Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

India-Pakistan

Pakistan is a true democracy

2006-03-26

President General Pervez Musharraf said on Saturday his government has introduced "real democracy" in Pakistan by empowering people politically and economically.

I'm a really slender young guy, with a head full of wavy blond hair. I can touch my toes without anything breaking, too...

"Democracy essentially means empowerment of people, progress of the county and freedom of expression... What else does democracy mean?" the president said at public gathering after he inaugurated a one-kilometre bridge linking the tehsils of Jhelum and Pind Dadan Khan.

Individual liberty? Freedom from being bossed around by any holy man who decides you're not hairy enough? The freedom to become a Unitarian?

or even (gasp) an unveiled femalian????

When was the last time anybody in Pakland saw a titty?

It was Monday last, when Mahmoud and Chaudry sneaked into a Bollywood double-feature in Lahore's low rent district. The movie was barely into the first big dance number when Mahmoud and Chaudry were set upon by djinns, and had to leave to go make wudu. By the time both of them completed ghusl, the djinns had gone, but when they went back to their seats, the djinns were waiting for them again.

"The local government system has taken root with the completion of the first term, the Senate elections have taken place and the next general elections will be held in 2007 on completion of the assemblies' five-year term," he said, adding that this would be the first time that the assemblies have completed their five-year term. Having achieved economic stability, Musharraf said, the government is now focusing on reducing reduction, creating employment and controlling inflation.

Posted by:Fred

#9 his government has introduced "real democracy" in Pakistan by empowering people politically and economically.

I'm confused. Didn't Ghadaffi just inform us that Lybia was "the only true democracy in the world" since "everything [in Lybia] is open to discussion"?

Posted by: KBK 2006-03-26 14:30

#8 Thinemp Whimble2412:
Only the Punjabi majority accept a Pakistan identity. Otherwise there are: Pashtos, Sindhis (2nd largest group; Sindh is an MQM - pro-US - hotbed), Balochis, Waziris, and a couple of other groups. Afghanistan's President is a Pashto, which makes him a one of the worst Arab wannabes in the world. Taliban was the wannabe wing of Arab supremacist Al-Qaeda. Balochis and Sindhis deserve our sympathy and support; the rest can go to hell.

Re. my pessimistic post above, remember: there are 140,000 US troops near the Iran border (plus 8000 UK troops). That is a cause for optimism that I should have mentioned.

Check out this Hindu nationalist post, on the Balochi Partition movement. Biased? Hell yes!

Posted by: Listen to Dogs 2006-03-26 13:14

#7 Why does anyone give press to this man's ravings anymore? 1/3 of his country isn't even under his rule. The "lawless frontiers". The country's a joke. And Perv's an ass.

Posted by: Thinemp Whimble2412 2006-03-26 12:12

#6 President General Pervez Musharraf said

I don't need to read any further.

Posted by: gromgoru 2006-03-26 08:34

#5 Pakistan may not be a democracy and may not be free, but when one considers who Musharraf's main opponents are one tends to conclude that what the Pakis have right now is as close as they are likely to get to freedom and democracy for the forseeable future.

Posted by: Glenmore 2006-03-26 08:14

#4 The Muttahida-Majlis-e-Amal, which holds or shares power in 2 Paki provinces, participates in democratic elections with the caveat: only the Muslim deity ("allah") has sovereign power to make laws. The constitution of the Islamic Republic contains a provision which obliges non-god, law makers to conform legislation to the "injunctions of allah." Mushy couldn't outlaw jihad or implement true popular sovereignty even if he wanted to.

What about Paki support for counter-terror in Afghanistan? That's the punchline of a sick joke. Post 9-11, I would have given the Russians a free hand in Chechnya including support for hot-pursuit cross-border raids, with the quid pro quo being: Russian support for US Air Force basing in at least one of the former Soviet republics. Then I would have hit Pashto sections of the Taliban/al-Qaeda terror entity with heavy bombers, 24-7. By then region-oriented Norther Alliance forces would have established semi-sovereign warlord areas, and given anti-Taliban elements freedom of exercise against the terrorists. Mined no go zones would have been established along the border with the Pakistan terrorist entity, backed by napalm armed fighters. As for Pakistan, which was under US sanctions on 9-11 and under crippling debt, it would have collapsed under Sindh separation forces. Seculars would blame those fat Jamaat-i-Islami pigs for the partition, and a secular republic would have been established in the Punjab. By that time US would have turkey-shoot privileges in Peshawar and in Waziristan. A pro-west regime would have soon formed in the remnants of Pakistan. What have we got now? A US welfare dependency that takes US aid as a jihad subsidy, and delivers zero security to Americans. Even the occasional Paki arrest of a nominal senior terrorists, begs the argument that al-Qaeda has no command structure, and was always little more than an ideological "base" of Salifist terror.

Why the Monday morning quarter-backing? A second look at what we have, might cause us to end the farcical perma-war in Afghanistan. It has been repeatedly proven that Muslim terrorists will get and receive popular support, except where retalation against same is disproportionate. A neighborhood whose residents did nothing to prevent planting of IEDs should be punished by 500 pounder drops on the terror spot. That can't happen until the reason dictates that Muslims do not - and cannot want - the same freedoms that Westerners want. Their Koran labels them "slaves of allah" and that is all they can be. And if allah's clerics wants nuclear-jihad, then that is exactly what our subsidized Muslim enemy will deliver if the current madness continues.

People, you need to get hostile when you hear 20 year No-Win predictions. On 9-11, we were delivered a pretext to win a victory over the terrorists; post 9-11 we snatched defeat from the arms of that essential victory. Some of you think you are defending the fighters, by defending this mis-handled war. You are not. You are endorsing unnecessary holes in family trees.

Posted by: Listen to Dogs 2006-03-26 08:11

#3 You remind me of a man.

Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-03-26 07:26

#2 There is any thing but the democracy in Pakistan. Any rational reasoning that favored support of Pakistan could be attributed to the false concept that Pakistan is fighting against the terrorism. Pakistan will be the damn stupid to give up the state sponsored terrorism in Kashmir and in Afghanistan. I do not understand why our own US government is too eager to kiss the ass of Pakistan when the majority of the Pakistanies in USA were too happy to see the destruction of USA on 9-11. If you can think straight, Pakistan has to be a target of the nuclear inhalation by US and the West. Folks I am too old but my USA citizenship allows me to bear arms. I will waste no time to come out with my bare chest and blazing guns to protect my grand daughter from the stupid Islamic laws. I hope you do the same. I trust that the love to your grand daughters could never be less than mine.

Posted by: Annon 2006-03-26 03:06

#1 In your dreams Pakman

Posted by: Captain America 2006-03-26 00:10

00:00