IHC Justice Shaukat Siddiqui openly attacked ISI and accused of political interference

[Canuck786]

Sandro Parteni was born in Dhoke Khabba?

?????

https://hmd307group2.wordpress.com/lee-kuan-yew/

 

[Psychic]

?????

https://hmd307group2.wordpress.com/lee-kuan-yew/

I was asking about SANDRO PARTINI? For you, if only Pakistan matters as per your claim then do tell me if he was born in Dhoke Khabba or Lyari or some other part of this God forsaken country called Pakistan.

refer to your own post i.e #206

 

[Canuck786]

I was asking about SANDRO PARTINI? For you, if only Pakistan matters as per your claim then do tell me if he was born in Dhoke Khabba or Lyari or some other part of this God forsaken country called Pakistan.

refer to your own post i.e #206

Oh you must think of me as a troll. I am not..

You just wasted my precious time.

 

[Lucky Breeze]

https://www.facebook.com/

 

[Musafir117]

https://www.facebook.com/

No otia potia care what he said the cult followes only follows what supreme leader on today, u turn khan finally agreed and bow down ow sorry lay down munh ke bal to get premiership, nothing wrong in it this is how Pak politics work JI HAZOORI of Wardi

 

[pkuser2k12]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1021352945026297856

 

[pkuser2k12]

 

[El Sidd]

I dont understand all of this

 

[Indus Priest King]

The same Justice Siddiqui was was seen kissing Mumtaz Kutta Qadri is now a hero? Wow.

 

[Clutch]

 

[Cybernetics]

All establishments 'interfer' in forming the mainstream narrative of their countries. In more developed countries these establishments tend to be a collection from the corporate sector, the liberal educational sector and the bourgeois. This bunch dominate the narrative and confine the limits of mainstream politics to a very narrow band.

For instance I don't know much about Norweigian politics but I am sure you will have a left and and right. And I suspect the differances between them will be measured in millimetres. That is why democracy in the west functions so smoothly. In fact the change in governments is change of the same product, again and again with a diferrant face and differant label. In that sense delocracy works in west by offering less democracy or less choice.

In countries with real choice reflecting real diversity democracy cannot work because differances are too huge and these are then settled by fighting. Somalia is a good example. For a state to function choice therefore or diversity has to be muzzled. In lesser developed countries this might be done through military/bureaucratic complex and this is the case in Pakistan.

To test out my theory why not tomorrow set up a party in Norway with a simple three or four point manifesto.

• No more Muslims/Migrants
• No more Homosexuality
• No more jobs for foreigners but only for Norweigians.
• No more welfare for foreign migrants.

Watch how the "secret" hand of the establishment in Norway snuffs you. You will get lambasted by the media, you will get no funding from the corporate sector and you will be squeezed into the loony right fringe until your are percieved as bunch of hooligans.

So Pakistan is no exception of having a "hand" working the playing field. Nawaz Sharif should know this best. His political career was pregnated at GHQ and is a illegitimate child of Gen. Zia. So save us the "agencies" are doing this or that stories please.

@Cybernetics Thoughts please?

I agree that all successful establishments has a core narrative. This is precisely the foundation of a modern nation state. Every developed society still has a multitude of interest groups too numerous to understand in detail but their dynamics always revolves around a central narrative.

The core narrative maintains an anchor in society that prevents the centrifugal forces from ripping society apart that produces a situation where narrow interests overwhelms broad interests leading to the decay of society and enables the ability to retrench once an overstretch is perceived. Political parties and groups that advocate for just narrow interests are never stable if given too much power and can lead to severe infighting within the government and enable other narrow interest groups to arise.

The narrative itself is often anchored in the form of the constitution but that document in itself can prove to be short lived and not precise enough to navigate contemporary issues. The narrative must be embodied within a living entity or entities that can react to the dynamics of society. The group that best embodies the core narrative are always highly educated (uneducated elites will be short lived), moral people that has a feel for the grassroots as well as having high degrees of influence on society. To break it down more specifically, they are often university professors, scientific establishment, industrialists, upper-middle class (not middle income) to rich, media, military/intelligence, government officials, etc basically elites and specialists of their respective fields. This is with the assumption of a functional meritocracy across society. Some problematic societies have a chasm between the living entities that perpetuates the core narrative and the current political administration or particular elite groups promotes only narrow interests.

