It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Is Pakistan State of Emergency related to impending attack on Iran?

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I could not find any news stories that spoke of this. I know that everyone is saying that Musharraf has declared a state of emergency because he wants to hold onto power, but what if he really is a puppet to the US and they wanted him to do this because they want a strong hold on Pakistan when we do attack Iran.

The other thought is that they planned on using the sales strategy that Pakistan already has nuclear weapons as an excuse to take over Pakistan tribal areas at the same time they hit Iran so they do not need to sell anymore wars as it seems you need some time between different wars to get your sales process going... Most people in Pakistan are not happy with Musharraf because they feel he is too friendly with Bush.. They are rather freindly....


Bush More Emphatic In Backing Musharraf
He Says Leader 'Believes in Democracy' President Bush yesterday offered his strongest support of embattled Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying the general "hasn't crossed the line" and "truly is somebody who believes in democracy."


www.washingtonpost.com...

Does Bush seems to be Empathatic to Musarraf because they are in cahoots with each other?

Also I did find some info on the US planned attack on Pakistan... Maybe Musharraf knows this is coming....


In the midst of public statements of support for “democracy” in Pakistan and the recent visit to Islamabad by the American envoy John Negroponte, Washington is quietly preparing for a stepped-up military intervention in the crisis-ridden country.


www.globalresearch.ca...

I think the Government knows that when we hit Iran all hell will break loose so that is why I started thinking about this.. Iran and Pakistan seem to be the most important targets dont you think...




posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 11:55 PM
link   
I think you're half-right. There's no question that there's a close relationship between Bush and Musharraf and in such a relation, Bush wears the pants. Our armed forces have conducted raids in Pakistani territory which were subsequently covered up because this of course is a violation of Pakistani sovereignty. I do not think Iran has anything directly to do with the state of emergency. Instead, I believe what is happening is that the troubles with al-Qaeda/Taliban in Afghanistan are spilling over into Pakistan, and although Musharraf is doing a poor job at beating back the terrorists, he doesn't think the other heir apparents to Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif can do a better job. I think therefore he's willing to do whatever it takes to stay in power indefinately.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:33 AM
link   
i honestly believe that the turmoil in pakistan is caused by america. i believe that somewhere down the line, pakistan failed to go 100% with america's agenda in the supposed "War on Terror." I believe this is why President Musharef(sp?) is on the way out or already out and this is why their government is suffering. America doesn't fight wars like wars used to be fought many decades ago. America enters a country and then destabilizes governments from within. this is what i believe what is happening in pakistan. iran is just the fall guy that america created.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by LooseLipsSinkShips
i honestly believe that the turmoil in pakistan is caused by america.

Then you are totally lost.


i believe that somewhere down the line, pakistan failed to go 100% with america's agenda in the supposed "War on Terror." I believe this is why President Musharef(sp?) is on the way out

So you are saying that Mushareff is on the way out because he failed to give 100% on the war on terror, right?

Well that makes no sense. You must mean that either Bush is somehow causing the uprising against Musharef or that the people of Pakistan want the war on terror. Either option makes no sense.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Why is this top-flagged with only two flags?



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   
What if it is being reported accurately? Without any proof otherwise, this fits as normal behavior for Mushareff. He is a scary individual. I'm far more concerned about Pakistan than others. A Terrorist hideout with built in running hot and cold Nukes ready to launch. In this case a friendly Dictator is not such a bad idea



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 10:30 PM
link   
I am deeply disturbed by events in Pakistan. A key "war on terror" ally declaring martial law is certainly not a good precedent. The Pakistani people are not friends of the US despite Musharraf's cooperation with Bush. The tribal regions are enemies of the US and out of Musharraf's reach. Now it takes martial law to keep the rest of the country from going over to the side of the "terrorists." I presume that Musharraf's political opponents will have much closer ties to tribal leaders, and a more cozy relationship if they come to power.

Now, there are several possibilites here:

1.) Musharraf will continue to act in the interests of the US, and against the will of his people. The General now faces the possibility of civil war as a result and therefore will soon require military support to battle the "insurgency." This will allow "coalition" forces to legally expand their theatre of operations in support of our ally. This of course will be done in the name of safeguarding nuclear weapons as well.

2.) Musharraf will lose his power in Pakistan without direct military support from the west, and be assasinated. (He will not become an exile. If the US allows him to be toppled, then he is no longer useful and would only be a liablity to the secrets being kept.) Pakistan will tumble into tribal chaos with no clear national leadership, and the security of nuclear weapons will no longer exist.

3.) A "pro-terrorist" regime will be democratically elected (like Hamas was in Palestine.)

Now, another thing that really scares me here is the silence from India. If the US sells out Musharraf the way they did Saddam, India will likely invade and annex Pakistan outright. Perhaps this deal is already in the works. A "new" key ally for America.

Nuclear armed "terrorists" will give the US more "legitamacy" than after 9/11.

Once India takes Pakistan, they will help us fight Iran. Iran will probably then be backed up by North Korea and China, but the US will be sitting on all the oil needed to fight WWIII.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ats1629
they want a strong hold on Pakistan when we do attack Iran.



Your theory makes the most sense. Excellent thinking. It does imply, however, that we are due to attack Iran within a few months.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:32 PM
link   
An attack on Iran in the next few months would certainly fit the timetable for US elections. I think I'll stay out of cities as much as I can for a while, so I'm not martyred for another bull*hotpile* invasion.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Interesting.

This was my exact gut instinct when I first heard the news...

Thank you for vocalizing my thoughts.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:19 AM
link   
I think it is a dliberate destablization (from inside) with these exiles suddenly popping up in the picture again (Bhutto and Sharriff) I think they are deliberatly trieing to take control of Pakistan to unite with Seria and Iran......We know Musharriff is bought off "obviously" but he is facing great opposition.....I honestly think somthing big is getting ready to pop sooner than we think with the Annapolis thing going on right now and Bush trieing to gather all the allies he can/While he can......I am thinking he (Bush) is going to hit the high road soon if he cant get his way this time......And the way Israel is errupting over this things deffinetly do not look good........



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I am seriously wondering if the US is going to have an election at all, even a fixed one. I'm really worried that Bush might stay in under emergency powers. Think he can't? Click my signature.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Musharraf stepped down today as army chief. The State of Emergency is pretty much over. I guess this won't be happening afterall.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Whew! Just a dry run 'til the Pakistani elections then.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join