Musharraf imposes emergency rule -- a taste of things to come...?

QueenVee

Jedi
A taste of things to come in the U.S.?

It's interesting how the Bush administration likes to rant and rave about how "anti-democratic" a socialist leader like Chavez is, and consider themselves justified in intervereing in Venezuela's affairs, to the point of being directly involved in a military "overthrow" of that government. But here we have a leader who has imposed martial law in his country, "taken the entire nation hostage", simply because he is about to be booted from office -- and will the Bush administration take action in the name of "freedom" and "democracy"? Of course not, because Musharraf is one of "theirs"....


Musharraf Imposes Emergecy Rule
Sat., November 3, 2007, BBC News

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf has declared emergency rule and suspended the country's constitution.

Troops have been deployed inside state-run TV and radio stations, while independent channels have gone off air.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, who condemned the moves, has reportedly been sacked and is being confined to the Supreme Court with 10 other judges.

It comes as the court was due to rule on the legality of Gen Musharraf's re-election victory in October.

The Court was to decide whether Gen Musharraf was eligible to run for election last month while remaining army chief.

The BBC's Barbara Plett reports from Islamabad that fears have been growing in the government that the Supreme Court ruling could go against Gen Musharraf.

'Bhutto returning'

Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who recently returned to the country after years of self-exile to lead her party in the elections, was in Dubai on a personal visit when news of the declaration broke.

According to her husband Asif Ali Zardari she in now en route to Pakistan.

He described the emergency measure as "definitely not pleasant news", adding "We're hoping to build institutions, not destroy them".

Her recent return came about with the co-operation of Gen Musharraf.

Our correspondent says in the changed circumstances she will have to decide whether she is returning to lead the opposition against the president, or should wait on the sidelines in the hopes of securing an agreement with him.

Pakistan has been engulfed in political upheaval in recent months, and the security forces have suffered a series of blows from pro-Taleban militants opposed to Gen Musharraf's support for the US-led "war on terror".

Pakistan's Cabinet is currently meeting to approve Gen Musharraf's declaration of emergency rule. He is expected to address the nation later.

A leading lawyer and opposition figure, Aitzaz Ahsan, told reporters that he had been detained as the emergency powers were invoked.

"They have served me a detention order for 30 days," Mr Ahsan, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, was quoted by Reuters as saying.

"One man has taken entire nation hostage... Time has come for General Musharraf to go."

Parliamentary elections are due in January - it is not clear whether they will go ahead.
 
Yeah, it'll be interesting to see where this one goes. Musharraf is a little CIA-sponsored tin-pot dictator, very much like Bush. He was helped into power on the conditions that he play the US "war on terror" game and allow Pakistan to be a developing ground for phony Islamic terrorism. As with Bush, the problem (or not) now is that he has grown accustomed to being "the decider" and is not inclined to let go of power. Factions within the Pakistani military and political system had been attempting to nullify is election "win" last month with the supreme court set to rule that it was illegal (can't be president and a military man at the same time in Pakistan apparently, although that didn't stop General Musharraf taking power in a military coup in 1999).

Maybe the Western powers and Israeli are hoping to dispel the silly squeamishness over using nukes by having Musharraf fire the first salvo at India. It would, you understand, be a nice, "clean" way to tip things over the edge by pushing oil past the magically symbolic $100 a barrel, kick starting the flood of refugees attempting to cross borders, the famine, drought and widespread rioting that is expected to erupt across the world. All of this and more is what the Pentagon report on "climate change" of 2004 "foresaw", including the nuclear conflict. Now tell me, how did the Pentagon figure that one in to their predictions? Why would anyone think that in response to food and water shortages, countries would start firing nukes at each other?

The really funny, hilarious even, aspect to the Pentagon report on "climate change" is that all of it is presented as fate, no human hand involved. For sure "climate change" is no one's fault, but the same cannot be said for nuclear conflict, likewise food and water shortages.

You see, for the past few years the Bush government (for the most part) has been forcing American farmers to use an increasing percentage of their crop yield for "bio fuels" (20% of the maize crop last year for example). The reason that bio fuels are needed? Why the instability of oil supplies of course!

And the reason for that? Why, the war on terror of course!

And the reason for that? Why Osama of course!

And why did Osama get away with it for so long? Why (partly) because Musharraf refused to go after him of course!

And the reason for that? Why because the CIA told him not to of course!

Why? Because they wanted an excuse to wage a war on terror of course?

Why? Because they needed an excuse to make the Pentagon report on "climate change" come true!

It's called a self-fulfilling prophecy of decidedly monstrous proportions folks, and we are stuck in the middle of it.

Hope that makes you feel all nice and warm inside.

Joe

p.s. Some sources:

2004 Pentagon report:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1153513,00.html

Mainstream scientists begin to talk (today) about how the Pentagon report is becoming a reality

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/03/food.climatechange?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
 
Joe said:
...He was helped into power on the conditions that he play the US "war on terror" game and allow Pakistan to be a developing ground for phony Islamic terrorism....
It is not beyond the realm of imagination that "terrorist-extremist" situations are being seeded/nutured in various countries, resulting in governments being "forced" to adopt "emergency measures" (i.e. martial law), in order to:
(1) See how compliant the citizens in those countries will be, how willing they are to trade their freedoms for "security";
(2) To demonstrate to citizens in western countries how necessary (and effective) such extreme measures are when dealing with "terrorist-extremists";
(3) To gradually "desensitize" the western world (and Americans in particular) to the idea of martial law, to gradually create a sense that it is a quite "reasonable" way to protect citizens.

Musharraf has now delivered an address in which he defends and "justifies" his actions, which he claims were undertaken as a "last resort" only for the "benefit" and "protection" of the people of Pakistan (link). Which seems laughable, until you start to read the "readers' comments" posted on the BBC News website (link), and see that a scary number of people not only "understand" and "sympathize" with Musharraf, but actually support and praise his actions....
 
QueenVee said:
It is not beyond the realm of imagination that "terrorist-extremist" situations are being seeded/nutured in various countries, resulting in governments being "forced" to adopt "emergency measures" (i.e. martial law), in order to:
(1) See how compliant the citizens in those countries will be, how willing they are to trade their freedoms for "security";
(2) To demonstrate to citizens in western countries how necessary (and effective) such extreme measures are when dealing with "terrorist-extremists";
(3) To gradually "desensitize" the western world (and Americans in particular) to the idea of martial law, to gradually create a sense that it is a quite "reasonable" way to protect citizens.
That is, IMO, what they are planning. the "war on terror" was always just a means to an end.

QueenVee said:
Musharraf has now delivered an address in which he defends and "justifies" his actions, which he claims were undertaken as a "last resort" only for the "benefit" and "protection" of the people of Pakistan (link). Which seems laughable, until you start to read the "readers' comments" posted on the BBC News website (link), and see that a scary number of people not only "understand" and "sympathize" with Musharraf, but actually support and praise his actions....
Indeed. Let's hope at least some people can get it before it's too late, or at this stage, even after it's too late would be a surprise!

Joe
 
Back
Top Bottom