Special Kangroo court rejects Musharraf's plea for going abroad

[alibaz]

How many votes NS secured in 2013

Around 15% including punctures by Sethi

Yes the difference which is lost on you is that Pakistani nation elected NS for the third time. Shows that you can't care less for NS popularity in Pakistan, the only thing which mattes for you is the treatment leaders get from US.

I believe the point is that how leaders from our side are carrying themselves. It should have been other way round , a person with mandate should be standing with confidence and strength instead of cutting a sorry figure.

 

[Horseman]

Around 15% including punctures by Sethi

And his saying that nawaz sharif has support of Pakistanis

 

[Sedqal]

Around 15% including punctures by Sethi



I believe the point is that how leaders from our side are carrying themselves. It should have been other way round , a person with mandate should be standing with confidence and strength instead of cutting a sorry figure.

- It is actually 27.8% of total population and thats 27.8% more then Mushy.
- As for 'carrying himself' - here is an interesting perspective from Daily Telegraph


Despite George W Bush's rhetoric about freedom, the struggle against terrorism is provoking a reaction familiar from the Cold War and nowhere is that clearer than over Pakistan.

In the old parlance, General Pervez Musharraf is "our sonofabitch". He has failed to stamp out extremist groups and close the madrassas that inspire them. He has allowed the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan to fall into the hands of assorted jihadis. And he has sacked independent-minded judges for fear that the Supreme Court declare illegal his re-election as president last month.
Yet, despite this combination of incompetence and brutality, America and Britain continue to back him as head of what has a strong claim to be the most dangerous country in the world.
In order to broaden the government's political base, their plan is for the general to doff his army uniform later this month and enter into a power-sharing arrangement with Benazir Bhutto, leader of the Pakistan People's Party, after general elections in February.
If that ever comes to pass, it will bring together a soldier whose popularity has plummeted and a politician whose standing has been undermined by her willingness to cut a deal with him. And the prospects for its lasting are slim: Miss Bhutto and the military are like oil and water.
In short, the relationship between Gen Musharraf and the West is bankrupt. Valued as an ally after 9/11, he is now part of the problem. Under his dictatorship, Pakistan has become an increasingly ungovernable country in which moderate, secular forces have been sidelined to the advantage of the Islamists.
An alternative – an alliance between General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani, the army chief designate, and Miss Bhutto's secular rival, Nawaz Sharif – seems neither imminent nor especially enticing. But that should not blind Britain and America to the fact that their "sonofabitch" in Pakistan is a spent force.

Ref: Bankrupt relationship - Telegraph

I would much rather NS fail to 'carrying himself' then to become another sob.

And his saying that nawaz sharif has support of Pakistanis

PMLN nabbed 14,874,104 votes (34% of all votes cast) in last elections - this number is greater then total votes cast for PPP and PTI (the next two parties according to votes cast). PMLN nabbed 166 seats which is more then next 10 parties (including PPP, PMLQ, PTI, MQM , JUI , Ji etc) combined.

I seriously doubt you understand what these numbers portray so lets just drop it at this .

 

[alibaz]

- Thats still 15% more then Mushy.
- As for 'carrying himself' - here is an interesting perspective from Daily Telegraph


Despite George W Bush's rhetoric about freedom, the struggle against terrorism is provoking a reaction familiar from the Cold War and nowhere is that clearer than over Pakistan.

In the old parlance, General Pervez Musharraf is "our sonofabitch". He has failed to stamp out extremist groups and close the madrassas that inspire them. He has allowed the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan to fall into the hands of assorted jihadis. And he has sacked independent-minded judges for fear that the Supreme Court declare illegal his re-election as president last month.
Yet, despite this combination of incompetence and brutality, America and Britain continue to back him as head of what has a strong claim to be the most dangerous country in the world.
In order to broaden the government's political base, their plan is for the general to doff his army uniform later this month and enter into a power-sharing arrangement with Benazir Bhutto, leader of the Pakistan People's Party, after general elections in February.
If that ever comes to pass, it will bring together a soldier whose popularity has plummeted and a politician whose standing has been undermined by her willingness to cut a deal with him. And the prospects for its lasting are slim: Miss Bhutto and the military are like oil and water.
In short, the relationship between Gen Musharraf and the West is bankrupt. Valued as an ally after 9/11, he is now part of the problem. Under his dictatorship, Pakistan has become an increasingly ungovernable country in which moderate, secular forces have been sidelined to the advantage of the Islamists.
An alternative – an alliance between General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani, the army chief designate, and Miss Bhutto's secular rival, Nawaz Sharif – seems neither imminent nor especially enticing. But that should not blind Britain and America to the fact that their "sonofabitch" in Pakistan is a spent force.

