In 21st-century Amsterdam, you're free to smoke marijuana and pick out a half-naked sex partner from the front window of her shop. But you can be put on trial for holding the wrong opinion about a bloke who died in the seventh century.
And, although Mr. Wilders was eventually acquitted by his kangaroo court, the determination to place him beyond the pale is unceasing: "The far-right anti-immigration party of Geert Wilders" (The Financial Times) . . . "Far-right leader Geert Wilders" (The Guardian) . . . "Extreme right anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders" (Agence France-Presse) is "at the fringes of mainstream politics" (Time) . . . Mr. Wilders is so far out on the far-right extreme fringe that his party is the third biggest in parliament. Indeed, the present Dutch government governs only through the support of Wilders' Party for Freedom. So he's "extreme" and "far-right" and out on the "fringe," but the seven parties that got far fewer votes than him are "mainstream"? That right there is a lot of what's wrong with European political discourse and its media coverage: Maybe he only seems so "extreme" and "far-right" because they're the ones out on the fringe.
Indeed. Especially when one remembers that his economics are social democrat, just like the party where he got his start.
[Dawn] "UNITED we stand, divided we fall'. The All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) consistently flouted this admonition which is blazoned across the cover of its constitution in bold letters. The violent festivities that erupted recently at the headquarters of the Hurriyat in Srinagar between the supporters of Shabir Ahmed Shah, leader of the Democratic Freedom Party, and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq reflected the rift.
Shah, who was expelled from the Hurriyat for meeting the US ambassador Frank Wisner, defying the APHC's ban on such meetings demands Prof Abdul Ghani Bhat's expulsion for his recent remarks on UN resolutions on Kashmire.
He also wants a radical restructuring of the APHC, a demand he had made before the expulsion. It had no takers and his following is none too large. The APHC was set up on Sept 9, 1963. It comprised seven political parties plus a score of associations. The parties were 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... , represented by Syed Ali Shah Geelani, People's Conference led by the late Abdul Ghani Lone; JKLF, the Moslem Conference of Prof Abdul Ghani Bhat, Ittehadul Moslemeen of Maulvi Abbas Ansari, People's League and the Awami Action Committee led by the Mirwaiz.
In July 2000, Lone was defeated by Bhat in the polls for the presidentship. The two stalwarts largely responsible for the APHC's aura, Geelani and Lone, had fallen out. In 2003, the APHC formally split into the Geelani and Mirwaiz (Moderate) factions. On June 14, 2008, they agreed "to evolve a joint mechanism for attaining the right to self-determination through plebiscite or, alternatively, through tripartite talks". It would even "review the 1993 constitution of the APHC and implement it with amendments, if necessary", a tacit admission of the necessity for change. Geelani agreed, "We have reached the conclusion that we will unite." Before long, he declared that there was no basis for unity.
This is the background to the crisis in the APHC (M). On May 6, a rally was held at Sopore at which Prof Abdul Ghani Bhat dropped a bombshell in the presence of the Mirwaiz and some other members of the APHC's executive. "The UN resolutions constitute the legal basis of the Kashmire dispute." After declaring the orthodox position, he said: "These resolutions cannot practically be implemented with reference to the language of the resolutions which, in my opinion, is complex. That means probably these resolutions may not be implemented at all. We have, therefore, to explore the possibilities of finding a solution to the problem through dialogue." He urged that the four-point formula of former president Pervez Perv Musharraf ... former dictator of Pakistain, who was less dictatorial and corrupt than any Pak civilian government to date ... should be taken up "systematically".
The APHC's constitution proves that this was no heresy. Chapter II Clause (i) pays obeisance to the resolutions only to accept in clause (ii) "an alternative negotiated settlement of the Kashmire dispute amongst all the three parties to the dispute" -- the two states plus "the people of the state".
Bhat went further. He asked the unionists to join hands with the separatists to forge a united front. "The National Conference talks about autonomy, the People's Democratic Party talks of self-rule. Why should we not move together with a common minimum political agenda and push it ahead. Let us talk with one voice and follow one single agenda." When the APHC (M) executive met on May 8 a bitter debate ensued and a violent clash was barely averted.
This rift exposes two things -- a crass misunderstanding of "the UN resolutions" and the failure of the separatists to evolve a platform whose leaders can serve as interlocutors in any talks. The united APHC as well as its two squabbling progeny have revealed themselves to be incompetent in evolving any policy that made sense; a strategy which could accomplish their objectives, and tactics which could reasonably be expected to yield results.
