He may be a polarizing figure to some, but to Karachi, urban Sindh, and Pakistan’s leftwing, he’s the immutable, impassioned voice charging against Pakistan’s slow surrender to terrorists. Altaf Hussain founded the All-Pakistan Mohajir Students Organization in 1978. This became the Mohajir Qaumi Movement in 1984 and then the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, one of Pakistan’s most powerful political parties, in 1997. (His party has been in power in either Islamabad or Karachi, or both, since 2002.) Facing attempts on his life, Hussain went into self-exile in London in December 1991, some six months after which the then government launched an operation against the MQM. Unlike other key political leaders, Hussain can speak about Islam and the Army with some authority: both his grandfathers were religious scholars and he served in the Army’s Baloch Regiment. We spoke with the 60-year-old over email recently about Pakistan’s politics, his legal challenges, and more. Excerpts:
The MQM has been an outspoken critic of the Taliban and their affiliates. And it has been punished for its clear position against terrorism through target killings and bombings. How far and wide have the militants penetrated Karachi and how can they be tackled?
Diplomatic privileges and immunities guarantee that diplomatic agents or members of their immediate family:
May not be arrested or detained.
Being the only nuclear power in the Muslim World, Pakistan has been coping with the CIA roguish tricks. In 2009, Pakistan’s media had pointed out the US notorious private security firm—Blackwater in the country with a new name as Xe Services. As part of the US espionage network, hundreds of the CIA agents and those of the Blackwater entered Pakistan under the guise of diplomats. They started conducting anti-Pakistan activities by their affiliated militants including their Pakistani agents. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) castigated the anti-Pakistan activities of the Blackwater and CIA. It compelled America to roll back the network of Blackwater and reduce the number of diplomats.
May not have their residences entered and searched.
John Stockwell, ex-CIA Station Chief in Angola in 1976, who also worked for the director of the CIA under George Bush (Senior) and spent 13 years in the agency, confirmed the US Central Intelligence Agency’s expanding operations in a report. Stockwell’s report indicated that since the 2006 US-led Ethiopian invasion of Somalia, “the CIA maintains a growing security complex in the country, located right behind Mogadishu’s Aden Adde International Airport. The complex contains over a dozen buildings as well as several metal hangars, which house CIA aircraft.” Another report by United Press International claims, “The CIA complex contains a prison for the suspected militants who are routinely interrogated and tortured by the members of a Mogadishu-bas
It is of particular attention that in June 12, 2015 The Washington Post wrote, “Key lawmakers have moved to slash funding of a secret CIA operation to train and arm rebels in Syria…as 20 percent of the classified funds flowing into a CIA program that U.S. officials said has become one the agency’s largest covert operations, with a budget approaching $1 billion a year…the measure has provoked concern among CIA and White House officials, who warned that pulling money out of the CIA effort could weaken U.S.-backed insurgents. The White House declined to comment…U.S. officials said the CIA has trained and equipped nearly 10,000 fighters sent into Syria over the past several years.”
At present, in the US where the presidential election-campaign has started, ordinary Americans are focusing on internal problems such as financial crisis, cost of war etc. which are the result of prolonged war on terror. Patriot Americans are openly criticizing the Zionist-protected policies of the US, putting questions that they are paying taxes to the CIA and military establishment (Their huge budgets) which are fighting useless proxy wars in the world for the sake of Israel.
However, in wake of the present drastic scenario, some analysts warn of global war between the US-led alliance and the Russia-led coalition, while some are predicting about world war 111 or nuclear war, and some are talking about “Clash of Civilizations” in the sense of Huntington.
May not be subpoenaed as witnesses.
While, America claims itself champion of human rights. Both Bush and Obama are responsible for the illegitimate killing of innocent persons in Pakistan and some African countries by allowing the CIA-operated drone attacks. Since 9/11, the US-led troops, supported by CIA have carried out indiscriminate mass round-ups in catching up suspected Muslim men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq including some Arab countries without evidence. Israeli Mossad has helped the CIA officials in arresting the Muslim men, having beard and ladies, wearing scarves.
Nonetheless, such a dangerous situation will destroy the entire world or is likely to throw it in an era of civil war, enveloping Israel itself. Question remains that for whose protection CIA has been waging secret battles.
Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations.
Obama Seeks to Pave Way to Mideast Deal After He Leaves Office.
President Obama, resigned to his failure to broker a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, is looking past his time in office and weighing a plan that would preserve at least the principle of a two-state solution for his successor to pursue.
The White House is debating whether the president should lay down the outlines of an agreement, several officials said, perhaps through a resolution at the United Nations Security Council or in a presidential speech. The objective would not be to revive direct negotiations — almost nobody believes that is likely now — but to enshrine the proposals Secretary of State John Kerry made during his last failed effort at peacemaking in 2014.
A Security Council resolution, officials said, would give enduring legitimacy to the compromises that Mr. Kerry hammered out in private between the two sides, and build broad international support for a series of proposed solutions that could provide the framework for a future Israeli-Palestinian agreement.
These deliberations, which have been percolating for several months, have rattled Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and could lead to further tension between him and the president in a relationship that has already been marked by bitter rifts.
