Tuesday, September 30, 2008
by Tariq Aqil
The month of September witnessed the brutal and senseless murder of three Ahmedis in Pakistan. This gruesome tragedy happened in the aftermath of a popular TV programme in which Ahmedis were blamed for everything under the sun. It appears as if some of our TV channels have been taken over by the dark and sinister forces of obscurantism. All non-Muslims and those who dare to stand up to the forces of religious fanaticism are declared infidels and worthy only of death.
Despite the carnage at the Marriott in Islamabad, and many other similar incidents before it, much of the educated elite of the country still believes in the fallacy that 'Muslims cannot do such a thing'. Regrettably, large sections of the media also refuse to accept this ground reality and mimic the same line. This is accompanied with America-bashing – virtually every suicide bombing, atrocity, every senseless killing is blamed on America, India, and the CIA. Another all-time whipping boy is the Jewish lobby or the 'Yahood-o- Nasara' meaning Jews and Christians. We seem to blame everyone including Charlie's aunt except our own homegrown obscurantist religious bigots. We are so blinded by our religious intolerance and hatred of Western nations that our vision is now limited to the tip of our nose. If we do not wake up from our deep slumber of ignorance the country is very likely to tear apart at the seams.
After the creation of Pakistan, religion became politicized. Most religious parties became political outfits that used the name of Islam and exploited religion for their own political objectives. Religious scholars, clerics, pirs, and sajjada nashins became politicians or stooges of politicians and the phenomenon of 'mullahism' was born. Illiterate, narrow-minded clerics became willing tools in the hands of greedy and corrupt politicians. The rise of the mullah, in Pakistan and in other parts of the world, is a direct cause of sectarianism and religious intolerance – creating sectarian schisms and conflict in not only Pakistan but India, Sudan, Egypt, Nigeria, Jordan and Iraq.
The Taliban in Pakistan are a recent phenomenon hell-bent on taking us back to the Dark Ages. They have complete disregard for human life, human rights or even human values. Dozens of girls' schools have been torched or dynamited in Swat and FATA, men have been forced to sport beards and music and CD shops have been bombed. Many schools in Islamabad have also received threats and warnings from these so called champions of Islam. Imagine the state of affairs in the country if these mindless religious fanatics take control of the state.
Many of our political leaders and intellectuals argue that terrorism in Pakistan is a direct result of Pakistan's support to the US in their war on terror after the happenings of 9/11. They fail to recognize the simple fact that the roots of terrorism lie deep within Pakistan and its chequered past. The terrorism we face today is a direct offshoot of sectarian violence and religious killings of the past. Who created the Sipah-e-Sahaba or the Jaish-e-Mohammad? These extremist militant groups were founded well before 9/11 or even before the birth of the Taliban in Afghanistan. And the fact also is that they were founded, nurtured and led by Pakistanis and not by the 'Yahood-o-Nasara'. Also, take a look at the case of Harakat-ul-Ansar or Harakat-ul-Mujahideen. Who founded, supported and financed these groups? Today we have Swat's Maulana Fazalullah spitting fire and brimstone from his electronic pulpit, an FM radio station, spreading hatred and venom across the beautiful valley. All these gentlemen are Pakistani Muslims up in arms against the state of Pakistan.
The founders and leaders of our home grown religious extremist groups did not spring up overnight. They were educated, nurtured, trained and finally launched by the numerous madressahs which have mushroomed all over the country. There is a clear co-relation between the rapid growth of madressahs and intolerance and extremism. Some of the madressahs which have been established by semi-literate mullahs are spreading intolerance and helping produce today's and tomorrow's suicide bombers. Such madressahs have played a pivotal role in creating the hardcore terrorists of today.
These madressahs function without any supervisory body and their syllabus is based on a doctrine of intolerance and rigid obscurantism. In their worldview women who do not wear a veil and men without beards are all kafirs. Listening to music or watching TV or movies is forbidden, and the only way to reform society and those who live in it are imposition of Sharia, by force if necessary. They also teach that suicide bombing is okay if done against infidels and that those who die as suicide bombers will find a place in Paradise. It is this teaching and preaching that has resulted in the dozens of suicide attacks that have taken place inside Pakistan and have killed women leaders such as Benazir Bhutto and provincial minister Zille Huma (killed by a self-professed fanatic in Gujranwala). The Lal Masjid fiasco is too recent to forget but let us not forget it was the maulanas of the mosque who motivated their students to occupy government property illegally, destroy video shops and kidnap citizens.
The Taliban have succeeded in creating an atmosphere of fear and horror. The Taliban philosophy has destroyed the ideals and beliefs of a free society. According to them, freedom of thought and expression is not needed at all and anybody who dares to disagree with them is butchered. The image of the country has suffered irreparable harm the name of our religion has been defamed by the acts of these barbarians. This scourge is not confined to the tribal areas only and is slowly but surely creeping towards the settled urban areas of the frontier, Punjab and Sindh. The choice before us is pretty simple: face this menace and defeat it or hand over the country to these obscurantist forces. (The News)
The writer is a teacher and freelance writer. Email: taqil17@hotmail.com
Read more...
Editor's Choice
Tuesday, 30 September 2008
Zardari’s challenge (Zardari's brave words - interview to the International Herald Tribune
Zardari’s challenge
Those are brave words addressed to the International Herald Tribune by President Asif Ali Zardari on Sunday: “It is my decision that we will go after them [Al Qaeda and terrorists], we will free this country”. The words came with stern advice to the US too about attacks inside Pakistani territory: “It is counter-productive and a political price is paid”. He also took a personal view of terrorism with which many Pakistanis would agree: “I will fight them because they are a cancer to my society, not because of my wife only, but because they are a cancer, yes, and they did kill the mother of my children, so their way of life is what I want to kill. I will suck the oxygen out of their system so there will be no Talibs”.
It is this kind of commitment that people in the US and Europe want to hear before they take on the job of helping Pakistan out of its economic crisis. But there are many inside Pakistan, even inside the establishment he heads, who will not entirely agree with his way of looking at the phenomenon of Al Qaeda and its legions of Taliban unleashed on Pakistan. Also, he has a party that follows him and it is the largest party in Pakistan. But there are many among its leaders who would draw a line on the extent to which they may commit themselves to the war against Al Qaeda.
The question of thinking as one and acting as one is still the basic problem. Indeed, the market of domestic opinion is doing a hard sell on hatred of the US and is interpreting the crisis in Pakistan as a fallout of America’s policies in the region in respect of Afghanistan and Pakistan. There are some who still question the definition of terrorism accepted by the West, who question the incident of 9/11 itself and are recommending jihad against the West in general and the US in particular. In fact, even within some state institutions there are important functionaries who are swayed by the rhetoric pouring out of the media against the US and not against Al Qaeda. Thus there is an important part of the stakeholder community who thinks that the war in Afghanistan is actually another war against India.
After the Marriott blast, the uppermost thought in the mind of many commentators was not of fighting Al Qaeda but of rebuking the US for its trespasses into Pakistani territory because they thought that what was happening to Pakistan was a kind of reaction of “good Muslims” and not an act of heinous crime. Mr Zardari himself is a man of compromises and some of them have run counter to the aims he has expressed in this interview. For instance, to carry the clerical party of Maulana Fazlur Rehman he returned the Lal Masjid complex of madrassas to the Deobandis who dominate in the Tribal Areas and are fighting as auxiliaries of Al Qaeda. In fact, since Mr Zardari arrived on the scene, a number of illegal madrassas have actually opened in Islamabad, which, together with Peshawar, is the most “Al Qaeda-infected” city in Pakistan.
The establishment in Pakistan and especially its military component has not fully distanced itself from the paradigm of threats that Mr Zardari wants to break. The entire world is complaining about the ISI and its alleged double-dealing in respect of war against terrorism in Pakistan. His reaction was: “The ISI will be handled, that is our problem. We don’t hunt with the hound and run with the hare, which is what Musharraf was doing”. While what he said was true of General Musharraf. He was a torn figure believing in what he was doing for the war against terror, but unable to dissociate himself from the thinking of the military establishment, and was not able to bring about the change of paradigm he was prescribing for Pakistan.
The last time the PPP government tried to reorganise the ISI it did not succeed, and orders given in this regard were rescinded by other centres of power in Islamabad. Therefore Mr Zardari has to develop a “consensus of the minimum” in Islamabad before he can embark on the war he has promised. There is no doubt that he is the one politician in the country who has the personal will to face the one challenge among many troubling Pakistan. But alas he is not well liked or trusted because of the allegations of disrepute that cling to him. His enemies are now resorting to forgeries and hoaxes to undermine him in the eyes of the masses he wants to save from Al Qaeda. He also runs the risk of expressing himself too freely, out of proportion to the level of support he enjoys in the country. Notwithstanding all this, however, he deserves to be supported if only because he wants to do exactly what Pakistan needs in order to survive. Above all, he needs his PPP to stand behind him and work hard to deliver his political promises no less than the bread and butter ones to the people. (Daily Times)
Read more...
Those are brave words addressed to the International Herald Tribune by President Asif Ali Zardari on Sunday: “It is my decision that we will go after them [Al Qaeda and terrorists], we will free this country”. The words came with stern advice to the US too about attacks inside Pakistani territory: “It is counter-productive and a political price is paid”. He also took a personal view of terrorism with which many Pakistanis would agree: “I will fight them because they are a cancer to my society, not because of my wife only, but because they are a cancer, yes, and they did kill the mother of my children, so their way of life is what I want to kill. I will suck the oxygen out of their system so there will be no Talibs”.
It is this kind of commitment that people in the US and Europe want to hear before they take on the job of helping Pakistan out of its economic crisis. But there are many inside Pakistan, even inside the establishment he heads, who will not entirely agree with his way of looking at the phenomenon of Al Qaeda and its legions of Taliban unleashed on Pakistan. Also, he has a party that follows him and it is the largest party in Pakistan. But there are many among its leaders who would draw a line on the extent to which they may commit themselves to the war against Al Qaeda.
The question of thinking as one and acting as one is still the basic problem. Indeed, the market of domestic opinion is doing a hard sell on hatred of the US and is interpreting the crisis in Pakistan as a fallout of America’s policies in the region in respect of Afghanistan and Pakistan. There are some who still question the definition of terrorism accepted by the West, who question the incident of 9/11 itself and are recommending jihad against the West in general and the US in particular. In fact, even within some state institutions there are important functionaries who are swayed by the rhetoric pouring out of the media against the US and not against Al Qaeda. Thus there is an important part of the stakeholder community who thinks that the war in Afghanistan is actually another war against India.
