Quote:
Originally Posted by Gypsified
Just a roundabout way to say that no such ‘bold’ speeches targeting military exist, I take it? Well, that’s all right. Must be a slip of tongue.
|
Let's leave that to the readers shall we?
You, meanwhile, can go back to the rudimentary problem. Did I refer to A particular speech or a bunch of speeches? Work on that. Please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gypsified
Thank you for letting us know it wasn’t me (the liar guy) but you (the truthful guy) who dragged history, again, in a rather beating-around-the-bush manner.
But allow me to point out the obvious that you conveniently managed to overlook once again. A lot of people think that Imran’s circus has been encouraged by the military to seek Musharraf’s exoneration. There is probably not much evidence for that, but that does make Musharraf very much relevant. So your saying that this is something not related to the current crisis does not match with actual situation. It’s also a coincidence, no doubt, that Musharraf himself lent full support to this ‘revolution’. The expression they have for this situation is ‘muddle-headed approach’ (hope this is not ‘florid bloated vocabulary’, by any chance?).
|
You yourself answered your own question. There is not much evidence for that. Thank you.
I ask you, however, is there any evidence whatsoever? Until you find that, It is not relevant to the current crisis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gypsified
Spoken like a true prodigy. Put in simple words, you are all right with what I said, i.e. it’s fine to besiege parliament and supreme court and ask for the resignation of PM if faced by injustice. That it’s all right to do this all after the demands of FIR and electoral reforms have been met. I’m sorry, I didn’t know I was talking to someone favoring mob rule. A dead end, it seems.
|
Once again, for the umpteenth time, you failed to grasp the crux of the argument.
I will reiterate.
The demands of PTI were only met after the siege of the parliament. And not before. Shareef's "Supreme indifference" to PTI demands when channeled through parliament, but submitting to the very same demands after the protests, is in itself a grave lesson for everyone. When the parliament fails to solve the problems, people take to the streets. I asked you what else do you propose they could have done once the Parliament failed? Don't tell me if what they did is right or wrong. Give me the alternative.
Similarly, the FIR was lodged after the siege of the Parliament. Not before. The very same parliament and parliamentarians paid little attention to what was state sponsored terrorism, and rather than ensuring and facilitating the FIR, were busy arguing if Qadri was sponsored by the invisible hand. It took two months and 15 days of protests to lodge an FIR against state sponsored Terrorism. Well done Parliament
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gypsified
And no doubt what PTI and PAT have been doing will set excellent precedent? Branding Supreme Court as corrupt (no evidence), branding the caretaker government in collusion with PMLN (again, no to insufficient evidence), accusing media of lending a hand in rigging (evidence? What’s that?), accusing ECP (please don’t ask for evidence), and calling for parliament’s dissolution because their mandate was stolen (evidence? Paltry at best), these are all excellent precedence for the future. I see. Muddle-headed was the term.
|
The Parliament is there to safeguard the interests of the people. What PTI did was reaction to Parliament's inability to safeguard the very same interests. If Parliament had set the precedent of an independent inquiry swiftly, PTI would have never done what they did. The onus is on Parliament to make sure constitutional demands are taken care of. If they are not, then such precedents (What PTI did) become norm. Hope you understand. Because I am not going to restate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gypsified
Thanks for clarification, once again, because I was under the impression that I’m talking to someone who favors constitutional means but it’s the mob rule you’re pushing. I must be mistaken. Well, I can’t really argue with that.
|
I will, for your reading pleasure, restate what I said. I hope you get it this time. Hope is all I got.
When the Parliament shows the door to the people, it's the People's right to take to the streets. When the Parliament fails to safeguard the rights of the people, it's the people's right to take to the street.
What other solution do you propose when the Parliament has failed to do what it was supposed to do?