In case, it wasn't obvious:
انسانی حقوق کمیشن کی رپورٹ بتاتی ہے کہ نام نہاد غیرت کے نام پر قتل کی گذشتہ دس برس میں ہونے والی وارداتوں میں جن میں کوئی عورت قتل کی گئی اس کے مقابلے میں اسی واردات میں کسی مرد کو بھی یہی سزا دینے کا تناسب صرف ایک فیصد ہے۔
The reporter's academic credentials or aggression is secondary issue. The primary issue is the line crossed by cop. I have spoken to few people who have been involved in domestic violence. Unfortunately they use the very same argument they couldn't keep up with fast moving tongue of wife and are left with no choice but to shut her down physically. I am afraid all those who are focusing on Reporter here will start faulting women if shown videos of domestic abuses and few preceding minutes.
The physical abuse can never be justified or spanned. I am disappointed in a society like ours where men take women for granted such videos went viral. Men will justify there temperament and inability to control hand. If you can't keep up with other sides tone and demeanor move out no right to physically abuse anyone. I wish media also shows how cop was dealt afterward. He should have been made example. People should think ten times before crossing the red line of physical violence.
Judges gone too far in delaying legal cases in favor of oppressors.
Defense lawyers gone too far in getting bribes from the plaintiffs for not dragging the cases eventually to loose.
Government gone too far in taxing the poor and middle class.
Police are gone too far in only catching the petty criminals.
Politicians gone too far in justifying their corruption with word Alhamdulillah, you are also corrupt.
Nawaz gone too far in his wish to tame Pak Faouj.
Food seller gone too far in selling meat of dogs and donkeys
Mullah gone too far in telling lies about the ideal system of Khalilifafa.
Journalist gone too far in blackmailing the poultry business of bird flu news.
The slogan "Unity - Faith - Discipline" gone too far in turning it into The land of the Privileged - Society of Shortages - Governance of Impediments
ڑ ٹ ڈ ھ بھ پھ تھ ٹھ چھ کھ گھ
I think only
ڑ ٹ ڈ
Letters are non-Farsi characters in Urdu but rest of the characters do exist in Farsi as well including the letter ھ
When they were included in Urdu?
Since Urdu originated in and around Delhi during the 18th century, so most likely these letters were borrowed from the local vocabulary into Urdu at the same time. If you read the early poets of Urdu like Mir or Ghalib you will find the use of these 3 letters commonly in their poetry.
Perhaps you evaded the epitome of my theoretical insight; our omission of living up to Pakistan's incipient ideology. Neither was I slightly inclined towards any of Caesar's arrogant rants as you proposed here nor was my post founded on a political basis, but its mere intention was mainly our giving the boot to the core proponent of our Republic, which is to say Islam.
Hence, I'll state my inquiry in a more comprehensible manner - Do my fellow Pakistanis agree we've almost evaded Islam in every cornerstone and if so, would this lead to an inevitable destruction?
It is sad to hear about Javed Sheikh sahib's loss. May God bless Seikh sahib's brother.
Anjaan sahib, thanks for sharing the information. It is indeed very nice of you. You have demonstrated that humanity is above our differences.
Lota ji... you are right pakistani like chinese are copy cate nation... there is no origanality.. even its thinkers
.. poet.. writers.. they didnot produce anything orignal.. some followed arab.. some westren... quid was example of both westren and arab confusion
Thank you Musician jee, despite the fact that 'TumNalli Abhi Tak Band Hai'.
Eid greetings to you and all other friends here, especially the Pasha_Phobia brother.
لوٹا صاحب مجھے یقین ہے اقبال کو نٹشے کی باتیں سمجھ نہیں ای ...اگر اتی تو شاہد یہ نہ کہتا
اگر ہوتا وہ مجذوب فرنگی اس زمانے ميں
تو اقبال اس کو سمجھاتا مقام کبريا کيا ہے
اپ اقبال کی سوچ کا اندازہ کر سکتے ہیں کہ وہ ایک عظیم مفکر سے کیا بحث لگاتا ..... اس کو مقام کبریا سمجھاتا کہ قادری اور غازی علم دین کیسے بنتے ہیں ......
غازی علم دین کے بارے میں اقبال نے کہا تھا وہ بدو بازی لے گیا ....
morality is the herd instinct in the individual
Two conservatives but with opposing views.
Is torture ever justified?
The war on terror is a fight against a very different kind of enemy. Does that justify different rules of engagement?
Imagine this scenario: A terrorist has planted a nuclear bomb in New York City. It will go off in one hour. A million people will die. You capture the terrorist. He knows where it is. He's not talking. If you have the slightest belief that hanging this man by his thumbs, or some other method of torture, will get you the information to save a million people, are you justified in doing so? Not only is it permissible; it is a moral duty.
However rare the cases, there are circumstances in which torture would be required to acquire life-saving information. And once you've established the principle, the argument is not whether torture is ever permissible, but when—in other words, how big, how imminent, how preventable does the threat have to be to justify it?
In 1994, 19-year-old Israeli Corporal Nahshon Waxman was kidnapped by Palestinian terrorists. The Israelis captured the driver of the car used in the kidnapping and tortured him in order to find where Waxman was being held.
Faced with a similar choice, an American President would have a similar obligation. To do otherwise—to give up the chance to find your soldier lest you sully yourself by authorizing torture of the person who possesses potentially lifesaving information—is a deeply immoral betrayal of a soldier.
There is much to admire in those who refuse on principle ever to take up arms (or, in this case, torture) under any conditions. One should be grateful for the saintly among us. And one should be vigilant that they not get to make the decisions upon which the lives of others depend.
Washington Post columnist
To fight terrorism we need intelligence. But the intelligence we collect must be reliable and acquired humanely, under clear standards understood by all. Using torture, even for the best of reasons, is wrong and should not be legal. To do differently not only offends our values as Americans but undermines our war effort, because abuse of prisoners harms—not helps—us in the war on terror.
First, subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence, because under torture a detainee will tell the interrogator anything to make the pain stop. Second, mistreatment of our prisoners endangers U.S. troops who might be captured by the enemy, if not in this war, then in the next.
Third, prisoner abuses exact a terrible toll in the war of ideas, because inevitably these abuses become public. When they do, the actions of a few darken our reputation in the eyes of millions. American values should win any war of ideas, and we can't let prisoner abuse tarnish our image.
We are Americans, and we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people—no matter how evil they may be. America stands for a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad. We are better than these terrorists, and we will win. The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy.
But this isn't about who they are; it's about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies, and we can never, never allow our enemies to take those values away.
—Senator John McCain
Republican of Arizona
At last a confession by you as you used to be a "Sarkari Mulazim" and you also claim to be a writer and a poet although that is only a Sarka by you.
Well Done. USA will be proud of you. At least they have made an honest citizen out of you!!!