Pakistan set to declare state of emergency

Pakistan set to declare state of emergency

www.timesonline.co.uk

President Musharraf could declare a state of emergency in Pakistan amid growing civil unrest against his increasingly embattled regime.

Security forces were placed on high alert yesterday, detaining hundreds of activists on the eve of an anti-government rally in Karachi. Rival demonstrations are planned by supporters of General Musharraf, raising fears of violent clashes in the southern port city today.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Could there be an end to the military dictatorship of Pakistan? It would be great, but I don't expect much support for the protesters from the US leadership because of the key player Musharraf was for the war on terror. Musharraf was more against US war on terror policies lately, maybe the CIA would want to do another assassination so they can have a new puppet supporting them... we'll soon see, hopefully the moderate people of Pakistan will take control.

Pakistan is just what Iraq was in the 80s and it seems that now the pakistanis are tired of it and the support from abroad by the fascists-in-chief (UK-US leaders)

www.timesonline.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 12-5-2007 by Vitchilo]

Some updates:
Pakistan's president urges calm

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has appealed for calm after 34 people died in the country's worst political violence in years.

Tension and violence rock Karachi

In pictures: Karachi protests

Good, the people seems to be angry enough, but saddly a victory over this regime won't be without death, already 34 people dead. Like someone said, At great victory comes great sacrifice... or something like that. But is all this a real revolution or just a little confrontation? Anyone from Pakistan or having friends there?

If at least a part of the army would turn against the government... that's why a good portion of the US army needs to know that they protect the people, not the government.

Anyway it's quite dangerous because Pakistan have nukes, so if things turn bad and extremists take control... Israël will not like it, nor India. I bet India mobilized troops just in case. I'm sure the Pentagon is looking at this too.

[edit on 12-5-2007 by Vitchilo]

Well... I'm more worried that someone might be able to smuggle a nuke out, if it gets to out of hand and there are riots and/or worse a coup d'état. After all, they are a nuclear country and who knows who would be tempted to grab one. I'm sure they are all pretty locked down, but who knows.

These riots seems to be related to the sacking of a judge, which in turn is said to be related to the Gwadar port project (a post by makeitso). Musharraf seems to be in trouble now. I wonder if he'll get any help from the Chinese...


Here's BBC's article about the clashes yesterday:
BBC: Violent clashes hit Pakistan city


And here's a picture from the riots in March. Lawyers vs. Police...

Photo: AP

Yeah but the judge is apparently seen as the sign of democracy among the Pakistan population. That's why there was an uprising.

28 killed, more than 100 wounded.

[edit on 13-5-2007 by Vitchilo]

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Could there be an end to the military dictatorship of Pakistan? It would be great

It would be anything but great.
Remember, lots of Alqaeda are in Pakistan now.
Pakistan have a good army, and a few bombs... its better to have its current leader because he's atleast on something as the same page as the west is.

if he is overthrown, it will only be for the worse, especially when the new militaristic leader has the bomb at his disposal.

Remember, lots of Alqaeda are in Pakistan now.

Yeah right. We should now look at history and who created those cells of extremists... anyway that's not the important point.

Pakistan have a good army, and a few bombs... its better to have its current leader because he's at least on something as the same page as the west is.

Maybe but he's a dictator, like Saddam was. Pakistan wouldn't do anything stupid, even if ``Al-Qaeda`` would come in charge. India is there keeping them in line, India is much more powerful than Pakistan and would crush them in a conventionnal war and even in a nuclear war even if it would be very deadly. If the US could have a great president to help real democratic rebellions things like that wouldn't happen.

Pakistan isn't full of extremists, the majority there is most likely good people, just like in Iran or Iraq. But each time the ``good countries`` cheated them and put dictatorships there, they felt betrayed. To solve leadership problems in the middle-east, the US needs to regain his image and help real democratic movements.

Anyway it doesn't matter because everything is complicated in this region due to religion and decades of bad foreign policy based on pro-west-pro-east BS. But I understand that your point about it's bad, but it could be worse mantra, just like the whole Saddam/Iraq thing.

