[PJmedia] We are witnessing another world order in the making. Russia, Iran, China, and ISIS are all carving out spheres of regional influence. Europe and Japan are unsure of their own security. NATO is ossified. The United States at home is distracted by all sorts of ginned-up racial, gender, and class tensions, as it seeks to shed it past postwar role and somehow achieve a respite by forfeiting its obligations as global protector of the West.
As these essays attempt to demonstrate, the common denominator is the Obama administration's belief in a therapeutic view of human nature, and a strange half-educated notion that the United States since World War II was not responsible for the greatest era of affluence, freedom, and security in the history of civilization.
Finally, the Obama administration proves wearisome, as if it is replaying a tired script of a strong power whose anxieties prompt naivetas in lieu of deterrence, and render it paralyzed before weaker but aggressive enemies. We have learned nothing from the paralyzed Carter administration. Its outreach to communists in Central America, theocrats in Iran, and geriatric Soviets ended in a chaotic world from Kabul to Teheran to Managua. The European appeasement in the 1930s of an ascendant Third Reich is the locus classicus for any historical analogy with the present American recessional: a public weary from war, record debt and economic uncertainty, apologies and euphemisms for the aggressive behavior of violent regimes, an impotent world council of nations, indifference to the victims of fascist violence, cutbacks in military readiness, and invective and charges of war-mongering leveled toward any that question such appeasement. And we know how this ends: either in a costly 11th-hour recalibration to restore deterrence--or war as violent as it was avoidable.
#2
The Wormtongues of the Left are reaping what they've sowed. And everyone will pay for it. If real human history is any guide, it will be deep and bloody.
[DAWN] THE tension between the Sindh government and the security forces has been building up for some time, and it was just a matter of time that the situation would blow up. Asif Ali Zardari's outburst on Tuesday against the generals has now brought the confrontation to a head -- with the federal government standing clearly by the military.
The former president seems to have thrown down the gauntlet. Whatever happens next, the survival of the Sindh government is now at stake. Political observers describe the last-minute cancellation of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif ... served two non-consecutive terms as prime minister, heads the Pakistain Moslem League (Nawaz). Noted for his spectacular corruption, the 1998 Pak nuclear test, border war with India, and for being tossed by General Musharraf... 's meeting with Mr Zardari as ominous.
What made Mr Zardari launch a frontal attack on the military leadership? Most observers and even some PPP leaders agree that it was a reaction to the raid early this week by the Rangers on the Sindh Building Control Authority office. "The links lead to senior PPP leaders," says a source familiar with the investigation.
Earlier, Rangers had released a report about the crime situation in Bloody Karachi ...formerly the capital of Pakistain, now merely its most important port and financial center. It is among the largest cities in the world, with a population of 18 million, most of whom hate each other and many of whom are armed and dangerous... , accusing political parties of being directly involved in land-grabbing, extortion and smuggling -- swindling billions of rupees every year. This the Sindh government saw as a deliberate move to undermine the civilian administration. "The Rangers have for a long time been transgressing the force's mandate to embarrass the provincial government," says PPP Senator Farhatullah Babar.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[DAWN] WORRYING as it is for a major political party and the military leadership to be at odds with each other, the reaction of the PML-N government and other mainstream political parties has been disturbing too. In cancelling a meeting with PPP boss Asif Ali Zardari on Wednesday, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif ... served two non-consecutive terms as prime minister, heads the Pakistain Moslem League (Nawaz). Noted for his spectacular corruption, the 1998 Pak nuclear test, border war with India, and for being tossed by General Musharraf... has sent the wrong signal on the civil-military front. Similarly, words of condemnation by PML-N and PTI leaders in particular of Mr Zardari's fulminations against the military appear to have unfortunately aligned major political parties closer to the military than to the democratic system. Clearly, the swirl of corruption allegations around the PPP and repeated accusations of epic mis-governance in Sindh have at least some basis in fact. The PPP is in need of serious and urgent internal reorganization and repurposing. But set that issue aside and consider what it is that Mr Zardari really said earlier this week. His words may have been impolitic, his accusations blunt and none of it good for political stability in Sindh -- but were any of the former president's claims entirely unheard of or not made by other major political figures at various junctures in history?
