Musharaf: Further Illegalities

[segovius]

There has been some discussion lately here among certain notorious posters that Musharaf of Pakistan - the same who seized power by force and now administers a military dictatorship -is a 'good guy'.

This thread is not about that as such as we covered the ground elsewhere to the extent that the true nature of this character is conclusively proved - this is more about the dilemma posed by his latest extremist actions.

Today's events panned out thus" ex-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was exiled when Musharaf seized power and today returned to Pakistan to challenge Musharaf in the upcoming elections.

On arrival he was arrested - on charges unknown (possibly corruption which would be a trumped up rational) - and is now detained, whereabouts unknown.

Mr Sharif says he wants to challenge President Pervez Musharraf, who ousted him in a 1999 coup, ahead of elections.

Mr Sharif arrived home weeks after Pakistan's Supreme Court affirmed his right to return.

On board the plane which flew him home from London, Mr Sharif told the BBC he wanted to help restore the rule of law.

"It's democracy versus dictatorship," he said "I have a duty, I have a responsibility, I have a national obligation to fulfil at all costs and that is democracy"

Once the plane arrived in Islamabad, paramilitary troops surrounded it and there was a stand-off on board as Mr Sharif refused to hand over his passport to immigration officials for nearly two hours.

So; a dictator who illegally seized power - and is supported by the US - illegally arrests a pro-democracy challenger who intends to run in the elections.

Hmmm....

One more thing: I have become quite psychic lately and wafting on the ether and in the leaves in my tea-cup I am hearing phrases such as "prove this is illegal", "show me evidence" etc etc.

Well, ok.

The Pakistan Supreme Court confirmed in a ruling Sharif's right to return and run for office.

If - as is now strongly suspected - he has been deported from the country (to Saudi Arabia, another Pakistan/US ally and fascist state) then this is illegal and Musharaf would be in contempt of court.

It will be interesting to see what Musharaf's next move actually is....tanks on the street? Disband the Court?

What do people think? Especially interested in right-wing apologists who can try to justify these crimes.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6986584.stm)

[segovius]

Looks like the US are really making sure their tin-pot Dictator stays firmly in place.

Nawaz is now under arrest by the US chief allies Saudi - hopefully not in one of the torture chambers they use to oppress the populace and people sent their under the illegal US rendition program.

They have confiscated his passport so it looks like he won't be running in the elections which is the whole point - after all, he stands a good chance of winning.

That's democracy for ya......

[tonton]

There was a solid reason why the US wanted to make sure Saddam got the death penalty. Imagine what would happen if he were alive to run in a forthcoming Iraqi election.

Meanwhile, I really don't understand why Musharraf didn't simply call Nawiz a faggot and arrest him for buggery or something. Worked for Mahatir.

[@_@ Artman]

There was a solid reason why the US wanted to make sure Saddam got the death penalty. Imagine what would happen if he were alive to run in a forthcoming Iraqi election.

http://www.vialls.com/transpositions/Uday_Hussein_Dead_b.jpg

We simply can't forget Saddam's sons. They made him look like Richard Simmons (and he was quite proud of them). Imagine if they had taken over. It would have been nothing like Saddam's regime, more like Suge Knight X 1,000. Still doesn't make our actions (the way we went in as a neocon ass-clowns) justified. What we've done certainly makes the Iraqis wonder if they would have been better off with Saddam, Uday and Qusay.

[segovius]

There was a solid reason why the US wanted to make sure Saddam got the death penalty. Imagine what would happen if he were alive to run in a forthcoming Iraqi election.

Very true.

And of course dead men don't talk.

Meanwhile, I really don't understand why Musharraf didn't simply call Nawiz a faggot and arrest him for buggery or something. Worked for Mahatir.

Well, there's a couple of plays in the playbook... maybe they draw them out of the hat at random or something.

[Fellowship]

You know many neocons are known for the saying...

"Why do you hate America" When anyone left of neocon right questions anything pertaining to US foreign or domestic policy during this Bush admin.