Ref: Bankrupt relationship - Telegraph

I would much rather NS fail to 'carrying himself' then to become another sob.

What an excuse you have found. Am sure you understand US and UK have different interests in Afghanistan then ours and if they call someone as sob then what it means. Irrespective of the person who is head of government or head of state, should carry himself with dignity and honour. Must not forget that he is representing People of Pakistan.

 

[Sedqal]

What an excuse you have found. Am sure you understand US and UK have different interests in Afghanistan then ours and if they call someone as sob then what it means. Irrespective of the person who is head of government or head of state, should carry himself with dignity and honour. Must not forget that he is representing People of Pakistan.

Please don't waste my time on ill-placed loyalties. UK is calling a spade a spade, Musharraf was their sob just like Mubarik/ Somoza and others - dictators hated in their country and beloved pets of the west. The quote 'he is our sob' is among the long line of historical quotes starting from Roosevelt's quote about Somoza (he is a bastard but he is our our bastard). Any leader who occupies the throne with threat of force is of course a bastard (bastard is symbolic here Einstein - symbolizing lack of legitimacy) as he/ she lacks any links to the nation. Musharraf perfectly fits the bill.

And please spare us from 'representing the people' diatribe, NS went to nation and the nation elected him as PM for the third time if that doesn't prove this point to you then I don;t know what will.He doesn't need your or western approval of the fact. His power unlike Musharraf rests with the people of Pakistan.

 

[alibaz]

Please don't waste my time on ill-placed loyalties. UK is calling a spade a spade, Musharraf was their sob just like Mubarik/ Somoza and others - dictators hated in their country and beloved pets of the west. The quote 'he is our sob' is among the long line of historical quotes starting from Roosevelt's quote about Somoza (he is a bastard but he is our our bastard). Any leader who occupies the throne with threat of force is of course a bastard (bastard is symbolic here Einstein - symbolizing lack of legitimacy) as he/ she lacks any links to the nation. Musharraf perfectly fits the bill.

And please spare us from 'representing the people' diatribe, NS went to nation and the nation elected him as PM for the third time if that doesn't prove this point to you then I don;t know what will.He doesn't need your or western approval of the fact. His power unlike Musharraf rests with the people of Pakistan.

Please don't waste my time either I commented on photo in which NS seems to be baccha jamhoora. I have no loyalty with Mush or anyone but you seem to have loyalty with NS.

 

[Sedqal]

Please don't waste my time either I commented on photo in which NS seems to be baccha jamhoora. I have no loyalty with Mush or anyone but you seem to have loyalty with NS.

I'll be loyal to any leader whom my nation elects, the reason for that is respect for my nation (and its mandate) something you seem to lack.

 

[Horseman]

I'll be loyal to any leader whom my nation elects, the reason for that is respect for my nation (and its mandate) something you seem to lack.

NS just elected from Punjab and how irony one can get majority from Punjab and he becomes head of State.

 

[Chak Bamu]

you said that only "some" Urdu speakers will support Musharraf out of Tasub , and I proved you wrong already.....



Tone down the rhetoric dear . Your knowledge of history is limited to Sarkari distorted version only and you never fail to prove that . Don`t worry , I will start a new thread on this topic and we will see who has read our history from an unbiased angle ...

1. I can not say what you mean by proving me wrong? I have seen a trend and I see no reason to review my opinion based on your noise.

2. There is no rhetoric there. Just observations about your jumps to unwarranted conclusions. You are in a hurry to 'prove' anyone and everyone wrong, without having done anything in particular apart from quoting biased sources, and disconnected points. Tell me, was Sikandar Mirza a general or not? His being a 'president' was a big deal to you and that is how you said that you 'proved' @Sedqal 'wrong'. Care to comment upon Sikandar Mirza having been a general too? Or is this rhetoric again?

3. History is always from some POV, angle, bias, perspective. It is up to the student to read, learn, and adjudicate. I do not take your accusations seriously at all. Sarkari version is not any more or less biased than what you consider to be 'correct'. The imbalance of your views and hyper-active bashing is enough for any calm observer to critically appraise your versions, biases, claims, opinions before taking them seriously.

 

[M. Sarmad]

1. I can not say what you mean by proving me wrong? I have seen a trend and I see no reason to review my opinion based on your noise.

2. There is no rhetoric there. Just observations about your jumps to unwarranted conclusions. You are in a hurry to 'prove' anyone and everyone wrong, without having done anything in particular apart from quoting biased sources, and disconnected points. Tell me, was Sikandar Mirza a general or not? His being a 'president' was a big deal to you and that is how you said that you 'proved' @Sedqal 'wrong'. Care to comment upon Sikandar Mirza having been a general too? Or is this rhetoric again?

