Emergency in Pakistan

by doremi Sat 03 Nov 2007, 14:13

Mushy has imposed emergency. The army has taken over the SC and removed the Chief Justice.

by JGK Sat 03 Nov 2007, 14:32

What has triggered this (other than the fact that Pak is ruled by a despot)?

by doremi Sat 03 Nov 2007, 14:35

The SC was probably becoming too much of a pain in Mushy's behind. All the 'anti-govt.' judges have apparently been removed and all the others are to again take their oaths.

by The One Sat 03 Nov 2007, 14:42

an 8 judge supreme court bench finally passed a ruling that a current army general cannot stand for the post of president as well. as soon as the order was passed they were taken into custody and emergency imposed. all forms of communication blacked out in pakistan (tv, internet, phones) so we may not get much more info for a while

probably pakistan's inflection point this. will the public stand up or will the army crush the opposition as before?

by Basil Sat 03 Nov 2007, 15:29

I liked the bit on the Beeb website about Pakistan's constitution being suspended. It's news to me they still had a constitution!

by JB Sat 03 Nov 2007, 15:38

What does this mean for the people in Pakistan? What effects will it have on them?

by mynah Sat 03 Nov 2007, 16:29

Basil wrote:I liked the bit on the Beeb website about Pakistan's constitution being suspended. It's news to me they still had a constitution!

Governments like those are always at pains to point out that they have a constitution - much in the same way that "democratic republic" always means that you can vote, but only for the governing party).

by JGK Sun 04 Nov 2007, 01:24

It's not much of a constitution if it can be suspended.

by JKLever Sun 04 Nov 2007, 02:01

I'm sure the words of Condoleeeeeeza Rice were spoken through gritted teeth.

I'm sure the US is all for Mushy being in power. At least then they have a pro-US pakistani government in charge of the nukes

by noelene Sun 04 Nov 2007, 03:57

The US were far happier to have Benazir Bhutto as Pakistani leader.Mushy is not really pro US.He is a dangerous man.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-09-25-pakistan-memoir_x.htm

by *Buckaroo* Sun 04 Nov 2007, 06:14

JGK wrote:It's not much of a constitution if it can be suspended.

They change the constitution every year, that is one the reasons I call it cuckooland.

by *Buckaroo* Sun 04 Nov 2007, 06:19

noelene wrote:The US were far happier to have Benazir Bhutto as Pakistani leader.Mushy is not really pro US.He is a dangerous man.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-09-25-pakistan-memoir_x.htm

All of them are US puppets.

by noelene Sun 04 Nov 2007, 08:32

I would say by his actions he has stopped being a US puppet.

by *Buckaroo* Sun 04 Nov 2007, 13:30

that's the problem with your perception of US. By removing judiciary he has imposed martial law on that country. but due to US advice he has stopped short of calling it martial law and has cleverly termed it as emergency. This ain't no emergency, because in that there is no overthrow of the judiciary. This is clearly martial law.

US as usual is an expert in such semantics and aiding dictators and amputators all over the world. US knows how to present a politically correct face of its policy, or it tries its best to do so, and keep the population of western world in a cocoon surrounded by deceit.

US has been supporting musharraf from Day 1, infact his war at Kargil was a US managed on to spite at India after exploding the bombs. US needs musharraf to manage Afghanistan and control pakistan because it thinks that he is their man who can manage and control pakistan while the US has a go at Iran.

Iran is a majority shia country and Benazir Bhutto is a shia, US pushed her into Pakistan politics to manage the shia backlash in Pakistan once the attack on Iran is underway. Iran as you all know is the only Shia-majority country in the world and there is bound to be a reaction in Pakistan once Iran is attacked. Benazir Bhutto has been put in place by CFR to placate shias in pakistan (18-25% of population) and manage shia backlash once Iran is attacked.

The last thing the Neocon/CFR/Trilateral Commission/Bilderberg folks want is that the attack on Iran should go out of control. Benazir Bhutto is piece in moves to control the situation from escalating.

by *Buckaroo* Sun 04 Nov 2007, 15:35

1) last week The teleraph (of Calcutta) had a small picture with blurb
nearly 250 dead dolphins washed up the Iranian coast .

2) The intense lobbyin on the Nuke deal and finally Henry Kissinger lets the dog out by saying US needs India because of Indian Muslim population.

3) The pushing of Mushy by unkil (uncle sam) to accomodate BB to spin how GOTUS is promotin democracy.....

4) The WWIII by GW and the declaration of Iranian Guards as terrorist oraganization and the crooning of the Rep candidates to attack Iran...

etc etc

1) USN subs are usin new hih power low frequency communications gear and is known to cause Dolphins eardrums to break and die...

The dolphins on Iranian coast means USN is very active in those waters which was the same just before Saddam was attacked.

2) The intense lobbying and its success would have had impact on India's neutrality and also wide spread protests and India would plunged into a crisis of its own what better distraction for attacking Iran for stability in the region....

3) BB must have pledged to GW that she would hand over OBL and that would prove Mushy was indeed shielding OBL so the pre emptive Martial law.... or Mushy must have told with out martial law there is no way to control the fallout of Iranian attack.... so now GW picks up the phone and said atta boy and Mushy does what he does best.....

4) ALready CNN is busy spinning how pakistan is Nuke armed and India has fought 4 wars yada yada

by Forum Goat Sun 04 Nov 2007, 17:21

*Buckaroo* wrote: Iran as you all know is the only Shia-majority country in the world ...

As we all know? Not me!

at least 55% of Iraqis are Shi'ite.