Mr. Netanyahu on Monday declined an invitation to meet with Mr. Obama on March 18 in Washington, ostensibly because he did not want to get drawn into the volatile presidential election. In fact, several officials said, Mr. Netanyahu did not want to meet with Mr. Obama without having sealed the terms of a new pact on American military aid. The 10-year agreement, potentially worth more than $40 billion, is viewed as a way to compensate Israel for the Iran nuclear deal. But negotiations have run into snags, these people said, and Mr. Netanyahu did not want to risk leaving an Oval Office meeting empty-handed.
An even deeper potential source of friction between the leaders, officials said, stems from the possibility that Mr. Obama will make a last foray into peacemaking. In whatever form that would take, the purpose would be to show a way of resolving all the central issues that divide the two sides, from the borders of a Palestinian state to Israel’s security and the political status of Jerusalem.
“Obama and Kerry are looking at the very real likelihood that the two-state solution could die on their watch,” said Martin S. Indyk, who served as the special envoy for Israel-Palestinian peace negotiations under Mr. Kerry in 2013 and 2014. “Having tried everything else, I think they feel a responsibility, above all to Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state, to preserve the principles of a two-state solution.”
After months of intensive talks, Mr. Kerry failed to break a deadlock on the so-called final-status issues between Mr. Netanyahu and the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. Mr. Netanyahu has since won re-election with a government that is even more hard-line on these issues than his last one. During that campaign, the prime minister disavowed his support for the two-state solution. Mr. Abbas’s position, meanwhile, has been eroded by months of violent attacks by Palestinians on Israeli Jews.
Continue reading the main story
Adding to the urgency of the debate, officials said, is a mounting American concern that a continued expansion of Jewish settlements in a swath of territory in the West Bank known as Area C will soon make a geographically and politically viable Palestinian state impossible.
Middle East peace initiatives have long had appeal for late-term presidents. Ronald Reagan opened a dialogue with the Palestine Liberation Organization during his final months in office. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both made last-ditch attempts to broker peace deals in their last years in office. Any new effort by Mr. Obama would bear a host of uncertain political ramifications in an election year.
While the Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state, has declared that she would pursue a peace accord as president, she might not welcome having to take a position on a Security Council resolution that is viewed as putting pressure on Israel. Republicans could seize on a diplomatic overture to throw their support behind Israel, though the party’s current front-runner, Donald J. Trump, has pledged to take a neutral stance in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Yet all these qualms, officials said, could take a back seat to Mr. Obama’s frustration about his failure in the peace process and its impact on his legacy, particularly as a president who once made an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement a centerpiece of his diplomacy.
“There will be a great temptation to do something in the final year,” said Aaron David Miller, a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “For a president who came out faster and more aggressively on the Middle East than any of his predecessors, there is a gnawing sense of incompletion and perhaps even failure.”
Among the questions the White House is considering is how long to wait. Deferring action until after the November election would ease the political pressure on the Democratic nominee. But it would shorten the time to build international support for a resolution.
In Jerusalem, Israeli officials refused to comment on any possible moves by Mr. Obama. But they reiterated their long-held position that the only way to reach any agreement with the Palestinians was through bilateral negotiations, not international organizations.
Ehud Yaari, a prominent Israeli analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said Mr. Netanyahu was probably less concerned about the possible publication of parameters by the administration or a Security Council resolution than about what, if any, mechanism would be proposed for propelling the peace process forward.
“It would be one more U.N.S.C. resolution,” Mr. Yaari said, adding that the wording would “not necessarily be negative” for Israel. Washington’s policies are well known, he said, adding, “Obama is not going to produce something dramatically different,” he said. “The question is what mechanism is to be introduced. That is the major issue.”
Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story
Mr. Indyk agreed that a Security Council resolution need not be punitive for Israel. It would most likely be modeled on a United Nations resolution adopted after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, which called for Israeli forces to withdraw from occupied territories and for the establishment of a lasting peace.
CONTINUE READING THE MAIN STORY WRITE A COMMENT
The latest contretemps between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Obama showed how little trust they have for each other. After articles appeared in the Israeli news media that the president had not offered the prime minister a date for a meeting, the White House issued a statement that pointedly rebuffed that claim.
Hours later, Mr. Netanyahu’s office issued a statement in which it said the whole thing was a misunderstanding. The prime minister, the statement said, was looking forward to a visit Wednesday by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “and discussing how we can meet the many challenges facing the region.”
While the negotiations over the military aid package were complex, American officials expressed confidence they would be resolved soon. Next week, Israel’s defense minister, Moshe Yaalon, is scheduled to meet Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter at the Pentagon. “We’re in the kind of final stages of talking,” said the deputy defense secretary, Bob Work.
Isabel Kershner contributed reporting from Jerusalem, Helene Cooper from Washington, and Michael S. Schmidt from Norfolk, Va.
Follow The New York Times’s politics and Washington coverage on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the First Draft politics newsletter.
However, when the war in Afghanistan ended, Bush cut Pakistan adrift, terminating aid in 1990, marking the last significant contact between the US and a nuclear-ready Pakistan until cruise missiles slammed into Osama bin Laden’s training camps in Afghanistan in 1998..No one was looking at the Islamic Republic, even as intelligence began backing up in Europe, India and Israel to show that its military nuclear network had reacted to the aid cut-off by escalating the black-market deals in nuclear technology, eyeing markets hostile to the West.