After the Marriott blast, the uppermost thought in the mind of many commentators was not of fighting Al Qaeda but of rebuking the US for its trespasses into Pakistani territory because they thought that what was happening to Pakistan was a kind of reaction of “good Muslims” and not an act of heinous crime. Mr Zardari himself is a man of compromises and some of them have run counter to the aims he has expressed in this interview. For instance, to carry the clerical party of Maulana Fazlur Rehman he returned the Lal Masjid complex of madrassas to the Deobandis who dominate in the Tribal Areas and are fighting as auxiliaries of Al Qaeda. In fact, since Mr Zardari arrived on the scene, a number of illegal madrassas have actually opened in Islamabad, which, together with Peshawar, is the most “Al Qaeda-infected” city in Pakistan.
The establishment in Pakistan and especially its military component has not fully distanced itself from the paradigm of threats that Mr Zardari wants to break. The entire world is complaining about the ISI and its alleged double-dealing in respect of war against terrorism in Pakistan. His reaction was: “The ISI will be handled, that is our problem. We don’t hunt with the hound and run with the hare, which is what Musharraf was doing”. While what he said was true of General Musharraf. He was a torn figure believing in what he was doing for the war against terror, but unable to dissociate himself from the thinking of the military establishment, and was not able to bring about the change of paradigm he was prescribing for Pakistan.
The last time the PPP government tried to reorganise the ISI it did not succeed, and orders given in this regard were rescinded by other centres of power in Islamabad. Therefore Mr Zardari has to develop a “consensus of the minimum” in Islamabad before he can embark on the war he has promised. There is no doubt that he is the one politician in the country who has the personal will to face the one challenge among many troubling Pakistan. But alas he is not well liked or trusted because of the allegations of disrepute that cling to him. His enemies are now resorting to forgeries and hoaxes to undermine him in the eyes of the masses he wants to save from Al Qaeda. He also runs the risk of expressing himself too freely, out of proportion to the level of support he enjoys in the country. Notwithstanding all this, however, he deserves to be supported if only because he wants to do exactly what Pakistan needs in order to survive. Above all, he needs his PPP to stand behind him and work hard to deliver his political promises no less than the bread and butter ones to the people. (Daily Times)
Read more...
Why is Chaudhary Nisar speaking against Zardari? Why are Taliban angry with Rehman Malik? What is the aim of disinformation cell? By Abbas Ather
Monday, 29 September 2008
19% of Pakistanis have a positive view of Al-Qaeda: BBC Poll
(In our view, most of these terrorist supporters or sympathizers are likely to be voters of right wing (mostly Deobandi) parties in Pakistan, including Jamaat-i-Islami, (defunct) Sipah Sahaba, Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), Imran Khan, and JUI.)
Al-Qaeda not weakening - BBC poll
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/regional/story/2008/09/080928_bbc_survey_rza.shtml
US-led efforts to tackle the al-Qaeda group are not regarded as successful, an opinion poll carried out for the BBC World Service suggests.
Some 29% of people said the "war on terror" launched by President George W Bush in 2001 had had no effect on the Islamist militant network.
According to 30% of those surveyed, US policies have strengthened al-Qaeda.
The most commonly held view of al-Qaeda in the 23 nations polled was a negative one - except in Egypt and Pakistan.
Terror stalemate
Asked who is winning "the conflict between al-Qaeda and the US", 49% said neither side while 22% believed the US had gained the upper hand. Just 10% said al-Qaeda was winning.
US soldier in Afghanistan, file image
The US made al-Qaeda a prime target in its "war on terror"
BBC defence analyst Rob Watson said the overall verdict across the world appeared to be that the war on terror had produced something of a stalemate.
The next question the pollsters asked was: "Do you think what US leaders refer to as the 'war on terror' has made al-Qaeda stronger, weaker or has had no effect either way?"
Just 22% said US action had made the organisation weaker - that figure rising to 34% in the US itself.
Losing hearts and minds?
Our correspondent says there is plenty in this survey to worry the governments of Egypt and Pakistan.
When asked "overall would you say your feelings about al-Qaeda are positive, negative or mixed", some 60% of Egyptians said they had either a positive or mixed view.
Analysts say the group continues to have many Egyptians among its leaders.
Meanwhile in Pakistan, where much of the battle against al-Qaeda is being fought, just 19% said they had a negative view of Osama Bin Laden's organisation.
Doug Miller, from polling agency Globescan, said the findings from Egypt and Pakistan were "yet another indicator that the US 'war on terror' is not winning hearts and minds".
Some 24,000 adults across 23 countries were polled for the BBC World Service between 8 July and 12 September.
Read more...
Al-Qaeda not weakening - BBC poll
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/regional/story/2008/09/080928_bbc_survey_rza.shtml
US-led efforts to tackle the al-Qaeda group are not regarded as successful, an opinion poll carried out for the BBC World Service suggests.
Some 29% of people said the "war on terror" launched by President George W Bush in 2001 had had no effect on the Islamist militant network.
According to 30% of those surveyed, US policies have strengthened al-Qaeda.
The most commonly held view of al-Qaeda in the 23 nations polled was a negative one - except in Egypt and Pakistan.
Terror stalemate
Asked who is winning "the conflict between al-Qaeda and the US", 49% said neither side while 22% believed the US had gained the upper hand. Just 10% said al-Qaeda was winning.
US soldier in Afghanistan, file image
The US made al-Qaeda a prime target in its "war on terror"
BBC defence analyst Rob Watson said the overall verdict across the world appeared to be that the war on terror had produced something of a stalemate.
The next question the pollsters asked was: "Do you think what US leaders refer to as the 'war on terror' has made al-Qaeda stronger, weaker or has had no effect either way?"
Just 22% said US action had made the organisation weaker - that figure rising to 34% in the US itself.
Losing hearts and minds?
Our correspondent says there is plenty in this survey to worry the governments of Egypt and Pakistan.
When asked "overall would you say your feelings about al-Qaeda are positive, negative or mixed", some 60% of Egyptians said they had either a positive or mixed view.
Analysts say the group continues to have many Egyptians among its leaders.
Meanwhile in Pakistan, where much of the battle against al-Qaeda is being fought, just 19% said they had a negative view of Osama Bin Laden's organisation.
Doug Miller, from polling agency Globescan, said the findings from Egypt and Pakistan were "yet another indicator that the US 'war on terror' is not winning hearts and minds".
Some 24,000 adults across 23 countries were polled for the BBC World Service between 8 July and 12 September.
Read more...
Defining the Taliban - By Muhammad Ali Siddiqi
WHILE President Asif Ali Zardari says we are in a state of war, it is amazing that the government and the media have not yet clearly spelled out how the enemy is to be defined.
Normally, an enemy is an enemy. But every war has, and must have, a well-developed jargon that conveys to the world and to the people the idea of the enemy as perceived by the belligerent power.
We know that in the First World War, Germany was the principal enemy. But the western allies told their people that they were fighting a “war to end all wars”. In the Second World War, Germany and Japan were the main foes, but to prove that they were not waging a war for territorial gains, the western Allies said their aim was to rid the world of fascism.
As for the Cold War that waged with full fury for more than four decades, it spawned a lingo that would remain surpassed for long for its venomous contents, astonishing variety and mind-boggling abundance. The media on both sides played a major part in denouncing the other bloc’s way of life.
Much of it has been forgotten — iron curtain, bamboo curtain, free world, brainwashing, rectification camps, gulags, communist subversion, double-speak, anti-people forces, exploiting classes, comprador capitalism, imperialism, classless society, class struggle, the Party, and much more.
In 2001, following 9/11, America coined a term which the Bush administration saw to it the world accepted — a ‘war on terror’. The shibboleth has caught on.
Today, Pakistan is at war, but who are we fighting and who is the enemy? The answer is the Taliban. But does the word Taliban convey to our people the contempt and revulsion attached to an enemy? For many, the Taliban represent a religious movement, not necessarily hostile to Pakistan and not necessarily an enemy of the people. For some, the Taliban are merely misguided zealots, who can be tamed and won over through dialogue and reason. Many people in this category — and they are a powerful segment of society, state and media — are not prepared to accept the Taliban as the enemy of the state of Pakistan.
The reason behind the government’s inability to evoke the cooperation of the vast majority of the people against the Taliban is its failure on the propaganda front. In fact, the government can hardly be said to be aware of the need for developing an intelligent and well-coordinated strategy for a media blitz on the enemy; on the contrary, it is the Taliban who are waging a very successful propaganda war against the government, advancing their cause insidiously and winning supporters through sections of the media with deep sympathy for them.
One popular channel calls the Taliban mazahmat kaar. This is a newly developed translation for resistance fighters. Mazahmat kaars is a term that can be applied to the Kashmiri guerillas in the Indian-occupied Valley and to the Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied territory. By no stretch of the imagination can Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore, Peshawar, D.I. Khan, Charsadda, Mingora and large tracts of Swat be called occupied territory.
In these cities and elsewhere the Taliban have murdered Pakistani soldiers, including a general belonging to the medical corps, have attacked military and civilian installations, mosques, Eid congregations, a peace jirga, at least one funeral procession and crowded markets, and blown up army, navy and air force buses carrying students. Chinese nationals are their favourite targets, because China is Pakistan’s “all-weather friend”. They have also slaughtered captured Pakistani soldiers. To call these criminals and rebels mazahmat kaars is to honour them and betrays a very clever attempt to whitewash their criminality.
The government has not bothered to evolve an appropriate term for the enemy. The state-controlled PTV refers to the Taliban as askaryet pasand — a very awkward translation for ‘militants’, as if we are talking not about a rebellion at home but about the distant Tupamaros in Uruguay.
There is only one and obvious term for the Taliban enemy — rebels in English and baaghi in Urdu. The Taliban have gone beyond terrorism; they are no more, like the Basque separatists in Spain, part-time terrorists. They have an army — a highly motivated one — and their sources of funding are unlimited; procuring arms is not a problem for them, some of their arms come from powers known to be hostile to Pakistan, and the sophistication of their weaponry has surprised our military.
