Beghairat pakistani ISI, army and govt released the murderer of two innocents

[emkhan]

AFAIK, it was not possible to PROVE oj was guilty. There is the presupposition in secular law (and Islamic law) that people are innocent until proved to be guilty.

In this case it was PROVED he was guilty. But Sharia law in this case FAILED, no justice was provided. It provided the loophole that Secular law would not have. Do you not see such an obvious difference between these cases?

it was made on gun point...

[faye]

or blackmail.

[khashayar]

Or it was a drama set up to fulfil something us mere mortals are unaware of.

It was obvious he was gonna be released. So why all the fake courts etc. Just a waste if time

Justice is only for the rich and powerful.

[Nokia_Apridy]

DA DROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON PA BREDUNU (HAMLU)

dasey OGAD topic cha na da jor kray............

awo na dasey khalku pa Leknaay krey dalka hu

da AWAY PANRAY SHERUNA HEM TApal shu zka chay

haga KHAWRA DA NAWAZ SHREF Zka khalku Sheruna walekal pkay......

awo zma KHAWRA DA PUKHTUNKHWA da SPERO WAZIRU

..............................


DAR KHAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[khushal]

AFAIK, it was not possible to PROVE oj was guilty. There is the presupposition in secular law (and Islamic law) that people are innocent until proved to be guilty.

In this case it was PROVED he was guilty. But Sharia law in this case FAILED, no justice was provided. It provided the loophole that Secular law would not have. Do you not see such an obvious difference between these cases?

Road,
First in secular law, there is a thing called presidential pardon, that means if you kill someone and are convicted of it, the president could pardon you and you are free.
Second, there is no true Sharia law in Pakistan, Justice is not equal to all citizens. In Pakistan you could bribie the police, the judge, the politicians, and even the military officers and get away with murder. This loophole you speak of is no loophole. The closest kin has the right to forgive the perp, but it is done usually when the killing was an accident. Compensation is usually discussed after the forgiveness has been granted and in most cases that I have witnessed, most people don't take the compensation funds because they don't want to feel as though they have sold justice for the victim.
In the case of OJ Simpson, the secular law failed in convicting OJ during criminal proceeding but it did not fail during civil proceeding. He still had to pay compensation to the kin of the victims. Even if the he was convicted of the double murders, he could have still been pardoned by the president thus making a well connected person above the law in secular societies.

But it is very important to know that a guilty verdict is very difficult in Sharia law, much more difficult than secular law.

[emkhan]

Or it was a drama set up to fulfil something us mere mortals are unaware of.

It was obvious he was gonna be released. So why all the fake courts etc. Just a waste if time

Justice is only for the rich and powerful.

true dear... it was all pre planned by some monsters

[roadrunner]

Or it was a drama set up to fulfil something us mere mortals are unaware of.

It was obvious he was gonna be released. So why all the fake courts etc. Just a waste if time

Justice is only for the rich and powerful.

They would have tried to release him under normal circumstances. However these were not normal circumstances. The whole of Pakistan knew about this case, and wanted justice. So what did they do? Looked at good old Sharia Law to find an excuse to help him escape justice.

Do you disagree that secular law would not have released him, but Sharia Law would?

[roadrunner]

Road,
First in secular law, there is a thing called presidential pardon, that means if you kill someone and are convicted of it, the president could pardon you and you are free.
Second, there is no true Sharia law in Pakistan, Justice is not equal to all citizens. In Pakistan you could bribie the police, the judge, the politicians, and even the military officers and get away with murder. This loophole you speak of is no loophole. The closest kin has the right to forgive the perp, but it is done usually when the killing was an accident. Compensation is usually discussed after the forgiveness has been granted and in most cases that I have witnessed, most people don't take the compensation funds because they don't want to feel as though they have sold justice for the victim.
In the case of OJ Simpson, the secular law failed in convicting OJ during criminal proceeding but it did not fail during civil proceeding. He still had to pay compensation to the kin of the victims. Even if the he was convicted of the double murders, he could have still been pardoned by the president thus making a well connected person above the law in secular societies.

But it is very important to know that a guilty verdict is very difficult in Sharia law, much more difficult than secular law.

You're ignoring the fact that he was found GUILTY.

Secular Law said he must be imprisoned. They could not use this.

Sharia Law said pay some money and he can go free. They used Sharia Law to get him off the hook, because Sharia Law allows a guilty man to go free.

Also the closest kin were greedy fools with no emotional attachment to the men. Ask his wife what she wanted, and I doubt she'd have pardoned them for 2 million dollars.

This is a simple point, that you are trying to justify with irrelevance.

Think.

[faye]

they did make that pretty damning claim against him first, so what do you think that was about?

[khushal]

You're ignoring the fact that he was found GUILTY.

Secular Law said he must be imprisoned. They could not use this.

Sharia Law said pay some money and he can go free. They used Sharia Law to get him off the hook, because Sharia Law allows a guilty man to go free.

Also the closest kin were greedy fools with no emotional attachment to the men. Ask his wife what she wanted, and I doubt she'd have pardoned them for 2 million dollars.

This is a simple point, that you are trying to justify with irrelevance.

Think.

Your under the impression that this whole court circus was real and you believe Pakistan has a real justice system. let us know when you step into reality.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

AFAIK, it was not possible to PROVE oj was guilty. There is the presupposition in secular law (and Islamic law) that people are innocent until proved to be guilty.

In this case it was PROVED he was guilty. But Sharia law in this case FAILED, no justice was provided. It provided the loophole that Secular law would not have. Do you not see such an obvious difference between these cases?

Wrong, more uninformed suppositions that appear to plague your work in general because you bring your own agenda to the table (trust me it shows glaringly).

