[wvns] Pakistani Election Postponed
Pakistan Polls Postponed
The Times of India
Sunday 30 December 2007
Islamabad - The election commission of Pakistan (ECP) has decided to postpone the January 8 polls in view of the situation in the country after the murder of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto and will announce new dates for national and provincial assembly elections on Monday, a senior official of the commission said.
"Today in an informal meeting the senior officials of the ECP discussed the situation and unrest in the country and concluded that elections will have to be postponed," said the official requesting anonymity. He said that the formal decision in this regard will be announced on Monday after a meeting with government and security officials.
After Saturday's meeting the ECP released a press statement saying that the election scheduled next month had been "adversely affected" by unrest in the country and that it would hold an urgent meeting on Monday. After opposition leader Benazir Bhutto's assassination, another candidate was killed in a bomb blast on Friday.
The commission said in its statement: "All activities pertaining to pre-poll arrangements, including printing of ballot papers and logistics as well as training of polling personnel, have been adversely affected." In some places, the commission said, the security situation was "not conducive" to holding the elections on January 8. "Election commission offices in nine districts have been set on fire, leaving electoral rolls reduced to ashes."
Benazir Bhutto had returned to Pakistan after eight years of self-imposed exile to take part in the poll. After Bhutto's assassination, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz "the country's other major party" has already announced boycott of the polls.
Bhutto's Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) has said it will decide about taking part in the polls on Sunday evening after prayers for Bhutto three days after her death.
===
Was the Bush Administration Behind Benazir Bhutto Assassination?
Mitch Battros
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/12/29/p22172
It is being mentioned in high circles that US President George Bush
was receiving heat for spending billions of dollars on propping the
puppets of the Musharraf regime. It is believed that somewhere along
the way Musharraf didn't want to continue this game of charades and
was leaning more towards the care and needs of his people (in
Pakistan) than to navigate the desires of the Bush regime.
It has been rumored that behind the scenes, Benazir Bhutto and Pervez
Musharraf had come to some agreement to take back the sovereignty of
Pakistan. Of course this action is the last thing the Bush regime
would want, because it would usher in independence and promulgate a
peace movement of the overwhelming percentage of Pakistanis who
support an independent nation. It is said that if an agreement was to
ensue between Bhutto and Musharraf, a natural wage (or surge) would
quell anti-Pakistan sentiments brought forth by al-Qaeda types.
It is suggested the last thing the Bush regime would want is a stable
independent Pakistan. No conflict - no war - no defense contract - no
money.
Actually we have seen this very same scenario played-out with every
dictator put in place by the US government. In fact, George Bush (41)
was caught in this same situation with Manuel Noriega Presidential
dictator of Panama from 1983 to 1989.
Noriega was put in power by the Bush regime (41), then Noriega just as
Musharraf, decided he didn't want to play this game anymore, and
wanted to return sovereignty back to the people of Panama. "Operation
Just Cause" was the U.S. military invasion of Panama that deposed
General Manuel Noriega in December 1989. General Manuel Noriega was at
one time a U.S. ally, who was increasingly using Panama to facilitate
drug trafficking for the CIA, from South America to the United States.
In the 1980s, Dictator Manuel Noriega was one of the most recognizable
names in the United States, being constantly covered by the press.
Another puppet of the US installed puppeteer school was Saddam
Hussein, again placed by the CIA and worked closely with George Bush
(41). While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with
U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980
Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to
1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with
assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.
Just as with Noriega -- Hussein, although a brutal dictator, also
decided he no longer wanted to play the game doing the bidding as
another US stooge.
More on CIA-Bush-Hussein:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/10/205859.shtml
Then there was the 2004 Bush (43) regime and his US led coup against
President Jean-Bertrand Aristide of HAITI. Here even CNN discloses the
shear veil outing a US led coup orchestrated by the Bush regime.
"I was told that to avoid bloodshed I'd better leave," Aristide said
in an interview on CNN. Earlier, the Bush administration vigorously
denied that Aristide was kidnapped by U.S. troops, which is what two
U.S. members of Congress said the deposed Haitian president told them
in telephone calls.
But Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, and Rep. Maxine Waters,
D-California, said Aristide told them a very different story. Waters
said Mildred Aristide, the ex-president's wife, called the
congresswoman at her home at 6:30 a.m. (9:30 a.m. ET) Monday, and told
her "the coup d'etat has been completed," and then handed the phone to
her husband.
Waters said that Aristide told her the chief of staff of the U.S.