Their intelligence system has been working efficiently, and often they hoodwink the Isaf and Americans on the other side of the Durand Line by disinformation. This has led quite often to wrong targets being bombed, with civilians being the casualties. This earns them sympathy points and the American-Isaf leadership loses.
They believe they are a state within a state, they have set up a parallel judicial system and are bold enough to show their judicial system in action to the media. Pakistan, thus, has to accept the challenge and crush the rebellion. For that it is essential that the Taliban and their supporters are stripped of the halo of respectability and presented to the people of Pakistan in their ugly reality for what they are — rebels. Helping crush these rebels is the duty of all Pakistanis because the Taliban are waging war on the Islamic world’s only nuclear power. (Dawn)
Read more...
Normally, an enemy is an enemy. But every war has, and must have, a well-developed jargon that conveys to the world and to the people the idea of the enemy as perceived by the belligerent power.
We know that in the First World War, Germany was the principal enemy. But the western allies told their people that they were fighting a “war to end all wars”. In the Second World War, Germany and Japan were the main foes, but to prove that they were not waging a war for territorial gains, the western Allies said their aim was to rid the world of fascism.
As for the Cold War that waged with full fury for more than four decades, it spawned a lingo that would remain surpassed for long for its venomous contents, astonishing variety and mind-boggling abundance. The media on both sides played a major part in denouncing the other bloc’s way of life.
Much of it has been forgotten — iron curtain, bamboo curtain, free world, brainwashing, rectification camps, gulags, communist subversion, double-speak, anti-people forces, exploiting classes, comprador capitalism, imperialism, classless society, class struggle, the Party, and much more.
In 2001, following 9/11, America coined a term which the Bush administration saw to it the world accepted — a ‘war on terror’. The shibboleth has caught on.
Today, Pakistan is at war, but who are we fighting and who is the enemy? The answer is the Taliban. But does the word Taliban convey to our people the contempt and revulsion attached to an enemy? For many, the Taliban represent a religious movement, not necessarily hostile to Pakistan and not necessarily an enemy of the people. For some, the Taliban are merely misguided zealots, who can be tamed and won over through dialogue and reason. Many people in this category — and they are a powerful segment of society, state and media — are not prepared to accept the Taliban as the enemy of the state of Pakistan.
The reason behind the government’s inability to evoke the cooperation of the vast majority of the people against the Taliban is its failure on the propaganda front. In fact, the government can hardly be said to be aware of the need for developing an intelligent and well-coordinated strategy for a media blitz on the enemy; on the contrary, it is the Taliban who are waging a very successful propaganda war against the government, advancing their cause insidiously and winning supporters through sections of the media with deep sympathy for them.
One popular channel calls the Taliban mazahmat kaar. This is a newly developed translation for resistance fighters. Mazahmat kaars is a term that can be applied to the Kashmiri guerillas in the Indian-occupied Valley and to the Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied territory. By no stretch of the imagination can Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore, Peshawar, D.I. Khan, Charsadda, Mingora and large tracts of Swat be called occupied territory.
In these cities and elsewhere the Taliban have murdered Pakistani soldiers, including a general belonging to the medical corps, have attacked military and civilian installations, mosques, Eid congregations, a peace jirga, at least one funeral procession and crowded markets, and blown up army, navy and air force buses carrying students. Chinese nationals are their favourite targets, because China is Pakistan’s “all-weather friend”. They have also slaughtered captured Pakistani soldiers. To call these criminals and rebels mazahmat kaars is to honour them and betrays a very clever attempt to whitewash their criminality.
The government has not bothered to evolve an appropriate term for the enemy. The state-controlled PTV refers to the Taliban as askaryet pasand — a very awkward translation for ‘militants’, as if we are talking not about a rebellion at home but about the distant Tupamaros in Uruguay.
There is only one and obvious term for the Taliban enemy — rebels in English and baaghi in Urdu. The Taliban have gone beyond terrorism; they are no more, like the Basque separatists in Spain, part-time terrorists. They have an army — a highly motivated one — and their sources of funding are unlimited; procuring arms is not a problem for them, some of their arms come from powers known to be hostile to Pakistan, and the sophistication of their weaponry has surprised our military.
Their intelligence system has been working efficiently, and often they hoodwink the Isaf and Americans on the other side of the Durand Line by disinformation. This has led quite often to wrong targets being bombed, with civilians being the casualties. This earns them sympathy points and the American-Isaf leadership loses.
They believe they are a state within a state, they have set up a parallel judicial system and are bold enough to show their judicial system in action to the media. Pakistan, thus, has to accept the challenge and crush the rebellion. For that it is essential that the Taliban and their supporters are stripped of the halo of respectability and presented to the people of Pakistan in their ugly reality for what they are — rebels. Helping crush these rebels is the duty of all Pakistanis because the Taliban are waging war on the Islamic world’s only nuclear power. (Dawn)
Read more...
Taliban killed my wife. ‘I will suck oxygen out of their system so there will be no Talibs’ (Zardari's commitment)
‘I will suck oxygen out of their system so there will be no Talibs’:
Zardari ready for US training of army anti-terror units
* Vows to rid country of terror threat, calls Taliban ‘cancer for society’
* Says anyone not conforming with govt policies will be thrown out
Daily Times Monitor
NEW YORK: We want to co-operate with the United States in training specialised counter-insurgency army units for use in the Tribal Areas, President Asif Ali Zardari said in an interview on Sunday.
Talking to International Herald Tribune, the president said, “I mean business. We will train ourselves with the US present as trainers to raise the quality of certain forces.”
But he warned against US military incursions inside Pakistan. “It is counter-productive and a political price is paid,” he said. President Zardari did not mince words in his determination to defeat a growing Taliban insurgency, the Herald said.
“It is my decision that we will go after them, we will free this country,” he said, “Yes, this is my first priority because I will have no country otherwise. I will be the president of what?”
After the massive bomb attack on the Marriott hotel in Islamabad, that’s a fair question. Pakistan’s finances in a free fall, its security crumbling, the nuclear-armed state stands at the brink just as a civilian takes charge after the futile zigzagging of former president General (r) Pervez Musharraf’s US-supported rule, the Herald said.
President Zardari was asked if the assassination of his wife last year motivated him to confront insurgency. “Of course,” he said, “It’s my revenge. I take it every day.”
Cancer: He continued, “I will fight them because they are a cancer to my society, not because of my wife only, but because they are a cancer, yes, and they did kill the mother of my children, so their way of life is what I want to kill. I will suck the oxygen out of their system so there will be no Talibs.”
He said he was concerned but not fearful for his life. “Because I don’t want to die so soon, I have a job to do,” he said.
Billions of dollars in US aid to Pakistan’s former military government have not stopped the Tribal Areas from becoming the new Al Qaeda-Taliban central, the report said.
It said money was worthless unless some basic things changed in democratic Pakistan. It alleged that one was the double game played by the nation’s spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), in an effort to ensure Afghanistan remained weak.
Conformation: “The ISI will be handled, that is our problem,” Zardari told the Herald. “We don’t hunt with the hound and run with the hare, which is what Musharraf was doing.”
He said, “We’ve changed a lot of things and a lot more will happen, and anyone not conforming with my government’s policy will be thrown out,” Zardari said, specifically mentioning the ISI.
Zardari said his ‘new medicine’ for the Tribal Areas would include industrial investment, incentives for alternative crops to poppy and a firm message that ‘we are hitting the Taliban’ so make sure ‘your space is not being used by them’.
Zadari added, “I am not a warmonger. I am not interested in physical might, which is not the expression of my strength. I have many strengths, and one of them is that I can take pain, not give pain.” (Daily Times)
Read more...
Zardari ready for US training of army anti-terror units
* Vows to rid country of terror threat, calls Taliban ‘cancer for society’
* Says anyone not conforming with govt policies will be thrown out
Daily Times Monitor
NEW YORK: We want to co-operate with the United States in training specialised counter-insurgency army units for use in the Tribal Areas, President Asif Ali Zardari said in an interview on Sunday.
Talking to International Herald Tribune, the president said, “I mean business. We will train ourselves with the US present as trainers to raise the quality of certain forces.”
But he warned against US military incursions inside Pakistan. “It is counter-productive and a political price is paid,” he said. President Zardari did not mince words in his determination to defeat a growing Taliban insurgency, the Herald said.
“It is my decision that we will go after them, we will free this country,” he said, “Yes, this is my first priority because I will have no country otherwise. I will be the president of what?”
After the massive bomb attack on the Marriott hotel in Islamabad, that’s a fair question. Pakistan’s finances in a free fall, its security crumbling, the nuclear-armed state stands at the brink just as a civilian takes charge after the futile zigzagging of former president General (r) Pervez Musharraf’s US-supported rule, the Herald said.
President Zardari was asked if the assassination of his wife last year motivated him to confront insurgency. “Of course,” he said, “It’s my revenge. I take it every day.”
Cancer: He continued, “I will fight them because they are a cancer to my society, not because of my wife only, but because they are a cancer, yes, and they did kill the mother of my children, so their way of life is what I want to kill. I will suck the oxygen out of their system so there will be no Talibs.”
He said he was concerned but not fearful for his life. “Because I don’t want to die so soon, I have a job to do,” he said.
Billions of dollars in US aid to Pakistan’s former military government have not stopped the Tribal Areas from becoming the new Al Qaeda-Taliban central, the report said.
It said money was worthless unless some basic things changed in democratic Pakistan. It alleged that one was the double game played by the nation’s spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), in an effort to ensure Afghanistan remained weak.
Conformation: “The ISI will be handled, that is our problem,” Zardari told the Herald. “We don’t hunt with the hound and run with the hare, which is what Musharraf was doing.”
He said, “We’ve changed a lot of things and a lot more will happen, and anyone not conforming with my government’s policy will be thrown out,” Zardari said, specifically mentioning the ISI.
Zardari said his ‘new medicine’ for the Tribal Areas would include industrial investment, incentives for alternative crops to poppy and a firm message that ‘we are hitting the Taliban’ so make sure ‘your space is not being used by them’.
Zadari added, “I am not a warmonger. I am not interested in physical might, which is not the expression of my strength. I have many strengths, and one of them is that I can take pain, not give pain.” (Daily Times)
Read more...