My question to them is... Why do they hate America when they ignore all the mud America is being drug through as their warlords abuse every single aspect of what made America great in the history of this country.

These are the same people that bring you "freedom fries"

I find that it is sad to watch my country be abused in the name of a WOT. We must demand better of our leaders no matter what party they may call home. America deserves leaders of integrity and honesty.

Fellows

[shetline]

Segovius is just too damned smart, aware and perceptive. Nobody's gonna pull the wool over his eyes, nosiree!

[dmz]

I think this goes back to that other thread -- Musharraf/Mubarak -- these guys are obviously playing games and rigging the table. I don't think any new revelation is a surprise; to be honest, when you can start to predict this stuff, it goes way past ironic.

The question remains, do we let these guys go down, and live with the MB, etc., in charge, and with nukes, or what?

[sammi jo]

Musharraf can do whatever he wants with impunity... perhaps he has an outer coat of Teflon.

If bin Laden had reportedly been in Syria, for example, having kidney dialysis on the night of 9/10/2001, it would have been followed up by the Bush Administration with carpet bombing for Damascus. But no, he was In Rawalpindi, Pakistan in a military hospital there getting treatment, and Musharraf was more than likely aware of this. See this CBS report here (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml). and this article here with numerous links
(http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO311A.html)

And then there's another Musharraf henchperson and fellow coup member, the former head of Pakistan's ISI, General Mahmud Ahmed, the man who the Wall Street Journal reported to have wired at least $100,000 to alleged 9/11 hijack ringleader Mohamed Atta. If the involvement of Atta in the attacks has any substance, then this senior Pakistani official is a first hand sponsor of international terrorism. And where was this terror financier Mahmud Ahmed on 9/11/2001? In Washington DC, in a meeting with Sen. Bob Graham, ex. CIA director Porter Goss and others in the Capitol! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmad) Has the Bush Admin. gone after Ahmed (and others)? No way. He's a buddy.

Nice one, America. Who got fired????

And it has also been widely reported that Osama bin Laden has been hosted by Pakistan in the years since 9/11, that is, if he is not dead.

Just those three facts (amongst many others), which have been widely reported, but never denied or rebutted, should have made the Musharraf regime the "Global Enemy Number One in the War on Terrorism, that is, if the War on Terrorism actually is what the Bush Administration says is it. Dictator Musharraf remains in power, with nukes, and the US considers the Pakistani regime an "ally". :wow::lol::mad::rolleyes:

How long can the supporters of this Administration play at being "good Germans", before eventually waking up?

[Frank777]

Well misrepresentation in one of Sego's posts is nothing new.
But really, does it have to start in the first line?

I'm not aware of anyone on this board, left, right or centre, who thinks Musharraf is a good guy.

He may be a friendlier option for the U.S. to deal with than some of the alternatives, especially in a country that has nuclear weapons and an unstable political scene, but I do not recall anyone advocating him and his regime as an example of good government.

Next strawman please.

[SDW2001]

There was a solid reason why the US wanted to make sure Saddam got the death penalty. Imagine what would happen if he were alive to run in a forthcoming Iraqi election.

Meanwhile, I really don't understand why Musharraf didn't simply call Nawiz a faggot and arrest him for buggery or something. Worked for Mahatir.

So, we had him put to death because we were worried he'd win an election? That's crazy. Batshit crazy.

You know many neocons are known for the saying...

Who are the neocons? Really, I'm curious.



"Why do you hate America" When anyone left of neocon right questions anything pertaining to US foreign or domestic policy during this Bush admin.

False. There are some here (in the US) who do hate America. That does not encompass all critics of the President.



My question to them is... Why do they hate America when they ignore all the mud America is being drug through as their warlords abuse every single aspect of what made America great in the history of this country.

I for one don't ignore it at all. I think we've made many mistakes. But our support for Musharraf is not black and white. It's a delicate balance.



These are the same people that bring you "freedom fries"

I don't know how that applies or who those people are.



I find that it is sad to watch my country be abused in the name of a WOT. We must demand better of our leaders no matter what party they may call home. America deserves leaders of integrity and honesty.

