The Good Monster: Musharraf's Cultural Legacy
Nadeem F Paracha December 8, 2007
#133 Posted by FakirIppi on January 3, 2008 1:10:25 am
Re: # 130 is FP and NFP one person.its quite possible.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#132 Posted by Faisal.K on January 3, 2008 12:40:24 am
Obviously you are a brilliant writer. Is is however always necessary to take the other side? Your mission in life seems to "be" against the popular tide. I do understand the inability of such a "great dissident" like yourself to jump on the bandwagon, but please..stop knocking those who are at least trying to bring about some change.
#131 Posted by foggy1 on December 18, 2007 5:29:17 am
apparently the trouble with our people’s political view is that nobody looks good when governing from top,for more than a couple of years.and merely fighting this view is enough to deplete the fuel for any sort of progress.conflicts and paradoxes will be the theme of a leaders personality when his favored education, talent and intention, for competitive progress is exhausted before it comes into being proper-vis a vis the sinking marshes of poverty, population and political partying (the latter) only for power hungry loot bag ‘party games’, and not at all for providing solutions for the former two! that does not mean good souls do not occupy official positions.there are many who do not like to see people suffering because of weak administration. i have seen many officials go outta their way to help folk. one wishes however that the adminstrative set up would be intrinsic strong and completely immune to the interference of politics.
#130 Posted by Skeptical on December 17, 2007 1:01:11 pm
Writers like Mr NFP make me feel ashamed....
Article after article...
he is just giving the same message...
a powerful writer he just gives a different spin.....
when 12th May happened this guy defended fascists by saying that the concerned party due to its orgination in Zia regme 'was suffering from "persecution paranoia" and it was really not their fault...
When people were on the steets protesting CJ removal he was complaining of over coverage of CJ crisis....
Subsequently when there was a drop in public protest due to government tactics and emergency, he was taunting those who were braving state brutality by calling them victims of anal middle class mentality...lack of common man protest was touted as evidence of non issue of judicial crisis...
Mr Paracha twists the facts according to his comfort....
downplays any opposition to Musharraf regime by either calling the opponents having confused twisted mentality or blames them for their so called ignorance of geo politics....
If Mr NFP loves Musharraf so much, I think rather than coming with all this crap he should join Muslim League Q and stop this non sense portrayal of being an old fashioned marxist...
Article after article...
he is just giving the same message...
a powerful writer he just gives a different spin.....
when 12th May happened this guy defended fascists by saying that the concerned party due to its orgination in Zia regme 'was suffering from "persecution paranoia" and it was really not their fault...
When people were on the steets protesting CJ removal he was complaining of over coverage of CJ crisis....
Subsequently when there was a drop in public protest due to government tactics and emergency, he was taunting those who were braving state brutality by calling them victims of anal middle class mentality...lack of common man protest was touted as evidence of non issue of judicial crisis...
Mr Paracha twists the facts according to his comfort....
downplays any opposition to Musharraf regime by either calling the opponents having confused twisted mentality or blames them for their so called ignorance of geo politics....
If Mr NFP loves Musharraf so much, I think rather than coming with all this crap he should join Muslim League Q and stop this non sense portrayal of being an old fashioned marxist...
#129 Posted by arjun8 on December 15, 2007 11:00:54 am
damn..they used the same playbook...literally..
On Retainer in Pakistan, to Ease Military Rulers’ Path
By JANE PERLEZ
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan
AT 84, Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, mysterious, influential and scorned by Pakistan’s protesters, fixes things when military rulers take over here, scripting temporary charters and new oaths of office as constitutions are shredded and judges dismissed.
Mr. Pirzada is the lawyer for President Pervez Musharraf, who turned to him when he decided he would get rid of a Supreme Court that was threatening to derail his re-election for a second term.
By Mr. Pirzada’s account, delivered as he sat on a brocade-covered couch in his living room, he met with Mr. Musharraf and his cabinet on Nov. 2, the day before martial law was imposed.