The Mirwaiz himself is on record in his support to the four-point formula. In a press interview published on Oct 10, 2002, he offered this proposal. "An autonomous region, with the other side being a party to it, could address the issue in such a way that India can sort of live with that, Pakistain can also live with that too, and Kashmiris can also get something they have been aspiring for. So we should be ready to discuss all the options and, as I have said earlier, autonomous identity for Kashmire could be the solution."
The truth is that at every critical juncture which called for a decision the APHC dithered; most notably on the ceasefire declared by the Hizbul Mujahideen's Abdul Majid Dar on July 24, 2000. The leaders of the then united APHC behaved as if they had been robbed of leadership. In a statement issued on August 13, 2000 the Hizb scolded them. Even at the best of times the APHC did not control the gun and had not the power to establish peace. Now, in its reduced circumstances, both factions present a pathetic sight. The ego festivities of the leaders and their failure to propose any realistic solution or formulate sound policies are very evident. Advocates of tripartite talks are unwittingly constructing a Tower of Babel. No solution to the Kashmire dispute will work unless it is supported by the people.
It is equally true that there is no single leader or party or amalgam of both which enjoy representative credentials. The top leaders are barely on speaking terms with each other. What is truly deplorable is their failure to formulate a form of peaceful agitation and protest and achieve a united front to press for this very basic human right which has been denied to the people, consistently. They foolishly shun development issues of concern to the people as if they would weaken their struggle.
Recent statements by Kashmiri leaders give ground for hope that a common front on the basis of the four points is not unattainable. In that lies hope. For, that formula ensures the Kashmires reunification de facto, self-rule to both parts, demilitarisation and a joint mechanism between east and west Kashmire. All Kashmiris, across the political divide, should demand that the leaders of India and Pakistain stop dragging their feet and move ahead to clinch an accord which was very much in sight in 2007.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/27/2012 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
If Pakistan stops backing Taliban commanders, Pashtuns will not protest
There are three groups of Pashtuns fighting the US/NATO ...the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It's headquartered in Belgium. That sez it all.... and Afghan cops in Afghanistan - the Beautiful Downtown Peshawar Shura led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar ... who used to be known in intelligence circles as The Most Evil Man in the World but who now seems merely run-of-the-mill evil... , the North Wazoo based Haqqani Network led by Jalaluddin Haqqani, and the Quetta Shura led by Mullah Omar ... a minor Pashtun commander in the war against the Soviets who made good as leader of the Taliban. As ruler of Afghanistan, he took the title Leader of the Faithful. The imposition of Pashtunkhwa on the nation institutionalized ignorance and brutality already notable for its own fair share of ignorance and brutality... . All three of them are closely linked with the military establishment of Pakistain.
A section of Hekmatyar's party has already given up violence and is part of the current Afghan government and parliament. Many of the remaining prominent party leaders are frustrated with Hekmatyar's rigid stance and have privately said they are willing to give up violence for a peaceful political process.
Hekmatyar's son in law Ghairat Baheer has recently met Afghanistan's Caped PresidentHamid Maybe I'll join the Taliban Karzai ... A former Baltimore restaurateur, now 12th and current President of Afghanistan, displacing the legitimate president Rabbani in December 2004. He was installed as the dominant political figure after the removal of the Taliban regime in late 2001 in a vain attempt to put a Pashtun face on the successor state to the Taliban. After the 2004 presidential election, he was declared president regardless of what the actual vote count was. He won a second, even more dubious, five-year-term after the 2009 presidential election. His grip on reality has been slipping steadily since around 2007, probably from heavy drug use... to speed up the process of peaceful political settlement in Afghanistan. The group is therefore likely to have a role in Afghanistan's future political set-up. But that cannot be said about the other two groups.
The Haqqani Network is led by Jalaluddin Haqqani, but its operations are controlled by his son Sirajuddin Haqqani. The group has attacked US, NATO and Afghan forces, and is also accused of attacking Afghan civilians and development workers sent by India to help rebuild the Afghan infrastructure. The US accuses Pakistain of supporting the Haqqani Network and using it as a tool in Afghanistan.
Peshawar Corps Commander Lt Gen Khalid Rabbani said last month that Pakistain Army had conducted more than 1,000 military operations in FATA in 2009 and 2010. Pakistain's Air Force chief had reportedly said in Dubai that more than 10,600 bombs have been dropped on FATA since 2008. But no leading Taliban capos have been captured or killed in FATA during this period. Those in FATA who are critical of the military establishment say Taliban are not captured or killed, but handed over to leaders of the Haqqani Network.