Crimes of Fasadis (worngly known as Fasadis) done in the name of Islam.... Abbas Ather
Imran Khan, Hamid Gul, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Ansar Abbasi, Irfan Siddiqi, Kashif Abbasi, and Hamid Mir say: Terrorist activities against innocent Pakistanis are a reaction against the US policies. Shame on terrorists and their supporters.
Read more...
Read more...
Sunday, 28 September 2008
Buck up Karachi Police - Home-grown sectarian and extremist outfits are but extensions of global terrorist networks like Al Qaeda.
A job well done
FRIDAY’S police action against suspected terrorists in a Karachi locality comes as a reality byte that home-grown sectarian and extremist outfits are but extensions of global terrorist networks like Al Qaeda. There is no ambiguity now that the terror machine that has unleashed itself against targeted individuals and the public alike in Pakistan is more organised than hitherto believed; it can and does strike at a place and time of its own choosing, as the recent bombing of the Marriott hotel in Islamabad shows.
The Sindh Police must be given credit for the coordinated effort they launched together with the intelligence agencies that made Friday’s operation a success. The nabbing alive of a main suspect, Rahimullah alias Ali Hasan, who was wanted for many a bombing in Karachi, and who led the police to the scene of his accomplices’ hideout on Friday, was a rare accomplishment which brought about dividends. The three terrorists killed in the operation had kidnapped the oil trader who transported supplies to Nato forces in Afghanistan and whom they shot dead soon after the police surrounded their house, which speaks of the brutal and inhuman mindset of the terrorists. They were planning more ghastly attacks in and around Karachi in the days ahead, as details from the scene revealed. If such pre-emption and thus prevention of acts of terrorism become a priority with our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, the menace can be curbed more effectively than has been the case so far.
On a different note, one feels that perhaps a bit of restraint was in order as the provincial home minister gave vent to his anger against a section of the media while collecting kudos for his ministry and divulging details of Friday’s operation. Mr Zulfiqar Mirza may be entitled to feel like a hero sticking it out for the underdog, as he claims, but that does not make the public office he holds immune from scrutiny. The media, too, acts as a public watchdog in a representative set-up. Moreover, isn’t tolerance of diversity of opinion a basic ingredient of democracy? (Dawn)
Read more...
FRIDAY’S police action against suspected terrorists in a Karachi locality comes as a reality byte that home-grown sectarian and extremist outfits are but extensions of global terrorist networks like Al Qaeda. There is no ambiguity now that the terror machine that has unleashed itself against targeted individuals and the public alike in Pakistan is more organised than hitherto believed; it can and does strike at a place and time of its own choosing, as the recent bombing of the Marriott hotel in Islamabad shows.
The Sindh Police must be given credit for the coordinated effort they launched together with the intelligence agencies that made Friday’s operation a success. The nabbing alive of a main suspect, Rahimullah alias Ali Hasan, who was wanted for many a bombing in Karachi, and who led the police to the scene of his accomplices’ hideout on Friday, was a rare accomplishment which brought about dividends. The three terrorists killed in the operation had kidnapped the oil trader who transported supplies to Nato forces in Afghanistan and whom they shot dead soon after the police surrounded their house, which speaks of the brutal and inhuman mindset of the terrorists. They were planning more ghastly attacks in and around Karachi in the days ahead, as details from the scene revealed. If such pre-emption and thus prevention of acts of terrorism become a priority with our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, the menace can be curbed more effectively than has been the case so far.
On a different note, one feels that perhaps a bit of restraint was in order as the provincial home minister gave vent to his anger against a section of the media while collecting kudos for his ministry and divulging details of Friday’s operation. Mr Zulfiqar Mirza may be entitled to feel like a hero sticking it out for the underdog, as he claims, but that does not make the public office he holds immune from scrutiny. The media, too, acts as a public watchdog in a representative set-up. Moreover, isn’t tolerance of diversity of opinion a basic ingredient of democracy? (Dawn)
Read more...
Silent majority stirs - People in FATA rise agains Taliban
FATA’s silent majority now seems to be stirring. It has for years watched in agony the destruction of its environs. Its once peaceful valleys and ravines are now a theatre of war, with homes, fields and shops destroyed, the tribesmen’s means of livelihood disrupted, and hundreds of thousands of men, women and children turned into internal refugees. Even though seething with anger, the tribesmen had failed to act, overawed as they were by the ubiquitous Taliban’s ruthlessness and presumed invincibility. However, things seem to be changing. A report by our correspondent in Landi Kotal informs us that a tribal lashkar in Khyber Agency captured on Thursday nine militants and freed a prayer leader whom the Taliban had kidnapped. Those taking the lead in challenging the Taliban and rescuing the cleric belonged to the Malagori tribe. This is not an isolated example. In the Bara tehsil, the Kalakhel tribe has raised a lashkar and warned those giving shelter to the Taliban that they would be fined Rs5m and their homes demolished. In Bajaur, the main battle theatre, the Othmankhel and Salarzai tribes have openly come out against the militants and are taking vigorous actions permitted by tribal traditions to get rid of the terrorists. Similar trends are emerging in Dir, Buner and Shabqadar.
In 2003, too, some tribal elders had attempted to mobilise their tribesmen against the militants, but the campaign failed because it was government-inspired. This time, however, it is the tribesmen’s own effort, because they have seen havoc being wreaked on their traditional way of life by local and foreign Taliban. The government has to build on this positive development and secure the active cooperation of those among the anti-militant tribesmen who are willing to take on the Taliban and restore peace to their area. One major reason for the change in the tribesmen’s attitude is the losses the Taliban have suffered in the ongoing military operation. The operation must be carried on relentlessly, and the enemy given no respite.
During Ramazan the Taliban have blown up gas and water pipelines and destroyed electric installations to cause hardship to the people in order to arouse anti-government feelings. The authorities must, therefore, ensure the security of vital installations by enlisting the community’s cooperation. Also, to ensure against collateral damage, the people should be warned in advance of a crackdown so that the non-combatants are evacuated well in advance. (Dawn)
Read more...
In 2003, too, some tribal elders had attempted to mobilise their tribesmen against the militants, but the campaign failed because it was government-inspired. This time, however, it is the tribesmen’s own effort, because they have seen havoc being wreaked on their traditional way of life by local and foreign Taliban. The government has to build on this positive development and secure the active cooperation of those among the anti-militant tribesmen who are willing to take on the Taliban and restore peace to their area. One major reason for the change in the tribesmen’s attitude is the losses the Taliban have suffered in the ongoing military operation. The operation must be carried on relentlessly, and the enemy given no respite.
During Ramazan the Taliban have blown up gas and water pipelines and destroyed electric installations to cause hardship to the people in order to arouse anti-government feelings. The authorities must, therefore, ensure the security of vital installations by enlisting the community’s cooperation. Also, to ensure against collateral damage, the people should be warned in advance of a crackdown so that the non-combatants are evacuated well in advance. (Dawn)
Read more...
Friends of Pakistan - Well done, Zardari.
MAKE no mistake about it — this is Pakistan’s hour of economic reckoning. We need every friend we have ever had and every dollar we can possibly get. It seems then that the Friends of Pakistan forum, which will hold its first meeting in Abu Dhabi next month, could be the right tonic for our economic ills. But caution is in order. Pakistan is running out of dollars at an alarming rate. According to Agost Benard, an associate director at Standard & Poor’s, “The external liquidity position which is now the key concern is continuing to deteriorate rapidly.” What Mr Benard says matters because his agency can dramatically affect Pakistan’s ability to do business in the international market.
Economic analysts are worried by Pakistan’s current account deficit — last year it stood at $14bn, while in just July and August it ballooned to $2.6bn. With foreign exchange reserves standing at a paltry $8.8bn last week, Pakistan simply does not have the foreign currency to sustain the current account deficit. In the medium term, a current account deficit can be turned around by exporting more and importing less. In the short term, foreign aid is the only realistic chance of improvement. The problem is that foreign aid will likely come with strings attached — which will impose wrenching change on the average Pakistani. Through US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the Friends of Pakistan forum has indicated that it is not keen to give Pakistan quick money on easy terms. “We are engaged with Pakistan through international financial institutions,” Ms Rice told the news media, and also mentioned the need for economic reform.
The IFIs have a fairly basic recipe for Pakistan: strip away subsidies, increase tax revenues and cut down the budget deficit. These are good, necessary steps that Pakistan must take in order to improve its long-term economic outlook. The problem is — and experience bears this out — that steps such as these taken in a panic follow a fairly predictable pattern: the cost of living for the poor is driven up, development expenditure is slashed and meaningful reform is shelved once the worst has passed. However, there are several reasons to give Pakistan the benefit of the doubt for now. First, there are international factors involved in Pakistan’s economy going sour — most notably the price of oil and food. Second, the economy is seized by the worst level of inflation in decades. Third, Pakistan has already done away with most subsidies and has planned to slash expenditure. Fourth, Pakistan is struggling to come to terms with a militancy threat that could destabilise the very foundations of the state. Surely the Friends of Pakistan must realise how much more costly it would be to rescue Pakistan later were money to be delayed right now. (Dawn)
Read more...
Economic analysts are worried by Pakistan’s current account deficit — last year it stood at $14bn, while in just July and August it ballooned to $2.6bn. With foreign exchange reserves standing at a paltry $8.8bn last week, Pakistan simply does not have the foreign currency to sustain the current account deficit. In the medium term, a current account deficit can be turned around by exporting more and importing less. In the short term, foreign aid is the only realistic chance of improvement. The problem is that foreign aid will likely come with strings attached — which will impose wrenching change on the average Pakistani. Through US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the Friends of Pakistan forum has indicated that it is not keen to give Pakistan quick money on easy terms. “We are engaged with Pakistan through international financial institutions,” Ms Rice told the news media, and also mentioned the need for economic reform.
The IFIs have a fairly basic recipe for Pakistan: strip away subsidies, increase tax revenues and cut down the budget deficit. These are good, necessary steps that Pakistan must take in order to improve its long-term economic outlook. The problem is — and experience bears this out — that steps such as these taken in a panic follow a fairly predictable pattern: the cost of living for the poor is driven up, development expenditure is slashed and meaningful reform is shelved once the worst has passed. However, there are several reasons to give Pakistan the benefit of the doubt for now. First, there are international factors involved in Pakistan’s economy going sour — most notably the price of oil and food. Second, the economy is seized by the worst level of inflation in decades. Third, Pakistan has already done away with most subsidies and has planned to slash expenditure. Fourth, Pakistan is struggling to come to terms with a militancy threat that could destabilise the very foundations of the state. Surely the Friends of Pakistan must realise how much more costly it would be to rescue Pakistan later were money to be delayed right now. (Dawn)
Read more...