The emergency decree to replace the real Constitution had already been dusted off. Mr. Pirzada made some final touches on the document, which was familiar to him: he had composed it for Gen. Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, who seized power in 1977. “They always keep things ready,” he said of his handiwork.
The emergency order that Mr. Pirzada wrote is expected to be lifted Saturday. But at the same time a new raft of provisions devised to enhance Mr. Musharraf’s presidential powers, particularly over the courts, will be enacted without Parliament’s assent. “Why should we wait for Parliament?” Mr. Pirzada said.
To those who complain that he has perverted the course of democracy in Pakistan by easing the path of military dictators — first Gen. Mohammad Ayub Khan in 1958, then Gen. Agha Mohammad Yahya Khan in 1969, followed by General Zia, and now Mr. Musharraf — Mr. Pirzada says he is just a lawyer for hire available to anyone who wants his services.
He even helped the opposition leaders Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif on several cases when they were civilian prime ministers, he said.
“The question of conscience in law hardly matters as long as you influence the authorities to be moderate and exercise restraint,” he said. “Otherwise they take extreme steps.”
An interview with Mr. Pirzada is a bit like a drawing room boxing match, a jab here, a polite jab back, an offense there, a defensive move in rejoinder. Confident and cool, short in stature, he offers an occasional smile, and a slight underlying charm that must comfort needy clients and reassure knowing judges.
IN making no apologies for his role in Pakistan’s troubled history, Mr. Pirzada does not deny the mordant view that he once expressed about himself and his homeland.
“Accept me as I am with warts, blemishes, briefcases and all,” he told Ardeshir Cowasjee, a veteran columnist for the newspaper Dawn. “If it were not for all the weak and corrupt governments of Pakistan, I would not be where I am today.”
Asked if he had indeed said that, Mr. Pirzada said evenly, “That is substantially correct.”
Mr. Cowasjee spoke with a chuckle on the telephone about his friend of many decades: “He can play any game by any rules — which he makes most of the time,” he said from his home in Karachi, where Mr. Pirzada also lives most of the time.
Pakistan’s lawyers, scandalized by the imposition of military rule and the arrest of judges and prominent lawyers under the Nov. 3 decree, continue to protest. Several lawyers, including the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Aitzaz Ahsan, remain under house arrest, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, and other Supreme Court justices are being kept behind barbed wire and police guard at their homes.
There is no secret about the poisonous relationship between the polar opposites, Mr. Ahsan and Mr. Pirzada. The former is flamboyant, out front, a Cambridge University graduate. Mr. Pirzada is reserved — “very suspicious by nature,” wrote one of his early bosses, President Ayub Khan, in 1967 in his published diaries — born and educated in Bombay, now Mumbai. He came to Pakistan after partition in 1947 as a poor young man.
“He stands out as an example of all that a lawyer and a jurist must not be,” Mr. Ahsan wrote three years ago when he declined an invitation to join a committee on constitutional reform that Mr. Pirzada was a member of. “Pirzada has the unique distinction of having been a willing partner in each one of the four military regimes.”
After being reminded of Mr. Ahsan’s characterization of him, Mr. Pirzada retorted that any mention of his enemy within earshot was off limits. “I would not like to hear his name at all.” The comments were “improper and malicious,” he said.
Mr. Pirzada stresses his early pedigree as an assistant to the founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the lawyer-politician who insisted on a separate country for the Muslims of British-ruled India. He often mentions his association, and plays up a 1944 photograph he says was taken of him standing between Mr. Jinnah and Gandhi, even though his friends insist the photo is a fake.
“He told me to become a lawyer,” said Mr. Pirzada of the man he calls his mentor. “I wanted to be a writer, something like that. If I had, I would have ended up on the streets.”
His first major posts in a military government were as foreign minister and then attorney general for General Mohammad Ayub Khan. It was under General Zia that Mr. Pirzada got his first big taste of power. “Zia took over July 5, 1977,” he recalled. “He inducted me as attorney general. I got the validation of his takeover by the Supreme Court.”