And while most of the media attention is on Waziristan, a lot of jihadi activities are taking place in the Pashtun belt in Balochistan ...the Pak province bordering Kandahar and Uruzgun provinces in Afghanistan and Sistan Baluchistan in Iran. Its native Baloch propulation is being displaced by Pashtuns and Punjabis and they aren't happy about it... . NATO commanders have repeatedly described the area as major command centre for expanding cross-border attacks on the US/NATO and Afghans forces. The Quetta Shura have also been accused of assassinations of Pashtun tribal leaders and holy mans who advocated against Taliban militancy in Pashtun villages in Afghanistan.
Mao Tse-tung once said that guerrilla freedom fighters must live among their people as fish swim in the sea. History shows that almost all genuine guerrilla fighters have come back to fight the foreign aggression amid their people with their help after necessary training abroad. If the Afghan Taliban are so confident of the Pashtun public support in Afghanistan, why don't they go back to Afghanistan and fight the US/NATO forces with the public support? Why do they sneak in, strike and run back?
In fact Afghans, both Pashtun and non-Pashtun, accuse Pakistain and more specifically the Punjabis of nurturing the Orcs and similar vermin in Afghanistan. Many of the Pashtun in FATA also accuse Pakistain Army of backing the Taliban or not supporting local anti-Taliban forces. Just because the Pak media is not showing Pashtun anger does not mean it does not exist on the ground.
The Pashtun nationalists and generally all other anti-Taliban Pashtun from all socio-economic statuses and statures in Afghanistan and Pakistain are well known people in their communities. Their names, faces, addresses, and tribal or family affiliations are there for the whole world to see. They stand firmly on their native soil in the face of Taliban atrocities. Contrary to this, most of the Taliban capos and foot soldiers do not even show their masked faces in public. The Pashtun people do not even know who is behind those masks - Punjabis, Arabs, Uzbeks, culturally uprooted Mohammedan immigrant snuffies from the Western countries, or Pashtun outlaws?
Most of the Pak Taliban also do not operate in the areas they claim to belong to or represent. The popularity of Mullah Omar, the Haqqanis, Gul Bahader, Mullah Nazir and Mullah Faqir is a myth perpetuated by incompetent researchers. The same analysts had said Mullah Fazlullah was popular in Swat. But the locals welcomed his ouster. Now that he is gone, nobody is protesting. And if Pakistain stops backing other Afghan and Pak Taliban capos, no Pashtuns will protest.
#1
The Pakistani Frontier Corps has been aiding and abetting the Taliban for at least a decade. Frontier Corps outposts dot the Durand line up and down the border. As evidenced by the recent border closure to ISAF transport, these border outposts occasionally fire on coalition aircraft and personnel. [Remember the ISAF helo's who fired up an outpost killing 20 or 30 "Frontier Corps soldiers" prompting the closure? Muted ISAF investigation followed?] The Taliban use the outposts as drop-off points, observation points, and layover stations. They come and go as they please. Unfortunately, the complicity does not end on the Pak side of the border. Some outposts of the Afghanistan Border Patrol (ABP) are Taliban friendly as well.
Meanwhile, a smallish contingent of highly engaging Pakistani Army liaison officers (LNO's) who speak the Queens English dot key ISAF FOB's. These splendid fellows make nice with local ISAF commanders and staff, enjoy free access, ISAF transport, and cellie communications with their PAK HQ. Now what branch of the PAK Army might you think these blokes come from, and what might they be doing?
You figure this phueching thing out. I certainly cannot.
#2
The Pakistani Frontier Corps has been aiding and abetting the Taliban for at least a decade
An open secret: the FC is a financial conduit. Monies ostensibly earmarked for FC training and supplies have long been routed to the Taliban instead; what little remains is used for what essentially is a jobs program for local tribesmen.
At least Karzai had the ironic grace to thank the U.S. taxpayer.
In every presidential election since 1992, the candidate with the less distinguished military résumé has triumphed.
Bill Clinton defeated war heroes George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole; National Guard pilot George W. Bush beat Vietnam veterans Al Gore and John Kerry; So this is not always a bad thing.
Not to mention the writer's odd conceit that the now-senior senator from Massachussetts had a distinguished military resume'. As I recall, he was given a Purple Heart for a splinter...
...and the writer's cold-blooded deceit about what John said after he came back home...
and Barack Obama was decisively elected over John McCain, who had displayed extraordinary valor during years of captivity as a Navy pilot in North Vietnam.