Friends rally around Pakistan (Buck up Zardari)
A permanent forum known as Friends of Pakistan was launched in New York on Friday with the mission to help Pakistan out of its economic crisis. It has been estimated that Pakistan would need around $15 billion to prevent its economy from collapsing. The Forum’s first substantive session, hopefully meaning actual execution of commitments, will be held in Abu Dhabi early October. The future host of the forum, UAE’s Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed, said in New York that his country fully backed the initiative to “show our commitment to Pakistan”.
Others too have shown commitment: the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, “We are engaged with Pakistan through international financial institutions. We will support the steps Pakistan must take for its economy”. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband saw “a very strong signal of political and economic support to the democratically elected government in Pakistan”. Those who attended the Friends of Pakistan forum meeting were: The United States, Britain, Italy, Germany, France, Japan, China, Australia, Turkey, Canada, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
President Asif Ali Zardari, whose presence at the UN helped the campaign for Pakistan’s economic survival, appropriately remarked: “I don’t want them to give us the fish. I want to learn how to fish and do it myself”. Needless to say, the forum couldn’t have been launched without the help of the United States and the commitment shown by the PPP leadership in Pakistan to fighting Pakistan’s war against terrorists and extremists which cannot be sustained without a dramatic economic revival. And that is exactly why the international community is ready to offer financial help.
According to reports, “Pakistan’s foreign currency reserves are falling fast and, if forward liabilities are included, the real reserves may actually be just $3 billion”. This is money to meet the import bill of just one month. Pakistan’s credit rating has plunged and people who would normally do business with Pakistan are talking of possible default. Mr Zardari said that the world had rallied around Pakistan because of Pakistan’s return to democracy after an eight-year rule by a military dictator. That may not be accurate. The real reason is that Pakistan could go under the anarchism of Al Qaeda after an economic meltdown. An even more down-to-earth reason is that Islamabad is officially committed to the war against Al Qaeda’s terror.
It is, however, unfortunate that back home in Pakistan the perspective of many people is infected with prejudice and politics. A consensus has formed in the media about the lack of wisdom of President Zardari in deciding to go to the United States after the Marriott blast. It was tediously argued that a wounded nation needed its leadership in Islamabad for solace and that Mr Zardari had let them down by leaving the country. Worse, the visit to New York was publicised as a pleasure trip that actually made fun of the suffering of the people back home. Everybody was included in this frog chorus: the economists as well as numberless retired ambassadors and one ex-permanent representative of Pakistan at the UN.
Those who think emotion should come before economic realism also believe that the war against terrorism is not Pakistan’s war and that America is the real enemy of Pakistan because it is working in tandem with India, Pakistan’s traditional foe. They want the Pakistan army, already badly stretched against Al Qaeda, to fight the two enemies — one a global superpower and the other a regional power — with the help of the tribal people of Pakistan who need immediate humanitarian bailout rather than jihad against two such foes. They want to suspend the logistics provided by Pakistan to the NATO-ISAF forces in Afghanistan, knowing full well that Pakistan receives the running expenses of its military action in the Tribal Areas from these facilities.
There are a number of misconceptions in the “consensus” at home. It is believed that if Pakistan acted defiantly like Iran and North Korea it would become powerful and prosperous and may even get international support. But nothing could be further from the truth. Iran and Venezuela are leading the isolationist group, and the latter even spends money out of its pocket to encourage more states to act like them, but they don’t have the kind of money needed to support Pakistan. In any case Iran would be most unwilling to fund a pro-Al Qaeda Pakistan because the terrorists in Pakistan kill Shias as their side business. China too has complaints about its Sinkiang Muslims training with Al Qaeda apart from the fact that Al Qaeda doesn’t help by kidnapping Chinese engineers in Pakistan.
There is too much anger and unrealistic emotionalism over the electronic and print media. Unfortunately there are campaigns launched to malign the government through forgeries and planted lies. This is not the way to treat an elected government especially since it deserves the time and space to prove its worthiness. There will be time enough for that later if it fails to deliver the goods. (Daily Times)
Read more...
Others too have shown commitment: the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, “We are engaged with Pakistan through international financial institutions. We will support the steps Pakistan must take for its economy”. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband saw “a very strong signal of political and economic support to the democratically elected government in Pakistan”. Those who attended the Friends of Pakistan forum meeting were: The United States, Britain, Italy, Germany, France, Japan, China, Australia, Turkey, Canada, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
President Asif Ali Zardari, whose presence at the UN helped the campaign for Pakistan’s economic survival, appropriately remarked: “I don’t want them to give us the fish. I want to learn how to fish and do it myself”. Needless to say, the forum couldn’t have been launched without the help of the United States and the commitment shown by the PPP leadership in Pakistan to fighting Pakistan’s war against terrorists and extremists which cannot be sustained without a dramatic economic revival. And that is exactly why the international community is ready to offer financial help.
According to reports, “Pakistan’s foreign currency reserves are falling fast and, if forward liabilities are included, the real reserves may actually be just $3 billion”. This is money to meet the import bill of just one month. Pakistan’s credit rating has plunged and people who would normally do business with Pakistan are talking of possible default. Mr Zardari said that the world had rallied around Pakistan because of Pakistan’s return to democracy after an eight-year rule by a military dictator. That may not be accurate. The real reason is that Pakistan could go under the anarchism of Al Qaeda after an economic meltdown. An even more down-to-earth reason is that Islamabad is officially committed to the war against Al Qaeda’s terror.
It is, however, unfortunate that back home in Pakistan the perspective of many people is infected with prejudice and politics. A consensus has formed in the media about the lack of wisdom of President Zardari in deciding to go to the United States after the Marriott blast. It was tediously argued that a wounded nation needed its leadership in Islamabad for solace and that Mr Zardari had let them down by leaving the country. Worse, the visit to New York was publicised as a pleasure trip that actually made fun of the suffering of the people back home. Everybody was included in this frog chorus: the economists as well as numberless retired ambassadors and one ex-permanent representative of Pakistan at the UN.
Those who think emotion should come before economic realism also believe that the war against terrorism is not Pakistan’s war and that America is the real enemy of Pakistan because it is working in tandem with India, Pakistan’s traditional foe. They want the Pakistan army, already badly stretched against Al Qaeda, to fight the two enemies — one a global superpower and the other a regional power — with the help of the tribal people of Pakistan who need immediate humanitarian bailout rather than jihad against two such foes. They want to suspend the logistics provided by Pakistan to the NATO-ISAF forces in Afghanistan, knowing full well that Pakistan receives the running expenses of its military action in the Tribal Areas from these facilities.
There are a number of misconceptions in the “consensus” at home. It is believed that if Pakistan acted defiantly like Iran and North Korea it would become powerful and prosperous and may even get international support. But nothing could be further from the truth. Iran and Venezuela are leading the isolationist group, and the latter even spends money out of its pocket to encourage more states to act like them, but they don’t have the kind of money needed to support Pakistan. In any case Iran would be most unwilling to fund a pro-Al Qaeda Pakistan because the terrorists in Pakistan kill Shias as their side business. China too has complaints about its Sinkiang Muslims training with Al Qaeda apart from the fact that Al Qaeda doesn’t help by kidnapping Chinese engineers in Pakistan.
There is too much anger and unrealistic emotionalism over the electronic and print media. Unfortunately there are campaigns launched to malign the government through forgeries and planted lies. This is not the way to treat an elected government especially since it deserves the time and space to prove its worthiness. There will be time enough for that later if it fails to deliver the goods. (Daily Times)
Read more...
Lashkar-e-Jhangavi = Sipah-e-Sahaba = Al-Qaeda = Taliban = Jaish-e-Muhammad = Other sectarian and jihadi organizations
Protégée terrorists attack Karachi
Three would-be suicide bombers were killed along with a handcuffed hostage when one of the bombers blew himself up following a police raid on a house in Karachi’s Baldia Town on Friday. They were members of Lashkar-e Jhangvi. The operation came after the police arrested the mastermind terrorist Rahimullah. He had planned the April 2006 Nishtar Park suicide attack, the killing of Allama Hassan Turabi in July 2006 and the twin blasts at Karsaz, targeting Ms Bhutto, on October 18, 2007.
The MQM had warned a month ago that Al Qaeda had decided to send its attackers to Karachi. The government thought the statement was exaggerated. And what followed instead were two shows of “terrorist” strength in the city, one by Sipah Sahaba and the other by Lashkar-e Tayba, while the intelligence agencies stood aside and watched. The Lashkar-e Jhangvi has now become a Pakistani branch of Al Qaeda, so has Jaish-e Muhammad in Swat. All these were once the protégées of our intelligence establishment. Today they are killing innocent Pakistanis and the agencies have no clue what is happening. This is what Prime Minister Gilani was referring to when he complained last week about the failure of intelligence in Pakistan. (Daily Times)
Read more...
Three would-be suicide bombers were killed along with a handcuffed hostage when one of the bombers blew himself up following a police raid on a house in Karachi’s Baldia Town on Friday. They were members of Lashkar-e Jhangvi. The operation came after the police arrested the mastermind terrorist Rahimullah. He had planned the April 2006 Nishtar Park suicide attack, the killing of Allama Hassan Turabi in July 2006 and the twin blasts at Karsaz, targeting Ms Bhutto, on October 18, 2007.
The MQM had warned a month ago that Al Qaeda had decided to send its attackers to Karachi. The government thought the statement was exaggerated. And what followed instead were two shows of “terrorist” strength in the city, one by Sipah Sahaba and the other by Lashkar-e Tayba, while the intelligence agencies stood aside and watched. The Lashkar-e Jhangvi has now become a Pakistani branch of Al Qaeda, so has Jaish-e Muhammad in Swat. All these were once the protégées of our intelligence establishment. Today they are killing innocent Pakistanis and the agencies have no clue what is happening. This is what Prime Minister Gilani was referring to when he complained last week about the failure of intelligence in Pakistan. (Daily Times)
Read more...
