What's new

Do you still support Musharraf?

Please vote after the discussion (Do you now support Mush?)

  • Yes

    Votes: 46 61.3%
  • No

    Votes: 29 38.7%

  • Total voters
    75

osamaziadxb

FULL MEMBER
Mar 1, 2009
309
0
64
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Last edited by a moderator:

Awesome

RETIRED MOD
Mar 24, 2006
22,023
5
20,323
Drama baaz kahin ka...aik din bhi kia ye batain nahi karta..he was president ..we xpect more but he failed..at every field we needd him like this:enjoy:
Musharraf was excellent in his first three years, there's no doubt about that.

But his moves on 3 November, not even his close supporters could back him after that. He should've let the CJ announce him invalid and then fought it in court... Maybe used the parliament in some manner to declare him valid...

He vastly undid himself when he imposed the bans on the media.

I don't think I can support his trial unless something even bigger comes out against him. He fought wars for us, he stood in harms way, I think he made mistakes, some big ones, but he shouldn't be tried for that.

His trial would just mean vengeance, and all that we have achieved yesterday would be sullied.
 

TruthSeeker

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Nov 27, 2008
6,210
2
5,810
Country
United States
Location
United States
Musharraf is the best choice of the Pakistani leaders who have the prominence and experience to be president. If he is elected in a fair election, then I think his legitimacy would be restored and he would govern better than any of the others who have tried before or since. BUT, I am just a stupid Yankee, so what do I know??? :usflag: :usflag: :usflag:
 

osamaziadxb

FULL MEMBER
Mar 1, 2009
309
0
64
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
I don't think I can support his trial unless something even bigger comes out against him. He fought wars for us, he stood in harms way, I think he made mistakes, some big ones, but he shouldn't be tried for that.
.

but someone forced him to do this ..yes he fought wars for us but he has no respect for his elders too like "no good person" for his Generals..
for a country small mistakes r not xepted bcz we have built this country not for mistakes ,small or big...1 man do mistake nd whole country bear it then
 

osamaziadxb

FULL MEMBER
Mar 1, 2009
309
0
64
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Musharraf is the best choice of the Pakistani leaders who have the prominence and experience to be president. If he is elected in a fair election, then I think his legitimacy would be restored and he would govern better than any of the others who have tried before or since. BUT, I am just a stupid Yankee, so what do I know??? :usflag: :usflag: :usflag:

Sure for US he is a good president on us..bcz he always said "yes sir" to u..we have a power to reject him ..u will c if he stands.(donot give me the e.g of polling..only %'s of people r using this poll)
 

Myth_buster_1

BANNED
Mar 17, 2008
9,020
-1
9,025
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
But his moves on 3 November, not even his close supporters could back him after that. He should've let the CJ announce him invalid and then fought it in court... Maybe used the parliament in some manner to declare him valid...

:lol: and mind enlighting us why the same judges legitimized his rule until 2007.
not to forget these same judges what they are today is because of musharraf who gave them the post.
we all know that the power hungry politicians in UK wanted to come back in pakistan for desperate feast and little do we know that AA is a PPP supporter while IC is a PMLN lover so they all ganged up on musharraf...
 
Last edited:

Awesome

RETIRED MOD
Mar 24, 2006
22,023
5
20,323
:lol: and mind enlighting us why the same judges legitimized his rule until 2007.
not to forget these same judges what they are today is because of musharraf who gave them the post what CJ IC is today.
we all know that the power hungry politicians in UK wanted to come back in pakistan for desperate feast and little do we know that AA is a PPP supporter while IC is a PMLN lover so they all ganged up on musharraf...
You can't argue Musharraf's LFO because it is part of the constitution now. It was ratified by the parliament. If you want to argue on that, why are you targeting IC, get the entire Parliament of Pakistan who with 2/3rd Majority gave their stamp of approval.

As I said, his first three years weren't bad at all. It made sense to keep Musharraf around. But yes that was a mistake too in legal terms. But he seems to have moved on from that point and the public believes him.