Mr. Musharraf first sought Mr. Pirzada at 2:30 a.m. on Oct. 13, 1999, a few hours after he seized power. Mr. Pirzada says he received a phone call from the general, asking him to come immediately with him to Islamabad. So confident was Mr. Pirzada in his indispensability in the general’s hour of need that he replied that he needed his sleep. “I said, ‘No, I will come in the afternoon.’ I took the midday plane, then I met him.”
ONE of the standard deviations used by Mr. Pirzada when smoothing the path for a new military government is to demand that judges take an oath that omits the phrase “to protect, uphold and defend the Constitution.” In this way, his critics said, Mr. Pirzada and his masters are able to get rid of judges not to their liking.
Mr. Pirzada put the oaths to work on Mr. Musharraf’s behalf in January 2000 when the Supreme Court justices, numbering 13 at the time, were asked with little warning to take the new oath of office. One judge, Wajihuddin Ahmed, recalled, “Six of us refused,” and were forced out.
Last month, Supreme Court judges were again required to take the oath Mr. Pirzada devised. This time, 12 of 17 judges refused. But, unlike those who did not oblige in 2000, the recalcitrant judges were arrested.
Mr. Pirzada has been rewarded for his services to Mr. Musharraf with a post on the National Security Council, a role as senior adviser in the Musharraf cabinet, and several trips accompanying the general on visits to Washington to see President Bush.
As much as Pakistan’s opposition lawyers speak with disdain of Mr. Pirzada, he replies in kind. “They were acting as politicians,” he said of the protesting lawyers.
Anyway, he asked, what has civilian rule contributed to Pakistan? He answered with the note of a practiced cynic: “The trouble is the people of Pakistan. They were merely spectators. Half the time there has been military rule, and half civilian rule. Both were alike in despotism and corruption.”
On Retainer in Pakistan, to Ease Military Rulers’ Path
By JANE PERLEZ
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan
AT 84, Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, mysterious, influential and scorned by Pakistan’s protesters, fixes things when military rulers take over here, scripting temporary charters and new oaths of office as constitutions are shredded and judges dismissed.
Mr. Pirzada is the lawyer for President Pervez Musharraf, who turned to him when he decided he would get rid of a Supreme Court that was threatening to derail his re-election for a second term.
By Mr. Pirzada’s account, delivered as he sat on a brocade-covered couch in his living room, he met with Mr. Musharraf and his cabinet on Nov. 2, the day before martial law was imposed.
The emergency decree to replace the real Constitution had already been dusted off. Mr. Pirzada made some final touches on the document, which was familiar to him: he had composed it for Gen. Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, who seized power in 1977. “They always keep things ready,” he said of his handiwork.
The emergency order that Mr. Pirzada wrote is expected to be lifted Saturday. But at the same time a new raft of provisions devised to enhance Mr. Musharraf’s presidential powers, particularly over the courts, will be enacted without Parliament’s assent. “Why should we wait for Parliament?” Mr. Pirzada said.
To those who complain that he has perverted the course of democracy in Pakistan by easing the path of military dictators — first Gen. Mohammad Ayub Khan in 1958, then Gen. Agha Mohammad Yahya Khan in 1969, followed by General Zia, and now Mr. Musharraf — Mr. Pirzada says he is just a lawyer for hire available to anyone who wants his services.
He even helped the opposition leaders Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif on several cases when they were civilian prime ministers, he said.
“The question of conscience in law hardly matters as long as you influence the authorities to be moderate and exercise restraint,” he said. “Otherwise they take extreme steps.”
An interview with Mr. Pirzada is a bit like a drawing room boxing match, a jab here, a polite jab back, an offense there, a defensive move in rejoinder. Confident and cool, short in stature, he offers an occasional smile, and a slight underlying charm that must comfort needy clients and reassure knowing judges.
IN making no apologies for his role in Pakistan’s troubled history, Mr. Pirzada does not deny the mordant view that he once expressed about himself and his homeland.