By the time President Bill Clinton took office in 1993, and throughout his two terms, an ever more detailed picture was pieced together of Pakistan’s dangerous liaisons: Iran in 1987, Iraq in 1990, North Korea in 1993, and by 1997 Libya, too.
Things would get worse. By the time George W. Bush secured the presidency in 2001, a mountain of incredibly precise intelligence portrayed Pakistan as the epicenter of global instability: a host and patron for Islamist terrorism, ruled by a military clique that was raising capital and political influence by selling weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
However, in the days and months that followed September 11, Wolfowitz and others set about building a new house of cards. Pakistan’s President Musharraf pledged to round up al-Qaeda and to assist in mopping up the Taliban, giving up their leaders and busting their sanctuaries in the inhospitable border region with Afghanistan. Musharraf became integral to American plans, lending the Pentagon airspace, passing intelligence and mounting operations in regions where no Western soldier could ever hope to go. The Bush administration weighed his value as a potential ally against the harm Pakistan’s nuclear program could do, just as Carter and Reagan had done before. Despite overwhelming evidence of a building nuclear crisis, in which a state leaking nuclear technology was also concealing terrorists who were seeking it, the White House decided to do nothing.
In October 2003, Richard Armitage flew to Islamabad to meet Musharraf. The White House agenda was to keep the general onside. A drama was conceived that drew from Musharraf a promise to shut down Pakistan’s nuclear black market in return for winning US support for his unelected regime. It was agreed that A. Q. Khan would be arrested, along with a dozen of his fellow scientists, but Pakistan would keep hold of them, allowing the West to pose limitless questions via ISI interrogators but leaving the country’s military elite in the clear.
As White House calls for regime change in Iran rose to a clamor in 2006, Pakistan’s President Musharraf turned off the intelligence tap, shutting down all investigations into Khan. Then Musharraf’s contribution to the war on terror began to fall apart at the seams. Militants arrested in the post-9/11 heat were released and allowed to re-form their jihadi groups under new names. A neo-Taliban flourished in Pakistan’s tribal border areas, from where they struck fatally at Afghan, British and American forces. Most worrying, al-Qaeda began merging with Pakistan’s home-grown terrorists, spawning new camps, new graduates and new missions abroad. By 2007, Pakistan’s nuclear sales network was flourishing again. The Islamic Republic had learned to manufacture the restricted components and materials, electronic equipment and super-strong metals needed for a ready-made nuclear weapons facility which they were selling to anyone who could come up with the cash. Pakistan’s arsenal, developed at Washington’s grace and favor, was sliding out of control as terrorists gained new footholds in Islamabad.
- Aslam Beg and Iraq’s Kuwait Invasion (2paisa.wordpress.com)
May not be prosecuted.
My party, MQM, has led the opposition to terrorism and religious extremism. The Taliban have assassinated four elected MQM members in the last three years. Their latest victim was MQM’s Tahira Asif, a member of the National Assembly who was gunned down in Lahore on June 18. Since 2008, MQM has also consistently pointed out the perils of Talibanization in Karachi. When I first publically raised this issue, my political opponents ridiculed me. I was accused of fear-mongering and stoking ethnic tensions, but now everyone admits that my apprehensions were spot on.
Following military operations in the federally-administered tribal areas and Swat Valley, a large number of militants and internally-displaced persons moved to Karachi. Taliban militants have since made Karachi their key hideout and fund their terrorist activities through kidnapping-for-ransom, bank robberies, extortion and land-grabbing. A number of investigative reports have appeared in the local English-language print media in recent years revealing transfers of extensively large sums from banks located in Karachi’s heavily [ethnically] mixed neighborhoods. A recent report by a major U.S. newspaper acknowledged that the Taliban now control as much as a third of Karachi. This report merely confirms what I have been saying all along. There are large areas in Karachi where the Taliban have set up a parallel government, including courts that are dispensing their own brand of justice; where they have imposed their own version of Shariah and where people are routinely sentenced to various punishments according to the Taliban version of Shariah.
The banned militant organisation Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which claimed responsibility of shooting 14-year-old peace activist Malala Yousafzai in the head, issued a statement Wednesday, using Islamic Shariah to defend the attack.
In the statement sent out by TTP spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan from an undisclosed location, the banned outfit said that although they do not believe in attacking women, “whom so ever leads a campaign against Islam and Shariah is ordered to be killed by Shariah.”
The assassination attempt on the life of the young National Peace Award winner has drawn widespread condemnation from the government, political parties and civil society groups, terming it a bid to silent voice for peace and education.
The statement says that it is “not just allowed … but obligatory in Islam” to kill such a person involved “in leading a campaign against Shariah and (who) tries to involve whole community in such campaign, and that personality becomes a symbol of anti-Shariah campaign.”
Malala had won international recognition for highlighting Taliban atrocities in Swat with a blog for the BBC three years ago, when the Islamist militants burned girls’ schools and terrorised the valley.
Her struggle resonated with tens of thousands of girls who were being denied an education by the militants across northwest Pakistan, where the government has been fighting the local Taliban since 2007.
The Taliban statement further challenges – with Quranic and religious references – condemnation of the assassination attempt on the tender-aged girl, adding that it is a clear command of Shariah that any female playing a role in “war against mujahideen” should be killed.