Fellows

You are the king of sanctimony, fellows. You really are. I don't know what you mean by "abused." It's simply that you disagree with some of the policies that have been implemented, which is fine and your right. But don't call anyone who disagrees with YOU a "neocon." Further, what is prompting this statement. I mean, this is a thread about Musharaf.

Well misrepresentation in one of Sego's posts is nothing new.
But really, does it have to start in the first line?

That's not unprecedented.



I'm not aware of anyone on this board, left, right or centre, who thinks Musharraf is a good guy.

Exactly. He's not.



He may be a friendlier option for the U.S. to deal with than some of the alternatives, especially in a country that has nuclear weapons and an unstable political scene, but I do not recall anyone advocating him and his regime as an example of good government.

Next strawman please.

We have a winner. He's the best option right now. We cannot afford some kind of Islamo-fascist coming to power in a country with nukes. Musharraf is no picnic, I agree. But he's in a critical region and in a precarious position. He's dealing with rampant extremism and anti-Americanism and managing to keep the country together somehow. As I said...there are no "good" options here. There just is what their is.

[Fellowship]

You are the king of sanctimony, fellows. You really are. I don't know what you mean by "abused." It's simply that you disagree with some of the policies that have been implemented, which is fine and your right. But don't call anyone who disagrees with YOU a "neocon." Further, what is prompting this statement. I mean, this is a thread about Musharaf.

I am the king of nothing SDW2001. I never said that anyone who disagrees with me is a "neocon". You claim that you do not know who I am speaking of when I say neocons? I mean anyone who totes the party line of neocon thinking as it pertains to American foreign and domestic policy which does include the neocon support of Musharaf which you note is the subject of this thread. Anyone who believes we need to go to war "for american interests" meaning oil security at any cost including invasions and occupation and lives and billions spent enforcing such neocon ideas. So you can play stupid that you do not know who I am talking about when I say neocon. I say get off your butt and Google Neocon and do some reading. Don't play stupid.. it does not help your already weak image here.




We have a winner. He's the best option right now. We cannot afford some kind of Islamo-fascist coming to power in a country with nukes. Musharraf is no picnic, I agree. But he's in a critical region and in a precarious position. He's dealing with rampant extremism and anti-Americanism and managing to keep the country together somehow. As I said...there are no "good" options here. There just is what their is.

I can play stupid as well but why? You get to say "islamo-fascist" and I do not ask you who you mean but you ask me what I mean with "neocon"

You need to stop playing stupid.

Fellows

[sammi jo]

These are the same people that bring you "freedom fries"

Fellows

Freedom fries? Undoubtedy.. thermite does the job nicely.

How much remains of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that is yet to fry?

[tonton]

Well misrepresentation in one of Sego's posts is nothing new.
But really, does it have to start in the first line?

I'm not aware of anyone on this board, left, right or centre, who thinks Musharraf is a good guy.

He may be a friendlier option for the U.S. to deal with than some of the alternatives, especially in a country that has nuclear weapons and an unstable political scene, but I do not recall anyone advocating him and his regime as an example of good government.

Next strawman please.

Musharraf is better right now than Saddam was when he shook hands with Rummy in the 80's.
Musharraf is better right now than Netanyahu, Sharon and Olmert.
Musharraf is better right now than the Saudis.

He may not be a good guy (don't know), but he hasn't shown stripes as a bad guy either.

[SDW2001]

[/b]

I am the king of nothing SDW2001. I never said that anyone who disagrees with me is a "neocon".

Not specifically, but you implied it. Clearly.

You claim that you do not know who I am speaking of when I say neocons?

Yes.

I mean anyone who totes the party line of neocon thinking as it pertains to American foreign and domestic policy which does include the neocon support of Musharaf which you note is the subject of this thread. Anyone who believes we need to go to war "for american interests" meaning oil security at any cost including invasions and occupation and lives and billions spent enforcing such neocon ideas.

