Imran Khan house surrounded by police

[dadeechi]

Why they are targeting Imran and his party ???

The only party PA trusts is PML(N)

All other parties are considered anti-national or agents of foreign powers.

I would not be surprised if IK meets the same fate as ZAB.

 

[DJ_Viper]

Why they surrounded his house? But PMLN said they never surround and attack anyone house.
Remember Raiwand episode??
PMLN is again using government machinery for political purpose. Government should avoid these things.

Sir, Today, the Police and about a DOZEN law enforcement agencies in the US used force, including tear-gas and riot control equipment against a "Peaceful Protest" by the American Indians community on a pipeline issue going through their sacred land. Everyone respects a peaceful protests if it remains peaceful. But these guys threatened to destroy the pipeline and marched towards that area, when the protest was allowed only on one location.

The point that I am trying to make is when anyone becomes a threat to public, and due to whom, there is clear and present danger of public harm (whether people getting injured, killed, or potential property damage, lock-down of a city, causing hardship for the public), the system will come into play. No one is and should be above the law.

I've learned a lot about Mr. Khan in the past week by visiting this site a lot, and then some research. Mr. Khan can't threaten a whole city. No matter what his issues are. Violence is never justified in a democracy. He should learn that. He should go to the highest court and if he thinks he doesn't get justice, well, then that's it. He should then educate people and let them vote for him. If that doesn't happen, then too bad. He should let the people elect who they want to. A country is never made for ONE Mr. Right. Its made for the majority of the public that you can't overrule, or change by force and damaging the country, because you "think differently" and the legal system doesn't align with you.

Threatening to lock-down an entire city is not political, it is a threat to an entire government, her justice system and security institutions. That would get a response from some place and pretty quickly. In the US, if one has any evidence of becoming a threat to public safety, a judge can review the evidence and issue an arrest warrant, the law-enforcement can hen detain you. Thanks

 

[Joe Shearer]

The only acceptable definition of Terrorism:

"The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Origin
Late 18th century (in reference to the rule of the Jacobin faction during the the period of the French Revolution known as the Terror): from French terrorisme, from Latin terror."

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/terrorism

Brilliant.

We need to keep reminding ourselves of this. Without acting smart and making snide remarks. This has hurt both countries long enough.

Thanks for the timely reminder, @ACE OF THE AIR

Sir, Today, the Police and about a DOZEN law enforcement agencies in the US used force, including tear-gas and riot control equipment against a "Peaceful Protest" by the American Indians community on a pipeline issue going through their sacred land. Everyone respects a peaceful protests if it remains peaceful. But these guys threatened to destroy the pipeline and marched towards that area, when the protest was allowed only on one location.

The point that I am trying to make is when anyone becomes a threat to public, and due to whom, their is clear and present danger or public harm (whether people getting injured, killed, or potential property damage, lock-down of a city, causing hardship for the public), the system will come into play. No one is and should be above the law.

I've learned a lot about Mr. Khan in the past week by visiting this site a lot, and then some research. Mr. Khan can't threaten a whole city. No matter what his issues are. Violence is never justified in a democracy. He should learn that. He should go to the highest court and if he thinks he doesn't get justice, well, then that's it. He should then educate people and let them vote for him. If that doesn't happen, then too bad. He should let the people elect who they want to. A country is never made for ONE Mr. Right. Its made for the majority of the public that you can't overrule, or change by force and damaging the country, because you "think differently" and the legal system doesn't align with you. Thanks

True. The state cannot succumb to threats, and the law is meant for all. Very true.

The point here is however different. What, for instance, @Arsalan was trying to point out was that matters need never have come to this pass. If the present administration were not so intransigent, they would have sat down and talked through their differences and come to a compromise.

 

[DJ_Viper]

True. The state cannot succumb to threats, and the law is meant for all. Very true.

The point here is however different. What, for instance, @Arsalan was trying to point out was that matters need never have come to this pass. If the present administration were not so intransigent, they would have sat down and talked through their differences and come to a compromise.

Sir, I would again give you an example of the US political system. Which like the world has its own issues and many serious ones. For example, today, the top Republican leadership made clear statements that if a Democrat is elected President, there will not be any movement on the Supreme Court justice appointments throughout the next 4 years (Republicans control the House / Senate). Now what do you call it? This is a total personal issue resulting in reducing the Justice systems ability to provide speedy justice and technically, is a violation of the American constitution that we all cherish, as the Justice and Safety is a State's MAIN responsibility.

Now do you expect the Democrats (assume they get elected) to now shut down the DC metro or go take their voters and shut down NYC or do violence there? Hell No. The only course of action they would have, is to go back to the legal system and try to push these appointments. If they can't they will make it a known issue to the public in the next elections and will let the people decide. That is it.