3. History is always from some POV, angle, bias, perspective. It is up to the student to read, learn, and adjudicate. I do not take your accusations seriously at all. Sarkari version is not any more or less biased than what you consider to be 'correct'. The imbalance of your views and hyper-active bashing is enough for any calm observer to critically appraise your versions, biases, claims, opinions before taking them seriously.

You are good at one thing only ; that is ranting !! I have never seen you carrying out an academic debate (or even try it) ... Just shouting out loud does not prove anything my friend ...

 

[Chak Bamu]

NS just elected from Punjab and how irony one can get majority from Punjab and he becomes head of State.

1. NS secured votes from all over Pakistan, not just Punjab. He is a national leader, just like BB was not just a Sindhi leader.

2. Basically your problem is with constitution of Pakistan. You have no problem with a dictator breaking it. You have a problem if someone is constitutionally elected and not to your liking.

3. Your comments epitomize willful ignorance and airs of superiority. You need to visit a psychiatrist to get your head checked. Something is not working properly up there.

 

[Horseman]

1. NS secured votes from all over Pakistan, not just Punjab. He is a national leader, just like BB was not just a Sindhi leader.

Kindly elaborate that how many votes NS secured from rest of Pakistan.
I have these results
Punjab: 122
Sindh: 01
KPK: 04
Balochistan: 0
Federal: 01
Fata: 02

Where is majority from other provinces?
List of Pakistan National Assembly seats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Chak Bamu]

You are good at one thing only ; that is ranting !! I have never seen you carrying out an academic debate (or even try it) ... Just shouting out loud does not prove anything my friend ...

Whatever you can not answer properly becomes a rant. How convenient.

Whenever you are caught peddling a dishonest and biased opinion, you start crying for an academic debate, as though you are capable of it. You clearly are not. When you can not admit elementary facts of history (for whatever reason) you are not fit for any sort of debate. An academic debate is a bit too much to expect from you.

For the last time: Was Sikandar Mirza a general or not? Is that a relevant fact or not? By ignoring / sidestepping / avoiding this necessary detail, are you not being dishonest? How can you say that the first martial law was not an act of a general?

Are these questions rants?
Are these questions mere rhetoric?

Why can you not, or would you not answer these? Is it because you can not admit that you made a mistake?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Whatever you can not answer properly becomes a rant. How convenient.

Whenever you are caught peddling a dishonest and biased opinion, you start crying for an academic debate, as though you are capable of it. You clearly are not. When you can not admit elementary facts of history (for whatever reason) you are not fit for any sort of debate. An academic debate is a bit too much to expect from you.

For the last time: Was Sikandar Mirza a general or not? Is that a relevant fact or not? By ignoring / sidestepping / avoiding this necessary detail, are you not being dishonest? How can you say that the first martial law was not an act of a general?

Are these questions rants?
Are these questions mere rhetoric?

Why can you not, or would you not answer these? Is it because you can not admit that you made a mistake?

My dear friend , I told you that I will open a new thread on it and give a detailed account as it is the only way to shut you up !!
Just like how I made you tone down your rhetoric regarding Mullahs with this thread :
Ulema and Pakistan Movement

 

[Chak Bamu]

Kindly elaborate that how many votes NS secured from rest of Pakistan.
I have these results
Punjab: 122
Sindh: 01
KPK: 04
Balochistan: 0
Federal: 01
Fata: 02

Where is majority from other provinces?
List of Pakistan National Assembly seats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good, now you have shown that PML-N secured seats from all over Pakistan.

You forgot to include results for provincial assemblies: http://www.ecp.gov.pk/overallpartypositionPA051520131959.pdf

Is there a need to secure majority from other provinces? If not, then I rest my case. If you have problem with it, then feel free to launch a campaign to amend Pakistan's constitution. Until then, all anyone needs to know that PML-N has 190 seats in National assembly out of total 342. Case closed.

My dear friend , I told you that I will open a new thread on it and give a detailed account as it is the only way to shut you up !!
Just like how I made you tone down your rhetoric regarding Mullahs with this thread :
Ulema and Pakistan Movement

You mean the thread you launched with a biased article that disproved your contentions? Yeah I read the contents, I could post a critique, but scholarship was sub-par, and I do not have time for every copy-paste artist. The last such person was @Zarvan, and that was enough.

I did want to respond to your "blasphemy" rant, but then I decided to practice discretion. You may be familiar with the word or the concept behind it, but I doubt you believe in it.

For you challenging people is a matter or shutting them up (your words). Your problem is not with history or bias, but with psychology.