Re: Who would have thought...? II
u r right.
Army, US, and rest of Pakistan including members of PML-Q are already planning for it
It also shows that you got a lot of insider information!
Re: Who would have thought...? II
But why army let it done? In 20 years of MQM's history they were never able to come out of their so called stronghold. Shahre-e-Faisal never saw such an act of violence in Karachi's history. These areas have always been well controlled by agenices.
did u live in Karachi in the 80's and 90's? MQM was rampaging across the city
In regards to the latest incident,Police and Rangers were open that they had order's from Mush's govt not to interfere
Re: Who would have thought...? II
Errr...Who said this. This 'aalsi' is just making posts' to support his dictator and his MQM.
Just so that you are aware, more members of my family have been killed in Karachi in acts of terrorism than you would care to know. So please take your hollier than thou attitude and stop labeling people as terrorist supporter etc. just because they offer alternate view.
and your point is? when u and others make a post, other's are free to comment on it, not act like a dictator whom u support
and don't try to play the 'sympathy' card with us, we in Karachi know the situation and how it effects us very well
Re: Who would have thought...? II
It also shows that you got a lot of insider information!
LOL, i wish
It is speculation based on what is openly being said by PML-Q members, and crucially what senior members are not saying
In addition to various 'official' media statements by USA, and what many junior officers are saying about the 'mood' in the Army
Re: Who would have thought...? II
we in Karachi know the situation and how it effects us very well
LOL, so basically you are saying that people living in other parts of Pakistan cannot understand or are not entitled to their views on Karachi.
Re: Who would have thought...? II
did u live in Karachi in the 80's and 90's? MQM was rampaging across the city
I have lived almost all my life here. I never saw this shahra-e-faisal closed or observed violence from Karsaz to Malir Halt. (Four american consulate people were killed at Nursery then - probably by religious extremist).
Re: Who would have thought...? II
Every Pak analyst of any worth, both domestic and foreign believes that these are the dying days of the Musharaf regime...
Most predict an Army/civilian setup, some sort of power sharing deal.
One analyst believes this movement, unlike those in the past against Ayub is not being orchestrated by the opposition political parties but lawyers.. This is a secular movement by people who have no role in the overall setup. So there is reason to be optimistic.
Re: Who would have thought...? II
Most predict an Army/civilian setup, some sort of power sharing deal.
So, basically no change? Army continues to be a part of Pakistani politics as predicted by many. A fact understood by BB and the reasons for her discussion about a deal to Musharaf.
Re: Who would have thought...? II
Bohot barkay mar rahay thay anti musharraf log.......ab kidhar ho sab......shair idher hi hy kahi nai ja raha Allah kay hukam sy.
Inshallah yeh hi power my rahay ga or Pakistan ko poverty sy nikaly ga Allah ky hukam sy.
:)
Re: Who would have thought...? II
Bohot barkay mar rahay thay anti musharraf log.......ab kidhar ho sab......shair idher hi hy kahi nai ja raha Allah kay hukam sy. Inshallah yeh hi power my rahay ga or Pakistan ko poverty sy nikaly ga Allah ky hukam sy. :)
Roti, Kapda aur Makan. :)
Re: Who would have thought...? II
This clearly exhibits that we are not going to get rid of army rule in this country. Army will remain a major factor in determing the fate of this country. Only the face - Mushraaf will be replaced!
yeah and then the question is how would things be any different for the better? I mean if youy go with a hybrid approach u will have the same power tussle between assemblies/ president/ judiciary etc, or you get a complete martial law, which I doubt will happen, or u get the 'democracy' we have had in past.
in which case all the hoopla is really meaningless because the most likely scenarios do not address the supposed issues that people have :)
Re: Who would have thought...? II
I seriously cant understand what ppl aim at when they accept the fact that the only other workable/likely option will be the army's perpetuated role and another general and his baton and yet want Musharraf gone. When will we grow up and put emotions at one side, take politics seriosuly and not like a game of ludo; if bored or losing, throw it away and start snakes and ladders on the other side. When will we stop doing politics based on faces...?