“Accept me as I am with warts, blemishes, briefcases and all,” he told Ardeshir Cowasjee, a veteran columnist for the newspaper Dawn. “If it were not for all the weak and corrupt governments of Pakistan, I would not be where I am today.”
Asked if he had indeed said that, Mr. Pirzada said evenly, “That is substantially correct.”
Mr. Cowasjee spoke with a chuckle on the telephone about his friend of many decades: “He can play any game by any rules — which he makes most of the time,” he said from his home in Karachi, where Mr. Pirzada also lives most of the time.
Pakistan’s lawyers, scandalized by the imposition of military rule and the arrest of judges and prominent lawyers under the Nov. 3 decree, continue to protest. Several lawyers, including the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Aitzaz Ahsan, remain under house arrest, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, and other Supreme Court justices are being kept behind barbed wire and police guard at their homes.
There is no secret about the poisonous relationship between the polar opposites, Mr. Ahsan and Mr. Pirzada. The former is flamboyant, out front, a Cambridge University graduate. Mr. Pirzada is reserved — “very suspicious by nature,” wrote one of his early bosses, President Ayub Khan, in 1967 in his published diaries — born and educated in Bombay, now Mumbai. He came to Pakistan after partition in 1947 as a poor young man.
“He stands out as an example of all that a lawyer and a jurist must not be,” Mr. Ahsan wrote three years ago when he declined an invitation to join a committee on constitutional reform that Mr. Pirzada was a member of. “Pirzada has the unique distinction of having been a willing partner in each one of the four military regimes.”
After being reminded of Mr. Ahsan’s characterization of him, Mr. Pirzada retorted that any mention of his enemy within earshot was off limits. “I would not like to hear his name at all.” The comments were “improper and malicious,” he said.
Mr. Pirzada stresses his early pedigree as an assistant to the founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the lawyer-politician who insisted on a separate country for the Muslims of British-ruled India. He often mentions his association, and plays up a 1944 photograph he says was taken of him standing between Mr. Jinnah and Gandhi, even though his friends insist the photo is a fake.
“He told me to become a lawyer,” said Mr. Pirzada of the man he calls his mentor. “I wanted to be a writer, something like that. If I had, I would have ended up on the streets.”
His first major posts in a military government were as foreign minister and then attorney general for General Mohammad Ayub Khan. It was under General Zia that Mr. Pirzada got his first big taste of power. “Zia took over July 5, 1977,” he recalled. “He inducted me as attorney general. I got the validation of his takeover by the Supreme Court.”
Mr. Musharraf first sought Mr. Pirzada at 2:30 a.m. on Oct. 13, 1999, a few hours after he seized power. Mr. Pirzada says he received a phone call from the general, asking him to come immediately with him to Islamabad. So confident was Mr. Pirzada in his indispensability in the general’s hour of need that he replied that he needed his sleep. “I said, ‘No, I will come in the afternoon.’ I took the midday plane, then I met him.”
ONE of the standard deviations used by Mr. Pirzada when smoothing the path for a new military government is to demand that judges take an oath that omits the phrase “to protect, uphold and defend the Constitution.” In this way, his critics said, Mr. Pirzada and his masters are able to get rid of judges not to their liking.
Mr. Pirzada put the oaths to work on Mr. Musharraf’s behalf in January 2000 when the Supreme Court justices, numbering 13 at the time, were asked with little warning to take the new oath of office. One judge, Wajihuddin Ahmed, recalled, “Six of us refused,” and were forced out.
Last month, Supreme Court judges were again required to take the oath Mr. Pirzada devised. This time, 12 of 17 judges refused. But, unlike those who did not oblige in 2000, the recalcitrant judges were arrested.
Mr. Pirzada has been rewarded for his services to Mr. Musharraf with a post on the National Security Council, a role as senior adviser in the Musharraf cabinet, and several trips accompanying the general on visits to Washington to see President Bush.
