Talk:Pervez Musharraf/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

7/7/2008

POV?

'my name is Rna khalil hi genral how r u may allah bless u inshahallah so i tell u some thing plz dont mind u r not good politaction because u leave tha pakistan whean pakistan nead u that time u leave him so dosen matter thanks goad u come back my dear plz come back quickly and solve pakistan problems im watting u i want see u in pakistan u r my real hero i no u save my contery thanks my cell nom is 00923219437150 and ptcl nom is 00924237419514 plz contect me hury up im watting ur call ur well wisher Rana khalil goad bless u bye

Italic text

Hello parvez hutay how are you i am awam of pakistan and we dont like you and your hakomat you understand that oa harami kameny go to hell saly chair k pichay itna pagal ho gaya puray country ko sale kar day ga agar tou mujhy mill ja tou main teri bund tay mara ga daly a sohar go to hell i want you die allah wa ameen inshallah mujhy yaad rakhna tera thku ..........................................................

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Pervez_Musharraf&diff=0&oldid=4217838 what do you think of this? --Hemanshu 04:14, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This article is ridiculously pro-Musharraf. Needs work. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 06:17, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps a POV tag is called for? I'd have a go at it but my knowledge of Pakistani politics is very limited. Lisiate 03:03, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would request that sentences, paragraphs that you consider POV be discussed on this page. If you consider whole portions so, please post them here and discussion for deletion or for replacement.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!)

I agree with the above contributors that this article is too pro-Musharraf. A clear example is the paragraph headed "Restoration of Deomocracy". The title itself is utterly wrong. Pakistan has not restored democracy: its present government was appointed, not elected. I am not taking an anti-Musharraf stance, but Wikipedia must not be allowed to contain information this blatantly incorrect.

Faulenzer 23:09, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article is neutral.

Despite the fact that Pakistan is not a democracy, non-extremists and those without a political agenda would agree with the content of this article. Life is better for the average Pakistani now then it ever was under during "democratic" rule. ---Zulfikar

If we're going to write a neutral academic article (as opposed to an editorial), let's admit that the US is in fact a democracy, or at least a democratic republic. ---Jules1236

I would say the article has parts (like "he is a great speaker") that could do with cleaning up, but it is not pure POV. And I would not, for example, make statements like "Life is better for the average Pakistani now then it ever was under during "democratic" rule." in the article itself. But then Zulfikar was saying that on the discussion page.

Folks that have issues with parts of the article as being POV, please list them here or edit the page and let's take it from there. I hope I can say this politely, but I get the feeling that folks just feel that the article does not show him in a negative light and since he was the leader of a military coup and an authoritarian leader, that must mean that the article is not NPOV. IMHO, he has been not completely bad for the economy or the standard of living, but in the long term, undemocratic leadership can be bad for a country. And so on. there's a lot to be said on all sides of that discussion. Let's get specific and say it.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:58, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

This article has been improved of late. My main remaining criticsm of it remains the title of the paragraph "Restoration of democracy". The contents of this paragraph do provide an explanation of what this "democracy" actually amounts to (i.e. the legislative body has now been democratically elected (in elections overseen and - arguably - manipulated by Musharraf), yet the real power still lies with the unelected head of state). I feel that the title "Partial restoral of democracy" is perfectly fair, and a lot more neutral (and truthful) than the present title. I shall change it accordingly. Also, though I am no fan of the United States (especially the current incumbent), you do have to admit that the US do at least hold presidential elections (however imperfect) every four years. I'm not making a quality judgement here, just being as honest as I can.

Faulenzer 22:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Deemed to be elected"

A further serious POV issue is the term "deemed to be elected" in the paragraph "Restoration of democracy/Partial restoral of democracy". I think this quote needs to be substantiated. Who said it? Even with some kind of substantiation, it is rather fishy. Can a man who came to power by means of a military coup then be "deemed elected" on account of confidence votes from a parliament that he dominates? Quite simply, there has been no election, so the statement is - I'm sorry to say this - somewhat absurd. Equally, the phrase "further legitimizing the President's rule" is very opinion-laden. I'm sure Musharraf's supporters think this, but Wikipedia is supposed to represent a neutral position. Could I ask somebody to subject this entire sentence to major surgery?