“If anyone argues that she was female, and then we can see the incident of killing of wife by a blind companion of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) because she used to say demeaning words for the Prophet and the Prophet praised that act,” it argues equating the TTP act with that of a the prophet’s companion.
The statement goes on to defend the attack with a reference from the time of Hazrat Khizar, a revered figure in Islamic history who was described as a righteous servant of God and endowed with the qualities of unmatched wisdom and mystic power.
“If anyone argues about her young age, then the story of Hazrat Khizar in the Quran (states that) while traveling with Prophet Musa (AS), (he) killed a child. Arguing about the reason of his killing, he said that the parents of this child were pious and in the future he (the child) would cause a bad name for them,” adds the statement.
Malala Yousufzai, who was also nominated for the International Children’s Peace Prize by advocacy group KidsRights Foundation in 2011, had raised her voice against the militants’ ban on and threats against education for women in Swat.
Female peace activists carry photographs of gunshot victim Malala Yousafzai during a protest rally against her assassination attempt, in Peshawar on October 10, 2012
The Taliban had blown up more than a hundred girls’ schools. A video feature by theTimes, published in 2009, describing the life of Malala’s family, shows her in her school, a girl with a fair, round face, hazel eyes, carrying a satchel with a Harry Potter picture on it.
I happen to be an online journalist (mostly because my articles stating the alternative viewpoint are rejected publication in local papers). I have studied Journalism as a subject in graduate studies and as far as reporting goes, there is nothing unethical in “adapting to the local environment”. Especially if you’re a “white Amerikaan” in Pakistan, you need to brush off suspicion very thoroughly.
I do not blame my people for this. We already have CIA and MI6 agents roaming around the country under various guises,German BND spies also were caught roaming about dressed in local Pakistani wear and even burqas. Furthermore, we have had our taste of Nicholas Schmidle and Ilana Dayan.
Remember Schmidle? He came to roost in Pakistan and pen piece after piece on manufactured intelligence. Unfortunately for him, Pakistan’s ISI took notice of his covert activities and he was subsequently booted out of the country in 2008 on charges of espionage.
He acted well as your super-smart journalist and investigator, little did people know his father Robert E. “Rooster” was a former Major General in Special Operations and who is currently a Lieutenant General serving as Deputy Commander of the US CYBERCOM (US Army Cyber Command). Details on the CIA-funded Nicholas Schmidle can be read here.
We also had an Israeli, or more appropriately, Zionist agent visiting Abbottabad posing as an Argentinian professor of law using fake documents and passports. Ilana Dayan has interviewed former Mossad chief Meir Dagan in the past and is known for having close ties with Zionist Israel’s military intelligence. Read about her case here.
Pardon me, I have this habit of trying to present the necessary context on which I talk, just for reader clarification.
So what’s ticking inside my mind is, was Adam B. Ellick deployed as a secret controller by the CIA? The mister’s video profiles and resume show his vast approach worldwide. He surely knows how to get a suitable slice from the cake. It was Adam B. Ellick who first brought Malala a.k.a. the BBC’s “Gul Makki” into the spotlight and featured her in his documentary for the New York Times with her real name. [Part 1] [Part 2]
I had the privilege of following Malala Yousafzai, on and off, for six months in 2009, documenting some of the most critical days of her life for a two-part documentary. We filmed her final school day before the Taliban closed down her school in Pakistan’s Swat Valley; the summer when war displaced and separated her family; the day she pleaded with President Obama’s special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, to intervene; and the uncertain afternoon she returned to discover the fate of her home, school and her two pet chickens.
A year after my two-part documentary on her family was finished, Malala and her father, Ziauddin, had become my friends. They stayed with me in Islamabad. Malala inherited my old Apple laptop. Once, we went shopping together for English-language books and DVDs. When Malala opted for some trashy American sitcoms, I was forced to remind myself that this girl – who had never shuddered at beheaded corpses, public floggings, and death threats directed at her father — was still just a kid.
Today, she is a teenager, fighting for her life after being gunned down by the Taliban for doing what girls do all over the world: going to school.
The Malala I know transformed with age from an obedient, rather shy 11-year-old into a publicly fearless teenager consumed with taking her activism to new heights. Her father’s personal crusade to restore female education seemed contagious. He is a poet, a school owner and an unflinching educational activist. Ziauddin is truly one of most inspiring and loving people I’ve ever met, and my heart aches for him today. He adores his two sons, but he often referred to Malala as something entirely special. When he sent the boys to bed, Malala was permitted to sit with us as we talked about life and politics deep into the night.
After the film was seen, Malala became even more emboldened. She hosted foreign diplomats in Swat, held news conferences on peace and education, and as a result, won a host of peace awards. Her best work, however, was that she kept going to school.
In the documentary, and on the surface, Malala comes across as a steady, calming force, undeterred by anxiety or risk. She is mature beyond her years. She never displayed a mood swing and never complained about my laborious and redundant interviews.
But don’t be fooled by her gentle demeanor and soft voice. Malala is also fantastically stubborn and feisty — traits that I hope will enable her recovery. When we struggled to secure a dial-up connection for her laptop, her Luddite father scurried over to offer his advice. She didn’t roll an eye or bark back. Instead, she diplomatically told her father that she, not he, was the person to solve the problem — an uncommon act that defies Pakistani familial tradition. As he walked away, she offered me a smirk of confidence.