![[colum2a.gif]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Vbc4oO2rGiw/SN9a_lwQTtI/AAAAAAAAAIg/l6f4m89wUic/s1600/colum2a.gif)
Zardar's achievments: The PPP haters are blind - Disinformation Cell by Democracy Haters in Pakistan - By Nazir Naji
Ansar Abbasi, Irfan Siddiqi, other PPP haters and their 'Khopay' - Disinformation cell against democracy in Pakistan - By Dr. Babar Awan
Saturday, 27 September 2008
Talking to Mullah Umar and Hekmatyar?
The NWFP Governor, Mr Owais Ghani, has asked the United States “to talk to Mullah Omar, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani, to negotiate peace in Afghanistan”. His contention is that “political stability will only come to Afghanistan when all political power groups, irrespective of the length of their beard, are given their just and due share in the political dispensation in Afghanistan”. He wants the US to know that “all three militant commanders are in Afghanistan”. He also says, though with less credibility, that “Pakistan has no favourites in Afghanistan”.
Alas, Governor Ghani’s assertion that the three warrior chiefs are in Afghanistan has already been challenged by independent observers of the Afghan scene. No matter. It is good that he has come out in the open and claimed a Pakistani strategic stake in Afghanistan. The US should listen to what he is saying. There is a strong message in his statement. If the US can give India a strategic stake in building up the Northern Alliance Tajiks and Uzbeks in Afghanistan, there is no reason why it can’t do the same for Pakistan and the Pashtuns. It may be recalled that Mullah Umar and the US did not have any problems during the Taliban regime in Kabul in 1997-99 until Osama Bin Laden stepped in and drove a wedge between them by bombing New York. Indeed, the Taliban regime and the US were discussing oil pipelines from Central Asia to Pakistan through Afghanistan at the time. The best way to crush Al Qaeda is to drive a wedge between it and the Afghan Taliban by inviting the latter to sit at the table in Kabul and negotiate a power sharing arrangement with the key stakeholders of Afghanistan. Pakistan can and should play a facilitating role. (Daily Times)
Read more...
Alas, Governor Ghani’s assertion that the three warrior chiefs are in Afghanistan has already been challenged by independent observers of the Afghan scene. No matter. It is good that he has come out in the open and claimed a Pakistani strategic stake in Afghanistan. The US should listen to what he is saying. There is a strong message in his statement. If the US can give India a strategic stake in building up the Northern Alliance Tajiks and Uzbeks in Afghanistan, there is no reason why it can’t do the same for Pakistan and the Pashtuns. It may be recalled that Mullah Umar and the US did not have any problems during the Taliban regime in Kabul in 1997-99 until Osama Bin Laden stepped in and drove a wedge between them by bombing New York. Indeed, the Taliban regime and the US were discussing oil pipelines from Central Asia to Pakistan through Afghanistan at the time. The best way to crush Al Qaeda is to drive a wedge between it and the Afghan Taliban by inviting the latter to sit at the table in Kabul and negotiate a power sharing arrangement with the key stakeholders of Afghanistan. Pakistan can and should play a facilitating role. (Daily Times)
Read more...
US general’s warning - General David Petraeus's assessment on war on terror and Taliban
MANY Pakistanis will tend to agree with what one of America’s top generals said on Thursday — the extremists threaten the very existence of Pakistan. Gen David Petraeus, who is to take over next month as commander Centcom (US forces in the Middle East and South-West Asia), told the media in Paris that Pakistani and American forces would have to work together, because Pakistan faced “an existentialist threat”. The general identified what he called the “common enemy” as a syndicate that contained within its fold Al Qaeda, the Taliban “and in between different forms of extremist movements”. Talking about the situation in Afghanistan he emphasised the need for “absolute engagement” with Pakistan and said there had to be “coordination, cooperation and very constructive dialogue” for the success of the war on the common enemy. Again Afghanistan was on his mind when he spoke of the need for developing an infrastructure to cope with troop increase, and most welcome was his belief that the American and Nato forces must be seen as liberators, not occupiers. One wishes this was emphasised by other political and military leaders on the other side of the Durand Line.
There are two aspects to Gen Petraeus’s statement: one is his diagnosis of the disorder, the other his prescription. There is no doubt that the war on terror is Pakistan’s own war. The more civilians the Taliban kill, the more girls’ schools they bomb and the more they intensify their war on the state of Pakistan, the more they unite the people of Pakistan in their common resolve to crush terrorism. If the Taliban had been a little circumspect about their targets, perhaps the people of Pakistan would not have united against them the way they have after the Taliban decided as a matter of policy to resort to reckless acts of terror, no matter how many innocent men, women and children get killed and maimed. This spirit of national unity against the Taliban needs to be sustained, and America and the Nato governments can do this by demonstrating a sense of responsibility and respecting Pakistan’s sovereignty.
The “skirmishes” between the two sides on Thursday show a lack of clarity on the rules of engagement. Let the Americans leave it to Pakistan to fight terrorism within its borders; what Islamabad needs is economic and military assistance that could strengthen the country’s own ability to take on the enemy. Its forces, for instance, need equipment specific to guerilla war in the mountains. Rash actions like the violation of Pakistan’s borders by American forces not only do not help, they undermine the democratic government in Islamabad, and lend support to the Taliban propaganda that portrays America as a threat to Pakistan. (Dawn)
Read more...
There are two aspects to Gen Petraeus’s statement: one is his diagnosis of the disorder, the other his prescription. There is no doubt that the war on terror is Pakistan’s own war. The more civilians the Taliban kill, the more girls’ schools they bomb and the more they intensify their war on the state of Pakistan, the more they unite the people of Pakistan in their common resolve to crush terrorism. If the Taliban had been a little circumspect about their targets, perhaps the people of Pakistan would not have united against them the way they have after the Taliban decided as a matter of policy to resort to reckless acts of terror, no matter how many innocent men, women and children get killed and maimed. This spirit of national unity against the Taliban needs to be sustained, and America and the Nato governments can do this by demonstrating a sense of responsibility and respecting Pakistan’s sovereignty.
The “skirmishes” between the two sides on Thursday show a lack of clarity on the rules of engagement. Let the Americans leave it to Pakistan to fight terrorism within its borders; what Islamabad needs is economic and military assistance that could strengthen the country’s own ability to take on the enemy. Its forces, for instance, need equipment specific to guerilla war in the mountains. Rash actions like the violation of Pakistan’s borders by American forces not only do not help, they undermine the democratic government in Islamabad, and lend support to the Taliban propaganda that portrays America as a threat to Pakistan. (Dawn)
Read more...
Pakistan opts out of isolationism, Zardari's address at the UN
President Asif Ali Zardari’s address at the General Assembly of the United Nations on Thursday has to be rated as a good speech that fairly expressed Pakistan’s point of view on the problem of terrorism while avoiding the kind of isolationism that exuded from the speech of his Iranian counterpart, Mr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mr Zardari sounded a firm and persuasive note to the United States and NATO-ISAF forces in Afghanistan while committing Pakistan to the war against terror and to interdiction of cross-border attacks from inside Pakistan.
Understandably, there was detailed reference to the assassination of his wife, Ms Benazir Bhutto, and to her “doctrine of reconciliation” between the West and the Islamic world, which he joined with another grand economic gesture after the Second World War in the shape of America’s Marshall Plan. While he asked the UN Secretary General to initiate a UN inquiry into her death, he clearly linked her killing to Al Qaeda: “If Al Qaeda and the Taliban believed that by silencing Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, they were silencing her message, they were very wrong”.
He couched his appeal for economic cooperation in the same words as were used by President Bush while addressing Pakistan after 9/11: “The question I ask the world’s leaders in this august chamber is whether you will stand with us, just as we stand for the entire civilised world on the frontlines of this epic struggle of the new millennium?” Then he made the most important pitch as a representative of the people of Pakistan: “Yes, this is our war, but we need international support — moral, political and economic”.
The burden of his message was: this is not your war alone; it is also Pakistan’s war, but Pakistan will not fight it alone or come under pressure from policy made against the interests of Pakistan: “We must all fight this epic battle together as allies and partners. But just as we will not let Pakistan’s territory to be used by terrorists for attacks against our people and our neighbours, we cannot allow our territory and our sovereignty to be violated by our friends”.
On the sidelines of the United Nations’ session, Mr Zardari also met the prime minister of India, Mr Manmohan Singh, with whose government the ongoing bilateral dialogue for normalisation was disrupted after the suicide-bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul. The body language of the two was positive and Mr Zardari made an appropriate reference to India in his UN speech too: “We will continue the composite dialogue with India so that our outstanding disputes are resolved. Whether it is the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir, or cooperation on water resources, India and Pakistan must accommodate each other’s concerns and interests; we must respect and work with each other to peacefully resolve our problems and build South Asia into a common market of trade and technology”.
It is deplorable that after the Indo-Pak joint statement on the opening of four trade routes, some people have tried to create the impression that this would be a bad departure from Pakistan’s “historic position” since India has not relented on the issue of Kashmir. In fact, it is time for sensible departures from bad policies in the past that have laid us low. So it is quite clear that there are powerful elements inside the state that oppose “reconciliation” more than they oppose terrorism and may in fact be counting on terrorism and such people in and out of the media to bring about a change in Pakistan to their liking. These vested interests must be resisted.
In response to Mr Zardari’s initiatives, the US is making efforts to stage a high-level international conference of European, Asian and Gulf Arab countries to debate “common strategies” to help Pakistan defeat the terrorism threat. It is expected that Pakistan will help the G8 countries arrive at a package of economic assistance that will tide Pakistan over its problems of coping with the global price hikes and internal market downturn. The United States has to step forward in this regard and give the lead.
Robert M Hathaway, the director of the Asia Programme at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, wrote thus last week: “As it currently stands, US trade policy actually discriminates against Pakistan. US tariffs on Pakistani textiles are far steeper than on similar goods from other countries...Each container of exported towels puts 500 Pakistani men and women to work. Yet, textile exports from literally dozens of developing countries around the world face lower US tariffs than do Pakistani textiles. The least we could do is to level the playing field for Pakistani goods”. Right you are, Mr Hathaway!
Pakistan would dive into a most dangerous isolationism if the swelling domestic opinion against American cross-border attacks were to become decisive. The world needs a nuclear-armed Pakistan to be part of the global effort against Al Qaeda. And Pakistan needs to avoid the Taliban like the plague and not fall into the trench of isolation without the economic cushion needed to break this fall. President Zardari has put Pakistan’s case clearly in a spirit of cooperation. This is a foreign policy posture that has more chances of success than any other approach divorced from reality. (Daily Times)
Read more...
Understandably, there was detailed reference to the assassination of his wife, Ms Benazir Bhutto, and to her “doctrine of reconciliation” between the West and the Islamic world, which he joined with another grand economic gesture after the Second World War in the shape of America’s Marshall Plan. While he asked the UN Secretary General to initiate a UN inquiry into her death, he clearly linked her killing to Al Qaeda: “If Al Qaeda and the Taliban believed that by silencing Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, they were silencing her message, they were very wrong”.
He couched his appeal for economic cooperation in the same words as were used by President Bush while addressing Pakistan after 9/11: “The question I ask the world’s leaders in this august chamber is whether you will stand with us, just as we stand for the entire civilised world on the frontlines of this epic struggle of the new millennium?” Then he made the most important pitch as a representative of the people of Pakistan: “Yes, this is our war, but we need international support — moral, political and economic”.
The burden of his message was: this is not your war alone; it is also Pakistan’s war, but Pakistan will not fight it alone or come under pressure from policy made against the interests of Pakistan: “We must all fight this epic battle together as allies and partners. But just as we will not let Pakistan’s territory to be used by terrorists for attacks against our people and our neighbours, we cannot allow our territory and our sovereignty to be violated by our friends”.
On the sidelines of the United Nations’ session, Mr Zardari also met the prime minister of India, Mr Manmohan Singh, with whose government the ongoing bilateral dialogue for normalisation was disrupted after the suicide-bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul. The body language of the two was positive and Mr Zardari made an appropriate reference to India in his UN speech too: “We will continue the composite dialogue with India so that our outstanding disputes are resolved. Whether it is the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir, or cooperation on water resources, India and Pakistan must accommodate each other’s concerns and interests; we must respect and work with each other to peacefully resolve our problems and build South Asia into a common market of trade and technology”.
It is deplorable that after the Indo-Pak joint statement on the opening of four trade routes, some people have tried to create the impression that this would be a bad departure from Pakistan’s “historic position” since India has not relented on the issue of Kashmir. In fact, it is time for sensible departures from bad policies in the past that have laid us low. So it is quite clear that there are powerful elements inside the state that oppose “reconciliation” more than they oppose terrorism and may in fact be counting on terrorism and such people in and out of the media to bring about a change in Pakistan to their liking. These vested interests must be resisted.
In response to Mr Zardari’s initiatives, the US is making efforts to stage a high-level international conference of European, Asian and Gulf Arab countries to debate “common strategies” to help Pakistan defeat the terrorism threat. It is expected that Pakistan will help the G8 countries arrive at a package of economic assistance that will tide Pakistan over its problems of coping with the global price hikes and internal market downturn. The United States has to step forward in this regard and give the lead.
Robert M Hathaway, the director of the Asia Programme at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, wrote thus last week: “As it currently stands, US trade policy actually discriminates against Pakistan. US tariffs on Pakistani textiles are far steeper than on similar goods from other countries...Each container of exported towels puts 500 Pakistani men and women to work. Yet, textile exports from literally dozens of developing countries around the world face lower US tariffs than do Pakistani textiles. The least we could do is to level the playing field for Pakistani goods”. Right you are, Mr Hathaway!
Pakistan would dive into a most dangerous isolationism if the swelling domestic opinion against American cross-border attacks were to become decisive. The world needs a nuclear-armed Pakistan to be part of the global effort against Al Qaeda. And Pakistan needs to avoid the Taliban like the plague and not fall into the trench of isolation without the economic cushion needed to break this fall. President Zardari has put Pakistan’s case clearly in a spirit of cooperation. This is a foreign policy posture that has more chances of success than any other approach divorced from reality. (Daily Times)
Read more...
A shameful forgery (by Ansar Abbasi and other anti-PPP Junoonis)
The past week has seen a vicious electronic and press campaign maligning President Asif Ali Zardari through a forgery. Someone forged a garbled version of his remark recorded in the visitors’ book at the mausoleum of the Quaid-e-Azam and sent it around. Mr Zardari had carefully written, “May God give us the strength to save Pakistan”. This was changed to, “May Gaad give us strut to save Pakistan”. After a week of this vicious campaign in which people in Lahore were seen handing around copies of the forgery in restaurants, the hoax has been exposed.
The paper which showed a photographic comparison between the real text of the message and the forgery, wrote: “Some hidden hands have sent an email to different journalists, newspapers and electronic organisations claiming that the President had misspelled the words God and strength”. As for the probity of the journalists who received it, the newspaper said: “It was distressing to note that a senior English-language columnist did not bother to verify the facts and added fuel to fire in his column while referring to this fabricated story”. (Daily Times)
Read more...
The paper which showed a photographic comparison between the real text of the message and the forgery, wrote: “Some hidden hands have sent an email to different journalists, newspapers and electronic organisations claiming that the President had misspelled the words God and strength”. As for the probity of the journalists who received it, the newspaper said: “It was distressing to note that a senior English-language columnist did not bother to verify the facts and added fuel to fire in his column while referring to this fabricated story”. (Daily Times)
Read more...
Zardari's misspelled remarks proved fabricated - Disinformation cell in action by yellow journalists/Zaradari haters
By SHAFI BALOCH (Daily The Nation)
KARACHI - The ongoing campaign against President Asif Ali Zardari regarding his poor knowledge of English during his recent visit to Mazar-e-Quaid has proved a malicious and wicked electronic campaign that has tarnished his image in the eyes of the general public and analysts who did not bother to verify the facts.
Some hidden hands have sent an email to different journalists, newspapers and electronic organisations claiming that the President had misspelled the words God and strength.
However, a verification of this matter by TheNation revealed that the campaign was a venomous propaganda against President Zardari that was aimed at tarnishing his image in the eyes of the masses.
The upshot of President’s comments in the visitors’ book during his visit to Mazar-e-Quaid made it clear that Asif Zardari had impeccably written “May God give us strength to save Pakistan” instead of “May Gaad give us strut to save Pakistan” that was being propagated by the hidden hands through the email.
President Asif Ali Zardari wrote his views in the visitors’ book on September 11, 2008, when he visited Mazar-e-Quaid on the 60th death anniversary of the Father of the Nation.
It was distressing to note that senior Eglish-language columnist did not bother to verify the facts and added fuel to fire in his column while referring to this fabricated story.
The propaganda was launched at a time when the President had gone to the United States on an official visit and during his absence nobody bothered to counter the venomous campaign and tried to present the truth before the media and the people.
When contacted Muhammad Arif, Resident Engineer, Mazar-e-Quaid, produced the book containing the views of the President.
Arif said that he was accompanying President Asif Ali Zardari during his visit of the mausoleum and witnessed him express his views by writing in the visitors’ book: “God may give us strength to save Pakistan”.
After the visit of President Zardari, several high-ranking officials of Sindh government including Governor Dr Ishrat-ul-Ebad Khan, Chief Minister Syed Qaim Ali Shah, chiefs of the armed forces and Naib Nazima Karachi Nasreen Jalil also visited Mazar-e-Quaid and expressed their views in the visitors’ book.
All of them had written their views in English except Naib Nazima Nasreen Jaleel, who wrote her comments in Urdu language, Arif concluded.
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/26-Sep-2008/Zardaris-misspelled-remarks-proved-fabricated/1
Read more...
KARACHI - The ongoing campaign against President Asif Ali Zardari regarding his poor knowledge of English during his recent visit to Mazar-e-Quaid has proved a malicious and wicked electronic campaign that has tarnished his image in the eyes of the general public and analysts who did not bother to verify the facts.
Some hidden hands have sent an email to different journalists, newspapers and electronic organisations claiming that the President had misspelled the words God and strength.
However, a verification of this matter by TheNation revealed that the campaign was a venomous propaganda against President Zardari that was aimed at tarnishing his image in the eyes of the masses.
The upshot of President’s comments in the visitors’ book during his visit to Mazar-e-Quaid made it clear that Asif Zardari had impeccably written “May God give us strength to save Pakistan” instead of “May Gaad give us strut to save Pakistan” that was being propagated by the hidden hands through the email.
President Asif Ali Zardari wrote his views in the visitors’ book on September 11, 2008, when he visited Mazar-e-Quaid on the 60th death anniversary of the Father of the Nation.
It was distressing to note that senior Eglish-language columnist did not bother to verify the facts and added fuel to fire in his column while referring to this fabricated story.
The propaganda was launched at a time when the President had gone to the United States on an official visit and during his absence nobody bothered to counter the venomous campaign and tried to present the truth before the media and the people.
When contacted Muhammad Arif, Resident Engineer, Mazar-e-Quaid, produced the book containing the views of the President.
Arif said that he was accompanying President Asif Ali Zardari during his visit of the mausoleum and witnessed him express his views by writing in the visitors’ book: “God may give us strength to save Pakistan”.
After the visit of President Zardari, several high-ranking officials of Sindh government including Governor Dr Ishrat-ul-Ebad Khan, Chief Minister Syed Qaim Ali Shah, chiefs of the armed forces and Naib Nazima Karachi Nasreen Jalil also visited Mazar-e-Quaid and expressed their views in the visitors’ book.
All of them had written their views in English except Naib Nazima Nasreen Jaleel, who wrote her comments in Urdu language, Arif concluded.
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/26-Sep-2008/Zardaris-misspelled-remarks-proved-fabricated/1
Read more...
‘Stability in Bajaur within two months’
* FC IG says 1,000 Taliban, 63 soldiers killed in operation
* Says 65% of problem would be eliminated if Taliban defeated in Bajaur
KHAR/TANG KHATTA: The situation in Bajaur Agency will be stabilised within two months, the Frontier Corps (FC) chief in the region said on Friday.
“My timeframe for Bajaur is anything from between one-and-a-half to two months to bring about stability,” FC Inspector General Maj Gen Tariq Khan told reporters on an army-organised trip to Bajaur.
Taliban killed: Khan said troops had killed more than 1,000 Taliban and injured 2,000 others since the offensive began in early August. Khan said five top Al Qaeda and Taliban commanders were among those killed in the month-long operation. He said they included four foreigners. They were Egyptian Abu Saeed Al-Masri, Arab Abu Suleiman, Uzbek Mullah Mansoor, and an Afghan commander called Manaras.
