[DAWN] The PML-N governments in Islamabad and Lahore have overreacted to Tahirul Qadri ...Pak politician, and would-be dictator, founder and head of Tehreek-e-Minhajul Quran and Pakistain Awami Tehrik. He usually resides in Canada, but returns to Pakistain periodically to foam at the mouth and lead demonstrations. Depending on which way the wind's blowing, Qadri claims to be the author of Pak's blasphemy law. Other times he says it wasn't him... and his theatrics — on this there can be little argument and it is impossible not to condemn the violence that Qadri's supporters have suffered at the hands of the state so far.
Yet, without in any way downplaying the unacceptable response of the PML-N, it is important to put the demands of Mr Qadri in the proper context which in this case is a democratic, constitutional, rule-of-law perspective.
Strident as Mr Qadri's criticism of the PML-N is — and before this, of the PPP — what, exactly, are his demands? It comes down to the overthrow of an elected government because the leadership, according to Mr Qadri, is allegedly unfit to rule. But who is Mr Qadri? What are his political credentials? Why are his demands worth listening to? Why is a political non-entity in any way to be regarded as a serious player in the political arena?
In truth, everything about Mr Qadri and his public utterances suggest he is the very definition of a demagogue.
Overthrowing elected systems to replace them with an unspecified system that would allegedly be more responsive to the perceived needs of the public is the quintessential demand of a demagogue.
In Mr Qadri's view of the world, rights of the public are of no intrinsic value — what matters most is what Mr Qadri believes the public needs from the state in terms of service delivery, governance and the right kind, in Mr Qadri's reckoning, of leadership.
What that really amounts to is Mr Qadri trying to give himself a veto over the system and attempting to put himself in a position to dictate to the people, perversely by acting in the name of the people. That is unacceptable, undemocratic, unconstitutional and even immoral.
A year ago, Mr Qadri chose not to participate in the electoral process — surely, there was some awareness that party candidates would not fare well. Even now, Mr Qadri deliberately chooses to keep himself ineligible for participation in electoral politics by retaining the citizenship of another country.
And even now, he seems unwilling to do anything more than engage in political tourism — visiting Pakistain to grandstand, perform for the TV cameras, shout a bit against civilian politicians, before returning to his preferred abode abroad and political irrelevance. Surely, a demagogue like Tahirul Qadri is anything but what Pakistain needs.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/09/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[DAWN] In Pakistain, a case presided over by three Supreme Court judges and simply called ‘Suo Motu Case No.1/2014’ produced a 32-page judgement. Dated June 19, 2014 and authored by one of the gentlest of chief justices, Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, it dropped a judicial bombshell comparable to the US Supreme Court judgement in the Brown case. This ruling, mistakenly labelled a judgement on religious minority rights, is actually on a much larger canvas dealing with the meaning of the fundamental right to belief or religious freedom for both Moslems and religious minorities.
The basis of this suo motu ...a legal term, from the Latin. Roughly translated it means I saw what you did, you bastard... case was the Beautiful Downtown Peshawar ...capital of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (formerly known as the North-West Frontier Province), administrative and economic hub for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan. Peshawar is situated near the eastern end of the Khyber Pass, convenient to the Pak-Afghan border. Peshawar has evolved into one of Pakistan's most ethnically and linguistically diverse cities, which means lots of gunfire. church bombing last September and threats to the Kalash tribes and the Ismailis of Chitral. But after dealing with 10 complaints regarding the violation of various minority rights, the Supreme Court dramatically widened its jurisprudential canvas.
Although the court acknowledges that various special rights are conferred on Moslems only, for instance, the president can only be a Moslem etc, insofar as the right to belief or religious freedom is concerned Article 20 of the Constitution neither uses the word ‘Moslem’ nor ‘non-Moslem’, neither ‘majority’ nor ‘minority’. Instead, it confers the right to belief on every citizen. In other words, Moslems don’t have a superior or special right to belief over non-Moslems. Rather, there is an ‘equal religious protection clause’ under Article 20 for all Pak citizens.
Secondly, “the right to profess and practise is conferred not only on religious communities but also on every citizen”. In other words, every citizen can exercise such a right to belief against the dominant religious views of his own community too.
Thirdly, within religious communities, sects have a right to belief against the views of their own co-religious denominations. Religious freedom for sects, not sectarian hatred, is a constitutional right.
Fourthly, the right to belief has “three distinct rights, ie right to profess, right to practice and right to propagate”. Therefore, if all citizens, Moslems and non-Moslems, have an equal right to profess, practise and propagate their faith, then no citizen, including a Moslem, can have a superior right to convert others or impose his beliefs.