Another day, Ziauddin forgot Malala’s birthday, and the nonconfrontational daughter couldn’t hold it in. She ridiculed her father in a text message and forced him to apologize and to buy everyone a round of ice cream — which always made her really happy.
Her father was a bit traditional, and as a result, I was unable to interact with her mother. I used to chide Ziauddin about these restrictions, especially in front of Malala. Her father would laugh dismissively and joke that Malala should not be listening. Malala beamed as I pressed her father to treat his wife as an equal. Sometimes I felt like her de-facto uncle. I could tell her father the things she couldn’t.
I first met Malala in January 2009, just 10 days before the Taliban planned to close down her girls’ school, and hundreds of others in the Swat Valley. It was too dangerous to travel to Swat, so we met in a dingy guesthouse on the outskirts of Peshawar, the same city where she is today fighting for her life in a military hospital.
In 10 days, her father would lose the family business, and Malala would lose her fifth-grade education. I was there to assess the risks of reporting on this issue. With the help of a Pakistani journalist, I started interviewing Ziauddin. My anxiety rose with each of his answers. Militants controlled the checkpoints. They murdered anyone who dissented, often leaving beheaded corpses on the main square. Swat was too dangerous for a documentary.
I then solicited Malala’s opinion. Irfan Ashraf, a Pakistani journalist who was assisting my reporting and who knew the family, translated the conversation. This went on for about 10 minutes until I noticed, from her body language, that Malala understood my questions in English.
“Do you speak English?” I asked her.
“Yes, of course,” she said in perfect English. “I was just saying there is a fear in my heart that the Taliban are going to close my school.”
I was enamored by Malala’s presence ever since that sentence. But Swat was still too risky. For the first time in my career, I was in the awkward position of trying to convince a source, Ziauddin, that the story was not worth the risk. But Ziauddin fairly argued that he was already a public activist in Swat, prominent in the local press, and that if the Taliban wanted to kill him or his family, they would do so anyway. He said he was willing to die for the cause. But I never asked Malala if she was willing to die as well.
Finally, my favorite memory of Malala is the only time I was with her without her father. It’s the scene at the end of the film, when she is exploring her decrepit classroom, which the military had turned into a bunker after they had pushed the Taliban out of the valley. I asked her to give me a tour of the ruins of the school. The scene seems written or staged. But all I did was press record and this 11-year-old girl spoke eloquently from the heart.
She noticed how the soldiers drilled a lookout hole into the wall of her classroom, scribbling on the wall with a yellow highlighter, “This is Pakistan.”
Malala looked at the marking and said: “Look! This is Pakistan. Taliban destroyed us.”
In her latest e-mail to me, in all caps, she wrote, “I WANT AN ACCESS TO THE WORLD OF KNOWLEDGE.” And she signed it, “YOUR SMALL VIDEO STAR.”
I too wanted her to access the broader world, so during one of my final nights in Pakistan, I took a long midnight walk with her father and spoke to him frankly about options for Malala’s education. I was less concerned with her safety as the Pakistani military had, in large part, won the war against the Taliban. We talked about her potential to thrive on a global level, and I suggested a few steps toward securing scholarships for elite boarding schools in Pakistan, or even in the United States. Her father beamed with pride, but added: “In a few years. She isn’t ready yet.”
I don’t think he was ready to let her go. And who can blame him for that?
DTN News – PAKISTAN NEWS: I’m Proud of Kargil Operation, says former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada – March 28, 2013: Former military ruler Pervez Musharraf on Wednesday said he was “proud of the Kargil operation”, during which Pakistani troops had crossed the Line of Control and occupied positions on the Indian side in 1999. Musharraf made the remarks when he was asked about criticism of his role in the Kargil issue at a news conference in the southern port city of Karachi.
In a recent interview General Pervez Musharraf has admitted that he was indeed betrayed by no other than his own generals.
Saleem Safi (Geo TV) asked him out of the politicians he acquainted with during his era whom he found the person with “character” and who “disappointed” him most.
After a long pause and thinking, Pervez Musharraf answered: “kuch … kuch… faujioon nay” (some generals).
It would be worth listening him
Fast forward to 26:00 minute.
I am a firm believer in the untiring and unmatched struggle of people of Pakistan against the worst dictators in the world history.
However, in 2007 people of Pakistan surprisingly found unexpected associates in their struggle against the worst dictatorship of 21st century. These unexpected supporters were media and judiciary of Pakistan, the two trusted allies of the dictators through out Pakistan’s history. It was really hard (and in fact impossible) to identify the true motives of these two factions, and indeed there was no reason to suspect them. Electronic media became the most lethal weapon against the dictator and his allies while CJ Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry became the surprised leader of the struggle.
The “Judicial movement” of Pakistan in 2007 was indeed the best success story people of Pakistan had against the dictators. Media provided the platform and the logistics to spread the message of hope. It was a great success when in the elections the two parties (PPP & PML-N) who were thrown out by the military came back with 2/3rd majority in the Parliament.
Despite this I could never digest the fact that the elements who are probably the first and last defenders of dictators and their cronies were fighting against the dictator alongside the common men. How was it possible?
And surely things became clearer as the time passed and those elements returned to their formal positions.