Would that other *army rule be lead by a full colonel rather than a general, or will that general be brought from Mars? Or will he be so diff from Musharraf? But then again, how do ppl hope and want him to be diff? Another Gen after Mush will probably carry Musharraf's flag or his legacy in the least, or either be the Yahya (make merry be happy) version, or a Zia (impose my ideologies) version, or better yet, Aslam Beg (sleep with them let them please me version) or under the extremist phenomenon of late, one with *Khmoenien *tendencies. No Gen will sleep with everyone at the same time. So such hopes are just air. Why and what for are suddenly all quarters that are opposed against each other at all times, but united against Musharraf suddenly realizing another Gen reality? And in that case, since democracy is like *bandar ke haath mein nariyal *for us, and since further Army rule (there is no such thing as a hybrid; *politicians ke dil ko khush rakhne ko Ghalib ye khayal acha hai) is the most probable way to go, why not let Musharraf stay, let things settle and focus on solving the glitches in the system rather than creating issues, fussing over them, trying to solve them and trying to ouster every govt because the issues came up...?
Re: Who would have thought...? II
And in that case, since democracy is like *bandar ke haath mein nariyal *for us,
hahaha very well stated
Re: Who would have thought…? II
:k:
Re: Who would have thought...? II
So, basically no change? Army continues to be a part of Pakistani politics as predicted by many. A fact understood by BB and the reasons for her discussion about a deal to Musharaf.
No, Musharaf keeps make stupid mistakes and eventually he will be kicked out... But the Army will stay unfortunately... It is one of the leeches sucking the state dry, so it will simply shift over to different spot and continue to suck.
Re: Who would have thought...? II
I seriously cant understand what ppl aim at when they accept the fact that the only other workable/likely option will be the army's perpetuated role and another general and his baton and yet want Musharraf gone. When will we grow up and put emotions at one side, take politics seriosuly and not like a game of ludo; if bored or losing, throw it away and start snakes and ladders on the other side. When will we stop doing politics based on faces...? Would that other *army rule be lead by a full colonel rather than a general, or will that general be brought from Mars? Or will he be so diff from Musharraf? But then again, how do ppl hope and want him to be diff? Another Gen after Mush will probably carry Musharraf's flag or his legacy in the least, or either be the Yahya (make merry be happy) version, or a Zia (impose my ideologies) version, or better yet, Aslam Beg (sleep with them let them please me version) or under the extremist phenomenon of late, one with *Khmoenien *tendencies. No Gen will sleep with everyone at the same time. So such hopes are just air. Why and what for are suddenly all quarters that are opposed against each other at all times, but united against Musharraf suddenly realizing another Gen reality? And in that case, since democracy is like *bandar ke haath mein nariyal *for us, and since further Army rule (there is no such thing as a hybrid; *politicians ke dil ko khush rakhne ko Ghalib ye khayal acha hai) is the most probable way to go, why not let Musharraf stay, let things settle and focus on solving the glitches in the system rather than creating issues, fussing over them, trying to solve them and trying to ouster every govt because the issues came up...?
the only reason we dont have a workable/likely option is because the army cant stay within the boundaries defined for it. get musharraf out as president and army chief, let whoever gets elected rule, let the system run for a few decades. perhaps when people really have power instead of this heirarchy of power hungry supposed soldiers better, more "workable" leaders will gradually emerge.
it works for the rest of the world, just because the army says it wont work in Pakistan doesnt mean we let it rule the country indefinitely, unchecked.
you need change not because something better will necessarily emerge, but because you need to signal to the power bearers that you cant get away with everything.