No matter how "wrong" a political issue is or anything, you can never initiate violence, destruction of public property or damage to a country. In the US and many other countries, (knowing some law due to my background), it comes under treason and will be severely dealt with by the respective justice system. Pakistan, India or China are no exceptions to it.

Mr. Khan needs to realize, if he didn't get justice from the court system, and the people (majority) don't want his version of the truth and they want to continue to vote for the "other side", well, unless Mr. Khan can get majority, he has to wait. He can't initiate violence, public unrest, and damage to a running city or its public. In fact, this is probably a punishable violation of his own oath that he took when he got elected. Thanks.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir, I would again give you an example of the US political system. Which like the world has its own issues and many serious ones. For example, today, the top Republican leadership made clear statements that if a Democrat is elected President, there will not be any movement on the Supreme Court justice appointments throughout the next 4 year (Republicans control the House / Senate). Now what do you call it? This is a total personal issue resulting in reducing the Justice systems ability to provide speedy justice and technically, is a violation of the American constitution that we all cherish, as the Justice and Safety is a State's MAIN responsibility.

Now do you expect the Democrats (assume they get elected) to now shut down the DC metro or go take their voters and shut down NYC or do violence there? HELL NO!! The ONLY course of action they would have, is to go back to the legal system and try to push these appointments. If they can't they will make it a known issue to the public in the next elections and will let the people decide. That is it. No matter how "wrong" a political issue is or anything, you can never initiate violence, destruction of public property or damage to a country. In the US and many other countries, (knowing some law due to my background), it comes under treason and will be severely dealt with by the respective justice system. Pakistan, India or China are no exceptions to it.

Mr. Khan needs to realize, if he didn't get justice from the court system, the people (majority) don't want his version of the truth and they want to continue to vote the "other side", well, unless Mr. Khan can get majority, he has to wait. He can't initiate violence, public unrest, and damage to a running city or its public. In fact, this is probably a punishable violation of his own oath that he took when he got elected. Thanks.

At the moment, I am rather more interested in the consensus emerging among Pakistani members that Nawaz Sharief and Imran Khan are Indian agents. Both could be wrong, of course; that would mean that terror attacks on India would continue. Since no Pakistani not actually sleepwalking at that moment ever attacks India, these mysterious people from the Moon will continue to come across and kill unarmed men, women and children.

Both could be right; in which case, expect to see the disbanding of the Pakistani Army and the Pakistani Air Force within a reasonable period of time (they may keep the Navy).

One or the other could be right. In which case, expect to see turmoil and bloodshed for the indefinite future, without let-up.

 

[HAIDER]

At the moment, I am rather more interested in the consensus emerging among Pakistani members that Nawaz Sharief and Imran Khan are Indian agents. Both could be wrong, of course; that would mean that terror attacks on India would continue. Since no Pakistani not actually sleepwalking at that moment ever attacks India, these mysterious people from the Moon will continue to come across and kill unarmed men, women and children.

Both could be right; in which case, expect to see the disbanding of the Pakistani Army and the Pakistani Air Force within a reasonable period of time (they may keep the Navy).

One or the other could be right. In which case, expect to see turmoil and bloodshed for the indefinite future, without let-up.

Indian agent is little harsh ...but his corruption charges already proved and few other sensitive information leaked to newspapers. ....as i always quote Aristotle , never make a businessman your leader.

 

[DJ_Viper]

At the moment, I am rather more interested in the consensus emerging among Pakistani members that Nawaz Sharief and Imran Khan are Indian agents. Both could be wrong, of course; that would mean that terror attacks on India would continue. Since no Pakistani not actually sleepwalking at that moment ever attacks India, these mysterious people from the Moon will continue to come across and kill unarmed men, women and children.

Both could be right; in which case, expect to see the disbanding of the Pakistani Army and the Pakistani Air Force within a reasonable period of time (they may keep the Navy).

One or the other could be right. In which case, expect to see turmoil and bloodshed for the indefinite future, without let-up.

Sir, I've been to many countries, including India and Pakistan too. This whole terrorism issue, with my limited knowledge seems to be state policy from either side and a tit-for-tat response, pretty sad but its true. India has trade relations much larger than Pakistan and the US is a strategic ally of India so obviously, India would have much more leverage.

But the reality is both have security apparatus doing things like these. Like the White House statements (recent and the past ones), I would just repeat those that both sides need to talk their issues out and create confidence and peace. There is no other solution to this issue. All roads lead to a dead-end right before a huge ditch. No one should be in that ditch in my opinion. Thanks

 

[Joe Shearer]

Indian agent is little harsh ...but his corruption charges already proved and few other sensitive information leaked to newspapers. ....as i always quote Aristotle , never make a businessman your leader.