That's a tricky one. It's wrong to assume that anyone who supported the Iraq war was a neocon. It's also wrong to assume it was a war for oil. I usually don't even hear the anti-war crowd talk about that, not anymore. As for Musharraf, that's a dubious point as well. "Support" can mean a lot of thing. A lot of folks like me may not like him, but we realize that the evil we know is better than the one we don't.



So you can play stupid that you do not know who I am talking about when I say neocon. I say get off your butt and Google Neocon and do some reading. Don't play stupid.. it does not help your already weak image here.

First, I care not what you think my "image" is here. I base my opinions on facts, not hatred of George Bush, as you and yours do. Secondly, I want to know who YOU think qualifies as a neocon. You seem to throw the term around a lot. I'd like to know.


I can play stupid as well but why? You get to say "islamo-fascist" and I do not ask you who you mean but you ask me what I mean with "neocon"

You need to stop playing stupid.

Fellows


Well, first you say you won't "play stupid" and then you of course....do. But no matter. An Islamo-fascist is a muslim that subscribes to Wahabi Islam's principles of destroying the West, or in lieu of that, converting it. It's someone that seeks to destroy America and the West, not just for those nation's governments, but for their peoples as well. They believe Democracy is fundamentally wrong and against the teachings of Islam. They believe anyone who is not Muslim must convert or be killed. They support using terror to achieve their goals of their perverse version of Islam dominating the world They also share hatred for Israel and will never make peace with it.

Hopefully that clears it up for you.

[Fellowship]

Just for the record I know I can be coarse at times and I don't care to be that way when I say certain things I just want to clear up that I have no hard or ill feelings to you SDW2001 at all. Sure we disagree on some of our views of things but I do respect you regardless. I thought in light of some of my words in a few posts I needed to make it known I do respect my fellow AI'rs despite any disagreements.

Fellows

[Frank777]

Musharraf is better right now than Saddam was when he shook hands with Rummy in the 80's.
Musharraf is better right now than Netanyahu, Sharon and Olmert.
Musharraf is better right now than the Saudis.

He may not be a good guy (don't know), but he hasn't shown stripes as a bad guy either.

What? :err:

[segovius]

Musharraf is better right now than the Saudis.

You've got to be joking...

[tonton]

You've got to be joking...

Well you agreed with me up until that one, didn't you?

Sego, not everything is black and white. There are Muslims who are good and there are Muslims who are bad. I just happen to think that the House of Saud is a prime example of the latter.

Meanwhile, I haven't seen you criticizing any Muslims. And I think that's by prejudice, and not by individual discretion.

That's not to say that I don't agree with 90% of the things you say on this board. Well, I also think Richard Dawkins has a lot of good things to say, and I keep meaning to debate with you about that one... at a later time... at a later time.

But other than a few things I agree with the things you say here for the most part.

[segovius]

Well you agreed with me up until that one, didn't you?

Maybe, not sure Saddam was world-class at the time of the Rummy incident but yes...it was a pretty cherry-picked list though.

Sego, not everything is black and white. There are Muslims who are good and there are Muslims who are bad. I just happen to think that the House of Saud is a prime example of the latter.

True.....

Meanwhile, I haven't seen you criticizing any Muslims. And I think that's by prejudice, and not by individual discretion.

Hold on...I think I've done a lot of Saudi bashing.....

But mainly it's because it's unnecessary. Would be like preaching to the choir in the main - besides, I don't like to run with the herd. :lol:

Another reason though is that people just aren't interested in Islam - the only reason they talk about it now is because of the 911 fall-out and because of the disinfo spread around by a) Islamophobes and/or racists and b) extreme right-wing Xian fundies.

So really it is the views of these two groups that I would have a bee in my bonnet about and aim to redress if they come up - and obviously this precluded bashing.

BUT if anyone really wants to bash and they can come up with some sound arguments that need to be bashed I'm there! Such things do exist but I have never, ever seen any here.

That's not to say that I don't agree with 90% of the things you say on this board. Well, I also think Richard Dawkins has a lot of good things to say, and I keep meaning to debate with you about that one... at a later time... at a later time.

Uh-oh....

;)