You can't just say IC kicked him. The November bench did not even include IC. The SJC bench had stalwards like Ramday and Iqbal! Everybody was influenced by some party and not the constitution?

Come on be honest now. Won't you like a Pakistan where you can proudly say, whatever it is, Pakistan has a judicial system where you can get justice. Yes you may be wronged, by rich people, but there really should be a chance for you to make a difference even against the might of the rich. This is it. Very simple.

I know what supporting Musharraf is all about. I've supported him all throughout his tenure. He looks like an enlightened, educated, strong and confident statesman. But really what sort of justice is this that on America's demands he handed over hundreds of Pakistanis to America where they rotted in Guantanamo? Who should pay for that? Forget payback, I'm just saying that the practice should stop in the future, someone should fear doing that to you. Dr. Aafia, she's being abused by American forces, they aren't charging her and they aren't releasing her. Why? Because apparently they've done a lot of abuses on her which will be public once she gets released.

Why is it okay for you to not speak up for her? Musharraf was a great man, a great statesman, someone who looked very good as our leader. But he made mistakes, please admit to that. This transcends PML-N. I don't care if Nawaz doesn't get elected in the future. But your judiciary has been restored. If Nawaz does something wrong even HE would face the music.

Your smaller provinces who keep complaining about Punjab being unfair to them. They will now have confidence with the new free judiciary. They don't need a Baloch Liberation Army, they can solve matters in courts.

Why do you think the Swat Shariat deal took off? The main argument they are saying is that when the Nawab rule was there in Swat they used to get justice and now the civil courts just don't pay attention to them. For this they came up with Shariat rule. With free and justice serving judiciary you don't need that plan any more.

This is the basic problem of Pakistan. You should support this. If we fix this today, I promise you in the next 60 years there can be no better nation than ours and you and I can also say we played a small role in Pakistan's destiny!

In Musharraf's words, Sab se pehle Pakistan (Pakistan First). Musharraf se bhi pehle (Even before Musharraf).
 

Awesome

RETIRED MOD
Mar 24, 2006
22,023
5
20,323
Musharraf is the best choice of the Pakistani leaders who have the prominence and experience to be president. If he is elected in a fair election, then I think his legitimacy would be restored and he would govern better than any of the others who have tried before or since. BUT, I am just a stupid Yankee, so what do I know??? :usflag: :usflag: :usflag:
Haha, you guys aren't evil or anything. You guys are just mistaken.

Trust me, in the beginning it may seem like a free, uncontrollable (by America) Pakistan is no good for you guys. You guys may again make your hillaries, holbrookes, mullens and god knows who all, make phone calls and run errands left, right and center whenever Pakistan exercises independent thought. But trust me you're thinking in the short term.

It is impossible that a prosperous, free thinking, educated and well fed Pakistan won't choose to lend their support to good American people. You guys made it work with Britain, whom you fought against for your independence. Our struggle is for our freedom from you guys too. There is no reason to assume we'll not be with you in the same way, once we achieve this goal of ours.
 

