Replies

The Maoist insurgency was certainly in existence before the current king, but it wasn't anywhere near as popular or as strong.

The legislature was dismissed because it was worse than useless and thoroughly infiltrated with communists and maoist sympathizers.

And the result has been to make the king about as unsympathetic as he can possibly be for the overwhelming majority of Nepalese. It's amazing sometimes how much the little people cherish their democracy.

These so-called "democrats" who refuse to participate in local elections are in open and official alliance arranged by a hostile foreign power, India, with terrorists for the express purposes of overthrowing the government. They're traitors.

Do you consider the United States to be a hostile foreign power as well? It seems nobody supports the king, even though everybody would like to, because his tyrannical megalomania is so supremely counterproductive and as ineffective as it is unjust.

The reason the king cannot beat the maoists is because their cause of overthrowing the monarchy is supported by the government of India.

You have any evidence whatsoever that the Maoists are supported by India? Didn't think so. Your attempt to erase any difference between the legitimate domestic opposition and the Maoists is laughable and unpersuasive.

The second in command of the maoists recently visited New Delhi and met with the leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) which is part of India's governing coalition. This meeting was approved by the Indian government and the maoist leader was provided safe passage by Indian intelligence. India arranged the 12-point agreement between the terrorists and their "non-violent wing," the 'democratic opposition.'

'India to blame for Maoist attacks in Nepal' - "The attacks could take place because of the Dilli daur (run to Delhi)"

Some part of the opposition may have at one time had some legitimacy, but that was before they signed an agreement with terrorists responsible for the murder of thousands.