Embassy in Haiti came to his home, told him that he would be killed
"and a lot of Haitians would be killed" if he did not leave and said
he "has to go now." CNN Report Here: and Democracy Now Interview Here:
Haitian President Aristide was fighting for the rights of the Haitian
people and against slave labor supported by the Bush regime. It seems
companies such as Wal-Mart, Disney, Sears, Kmart, and J.C. Penney
lobbied the Bush regime to maintain their 8 cents per hour wages. This
was being threatened by a determined advocate for the Haitian people
and of course big business just won't stand for that. NY Times Report
Here:
It would appear Aristide, who was originally set up by the US
government, realized he was propped as a stooge for corporate greed,
and fought back. That's when the CIA, and later US military was called
in to snuff him out. Also see: The U.S.-Haiti Connection
Bush - CIA - Bhutto - Musharraf
Are you ready to 'follow-the-bouncing-ball'? Are we not seeing the
same thread weaved through Iraq, Panama, Haiti, and now Pakistan. Was
the Bush regime behind the assassination of an independent thinker
with vision and a passion to return power back to the people of
Pakistan? Was this a warning to Musharraf to "play ball" or you're
next? Did India have to sign-off on this for it to play? Like all the
others, we will probably never know.
I guess George bubba Bush (43) said it best ---- " you are either with
me, or you are with the terrorists. Now what's it going to be? "
But not all countries have fallen to US manipulation driven by
self-seeking greedy corporations. Although the odds are certainly
against them, but we can now understand why America's own citizens
might have a silent cheer when the bully on the block gets kicked in
the nuts by a much smaller but defiant underdog.
Some high placed sources have hinted something to the effect of: "This
should get the attention of Musharraf for not following our plan after
funding him over $10 billion dollars." In fact, here is a quote from
an AP article: 'Benazir Bhutto's assassination in Pakistan is likely
to prompt calls for a close review of U.S. policy toward a country
crucial to regional stability and the war on terrorism. Such a review
is overdue, considering the minimal results from the $10 billion in
U.S. aid funneled to President Pervez Musharraf's government since 2001.'
And what does bubba Bush have to say?: President Bush blames
"murderous extremists" for the attack. (AP) Okay, I think we get the
picture now-----
===
Pakistan in Turmoil
By Israel Shamir
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shamireaders/message/1036
Benazir Bhutto's assassination had moved unhappy Pakistan a step
closer to unknown future which may include disintegration and American
invasion on some stage. Her murder was organized by the Neocon team
who intend to use the turmoil to take over Pakistani nuclear assets in
the next stage of their world war. But do not fear future. Our enemies
do not keep Fate in their thrall. They are cocksure, but they might
lose. We should not be forever scared of pending changes; leave this
fear to rich and feeble old men. A storm is ahead, but there is no
status quo worth saving and preserving anywhere in Asia, least of all
in Pakistan.
Some pundits already compared her assassination with that of Prince
Rudolf in Saraevo 1914, but even the bloody and unnecessary World War
One ushered in an unexpected victorious revolution and had derailed
imperialist plans for half a century.
Who killed her? The authorities try to blame some jihadis, but not
only al Qaeda leaders denied their involvement, not only Benazir's
posthumous letters denounce the government rather than Taliban. Dr
Shabir Choudhry, an expert, commented well:
"Why would Al-Qaeda kill her? Maybe she was pro-West and went there to
protect the Western interests, but she was not in power, and was not
even close to getting elected. Even if she were elected Prime Minister
of Pakistan, now most of the powers are vested in the post of the
President, and not Prime Minister. Musharraf and his Ministers took
pride in supporting and promoting American interest or 'War on
terror'. They, in order to stay in power undermined the Pakistani or
Muslim interest and have virtually made Pakistan a colony of America.
So why target a person who had not yet become a Prime Minister, and
have not practically done much to support the Western policy in Pakistan?"
The murder occurred just one month after the Neocons began a
discussion on the pages of the NY Times calling to undermine and
dismantle Pakistan, and take over its nuclear devices. Frederick Kagan
and Michael O'Hanlon called in the New York Times (Pakistan's
Collapse, Our Problem, November 18, 2007) to invade Pakistan after it
descends into chaos, liaise with pro-American elements in the army,
secure the capital, and remove the bombs "to someplace like New
Mexico; or a remote redoubt within Pakistan, with the nuclear
technology guarded by elite Pakistani forces backed up (and watched
over) by crack international troops… unless it fells into wrong hands
[of Islamic terrorists]". Abid Ullah Jan rightly noted that
"Pakistan's military is not as concerned about the myth of these
weapons falling into the hands of militants as they are fearful of
America using Pakistan's engineered instability as a ruse for
implementing a unilateral disarmament scheme."
After the assassination, leading Neocons and extreme Zionists John
Bolton and Michael Savage already called to forget about democracy in
Pakistan, and instead, to give full support to General Musharraf. The
idea of removing Pakistani nuclear weapons – so they would not fall
into hands of terrorists – is being voiced again and again. In order
to conceal this plan, they speak now of Pakistan being unripe to
democracy.