There is no doubt that Pervez Musharraf was betrayed by his own generals , the same generals who like him will not hesitate “selling their own mothers” to save their skin and keep their hold on the people of Pakistan. General Ashfaq Kyani and his cronies played their cards very well to oust the mad dictator.
I always point out to the fact that it was Kyani who was present in that fateful meeting on 9th of March 2007, and he spent few hours with CJ IMC alone. The cronies of military mafia in establishment used to get instance by instance report from no other than the Kyani/Pasha.
The mad dictator was back stabbed by his own generals and in fact my theory is that he might be trapped to become a scapegoat and perhaps get executed under Article 6. As this way military mafia will be able to please the Taliban faction of the army & right wing urbanites.
I am glad however that Pervez Musharraf admitted the fact that the generals of this army are characterless. Pervez Musharraf can pay somewhat for his crimes against community if he come out in open and tell the true working of this mafia which has kept the whole country hostage for over 60 years.
Otherwise there are two hundred and fifty thousand wikileaks and 3000+ of them originate from US embassy in Islamabad, only 56 of them have been released so far.
Pervez Musharraf was born as a bastard in a deep pig dungeon, on August 11, 1943. Musharraf along with his phallus loving uppity muslim friends immigrated to Pakistan and chose to masturbate in Karachi. He stayed in Kabul for three years, two hours and did his education from Bill Clinton Sex college for the economically backward, but being impotent, he got thrown out of there. Although thats all just presumption Mushy in reality is just a space cockroach who was exiled from their planet for being too fucking stupid. He spent his early years in Ankara, Turkey, from 1949 to 1956 and speaks fluent Turkish.
Musharraf describes himself as “only very slightly religious—like on a scale of 1-10 I’d be like a 0.5.” Imagine Pakistanis’ surprise, then, when in early 2007 Musharraf declared himself the God of Everything (GoE).
Musharraf served in the Nazi army as a waterboy. During the assault on Berlin Musharraf, while stealing eggs, mistakenly put a grenade down his pants and lost his left nut. Unfortunately for him he only had one nut!
Musharraf also served under Darth Vader. At this time he was promoted to vodka boy. He was bullied by imperial army for being descendant of a cockroach. This pissed Musharraf off to the point of jumping out of the death star into the vacuum of space. Cockroaches dont need oxygen so he survived his journy and crah landed in the Amazon forest where he was raised by African Chimps. The Chimps deny this though.thakk
The United States of Azaristan and Pakistan
Soon after the 911 (no idiot, not 911 the American helpline for God’s sake) after 9/11 attacks in a village in US (Uganda School of Arts) Musharraf allied with B+US+H. B and H were added to US, because the new American President made US look like a bush in the wild. Due to this, the extremists started calling him ‘Busharraf’. According to the famous Einstein’s theory of Bushity, Bush + Musharraf = Busharraf. He was changing sides, as now he is with US on war against terrorism. The religious fanatics thought ‘Busharraf’ is our enemy too, so they left their tongue out of their asses and wanted to drown/kill Busharraf with water guns. Musharraf was lucky to put a water-proof jacket around his waist to escape three times. Busharraf was also lucky to have worn a parachute to jump off the burning bush. Isn’t that guy just plain lucky?
Azaristan looked like a dog wagging his tail when he saw Pakistan allied with US. Hence, a new nation came into being, “The United States of Azaristan and Pakistan”. Osama bin Laden, who was laden with lies about Islam and twisted the religion for his own benefit, was once a sweet-heart darling of Bush. Bush and Laden wanted all the good things, so they bought all the candies in the market but Osama wanted toys. Bush didn’t like it, then he said bush’or’us (not toys r’us). Bush said, “Either you are with candies or with toys,” But Laden, laden with lies, was fond of toys. So the two once close friends, become enemies. That reminds me of my days in kindergarten. Bush likes candies so much that many threw candies and eggs on his car on his inauguration day in 2001. American people love him so much! Hence, the Third World War will be between toys and candies.
Unbeknownst to most of Musharraf’s critics, Mushy is emotionally attached to his uniform much like a toddler to her security blanket. Adrienne Phelps, a renowned New York psychiatrist, has held numerous counseling sessions with Musharraf since 2002 to find the causes of this unhealthy attachment and to help Musharraf overcome it. Phelps declined to comment on whether the therapy was successful, citing patient privacy concerns, but did say on condition of anonymity that “it doesn’t look good.” Phelps predicts that any prolonged separation from the uniform would instill intense panic in Musharraf, potentially causing permanent brain damage and/or an automatic sex change. People close to Musharraf say the therapy continues to this day. Reasons for this attachment to the uniform may lead us way back to Perverts youth, when he was constantly sexually harassed by his family and many others.
Another proposed theory that he superglued his wee wee to his army pants & he cannot take them off. The little General depends on it. This theory explains Mushy’s impotency and explains why Bilal looks nothing like his alleged father ( he actually looks more like Bush if you ever looked closely enough).
Musharraf famously divorced his wife on the doorsteps of the Taj Mahal and abandoned her there without a visa. After years of courtship, Musharraf is now engaged to Kevin Eubanks of the Tonight Show band. He is also having a covert affair with Barack Obama. He is fond of inter racial sex according to friends close to his family. Mushy once got drunk at a party and had sex with queen elizebeth which led to the birth of Altaf Hussain. Mushy abandoned his illegitimate wife and child but in 2007 after his Re-Election as the most retarded fuck they were united and are now a big happy family who enjoy occasional group sex.
