Madspeak

Way back in the late 1960s when General Ayub Khan saw the protests against, he too k the sensisble step and resigned from his post as president and handed over power to the Chairman of the Senate. The clownish and absolutely idiotic General Yahyah Khan disssolved the assemblies and made himself president - the result was there was a civil war and the country broke - because the issues the people were protesting against remained unresolved. The military had its humiliating time and was at the mercy of civilians again. General Musharraf should resign, before things become worse, if another military officer takes over in his place the country will plunge further into anarchy and cahos and result in far worse civil war, a reign of terror akin to what happened in France way back in the 18th century. Musharraf is hated for so many things, the list is very long. Musharraf has been insulted and abused. People would gladly tear him to pieces. The blunder he has been making is to meddle wi

Using the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO)- ther present miliary dictator of Pakistan has sacked two judeges of the Supreme Court. Most prominien tly Chief Justice Ifftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry who was hearing a case on missing people The fact he was removed only goes to show that investigation in this matter would have exposed General Musharraf’s involvement in this matter. He is ordering the kidnapping of people. Kidnapping is a small crime as far as the good General and the entire Pakistan Army is concerned, it has resorted to mass murder in former East Pakistan the same can happen in what remains of Pakistan . Just because the judge has been removed does not necessarily mean that the crimes which he was trying to look into would go away. The fact the judge was removed by an executiive from General Musharraf directly implicates the General, the army and the entire security network. Everyone is guilty. Extra-judicial murders are the order of the day.

The USA has very high expectations from Pakistan. It wants it ‘ to do more in Afghanistan ’. But there is are some problems with that. If a First World country, which is also happens to be a super-power with unlimited wealth, resources with ability to manufacture and develop a wide range of land, air and sea weapons including advanced suirvalllance equipment, which it upgrades on a regular basis- cannot manage things in Afghanistan, then how can an undemocratic, dirt poor Third World Country with limited resources be in a position to really be able to have the same impact as the USA in Afghanista? Pakistan has so many problems of its own and now it is required a fight a full scale war and that too by diverting scarce resources away from infrastructure and social uplift projects. The last time Pakistan was used in the previous Afghan War against the Soviet Union, as soon as that war was over – myriad sanctions were imposed by the USA as if all of a sudden Pakistan wa

For 17 years Russia was disposing off the empire which was not made by the Communists but by the Czars who preceded them and were overthrown. In this time Russia has been consolidating its economic and military power. During this time it did not concern itself with events beyond its borders. After the house cleaning and everything retrurned to order, Russia is beginning to reassert itself. When US commentator was asked about his comments instead saying something insightful - all he said - to sum up -Russia is being run by gangsters. Now what exactly is that supposed to mean? For any country any other sovereign country a rebel state and its leaders rebel leader. No one accepts any country's independence. Does the US intend to arrest these criminals and super-corrupt people who are running Russia these days, does the US intend to kill them the way they murdered Saddam Hussein? Russia is said to have only a few friends - which the USA hates- China, North Korea and Iran. I

In hindsight, if Pakistan's Communist Party had swept the polll and taken over control of the government wouldPakistan today be less dangerous or more dangerous today? Of course the USA was so extremely against Communism that the polls were scrapped and General Ayub Khan took over in 1958. He eliminated all the members and communist party and its leaders. Had Communism been allowed to prevail, then the communist party would have eliminated feudalism, tribalisma and the fanatical mullahs(who a re a cause of so much trouble these days). Communist Pakistan would probably moved ahead economically. There would have been mass literacy and universal healhcare. But this was not to be what resulted is a country by miliatry dictators and their agents. As time showed communism was not something permanent. The Cold War official came to an end in 1990 so the communists in Pakistan would have been elected out of office and the country would have moved and developed to a new phase of its d

It is the history of the USA, when it intervenes with its forces - it never ever encounters a standing army - its soldiers end up fighting up the people of those countries who are spread out and for all practical purposes invisibles. Since it is so frustrating to be 'all dressed up and nowhere to go', US propagand leaders devote their time trying to dehumanise those people by giving them labels uch as Commies or Viet-Cong essentially all of whom were the people of Vietnam. In Iraq they are called Insurgents and in Afghanistan they are called Taliban. No country can ever combat the US armed forces head-on – so other tactics are used which drags wars on to uncounted years. The people who benefit from are international gun-runners. They supply weapons to anyone. These gun-runners fuel the war, their source of weapons and ammunition can be any country in the world. Just because Iranian made bombs have been found in Iraq does not necessarily mean that Iran has anything

I was watching a local private TV channel, which should be independent of state control. This channel in its news bulletin had no relevant news - but what startled me was three US officals said the same thing 'General Musharraf is the US' greatest ally against terrorism'. What is that supposed to mean exactly? Should it not have been said in the news item that Pakistan is the US' greatest ally against terrorism. Considering the material which was given to the newscaster he simply repeated 'General Musharraf is the US' greatest ally against terrorism, which could possibly mean that the US officals have something seriously against Pakistan and only care about their puppet General Musharraf and no one else. ---- Since the military regime reliases it is not possible to successfully block the Internet, peope have to pay more for unhindered acces. One company Cybernet is very officious about this - it wants the identity card of the people who subscribe to this