This is lie. The people of Pakistan are as good as anybody in Asia:
they do not want American dominance, and real democracy may only
liberate them from the American yoke. But the leaders of Pakistan had
sold out; and the worst are the military and intelligence. Thus the
choice was grim: a pro-American military dictator who turned Pakistan
into a US invasion base, and a pro-American ex-PM who was about to add
prestige to the rotten regime. The regime of Pakistan has to go, to be
changed for people's rule free from Washington orders. One doubts
whether such a task can be achieved by elections; probably an
insurgency based on people's will has a better chance, following
achievements of such diverse inspiration models as Mao in China, Fidel
in Cuba, Hezbollah in Lebanon. The insurgency is there, and with
proper support it can win over Pakistan.
What insurgency? An insurgency can be good only if it fights against
Western imperialism. There were plenty of insurgencies for
imperialism, from Savimbi in Angola to Contras in Nicaragua to al
Qaeda in Afghanistan. If an insurgency is blessed by an American
president, if it helps imperialists, like al-Qaeda did (and does), it
can bring only disaster to the people. In colour codes, green is good
together with red.
The long shadow of the tragic ten-year-long Afghani war (1980 to 1989)
is still with us, for the events can't be understood without it. A few
years ago, Zbigniev Brzezinski boasted ("How the US provoked the
Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan and starting the whole mess",
Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, read here) how he
succeeded to trap the Soviets in the war by starting insurgency
against the socialist government long time before the Soviet troops
came over to help the government. Al Qaeda and other mujaheds were but
a local version of Contras, and they caused much sorrow to the people
of Afghanistan. The Afghanis I have met say that the days of
Najibullah's pro-Soviet government were the best times their country
ever knew.
Pakistan became a nuclear power as a reward for its support for the
American-led war. But was it worth it? Pakistan was turned into a war
base, and millions of refugees, thousands of weapons and endless
traffic of drugs undermined the weak country. Afghanistan descended
into living hell. Support of the war gave rise to the ICI, the real
rulers of Pakistan. The nuclear weapons once touted as "Islamic bomb"
became worthless as Pakistan was turned into an American colony.
Indeed there is no blessing in the ill-begotten gains.
Even Reaganites, right-wing Republicans who provoked the Afghan war
did not enjoy the fruits of victory. The anticommunist conservatives
invited young children of Jewish Trotskyites to carry out the
ideological war for them, and the young Neocons succeeded, but at the
same time they completely displaced their erstwhile patrons. The
conservatives became Palaeocons, out of power and out of influence,
while their positions were taken over by Neocons.
The European and American Left (from French Communists to Noam
Chomsky) agreed to play ball with their nephews the Neocons, condemned
the USSR and warmly embraced the al Qaeda mujaheeds. For this sin, the
left went into abeyance after the USSR was undone.
Our good and admired friend Edward Herman wrote recently (ZNet
Commentary, December 16, 2007) of Great Satan and Little Satan, of the
US and Israel. Whatever these two satans touch, rots. Whoever relies
upon their help, loses his soul. The people of Pakistan deserve
freedom, prosperity and equality, but no union with Satan will help
them. Musharraf served the Great Satan, and Bhutto played ball with
the Little Satan. Now the NY Times reported that the US plans to use
the native mountain tribes of Pakistan to carry out their war. Unless
the people of Pakistan reject Satan and his allies, be it called al
Qaeda or ICI or CIA or Special troops, they won't be free. As long as
they still believe that something good can come out of Satan's
friendship, they are doomed. Their country will be dismantled, and
their useless nuclear weapons won't help them.
However, dissolution of Pakistan does not have to lead to havoc. There
is an alternative of reintegration of its provinces in India.
Partition of India in 1947 was a tragic mistake, as tragic as
partition of Palestine. It was caused by the British imperialists, who
planted the seeds of partition a century earlier, in 1857. In that
year, the Brits killed millions of Indians while crushing the Great
Uprising. Akhilesh Mithal I Itihaas wrote: "before 1857, there was an
Indian Culture and Style, and there was no Hindu-Muslim divide. The
defeat of 1857 meant a great culture fracture which continues to
separate our people into mutually antagonistic shrapnel like
fragments." This great fracture can be healed.
Our friend Anthony Nahas wrote: "the Muslim population of Pakistan was
- and is - smaller than that of India, though Pakistan was created to
make Muslim's "safe" from presumed Hindu intolerance and oppression.
If the Muslim population in India can live in peace, thrive and enjoy
protection under secular law, what was the point of creating Pakistan
in the first place? Although it is inconceivable for Pakistan to merge
back into India, such an (impossible) event would probably be the
greatest thing that could happen to both countries. It is true that
Islam and Hinduism are the two beautiful eyes of one culturally
diverse and pluralistic Indian subcontinent."
*********************************************************************
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@yahoo.com for instructions.
To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:wvns-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:wvns-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
No comments:
Post a Comment