Faulenzer 22:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That there "weres simply no elections" is not an NPOV. It is a view held by the opposition parties (PPP, PML-N and religious hardliners). So your cirticism is itself partisan.

Hamood 21:48 4 Jan 2005

I have a problem with the first sentence of that section. Whether I, myself, agree with it or not, it is a POV. Was it really dismantled, or just given a different label? I will see what I can do with that section.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 22:33, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

What about this edit? I have put "Restoration of democracy" in quotes. I think saying "Partial" actually gives his system more legitimacy than you want to. I would vote for either putting it in quotes or adding a word like "Apparent" or "Claimed" or something.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 22:39, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Very good, both with regard to title and content. Your suggestion for a title is somewhat better than mine, as the quotation marks infer the right amount of (honest) scepticism. I also like your rewording of the legitimacy part. This is a vast improvement. Faulenzer 15:26, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The phrase deemed to be elected comes from the Constitution of Pakistan

From Article 41 (8) of the Constitution of Pakistan --

.. affirmation of the President in office by majority of the members present and voting, by division or any other method as prescribed in the rules made by the Federal Government under clause (9), of the electoral college consisting of members of both Houses of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) and the Provincial Assemblies, in a special session of each House of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) and of each Provincial Assembly summoned for the purpose, and the vote of confidence having been passed, the President, notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution or judgment of any court, shall be deemed to be elected to hold office for a term of five years under the Constitution ...

In accordance with this provision, Musharraf constitutionally become the President of Pakistan when he won the vote of confidence on January 1, 2004.

If you want an attribution by a neutral body for recognition of Musharraf as being the democatically elected Prsident of Pakistan, try the Commonwealth of Nations. AmeriDesi 18:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. I hadn't thought of that. But the problem is that the other editors want to convey the thought that his election (and his "deem"ing "to be elected" is not undisputed.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:02, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

I've made substantial changes to the top section, including wording that attributes the "deemed to be elected" phrase to the Constitution.

Partner in the "War on Terror"

quote: "Though the Taliban was largely an independent phenomenon, there exists a general impression that the Taliban regime is a product of the Inter-Services Intelligence security agency of Pakistan working on the principle of 'Strategic depth' to ensure a Pakistan-friendly regime in Afghanistan. The new policy was a sudden 180-degree turn from the old one and had been judged a key indicator of Musharraf's sincerity by analysts at think tanks like the Brookings Institute."

If at all the taliban was an independent phenomeon, how could Pakistan have made a "sudden 180 degree turn" in a diametrically opposite direction? on the other hand if the Brookings Institutes has judged Musharraf to be sincere on the basis of his "new policy", then clearly Taliban could not have been an entirely independent phenomenon on which Pakistan had no influence. Avataran

I'm not aware of any evidence that the Taliban organization was created by a Pakistani government agency. My understanding has been that the Taliban may have indirectly received support from the Pakistani Interior Ministry even before the ISI switched its backing from the Northern Pakhtun mujahedin commanders, and that only happened after the Taliban demonstrated the ablility to provide security for the cotton convoys from Turkmenistan to Quetta. So I think the formation of the Taliban was an independant phenomenon.

As for the "sudden 180-degree turn," that's a myth; relations between the Pakistani government and the Taliban had already become strained earlier in 2001. Even before that, it became increasingly apparent that the Taliban were worse than useless for Pakistan, which required three main things of the Afghan government: enough progress to 1) allow three million Afghan refugees to go back, and 2) to encourage transhipment of cotton, gas, and other goods from Central Asian republics to Pakistan, and 3) to not make trouble for Pakistan. Not many refugees went back while the Taliban were in power. Outrage by womens' groups against the Taliban's medieval practices caused UNOCAL to cancel its gas pipeline project. Then the Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas, infuriating the top military commanders whose public and personal pleas to spare the Buddhas were ignored. At that point it became clear to Pakistani leaders that they had little influence over the Taliban and also that they had become a serious liability. I think the Pakistani government may have been already contemplating a regime change in Afghanistan when 9/11 happened. They weren't adequately prepared, though, and the pro-Pakistani "Eastern Alliance" suffered a setback when Abdul Haq died, allowing the anti-Pakistan Northern Alliance to dominate the new Afghan government.

