Can he act upper class? Or he is someone from a lower class pretending to be upper class?
He is third class :)
As for Musharraf, his lavish lifestyle, tennis, squash sessions, him lifting and walking his groomed poodles (im sure you must have seen the picture), cigars, scotch and whiskey, is HARDLY reflective of his so called middle class lifestyle.
He is third class :)
As for Musharraf, his lavish lifestyle, tennis, squash sessions, him lifting and walking his groomed poodles (im sure you must have seen the picture), cigars, scotch and whiskey, is HARDLY reflective of his so called middle class lifestyle.
No, he's trying to live an upper class lifestyle. As I mentioned, class is determined by upbringing, not by money or behaviour.
No, he's trying to live an upper class lifestyle. As I mentioned, class is determined by upbringing, not by money or behaviour.
So, in the last 8-9 years, which by the way is what matters, he led a very glamorous and luxurious upper class lifestyle. Those 8-9 years was what his speech encompassed. So that just proves my point, thank you.
Pakistan's Supreme court has a nasty habit of political activism, more so than supreme courts in other countries.
At any rate, your additional questions to bob_chasm are negated by the PP article I posted, which demosntrated that at the very start of his rule he already owned more than enough assets to purchase this property in 2003.
Which then leaves the incorrect zoning issue. Let's start by hearing your case that he should not have been able to buy this property for housing.
My case? In case you didnt know, it was already pending a trial at a Supreme Court, before the dictator imposed the emergency. Now if you will label the supreme court as 'political activists' just because they werent Mushy's yes men, I dont think I should bother trying to put up another 'case'.
Thanks for bringing in the 'religious' angle to the post for no reason :) Musharraf is no saint, he embezzled and as a result he and his top lieutenants, including his little pooch Shaukat Aziz got these farmhouses. Why do you think the Supreme Court took this case for a hearing then? We actually have proof unlike the speculations you are presenting. As for your new theory about him getting money from his brothers and sisters, there are ways to check that. You cannot just expect his brother to send him fat checks to Pakistan to buy property, just like that. Also, the army isnt that saintly either, they take over land through extortion and thuggerish manners too. Someone here suggested he had 'wealthy children'. Lets see now, he has two kids, and lets just rule out the possibility that he gets money from his married daughter (though he did get money by selling Pakistanis :)), leaving his son, who has worked for Watson Wyatt Worldwide from 2000-2005, and now works for ePlanet Ventures (2008-present), so we can rule him out too. Another thing that we are forgetting that he was a very lavish spender. The mujra sessions in the Army House, the hefty fee paid to lawyers to defend his unconstituitional actions, the learjets, his personal bookselling tour at the expense of the nation, all of this cost alot of money too.
I think religion could be a reason, if the judges were sympathetic to the cause of radical followers of Sharia investigated by Musharraf's government for terrorist activities. As far as the brother is concerned, I dont see why he couldnt be financing the property purchases. How fat would the checks have to be? I mean land prices were in the few thousand rupees, when the brother was making hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I think religion could be a reason, if the judges were sympathetic to the cause of radical followers of Sharia investigated by Musharraf's government for terrorist activities.
How did you arrive to that conclusion? They were only investigating the disappearance of the people that Musharraf sold off to the west (something he has already admitted in that book of his).
[quote]
As far as the brother is concerned, I dont see why he couldnt be financing the property purchases. How fat would the checks have to be? I mean land prices were in the few thousand rupees, when the brother was making hundreds of thousands of dollars.
[/quote]
Lets separate facts from speculations first.
The information from the PPP's document above eliminates the need for speculation - it confirms that Musharraf's property holdings were more than enough to finance the 30 million rupee purchase of his new house in 2003.
Does the link say that Musharraf has sold these properties? When? At what prices? After getting this info we can safely establish that he must've bought this farm house after selling other properties.
Lets separate facts from speculations first.
Present your facts, please.
Present your facts, please.
i) We all know how much people draw as salaries in the PA, so we can rule that out
ii) Supreme Court took the case up, i.e. him and some other influential illegally obtaining subsidized farmhouses
If you want, I can post authentic links to back the above?
Your turn :)
Does the link say that Musharraf has sold these properties? When? At what prices? After getting this info we can safely establish that he must've bought this farm house after selling other properties.
