From the markets and schools of Pakistan to the halls and streets of France, we have all suffered at the hands of violent terrorists and their extremist ideologies. Across the globe, nations and leaders are taking whatever steps necessary to curb this plague of violence. Recently, Pakistani leadership has passed a constitutional amendment to deal with militants wreaking havoc on Pakistani soil.
What are your thoughts on the ratification of this constitutional amendment? Would it help deter others from following the path of terrorism?
Swift decision and public executions would deter these premeditated acts of terror.
If these guys have no shame in committing these heinous crime in public and in day light then why should the civility worry about hiding them in jails via life imprisonment or execution in privacy of a jail?
These guys want attention let us give them ultimate attention they will get and others will think twice before they think of committing any act or terror. Saudi Arabia is the best example of low crime rate because of swift justice and public executions.
I've always been a very firm supporter of democracy and dont believe on autocratic or military solutions. But the way things have been deteriorated in Pakistan particularly, this is the by far the only possible solution at the moment. We cant afford to leave any room for bad guyz and to eliminate terrorism from its roots, all institutions in the country have to go an extra mile to make this country a peaceful land like the way it was before Afghan war.
So yes its the right amendment to pass and if you see it doesnt give military an indefinite control. Just by passing it, the message is delivered to the bad guyz that the "no-tolerance" era to terrorism has begun.
These measures are on the same scale as measures undertaken thus far on terrorism. They are myopic. The way to eliminate terrorism is two fold:
1) Eliminate the causes of terrorism - which may require a bit of introspection and self-criticism, but it could also involve educational methods.
2) Exercise parity of rights across all people and hold leadership visibly accountable for breaking any rules. If leadership falls in line then the people will not falter.
Bro Mirch ...
The success of Saudi's low crime rate is not a result of its fast acting penal system ... which at times may not be fast at all ... It is successful because it does two things:
a) It gives enough wealth, security and comfort to its people
b) It's leadership are not visibly corrupt and hence it is impossible (for the majority layperson) to use bribery or threat to circumvent the system.
These measures are on the same scale as measures undertaken thus far on terrorism. They are myopic. The way to eliminate terrorism is two fold:
1) Eliminate the causes of terrorism - which may require a bit of introspection and self-criticism, but it could also involve educational methods.
2) Exercise parity of rights across all people and hold leadership visibly accountable for breaking any rules. If leadership falls in line then the people will not falter.
Bro Mirch ...
The success of Saudi's low crime rate is not a result of its fast acting penal system ... which at times may not be fast at all ... It is successful because it does two things:
a) It gives enough wealth, security and comfort to its people
b) It's leadership are not visibly corrupt and hence it is impossible (for the majority layperson) to use bribery or threat to circumvent the system.
Basically governmental security and moral behaviour in the populous will eradicate terrorism ...
^^ Lol, i am just jealous of his job. I feel like i am losing tons of money by not getting paid for posting here. All he does is copies and pastes gora written pre approved 120 word para and gets paid.
He doesnt have to disclose his real name or identity. How cool is that.
PS. If his superiors are reading this then please know that i can work for 3/4th of the money you pay him :)
A proposed resolution by President Obama has been sent to the U.S. Congress asking for legislature approval of the use of force against the terrorist group ISIL. As you already know, we are—and have been—using our military force against ISIL so this resolution will lay the groundwork for legal authorization. You can read the full details of the resolution at the link below, however we wanted to clarify one of the main questions on everyone’s mind – whether this resolution would allow “U.S. boots on the ground.”
On that issue, President Obama explains that, “The resolution we’ve submitted today does not call for the deployment of U.S. ground combat forces to Iraq or Syria. It is not the authorization of another ground war like Afghanistan or Iraq. The 2,600 American troops in Iraq today largely serve on bases. And yes, they face the risks that come with service in any dangerous environment, but they do not have a combat mission.”
....using our military force against ISIL so this resolution will lay the groundwork for legal authorization. ....
I know answering questions is not in your job description but I cannot resist to ask since when legal authorizations matter to the US when deciding on military action?
We are part of the Public Affairs component of U.S. Central Command. If you have legitimate questions that would be well within CENTCOM's AOR and of value, please feel free to post. We cannot promise that we can answer every question but we will try our best. Having said that, questions pertaining to "job descriptions", and those meant for "humor" etc., will not be answered.
Psyah et al , your feedback and opinions are noted and appreciated.
We are part of the Public Affairs component of U.S. Central Command. If you have legitimate questions that would be well within CENTCOM's AOR and of value, please feel free to post. We cannot promise that we can answer every question but we will try our best. Having said that, questions pertaining to "job descriptions", and those meant for "humor" etc., will not be answered.....
My question was rhetorical. You posted something about Obama boasting a resolution in congress for 'legal authorization' for operations in Iraq.
My question was simply how is that resolution significant?
Such a resolution was passed in the US Congress on 10 October 2002 citing terrorism fomented in Iraq against the USA as a reason for invasion of the country. What was US military doing in the country for 13 years if it needs another resolution to intervene in the region for the same reason: TERRORISM?