The core narrative that is manifested is always formed by an elite group who interprets from some longer lasting narrative that is less precise, guiding principals perhaps but often taking on different forms in different eras.

There is a common misconception that one person one vote resolves the power aystemetry that arises with more authoritarian systems though it might mitigate some structural stagnation. This is simply not the case because the natural distribution of resources, networks, information, ability, and motivation creates the environment where efficient allocation creates asymmetry of power. Most societies require a good degree of efficiency to maintain surplus to maintain a functional government. From the perspective of the political system, what matters is the distribution of power, not demographics and some simply have more power than others under large and efficient systems. The only way to sustainably reduce political asymmetry is to reduce the asymmetry in the previously mentioned factors.

The US is found to be a highly politically unequal society, where their a major component of their core narrative revolves around capital. Capital is found to dictate policy >90% of the time and organized grassroots have little affect on policy if capital is lacking. The situation is stable because the by product of the elites maintains stability for the grassroots, not because the grassroots are calling the shots.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

The dirty secret is that all societies are run by elites, the difference is the quality and maybe even size of those elite groups. Some societies maintains stagnant/entrenched and incapable elites, some maintains dynamic and capable elites. A nation's elite that builds up other's capabilities can maintain a stable institution of governance but can be seen as bothersome in the short term view and if only narrow interests are valued.

Diversity of ideas is good for the brainstorming phase (political process is also a thought developing process), but terrible for the stage where you need to implement policy. Diversity has a function and its shouldn't over play its function or the system becomes unstable. The function is to find different possible paths, the hope is that more diversity has a better chance of finding an optimal path. When a path that is perceived as good or least bad from the perspective of broad interests is found, respect for the institution of governance is needed and other institutions are need to protect this process with firepower or narrow interests that will inevitably be damaged in the process would arise to counter the mainstream narrative. That is why you see in all developed nations the application of both hard and soft power to maintain cohesion around the core narrative. Developed nations are simply better at the using "secret hand" that you mentioned and have embedded hard power in a way that is deemed socially acceptable or society is engineered to perceive it as acceptable.

Pakistan is a relatively new nation in terms of governance and needs a process of social engineering with both internal and external factors to mould a modern nation state. Sometimes narrow interests have to be sacrificed for broad interests. It is a step all nations go through, the question is who has the guts, ability and moral fiber to take on that role. A new nation can only be built by courage, it is not a set institution where one can push inputs and out puts success.

 

[Daghalodi]

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

The same Justice Siddiqui was was seen kissing Mumtaz Kutta Qadri is now a hero? Wow.

He is not Justice Shakuat Siddique but Advocate Yasir Shakeel. Someone bearing great facial resemblance to IHC Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, Shakeel had kissed Mumtaz Qadri when he appeared before an anti-terrorism court in 2011. Advocate Shakeel was also an office-bearer of the Namoos-i-Risalat Forum, which urged lawyers to appear in court to show support for Qadri.

After the appointment of Justice Siddiqui as IHC judge, a photograph of Shakeel kissing Qadri went viral on the social media and made it seem as if a Pakistani judge was kissing a convicted terrorist.

Shakeel is very active on social media and takes full credit and pride in being the ‘blessed person’ for kissing Mumtaz Qadri. He has also urged others to stop ‘vilifying’ the Honourable judge as it was he who kissed Qadri.