As much as Pakistan’s opposition lawyers speak with disdain of Mr. Pirzada, he replies in kind. “They were acting as politicians,” he said of the protesting lawyers.
Anyway, he asked, what has civilian rule contributed to Pakistan? He answered with the note of a practiced cynic: “The trouble is the people of Pakistan. They were merely spectators. Half the time there has been military rule, and half civilian rule. Both were alike in despotism and corruption.”
#128 Posted by bulleya on December 15, 2007 10:40:50 am
...the next election will be interesting......
......if the old judiciary is reinstalled, they will rule against musharraf (and probably the military staff officers), for high treason.....it is an open and shut case....treason (ghaddari) is the highest crime against a state, in pakistan.......and it carries the death penalty.....
......musharraf, kayani etc., obviously, cannot allow that.......to undo this, they need a legislature that legalizes everything they did......a compliant supreme court is not enough, as the majority in the legislature can over-rule it.......
.......it doesn't seem like pml(q) can win much......nor can, perhaps jui(f)......mqm will win, but it is a small local party.......most of the seats will go to ppp and pml(n)......
....in the last election, musharraf brutalized these parties, threatened and jailed them to get breakway factions.......e.g. he jailed yusuf gilani of ppp for over four years, to get him to switch parties.......he jailed naveed qamar of ppp for over two years.......he abolished all corruption cases against chaudhries etc.....much like he is doing against benazir.........
musharraf will either have to massively rig the elections......or he will have to go through another cycle of threatening, through kayani this time around.........the other option is to to forgive all corruption cases against benazir, and get her to cooperate......
.......so, basically, musharraf and kayani will have committted treason, themselves.......musharraf would have legalized the massively corrupt pml(q) members earlier and ppp members (specicically bb) this time.........
i had always said that the two most competently upright leaders in pakistan are aitezaz ahsan and imran khan......both of them have refused to take part in the election and have been targeted by the army and musharraf.......
........the two upright institutions have been media and legal folks........they are being targeted.......
imagine if 60-70% of the most upright members of a country's judiciary are forced out.........what is left behind.......the riff-raffs and the opportunists......how in the world will a judiciary recover from that......it's worst that kicking out 60-70% of the most competent businessmen in a country........
......if the old judiciary is reinstalled, they will rule against musharraf (and probably the military staff officers), for high treason.....it is an open and shut case....treason (ghaddari) is the highest crime against a state, in pakistan.......and it carries the death penalty.....
......musharraf, kayani etc., obviously, cannot allow that.......to undo this, they need a legislature that legalizes everything they did......a compliant supreme court is not enough, as the majority in the legislature can over-rule it.......
.......it doesn't seem like pml(q) can win much......nor can, perhaps jui(f)......mqm will win, but it is a small local party.......most of the seats will go to ppp and pml(n)......
....in the last election, musharraf brutalized these parties, threatened and jailed them to get breakway factions.......e.g. he jailed yusuf gilani of ppp for over four years, to get him to switch parties.......he jailed naveed qamar of ppp for over two years.......he abolished all corruption cases against chaudhries etc.....much like he is doing against benazir.........
musharraf will either have to massively rig the elections......or he will have to go through another cycle of threatening, through kayani this time around.........the other option is to to forgive all corruption cases against benazir, and get her to cooperate......
.......so, basically, musharraf and kayani will have committted treason, themselves.......musharraf would have legalized the massively corrupt pml(q) members earlier and ppp members (specicically bb) this time.........
i had always said that the two most competently upright leaders in pakistan are aitezaz ahsan and imran khan......both of them have refused to take part in the election and have been targeted by the army and musharraf.......
........the two upright institutions have been media and legal folks........they are being targeted.......
imagine if 60-70% of the most upright members of a country's judiciary are forced out.........what is left behind.......the riff-raffs and the opportunists......how in the world will a judiciary recover from that......it's worst that kicking out 60-70% of the most competent businessmen in a country........
