Jump to content


Photo

Pakistans Days of Instability.


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 07 November 2007 - 05:11 PM

so Musharraf finally declared martial law. it might have made more sense if he actually did something against the people that we in the west think of as terrorists. instead he is imprisoning political adversaries and disabling communication networks... not the kind of effects that you expect to hamper people that blow themselves up.

Last rash act of a power loving general

Musharraf said that he brought in emergency rule because of terrorism, but this is nonsense. True, there has been a suicide attack almost every day for weeks, and militants have moved into the previously peaceful Swat valley in the North West Frontier Province.




But his unmistakeable target was the judges and courts. Why else would he send soldiers to seal off the Supreme Court while it was sitting and the houses of the Chief Justice and other key lawyers, as well as those of the heads of the main political parties and the state broadcasting and radio stations? The Supreme Court was due to rule this week on whether Musharraf's reelection last month was legitimate, while he remained head of the Army. The ruling may well have gone against him; when he preempted that decision this weekend, seven of the eleven justices refused to back him, on penalty of being sacked.


Benazir Bhutto threatens demonstrations as police use teargas on lawyers

naturally the big question for us in the west is: what is worse? a Pakistan with Musharraf, or one without? if he stays in power and starts making sure that he is able to do so for a long time, more and more people will turn towards extremism. in the end there might only be radical politicians to take over the power-vacuum of Musharraf, and we got a new state hostile to most of the western ideology. if he steps down, we will see alot of instability for the next few years, but at least there is a bigger chance of a positive outcome in the end.


Bin Laden declares war on President Musharraf


the extremists in Pakistan have one agenda at the moment, to make it look like Musharraf is their enemy, thus making the west believe that Musharraf is the enemy of their enemies. this would cause the western world to support him into a downward spiral which will bring Pakistan into a hell close to the one we are seeing in Iraq. lets hope that people are bright enough to see that this guy has no support among the people, and should be exchanged for someone who does.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#2 narboza22

narboza22

    Q6600 :)

  • Hosted
  • 357 posts
  • Location:United States
  • Projects:Tactical Warfare
  •  US supporter to the end

Posted 07 November 2007 - 08:36 PM

Musharraf may have been wrong by doing this, but consider the possible alternative of a nuclear armed extremist government. I'm not saying that either choice is better, but its certainly something to think about.
Posted Image

#3 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 07 November 2007 - 09:38 PM

but as mentioned above, he has not done alot against the islamist extremists. he has gone against the court and judges, which after what i know does not support fanatism anymore than we do.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#4 narboza22

narboza22

    Q6600 :)

  • Hosted
  • 357 posts
  • Location:United States
  • Projects:Tactical Warfare
  •  US supporter to the end

Posted 07 November 2007 - 11:53 PM

He still controls the nuclear arsenal though, and with free election, the world runs the risk of an extremist party winning and gaining control of those weapons.
Posted Image

#5 CodeCat

CodeCat

    Half fox, half cat, and all insanity!

  • Members
  • 3,768 posts
  •  Fighting for equality of all species

Posted 08 November 2007 - 12:08 AM

But if such a party wins democratically, why is there a problem? Democracy is the best system, right?
CodeCat

Posted Image
Posted Image

#6 narboza22

narboza22

    Q6600 :)

  • Hosted
  • 357 posts
  • Location:United States
  • Projects:Tactical Warfare
  •  US supporter to the end

Posted 08 November 2007 - 12:14 AM

Yes, it is the best system, but that doesn't change the fact that a nuclear armed extremist government would not be in the best interests of the rest of the world.
Posted Image

#7 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 08 November 2007 - 06:48 PM

"it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

democracy can easily be abused, sure, but it usually devolves from democracy into dictatorship then. as long as democracy can be upheld its better than dictatorship.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users