In 2012, we won't have the chance to test this trend: For the first time in modern American history, neither major candidate for the presidency has any military experience. This is a dramatic change. The crucible of combat not only created these United States but has also given us many of our most successful presidents.
But today, the connection between service in war and election to the highest office in the land has been severed. How we got here is difficult to ascertain. The sample size of presidential elections is small, and military service is far from the only factor that voters consider.
Yet the 2012 White House hopefuls reflect a broader truth: Even in a country waging what seems to be a forever war, military service is increasingly limited to a small swath of volunteers, widely admired but little known.
This writer is "well-balanced" because this is the Washington Post. Regarde -
Both President Obama and Mitt Romney have demonstrated impressive leadership in government, education and business. Obama's bona fides as commander in chief are clear; he has shown his resolve in the pursuit of Osama bin Laden and the effective dismantling of al-Qaeda during his administration. The first lady's dedication to military families, worn down after years of war, is exemplary. Still...
Wars have given the United States many of its most important political leaders, and we can expect those who have led this country's sons and daughters in the sands of Anbar province and the mountains of the Hindu Kush to turn their sights to the highest office in the land in years to come.
When they do, these veterans will lead the nation back to its foundations. Forged in war, they will work to build a better peace.
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/27/2012 07:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
But today, the connection between service in war and election to the highest office in the land has been severed.
Not entirely or irreparably severed. Not if Allan West becomes the VP pick.
#2
Just a thought, but maybe the connection has been strained because organizations like the WAPO have spent the last forty years characterizing veterans as psycho-killers one loud noise away from mass murder.
Posted by: Matt ||
05/27/2012 10:53 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Since I am a veteran, I like Robert Heinlein's dictum that only veterans can vote.
I realize that this is totally unrealistic: those politically connected (like Al Gore) would get cushy safe jobs (yes, I realize that Gore was a combat reporter). Some people aren't physically able to serve. And of course, it would somehow be racist/sexist/homophobic to only allow veterans to vote.
I still like the idea, however.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
05/27/2012 12:02 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Bingo, Matt.
Posted by: Barbara ||
05/27/2012 12:03 Comments ||
Top||
#5
For the record, I did not serve in combat.
Many, perhaps most, veterans do not actually engage in direct combat, even in an all out war like WWII. There are many, many important and difficult jobs in logistics, maintenance, and other places where you don't have someone shooting at you.
Although the line troops complain about the "REMFs", they really like having their food/ammunition/fuel/working equipment. None of which would be there without the support troops.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
05/27/2012 12:06 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Rambler, before there was Heinlein, there was the Militia Act of 1792, one of the very first acts passed by Congress per their authority of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. A the very start, it enrolled all free white males from around 18 to 45 to be members of the militia. In other words, you had 'skin in the game' if you had the franchise. The Act was amended in 1862 to add males of African decent which would be followed by the 15th Amendment to the Constitution extending the franchise to the same group. That linkage ended with the 19th Amendment. What has stayed on the books is the current application of the Militia Act through incorporation via Title X USC, subparagraph 311 which still defines the militia as all males 17 to 45 with two classes being the National Guard and all others as the unorganized militia. That is the basis of 'selective service' or the selective activation of the federal militia. Men still have 'skin in the game' whether they want to or not. In the past avoiding the draft usually entails a felony conviction which in most states nullifies one's franchise.
Since the new agenda to alter the military after the repeal of DADT is to remove the prohibition of women in combat units, that will logically lead to the militia definition to be rewritten from 'males' to 'citizens' as the 14th Amendment will come into play. As long as Congress exercises its authority per Section 8, it can by prohibiting women in combat justifying their exemption from the militia obligation. Once that prohibition is removed, there is no rational argument that if you draft males, you must also draft females. It's then no longer a prerogative or choice. Then we'll all have 'skin in the game'.
#7
RiV it's volunteering for service, and sticking throughout that makes a citizen in "Starship Troopers".
There is a discussion there about draft---and why it never works, P2K.
#8
Many of us will never forget that on 21 Jan 1977, U.S. President Jimmy Carter granted an unconditional pardon to hundreds of thousands of men who evaded the draft during the Vietnam War.
#10
When Ronaldus Maximus defeated Jimmah in November 1980, we on active duty at the time, felt the yoke being lifted from our backs. Carter was such a loser while Reagan was always so inspiring. We could care less that he was in his seventies. Besides, why would a "nuclear engineer" have his sights set on peanut farming, hut building and US national appeasement policy statement development?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Pervez 
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar
Wazoo