I was being sardonic; your point is valid, and his delinquency needs close scrutiny and examination, but that is your business. I was merely looking on with considerable pleasure at the mirror image of our brain-addled population blaming Pakistan for untimely rain.

 

[HAIDER]

I was being sardonic; your point is valid, and his delinquency needs close scrutiny and examination, but that is your business. I was merely looking on with considerable pleasure at the mirror image of our brain-addled population blaming Pakistan for untimely rain.

You are addressing South Asia political power dilemma ...jiss ki lathi uski bhanas....

 

[DJ_Viper]

Indian agent is little harsh ...but his corruption charges already proved and few other sensitive information leaked to newspapers. ....as i always quote Aristotle , never make a businessman your leader.

Who is he Sir? From the little I know, both are just as corrupt. Mr. Khan has added the element of violence that never existed before to this degree in Pakistan (similar to instigation that Mr. Trump has been making in his political statements). This is the worst thing to do as the entire society can turn towards each other and cause civil war. Leaders have a huge responsibility to care for and protect their people and create a positive environment no matter what the challenges may be. Thanks

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir, I've been to many countries, including India and Pakistan too. This whole terrorism issue, with my limited knowledge seems to be state policy from either side and a tit-for-tat response, pretty sad but its true. India has trade relations much larger than Pakistan and the US is a strategic ally of India so obviously, India would have much more leverage. But the reality is both have security apparatus that doing things like these. Like the White House statements (recent and the past ones), I would just repeat those that both sides need to talk their isI sues out and create confidence and peace. There is no other solution to this issue. All roads lead to a dead-end right before a huge ditch. No one should be in that ditch in my opinion. Thanks

It has always been my opinion that one state has adopted asymmetric warfare as state policy, and practices it on a constant and sustained basis. The other is essentially conservative, does not permit its intelligence apparatus to get out of hand, and does not - did not - allow terror as a state-sponsored methodology.

I continue to retain this belief. The track record speaks for itself.

 

[Indrajit]

. If the present administration were not so intransigent, they would have sat down and talked through their differences and come to a compromise.

That's a bit like asking India & Pakistan to resolve Kashmir..... Imran Khan wants Nawaz gone, NS is obviously not about to oblige. End of story. No compromise possible. Especially without the pushing of the army as happened 2 years ago.

Imran Khan left this action till too late. With just a month to go for the present CoAS to retire, there are some limits to the level of pressure he could put on the NS government. Many of the CoAS's top Generals are in contention for a couple of key jobs, including that of the CoAS itself. it's close enough for them to taste. Any action against NS would also mean kissing those chances goodbye. While it could still happen, you can bet there will be some reluctance & heartburn if that does come to pass. That is a factor the present CoAS would have to take into account. 6 months or even 3 months ago, it might have been a different story.

 

[HAIDER]

Who is he Sir? From the little I know, both are just as corrupt. Mr. Khan has added the element of violence that never existed before to this degree in Pakistan (similar to instigation that Mr. Trump has been making in his political statements). This is the worst thing to do as the entire society can turn towards each other and cause civil war. Leaders have a huge responsibility to care for and protect their people and create a positive environment no matter what the challenges may be. Thanks

Its all because those who in power try to stay in power forever. Unfortunately , you comparing first world with 3rd world. Pakistan is passing through political transformation . Its all democracy , let it happened as long as 3rd umpire doesn't interfere.

 

[DJ_Viper]

It has always been my opinion that one state has adopted asymmetric warfare as state policy, and practices it on a constant and sustained basis. The other is essentially conservative, does not permit its intelligence apparatus to get out of hand, and does not - did not - allow terror as a state-sponsored methodology.

I continue to retain this belief. The track record speaks for itself.

Sir, I've seen a lot of stuff around the globe. Like I said, this is both state's official policy towards each other. One might make it to the news more, but the other one might call it an "Offensive-Defense". The changes in terms sound se*xy but people still get hurt on either side. That is wrong and both sides should negotiate peace. Its 2016, not 1950's. Thanks.

 

[Joe Shearer]

That's a bit like asking India & Pakistan to resolve Kashmir..... Imran Khan wants Nawaz gone, NS is obviously not about to oblige. End of story. No compromise possible. Especially without the pushing of the army as happened 2 years ago.

Imran Khan left this action till too late. With just a month to go for the present CoAS to retire, there are some limits to the level of pressure he could put on the NS government. Many of the CoAS's top Generals are in contention for a couple of key jobs, including that of the CoAS itself. it's close enough for them to taste. Any action against NS would also mean kissing those chances goodbye. While it could still happen, you can bet there will be some reluctance & heartburn if that does come to pass. That is a factor the present CoAS would have to factor in. 6 months or even 3 months ago, it might have been a different story.

I suppose you have a point