It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Pakistan 'may declare emergency' UPDATE: Musharraf rejects emergency rule

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 11:05 AM
@ crisko and deadelus: like i said my info is a bit dated. ive been out of the game since 02 and have almost intentionally not kept up with anything to do with that particular field anymore. LOL and considering the source of my information at the time, to find they were wrong or understating the threat wouldnt suprise me in the least.

@others: i dont see bush extending his presidency at any time, i cant think of any constitutional grounds that would let him and if its not in the constitution i dont believe for a second that the mililtary would back him. i think they want him gone as much as anyone else

also reading on it seems that pakistan wont be enabling any martial laws anytime soon either.

so maybe the light at the end of the tunnel really is daylight not a freight train

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 11:08 AM

Originally posted by shots get my drift I am sure.

I do.

I read the story last night on the BBC when I posted this. Today's story (courtesy of the same link!) is quite different.

I really hate that the "historical record" of news stories is so malleable in this digital age. Soon we will be unable to prove anything happened the way it did.

Makes Winston's job at the Ministry of Truth pale in comparison.

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:04 PM
Well now, it seems that I've learned something new today. Seems that I've used a word incorrectly. P-a-k-i, as I've heard it is a short hand slang for Pakistanis. As I am told, its a negative term to them. I've never heard that before, which is interesting to me since I've heard that word used on television news. I am now suitably enlightened, and I apologize to anyone whom I untentionally offended.

I have nothing against Pakistanis, and I'm pretty sure they are as serious about heir government as we are about ours.

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:12 PM

Originally posted by BostonOrange
I bet India has its trigger finger ready on its nukes, just in case the islamist take over.

That would be the most likely scenario, perhaps some intervention from the U.S. only in the aspect of supporting India. I think it might actually help Pakistan's people if they got nuked.

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:14 PM

Originally posted by laiguana
I think it might actually help Pakistan's people if they got nuked.

Care to explain because it looks like either you are a very sick person, or you meant to type something else.

[edit on 8/9/2007 by Gools]

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Well now, it seems that I've learned something new today. Seems that I've used a word incorrectly.

I was not aware of that either. However a quick search of google shows the term 'paki' is racist except when pakistanis call themselves it ... Must be like the N word is to African Americans I guess

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:33 PM
I think you wil run in to this kind of problem no matter what language you speak. English speakers often resort to many short forms that turn out to have alternative meanings in other languages. When we bump in to stuff like this, we should learn from it and move on. Mine was an honest mistake, and I'll admit to it. I've made my apologies, and I'll move on. If a mod wantsto edit my post, that's okay too. Live and learn, man. Live and learn.

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
If a mod ... edit my post, ...


For the record (I remember the term being thrown around quite liberally when I was a kid) I think the term was not originally derogatory but became so because of overuse in certain negative contexts.

I mean, how do you refer to the people from Pakistan in short form? It's like Canadians taking offence at the term Canuck or Americans taking offence at "Yanks".

Oh well...


[edit on 8/9/2007 by Gools]

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 01:56 PM
G.W.Bush today:
"Pakistan needs to hold an open election like the military government has promised"

Is he really that stupid, or is he attepting to get a reason to bomb Pakistan into stone age...

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 02:02 PM
ilove it that bush says that they should have a free election just like the palestines did
then he has an excuse to bomb/invade etc.. when the militants take over

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 03:55 PM

Originally posted by northwolf
G.W.Bush today:
"Pakistan needs to hold an open election like the military government has promised"

Is he really that stupid, or is he attepting to get a reason to bomb Pakistan into stone age...

No he is simply saying Pakistan should have a decent democratic society. Bush has no intentions to bomb Pakistan; just the terrorists on the western border.

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:25 PM

The Vagabond

Pakistan is in some long-term trouble without a revolution, unless they can never miss a beat on the management of their economy and can do something to restore a bit of professionalism in their military.

And in addition to this, JO stated that they (Pakistan citizens) probably care about their country as much as we do'.
So, lets put 2 and 2 together. I know this is a thread about Pakistans' emergency, but isn't it a bit similar to current American politics. I believe, the United States is in long term trouble if WE dont have a revolution.

Honestly, Good for them! I'm not trying to be a jerk, but at least the 'citizens', whether extremists or terrirorist (I know not) of Pakistan are concerned enough to begin fighting for what they, as a country, believe in.

What about Americans? All we do is talk talk talk about how awful the war is, and our stripped rights. We live in a country that is suppossed to allow us the option of getting rid of 'corruption' in government. We dont (suppossedly) need to be hostile to overthrow our current system, and yet I hear no news about any of 'us' concerned citizens trying to fight for what is right.

Sorry guys, I'm just frustrated. We need to fix ourselves (America, that is) before we can even attempt to figure out what needs/can be done anywhere else!

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:38 PM
This looks like a trial balloon to me, and it looks like that balloon didn't get very far off the ground.

As for some of the scenarios that have come up- I think that Pakistan's nukes being taken in a timely manner would be unlikely.

With any luck at all we would get a jump start on the whole thing. The only way we wouldn't is if the military undertook a coup and went completely off the charts whacko- making it their very first move to transfer their warheads to alternate locations or attempted to sell or trade a few immediately in exchange for a defensive pact against US intervention.

Otherwise, we'd have a pretty good chance of stepping up aerial surveillance, launching a couple of air strikes, and if need be inserting special forces to conduct ambushes of any attempt to move the weapons.