Azerbaizan, the country bordering Iran, has shi'ite majority. So are Oman, Bahrain and Lebanon. In Lebanon Shi'ites are less than 50% of total population but they are the major muslim sect.

by Batman Sun 04 Nov 2007, 18:04

I can only see one way how this entire bang up in Pakistan ends.....With Mushraff's assasination. It is inevitable. And when that happens I can see USA stepping in directly this time.

I can imagine what the Pak team is going through here in India. Mentally they must be worried and longing to be back home with their families. Maybe India should seize this opportunity. Perhaps this might be their best chance for comprehensive series win like back in 2004.

by Basil Sun 04 Nov 2007, 18:09

Geoff Lawson picked a good time to base himself in Pakistan!

by Allan D Sun 04 Nov 2007, 21:24

Do the Bhuttos have shares in Sky News? It just seems to be one long party political on behalf of the PPP!

The choices in Pakistan seem to be invidious at the moment. They seem to be between a diminutive general who thinks he's Oliver Cromwell, a power-hungry woman who thinks she's the Muslim Indira Gandhi, a former cricket captain who thinks Al-Qaeda is a CIA plot and Osama Bin Laden and his chums.

Faced with that lot I think I'll stick with the pint-sized Oliver Cromwell.

by Josh Carney Sun 04 Nov 2007, 21:36

No surprises for me with what is going on in Pakistan. The kind of implosion that is going on there and the middle east in general has been predicted by various agencies like CIA almost two decades ago.

by Allan D Sun 04 Nov 2007, 21:52

CBI? :o Shurely shome mishtake? Didn't know the FTSE 500 had a view on Pakistani politics. Thought they were more interested in taper relief! Do you mean Old Moore's Almanac? Laughing

Also have another look at the map. I think you'll find that Pakistan is some way from the Middle East!

by Josh Carney Sun 04 Nov 2007, 21:58

Typo meant CIA, have edited it now.

In terms of the mid east reference, Iran is middle east and Pakistan has borders with Iran. So geographically they are pretty close.

However my reference was in the conext where Pakistan is heavily influenced by mid east developments given its religious loyalties and close relations with nations like Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

by Allan D Sun 04 Nov 2007, 22:24

Iran is a very large country but you have a point in that Pakistan's coast borders the Arabian Sea and at its southernmost point it is not far from Oman on the Arabian Peninsula.

Jinnah set up Pakistan to be, like Turkey after Kemal, a secular state with no established religion (although with the majority of the population obviously Muslim). What we are witnessing at the moment is the last throw of the dice in an effort to preserve Jinnah's ideal and prevent it becoming an islamist state along the lines of Iran.

Whether Pakistan is a democracy or not is really only a matter for the people of Pakistan. They have a history of military rulers and corrupt civilian ones, many of whom, like Bhutto Snr, loyally served the military when it suited them. However whether Pakistan becomes a fundamentalist islamic state or not is of vital importance to the West because of its posession of nuclear weapons.

Pakistan is one of three states that Al-Qaeda is itching to get its hands on due to this, the others being Egypt (where half the Arab population live) and Saudi Arabia (because of its oil revenues). I think the West in general and the US in particular would be making a grave mistake if they were to abandon Musharraf now in the name of "democracy" which could only serve the purposes of the islamists and their terrorist supporters.

Interesting to see what India does given that a fundamentalist or chaotic Pakistan poses the biggest danger to them.

by Josh Carney Sun 04 Nov 2007, 22:34

Pakistan's fate is enveloped in the same fundamental problem that is plaguing the middle east and even countries like Malaysia to an extent ie. What comes first the state or religion ? The fact that the majority of these populations believe that the ultimate answers are all in the Quran in this day and age makes this issue extremely difficult. Islam is kind of where Christianity was almost 10 centuries ago.

The nuclear aspect is a worry. The bigger issue here is the proliferation that will take place if Pakistan were to disintegrate given what happened with A Q Khan even in the past. I read in another article that there are contingency plans between the US, Israel and India to take out the current Pakistani nuclear arsenal if push comes to shove.

by Makaveli Sun 04 Nov 2007, 23:03

Religion has nothing to do with it, no matter what you want to believe the middle east are content with their system and why should they change? just because the west say whats good fo you and not? if they think being an Islamic state is best for them then so be it.

Iran made it clear they will disarm if the rest of the world does too, until every country in the world disarms any country in the world has the right to explore nuclear technology may it be for energy or weapons purposes.

The problem with Pakistan is we can't a get a decent leader they are all corrupt and it's a cycle, whoever comes in next will be as bad as the one before.

by Sponsored content

Emergency in Pakistan

Emergency in Pakistan

Re: Emergency in Pakistan

Re: Emergency in Pakistan

Re: Emergency in Pakistan

Re: Emergency in Pakistan

Re: Emergency in Pakistan

Re: Emergency in Pakistan

Re: Emergency in Pakistan

Re: Emergency in Pakistan

Re: Emergency in Pakistan

Re: Emergency in Pakistan

Re: Emergency in Pakistan

Re: Emergency in Pakistan

Re: Emergency in Pakistan

Re: Emergency in Pakistan

Re: Emergency in Pakistan

Re: Emergency in Pakistan

Re: Emergency in Pakistan

Re: Emergency in Pakistan

Re: Emergency in Pakistan

Re: Emergency in Pakistan

Re: Emergency in Pakistan

Re: Emergency in Pakistan

Re: Emergency in Pakistan

Re: Emergency in Pakistan

Re: Emergency in Pakistan