Re: Who would have thought...? II
the only reason we dont have a workable/likely option is because the army cant stay within the boundaries defined for it. get musharraf out as president and army chief, let whoever gets elected rule, let the system run for a few decades. perhaps when people really have power instead of this heirarchy of power hungry supposed soldiers better, more "workable" leaders will gradually emerge.
it works for the rest of the world, just because the army says it wont work in Pakistan doesnt mean we let it rule the country indefinitely, unchecked.
you need change not because something better will necessarily emerge, but because you need to signal to the power bearers that you cant get away with everything.
Rav, Actually if we go back to the beginning of why Army hasn't been able to contain its involvement in politics, we arrive in the 50s and why Gen Ayub Khan meddled in. He was made a cabinet minister by the civilian democratic leaders and involved him in a lot of things. Why? Maybe because they found him powerful and dependable; for personal perpetuity or national security is still disputable. Moving to the 60s, 70s and 80s and finally pre as well as post Oct 1999, the endorsement for military involvement and intervention from the political civilian and democratically aligned influentials has remained the same through the ages as it was in Ayub Khan's time. For one reason or another. So the Army alone will never share the burden. Even during the so called democratic or better put 'sham democratic' years of the 90s, no Army chief was ever able to save his drawing room from visitors belonging to various democratic civilian political parties, all begging them to help the country and support them, in getting rid of the then rulers from hell; better put 'sleep with us and let's rock'. Of course all those visitors had their gains in mind not the nation's, or else their anti military-rule conscience would have been awake then too, and they would have tried to work towards strengthening institutions, correcting the *systems *and creating a sense of honesty in Pakistan without ever running to the Army or trying to influence Generals. That is all which they never did.
So today when we talk about *restoring *democracy, we first get a "file not found". When we talk of letting the people decide, we're reminded to keep in view that *people *are either untrustworthy, immature, over emotional, under pressure at grass root levels, uneducated, illiterate about their surrounding as well as long term good and bad, have a bad track record due to all these reasons in choosing any leaders, and are thus not powerful or rational enough to really decide, elect and chose on their own. Any such exercise will result in election of the same faces, and that again proves this point.
And there's no guarantee that any system will ever run for 10-15 years. Seriously if a powerful military regime is so shaken today, would a civilian govt ever survive anywhere close to finishing a 5 year term? Because the opposition is always guaranteed to shake the foundations within 3 years at most. So 'people' will never have power, only political mobs will have power to bring one mob in while another mob prepares to take that mob out to bring another mob in. That's how it's been and if this govt changes now that's how it will be. Because when we don't have power hungry 'soldiers', we have even more merciless power hungry 'civilian' so called democratic leaders, whose role in the oppositions is not to keep constructive checks and balance on the govt and its policies, and strengthening of institutions and the system, like in other countries where institutions have been least politicized and where civil democratic methods successfully work. But the sole objective here is to bring the govt down in as few months as possible.
So it's not just the army, it's the system ravaged by all, and that points at this. And the system hasn't changed and so we cant infer any positive changes. Yet. As any new power bearers in our without uniform will still go unchecked with everything like before. We still don't have a system to keep any checks, yet.
And all that brings in many more questions. Do we lose hope? What do we do? Where do we get a system? Why is the system broken? Should we use a wrong system while the proper system is defected? What do we change first and where, how and so on...we sure need to ponder over these and more and mend ways as a nation.
I don't support army rule because I think it's better, I support army rule for now, because I think it's still better than the other obvious outcomes or options, given our 'other conditions'.
Re: Who would have thought...? II
Rav, Actually if we go back to the beginning of why Army hasn't been able to contain its involvement in politics, we arrive in the 50s and why Gen Ayub Khan meddled in. He was made a cabinet minister by the civilian democratic leaders and involved him in a lot of things. Why? Maybe because they found him powerful and dependable; for personal perpetuity or national security is still disputable. Moving to the 60s, 70s and 80s and finally pre as well as post Oct 1999, the endorsement for military involvement and intervention from the political civilian and democratically aligned influentials has remained the same through the ages as it was in Ayub Khan's time. For one reason or another. So the Army alone will never share the burden.