Take the case of Mr Paul Bernard, a situation that mirrored OJ’s and caused ripples through the Midwest per its divergent outcome. Mr Bernard was a brilliant midlevel engineer who had neither DNA nor any other evidence except circumstantial evidence at best linking him to the murder of his wife. It appears that OJ jumped through a major loophole that Mr. Bernard, a midlevel engineer could not exploit; rather, Mr. Bernard’s loophole became a noose. That loophole appears to be widened by money. If you can afford Mr. Kardashian, Mr. Shapiro, or Mr. Boies, you can perhaps widen that loophole enough to jump through scott free.

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local...bernard-appeal

Moreover, where was Mr. Willingham’s innocence before guilt? Oh, because that concept you touch on, you know the one about innocence before guilt… it didn’t exist for him in Texas.

Finally, you err when you attempt to say that Shariah supposes guilt before innocence. Why then the four witnesses? Why then the ability swear oaths to deliver one’s self from peril? Why then did Aishah, mother of the believers herself have the chance to defend herself to her husband? One ought to be proud that Cameron Scott Willingham might have been spared under shariah even if Davis

Mr. Davis’s fate is the obvious outcome of the inner dealings of two nation states that worked out a backroom deal. This is blatantly clear from the suicide of the wife of the killed. Family members noted that she completely grasped that no justice would come her way. It took Amy Davidson of the New Yorker to speak out on her behalf. The conclusion was foregone. No details are given as to which blood relatives accepted the deal, where the money went, and how this whole thing was brokered.

In fact, you look completely assinine considering that the Obama administration (paragon of that secular virtue you tout) so much as admitted Mr. Davis’s guilt and actually vied for diplomatic immunity. What bigger loophole against justice is there than that? And they attempted to the very last to exploit it.

[kakargirl]

Wrong, more uninformed suppositions that appear to plague your work in general because you bring your own agenda to the table (trust me it shows glaringly).

Take the case of Mr Paul Bernard, a situation that mirrored OJ’s and caused ripples through the Midwest per its divergent outcome. Mr Bernard was a brilliant midlevel engineer who had neither DNA nor any other evidence except circumstantial evidence at best linking him to the murder of his wife. It appears that OJ jumped through a major loophole that Mr. Bernard, a midlevel engineer could not exploit; rather, Mr. Bernard’s loophole became a noose. That loophole appears to be widened by money. If you can afford Mr. Kardashian, Mr. Shapiro, or Mr. Boies, you can perhaps widen that loophole enough to jump through scott free.

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local...bernard-appeal

Moreover, where was Mr. Willingham’s innocence before guilt? Oh, because that concept you touch on, you know the one about innocence before guilt… it didn’t exist for him in Texas.

Finally, you err when you attempt to say that Shariah supposes guilt before innocence. Why then the four witnesses? Why then the ability swear oaths to deliver one’s self from peril? Why then did Aishah, mother of the believers herself have the chance to defend herself to her husband? One ought to be proud that Cameron Scott Willingham might have been spared under shariah even if Davis

Mr. Davis’s fate is the obvious outcome of the inner dealings of two nation states that worked out a backroom deal. This is blatantly clear from the suicide of the wife of the killed. Family members noted that she completely grasped that no justice would come her way. It took Amy Davidson of the New Yorker to speak out on her behalf. The conclusion was foregone. No details are given as to which blood relatives accepted the deal, where the money went, and how this whole thing was brokered.

In fact, you look completely assinine considering that the Obama administration (paragon of that secular virtue you tout) so much as admitted Mr. Davis’s guilt and actually vied for diplomatic immunity. What bigger loophole against justice is there than that? And they attempted to the very last to exploit it.

excellent post by my wror .

[laevanay]

Blame the Sharia law that you support in Pakistan. It allowed it.

Exactly!!!! But again it does not suit the political point of view of some so even a religous, Allah given right is being objected to.... they declare the wife who commited a sin in killing herself a hero and have sympathy for her....

The real question is why were these boys chasing him.. or did he just snap and start shooting at people and only these guys got hit?

Don't waste your breath here......

[KhalsaWarrior]

The simple fact of the matter is that laws can be bended. Sharia or secular, their implementation can differ if the right kind of 'pressure' is exerted. Given the fact that the US has so much influence in Pakistan, it was able to exert the pressure required to free their man. This was totally expected. All those who thought that a US citizen can be convicted or be kept in prison for long in Pakistan were being naive.

When a country's envoy can threaten you to "bomb you back to stone-age", how hard would it be to free one guy?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Exactly!!!! But again it does not suit the political point of view of some so even a religous, Allah given right is being objected to.... they declare the wife who commited a sin in killing herself a hero and have sympathy for her....

The real question is why were these boys chasing him.. or did he just snap and start shooting at people and only these guys got hit?

Don't waste your breath here......

You are a sick example of a human being, so blinded by hate of those that you consider enemies that you forget your humanity. You expose an obvious agenda.

1. They were shot in the back and MULTIPLE times.
2. One man was run over by a chaser vehicle and he had nothing to do with the incident.
3. Mercenaries have a history of shooting first and asking questions second: see Fallujah.
4. No one applauded the wife's suicide. Everyone though, empathizes with her grief and what must have been an absolute understanding that her whole world collapsed around her when her husband was murdered.


Where your idiotic inference to prove true and where he to feel that he somehow had to shoot a cyclist in the back 5 times in self defense... a trial deserved to be had.

Quit blaming religion for your sick agenda. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, mocking a dead woman with no recourse to justice.

Just as no one would ever say that what Muhamad Bouzouzi of Tunisia did a great deed by committing suicide and burning himself to death in Tunisia (thus sparking the revolution there)... everyone with a sense of decency, even an imperialist understood what drove him to to so.

Its sad that one of our own is such a sell out that he is willing to explain away murder.