I'm not an expert on Afghan-Pakistan relations, and the more I find out, the more I realize how much I don't know about this very complex subject. AmeriDesi 11:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Liberal views

That's all that can be about his liberal views? That he owns dogs? Talk about damning with faint praise. Quite a bit has been omitted here. Points to consider --

• liberal upbringing
  • educated mother who worked for ILO and had leftist friends.
  • diplomat father, so M. had contact with different cultures
  • grew up in Turkey, admired the secularist Ataturk
• women in family are not sequestered
  • wife & mother photographed/seen in public with no veils.
• condemnations of religious radicalism that predate 9/11.

And that's not even the half of it. AmeriDesi 12:44, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2005

Neutral???? say again :)

If this artcile is neutral then i shudder at the thought of bias !

Wikipedia, mark on the top of this article that its neutrality is suspicious. This is the least admins can do here. --204.46.125.17 15:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

lets start editing it

B4 U begin an anti-Mush crusade, lemme ask u a simple question: Wud u like a hot 1 to be shoved up your western ass, if instead of Mush, a taliban type dictator was to come to power in Pakistan? The hot 1 I'm referring to is a nuclear warhead. If the answer is yes, then pls., pile all the garbage u feel like on Mush, the only friend of the west, in radioactive Pakistan. 193.251.135.123 09:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

explain me...why my edits have ben removed

explain me...why my edits have ben removed ,otherwise the should be reverted (unsigned by Wisesabre 02:51, 31 July 2005)

In the future, please sign your comments (with four tildes (~)), or people are going to have trouble figuring out who you are.

If you're talking about this revision, it looks like the sections about Musharraf's Referendum and the PML-Q had NPOV and minor grammatical issues. Also, the PML-Q section could stand to have some sources behind it, if it's going to say anything potentially controversial. --Skoosh 18:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

you may be right about PML-Q (cause i have no prove), but i listed sources about musharraf referendum.

and thats true, what else should i have done?? --WiseSabre 19:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Musharraf's Referendum

After Musharraf's Referendum,In which he asked the People to vote for him as President of Pakistan.Most of people stayed home and few people went for voting.In most of the stations ,it is reported ,that the polling agents were given the target number of votes (im my self evident of this).The polling staff themselves casted the votes. (few people came to cast votes but on radio i heard that large number of people are casting vote)
The referendum campaign was transparently bogus that it even dismayed those sections that supported him. With the opposition's boycott Musharraf was left to crow like a shameless dictator about his 98% victory margin.

The blatant manner in which the electoral process is being vulgarised. . . is extremely worrying Human Rights Commission head Afrasiab Khattak .

In a report issued in Islamabad , the independent Pakistan Human Rights Commission said it had documentary evidence of electoral malpractice.: [1]

while living in Pakistan ,when ever i get chance to talk with people most of the people are unhappy with him. WiseSabre 08:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The referendum was a public-relations disaster for Musharraf. He had to say sorry on national TV:

Opposition parties boycotted the April 30 vote and dismissed it as a fraud, calling on Gen Musharraf to step down. President Musharraf admitted he had received reports that "at lower levels due to unnecessary enthusiasm and carelessness, inefficiency and ignorance there might have been some improper cases of voting in some areas. If this is true I regret it from the core of my heart. I feel sad and sorry for it." he said. [2]

I remember at the time that independent polls showed that he had majority support. One poll said he had 55% and the other 67%. The problem was that, unlike a contested election where the drama of conflict is a big draw for voters, this referendum was a big yawn for most people. The anti-Musharraf people boycotted it, of course. So his victory was assured, and the "Musharraf's OK" crowd were mostly like, "He's gonna win anyway. Why should I vote?" Not surprisingly, the turnout wasn't spectacular. Then pro-Musharraf officials panicked and evidently resorted to "improper" voting. I wonder what genius advised him that a referendum would be a good idea. Anyway, even if you threw out every "improper" ballot, I believe he would still have won. FactNTact 10:33, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Musharraf's popularity