#127 Posted by bulleya on December 15, 2007 10:20:31 am
anil #various: ...let's forget about what others think of musharraf and see how he evaluates himself......
musharraf put in this second martial, when according to his own words, the govt had failed and the country was on a path of being a failed state.......this was stated by musharraf the general, against a govt. led by musharraf the president......
......this was, thus, a unique international case, where a general carried out a coup against himself........
when, musharraf is himself stating that the govt. run by him has totally failed, then how can anyone else argue against it......
what, basically, needs to be evaluated has nothing to do with musharraf......it has to do with the two institutions he was leading........the army and the executive/legislature.........
what musharraf has done is to state that the army should run the country and not the executive/legislature, and that the judiciary should have no say in the constitution.....
.......so this is a victory for the army under musharraf, against the civilian institutions under the same musharraf.....the supreme court ruling would not have just kicked out musharraf, it would have eventually taken out the army from the whole state system of pakistan.......
so a better evaluation criteria would be whether the army can run pakistan better or the civilians........i know the army too well........trust me they cannot run a private factory, much less the country......
the other point that you need to address is the following: pakistan now, after iraq, has the second highest number of suicide bombings in the world........all of this started under musharraf.......how in the world is that good for pakistan........
people who used to taunt me for not returning to pakistan, are now planning their exit strategy........
can the civilians run pakistan.......i don't know........can the army run, definitely not......doesn't matter whether it is led by musharraf or anyone else........
pakistan was on the verge of establishing what is the most important factor in a country......i don't know of too many countries, where the judiciary and legal community had become so vibrant.........musharraf and the miltiary have destroyed that.......which constitutes, according to pakistani law, to be treason......it's an open and shut case........and for that the penalty is death......
......let's forget about ns, bb and musharraf......it is a fair judiciary that is the strength of any country......
musharraf put in this second martial, when according to his own words, the govt had failed and the country was on a path of being a failed state.......this was stated by musharraf the general, against a govt. led by musharraf the president......
......this was, thus, a unique international case, where a general carried out a coup against himself........
when, musharraf is himself stating that the govt. run by him has totally failed, then how can anyone else argue against it......
what, basically, needs to be evaluated has nothing to do with musharraf......it has to do with the two institutions he was leading........the army and the executive/legislature.........
what musharraf has done is to state that the army should run the country and not the executive/legislature, and that the judiciary should have no say in the constitution.....
.......so this is a victory for the army under musharraf, against the civilian institutions under the same musharraf.....the supreme court ruling would not have just kicked out musharraf, it would have eventually taken out the army from the whole state system of pakistan.......
so a better evaluation criteria would be whether the army can run pakistan better or the civilians........i know the army too well........trust me they cannot run a private factory, much less the country......
the other point that you need to address is the following: pakistan now, after iraq, has the second highest number of suicide bombings in the world........all of this started under musharraf.......how in the world is that good for pakistan........
people who used to taunt me for not returning to pakistan, are now planning their exit strategy........
can the civilians run pakistan.......i don't know........can the army run, definitely not......doesn't matter whether it is led by musharraf or anyone else........
pakistan was on the verge of establishing what is the most important factor in a country......i don't know of too many countries, where the judiciary and legal community had become so vibrant.........musharraf and the miltiary have destroyed that.......which constitutes, according to pakistani law, to be treason......it's an open and shut case........and for that the penalty is death......
......let's forget about ns, bb and musharraf......it is a fair judiciary that is the strength of any country......
#126 Posted by zeemax on December 15, 2007 8:58:23 am
tahmed32,
Did you just hear the speech? So all pieces fall in place. Remember this idiot's earlier assertions about 'Unity of Command'?
Well, that's what he wants to do. All institutions i.e. Legislature, Judiciary, Media and the rest to function under a 'Unity of Command'.
In other words, he wants to turn Pakistan into a Burma.
Oh well ....
Did you just hear the speech? So all pieces fall in place. Remember this idiot's earlier assertions about 'Unity of Command'?