[edit on 13-5-2007 by Vitchilo]

Ok Alqaeda probably wasnt the best word to use there,
But a lot of anti-western sentiment comes from Pakistan, mainly with their tribal regions close to afghanistan.

And your right, the whole country isnt, no country is..
but this leader has been the target of numerous assasination attempts, they have a large following mainly militants from the tribal area's, some from afghan.. some who are government moles...

Again, the current leader mightnt be the best, but he's by far not the worst. and should anything happen to his leadership and power, Pakistan will fall the same way Iraq has...

Its like we created a domino affect, instead of 'western' democracy spreading as a result of Iraq... 'legitimate' democracy has spread.
the type of democracy where the PEOPLE are the ones who decide...

Update:

Death Toll From Pakistani Violence Now 39

www.cbsnews.com

AP) The crisis triggered by the ouster of Pakistan's top judge took an ominous and bloody ethnic turn Sunday, as the death toll from a weekend of street warfare rose to 39 and turned its volatile business capital into a city under siege.

Funeral processions were accompanied by more gunbattles and arson, and at least two people died in clashes between traditional rivals in Karachi — Pashtuns and Urdu-speakers linked to a party that backs President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Interesting but not unavoidable, after all the government in Pakistan was not a supported stronger government that it may appears to be.

It was a government by force.

Funny that I always said that Israel should be more frightened of Pakistan than Iran, after all if the Pakistani government falls and an Al-qaida favored one should take hold of the nation, lets all remember that Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

I wonder what should the UN or the US will do in an event of the Pakistan government falling.

I started a much ignored thread on this subject back in March...

www.belowtopsecret.com...

... and its subject matter is still important... what happens if Pakistan and its nukes fall into the hands of anti-American, pro-Taliban/Al Qeada forces in the Pakistani military and secret police... it is not only possible it is likely.

Originally posted by grover
what happens if Pakistan and its nukes fall into the hands of anti-American, pro-Taliban/Al Qeada forces in the Pakistani military and secret police...

Worst case scenario Al Qaeda obtains nukes, uses them on US forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and on civilian targets in Israel, UK and/or USA.

Pakistan has a history of overthrown leaders/regimes, not unexpected or new. The current leader if I am not mistaken took over following a coup.

Pakistan has already shared nuclear technologies with both Iran and North Korea, at least their lead nuclear scientist (Kahn) is accused of doing it. Ironic that the US has allied itself with Pakistan, when they could have been aiding the "axis of evil".

Part of the reason the United States is so disliked in Pakistan is the fact that a great many of those coups that you mentioned UM Gazz, were U.S. led (or backed) coups against dually elected governments who were viewed (by the U.S.) at the time as more Soviet friendly (or socialist) than the ones we backed. it was important because at the time India was a big Soviet ally (or seen that way) in the area and we didn't want any more.

The irony of the so-called war on (some) terror is that its roots can be traced directly back to U.S. policy during the cold war. Iran being the #1 case in point... in 1953 the people of Iran overthrew the much hated Shah and established a republic. Think the U.S. would be happy? No... the new Prime Minister was seen as a socialist (the truth is open to debate) so we went in with the C.I.A. and overthrew this new and dually elected government and re-established the Shah and kept him in power with a heavy hand for another 25 years until the Islamic Revolution overthrew him and as they say, the rest is history.

Much of the hatred of the U.S. (government and policy, not its people a distinction rarely made here in the U.S. but is often made overseas) in the Middle-East and Asia is rooted in exactly the same type of behavior on our part which did little more for us in the long run than to highlight the disconnect between our rhetoric and our foreign policies.

We know how will go in Pakistan with the uprising, the are the "insurgents" backed by "Al-qeada terrorist" and the Pakistani "government" has the right to kill and arrest any of them.