The speculated reason for his divorce with his first wife was the three-day Karachi Summit between USA and Pakistan. Then US President Dr. Bill Clinton was seen flirting with Pervez Musharraf’s Wife. The failure of the summit is also speculated for the same reason and also for Musharraf’s immense hate for USA.
From Musharraf to Busharraf
Mush has never taken off his uniform and does not intend to do so in the future until prey-ze-dent bush decides to sodomise him.But prey is death butch says ‘Yuck,son of a bitch, you stink even more than condy’. Mush decided that he will prove to bush he’s gottta balls of steel (which he claims he got as a gift from osama – been -laden(laden only by 72 virgins to date) for providing him shelter in the dense tree-o-brothel (also called tora bora in slang). Mush has formed a strong gay alliance with president Who-genitao of chinkland. They are working on a joint project to develop a brand new surf which can help mush wash his uniform so that bush can fuck him.They call it mushsurf(Musharraf). However bush accuses China of stealing a surf making formula that bush uses to wash his testicles, which bush had hidden in condy rices’ vagina. If the accusations are true, it is the first time china has been able to spy so deep inside the USA.Musharraf was finally developed after A.Q.Khan managed to strike some secret deals with nort korea and libya. However bush insists that the surf is stolen from his testicles, so he insists on calling it Busharraf.Musharraf will remove his uniform sometime in november 2007 and wash himself with busharraf before being sodomised by bush.
Musharraf enjoys playing pranks on close friends and strangers alike. His “victims” say they enjoy his pranks and know that it’s all in good fun, although about a dozen people have died as a direct result of Musharraf’s harmless pranks. For example, in the recent Supreme Court case about Musharraf’s eligibility to run for President while he donned his uniform (to which he has an unnatural attachment—see “Uniform Controversy”), Musharraf hilariously tricked Supreme Court judges into believing their families would be blown to smithereens should they vote against him. After a decision favoring Musharraf was issued, the judges were informed of the prank via text messages. Witnesses report that the judges’ responses ranged from “LOL” to “ROFLMFAO.”
Other famous Presidential pranks include sending real bullets to journalists in blank envelopes and putting people on the Exit Control List when they really needed to leave the country on urgent business.
Musharraf is also known for his drunken wagering problem. He has drunk-dialed Bush on many-a-occasion, taken up stupid dares and ended up handing over a few Pakistani citizens to be stored at a futuristic research facility known as Gitmo as part of each dare. The families of those citizens report being a little annoyed (but mostly entertained) and have suggested that Musharraf seek help for his alcohol and gambling problems, but are mostly supportive. “All we want is for the President to acknowledge that he has a problem, ‘cuz seriously, he’s royally fucked up. That is the first step. We know it’s hard but we’r all here for you, Mr. President.
He was also awarded the prestigious Nuclear Non-profit award by the glorious North Korean leader Lil Kim.
Musharraf was recently awarded the Management Guru of the year award from the Management for the retards, to the retards, by the retards Institute located in the hilly afghan-pak border terrain.He specializes in Branding Chinese and North Korean weapons as Made in Pakistan and then test firing them thereby selling it Taliban and allies as Weapons of Pakistani Dominance over the world.
Musharraf was featured on the cover of Elle as the sexiest cockroach alive. The cockroach lobby was fucking pissed & bombed Elle head office in MirPur Khas. All the printed magazines were recalled and Shoved up Musharraf’s ass causing indigestion so sever that it is thought it was Musharraf & Union Carbide that caused the Bhopal Disaster
In 2006, Musharraf fulfilled his lifelong dream of publishing a trashy romance novel, entitled “In the Line of Fire.” Drawing mostly on his real-life intimate experiences with well-known personalities, the novel sold like hot cakes. Controversy arose, however, when former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif objected to the book’s depiction of Sharif’s relationship with Musharraf. Sharif later came out with a book of his own, “Ghaddar Koun,” (roughly translated as “I Dumped You, Not the Other Way Around, You Son of a Bitch!”) which didn’t do nearly as well.
In the Line of Fire: A Memoir
The book begins by outlining Musharraf’s rise to the military scene. He talks about his childhood and goes through his education. He devotes a chapter on his life in Turkey as a child and talks about the life of his parents, who despite being poor used to provide for the more destitue in the form of donations. He mentions major moments in his life, including when he was critically injured after falling of a mango tree, when he planted a timed bomb in his teacher’s letterbox and rubbish bin and when he was ragged as a new addition to the Pakistan Military Academy, which he calls the best academy in the world. He mentions his political views and his admiration for some of the military leaders in Pakistan. He also produces criticism against the way democracy was run in Pakistan, saying the military were given increasingly political roles but were reprimanded at times for getting too involved in the political scence. He details his hatred of Prime Minister Bhutto’s martial law period and his role in Zia ul-Haq’s martial law. He also talks about his various roles in the military and his natural motivational skills. He takes extreme pride in the fact that as a commander, he participated in any drills and exercises he was meant to oversee, he believes that the troops he commanded looked up to him because of this.
