brutal, 30-year dictatorship -- a period that was synonymous with serious human rights ...which are often intentionally defined so widely as to be meaningless... abuses, including extrajudicial killings and torture. President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom's rule was eventually ended in 2008, by a democratic vote in which I was elected. But it is important that the outside world clearly understands that Gayoom, his allies and his henchmen are back. It was they who established, late last year, the 'December coalition' of Islamic Islamic fascistiwho accused my government of being controlled by 'Jews' and 'Christians' and used incitement to religious hatred and violence as political tools. It was they who orchestrated February's overthrow of the Maldives' first democratically elected government. And it is they who control the current administration. From this position of strength, they are slowly squeezing the life out of the democratic fabric of my country.
Despite this, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (Cmag), which met last week, is considering removing the Maldives situation from its agenda. A decision is expected later this month.
Thousands of pro-democracy protesters in the Maldives have been locked away ... anything you say can and will be used against you, whether you say it or not... and imprisoned. Many have been tortured, or charged with terrorism. Freedom of speech is being strictly curtailed -- and the country's independent oversight bodies are being staffed with friends and relatives.
Moreover, a sense of impunity is taking hold. Key agents of February's coup d'etat, and the coppers responsible for the violence that followed, know they cannot be touched. Despite gross and systematic human rights violations since February -- all catalogued by NGOs such as Amnesia Amnesty International -- not one police officer or state representative has been prosecuted.
The government has said it will not do anything to ensure accountability for these crimes. And yet it is ruthlessly pursuing legal action against many of the pro-democracy campaigners elected to government in 2008, including myself. Numerous members of parliament from my party, the Maldives Democratic party, have been taken before pliant judges and stripped of their seats. The government has also made clear that I and members of my former cabinet will stand trial very soon, with the home minister promising that I will be imprisoned for the rest of my life.
Their goal, in addition to Dire Revenge™ for their electoral defeat, is to prevent me standing in next year's election. Gayoom and his allies lost power through a free and fair election: they will not make the same mistake twice.
If Cmag were to remove the Maldives from its agenda the chances of securing justice for the victims of human rights violations, and of ever again having free and fair elections in the country, would disappear. So I urge the group members to keep the spotlight on my country until all violations have been dealt with, all victims have received redress, and conditions are in place for fresh elections.