Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Pakistani Election Postponed

Expand Messages
  • World View
    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
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      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@... for instructions.

      To leave this list, send an email to:
      wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.