moha199

SENIOR MEMBER
Jul 18, 2006
1,703
0
688
Drama baaz kahin ka...aik din bhi kia ye batain nahi karta..he was president ..we xpect more but he failed..at every field we needd him like this:enjoy:
You say that he is a dramatic!! You really believe that our COAS of that time was not loyal to Pakistan who he served for 40 years??? You guys must be out of your minds..... He failed on every front? would you like to explain every step where he failed? You had one state tv he gave you 72.. You had no voice but he gave you voice free of everything... But Pakistani media should off showed some loyalty to Pakistan which it didnt and yes then got banned for couple of days in results because they needed some lesson to stay in bondries..... Our enemies were using qoutations from our media against us, Would you like to answer me that... It was out media who was bashing our Pakistan left to right!!! The CJ that you cry about, Would you like to tell me who gave you that CJ? the answer is Musharraf! Yes he was fired when he became dumb enough to give Pakistani goverment the hard time... Remeber Musharraf's words that I love Pakistan but at this time Pakistan needs me more! His words are proven now that after he left or after his powers reduced our economy started to go down... 17 billions are gone from F.R. Why? Because west and the rest of the world trusted this guy and invested in Pakistan. I work in financial world and even my own company that i work for was thinking of outsourcing business to Pakistan! but as soon Musharraf started loosning power they decided not to invest in Pakistan and now i see that they were right not to do that business wise!!!!!! My friends uncle owns RED TONE communication in Pakistan. Who made the telecommunication easy in Pakistan? It was Musharraf's government who did. Which made the laws easy so Pakistanis from west can go back and do business in Pakistan in his counmany there are 57,000 people are working all are Pakistanis. It could off done in Nawaz's old time and BB's but no! they wanted to get the commissions but his government didn't. I am not saying in his time period there was no bad but i see way too many good then Bad. Now the people who were caught by Pakistan's army were either terrorists or were linked to terrorists in some ways. But buddy we live in golobalized world now and every country needs other. If Pakistan handed over the terrorists to US then musharraf didn't keep the grant money but it was collected by Pakistan and who was benifited by that money? It was Pakistan which was benifited. When Musharraf took office, Pakistan had 400 millions of foreign reserves but in nov 2007 Pakistan had 17 billions which means 17,000 millions of foreign reserves. Yes it is also true that Pakistan was in little bad shape right before elections but don't forget it was the trap of the world to weaken Pakistan when we were progressing so much... it were our enemies who wanted us to be weak!!! thanks alot for reading this ... Ill make my points later in the posts as well
 

osamaziadxb

FULL MEMBER
Mar 1, 2009
309
0
64
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
You say that he is a dramatic!! You really believe that our COAS of that time was not loyal to Pakistan who he served for 40 years??? You guys must be out of your minds..... He failed on every front? would you like to explain every step where he failed? You had one state tv he gave you 72.. You had no voice but he gave you voice free of everything... But Pakistani media should off showed some loyalty to Pakistan which it didnt and yes then got banned for couple of days in results because they needed some lesson to stay in bondries..... Our enemies were using qoutations from our media against us, Would you like to answer me that... It was out media who was bashing our Pakistan left to right!!! The CJ that you cry about, Would you like to tell me who gave you that CJ? the answer is Musharraf! Yes he was fired when he became dumb enough to give Pakistani goverment the hard time... Remeber Musharraf's words that I love Pakistan but at this time Pakistan needs me more! His words are proven now that after he left or after his powers reduced our economy started to go down... 17 billions are gone from F.R. Why? Because west and the rest of the world trusted this guy and invested in Pakistan. I work in financial world and even my own company that i work for was thinking of outsourcing business to Pakistan! but as soon Musharraf started loosning power they decided not to invest in Pakistan and now i see that they were right not to do that business wise!!!!!! My friends uncle owns RED TONE communication in Pakistan. Who made the telecommunication easy in Pakistan? It was Musharraf's government who did. Which made the laws easy so Pakistanis from west can go back and do business in Pakistan in his counmany there are 57,000 people are working all are Pakistanis. It could off done in Nawaz's old time and BB's but no! they wanted to get the commissions but his government didn't. I am not saying in his time period there was no bad but i see way too many good then Bad. Now the people who were caught by Pakistan's army were either terrorists or were linked to terrorists in some ways. But buddy we live in golobalized world now and every country needs other. If Pakistan handed over the terrorists to US then musharraf didn't keep the grant money but it was collected by Pakistan and who was benifited by that money? It was Pakistan which was benifited. When Musharraf took office, Pakistan had 400 millions of foreign reserves but in nov 2007 Pakistan had 17 billions which means 17,000 millions of foreign reserves. Yes it is also true that Pakistan was in little bad shape right before elections but don't forget it was the trap of the world to weaken Pakistan when we were progressing so much... it were our enemies who wanted us to be weak!!! thanks alot for reading this ... Ill make my points later in the posts as well

