[thechat] [ugh]

[Syed Zeeshan Haider]

From: "John Handelaar" <john at userfrenzy.com>
To: <thechat at lists.evolt.org>
Sent: July 10, 2002, Wednesday 4:59 AM
Subject: RE: [thechat] [ugh]



> Yeah.  In the complete absence of media free from government
> censorship, and in the complete absence of a recent historical
> model of Pakistan-devoid-of-arbitrary-judicial-decisions, it's
> easy to see that your point here is in no way completely
> unsupported by any evidence. Not.

Do you have any evidence for what you are syaing?

> BZZZT.  Human rights organisations are what they are.  You
> oppose them, you're opposed to human rights.  No amount of
> religious prejudice changes that.

I am NOT opposing Human rights organisations. I ceratainly do not oppose
them. I oppose the way in which they are working. They are not doing
what they must do. I am intentionally not providing any EVIDENCE because
it will falme up this forum which I do not like.
There is no question of religious prejudice. Why do you (western
countries) always search for some sort of "religious prejudice" in any
act by Muslims, provided that the act is not liked by you?
I am religious because a Muslim cannot be a Muslim without being
religious. "being religious" and "religious prejudice" are two
completely different things.

> According to every non-governmental source, that decrease
> is either zero or negative.

Most of such non-governmental sources are publicly disliked and people
of Pakistan are wise enough not to believe neither government resources
nor non-governmental sources. No matter which country, governments
always lie to their public in one way or another.

>When you allow a miltary coup
> to take place unchallenged, people get poorer.

I strongly condemn military rule and I love democracy, not only
democracy but Islamic Democracy. Pervez Musharraf is intolerably
interfering the democratic system and constitution of Pakistan and he'll
have to pay for this just as General Zia-ul-Haq paid. And mind it,
people of Pakistan respect their armed forces, that's why we have to
tolerate such coups.
Here's a secret for you! Most of the people of Pakistan think that USA
(as a world power) backed military coup by Pervez Musharraf and USA only
pretended to be opposing it. Another secret for you! According to the
current constitution of Pakistan, if anybody dissolves the constitution
then he/she must be sentenced to DEATH. Pervez Musharraf has suspended
the parts of constitution and he cannot dissolve it. If he dissolves the
constitution then it is possible that future civil government will call
him for a trial and this will cause him to die as a punishment.

>More poor
> people + arbitrary mililtary government = no legal means
> to escape poverty ---> shitloads more crime.

For this please pray for the white collar criminals in Pakistan and
their backers in Swiss banks.

> 'Exterminate thoughts' ?
>
> That's self-delusion on a scale which no-one here can hope
> to counter.

Nothing is impossible in this world.

>  Or (less charitably) religious nonsense.

Now you are showing some sort of religious prejudice against Muslims.

> > John, I think you live in USA
>
> Wrong again.

So where do you live?

> > > e) that countries which abolish the death sentence also
> > >    experience no obvious difference in the rate of the
> > >    crimes in question.
> >
> > You do not live in such countries,
>
> Wrong *again*.

So where do you live?

> This crap was the counter-argument to the abolition to
> the death penalty in the UK in 1967.  We did it anyway.
> No increase in formerly-capital crime.  But a spectacular
> reduction in the number of murders by the state of people
> later found to be innocent, invariably convicted not
> on evidence but on grounds of being black, Irish or
> (most commonly of all) at odds with the oppressive 'morals'
> of the common religious zealotry of the day.

Such mass differences inside laws based on races can be a problem there
but not here.

> No.  *Your* media tells you what you're spouting here.  *Mine*
> is not subject to root-and-branch government censorship.

Just a counter-accusation!

No government have been able to censor newspapers in Pakistan. If such
strong censorship had to be applied then none of Pakistani government
had allowed to flourish the WWW technology in Pakistan.

> You are, of course, joking - or nuts.

It is a fact that in Saudi Arabia most of the accused of smuggling
narcotics have been innocent. But the death punishment is common there.
My father has seen an event of punishment in Saudi Arabia.
But I think Iran is an ideal country.

> Which is why Pakistan is now only the #5 importer of heroin
> to the UK, as opposed to its previous peak of #1, I suppose.

Pakistan has never been on #1.
Reduction is yet obvious. And it will progress in future.

> Ah, fuck it.  I can't be bothered with the rest of this
> nonsense.

Mind your language please.

> One piece of advice:  before you next commit propaganda to
> email, please try to back at least one of your many statements
> up with at least one piece of evidence.  Otherwise it's just
> too easy to skittle everything you write.  I'm waiting
> for the meat of your argument, but so far I'm only seeing
> the ribbons.

Do you have any solid evidence?

Syed Zeeshan Haider.
http://syedzeeshanhaider.faithweb.com/