He talks of his role in the Pakistani SSG and his gallantry medal for his role in the artillery units in the military. He says he was gifted with military tactics at an early age, as he used to be instrumental in battles between street gangs within his home city of Karachi, the aim was to capture the flag of the other gang, and Musharraf organized ambushes and other tactical attacks which ensured victory.
He presents his views about the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 as well as that of the 1999 Kargil Conflict. He bears the view that Pakistan were the winners of the ’65 war, a view disputed by most historians. He also is selective in his judgement of the 1971 war. In the 1999 war, he believes India crossed the Line of Control, something which the United Nations commended India for not doing. He is also of the view that India started all three wars, a view India rejects. He is of the view that Indian troops would die in the harsh terrain and their comrades would later claim that the troops died in engagement with Pakistanis. This view has been criticized by some.
He devotes a chapter to his coup against Nawaz Sharif and goes into detail about Sharif’s hijacking of his plane from the ground. He believes Nawaz Sharif, in the action of sacking him from the position of Army Chief, had staged a coup against the military. He talks about the power distribution in what he calls the worst decade in Pakistan’s history (the 90s). He also believes Nawaz and Shahbaz Sharif had been under the immense influence of his father, Mian Mohammad Sharif, who influenced prime minister Sharif to stage the coup against him.
Musharraf says in his memoir that he had little choice after the September 11 attacks but to switch from supporting the Taliban to backing the U.S.-led war on terror groups or face an American onslaught. Fearing a return to the Stone Age, Pervez Musharraf agreed to back the U.S. led war against terror. The book also criticizes the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, saying it has made the world “more dangerous.”
Unusual in publishing a memoir while still in power, Musharraf says Pakistan, the United States, and Saudi Arabia created an extremist monster by supporting Islamic groups fighting the Soviet Union’s 1979-89 occupation of Afghanistan. Musharraf states, “We had assisted in the rise of the Taliban after the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, which was then callously abandoned by the United States.” He goes on to add that it was within this vacuum that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terror network strengthened, thanks to the support of the Taliban’s leader, Mullah Omar. Musharraf, who came to power in a 1999 coup, affirms Pakistan saw the Taliban as a means to end years of chaos in Afghanistan, which peaked during the 1992-96 civil war. Islamabad also saw the Taliban as a counter to Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance, which favored Pakistan’s rival, India.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, Musharraf says he realized continuing to support the Taliban and having ties with militant groups would set Pakistan on a collision course with Washington. “America was sure to react violently, like a wounded bear,” Musharraf writes. “If the perpetrator turned out to be al-Qaida, then that wounded bear would come charging straight toward us.” The day after the suicide plane attacks, Musharraf writes, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell telephoned with an ultimatum, “You are either with us or against us.” The next day, he says, Powell’s then deputy, Richard Armitage, telephoned the chief of Pakistan’s top spy agency, the Directorate of Inter Services Intelligence, with an even sterner warning:
“In what has to be the most undiplomatic statement ever made, Armitage . . . told the director general not only that we had to decide whether we were with America or with the terrorists, but that if we chose the terrorists, then we should be prepared to be bombed back to the Stone Age.”
Musharraf worried about nuclear-armed India, with which Pakistan has fought three wars since their 1947 independence from Britain, including two over the disputed Himalayan region of now divided Kashmir. “The Indians might have been tempted to undertake a limited offensive there (Kashmir); or more likely they would work with the United States and the United Nations to turn the present situation into a permanent status quo,” Musharraf writes. “The United States would certainly have obliged.” He adds, “It is no secret that the United States has never been comfortable with a Muslim country acquiring nuclear weapons and the Americans undoubtedly would have taken the opportunity of an invasion to destroy such weapons.” Musharraf declares he thus cut Pakistan’s support for the Taliban, despite a possible backlash from radical Islamic groups in his country.
“Why should we put our national interest on the line for a primitive regime that would be defeated?” he asks. “Self-interest and self-preservation were the basis of this decision.” Nevertheless, Musharraf disputes Bush’s argument that the world is safer following the invasion of Iraq, saying he opposed the war because he “feared it would exacerbate extremism, as it has most certainly done. . . . The world has become far more dangerous.” Musharraf details some of the 670 arrests of al-Qaida suspects in Pakistan, including the killers of U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl. However, he concedes al-Qaida and Taliban militants still operate in his country, while repeating his insistence that he has no knowledge of the whereabouts of top fugitives, including bin Laden and Omar. “If I had to guess, I would assume that he (bin Laden) is moving back and forth across the Pakistan-Afghanistan border somewhere,” Musharraf writes.
Pakistan’s First Lady – Begum Sehba Musharraf
Pakistan’s First Lady Begum Sehba Musharraf was seldom in news – until she accompanied her husband President Pervez Musharraf to the Agra Summit in India. The first glimpse of Sehba Musharraf was as she stood by the side of her husband ready to step down the PIA aircraft that brought them to Delhi. Looking relaxed and smiling, she seemed happy to be there. Throughout her stay in India, it was a pleasant and a smiling Sehba that the nation saw. Her happiness and smile seemed genuine – which is enough to endear any guest to the hosts. She was comfortable in her surroundings, at ease with people, human in her reactions and confident as a woman. These pictures say it all!
Arrival in Delhi – happy to be there!
Smiling through her role as the First lady of Pakistan