When a State goes around looking at who owns what and asks them to justify where they got the money to buy it, it is in my opinion, a witch hunt. I would feel more comfortable if the State would provide proof of (the specific crime) that generated the money. Then, prove how someone used these funds to buy something not the other way around. Otherwise, the State is basically assuming the guy is guilty until proven innocent, because he owns something. This would be an example of big brother government gone crazy. Nobody likes to see governments exercising this kind of power. The potential for abuse by incumbent would cloud the truth. In the case of Musharraf it is clear he was persuing a policy against radical followers of Sharia. So sympathizers of radical followers of Sharia would be expected to conduct witch hunts against Musharraf. So unless you can provide specific proof of embezzlement against Musharraf taking money from government contracts, it really doesnt interest me and makes me suspicious of why someone wants to conduct a witch hunt against him.
When a State goes around looking at who owns what and asks them to justify where they got the money to buy it, it is in my opinion, a witch hunt. I would feel more comfortable if the State would provide proof of (the specific crime) that generated the money. Then, prove how someone used these funds to buy something not the other way around. Otherwise, the State is basically assuming the guy is guilty until proven innocent, because he owns something. This would be an example of big brother government gone crazy. Nobody likes to see governments exercising this kind of power. The potential for abuse by incumbent would cloud the truth. In the case of Musharraf it is clear he was persuing a policy against radical followers of Sharia. So sympathizers of radical followers of Sharia would be expected to conduct witch hunts against Musharraf. So unless you can provide specific proof of embezzlement against Musharraf taking money from government contracts, it really doesnt interest me and makes me suspicious of why someone wants to conduct a witch hunt against him.
^ So the 90% or so of the country's population that wanted Musharraf out and held for his crimes/corruption are just witch hunters and radical followers of Sharia? Those that want Zardari investigated as well, what are they?
Musharraf actually helped the radical followers of sharia. Remember something called the military mollah alliance? Radicals flourished and created trouble thanks to his two faced policies, but this topic is about his embezzlement and property fraud.
i) We all know how much people draw as salaries in the PA, so we can rule that out
ii) Supreme Court took the case up, i.e. him and some other influential illegally obtaining subsidized farmhouses
If you want, I can post authentic links to back the above?
Your turn :)
We all know that Generals in PA dont just draw salaries. I just provided you with a list of atleast 5 plots which can legally be obtained by Generals in the Pakistan Army, at deeply discounted prices.
In addition I have provided you information that his father owned a house in F8. In addition I have provided you information that his brother was a physician, earning hundreds of thousands of dollars in the USA since the 70s.
There is nothing illegal about buying a farm. He bought it from a civilain owner of the land. It wasnt allotted to him by the government.
^ So the 90% or so of the country's population that wanted Musharraf out and held for his crimes/corruption are just witch hunters and radical followers of Sharia? Those that want Zardari investigated as well, what are they?
90% of the people could want the earth to be flat, it doesnt make it flat. Justice requires specific evidence. A mob doesnt define justice.
[QUOTE]
Musharraf actually helped the radical followers of sharia. Remember something called the military mollah alliance? Radicals flourished and created trouble thanks to his two faced policies, but this topic is about his embezzlement and property fraud.
[/QUOTE]
Then provide evidence of embezzlement from specific government contract. Otherwise, you raise suspicions about your own motives.
We all know that Generals in PA dont just draw salaries. I just provided you with a list of atleast 5 plots which can legally be obtained by Generals in the Pakistan Army, at deeply discounted prices.
In addition I have provided you information that his father owned a house in F8. In addition I have provided you information that his brother was a physician, earning hundreds of thousands of dollars in the USA since the 70s.
There is nothing illegal about buying a farm. He bought it from a civilain owner of the land. It wasnt allotted to him by the government.
These are speculations, not facts. As for the plot in F-8, do you have any factual proof?
If it was legal to buy that farm on subsidized prices and NOT use it as a farmhouse, then why was that case taken up in the Supreme Court?
90% of the people could want the earth to be flat, it doesnt make it flat. Justice requires specific evidence. A mob doesnt define justice.
That is not what I asked, I was pointing out as to how you think that only 'shariah implementers and radicals' would want Musharraf's accountability.
[quote]
Then provide evidence of embezzlement from specific government contract. Otherwise, you raise suspicions about your own motives.
[/quote]
Theres plenty of them, feel free to browse through. With the NRO like exit deal, and the army cover, most of the real stuff will come out once hes out of the country.