Well, that's what he wants to do. All institutions i.e. Legislature, Judiciary, Media and the rest to function under a 'Unity of Command'.
In other words, he wants to turn Pakistan into a Burma.
Oh well ....
#125 Posted by rf786 on December 15, 2007 8:16:21 am
Re: # 122
"The emergence of the United Tehreek-e-Taliban of Pakistan is a huge development though and not to be underestimated. But that's another subject for another time."
Just a few weeks ago u were strutting around chowk celebrating victory in Swat and proclaiming that the time is near. Now that you have your ass whipped and handed to u on a platter u have found refuge in this alliance of necessity.
I told u then and repeat the same, time of irrational refuge in ideologies of the fourteenth century are over, sooner u and your ilk realize this the better.
"The emergence of the United Tehreek-e-Taliban of Pakistan is a huge development though and not to be underestimated. But that's another subject for another time."
Just a few weeks ago u were strutting around chowk celebrating victory in Swat and proclaiming that the time is near. Now that you have your ass whipped and handed to u on a platter u have found refuge in this alliance of necessity.
I told u then and repeat the same, time of irrational refuge in ideologies of the fourteenth century are over, sooner u and your ilk realize this the better.
#124 Posted by rf786 on December 15, 2007 8:09:44 am
Re: # 121
tahmed32,
"Mush and his chowk propagandist Nadeem Paracha love you too"
Qibla, "labeling" those who disagree with your point of view represents weakness in conviction. If you have evidence and strength in conviction then u need not resort to such chichorra tactics. Then again, aap samajdar hein.
tahmed32,
"Mush and his chowk propagandist Nadeem Paracha love you too"
Qibla, "labeling" those who disagree with your point of view represents weakness in conviction. If you have evidence and strength in conviction then u need not resort to such chichorra tactics. Then again, aap samajdar hein.
#123 Posted by arjun8 on December 15, 2007 7:12:06 am
#122 Posted by zeemax on December 15, 2007 7:10:23 am
The emergence of the United Tehreek-e-Taliban of Pakistan is a huge development though and not to be underestimated.
yeah....the paki army needs to import white phosphorus ASAP and allah need to keep more virgins ready...
The emergence of the United Tehreek-e-Taliban of Pakistan is a huge development though and not to be underestimated.
yeah....the paki army needs to import white phosphorus ASAP and allah need to keep more virgins ready...
#122 Posted by zeemax on December 15, 2007 7:10:23 am
#121 Posted by tahmed32,
tahmed saheb Sir, I resent your mentioning me and people like this paracha in the same sentence.
I demand an immediate and unconditional apology!
Actually there's no bogeyman. musharraf himself, in his overblown self-confidence, has acknowledged in several interviews with foreign media that the one and only reason for his action of Nov 3 was the superior judiciary. That's all. A few days ago he even went to the extent of telling ABC that the C.J was trying to remove him so he removed him first! I.e. just as he removed NS when NS tried to remove him. No difference. So where's the bogeyman?
The emergence of the United Tehreek-e-Taliban of Pakistan is a huge development though and not to be underestimated. But that's another subject for another time.
tahmed saheb Sir, I resent your mentioning me and people like this paracha in the same sentence.
I demand an immediate and unconditional apology!
Actually there's no bogeyman. musharraf himself, in his overblown self-confidence, has acknowledged in several interviews with foreign media that the one and only reason for his action of Nov 3 was the superior judiciary. That's all. A few days ago he even went to the extent of telling ABC that the C.J was trying to remove him so he removed him first! I.e. just as he removed NS when NS tried to remove him. No difference. So where's the bogeyman?
The emergence of the United Tehreek-e-Taliban of Pakistan is a huge development though and not to be underestimated. But that's another subject for another time.
#121 Posted by tahmed32 on December 15, 2007 6:42:28 am
zeemax: Mush and his chowk propagandist Nadeem Paracha love you too!! After all - the "mullah bogeyman" has been Mush's prime rationale for dictatorship, and you are only too happy to oblige.