ur lecture is jus...i can say nthing...u r saying that he handed over terrorists to US nd gave the grantet money to pakistan..gr8..so can u plz tell me who was terrorists? Arabs? no i m very sorry..they were living wid us more than 60 years i know..i know my neigbours..they were officers of grade 20 nd 21 in pakistani companies n then due to the order of Mr US he handed over these innocent Arabs nd other non pakistani's to US..
Pakistani Agencies have arrested Pakistani's as well with out any evidence (like masood janjoa etc etc)...Mush efforts for pakistan is nthing ..if he has done something this is bcz his duty..he was our president not American's..i can give u thousand examples of his blunders..like cheif justice case, like privatization of Steal mill, like jamia hafza attack, like kargil crises, like blaming our Hero A.Q khan, like .....
i m sorry
 

duhastmish

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 20, 2009
4,306
-4
2,874
Mush agreed to shift stand on Kashmir in 2006?

Former Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf was ready to give up Islamabad's traditional stand on Kashmir during secret talks with India in 2006 in order to regain credibility to Pakistan army post 9/11, a US analyst has said.

After September 11, the Pakistani army had lost its credibility in the international community mainly because of its well-established relationship with the extremists groups, said Steve Coll, a Pultizer prize-winning American journalist, who has written several investigative stories on Kashmir.

"The (Pak) army took the extraordinary steps that it did to enter into these negotiations over Kashmir, essentially threatening to reverse decades of policy in this negotiation with India, it was not coercion that brought them to the table; it was aspiration," he said in his testimony before the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.

"They wanted, Musharraf in particular, the international legitimacy, the credibility. He wanted to be celebrated at international events as a peacemaker. He wanted Oslo to pay attention to him," Coll said in response to a question.

The only way to achieve stability in South Asia, he observed, is through normalisation between India and Pakistan.

And "that's why the Kashmir negotiations matter, not in and of themselves but as a pathway to normalisation," he argued.

Coll, currently president and CEO of the New America Foundation, had written an investigative article in The New York Times, saying that India and Pakistan held several rounds of secretive talks and were on the brink of achieving a breakthrough in Kashmir before Musharraf got plunged into domestic political turmoil, resulting into his ultimate fall.

Testifying before the Commission, Coll said there is an understanding in the Obama administration and broadly in the Congress and elsewhere that the time has come to rebalance US policy to emphasize the pursuit of a stable, modernizing, democratic constitutional Pakistan, not because it's an American idea but because it's a Pakistani idea.

"The problem now is that this constitutional order is undergoing a period of considerable instability," he said.

Some of the aspects of that instability are without precedent in recent Pakistani history, particularly the role of an Islamist insurgency that has captured significant swathes of territory in the country, Coll said.

Now, the US, under such difficult circumstances has to also confront the role of the Pakistani security services historically in promoting, funding, arming, and equipping, sometimes with American cooperation, the very Islamist groups that now threaten that order, he observed.

One of the real problems in American policy in the past has been trying to find an effective, consistent policy to engage with the Pakistani army and to encourage and at times if necessary coerce it to change its conduct in relation to these banned Islamist groups, Coll argued.

Commenting on the proposed Kerry-Lugar bill, Coll said to some extent though it is necessary but insufficient.

"It was meant to address the problem of Musharraf's authoritarian rule and to address the recognition that too much US aid had gone into the Pakistani security services without proper accounting, without proper shared understanding of what that aid was intended to accomplish," he said.

Coll said the US has struggled in the past with identifying the policies that can encourage and persuade the Pakistani security services to break once and for all with the jihadi groups that have been an instrument of Pakistani foreign and regional policy for decades.

He said the US has failed in the past, and particularly since 9/11, because it has not enunciated clear standards of expectation that can be used to measure the attitudes and conduct of the Pakistani security services.