When a State goes around looking at who owns what and asks them to justify where they got the money to buy it, it is in my opinion, a witch hunt. I would feel more comfortable if the State would provide proof of (the specific crime) that generated the money. Then, prove how someone used these funds to buy something not the other way around. Otherwise, the State is basically assuming the guy is guilty until proven innocent, because he owns something. This would be an example of big brother government gone crazy. Nobody likes to see governments exercising this kind of power. The potential for abuse by incumbent would cloud the truth. In the case of Musharraf it is clear he was persuing a policy against radical followers of Sharia. So sympathizers of radical followers of Sharia would be expected to conduct witch hunts against Musharraf. So unless you can provide specific proof of embezzlement against Musharraf taking money from government contracts, it really doesnt interest me and makes me suspicious of why someone wants to conduct a witch hunt against him.
I am not suggesting "govt" to carry out this investigation, even "journalists" can investigate through the resources available like whether latest declared assets include those previously owned plots or not.
The plots and lands that are a part of the compensation package of any General officer in the PA is not speculation. Everyone knows that div, corp commanders and Chiefs of the Army live in govt provided accomodations. How is that speculation? As far as the house in Islambad is concerned, most people in Islambad know where his parents lived (not on planet vulcan). His father was a well known figure in Islamabad. Pervez Musharraf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
People also know his brother has been working in the USA as a doctor since the 1970s. Doctors make hundreds of thousand of dollars in the USA (not a speculation). Father had several tours abroad where Pakistanis receive compensations that are comparable to other diplomats. So there were plenty of sources of income in this household.
The farmhouse investigation doesnt concern just President Musharraf. It concerns all 500 owners. The investigation is not about where Musharraf got the money for the farmhouse, but how the land is being used (not just by Musharraf), but all owners. Knowing the shortage of residential plots in Islamabad, only a fool would think that choice real estate in chak Shahzad should be used to grow vegetables for Islambad today. We can get vegetables for Islamabad for a lot less grown in cheaper land than chak Shahzad. That law needs to be changed, just like the green belt was changed to Blue area in Islambad.
Sorry, but I think you need to dig up something bigger than these petty things about zoning violations against a dictator who ruled a country for over 8 years.
So are 50,000 other people, that doesnt mean they own houses in F-8! LOL again you have no way to prove that his dad owned a kothi in F-8. Like I said, thats just speculations. Why dont you post the address, trust me, my house is nearby, and I can find out who lives there 
His brother is working for himself, not Musharraf. I doubt his brother would donate such a large sum of money so that this hones to god president of ours who did everything but make a buck or two can get shelter. Again, there is no record of Musharraf getting a large sum of money from abroad from his brother, as declared in his personal assets, so lets just dismiss this as another speculation.
It is embezzlement. Also, only a fool would think theres real estate shortage in Islamabad. Theres PLENTY of new sectors, and the only reason why your beloved president chose chak shahzad is because he cant really build a mansion or a fort in one of the older sectors, and he would be a prime target of a suicide attack over there. I took pics of Musharrafs new ‘farmhouse’, and you will be shocked to see how they are building it. All it lacks is a moat. Atleast now you admit it was acquired illegally
Theres plenty of stuff opened up bro, mujras in army house, grooming for his personal mutts/poodles, learjets, and other stuff, you just have to go and dig in GS archives.
Re: Musharraf’s properties
Spock u don’t get tired of Mush bashing do u 
By now u should’ve collected some hard evidence to prove all what u claimed in numerous threads and hundreds of posts against Mushy. Instead of telling PPL “go and google coz there is lot of evidence”.
Can u put up so much against Zia who was much worse than Mushy (according to me atleast) or is it only Mushy ???
Lagta hay Mushy nay Pakistan ki nahi tumhari “pooshal” pay apney fauji boots kay saath barra zor-dar paoun rakha hay kyunkay tumhari Mushy kay Khilaf bolti band hi nahi ho rahi 
Oh I thought you had put me on ignore
Beta, Zia ko marey hoey 20 saal ho gaye hain, and you can find plenty of threads, that I started about Zia. I know why you are trying to bring in Zia, as I dont know about Mushy putting his fauji boots on me because I wasnt in the country during his time barring the first 1-2 years but I do know that Zia did put fauji boots on you, as per your beliefs 
And honestly, that was perhaps the only thing Zia did right out of his sea of blunders and mistakes, though credit really goes to Bhutto