But which part of this is new?
The ICJ declared the US bombing of Nicaragua an instance of 'unlawful use of force' in the 1980s. The leadership then wasn't held accountable. There wasn't any accountability for the war in Vietnam.
That the United States has failed to come to terms with its war crimes in Iraq only sets us up for a repeat performance.
The way i see it - Iraq was "a repeat performance."
Obama said: "Thousands of Americans gave their lives; tens of thousands have been wounded. Our relations abroad were strained. Our unity at home was tested.”
Prof. Cole said: "At least, the president acknowledged the human cost of the war, for both the Iraqis and the Americans."
...But Prof., don't you think he means thousands of Americans gave their lives while tens of thousands (of Americans) were wounded?
I don't see him mentioning the loss of a single Iraqi life.
Anyone interested in reading more on the present state of the victims and the (still) ongoing pursuit of justice, please read
'For a few pieces of silver' -
AS NEW SKELETONS FALL OUT OF THE OLD BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY, SHOMA CHAUDHURY AND SHANTANU GUHA RAY TRACK HOW JUSTICE IS STILL BEING SUBVERTED TO PROTECT THE “INVESTMENT CLIMATE” IN INDIA
Exactly. Muslim or no Muslim. This is the problem when a body of conservative men sit around a table and decide what women ought to and ought not to do.
"also women wearing headscarfs are a little bit less likely to be pinched and harassed by men in public"
Prof. Cole, could you elaborate. Are you saying that they are "little bit less likely to be" harassed because of the supposed 'respect' accorded to women in hijab in conservative societies?
Or that covering up empirically makes harassment less likely in general?
Whenever the question of separating religion from State in Pakistan comes up, the 'vision' of Muhammad Ali Jinnah as stated in his Constituent Assembly Speech (August 11, 1947) is put forth in support of the Separation - "You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State."
The fact that Pakistan has gone in the exact opposite direction since that statement shows us the futility and dishonesty that lies behind Jinnah's vision.
For a decade prior to the Partition of India, the Muslim League, headed by M.A. Jinnah advocated a separate state for Muslims based on the Two-Nation Theory - "that Muslims and Hindus were two separate nations by every definition..."
They lost the 1937 provincial elections to the Indian National Congress, even in areas reserved for Muslims. The League subsequently shifted their communalism into high gear leading to the Partition of India which killed a million people, marking the largest transfer of population in history.
It was this destruction that accompanied the creation of Pakistan. Why? Because Hindus and Muslims are TWO SEPARATE NATIONS. For this man to then say that the State will not have nothing to do with the religion of its citizens makes little sense, except if it was a form of repentance for his follies that killed a million, or plain wishful thinking.
Hence, this statement made by Jinnah is a response to the folly of his original vision (that of two nations), rather than an expression of any vision of a secular state.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
But which part of this is new?
The ICJ declared the US bombing of Nicaragua an instance of 'unlawful use of force' in the 1980s. The leadership then wasn't held accountable. There wasn't any accountability for the war in Vietnam.
That the United States has failed to come to terms with its war crimes in Iraq only sets us up for a repeat performance.
The way i see it - Iraq was "a repeat performance."
al-Maliki Declares Independence
Obama said: "Thousands of Americans gave their lives; tens of thousands have been wounded. Our relations abroad were strained. Our unity at home was tested.”
Prof. Cole said: "At least, the president acknowledged the human cost of the war, for both the Iraqis and the Americans."
...But Prof., don't you think he means thousands of Americans gave their lives while tens of thousands (of Americans) were wounded?
I don't see him mentioning the loss of a single Iraqi life.
I have a question. . .
"The Taliban are responsible for 61% of the civilian casualties in the past six months and more in the past month."
But their support base doesn't seem to be eroding accordingly.
Why?
Anyone interested in reading more on the present state of the victims and the (still) ongoing pursuit of justice, please read
'For a few pieces of silver' -
AS NEW SKELETONS FALL OUT OF THE OLD BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY, SHOMA CHAUDHURY AND SHANTANU GUHA RAY TRACK HOW JUSTICE IS STILL BEING SUBVERTED TO PROTECT THE “INVESTMENT CLIMATE” IN INDIA
link to tehelka.com
Also, have a look at the amazing cartoon - a rehash of the American flag being set up at Iwo Jima - which was the magazine's cover.
Exactly. Muslim or no Muslim. This is the problem when a body of conservative men sit around a table and decide what women ought to and ought not to do.
"also women wearing headscarfs are a little bit less likely to be pinched and harassed by men in public"
Prof. Cole, could you elaborate. Are you saying that they are "little bit less likely to be" harassed because of the supposed 'respect' accorded to women in hijab in conservative societies?
Or that covering up empirically makes harassment less likely in general?
Atrocities by Taliban against Ahmadis
Whenever the question of separating religion from State in Pakistan comes up, the 'vision' of Muhammad Ali Jinnah as stated in his Constituent Assembly Speech (August 11, 1947) is put forth in support of the Separation - "You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State."
The fact that Pakistan has gone in the exact opposite direction since that statement shows us the futility and dishonesty that lies behind Jinnah's vision.
For a decade prior to the Partition of India, the Muslim League, headed by M.A. Jinnah advocated a separate state for Muslims based on the Two-Nation Theory - "that Muslims and Hindus were two separate nations by every definition..."
They lost the 1937 provincial elections to the Indian National Congress, even in areas reserved for Muslims. The League subsequently shifted their communalism into high gear leading to the Partition of India which killed a million people, marking the largest transfer of population in history.
It was this destruction that accompanied the creation of Pakistan. Why? Because Hindus and Muslims are TWO SEPARATE NATIONS. For this man to then say that the State will not have nothing to do with the religion of its citizens makes little sense, except if it was a form of repentance for his follies that killed a million, or plain wishful thinking.
Hence, this statement made by Jinnah is a response to the folly of his original vision (that of two nations), rather than an expression of any vision of a secular state.
Thank you for the post, Prof. Cole.
Also worth mentioning is that Pakistan's only (in fact, the Muslim world's only) Nobel prize winner was an Ahmadi - Prof. Abdus Salam.
link to thepersecution.org