As for OBL- I really doubt that America has any interest in catching him. It depends on which of Bush's conflicting statements you believe was the truth, but I think actions speak louder than words. Sending a bunch of notoriously unreliable hired guns after him at Tora Bora speaks pretty clearly to me.

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 05:09 PM
The Pakistanis have one thing going for them in this 'crisis.' the majority of them are of one mind. We obviously don't agree with their take on things, but they are not a fragmented populace at risk of sinking in to civil war.

In regards to General Musharraf, he may be looking for ways to "ignore" American SF penetration in to northwestern pakistan. It's that whole deniability thing. I'd hate to be the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan just now.

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 05:25 PM
Musharraf is doing the prudent not putting on the 'iron glove' to rule.

public opinion will give the man some wiggle room, perhaps to go in exile,
but the world 'knows' his days are numbered.

because Pakistan is a nuclear power, a whole lotta brain power addressing all the possible scenarios which may play out are being think-tanked by
administration strategists...
we'be been distracted by the enrichment centrifuges that Iran claims are for the peaceful generation of electicity plants...
which our administration counter-claims is actually for a second possessor of a "Islamic Nuclear Bomb" state.

A 'potential' nuclear Islamic state (as in Iran)
is not as serious problem as a Adversarial Islamic state!
with nuclear bombs and a means to deliver them
(as in a radicalized Pakistan ...whether Musharraf remains...
or changes his pursuasion & willingness to act as a U.S. client state)

in any event there's a showdown coming as sure as the sun rises

[edit on 9-8-2007 by St Udio]

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 06:46 PM
I would have to agree with everything you've said St Udio. Although the part about 'think tanked by administrative specialists' gave me a bit of a chuckle. Unfortunately, seems like a bit of an Oxymoron.

Spot on with the rest.

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:23 PM

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Sooo...UBL is still alive?
Can you be so sure?

It doesn't matter if he's alive or dead. Do you think if OBL was declared dead that terrorism would stop? No. The longer we stay in the Middle East, the more support the terrorists are going to get from other rich families that decide they no longer like the United States.

OBL is nothing more than a poster child for terrorism at this point. He probably doesn't even have control over al-Qaeda anymore.

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 08:13 PM

Originally posted by ka0s69
Again our little ol Country gets the call in time of need!
See the problem is convincing people that this is a time of need.. Alot of people are so ignorant to whats happening in the world.

Indeed NZ has always come to the party when it counts the most. It is nice to see that I am not the only one flying the flag around here.

I was discussing our local news broadcasts with my flatmate tonight saying how appauling our coverage on international issues such as this are..

I couldn't agree more I tend to avoid the 6 o'clock news on TV1 and TV3 because I don't want to hear about fashion week and NZ music month. Issues like the one above make ATS all that more valuable.

New Zealand has played it's cards very carefully in the way of stepping into affairs of the world because as everyone can now see its all just a big bowl of spaghetti.

I don't agree with NZ nuclear free policy but I am in the minority. But otherwise I am happy that NZ stayed out of that sideshow in Iraq.

I agree with you though. I think New Zealand, Australia Spain Europe and everyone needs to realize that if we lose Pakistan to extremist Islamic control, its gone past the point of untangling the mess...

IMO once the Islamic nut jobs take over Pakistan it will to late to act.
Unless some House cleaning is done in Pakistan things are only going to get a lot worse in the region.

It's a wierd predicament though. Would we get involved? In a pointless war where no one is sure who the bad guy is anymore? It's hard for anyone to say. Makes me think NZ's election next year could be kinda important

Well coalition military action in Pakistan would hardly be pointless denying the enemy a haven in the region would make his/her operations in Afghanistan more difficult. It wouldn't hurt if more pressure was put on the Islamic nut jobs in Pakistan. Given that the War in Afghanistan enjoys wide bi partisan support I could see NZ joining military action in Pakistan under the right circumstances.

Its about time the NZSAS returned to combat operations in the region.

posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 02:18 AM
In the confusion, one of the key questions being asked was what role Washington played in the whole episode. Condoleeza Rice spoke with Pres Musharraf a few hours after rumors spread that emergency was to be declared. Was this the reason for backtracking from this option especially as the threat of US ‘aggression’ was being used to justify the measure?

US ‘aggression’ is what the Pakistanis think, as the former have threatened to raid and destroy militant hideouts within Pakistani territory without reference. Add to this the adverse situation in Pakistan’s North Western tribal areas, the deleterious affects of storming the Lal Masjid and the country-wide agitation against Musharraf for the reinstatement of the Chief Justice who had summarily been sacked by him. In other words Pakistan is in turmoil.

But the moot question is, was all this orchestrated by Musharraf as a raison d’etre for clamping emergency so that he could continue in power whilst in uniform? I think this is a huge conspiracy if ever there was one!

[edit on 10-8-2007 by mikesingh]

posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 03:22 AM
I doubt that any threat of military action hung over Musharraf for two reasons. The first reason is the current crop of western political leaders either don't have the brains or the courage and commitment to expand the war into Pakistan. The second reason is the resources required aren't available or wont be made available. Only five countries have committed there troops to a combat role in Afghanistan the rest of the coalition including NZ presence is limited to a reconstruction role.

There is a vast difference between the need to take military action in Pakistan and such an event actually taking place.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in