I visited Pakistan this January, and my impression was that most people liked Musharraf. I made it a point to strike up a conversation with every taxi driver and ask him about his home village (all but two were from villages) and whether he thought things were getting better there. I would also ask what he thought of Musharraf. Out of 17 taxi drivers, I only got one outright negative about Musharraf, from an interior-Sindh guy. Four more seemed ambivalent to me. The rest, 12 out of 17, were distinctly pro-Musharraf or indirectly expressed support (IMHO) by saying that the govt was doing a good job, at least compared to before. Shopkeepers were also mostly pro.
From drawing-room debates, I got a different impression. MBAs and industrialists were strongly pro. Non-business types and intellectuals were mixed, mostly ambivalent feelings, sort of "well, he's not as bad as X,Y & Z but.." and some were quite critical. Overall, my impression was people were pro-Musharraf. P.S. A widely-quoted Pew Center poll has this to say about Musharraf:

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is widely unknown, with a third or more in every country except Pakistan giving no opinion. Pakistanis expressed highly favorable opinions of their president; 86% rate him favorably, and 60% view him very favorably, by far the highest rating of any leader in the survey. FactNTact 09:24, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

for some time people supported ,they thought that Musharaf would be different from former Pakistani leaders.even my father supported him strongly.

but now situation is different.even yesterday i was buying corn from small vendor ,he was talking against Musharaf and while standing there 2 more men came they were also talking againt him.
why Pakistani people hate musharaf...

• Before Musharaf Pak. army was thought to be the only corruption free orgnization in pakistan. but now in all major Projects army officers are working.(im also victim of 1 such project(housing scheme)).
• MQM is a terrorist political orgnization.Musharaf gave them governorship of balochistan.the Governor of Balochistan was wanted by police.
• Musharaf said when he came into rule that he would recover money looted by former leaders.but nothing has been yet recovered.
• more taxes are imposed (25 rs are taken forcefully from every pakistan as T.V license fee ..wheather they own T.V or not.
• common people security condition is worse (in a year stay of mine in lahore just in my neighbourhood (1 man killed, 3 times dacoites,3 times firing infront of my house,)
• flying KITE'S if officaly celebrated(which kills around 500 people in a year ,i once narrowly escaped kite's thread (which might have killed me).
• Musharaf is taking U turn on Kashmir (all Pakistanis belive that Kashmir is part of pakistan).
• MUSHARAF RULE IS NOT AT ALL DIFFERENT FROM OTHERS.he is not willing to leave government.

for a pakistani there is no differnce in Musharaf or any other ruler.He has no right to rule. he has done nothing to improve condition of common man.

still there are no signs that he is going to leave govenment.

I find this very interesting, since Musharriaf is portrayed very positively in Western media and I didn't know many of these things until now. I have one questions though: What is a kite? Acegikmo1 21:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

see --> Kite_flying doles 21:43, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

I didnt' know that those kites killed 500 people a year. Acegikmo1 21:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

kites in pakistan are not like these ones ,kites are small just 2,3 feet size,there thread is also special ,very thin ,coated with crushed glass, the main comeption between kite flyers is who breaks kite thread while flying using other kite, the kite whose thread is broken ( Stray kite),its thread is more swift then knief (because of its speed of movement in air .(i hope it explains you) [3],[4]

Wow, I had no idea. Thank you for enlightening me. I appreciate it. Perahps you could contribute some of your knowledge on these types of kites to Wikipedia.

