What's new

Whats Wrong with ISPR Press release emphasizing "BETTER GOVERNANCE" from Political Leadership

Is this the right Army?

538607681223e.jpg


Like I said, looters and thugs. Thugs and looters. This is the fate of Pakistan.
Would you like to explain this image?


regards
 
The article that I wrote and linked earlier is meant exactly to take into account the ground realities. The Army does good work and always has the best of intentions, I agree, but its actions must have legal cover to have the respect they deserve.



Please read them with comprehension first. Nowhere does it mention any "internal" threats as being within the purview of the military.

So police was suppose to liberate Swat and FATA, right? Army and Air Force stepped outside their constitutional limits. I wonder why police wasn't asked to do its job.

By the way, it says that armed forces can deal with internal threats. Every country does that. Why you think USAF scrambled its jets on 911? Police should have done that, right?
 
Would you like to explain this image?


regards

What needs explanation here, Sir?

So police was suppose to liberate Swat and FATA, right? Army and Air Force stepped outside their constitutional limits. I wonder why police wasn't asked to do its job.

By the way, it says that armed forces can deal with internal threats. Every country does that. Why you think USAF scrambled its jets on 911? Police should have done that, right?

The Army can aid civil power when ordered to do so by civil authority. Where does it say that the Army has the duty to deal with "internal threats" on its own?
 
دیوالی میں مجھ پر رنگ پھینکا جائے تو مجھے خوشی ہو گی: نواز شریف



8
 
I have not tried to compare the two since there is no such comparison. If you follow the thread, others are trying to do so. You should address them, not me, as I have tried to answer them. Besides, never was Martial Law declared in US history, was it? Your quote is relevant only if the people declare independence against tyranny, not the Army usurping power for itself.
Article 244 of Constitution of 1973 - Islamic Republic of Pakistan reads & I quote:


[Article 244]
(In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful.)

I, ____________, do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which embodies the will of the people, that I will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever and that I will honestly and faithfully serve Pakistan in the Pakistan Army (or Navy or Air Force) as required by and under the law.

The words above are clear enough, it was all done with allegiance to Pakistan & "Will' of the People of Pakistan - which was evident by the Referendum of 2001 --- & PRO signed by Judges of Supreme Court of Pakistan ----
 
Article 244 of Constitution of 1973 - Islamic Republic of Pakistan reads & I quote:


[Article 244]
(In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful.)

I, ____________, do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which embodies the will of the people, that I will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever and that I will honestly and faithfully serve Pakistan in the Pakistan Army (or Navy or Air Force) as required by and under the law.

The words above are clear enough, it was all done with allegiance to Pakistan & "Will' of the People of Pakistan - which was evident by the Referendum of 2001 --- & PRO signed by Judges of Supreme Court of Pakistan ----

What about the parts that say "uphold the Constitution" and "not engage myself in political activities whatsoever" and "under the law" mean? Are they not equally clear words?
 
Would you like to explain this image?


regards
I am,respected sir simply asking you that what incident is this shown in this image?Was that some raid against someone or some random bubbly bachelor party,lol?

regards
 
Back
Top Bottom