By condemning Mr Zardari and making a show of distancing themselves from the PPP, are the PML-N and PTI claiming that blunt and direct criticism of the army is outside the democratic realm? If so, why? Consider that just yesterday a strident attack against the PTI was made from the floor of the National Assembly by a PML-N MNA, Talal Chaudhry. The PTI routinely attacks its political opponents using language that is indecorous and cringe-inducing. So, why is there one set of rules for politicians attacking politicians and another for politicians criticising the political role of constitutionally apolitical state institutions? What Mr Zardari said earlier this week amounted to a political speech against a deepening intrusion into the political realm by the military leadership -- can a politician not criticise what he perceives to be a political opponent?
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[DAWN] MILITANT groups, including the Taliban and the Islamic State ...formerly ISIS or ISIL, depending on your preference. Before that al-Qaeda in Iraq, as shaped by Abu Musab Zarqawi. They're very devout, committing every atrocity they can find in the Koran and inventing a few more. They fling Allah around with every other sentence, but to hear the pols talk they're not really Moslems.... , have unleashed unspeakable terror in the world. Yet they also attract Moslems in large numbers, driven by a desire to establish what they believe is Islam's supremacy and global power. This, to them, is the right of Islam that others have usurped.
They also believe that Islam gives them the right to enforce their understanding of the Sharia on everyone, and carry out punishments which they consider to be divine instructions. They view democracy as anti-Islam and a Western concept. Not only do they believe that polytheism, blasphemy, apostasy and adultery deserve capital punishment, they also demand that non-Moslems either convert to Islam, pay the jizya, or face death.
Combine these factors with strong hatred against other sects and lack of intellect-based debate on religious issues, and you have the fearsome environment that prevails, including in today's Pakistain. The narrative of the hard boyz has extensive support, underscored by the fact that few among the so-called Learned Elders of Islam have denounced it, or produced a counter-narrative. In fact, according to Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, the renowned exegete and scholar, all of them seem to agree with this ideology: they differ only with the strategy that has been adopted.
When Ghamidi wrote a counter-narrative to that of the Taliban, there was a flood of criticism from religious quarters. Using extensive analysis and reasoning based on Koranic verses and authentic ahadith, he shows that all of the above are completely wrong interpretations of Islamic teachings. Specific verses meant for specific times and conditions are often taken out of context to validate political interests.
God does not instruct Moslems to wage war at any time in order to rule the world. Jihad cannot be waged by non-state actors. There are strict conditions that must be followed. God does not require Islam's global power. According to scholars like Ghamidi, it was only the Arabian peninsula that was designated for Moslem rule. They believe the spread of Islam, during the time when the Prophet (PTUI!) was alive, was ordained on the basis that the Prophet had initially provided conclusive truth to all nations of the world. It is only during the lifetime of prophets that -- when their people consistently refuse to accept divine guidance -- God vanquishes them, either through divine punishment or at the hands of believers.
When prophethood ended with Prophet Muhammad (PTUI!), such punishments, too, ended. Forced conversions are not allowed, and jizya is no longer valid. There is no coercion in Islam. Everyone, regardless of religious or tribal affiliation, has an equal status and should get equal justice.
Moslems have reached such low levels of reasoning, ethics and morality today because of their own misdeeds and failure to follow Koranic guidance. They did not develop expertise in the sciences, nor did they ponder over the systems of the universe; they used the Koran merely as a book to be revered but not reflected upon and discussed freely, and they developed a complete disregard for moral training that is the real spirit of Islam.
They allowed holy mans to control their minds and emotions. They are responsible for their downfall and, instead of plunging the world into chaos by fighting endless wars, they should pay attention to internal reform.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
MILITANT groups, including the Taliban and the Islamic State, have unleashed unspeakable terror in the world. Yet they also attract Moslems in large numbers.
Inadequate people are always attracted to extremist causes---just look at "western" left.
[PJMedia] ...I turn on the local news and channel surf for 10 minutes. How well we take refuge in the absurd. This litany blares out: Bruce Jenner's new sexual identity, the latest racial controversy, this time over the crashing of a private pool party and the police reaction, the Obama's new stretch Air Force One jumbo jet, Marco Rubio's one ticket every four years, Miley Cyrus's bisexuality. I suppose if one cannot grasp, much less deal with, $19 trillion in debt, a foreign policy in shambles, the largest state in the union on the cusp of a disastrous drought, a Potemkin health care system, zero interest on passbook savings, and the end of all federal immigration law, then the trivial must become existential.
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.