Cheers,

Acegikmo1 08:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Really! this killer stuff needs to go into the Kite_flying article. Kite flying is practiced in India too - however, I have not seen or heard of regular deaths or even serious injuries because of stray kites or related accidents. In india, we call the glass coated thread as "manja" wonder if the pakistani thread is any different (in name). doles 14:19, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

My knowledge is not very vast about kites,in pakistan kites types usually called are patang,guddi,pari,MACHER(mosquitoe) length measured in TAWA ,i think the process of coating thread with glass is called manja,

thread types i know are are 7 REECHi(bear),chemical (polyster)(there are several but i remember only these).WiseSabre 19:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

GUYS: THIS TOPIC ON KITES IS BEYOND ABSURD. I FLEW KITES IN INDIA FOR 10 YEARS, YES, THE ONES WITH CRUSHED GLASS ON THE STRINGS. NO ONE HAS DIED FROM IT, AT MOST YOU'LL GET A SMALL PAPER CUT AND THAT IS HARDLY THE SAME AS DYING. I"VE NEVER HEARD SUCH UTTER, UTTER RUBBISH IN MY LIFE. DONT be so gullible: IN PAKISTAN AND AFGHANISTAN KITE FLYING IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT IS CONSIDERED TO BE ANTI-ISLAMIC. THAT IS THE SOURCE OF THESE RIDICULOUS RUMOURS ABOUT "DEATH" FROM KITE FLYING. ASK ANYONE WHO GREW UP FLYING KITES IN INDIA, THEY WILL LAUGH THEIR ASS OFF ABOUT THIS RIDICULOUS STORY ABOUT "DEATHS" FROM KITE FLYING. IN FACT the only "deaths" from kite flying were in afghanistian UNDER THE TALIBAN when they "punished" children for flying kites (just as they punished them for playing soccer, and for listening to music). I suspect our contributor here has either naively swallowed these rumours about 'deaths' from some Jihadist propaganda, or is a willing part of that himself. If you put this into ANY wiki article about 'deaths' from kites, you will be a laughingstock in the South Asian world. AS FOR the kite's string floating thru the air being "more swift than a knife" - just thnk about that statement. Have you ever seen a piece of string floating thru the air? yes, the kite's string (when it is a stray kite) is nothing more than that. It is not a "swift knife!!!!" Oh my god, i'm laughing my ass off. I URGE YOU TO NOT PUT THIS RUBBISH INTO A WIKI ARTICLE; GET SOME RELIABLE (NON-JIHADIST-PROPAGANDA) SOURCING ON IT AND YOU WILL SEE FOR YOURSELF. People have flown these kinds of kites in south asia literally for 2000 years or more (they are mentioned in the indian epics as well). Children do it all the time, there is NOTHING dangerous about it; nothing any more dangerous than a game of soccer. We used to do it off our rooftops ALL THE TIME. Ridiculous.

President Musharraf is widely popular and trusted in Pakistan. That is the reason his rule has been smooth and all the anti-government campaigns have been utter flops. Some Pakistanis live on conspiracy theories like Musharraf handing nukes to USA and some Indians live on hatred like comparing Musharraf to Qaddafi and Saddam! These people's opinions are worthless and should not be included into an serious article such as the one on Wikipedia. The Pakistani habit of blaming the govt for everything should also be taken into account, as well as the fact that no Pakistani will ever leave his drawing room and go out into the street to do anything against the government. An understanding of Pakistani culture is requisite for writing articles on anything Pakistani.

Regarding Musharraf's popularity in Pakistan

Being a resident of Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, I can assure you that most Pakisitanis are at least for the time being supportive of Musharraf. There are two real fears of Pakistanis regards Musharraf:

• He may commit treason by secretly and quietly handing over Pakistan's nukes to the Americans, the result being that we have our nuclear tipped missiles pointing at India, with the nuclear warheads replaced by dummy warheads.
• He may secretly and quietly hand over Pakistan's long-standing claim on the entire land of Kashmir to the Indians (which like WiseSaber has said above all Pakistanis consider to be a part of Pakistan).

As long as Musharraf is not seen as compromising on these two absolutely critical issues he will continue to receive Pakistanis' support indefinitely. But I assure you, if it's ever leaked that he has stabbed Pakistan in the back by compromising on either Pakistan's nukes or on Kashmir, I fear that Musharraf's days in power will be abruptly cut short by an unstoppable outcry by a ferociously angry Pakistani populace, at the end of which, under the best possible scenarios, Musharraf would be spotted fleeing Pakistan on an American aircraft carrier, currently parked in the Arabian Sea.