This verdict relies on Islamic jurisprudence for its reasoning but additionally, it does two judicially creative things. Firstly, it tries to remove the amnesia of Moslems in Pakistain by reminding them that “the very genesis of our country is grounded in the protection of the religious rights of all, especially those of minorities”. This is indeed an embarrassing irony for Moslems in Pakistain.
Secondly, in a dramatic move and without legal precedence, the Supreme Court urges Pak Moslems to apologise to religious minorities by stating that it “requires strong moral courage for an individual or a nation to apologise for having wronged a community”. Moreover, the Supreme Court also reminds itself of its own judicial anthem ‘justice for all’, implicitly admitting that this vision (especially the right to religious freedom for all and protection of minority rights) remains unfulfilled.
The above declarations would have been historic in themselves but the court was on a confessional journey. It further acknowledges that “despite elaborate textual guarantees for minorities’ rights empirical realities reflect … a dismal state of affairs”. Therefore, the Supreme Court creates an institutional framework, consisting of seven directions, to implement these “elaborate textual guarantees”.
These seven directions can be divided into four categories. First, policy review by the creation of a task force to develop a strategy for religious tolerance. Second, social-cultural engineering by curricula development at school and college levels to promote a culture of religious and social tolerance and also appropriate steps to ensure hate speech is discouraged and punished. Third, formation of institutional structures like a national council for minority rights and a special police force to protect minority places of worship. Fourth, relief measures like the enforcement of relevant policy directives regarding quota reservations for minorities in all services and prompt action by law-enforcement agencies in all cases of violation of minority rights.
Left to an ineffective and scared government, these directives may remain unimplemented even if they look beautiful on paper. Therefore, the court has constituted a permanent three-member Supreme Court bench, to ensure implementation. This bench will also have the power to hear complaints regarding the violations of minority rights.
Although yet to be constituted, such a bench with the onerous task of enforcing the right to religious freedom, in such intolerant times, is quite unprecedented in Pakistain’s judicial history. Most importantly, religious freedom and protection of minority rights are now at the top of the court’s agenda.
Of course, there are jurisprudential problems in this judgement and some have argued that it doesn’t go far enough. But irrespective of its flaws, it does clear the confusion regarding the right to religious freedom and also extends the forum of the Supreme Court to an intimidated government and civil society for the possible construction of a more tolerant society.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/09/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
My apologies for accidentally cutting off much of the article in an attempted p.49 last night. I've fixed it, though if Fred had any commentary, that's been lost.
[QZ] Just my opinion: It's the culmination of Abu Musab Zarqawi's approach to warfare.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/09/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Islamic State
#1
In Zarkey's defense, unfortunately for him + Radical Islam he had the "Wonder Twin" Babes by his side.
As for the ISIS, CNN AM + WOLF BLITZER = ISIS/ISIL is just one of several Milterr Groups - Pro-Qaeda andor Non/Anti-Qaeda - that are planning to attack CONUS as soon as these various inter-Muslim shennanigans are over.
#3
ISIS wants to nation build. That takes exposed political infrastructure, and an organized military. Both of which can be attacked effectively. That is, of course, assuming you use proper overwhelming force strategically, not just a series of tactical pinpricks.
#4
Weren't we told that if we didn't spend hundred of billions to 'nation build' such evil would arise and the influence of Iran would spread through the region? How'd that 'kinder gentler' approach all work out?
#5
We left too soon and handed the keys to the equivalent of a teenager on his first drunken spree, with zero discipline. No surprise he ran things into a ditch and wrapped it around a tree.
#6
They aren't terrorists - they are conquorers in the olde style.
Along P2K's, buddy and I were talking about it last night - kind of makes outrage of prisoners in their undies naive. What resources they have, they spend on blowing up opposing symbols, killing the men, and slaving the women. These are not stories of Ottoman conquistadores traveling to West Mediterranian to raid Spain, France, Italy, Sicily, this is what it looks like and will need to be treated as such.
They hear the calling, promised loot and women and slaves, fame, fortune.
#7
IMO, ISIL are barbarians and not particularly civilized. They are not guided by the usual constraints of civilization such as the Geneva Convention, ROEs, or protection of civilians and cultural symbols. They need to be taken down. If they hide in mosques, schools, or hospitals, take them them down in the mosques, schools and hospitals; raze them. There will collateral damage. That is a price of war. Wars don't seem to be won until the other side hurts enough and the price of continuing is too high.
[DAWN] President Barack Obama If you like your coverage you can keep it... should have limited himself to ordering his forces to airdrop provisions for members of Iraq's Yazidi community fleeing the wrath of the krazed killer group calling itself the Islamic State.
Regrettably, on Friday, he acted on his earlier warning that air strikes would be launched against the murderous Moslem militia. With American warplanes initiating their attack by bombing artillery allegedly used by IS against Kurdish forces near the Iraqi city of Erbil, an alarming dimension has been added to a regional conflict that is already spiralling out of control.
With such attacks bound to increase in the coming days, Mr Obama's statement that "there is no American military solution to the crisis in Iraq" is neither reassuring nor likely to be taken seriously.
True, the hardline IS continues to capture more territory in Iraq. Firmly ensconced in djinn-infested Mosul ... the home of a particularly ferocious and hairy djinn... , on Thursday, it had taken over Qaraqosh, Iraq's largest Christian town, and its surrounding settlements, causing a large number of residents to flee.
There is no doubt that the challenge posed by the IS needs a swift and firm response. But American or European military engagement is certainly not the best way forward. After all, Iraq's current predicament mostly stems from the 2003 US-led invasion that helped transform an authoritarian yet functioning country into a largely failed state fractured along ethnic, sectarian and religious lines.
In light of this, perhaps the best solution lies in a regional approach featuring Iran, Soddy Arabia ...a kingdom taking up the bulk of the Arabian peninsula. Its primary economic activity involves exporting oil and soaking Islamic rubes on the annual hajj pilgrimage. The country supports a large number of princes in whatcha might call princely splendor. When the oil runs out the rest of the world is going to kick sand in the Soddy national face... and Turkey — Iraq's powerful and influential neighbours — in prominent roles. Iran and Saudi Arabia particularly exercise considerable influence over Iraq's Shia and Sunni communities, respectively. Tehran and Riyadh should convince their allies in Baghdad to resolve the political deadlock.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/09/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Islamic State
#2
The reality is, Islam [radical or the standard garden variety] has been at war with the west for centuries. I suggest we 'go long' on Islam, saying as little as possible, and put as many of them to the sword as violently and frequently as possible.
Refer to it a preventative measure. A perpetual training and R&D environment, or modern day Louisiana Maneuver.
#5
When the empty suit says there is not an American military solution to the crisis in Iraq, I want to go hide under my bed.
He, and all the liberals like him, refuse to fight for anything except their elitist status. What has to happen for him to do anything?
I shudder to think of the spin he would put on a major terrorist act. The empty suit would probably say we brought it on ourselves with the failed policies of the previous administration or he would say we need to reach out to them to get them to like us...we all know how well that has worked in the past.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
08/09/2014 11:51 Comments ||
Top||
#1
Condell is righi, it is a hypocrisy. The left/Progressives who advocate Kumbaya approaches to war, end up prolonging wars and making them very costly in materials and lives. History would suggest that most of these approaches end up failing.
[ENGLISH.ALARABIYA.NET] The additional $1 billion which Soddy Arabia ...a kingdom taking up the bulk of the Arabian peninsula. Its primary economic activity involves exporting oil and soaking Islamic rubes on the annual hajj pilgrimage. The country supports a large number of princes in whatcha might call princely splendor. When the oil runs out the rest of the world is going to kick sand in the Soddy national face... offered to the Lebanese army this week is not a gift but a political act that comes within the remit of curbing the current strife in Leb and its surroundings.
Saudi Arabia could have offered this financial aid to build up a Lebanese Sunni militia and would have had many reasons for doing so, from fighting the Sunni Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) to deterring the Shiite Hezbollah and Bashir al-Assad's intelligence forces.
Instead, Saudi Arabia chose to support the army in Leb - a country full of Christian, Druze and Shiite militias. So why does Saudi Arabia support the army and not Ahmad al-Assir, Khaled al-Daher or Adnan Imama and other Sunnis looking for a funder? It's not in Saudi Arabia's interest for Leb to turn into an arena for sectarian militias fighting each other on behalf of the region's countries. It's also not in the interest of Leb's Sunnis and Shiites to support taking up arms and rebelling against the state. Despite liquidations and political mobilization, Lebanese public opinion remains mostly against resorting to arms, particularly following the destructive civil war that erupted in the 1970s. Therefore, the choice was made to support the Lebanese state and arm its military institution so the army can carry out its duties of protecting the Sunnis and the rest of the country's factions. Let us recall that although Hezbollah has better arms and has had a fighting force for more than 30 years, it has failed to gain legitimacy despite its claim that it's a resistance group and the guardian of Leb's borders.
Strengthening the Lebanese army means weakening Hezbollah's scheme to dominate Leb
It's expected that supporting the army and strengthening it will anger groups such as Hezbollah. Hezbollah prefers the creation of Sunni militias so it can justify its existence as an armed Shiite militia. It prefers this scenario over strengthening the Lebanese army — something that can legitimately and militarily threaten it raison d'etre.
Standing against militias
Saudi Arabia has taken a decision against supporting the concept of militias, whether Sunni or Shiite, in Leb and other countries. It considers strengthening the state to be the correct option, not just for the Lebanese people, but for all the region's countries which are concerned with establishing security. To respond to Saudi Arabia's decision not to stand against legitimacy, Assad and the Iranian regime have since the 1980s invented religious Sunni leaders that compete with the civil Sunni leadership in order to hijack authority from leaders such as Karami, Solh and Hariri. Even Leb's Sunni mufti, Mohammad Rashid Qabbani is rejected by Leb's Sunnis because they consider him as an employee of the Assad regime! The Lebanese situation is similar to the Paleostinian one as Fatah al-Islam A Syrian-incubated al-Qaeda work-alike that they think can be turned off if no longer needed to keep the Lebanon pot stirred. , Hamas, always the voice of sweet reason, and the Islamic Jihad ...created after many members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood decided the organization was becoming too moderate. Operations were conducted out of Egypt until 1981 when the group was exiled after the assassination of President Anwar Sadat. They worked out of Gaza until they were exiled to Lebanon in 1987, where they clove tightly to Hezbollah. In 1989 they moved to Damascus, where they remain a subsidiary of Hezbollah... are linked to the Iranian and Syrian regimes.
Strengthening the Lebanese army means weakening Hezbollah's scheme to dominate Leb and turn it into an Iranian emirate. It will enable the Lebanese to confront Sunni terrorist organizations which came running behind Hezbollah from Syria into Leb in this cat and mouse chase. The events in Arsal have proven the importance of having a strong army that stops the meddling of Hezbollah which sought to clash with Syrian groups under the Lebanese army's flag. Military challenges at state level, from the events in Nahr al-Bared refugee camp to the recent events in Arsal, have proven that it's not possible to trust Hezbollah and that the Lebanese people will not accept that any party besides the army defends their security.
However, some men learn by reading. A few learn by observation. The rest have to pee on the electric fence for themselves... strengthening the Lebanese army does not promise salvation from Hezbollah and other militias as this aim is impossible to achieve in the near future. The aim is to halt Hezbollah's progress towards its goal of playing the role of the Syrian army, which was expelled from Leb after a UNSC decision following Syria's involvement in the liquidation of Hariri nine years ago. A strong Lebanese army will either weaken the militia's justification that they should have a presence in the country or restrict their activity. In this case, Hezbollah will become a Shiite problem, and resolving it will be left to Leb's Shiites.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/09/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[18 views]
Top|| File under: Islamic State
#1
After being told for 40 years that "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" is the source of all trouble in ME---and that, once it's resolved, the Muslim countries of the region will be able to take their place among the civilized nations, my reaction to the current news is ambivalent.
Should I laugh, or should roll on the floor and laugh?
The narrative is old but the libs keep trotting it out instead of admitting to the irrational internal strife in Islam.
When Islam develops a hierarchy to control nutjob tin hat radical Imams and clerics, there may be hope for the religion. However, the WEST needs to recognize Islam is a rabid pit bull straining at the leash every moment of every day.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
08/09/2014 11:56 Comments ||
Top||
[SultanKnish] During WW2 our understanding of a moral war was not a war in which we did not kill any civilians (we killed a lot of civilians), it wasn't even a war in which we did not kill any civilians on purpose (we killed a lot of civilians on purpose), it was a war in which we did not kill civilians without having a good reason.
As background, for the past several centuries, as I recall, civilians have made up about 47% of wartime fatalities, through all the changes of morality and technology.
We might carry out mass bombings of entire cities to destroy the enemy's wartime production capabilities and demoralize his population.
Until recently, those were considered good reasons for killing civilians.
The moral context for these actions, snipped away from anti-war works such as Slaughterhouse-Five or Grave of the Fireflies which reduce the American bombings of Dresden or Kobe to the senseless acts of brutal monsters, is that we were fighting Germany and Japan using their own tactics against them.
...Mutuality makes morality and immorality in war self-regulating. If you firebomb someone else's cities, someone else will firebomb your cities. If you want your prisoners of war to be treated well, you have to treat the prisoners you take equally well.
Such mutuality is the only international agreement that truly matters. It takes humanitarian behavior out of the realm of idealism and into the realm of rational self-interest. It creates a direct and working program for rewards and punishments that does not rely on a League of Nations or United Nations.
...But the era of the free lunch arrived with terrorism. We unilaterally extend protections to terrorists that they do not reciprocate. Terrorists are excused from the laws of war, while everyone else has to abide by them. This only incentivizes terrorism and makes fighting terrorists a grim and impossible business.
Israel's fight against Hamas shows how unilateral humanitarianism decontextualizes warfare creating a completely impossible standard for a good war. With no context derived from what the other side is doing all that is left is the necessity of meeting a completely impossible standard in which no civilians on the other side ever die, even while the enemy uses them as human shields.
The Londoners who heard Lloyd George, the New Yorkers who heard George W. Bush and the Israelis who heard Benjamin Netanyahu understood the context in which the next phase of the conflict would be taking place. It was a context created by the tactics of their enemies.
But context is no longer acceptable in warfare. All wars must be fought to the same impossible standard.
#1
They set the rules with their actions, Respond in kind.
As William Tecumseh Sherman said to the people of Atlanta, You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.
#2
Both horse lovers, I believe General Sherman entered Savannah with a personal stable of some 70 horses. General Lee surrendered with Traveler and one other.
#3
Even he greatly distorts the historical record in making his case about WWII. There was a gigantic gulf of difference in every single aspect of the way the war was prosectued between the Allies and the Axis (the Soviet/German unpleasantness was full-on savagery from both sides, sort of a separate topic).
Dresden was a major rail nexus of importance to the eastern front, and center of high-end military production (optics, what today we would call electronics). Hitting it was as rational and militarily justified as any attack of the war. German bombing of Allied cities never once even bothered to pretend to be linked to military targets or operations. Japan's cultural capital was placed off-limits to bombing, and promptly saw (naturally) significant industrial capacity moved there as sanctuary.
Ground operations of course saw a near perfect inversion of behavior. German and Japanese forces, almost without exception, behaved with unprovoked and illegal cruelty and even barbarism towards civilians in (lawlessly conquered) areas. Massive murder, torture, and rape, looting, wanton destruction, forced labor.
Allied forces by contrast were Boy Scouts - cases of misbehavior were criminally prosecuted (this continued into occupied Germany, where the US at one point had to borrow the British hangman to carry out capital sentences from courts martial of rapist and murderer GIs). We friggin set up special units, which in some cases actually affected combat decisions, to protect, recover, and restore precious art and cultural treasures in Europe. We invented the modern concept of humanitarian aid and used it to help our former enemies and their victims.
Even granting the glib and erroneous assumptions of those who try to get preachy about WWII, the inarguable result of doing it without all the icky Allied behavior would have been ..... the same outcome, but with a much, much, much larger death toll among the Axis populations, their victims, and Allied military personnel.
#4
"Until recently, those were considered good reasons for killing civilians."
Still are, by any serious person.
Libtards, not so much.
Posted by: Barbara ||
08/09/2014 13:44 Comments ||
Top||
#5
In the end soldiers clean up the messes created by politicians. It is not cleaned up until one side wins decisively. Unfortunately, the price of winning often has terrible cost. Unless, people want to live under the boot of tyranny, the cost of war must to be paid. We have screwed around with these a$$holes (Islamics) for far too long. We have been far too patient. They no longer have any respect or fear of us.
#6
Hitler's shifting of the focus of German strategic bombing away from RAF facilities and towards population centers ensured that Germany lost the crucial "Battle of Britain." Morality aside, it was a dumb move (fortunately).
But the most important point is one the article makes succinctly: "Mutuality makes morality and immorality in war self-regulating.... Terrorists are excused from the laws of war, while everyone else has to abide by them. This only incentivizes terrorism and makes fighting terrorists a grim and impossible business."
#7
Hitler's shifting of the focus of German strategic bombing away from RAF facilities and towards population centers ensured that Germany lost the crucial "Battle of Britain."
And yet the allies bombed Germany around the clock and it crushed and dispirited them. Dresden, an art center and largely a city of little strategic importance, was fire-bombed which resulted in nearly as many deaths as the bombing of Hiroshima. We bombed the Japanese around the clock towards the end of the war and they still resisted until we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That brought about unconditional surrender. At some point the pain of war brings about surrender or complete destruction. Nation-building can come later (or not).
#8
...note that after we bombed the hell out of both countries and sat on them for a couple of generations, the Prussian* and Japanese militaristic cultural streak of a couple hundred years seems to be seriously abated.
* Germany wasn't so much unified as annexed by Prussia. The Kaiser rejected an offer in 1848 for an arrangement similar to England's king and parliament. Instead Bismark proceeded with his pan-Germanic union subordinate to the Kaiser.
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.