"It's been observed by many people that the United States wrote, essentially, a blank cheque to the Pakistani security services after 9/11. But what would it mean to write a different kind of cheque -- in other words to have a more constructive engagement?" he said.

NDTV.com: Mush agreed to shift stand on Kashmir in 2006?
 

batmannow

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 28, 2008
18,830
-19
8,056
Country
Pakistan
Location
Thailand
Mush agreed to shift stand on Kashmir in 2006?

Former Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf was ready to give up Islamabad's traditional stand on Kashmir during secret talks with India in 2006 in order to regain credibility to Pakistan army post 9/11, a US analyst has said.

After September 11, the Pakistani army had lost its credibility in the international community mainly because of its well-established relationship with the extremists groups, said Steve Coll, a Pultizer prize-winning American journalist, who has written several investigative stories on Kashmir.

"The (Pak) army took the extraordinary steps that it did to enter into these negotiations over Kashmir, essentially threatening to reverse decades of policy in this negotiation with India, it was not coercion that brought them to the table; it was aspiration," he said in his testimony before the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.

"They wanted, Musharraf in particular, the international legitimacy, the credibility. He wanted to be celebrated at international events as a peacemaker. He wanted Oslo to pay attention to him," Coll said in response to a question.

The only way to achieve stability in South Asia, he observed, is through normalisation between India and Pakistan.

And "that's why the Kashmir negotiations matter, not in and of themselves but as a pathway to normalisation," he argued.

Coll, currently president and CEO of the New America Foundation, had written an investigative article in The New York Times, saying that India and Pakistan held several rounds of secretive talks and were on the brink of achieving a breakthrough in Kashmir before Musharraf got plunged into domestic political turmoil, resulting into his ultimate fall.

Testifying before the Commission, Coll said there is an understanding in the Obama administration and broadly in the Congress and elsewhere that the time has come to rebalance US policy to emphasize the pursuit of a stable, modernizing, democratic constitutional Pakistan, not because it's an American idea but because it's a Pakistani idea.

"The problem now is that this constitutional order is undergoing a period of considerable instability," he said.

Some of the aspects of that instability are without precedent in recent Pakistani history, particularly the role of an Islamist insurgency that has captured significant swathes of territory in the country, Coll said.

Now, the US, under such difficult circumstances has to also confront the role of the Pakistani security services historically in promoting, funding, arming, and equipping, sometimes with American cooperation, the very Islamist groups that now threaten that order, he observed.

One of the real problems in American policy in the past has been trying to find an effective, consistent policy to engage with the Pakistani army and to encourage and at times if necessary coerce it to change its conduct in relation to these banned Islamist groups, Coll argued.

Commenting on the proposed Kerry-Lugar bill, Coll said to some extent though it is necessary but insufficient.

"It was meant to address the problem of Musharraf's authoritarian rule and to address the recognition that too much US aid had gone into the Pakistani security services without proper accounting, without proper shared understanding of what that aid was intended to accomplish," he said.

Coll said the US has struggled in the past with identifying the policies that can encourage and persuade the Pakistani security services to break once and for all with the jihadi groups that have been an instrument of Pakistani foreign and regional policy for decades.

He said the US has failed in the past, and particularly since 9/11, because it has not enunciated clear standards of expectation that can be used to measure the attitudes and conduct of the Pakistani security services.

"It's been observed by many people that the United States wrote, essentially, a blank cheque to the Pakistani security services after 9/11. But what would it mean to write a different kind of cheque -- in other words to have a more constructive engagement?" he said.

NDTV.com: Mush agreed to shift stand on Kashmir in 2006?

mind you, NDTV.com: Latest News, e-Bulletins, Stocks, Bollywood, Cricket, Video, Blogs, RSS from India, cant justify , because its a enemy propoganda machine, plz prove it with other good resourses.:lol:;):enjoy::wave:
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom