Posted by: uss017 | June 10, 2018

Akbar Bugti’s Killing

Akbar Bugti’s Killing: Dissecting a False Allegation 

 The claim: Musharraf ordered the killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti

Response: Musharraf did not ‘order’ Akbar Bugti’s killing. Bugti was attacking the Pakistan Army, the Frontier Corps, firing hundreds of rockets upon gas pipelines, kidnapping Chinese engineers, and was openly opposing the State of Pakistan. We should never tolerate anyone who threatens the territorial integrity of our Country and the Pakistan Army and the Frontier Corps have the full right to defend themselves. Bugti was killed while he was in the process of attacking the Frontier Corps and waging war on the Armed Forces of Pakistan.

Moreover, if the intention of the Armed Forces was to kill Akbar Bugti, then senior officers would never have ventured inside the cave in which Akbar Bugti was present with his thugs. Almost certainly, the officers stepped inside the cave to negotiate with Akbar Bugti, not to kill him.

While we will never know the precise details for the simple reason that we were not present at the scene, we can, however, make a couple of reasonably sensible guesses:

  1. A) as the senior Pakistani officers went inside the cave, a rocket/bomb misfired or was deliberately fired from within the cave causing it to collapse, thereby killing Akbar Bugti, his thugs and martyring the Pakistani officers;
  2. B) Akbar Bugti could have decided to commit suicide, rather than surrender, and take everyone out with him. Ultimately, only God knows best.

The officers had their pistols and sub-machine guns. These couldn’t have caused an explosion and if the aim was to kill Bugti, then there was no need for them to go inside the cave. Foot soldiers would have been used to take out Bugti. That senior officers died inside the cave is strong evidence that they were there to negotiate with Bugti, not to kill him.


Finally, consider the character of Akbar Bugti – who committed his first murder while still in his early teens – from his own interview given to The Economist:


“What is better than seeing your enemies driven before you and then taking their women to bed?” 


[Baluchistan, Turning a fight into a war: Pakistan’s aggressive policy towards its aggrieved west is causing chaos, in The Economist, Jun 29th 2006,]

This shameful character is labelled a “shaheed” by many ignorant folks in Pakistan.

As if the above is not enough, Akbar Bugti was also responsible for the ethnic cleansing and large-scale killings of the members of the largest Bugti sub-tribe, the Kalpar tribe. Thousands of members of the Kalpar tribe were forced out of their homes and lived in exile in Sindh and Punjab for years. Akbar Bugti also murdered the children of Khan Muhammad Kalpar, the leader of the Kalpar tribe. It was Musharraf who came to the rescue of the Kalpars and made it possible for them to return to their homeland after living in refugee camps for 15 years.

© Musharraf Supporters 2018 All rights reserved

Pakistan’s Correct Decision in the Wake of September 11 Attacks


Many in Pakistan are in the habit of whining that Pakistan, under Musharraf, made the “wrong” decision after the 2001 September 11 attacks by siding with the world community. They assert that it was “wrong” to ditch the Taliban in Afghanistan. Not surprisingly, the whiners often remain silent when it comes to offering an alternative “correct” course of action which should have been taken.

It is also asserted that Musharraf gave Pakistan the “gift” of suicide bombings, that he “dragged” Pakistan into “someone else’s war,” and that this was never “our war” to begin with.

All of these downright foolish and cockamamie baloney assertions, plus a few other nonsensical assertions, are addressed in this paper.

Table of Contents

  1. Objection: It was a mistake to side with the US immediately after 9/11
  2. Objection: Thousands of Afghan Muslim civilians were killed as a result of the American bombing of Afghanistan and Pakistan is responsible for this
  3. Objection: The “war on terror” was not our war; Musharraf dragged us into it
  4. Objection: There were no suicide bombings in Pakistan before September 11 2001. Musharraf gave us the “gift” of suicide bombings.
  5. Objection: Musharraf accepted all US demands on one phone call and sided with the US
  6. Objection: Musharraf sold Pakistani to Americans and says so in his book as well!

Objection: It was a mistake to side with the US immediately after 9/1

Rebuttal: There was no mistake in siding with the US after the September 11 attacks in the US. The entire world was siding with the US at that time. By opposing the Taliban and speaking out against terrorist organisations such as al-Qaeda, Pakistan stood side by side with not just the US but the entire world community. Such a stance saved Pakistan from international isolation and utter destruction.

We must ask: which decision would have harmed the interests of Pakistan – siding with the US or siding with the Taliban and al-Qaeda?

Bear in mind that the US had made up its mind to attack Afghanistan and would have done so with or without Pakistan’s consent. Whether we like it or not, Pakistan is and was in absolutely no position to successfully stop the Americans from entering Afghanistan.

Consider the following commonsensical outcome had Pakistan not altered its Afghan policy:

  1. Siding with the Taliban/al-Qaeda would have meant bringing India and the US together as firm partners – far closer to each other than they are now – against Pakistan
  2. Opposing the World opinion would have resulted in causing a mighty and significant harm to the Kashmir cause. There would be no eager ears to consider Pakistan’s side of the story
  3. The US and the International community would have taken all steps necessary to put an end to Pakistan’s nuclear programme and to snatch away Pakistan’s nuclear and missile assets. Every action that was utilised against Iraq to strip it from its chemical weapons – whether real or imaginary – would have been taken against Pakistan to get rid of all nuclear weapons from Pakistani soil and to ensure Pakistan could never in a position to pursue nuclear weapons
  4. India would have been encouraged to take bolder moves against Pakistan not only across the LoC but also across the international borders, knowing world opinion was firmly against Pakistan
  5. Any location deemed to be of “interest” would have been targeted via airstrikes by the US, with little/no international outcry
  6. Opposing the World opinion would have resulted in the open violation of Pakistan’s airspace by the US – not only to target Afghanistan but to brazenly target every desired location within Pakistan itself
  7. Pakistan’s economy began to gradually improve immediately prior to the September 11 attacks despite the sanctions. This much awaited and vital progress would have come to a permanent halt and the fragile Pakistani economy would have faced the wrath of far more stringent and severe International sanctions
  8. Pakistan would have been declared a terrorist and a failed State
  9. Pakistan would have faced almost complete international isolation
  10. The Pakistani people – in the face of harsh sanctions, international isolation, a fledgling economy, and suffering from Indian and US attacks – would have suffered from unimaginable hardships, much like the people of Iraq
  11. Separatist terrorists, such as the Baluchistan Liberation Army (BLA), would have received far more support for the purposes of combating the Pakistani forces

Sure enough, there is a lot of “would have” in the above list. But sober minded individuals, hopefully, will agree that these were all very realistic possibilities – many actions from the above list, if not all, would realistically have been pursued to cause harm to Pakistan.

Four big items from the above list, at the very least, seem to be very probable had Pakistan not sided with the US: 1. Pakistan would have been declared a terrorist State; 2. additional sanctions would have been placed upon our Country; 3. India would have been in a position to violate Pakistan’s territorial integrity with the blessings and support of much of the World. As if this was not enough, 4. there would have been a very realistic possibility of Pakistan’s nuclear program getting compromised.

Those who oppose Pakistan’s decision to change its policy towards the Taliban do so solely due to emotionalism and ignorance, with no careful thinking and analysis. Foolish thought is what guides them to make decisions.

Thus, the decision to side with the US and the World community was the only commonsensical course of action and it definitely served the interests of Pakistan. It protected far more people in the region, who would, otherwise, have faced immense hardships.

  1. Objection: Thousands of Afghan Muslim civilians were killed as a result of the American bombing of Afghanistan and Pakistan is responsible for this

Rebuttal: Only the US is responsible for the collateral damage in Afghanistan. Pakistan, under Musharraf, did not participate and had no involvement in the US bombing campaign over Afghanistan which toppled the Taliban regime. At most, Pakistan provided human intelligence leading to the apprehension of terrorists and potential terrorists. Secondly, Pakistan provided logistics support – allowing the US to move equipment and fuel into Afghanistan.

So then, is Pakistan not to be blamed for the human suffering in Afghanistan, albeit indirectly? Once again, we must ask: what course of action in the wake of September 11 attacks should have been adopted by Pakistan and caused minimum damage? Clearly – and it requires just a few brain cells to understand this – siding with the Taliban and al-Qaeda would have caused irreparable damage to the security of Pakistan and brought immense harm to Pakistan’s integrity.

As unfortunate as it is, Pakistan’s choice was clear: to side with the world community.

From a purely Islamic perspective, opting for a course of action which brings about less evil and less harm is justifiable and valid. If all available options will lead to harm and a selection must be made, then Islam permits one to select the option bringing about the least amount of harm. If all available options bring about a certain amount of evil, then the option causing the least evil, the least damage, is to be selected.

Tactical and strategic withdrawal is acceptable in Islam. Avoiding fight with a much stronger enemy and accepting certain unfair terms in the face of overwhelming might, for the sake of larger interests and betterment of the masses, is perfectly legitimate in Islam. Making uneasy compromises for the greater good of the inhabitants and their security is acceptable in Islam.

Taking stupid actions, tossing ones brain in the bin, and instantly jumping into fights despite the greater strength of the opposition, seriously thinking that angels will come flying down instantly to fight on your side, is NOT acceptable in Islam. Let’s face it: Muslims of today are not like the Muslims from the time of the Prophet (saw), the sahaba and the tabiun and should not, consequently, expect an army of angels to fight on their behalf – particularly when they – the Muslims – are often the ones who are responsible for a host of un-Islamic barbaric activities around the globe.

Taking irrational actions which bring harm to the community, leading to the greater number of civilian deaths, is completely unacceptable in Islam.

Siding with the Taliban/al-Qaeda, opposing world opinion, saying an outright “no” to the US would have harmed Pakistan and, realistically, resulted in a potentially far greater loss of life.

Read More…

Posted by: uss017 | April 16, 2018

Misquoting Musharraf: Lying about His Book

Misquoting Pervez Musharraf’s Book

Many dishonest Pakistani politicians and talk show hosts have been saying that Musharraf “admitted” in his book, “In The Line of Fire,” that Pakistanis were “sold” and “handed over” to the US in exchange for millions of dollars.

Briefly, this allegation is an outright lie. The above “acknowledgement” is completely absent in Mr. Musharraf’s book.

Quoted below, in context, is the relevant passage from Mr. Musharraf’s memoir (all emphasis added):

“Since shortly after 9/11, when many members of al Qaeda fled Afghanistan and crossed the border into Pakistan, we have played cat and mouse with them. The biggest of them all, Osama bin Laden, is still at large at the time of this writing, but we have caught many, many others. Some are known to the world, some are not. We have captured 689 and handed over 369 to the United States. We have earned bounties totalling [sic] millions of dollars. Those who habitually accuse us of “not doing enough” in the war on terror should simply ask the CIA how much prize money it has paid to the government of Pakistan. Here, I will tell the stories of just a few of the most significant manhunts.” [Pervez Musharraf, In The Line of Fire: A Memoir, 2006, London: Simon & Schuster, p. 237.]

When read in context, a little commonsense and the ability to comprehend sentences leads us to conclude that Mr. Musharraf is talking about foreigners – members of al Qaeda who fled into Pakistan.

Why were not all of the 689 captured individuals handed over to the US? It is because it was Pakistan’s policy not to hand over Pakistani nationals to the US. Only foreigners were handed over – and that too following due process (see below).

Secondly, Mr. Musharraf only made mention of Pakistan receiving the bounty money in connection with the handing over of foreigners in order to rebut the false allegation that Pakistan was supposedly “not doing enough” in its effort against terrorism/extremism.

That Mr. Musharraf was talking only and only about handing over foreigners becomes abundantly clear by his own comments in the very next page:

“The policy followed by Pakistan on the extradition of foreigners has been first to ask their countries of origin to take them back. If a country of origin refuses (as is normally the case), we hand the prisoner over to the United States.” [ibid, emphasis added, p. 238]

Therefore, only when a foreign Government refused to accept its own national – guilty or strongly suspected of taking part in terrorist activities – did the Pakistani Government hand them over to the US. Even here, however, the handing over occurred only when the Pakistani agencies had satisfactorily carried out their own investigations and had no objections to transferring the foreigner to the US.

As if the above was not enough, notice the comments posted by Pervez Musharraf on his Facebook page (emphasis added):

Not a single Pakistani was handed over by me to the US or any foreign country. Those taken by US were captured in Afghanistan and not given to US. Our policy was clear:
1. Pakistanis will be tried in Pakistan.
2. Foreigners will be offered to their own countries first and in case of refusal (which was invariably the case), will be handed over to the US.” [Pervez Musharraf: Answering Your Top 3 Questions – II]

So how did many Pakistanis end up in Guantanamo Bay? This question has been answered by Pervez Musharraf above, namely, that they were captured by the US from Afghan soil. Many of these Pakistanis just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time; either with their families on the Afghan side of the border or engaged in innocent business activities. Some, indeed, were involved in terrorist activities as well.

Musharrafphobes also, rather conveniently, forget to mention the fact that many dozens of Pakistanis were released from Guantanamo Bay and reunited with their families in Pakistan as a result of the efforts of the Musharraf government. [For example, see, “Pakistanis released from Guantanamo,” Nov 23, 2003, ABC News; Anwar Iqbal, “3 Pakistanis released from Guantanamo,” Dawn, 17 March 2004; Haroon Rashid, “Guantanamo prisoners speak out,” BBC News Channel, 24 November, 2003]


© Musharraf Supporters 2018 All rights reserved

Posted by: uss017 | March 23, 2018

Muneeb Farooq Caught Lying on Twitter

Muneeb Farooq Caught Lying on Twitter

Muneeb Farooq, representing the best in Pakistani journalism, posted the following thoughts on Twitter (italics added):

“Exemption won’t affect the trial for few days. Musharff did not allow a son to bury his father. Today a husband wants to visit his ailing wife and a daughter wants to stand by an ailing mother. Have a heart and listen to the conscience. Heavens won’t fall.” 22 March 2018.

Upon being informed that his allegation regarding Musharraf was an outright lie and fabrication, Muneeb Farooq tapped into all the critical thinking and journalistic skills which he acquired in his studies and blurted out the following “response” in anger:

“Gutter prick idiots like yourself cannot distort history.”

Little does he realise that acting like a scumbag yellow-journalist and issuing abuses when exposed for thumbsucking disinformation and gobbledygook does absolutely nothing to alter a basic fact: that he lied.

Muneeb Farooq, like other unethical individuals, is involved in historical revisionism through distortion and here we will show that his allegation is an outright lie. Not only does he offer revisionism through lying, he also seems (conveniently) oblivious to the cruel behaviour displayed by the Sharif clan towards Musharraf when the latter’s mother – in her late 90s – was seriously ill in Dubai.

Simply put: at no point in time did Pervez Musharraf prohibit or disallowed Nawaz and Shahbaz to bury their father in Pakistan. As far back as in November 2004, the Asian Tribune reported that (bold added):

“…Nawaz Sharif’s brothers have been allowed to come to Pakistan on the special request made by the Saudi government to President Musharraf. However the Sharif brothers would not be allowed to make any political statements or socialise. They would return to Jeddah after Rasm-e-Qul.”

This condition, however, was unacceptable to the Sharifs, hence their own decision to not travel to Pakistan to bury their father.

Elsewhere, Maj. Gen. Rashid Qureshi (Retd.), has clarified (all emphasis added):

“An aide to former army chief and President Pervez Musharraf, Major General Rashid Qureshi (Retd), on Friday claimed that the then President and army chief, General Musharraf, had offered Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif to come back and attend in Lahore the burial of their father, Mian Muhammad Sharif, who had died in Suadi Arabia during Sharif family’s exile.

Talking at Aaj News programme “Live with Talat”, Qureshi said that those who claimed Musharraf did not allow the Sharif brothers to attend their father’s funeral were in fact lying.Not only did Musharraf make an offer to them to ‘visit’ Pakistan and attend their father’s funeral, he also telephoned both Nawaz and Shahbaz to express condolence over his death,” he added.

Qureshi said: “They [the Sharifs] outrightly rejected the offer, as the deal that they had cut with Musharraf to go abroad in 2000 ultimately required them to go back to Saudi Arabia once they attended Mian Mohammad Sharif’s funeral rites.” Quoting Lieutenant General Hamid Javed (Retd), Qureshi said a meeting was held in this regard. It was attended, among others, by the then Punjab Chief Minister, Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi.”

Apparently, making political statements and socialising in Pakistan for an undetermined duration of time was more important to the Sharifs than being there under restrictions to bury their father.

It is also noteworthy that upon the passing away of their father, Musharraf offered his condolences to Nawaz over the phone and had a cordial conversation.

Most importantly: Nawaz was allowed to travel to London when his son, Hasan, was ill. The suspicion of the then Pakistani Government turned out to be correct: Nawaz would break his word and disregard the agreement reached originally upon the behest of the Sharif clan through appeal to the Saudi Government. But if the Musharraf Government could take the risk of allowing Nawaz to be with his son in London – a location making it virtually impossible to ensure that Nawaz abided by the agreement, then why would Musharraf disallow the Sharifs to enter Pakistan to bury their father – Pakistan being a location where the Sharifs could have been easily controlled, restricted, and sent back to Saudi Arabia upon the completion of the burial rites?

Muneeb Farooq appears to lack the IQ to be able to consider these common-sense points.

Finally, the only cruel, callous and cold-hearted behaviour to be observed in the tussle between Musharraf and the Sharifs is in the latter’s conduct. Musharraf was barred from visiting his seriously ailing mother in Dubai despite repeated requests. Musharraf’s mother was in her late 90s and was receiving treatment in Dubai. In addition to mocking Musharraf upon learning about his mother’s poor health, the Nawaz regime “offered” to bring her to Pakistan – completely disregarding the fact that in her condition at that time, flying her to another country was not an option.

Once her health stabilised to a point, that’s when Musharraf made the arrangement to have his mother flown to Pakistan – a risky move even at that stage, but one which had to be made due to her longing to see her son.

Throughout, as much as Muneeb Farooq hates facts and loves to lie, only one side comes across as cruel, barbaric, cold-hearted and callous: the Sharif clan, uncritically adored by Muneeb Farooq. Musharraf, in sharp contrast, has been much forgiving and considerate towards the Sharifs: allowing them to live in Saudi Arabia in luxury, allowing them to enter Pakistan to bury their father, and permitting Nawaz to go to London to be with his ailing son. Such behaviour has never been reciprocated by the Sharifs.

In conclusion, I have no hesitation in asserting that Muneeb Farooq is a liar, representing yellow-journalism in Pakistan.

© Musharraf Supporters 2018 All rights reserved

Posted by: uss017 | January 12, 2018

Abbas Nasir Can’t Help … Writing Trash

Abbas Nasir Can’t Help … Writing Trash

Addressing the Lies about “Pakistani women wanting to get raped” and the inability to understand Musharraf’s recent statements regarding BB’s assassination

Dawn’s Abbas Nasir put up a scathing attack on Musharraf on 30 Dec 2017 entitled, “Musharraf can’t help it.” Nasir is eager to respond to a few comments made by Musharraf, supposedly, “without thinking.” I will attempt to show that even when thinking hard, Nasir can merely articulate utter disinformation and fails to utilise even a miniscule amount of critical thinking.

First, Nasir is most irked with Musharraf’s insulting reaction to Bilawal Zardari’s (henceforth, BZ) ocean of insults thrown upon him on 27/12/17 and writes, “…the former military leader responded by attacking BBZ for “aurton ki tarah naaray lagwa raha thaa [raising slogans like women]” and dared him to behave like a “mard [man]”.” The way Nasir represents the entire saga is most interesting. BZ was merely “dubbing him [Musharraf] a murderer” and this “was enough to get the former military ruler going.” It does not occur to Nasir that such an allegation, in the insulting manner that it was made the entire day, would naturally get most individuals “going.” Nasir appears to seemingly justify BZ’s behaviour because the latter was “…addressing a gathering of charged party supporters on the 10th anniversary commemoration of his mother’s assassination and was visibly emotional and provocative.” But in the face of almost non-stop insults, or “provocations,” and baseless allegations, the same sort of reasonable curtesy cannot be extended over to Musharraf. He cannot/should not get upset and respond in anger in the face of continuous insults (or “provocations,” Nasir’s preferred term).

Nevertheless, our stance is straightforward and unapologetic: Musharraf did indeed react in anger, in response to nonstop insults hurled towards him. Musharraf should have ignored and avoided reacting to an individual who was blurting out without thinking. Hence, we say it upfront: Musharraf did the wrong thing by insulting an individual much younger than him, even if in the face of grotesque insults.

None of this, however, justifies the subsequent massive feat of dramey baazi conducted by Nasir, apparently in the footsteps of the mega-dramey baaz, Geo’s Khanzada (exposed here).

After playing psychologist, delving inside Musharraf’s thought processes and passing certain details which he was apparently “witnessing” first-hand, Nasir gets to the point and writes:

“Musharraf does not have to show disdain for women to make TV news. But he does. Who can forget even during his heyday he made that odious statement about Pakistani women wanting to get raped in order to obtain a foreign passport?”

He does not explain where precisely the supposed “disdain for women” is reflected in Musharraf’s remarks to BZ. Moreover, the second sentence is even more problematic. It just happens to be an outright lie. That is because Musharraf did not assert or even imply the suggestion about “Pakistani women wanting to get raped in order to obtain a foreign passport.” It is worth spending a little time exploring how this lie was generated and how Nasir, writing for a leading Pakistani newspaper, did not have the acumen to verify basic facts.

1. Addressing the LIE that Musharraf said that Pakistani Women Want to Get Raped for Foreign Citizenship

The controversy emerged from Musharraf’s 50 minute interview to reporters from the Washington Post in 2005. His statement was subsequently popularly represented in the following sort of manner: Pakistani women wanted to get raped in order to financially benefit and to obtain visas and citizenships abroad. In another event a week after this interview, Musharraf offered a denial and said he did not speak in the manner it was commonly reported by others (all emphasis added):

“Gen. Pervez Musharraf … has denied telling The Washington Post in an interview last week that claiming rape has become a “moneymaking concern” in Pakistan and that many Pakistanis felt it was an easy way to make money and get a Canadian visa.” (source)


“Let me say with total sincerity that I never said that, and it has been misquoted,” Musharraf told the women’s group. “These are not my words, and I would go to the extent of saying I am not so silly and stupid to make comments of this sort.” (Ibid)

Notice already that we are dealing with two different allegations:

A. “rape has become a moneymaking concern in Pakistan and that many Pakistanis felt it was an easy way to make money and get a Canadian visa” (Musharraf’s remarks as summarised by the Washington Post);

B. “Pakistani women wanting to get raped in order to obtain a foreign passport” (Nasir’s representation of what Musharraf said)

In statement ‘A’, Musharraf is relating what “many Pakistanis felt,” without necessarily revealing whether or not he personally agreed with it. In statement ‘B’ – as related by Nasir – Musharraf is positively asserting that Pakistani women wanted to get raped for benefits.

Surely, both statements cannot be right at the same time. So, which is it?

The Washington Post is, in fact, closer to the truth and it quotes Musharraf as follows: “This has become a moneymaking concern. A lot of people say if you want to go abroad and get a visa for Canada or citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped.” (Ibid)

Notice, Musharraf is informing what “a lot of people say” and the “moneymaking concern” is naturally the concern of “a lot of people.” This is NOT THE SAME as saying, “…he made that odious statement about Pakistani women wanting to get raped in order to obtain a foreign passport…” (Nasir).

Unfortunately, Musharraf’s remark was subsequently misrepresented in the way Nasir summarises it above and it is this which Musharraf rightfully denied having said.

We can do better than this. The relevant segment from Musharraf’s original interview is uploaded here. Therefore, we can see in full context what Musharraf originally said (relevant parts summarised below):

i. The first 3 minutes: Explains how he personally got involved and assisted both Mukhtara Mai and Dr Shazia.

ii. Time slice 03.00 – 07.00: there are certain US based organisations which are trying to single out Pakistan and their personal issues with Musharraf. Mentions how one particular organisation got in touch with an eminent female personality in Pakistan, discussing plans with the latter to attack Musharraf and Pakistan. The organisation had devised an elaborate campaign, in which they would make use of Mai. The unnamed Pakistani lady, however, approached Musharraf and informed him regarding this matter. Musharraf proceeds to mention that violence against women is not restricted to Pakistan and refers to the rape cases in Canada, US, France and other countries, concluding, “it’s happening everywhere.” Musharraf asks if women are taken to other countries if they are raped in a country besides Pakistan? For example, if a woman is raped in Canada, is she to be taken to China? “And what is happening in France, should it be brought to the United States? Now, why is it that Pakistan only is being singled out, when this curse is everywhere in the world?” Musharraf immediately acknowledges that a lot is happening in Pakistan against women and that we must do a lot more to prevent violence against women. But he asks, “Why are we being singled out? Why should Mukhtara Mai be in the United States?” Musharraf proceeds to say that he would like to address a convention of women who have been raped in France, Canada, US, India and other countries, “but don’t ask me to address a convention when only one Mukhtara Mai is there…” to badmouth Pakistan alone. “This is my concern … I would not like my country to be singled out on an issue which is global.”

iii. Time slice 08.09 – 09.30: Next, the “controversial” segment, “…you must understand the environment in Pakistan also, there are some opposition people who don’t keep national interests in view [they’ve got] their own political agendas, they want to undermine me through this. And also, this has become a money-making concern. Do you know what is going on in Islamabad? What is the popular term…I don’t know whether you know it, people say that … a lot of people say that … if you want to go abroad and get a VISA for Canada or citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped. This is the easiest way of doing this … every second person now wants to come up and get all the … because there’s so much of finances. Dr Shazia – I don’t know – but maybe she is a case of money. Does she want to make money? She is again talking all against Pakistan, against whatever we have done, but I know what the realities are.”

To conclude this section:

1. Musharraf DID NOT say that “Pakistani women” get raped to make money;
2. He acknowledged women are indeed raped, mistreated and that the Pakistani Government needed to do more to protect women (this logically means that, according to Musharraf, these women are not “making it up” for financial benefits);
3. He only mentioned what “a lot of people were saying”;
4. The only woman he did entertain doubts about was Dr Shazia, because he could not understand why she was badmouthing Pakistan despite having received financial and other support, but quickly added “I don’t know.”

In short, Musharraf did not make any statement about Pakistani women as a whole.

Why could Nasir, who is supposed to be a trained journalist writing for a reputable newspaper, lack the ability to gather the above information?

Read More…

Analysing the Short & Deficient Memory in Dawn’s Latest Error-Ridden Anti-Musharraf Ranting

It gives us immense pleasure to, once again (see previous reply), point out the glaring deficiencies in an anti-Musharraf Editorial piece published today in Dawn, entitled “Musharraf & MQM.”  The irony is difficult to miss: the author repeatedly mentions the “short memories” of people and yet has composed a piece which ignores elementary historical facts. As if this was not enough, right from the get-go, we encounter statements which can only be labelled, at best, bizarre. Consider, for example, his very first sentence:

“EVEN by the standards of Pakistani politics, the call by Pervez Musharraf for the MQM to “shun the politics of ethnicity” is rich.”

Why is it “rich?” What is the reason for making such a comment, particularly when we know as a matter of fact that “Pakistan First” has been Musharraf’s slogan from day one and he has consistently spoken out against ethnic divides? No arguments and reasons are submitted by the author to justify his statement. Perhaps, the urge is simply to make a negative comment just for the sake of it.

The authors polemic consists of two points:

1. Musharraf “brought” the MQM in “from the cold”
2. Musharraf “brashly” celebrated “…his triumph at the end of that sad day [12/05-07], claiming it a victory for his regime …”

Both polemics will be addressed below.

1. Musharraf “bringing in” the MQM “from the cold”

What does the author mean by the statement that MQM was in the “cold?” This is not clarified. Does this mean that the MQM had been vanquished thanks to the operation in the 90s? Does it mean that the MQM, on the blessed day of 12/10/99, was weak, flimsy, being no political force, with no public support? What does it really mean that MQM was “brought in from the cold?” If any of these interpretations are correct, then we can safely conclude that the author displays poor memory because he/she is factually erroneous: the MQM was a force to be reckoned with in Karachi prior to Musharraf’s arrival to the scene. The massive operation against it in the 90s failed to destroy it; if anything, it further increased the ethnic divide and won for the MQM even more fervent hardcore support from the Urdu-speaking community.

Secondly, what does the author mean by “Musharraf brought the MQM in…”? How did he “bring in” the MQM? Did Musharraf just declare one bright sunny day, “My fellow countrymen, today I declare that MQM – which, by the way, had been destroyed/vanquished/substantially decimated thanks to the 90s operation – will be brought back into Pakistani politics. I am happy to announce that MQM will now manage the day to day administration of Karachi and you must accept my decision.” The statement about Musharraf “bringing in” the MQM would make perfect sense as a negative comment if the mythical scenario painted above had transpired. Alas, it did not. We are again dealing here with the author’s utterly deficient memory because, during Musharraf’s term in office, the MQM contested elections and won repeatedly in Karachi. This is just a fact, whether one likes it or not. MQM enjoyed widespread public support before, during and even after the operation, winning elections repeatedly whenever it took part in the democratic process. They were not just “granted” a position of power through a “proclamation.”

The only way to keep the MQM out of politics was either to ban it completely, or to kill off and/or imprison all its members. Is this the desire of our dictatorship-hating author? If not, then his comments make no sense.

Thus, in short, the narrative of MQM being “in the cold” and Musharraf then suddenly “bringing it in” are reflective of the author’s utterly distorted memory.

2. Musharraf’s supposed “celebration” of the Karachi carnage on 12/05/07

The author continues to impress us with his deficient memory when he/she blurts out the following gem:

“…many of those who lived through the events of May 12, 2007 can hardly forget the image of Musharraf brashly celebrating his triumph at the end of that sad day, claiming it a victory for his regime that the ousted chief justice of the Supreme Court was prevented from leaving Karachi airport through a widespread exercise of violence that left nearly 50 dead and scores injured, the metropolis paralysed and memories of the 1980s revived.”

There are too many memory-related problems in this short paragraph:

A. “…Musharraf brashly celebrating his triumph at the end of that sad day…” – this is a deceitful statement because Musharraf was “celebrating” the turnout of the crowd of supporters in Rawalpindi on this day. He was not “celebrating” or referring to the killings which transpired in Karachi on the same day. The latter event was a developing story – all the facts had not come out and had not reached Musharraf when he was addressing a large gathering of supporters in Rawalpindi. The sentence conveys an utterly misleading impression.

B. The remainder of the statement is, likewise, an outright lie: in this address to the supporters in Rawalpindi, Musharraf did NOT “claim victory” by referring to the ousted Chief Justice’s prevention from departing Karachi airport “through a widespread exercise of violence …” This is, very literally, the author engaged in the activity of MAKING-IT-UP. To rectify the author’s embarrassingly poor memory, Musharraf was simply celebrating the outpouring of the masses in his support in Rawalpindi, having made NO reference whatsoever to the bloodbath that occurred in Karachi on the same day, for the simple reason that he did not know about its occurrence at this stage.

The author asks an innocent question, “Perhaps someone should ask him what exactly he was celebrating at that moment.” To aid his/her poor memory, we must remind him that Musharraf explained this on the very day in question, when he explained in his speech that he was celebrating the outpouring of his supporters in front of him in Rawalpindi.

Read More…

Musharraf did not suggest “state complicity” in Jihadist attacks and neither did he suggest that “people in the establishment” were involved in Benazir’s Murder

Over the past 48 or so hours, another report is circulating regarding Musharraf pertaining to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. (henceforth, BB). The Express Tribune has this headline: “Establishment’s ‘rogue elements’ may have been involved in Benazir’s murder: Musharraf.” Dawn has a similar headline. The Samaa Web Desk in their report even write, “A decade after the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto … Musharraf has suggested that people in the establishment could have been involved in her murder.” From comments in social media, it appears that many believe that Musharraf has asserted as a matter of fact, or at the very least, presented a very real possibility, that “rogue elements” within the “establishment” were involved in BB’s killing.

The original report by BBC’s Owen Bennett Jones may be blamed for conveying such an impression as it states, “It’s a startling statement from a former Pakistani head of state. Normally military leaders in Pakistan deny any suggestion of state complicity in violent jihadist attacks.” Jones also writes, “… the general in charge of Pakistan at the time has suggested people in the establishment could have been involved in her murder.”

Musharraf’s words cited by Jones, however, by no stretch of the imagination, convey such an impression. In fact, Musharraf does not assert, let alone imply, “state complicity” in BB’s assassination and the statement “people in the establishment could have been involved in her murder” can be misleading due to the absence of the key term “rogue” therein (i.e. rogue elements).

In fact, Jones’ statement about “state complicity” stands in tension with his mention of “rogue elements within the establishment” in the subsequent paragraph. This is because the deeds of “rogue elements within the establishment,” by definition, cannot be tantamount to “state complicity” because “rogue elements” operate in opposition to the state, against its directives, in its defiance. Simply put: the state would be complicit only if its members operated under its behest, adhering to its directives. Such a scenario has been consistently denied by Musharraf.

So why are such rumours spreading around? My own hunch is that some people suffer from a genuine reading comprehension problem and seem unable to grasp the worthlessness of mere “possibility.” Others, unfortunately, have an axe to grind and wish to interpret Musharraf’s words in the worst possible manner.

A simple reading exercise clears up the air:

1. Jones presented a hypothetical scenario to Musharraf, requesting the latter’s response. Jones asked if it “could” be that “rogue elements within the establishment” were “in touch with the Taliban about the killing…” Thus, it is not being said that this did happen, but simply if this scenario “could” have transpired.

2. Musharraf replied to the above hypothetical scenario: “Possibility. Yes indeed. Because the society is polarised on religious lines.” Here we must note that mere “possibility” does not mean that it did happen. Almost every proposed scenario on virtually any issue is possible. It is possible that the Americans have an army of dolphins which have been trained to disable all Russian nuclear submarines.

Mere possibility by itself does not matter at all since possibilities are almost endless. Only probability matters. The submarine disabling dolphin army scenario is possible, though it is highly improbable and unlikely. It is possible that the North Korean regime is technologically vastly superior to the US and have successfully kept this a secret for reasons best known only to them. However, this seems highly unlikely (or, improbable). Likewise, it is possible that rogue elements within the establishment were in touch with the Taliban, but this does not mean that this possibility was also probable or that it was indeed the case.

Musharraf is subsequently cited as saying: “I don’t have any facts available.” This should make it crystal clear that Musharraf is speaking hypothetically, regarding a possibility. He is not presenting the possible scenario of “rogue elements within the establishment in touch with the Taliban” as a fact, or something that did occur. That is why he says, “I don’t have any facts available.”

Continuing with his comments on this hypothetical scenario, a possibility, Musharraf is also quoted as saying, “But my assessment is very accurate I think… A lady who is in known to be inclined towards the West is seen suspiciously by those elements.” Thus, if the “rogue elements” did indeed exist – and this is a possibility – then they would consider BB with suspicion due to her closeness to the West. Musharraf is reasonably confident about this part: certain elements viewing a woman with suspicion because she is inclined towards the West. Let us remind ourselves that this entire discussion is taking place under the rubric of “possibility. Musharraf says, “I don’t have any facts available” – he is continuing to comment on a hypothetical scenario.

3. Notice also that Musharraf is speaking about the possibility of “rogue elements.” A “rogue” element in the Government or in the Army usually refers to an individual who is secretly working against the mission of the institution which employs them. Therefore, if a rogue element or elements within, say, the Army and the Government collaborated with the Taliban, that does not mean that the institution of the Army or the Pakistani Government were in cahoots with the Taliban. It only means that an unknown number of individuals in the Army and the Government secretly worked towards sabotaging the goals, aims and missions of the Army and the Government, assisting forces standing in opposition to the Army and the Government.

In light of the above and given Musharraf’s own cited words, it is factually erroneous to assert that Musharraf proposed “state complicity in violent jihadist attacks.” Further, he did not assert as a matter of fact that “people in the establishment could have been involved in her murder” but only commented upon the “possibility” of “rogue elements” having communicated with the Taliban – a hypothetical scenario.

People need to understand the differences between hypothetical scenarios, facts, possibilities and probabilities. Once these concepts are clear, Musharraf’s statements do not come across as startling at all.

© Musharraf Supporters 2017 All rights reserved

The Person Malik Abdul Jabbar Named As His Killer: Hamid Mir

Analysing Hamid Mir’s Goofy ‘Logic’ and Selective Amnesia

Hamid Mir has spewed out a propaganda tract against Musharraf. Unsurprisingly, it is on the topic of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto (henceforth, BB). No human is unbiased, but journalists are supposed to relate stories as fairly as possible, presenting multiple sides of an argument. Well, Hamid Mir will have none of this, as is clear from his emotional and charged language. This piece is nothing more than an assault upon Musharraf with a vengeance.

In a rambling of a little over 2000 words, the initial 900 words are devoted to nothing more than self-praise:

1. Attempt to show how Mir was very close to BB, the latter appreciated him, treated him like a brother, praised his balanced thoughts, acknowledged that Mir had no personal interests and freely disagreed with her views. Mir emphasises rather strongly that he “often” times disagreed with BB and to her face.
2. Not tired with the self-praise, Mir continues to “demonstrate” his closeness to BB, submitting additional evidences of his high character: he shares a few letters which he received from BB, mentions how when it was widely suspected that he was fired due to writing against Zardari, BB offered him a job which he duly declined. BB is said to have reacted to Mir’s refusal by clapping and proclaimed, “Well done young man. That is why you are my favourite journalist…” In other words, the honest Mir passed BB’s test of integrity.

The above are interesting personal anecdotes, which Mir is welcome to share with his family and friends during bedtime. I am only interested in the arguments utilised by Mir to hold Musharraf responsible for BB’s assassination.

Mir has just one argument to offer against Musharraf: BB told him that if she was to be killed, Musharraf would be the killer. Here Mir is merely parroting Siegel. After 10 years, Mir can still apparently recall BB’s exact statement verbatim: “Let me tell you today, very clearly, that they have already decided to kill me and they will kill me soon. After they do, they will blame the Taliban or the al Qaeda. But you must name Musharraf as my assassin.” Perhaps Mir was taking notes during this informal conversation or recording the conversation?

Be that as it may, nothing more than the above “grand” argument is presented by Mir to “prove” that Musharraf assassinated BB.

There are, however, multiple problems with this line of argument:

First, Mir presents Goofy “logic” – his argument may be broken down as follows:

I. BB said that if she is killed, Musharraf would be the killer
II. BB is killed
III. Conclusion: Musharraf is the killer

It does not occur to Mir that even if BB genuinely thought that Musharraf would kill her, it does not necessarily follow that Musharraf did kill her. It could be that BB was wrong even if she honestly suspected that Musharraf would kill her. Mir commits a simple non-sequitur in his urge to blame Musharraf.

X’s assertion that “if I die, Y will be the killer” does not constitute “evidence” for Y being the killer when X attains death. Proof and evidence is still required to prove Y’s guilt. Mir seems utterly incapable of grasping a point so elementary.

Perhaps the example below might aid in opening Mir’s long blocked common-sense and critical thinking pores:

Let us suppose that Malik Abdul Jabbar, who hates and despises Mir for a multitude of reasons, gathers a few friends and declares, “when I die, you must name Mir as my killer! You must do it!” A few days/weeks/months/years thereafter, Malik Abdul Jabbar really dies. Following Mir’s underlying logic, in light of Malik Abdul Jabbar’s statement, no investigation and analysis is required. Malik Abdul Jabbar’s accusation/fear is to be treated as the gospel truth. Therefore, quite simply, Mir is to be declared guilty of doing something which led to the death of Malik Abdul Jabbar and, consequently, to be sentenced to life imprisonment or death. It may be that Malik Abdul Jabbar was killed by someone else, perhaps in an accident, perhaps by his wife who poisoned his nihari, perhaps by phone snatchers, or maybe he died from a heart attack. None of this really matters at all. Mir is to be thrown behind bars and charged with murder because: Malik Abdul Jabbar told his friends that when he dies, Mir is to be held responsible.

Read More…

Analysing Dawn’s Incoherent Gobbledygook against Musharraf

Desperate to launch an attack upon Musharraf, Dawn has spewed out an editorial piece lambasting Musharraf’s recent comments regarding Hafiz Saeed and Lashkare-e-Taiba. The author commits multiple factual errors and presents logically unsound statements.

I’ll deal with these problems below. Since the author appears to lack elementary comprehension skills, I will also comment upon Musharraf’s position in the final paragraphs.

To begin with, during Musharraf’s term in office, we are told that “significant steps” were taken against militants and that “many militant” groups were outlawed and “at least nominal clampdowns enforced.” A few paragraphs thereafter, however, we read, “After nearly a decade in charge, militants were rampant…society was under the influence of growing extremism.” How the latter is Musharraf’s “fault” is not explained. The law and order situation, in general, was markedly better throughout Musharraf’s term in office. However, the security situation deteriorated thereafter. Far from being Musharraf’s fault, it was the incompetency of the subsequent civilian regime which created problems. Militants rose up and took control of a large territory due to the appeasement approach of the post-Musharraf administration. Instead of blaming them, the author takes a cheap shot at Musharraf. Had the policies of the Musharraf regime continued unabated, it is most unlikely that the likes of Sufi Muhammad would have been able to raise their ugly heads. We should also fault former Army Chief Kiyani. His slow move against the terrorists and high tolerance level of appeasement initiatives towards extremists made a bad situation worse. Yet let us be clear: we are here dealing with a post-Musharraf Pakistan, when the policies of the Musharraf regime were pretty much discarded and replaced. Thus, to blame Musharraf for the follies of others is absurd.

The Musharraf regime is dubbed as “destructive” and it is also claimed that the “the economy had tanked” under Musharraf. However, if facts matter, then these assertions are to be duly dismissed. The Musharraf regime has been probably the most beneficial for Pakistan when it comes to its economy, education, industry, jobs, and freedom in general. This has already been documented in multiple locations (for example, see this and this). Briefly, the Pakistani economy more than doubled in size under Musharraf and there was notable poverty alleviation, with large scale development projects taking place throughout the country. The Pakistani media flourished for the very first time under Musharraf, where we witnessed the media openly criticising, disagreeing with and even mocking a sitting Head of State, with little or no adverse reaction from the regime. This was unimaginable in the “democratic era” in the decade before Musharraf. The Pakistani economy, under Musharraf, did so well indeed that the “democratic” PPP regime had no choice but to acknowledge this fact and use this as an argument to convince the IMF to secure hefty loans. To quote a small section from PPP’s “Letter of Intent” sent to the IMF (emphasis added), “In the last decade, Pakistan’s economy witnessed a major economic transformation. The country’s real GDP increased from $60 billion in 2000/01 to $170 billion in 2007/08 …” (see here)

Read More…

Responding to Bakhtawar and Asifa’s Ignorant and Hypocritical Twitter Ranting

After Musharraf’s reaction to Zardari’s false allegation, Bakhtawar and Asifa “responded” in the only way possible: spurting out ad hominem and irrelevant tirades.

They assert that 1. Musharraf is a “murderer” who “ran away”; 2. Musharraf should talk in Pakistani courts; 3. Musharraf “ran away crying” and should “come to Pakistan” to face “real courts”; 4. Musharraf is “blaming the victim.”

In addition to not really responding to Musharraf’s actual claims, it takes a huge amount of sheer and utter hypocrisy and outright shamelessness to spew such comments given what keeps their family in Pakistan:

1st Problem – Fact: Benazir REFUSED to appear before Pakistani courts and lived in self-imposed exile for years. Her prime condition was the elimination of the cases; she was in no mood whatsoever to face them in courts. Zardari, on the other hand, was living in luxury, having a lot of “fun” in a hospital, not “jail.” Benazir entered Pakistan ONLY AFTER one of her main demand was, unfortunately, accepted: the cases against her were withdrawn. In short, the NRO was required for Benazir to enter Pakistan…once assured that she would NOT have to face the cases.

Thus, running away from the courts, crying like cowards, refusing to appear before courts, demanding elimination of cases, is what it takes to allow Bakhtawar and Asifa’s family to play a prominent (disastrous) role in Pakistan. Their family will be out of the scene if it ever commits the error of appearing before an actual genuine court.

So it is difficult to take their twitter rantings with much seriousness.

In sharp contrast, Musharraf has faced courts previously and will face them again. Like all fake cases, he will fight this fake case as well, even if the courts are politicised.

2nd ProblemEither Bakhtawar and Aasifa are genuinely daft, or just hypocrites: Why is it “right” for Zardari to make personal accusations against Musharraf and “wrong” for Musharraf to hit back in kind and reverse Zardari’s allegations upon him? Is Zardari so “special” that he can blurt out just about any allegation upon any individual, without proof and evidence? Of course not. If you cannot face the heat, then do not enter the kitchen. If Zardari makes an unsubstantiated allegation, then one has the right to reply back and even to reverse Zardari’s allegations upon him.

3rd – Musharraf’s point makes at least common sense. Zardari is indeed the biggest beneficiary in the murders of Murtaza and Benazir. Also, those assigned to Benazir’s security by Zardari were involved in rather shady activities and some died in mysterious circumstances. Musharraf is right about the folly of opening up an “escape hatch” on the roof of Benazir’s bombproof car; he is right about pointing out how Zardari and Co refused to handover evidence; he is right in pointing out how Murtaza’s murder – committed by Benazir’s police force – was covered up and never properly investigated.

It is Zardari’s thug security system, her paranoid distrust of the sensible security advice of agencies and sheer and utter carelessness which got her assassinated. We need to investigate what role Zardari played in making a bad situation worse.

What Musharraf asserts at least abides by basic common sense.

© Musharraf Supporters 2017 All rights reserved


Older Posts »