The game played in the minds of the "American Patriots" to look at Pakistan political problems as a product of "the evil terrorist and Iran meddling" with the stability that US liberation is trying so hard to bring in that region.

If anti-government forces can cause enough turmoil to allow just One nuclear device to "escape" the country (most likely by sea), I think the likliest (and most strategically valuable) target would be the Israeli port of Hiafa.

A bomb at sea would be very difficult to detct and could be made virtually impossible to detect by additional sheilding; sheilding to levels not possible by land or air transport due to increased weight. Flying a Pakistani flag, Pakistan being recognized as an ally of the US, a freighter with a "secret" cargo might make it past enough port security to destroy or contaminate Israel's largest port.

Her economy crippled, surrounded by potentially hostile neighbors, Israel would be in a nasty situation.

Could she count on the US to help, economically/militarily?

Or would the US see this as an opportunity to "cut its losses" vis-avis Israel; and a chance to re-align itself with the burgeoning Islamic powers of the region, in return for continuiung access to the diminishing oil resources the US needs to maintain its economy, and thus is "World Super-Power" status?

Originally posted by grover
I started a much ignored thread on this subject back in March...

www.belowtopsecret.com...

... and its subject matter is still important... what happens if Pakistan and its nukes fall into the hands of anti-American, pro-Taliban/Al Qeada forces in the Pakistani military and secret police... it is not only possible it is likely.

pakistan need MILITARY musharaff ...to keep them barbarians in check...

...they cant tolerate democracy....

HISTORY PROVES THEY CANT TOLERATE...

EVERYTIME DEMOCRACY OCCURRED...THEY BURNED ALL THE BUILDINGS..


they were rampaging ...OUT OF CONTROL.....burning the cities...

.
SOLDIERS HAD TO TAKE OVER TO STOP THEM BURNING EVEN THEIR OWN HOMES!

.muslins hate democracy..they want to behead any people who disagree...

remember muslins want to go back to the caves and drag us hard working western people to backward times too...

BUT please I DONT WANT TO go back to caves....i cant stand the damp darkness...

they pakistanys are a very dangerous race...

WE MUST ASK PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH TO MUST SEND SOLDIERS TO REINFORCE THE ARMY TO STOP THE CHOAS AND MASS MURDER THEY COULD INFLICT ON WESTERN PEOPLE.

esecallum

Humm, you are been sarcastic, right

I can not make sense of the post, but I can laugh at it.

Originally posted by marg6043
esecallum

Humm, you are been sarcastic, right

I can not make sense of the post, but I can laugh at it.

LOOK I AM SERIOUS.THEY ARE A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER WITH 25 NUKES SAYS THE C.I.A.

I'm very uneasy about the American alliance with Pakistan. Their using you and maintaining a compliant veneer as possible. The administration is funneling billions of dollars into the region where the most rabid anti Americanism seethes. Not just anti-Americanism. There's a shocking cultural trend to regard women in an Ancient Aristotelian light, as the mass and the male is the form. Meaning, female is not even endowed with the grace of spirit - that is something only the father passes onto the child. Olenka Frenkial has done an investigative article on the state of women in Purdah, and Pakistan reveals a disturbing trend. Especially given the close alliance. One man who shot his wife in the back while she worked the field, went to extract a ransom for his life, from the man he suspected his wife had slept with. The man having no money or property, gave him his sister. When asked about his actions, the husband said -

'Look', he said, 'If a rat falls in the well, would you drink the water?'
www.rationalist.com.au...

It's not just farmers and illiterate goat herders, the people in power also have the same views. Now accompanied by an increasingly atypical ancient Aristotelian divide between spirit and matter. Effectively making half of the population cattle, troublesome cattle. The bad ones a cancer to be cut out and the murderer's rewarded for the effort. You'd think all that money might have had a different effect. The Generals and the Warlords aren't impressed with Musharaff's reforms. Each blaming the other for corruption when they're both receiving the benefits of American tax payers labor.

What I wonder is who benefits from encouraging the degradation of half the population to the status of cattle.