Last year, this month, we witnessed the wrongful hanging of Saddam Hussein under a sham of a trial. This year, same month, we have seen the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. This latter death causes me to feel a shade of the grief I felt at the former death. But I do not want to get in to such comparisons at this moment. What I do want to talk about is the fucked up state of affairs in Pakistan for which the lone "superpower" of the world deserves to share the blame.
The Bush administration has, under the rubric of support for the war on terror, supported the military dictatorship in Pakistan while forcefully bringing democracy to another country, whose above-mentioned dictator was hanged (disrespectfully, as some who watched the videos on YouTube would say). It has provided billions of US$ to the country for it to spend on armament, while also providing the army with ammunition and weaponry. The Pakistani Army still complains that the US has not supplied it enough war machinery to tackle "terrorists" and "extremists".
It was only the recent imposition of Emergency in Pakistan that the US was forced into making at least some noise about the state of things in the country, and Bush called upon Gen Mush to put "democracy" back on track by lifting the state of Emergency. Of course, it seemed quite content with the fact that the "restoration of democracy" involved suspension and replacement of almost the entire bench of the Pakistan Supreme Court judges, tinkering with the Constitution, and other such "democratic" measures that ensured Gen Mush staying in the Presidential seat. I guess its only fair for one militant President to give such concessions to another.
Militants and terrorists killed Bhutto? When it was Gen Mush who had the most to fear from her performance in the soon to be held "free and fair elections"? Actually, how much of a difference is there anyway between Gen Mush and a terrorist? A terrorist, in layman terms, is someone who uses terror tactics to achieve his/her ends, and as a military dictator, what else did Mush do? Of course, the self-appointed custodian of democracy throughout the world, that ape called Bush, lauded the General for his unflinching support in the war against terror and gave him more arms.
The Emergency had been imposed under the excuse of controlling the terrorists and militants that were running free through the country. If that really were the case, then it only goes to show the ineptness of the Mush administration, since it is now freely ascribing the killing of Bhutto to the very elements the Emergency was supposedly meant to tackle. Yeah, right.
I am sure I am hardly the only one who sees these things to be the way I do. And yet, no one in any position of authority, who can actually influence such matters, will even bat a fucking eyelid. This world is such a fucked up place, makes me want to take up arms myself and systematically assassinate many of these world leaders. We will see which terrorists they blame then.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
a bit lame, if I must.
1st para, sarcastically, chance or coincidence? lol It's the CI of A man. double lol, but not far from the truth, me thinks.
2nd para. What democracy? More like oligarchy. And why would he deserve respect? Boomerang concept. Yes, billions over some years. Realpolitik foreign policy. Say, I see a pattern repeated across many countries. What are a few billions to a country that spends in excess of 400 on its own military every year? tch tch. They're awash with cash. If a con man gets what he wants, you're telling me he ain't gonna go back for more?
3rd para, PR. They tried the supreme court thing back in march. It didn't work. So they tried again. It did work. Hip Hop Hooray! Hoe....
4rth para, so, when those two, Mush and Butt met randomly and repeatedly, you think they exchanged views on the weather? They did meet, way back when she first landed. Negotiated power sharing. lol. Under your definition, nearly every state could become a terrorist. tch tch, realpolitik. what was their strategy back in '91? shock and awe...
5th para, you assume the ISI, the military, the govt, the state, the islamists, the regional waziristanis, that they're all unified, without currents of thought and sub-groups within contesting each other. You also give responsibility for anything sub-currents of the first 4 i mention, to Mush, as if there was no one else behind the scenes and he were truly the master of puppets. you simplify a tad bit, don't you think?
Why don't you start by tackling those who've done onto you directly? Get real, the great game never ended, wars of position never ended, contesting power never ended. Why would anyone bat an eyelid? Dude, realpolitik. Always been, always will be, fuck what the PR propaganda machine says. This might be one of those moments when 'digging deeper' could actually be a good source of analysis...
tengu, you shouldn't have, for indeed, it was pretty lame.
i give my posts a subject, a title, a heading, whatever you want to call it, for a reason, you know. and as seems to be often done to things, i write about one thing and am "criticised" for another. i never did deny realpolitik, did i? your rant "digs deeper" in all the directions that make no practical difference at all to any of the things i have written. re-read what i wrote without bringing in your own over-bearing subjectivities, and you should be easily able to see the disconnect i am talking about. and i would strongly urge you to do that in the future too, before you start, for the umpteenth time, asking me to "get real" and "dig deeper".
1st para, it was the ISI that did it with CI of A logistical support! :p
dude, on some things you iz cool, on others, sorry dude, but you iz quite a ways behind. your political analysis is pretty basic. if you can't take criticism, fine, but don't shoot the messenger.
man, as i said, read the fucking title. i ain't trying to do any fucking political anal-ysis. i am merely voicing my desire to set things rights in my own perspective of what constitutes right. if you want to read that in the light of only your own world-view without any regard from where i am coming from or intending to go, suit yourself. but for fuck's sake, don't litter this space then.
and what is right? Mush should stay, he's better than any of the other on offer. The lesser evil. I called it a while ago, that country will disintegrate. It's not a question of what, it's a question of when. No disrespect intended, but unless you're pakistani, what right do you have in deciding what's right for pakistan? are you really that informed of the 'facts'? Reading newspapers doesn't necessarily cut it. It's a shame that this implies you might have to think or 'dig deeper', but oh right, i forgot, some things don't need to be dug into, they are self evident. ehh? The cause of death is contested, for starters. On its own this should tell you a little something.
And if the point isn't to highlight the interconnectness of different events, how the 'superpower' affects affairs far and wide, how they or it disregard what you assert to be right, would an analysis not be better? Else you risk sounding more like a child who doesn't get it and needs to scream and stomp up and down so that people will, in layman terms, explain things to him. So pick up arms and drown like the rest of them. Lets all dumb ourselves down while we're at it, it's bound to be a worthwhile solution.
Positions of authority, wtf would you know about what goes on within them? Do you think those positions of authority were formed on the basis of what was right? Do you think those that are there got to where they are through doing what was right? What naive imbecile thinks along these lines? Get real, get serious, and maybe get an analysis, or else you'll disappear as most voices do. You dismiss digging deeper, you dismiss seeing power in relations, you dismiss any reading of international relations that does not suit your few examples. ehh? fuck it.
Realpolitik. And yes, understanding realpolitik does require one to dig deeper, it's not self-evident. "The Bush administration". Please, don't make me laugh. The "US was forced"? lol. "Militant President", Bush? lol. "Custodian of Democracy"? Please, read some history. Are you sure Mush had the most to loose? lol.
All these are contested concepts, but you whitewash everything as self-evident. Fine. Have it your way.
you really are tiresome. really. and and not a good tiresome, like you know, the way sex can be. more like the curse of sisyphus. you surely know, or have heard, of the indian parents who force their kids into studying medicine or engineering or management, assuming that any other approach to life is wrong, and without any regard, reverence or respect to the kids' notions of what they themselves want to do. and then, everything the child does is seen in light of that externally pre-defined goal. eg, an aspirant cello-player being told that she is not serious about life because she only gets a 62 in her exams. looks like you picked up this trait very well during your years spent in the country. but at least wait till you have kids to push it down someone's throat.
Post a Comment