I believed he stabbed the people of pakistan in the back far to many times already. Even if we ignor the original act of treason by removeing Nawaz Sharif from office regard less of how he was managing the country. The dictator then ent on to mutilate our constitution, rubbshed our judicial system and alloed Aericans to bomb innocent civilians in Pakistan.

But I think Musharraf is a patriotic man to the core and he would UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES commit the above mentioned two ultimate Pakistani sins. And therefore, his rule is assured for the forseeable future. As long as he is continued to be seen as a true patriot who is good for Pakistani, he isn't going anywhere. But if there's a change in his image, then like they say, his ass is grass.

Regarding the claim by some book that it was Musharraf who decided to retreat from Kashmir, I find that hardly believable. Please remember, that Mr. Tom Clancy, is an author of fiction books and not fact based books. To be honest, I have never understood what Musharraf was thinking when he entered Kargil? It is totally beyond me. What was the strategy? Where was the game plan? I don't think that the Pakistani army was the orchestrator of this operation at all. I think some freedom fighters in Kashmir made some in-roads into Kargil and Pakistani army simply gave them some support, which India drummed up to be a full scale invasion by Pakistani troops. I find it extremely hard to believe because it simply makes no sense from a militaristic stand point. Whirling Dervishes 23:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Why do Pakistanis consider Kashmir a part of Pakistan? Even when history and geography clearly show that Kashmir is part of India? Why would it be an "ultimate pakistani sin" to stop violence in the name of kashmir?doles 15:08, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

Why Kahmir for Pakistan... : major reason for Pakistan clain of Kashmir is that most of Pakistani river start flowing for Kashmir , if India get hold in Kashmir it could ruin Pakistan (as most of the Pakistanis are related to agriculture) but using the water of the rivers accoring to there will.

Pakistan claims Kashmiris on the bases that most of the Kashmiries are muslims

For futher details you must refer to article Kashmir

talking about mr.Musahraf

Ok the most recent news is election officials discovered four ballot boxes that had been stuffed with votes before being delivered.

The court on Tuesday ruled that all candidates must have studied English, Pakistan studies and Urdu. Does this maked any sense???

hundreds of the citizens who had broken into it to protest against alleged casting of fake votes in the police station [5]

Other then PML -Q(the ruling party) rest of parties say Police harassing candidates: ARD, MMA

And talking about Islamabad only few people there are local residents, most of the people there are govt. officals and during holidays its hard to find man there

Sources

Police harassing candidates: ARD, MMA [6]

Pakistan votes for local councils [7]

Anger at Pakistan election ruling [8]

Google news [9]

Before futher Discussion could you tell me!!

In the population of 162,419,946 people is Musharaf only the right person to rule??

When is he leaving SEATS

What sort of significant changes he has made to the system which makes him to qualify for Presidency??

What sort of futher evidence you people want ??? What else you say dictatorship????

Note :Polls in Pakistan can even show that mr .musharaf is the president of UK ,the voting system in Pakistan is not like west in most of regins -except capitals- people cast vote according to there land lord's will ( This comment is not only for elections held under musharaf but about mostly all elections held in Pakistan).(women banned for voting (i lost source for a news telling that women gave birth in a polling station she was forced to vote)
Pakistan is in the same list as Iraq in Saddam regin,libya,Saudia and other Dictated Muslim countries. I wonder that after few year i may hear that US is coming to liberate Pakistan.
WiseSabre 19:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

WiseSabre, you tagged as factually inaccurate the Popularity in Pakistan section, which reads

A widely-quoted Pew Center poll says of Musharraf:

Pakistanis expressed highly favorable opinions of their president; 86% rate him favorably, and 60% view him very favorably, by far the highest rating of any leader in the survey.

Several other independent polls, including polls by well-known organizations such as Gallup and the BBC, have also indicated that Musharraf has the support of a majority of the Pakistanis surveyed.

The way the text is phrased, I don't see the factual inaccuracy. The quoted source says what it says. The independent polling organizations reported what they reported. I've taken out your tag. I understand you're opposed to Musharraf, but what exactly in the above text did you consider factually inaccurate? FactNTact 09:46, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

About the surveys...