Thank God for the majority of the Pakistanis who can see through the games that mush has been playing and who also couldnt give two hoots for maulvis (who have thrived only under dictators mush and zia).
Thank God for the majority of the Pakistanis who can see through the games that mush has been playing and who also couldnt give two hoots for maulvis (who have thrived only under dictators mush and zia).
#120 Posted by zeemax on December 14, 2007 10:50:37 pm
#110 Posted by tahmed32
driving force behind mush's separation from his wardi have been the Pakistani people ..
#111 Posted by masadi
... the demand presented in crystal clear slogans was "Go Musharraf Go" and Musharraf has NOT gone....
Both the above statements cannot be denied. However, the fact as has emerged is that the shedding of the 'wardi' has done no good at all since today the constitution has been turned into a presidential form of government (instead of Parliamentary) plus removal of both eligibility as well as tenure clauses for the president. What that means is ... Hosni Mubarak.
So, when musharraf took off the wardi, he knew exactly what he was going to do next to maintain the SAME power. Wardi or no wardi. And he has achieved that. That's what I was saying all along.
I, therefore maintain as before that only providence can/will remove musharraf.
I may add though that it may very well be Baitullah Mehsud under whose command the various regional/tribal local Taliban movements (Bajaur, Mohmand Agency, Parachinar, Malakand, Swat) have united yesterday and vowed to step up war.
driving force behind mush's separation from his wardi have been the Pakistani people ..
#111 Posted by masadi
... the demand presented in crystal clear slogans was "Go Musharraf Go" and Musharraf has NOT gone....
Both the above statements cannot be denied. However, the fact as has emerged is that the shedding of the 'wardi' has done no good at all since today the constitution has been turned into a presidential form of government (instead of Parliamentary) plus removal of both eligibility as well as tenure clauses for the president. What that means is ... Hosni Mubarak.
So, when musharraf took off the wardi, he knew exactly what he was going to do next to maintain the SAME power. Wardi or no wardi. And he has achieved that. That's what I was saying all along.
I, therefore maintain as before that only providence can/will remove musharraf.
I may add though that it may very well be Baitullah Mehsud under whose command the various regional/tribal local Taliban movements (Bajaur, Mohmand Agency, Parachinar, Malakand, Swat) have united yesterday and vowed to step up war.
#119 Posted by tahmed32 on December 14, 2007 7:59:44 pm
#117 masadi: you are incorrect in saying that i have "not replied to anything" - when in fact in #110 and #113 i have in fact replied to the two issues you wrote. and, per #116, it is you who is merely repeating yourself.
The fact is that in raising these hollow issues, you have sidelined the real issue. Namely, that this article is an attempt by the Nadeem Paracha to give Musharraf undue credit while berating the Pakistani people who are supposed to be grateful to this man for "culture".
Great job, masadi! Musharraf loves you. His PR man Nadeem Paracha loves you.
The fact is that in raising these hollow issues, you have sidelined the real issue. Namely, that this article is an attempt by the Nadeem Paracha to give Musharraf undue credit while berating the Pakistani people who are supposed to be grateful to this man for "culture".
Great job, masadi! Musharraf loves you. His PR man Nadeem Paracha loves you.
#118 Posted by chaltahai on December 14, 2007 6:05:25 pm
assadhi, this has nothing to do with the US elite but more to do with Musharraf's cultural legacy. Follow your own advice and stick to the topic, half-assed chump
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- anil: Re: # 111 Kaal: "...they call... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- quin: Re: # 52 thanks... Translation of a (Love)
- quin: I would like to... Translation of a (Love)
- Naqshbandi: The hadith are the... Translation of a (Love)
- dost_mittar: Eklavya#118: "The other option is... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- guru: Vedas(knoweldge of manifest) and... Dhokha and Being a
- guru: Many of the Hindu... Dhokha and Being a
- guru: Namaskar: My humble pranams to... Dhokha and Being a
