Posted by: MadDoGG January 8, 2008
Nepal good with king or without king? have your say
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?        

Is it only a few people here understand that King Gyanendra Is not a failed King but a king who was forced to fail..............Bathroombrains............you are the most sh)itheaded person I have ever come accross. The king was made to step down not because he did not  do anything but just the opposite.........he tried to sack all the curropt government........intensify the army against the maoist and stop the indian invasion. Thats what he tried to do.................AND THATS WHEN THE MAOIST INDIA AND THE POLITICAL PARTIES JOINED ALLIANCES AND CREATED HUGE OBSTACLES IN THE KINGS WAY THAT HE COULD NOT KEEP UP...................why cant this suc0ker bathromvheda see this...???? is he blind.....OH I know he is an Indian.......thats why.

everytime the king set out to do something.....false propaganda was spread........Indians were scared because Our king was leaning towards China too much. India was going to loose all controll over Nepal...so it supported the maoist and the SPA to create as much havoc as the could  so that the image of the king's effort would create a bad image for him show him as a faliure  in the International community.......AAAYYY Bathroomkogukhane..................The only bad thing the king did was to step down soo freakin easily..........Had I been the King with the army and police in my command ......I would have declared Marshall law and then RATATATATATATATATATATAT.....to all these muzi political leaders and maoists......including any freakin ties with India.

Read Full Discussion Thread for this article