Most of the Pakistanis donot belive american media.the most favorite news source for most of the Pakistanis is Deutsche Welle and then BBC.
Pakistanis belive that american media is propaganda machine. While searching i found that Survey about Musharaf [10] is done by washington based PEW research centre.So to me its doubtfull
While serching gallop i found only this survey [11] which does not indicate me any high popularity of Musharaf in Pakistan.
i Have found this survey about Musharaf [12]

My concerns

• In the whole history of Pakistan, anyone with powers like Musharaf has now, has never lost any elections (Ayub khan,ZA bhutto,Zia ul Haq,Nawaz Sharif and then Musharaf).So i donot expect him lossing any election and then based on election he is going to leave Govt.(do u think Saddam or Maumar Kadafi(libyn president) has lost any election?)
• Internation Community should restict his powers and ask him to quit.(According to him he is the only right person who could rule Pakistan).
• MOST OF THE PAKISTANIS BELIVE THAT AS LONG AS HE DOES NOT OPPOSES AMERICA HE IS GOING TO RULE PAKISTAN

The previous comment was left by Wisesabre Talk Contributions at 10:52, 21 August 2005.

If Musharraf helps the US, so what? If it wasn't for the US, Pakistan, alongwith Afghanistan, would be just another republic in the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and Indians would be dancing in the streets. Pakistanis have never openly expressed their gratitude to the US for helping them help the Afghans in defeating the Soviets. Granted, the US did it for its own national interests but still, imagine what would've happened to Pakistan if on its west, Afghanistan had fallen to the Soviets and on its east, India was rattling its sabers. Pakistan would have been crushed and India would have walked over Pakistan without a single shot being fired. Think about that, and thank God for giving you the USA.

Most Pakistanis also know that in Pakistan feudalism rules the day and there can be NO REAL DEMOCRACY in Pakistan until feudalism is uprooted. No one, not even Musharraf, has the gutts to do that. So, in the meantime, 99.9% of Pakistani politicians continue to be crooks. Because of this, the average Pakistani is in no rush to get these thieves back into power so they can plunder the treasury and build castles in Europe with stolen money that rightfully belongs to Pakistan. Sir Toby Belch 08:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

To sir toby belch

I completely agree with you. I just wanted to tell the World that we hate him and this is the easiest place where i could show my hatred for him. WiseSabre 16:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. Most Pakistanis I know seem to like him. Criticforaday 22:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Musharraf's statement in Washington Post

Musharraf recently made a statement that Pakistani woment get raped to obtain a visa to Canada, or citizenship and also become millionaires. Here are the URLs that provide the proof :

1. Boo-Boo At NY, article in Outlook on the above statement. http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20051003&fname=Rape+%28F%29&sid=1

2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/audio/2005/09/23/AU2005092301278.html

3. Protests that were caused by the statement. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050928/481/kar10509281551

User:212.138.47.23 has removed the Washington Post reference from the article. I am reverting back to the last good version. Please do not arbitrarily remove large chunks of the article without posting and discussing your reasons here on the talk page. Hulleye 08:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed that WP reference because it has no relevance to Musharraf's biography and is part of a slander campaign against him. Musharraf's pro-woman views and pro-woman activities are well-known. To portray him as a misogynist is a lie. That WP reference should be removed.

Okay now... a lot of people made a big fuss about what he said to WP. Though I think he DID say something to the effect... but more importantnly, it was in said a certain context. The context being that he was really PISSED off by the way the Mukhtaran Mai case was used as a cheap media show to sling mud at Paksitan... the media treated the Mai case as if Gang Rapes were invented in Pakistan and Mai was the first subject in the history of mankind to have been gang raped.... women have been raped and molested in far more brutal ways in all around the world INCLUDING the oh-so-civilized West... singling out Pakistan was not only unfair, it also reeks of "i hate your guts" attitude towards Pakistan.... Well ne-ways... the long and short of is that the WP reference is irrelevant and yes it is, by all accounts, a very deliberate attempt not only slander Musharraf but ALSO pakistan itself.....

Hmmm... Paki sock puppets getting their shorts in a twist? Whichever way you want to sanitize it, the fact is that Paki women get raped to get Canadian Visa - as attested by their own CEO.