So basically the Army got addicted to ruling based on the mistake on one guy making an army chief a cabinet minister.
[quote]
Even during the so called democratic or better put 'sham democratic' years of the 90s, no Army chief was ever able to save his drawing room from visitors belonging to various democratic civilian political parties, all begging them to help the country and support them, in getting rid of the then rulers from hell; better put 'sleep with us and let's rock'.
Of course all those visitors had their gains in mind not the nation's, or else their anti military-rule conscience would have been awake then too, and they would have tried to work towards strengthening institutions, correcting the *systems *and creating a sense of honesty in Pakistan without ever running to the Army or trying to influence Generals. That is all which they never did.
[/quote]
So? People with shaky democratic ideals and willing to work outside the system and weak integrity knew that they had to approach the army to get their way.
[quote]
So today when we talk about *restoring *democracy, we first get a "file not found".
[/quote]
Fine. Dont restore the democracy we had, create the democracy we should have, where the army keeps its nose out of governance.
[quote]
When we talk of letting the people decide, we're reminded to keep in view that *people *are either untrustworthy, immature, over emotional, under pressure at grass root levels, uneducated, illiterate about their surrounding as well as long term good and bad, have a bad track record due to all these reasons in choosing any leaders, and are thus not powerful or rational enough to really decide, elect and chose on their own. Any such exercise will result in election of the same faces, and that again proves this point.
[/quote]
The system works everywhere around the world, which doesnt prove that other countries have people who are more trustworthy, more mature, less emotional, more educated or more literate.
Even if we elect the same faces, if they are consistently bad then eventually the system will replace them. That is how it works around the world, and there is no reason to think we are especially stupid.
[quote]
And there's no guarantee that any system will ever run for 10-15 years. Seriously if a powerful military regime is so shaken today, would a civilian govt ever survive anywhere close to finishing a 5 year term?
[/quote]
Yes. There is no correlation between the two, and the powerful military regime is where it is today because of what it has been doing to the country. People are reacting this way because they do not trust the ballot boxes for change. If they did then they would simply unelect the govt they no longer believe in. If you can ensure rigging-free elections with no military junta rule, mobs will go too.
If anything the current reaction against the military regime shows great political interest and (dare I say) maturity in the people
[quote]
Because the opposition is always guaranteed to shake the foundations within 3 years at most. So 'people' will never have power, only political mobs will have power to bring one mob in while another mob prepares to take that mob out to bring another mob in.
That's how it's been and if this govt changes now that's how it will be. Because when we don't have power hungry 'soldiers', we have even more merciless power hungry 'civilian' so called democratic leaders, whose role in the oppositions is not to keep constructive checks and balance on the govt and its policies, and strengthening of institutions and the system, like in other countries where institutions have been least politicized and where civil democratic methods successfully work. But the sole objective here is to bring the govt down in as few months as possible.
[/quote]
Can you tell me what prevents political mobs in other countries? What is it about the genetics of Pakistanies that democracy wont work for us?
[quote]
So it's not just the army, it's the system ravaged by all, and that points at this. And the system hasn't changed and so we cant infer any positive changes. Yet. As any new power bearers in our without uniform will still go unchecked with everything like before. We still don't have a system to keep any checks, yet. I don't support army rule because I think it's better, I support army rule for now, because it's still better than the other obvious outcomes or options, given our 'other conditions'.
[/quote]
What is that system? Can you tell me what changes need to happen for that system to come into place and for you to be against army rule? As far as I can see you are very much against the personalities of Pakistani politics. But you see nothing has changed under army rule, as far as the politics is concerned. The same corruption, the same nepotism, the same corrupt politicians in high places.
The least you can do is stick with a system known to work around the world. There is no scientific reason why it wont eventually work in Pakistan.
Re: Who would have thought...? II
Who would have thought that BB is still hankering after a dea with Musharrafl after what is supposed to be happening during the last 3 months. She must desperate.