Quite ironically, the justice who has been accused of supporting Qadri was the one who in 2015, dismissed Qadri’s appeal against the death penalty. Despite serious threats to lawyers and judges hearing blasphemy-related cases, the two-member bench comprising Justice Noorul Haq Qureshi and Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui dismissed the appeal.

https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/pakistan/did-ihc-judge-really-kiss-mumtaz-qadri/

 

[Indus Pakistan]

I agree that all successful establishments has a core narrative. This is precisely the foundation of a modern nation state. Every developed society still has a multitude of interest groups too numerous to understand in detail but their dynamics always revolves around a central narrative.

The core narrative maintains an anchor in society that prevents the centrifugal forces from ripping society apart that produces a situation where narrow interests overwhelms broad interests leading to the decay of society and enables the ability to retrench once an overstretch is perceived. Political parties and groups that advocate for just narrow interests are never stable if given too much power and can lead to severe infighting within the government and enable other narrow interest groups to arise.

The narrative itself is often anchored in the form of the constitution but that document in itself can prove to be short lived and not precise enough to navigate contemporary issues. The narrative must be embodied within a living entity or entities that can react to the dynamics of society. The group that best embodies the core narrative are always highly educated (uneducated elites will be short lived), moral people that has a feel for the grassroots as well as having high degrees of influence on society. To break it down more specifically, they are often university professors, scientific establishment, industrialists, upper-middle class (not middle income) to rich, media, military/intelligence, government officials, etc basically elites and specialists of their respective fields. This is with the assumption of a functional meritocracy across society. Some problematic societies have a chasm between the living entities that perpetuates the core narrative and the current political administration or particular elite groups promotes only narrow interests.

The core narrative that is manifested is always formed by an elite group who interprets from some longer lasting narrative that is less precise, guiding principals perhaps but often taking on different forms in different eras.

There is a common misconception that one person one vote resolves the power aystemetry that arises with more authoritarian systems though it might mitigate some structural stagnation. This is simply not the case because the natural distribution of resources, networks, information, ability, and motivation creates the environment where efficient allocation creates asymmetry of power. Most societies require a good degree of efficiency to maintain surplus to maintain a functional government. From the perspective of the political system, what matters is the distribution of power, not demographics and some simply have more power than others under large and efficient systems. The only way to sustainably reduce political asymmetry is to reduce the asymmetry in the previously mentioned factors.

The US is found to be a highly politically unequal society, where their a major component of their core narrative revolves around capital. Capital is found to dictate policy >90% of the time and organized grassroots have little affect on policy if capital is lacking. The situation is stable because the by product of the elites maintains stability for the grassroots, not because the grassroots are calling the shots.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

The dirty secret is that all societies are run by elites, the difference is the quality and maybe even size of those elite groups. Some societies maintains stagnant/entrenched and incapable elites, some maintains dynamic and capable elites. A nation's elite that builds up other's capabilities can maintain a stable institution of governance but can be seen as bothersome in the short term view and if only narrow interests are valued.

Diversity of ideas is good for the brainstorming phase (political process is also a thought developing process), but terrible for the stage where you need to implement policy. Diversity has a function and its shouldn't over play its function or the system becomes unstable. The function is to find different possible paths, the hope is that more diversity has a better chance of finding an optimal path. When a path that is perceived as good or least bad from the perspective of broad interests is found, respect for the institution of governance is needed and other institutions are need to protect this process with firepower or narrow interests that will inevitably be damaged in the process would arise to counter the mainstream narrative. That is why you see in all developed nations the application of both hard and soft power to maintain cohesion around the core narrative. Developed nations are simply better at the using "secret hand" that you mentioned and have embedded hard power in a way that is deemed socially acceptable or society is engineered to perceive it as acceptable.

Pakistan is a relatively new nation in terms of governance and needs a process of social engineering with both internal and external factors to mould a modern nation state. Sometimes narrow interests have to be sacrificed for broad interests. It is a step all nations go through, the question is who has the guts, ability and moral fiber to take on that role. A new nation can only be built by courage, it is not a set institution where one can push inputs and out puts success.

Absolutely fantastic post. There is nothing much anybody could add to this.

@Horus @WebMaster You guys need to give this guy some title please. PDF could do with more members like him.

 

[Clutch]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1722840881147360