The fifth was a son of Faqir Mohammad, the top Taliban commander in the region. Faqir himself was believed to be injured. Some 63 troops had died and 212 were injured in the operation so far, Khan said.
65 percent: Khan estimated 65 percent of the Taliban problem would be eliminated if they were defeated in Bajaur, describing the region as a ‘centre of gravity’ for the Taliban. “If they lose here, they’ve lost almost everything,” he said.
Military officials paraded 10 blindfolded and handcuffed men said to be Taliban fighters – arrested during the operation – before the reporters who joined the trip.
Khan also showed reporters photos of tunnel systems and trenches, suggesting the Taliban were well established in the region that is considered a likely hiding place for top Al Qaeda leaders including Osama Bin Laden.
He put the Taliban’s strength at around 2,000, including Afghans, Uzbeks and Arabs as well as Pakistani Taliban. He said the Taliban’s fighting strength had not gone down appreciably despite heavy casualties due to reinforcements coming in from the northwest as well as Afghanistan. “I personally feel that trained squads have been moved in,” Khan said. agencies (Daily Times)
Read more...
* Says 65% of problem would be eliminated if Taliban defeated in Bajaur
KHAR/TANG KHATTA: The situation in Bajaur Agency will be stabilised within two months, the Frontier Corps (FC) chief in the region said on Friday.
“My timeframe for Bajaur is anything from between one-and-a-half to two months to bring about stability,” FC Inspector General Maj Gen Tariq Khan told reporters on an army-organised trip to Bajaur.
Taliban killed: Khan said troops had killed more than 1,000 Taliban and injured 2,000 others since the offensive began in early August. Khan said five top Al Qaeda and Taliban commanders were among those killed in the month-long operation. He said they included four foreigners. They were Egyptian Abu Saeed Al-Masri, Arab Abu Suleiman, Uzbek Mullah Mansoor, and an Afghan commander called Manaras.
The fifth was a son of Faqir Mohammad, the top Taliban commander in the region. Faqir himself was believed to be injured. Some 63 troops had died and 212 were injured in the operation so far, Khan said.
65 percent: Khan estimated 65 percent of the Taliban problem would be eliminated if they were defeated in Bajaur, describing the region as a ‘centre of gravity’ for the Taliban. “If they lose here, they’ve lost almost everything,” he said.
Military officials paraded 10 blindfolded and handcuffed men said to be Taliban fighters – arrested during the operation – before the reporters who joined the trip.
Khan also showed reporters photos of tunnel systems and trenches, suggesting the Taliban were well established in the region that is considered a likely hiding place for top Al Qaeda leaders including Osama Bin Laden.
He put the Taliban’s strength at around 2,000, including Afghans, Uzbeks and Arabs as well as Pakistani Taliban. He said the Taliban’s fighting strength had not gone down appreciably despite heavy casualties due to reinforcements coming in from the northwest as well as Afghanistan. “I personally feel that trained squads have been moved in,” Khan said. agencies (Daily Times)
Read more...
War on terror & India’s stake
By Kuldip Nayar
THE burning of Islamabad’s Marriott hotel that Indian channels showed at length is still etched in the memory of horrified people. They are worried about Pakistan. Even the hawks do not conceal their anxiety.
The intelligentsia’s concern is that the nascent democratic government in Islamabad might not be able to cope with the likes of the Al Qaeda and Taliban and might have to depend on the military which would want its price.
People do not know how far the Al Qaeda-Taliban combine has penetrated Pakistan. But the belief is that the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) and, to a large extent, the NWFP province, is under the control of the Taliban. Were they to ‘capture’ more territory, what would be its effect on India is the greatest worry. President Asif Ali Zardari’s remark that “the Taliban have an upper hand” is all the more unnerving. America agrees with him.
A Pakistani television commentator has challenged Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to travel from Kohat to Bannu. The commentator’s contention is that the Pakistan government had already “withdrawn” from this area. If this is true, there is some truth in the repeated allegation that former President Pervez Musharraf, even while in uniform, was never serious about curbing Al Qaeda and the Taliban. He found it an effective way to milch America. That he connived at the intervention of the US troops on Pakistani soil is an open secret.
In contrast, Zardari’s statement or that of army chief Gen Kayani that Pakistan’s sovereignty would not be allowed to be trifled with has come as a welcome surprise. Islamabad is defending its territory and there are signs of it when its guns drove away American helicopters the other day. Pakistan is careful not to engage the superpower but whatever Islamabad is doing to keep its dignity intact needs to be commended.
I do not think that the Al Qaeda-Taliban combine is seeking territory in Pakistan. They want the northern areas which would help them to recapture Afghanistan which was under their rule until they were pushed out by nationalist Afghan forces with the help of America.
In fact, the US is responsible for the birth of the Taliban. During the Cold War when Washington wanted to bleed Moscow to death, America trained and armed fundamentalists to oust the irreligious Soviet Union from Afghanistan. America won the Cold War when the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of what happened to it in Afghanistan. Those fundamentalists are today’s Taliban and they have the weapons which were liberally provided by America.
Indian civil society does realise that Al Qaeda’s progress in Pakistan is a danger. Already the presence of Al Qaeda has been reported in Kerala, India’s southern-most state, and in Kashmir, the northern-most part. An intelligence agency has linked the recent bomb blasts in the country to the outfit.
What is not probably appreciated amply is that Pakistan’s war against the Taliban is India’s war too. If ever Pakistan goes under, India’s first line of defence would collapse. The Taliban would have secured the launching pad to attack India’s values of democracy and liberalism which do not fit into their scheme of things. These are the same Taliban who destroyed the Buddha statues at Bamiyan despite the appeal of the entire civilised world.
Terrorism is the means, and a ‘Talibanistan’ is the end. New Delhi and Islamabad should jointly fight against the menace. The two had decided at one time to set up a joint mechanism to fight terror. There is still nothing on the ground. Some joint action should have been visible after the blasts in Delhi and Islamabad. Mutual suspicions are so strong that they cannot override them even when the enemy is at work from within. One hopes that the New York meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Zardari will change the scenario as both are keen on normalising relations.
Making peace with the militants or having a ceasefire, as proposed by certain influential quarters in Pakistan, may stall the Taliban but not defeat them. Terrorism is a cancer as Zardari has diagnosed correctly, and it must be eliminated. The villain of the piece is Musharraf who said he was fighting against the Taliban when he was conniving at their penetration. He should be put on the mat for having aggravated the situation. His plan to have them in Afghanistan to gain ‘strategic depth’ for Pakistan started the whole thing.
There is a lesson for New Delhi which is a sad picture of inaction and ineptness when assessed in terms of action taken against communal forces. Law and order has always been a state subject. Still the centre’s response has been lukewarm. It sent to Orissa, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Kerala a piece of advice on the lines of Article 355 which enjoins upon the Union to protect states against external aggression and internal disturbance. Had New Delhi’s order gone under Article 355 itself, the Bajrang Dal, a SIMI among Hindus, would not have openly butchered Christians and burnt churches. Surprisingly, there is no ban on the Bajrang Dal. New Delhi has done well to reject the demand of the Bharatiya Janata Party for bringing back the Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act which authorised the state to detain people for months without trial. It was used against the Naxalites and Muslims mercilessly. In this atmosphere, the Muslims would have been the target.
Terrorism, no doubt, leaves death and destruction in its wake. But the most fearsome fallout is that the confidence of the people is shaken. Governments can see, after every event, the gaps in their intelligence and other apparatus and promise to do better. But the impact of the incidents may well be irreparable because certain communities feel alienated.
This is what has happened after the encounter at Zakir Bagh in Delhi where two terrorists and one police inspector were killed. The debate over the veracity of the ‘encounter’ is still raging. The locality believes it was stage-managed. Why such a feeling arises is because of the credibility gap between the people and the authorities.
The matter is much more serious: Muslims and Christians have lost faith in the fairness of the state. This will be hard to restore if the secular forces do not assert themselves and retrieve Muslims, Christians and, more so, the Hindus from the bias and prejudice in which many are stuck.
Meanwhile, a survey conducted by a television network in four big cities — Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai — has shown that 67 per cent of the people feel insecure. They are haunted by the fear that they do not know what would happen to them if they were to step out of their homes. This is, indeed, a sad reflection on the central and state governments.
The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi. (Dawn)
Read more...
THE burning of Islamabad’s Marriott hotel that Indian channels showed at length is still etched in the memory of horrified people. They are worried about Pakistan. Even the hawks do not conceal their anxiety.
The intelligentsia’s concern is that the nascent democratic government in Islamabad might not be able to cope with the likes of the Al Qaeda and Taliban and might have to depend on the military which would want its price.
People do not know how far the Al Qaeda-Taliban combine has penetrated Pakistan. But the belief is that the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) and, to a large extent, the NWFP province, is under the control of the Taliban. Were they to ‘capture’ more territory, what would be its effect on India is the greatest worry. President Asif Ali Zardari’s remark that “the Taliban have an upper hand” is all the more unnerving. America agrees with him.
A Pakistani television commentator has challenged Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to travel from Kohat to Bannu. The commentator’s contention is that the Pakistan government had already “withdrawn” from this area. If this is true, there is some truth in the repeated allegation that former President Pervez Musharraf, even while in uniform, was never serious about curbing Al Qaeda and the Taliban. He found it an effective way to milch America. That he connived at the intervention of the US troops on Pakistani soil is an open secret.
In contrast, Zardari’s statement or that of army chief Gen Kayani that Pakistan’s sovereignty would not be allowed to be trifled with has come as a welcome surprise. Islamabad is defending its territory and there are signs of it when its guns drove away American helicopters the other day. Pakistan is careful not to engage the superpower but whatever Islamabad is doing to keep its dignity intact needs to be commended.
I do not think that the Al Qaeda-Taliban combine is seeking territory in Pakistan. They want the northern areas which would help them to recapture Afghanistan which was under their rule until they were pushed out by nationalist Afghan forces with the help of America.
In fact, the US is responsible for the birth of the Taliban. During the Cold War when Washington wanted to bleed Moscow to death, America trained and armed fundamentalists to oust the irreligious Soviet Union from Afghanistan. America won the Cold War when the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of what happened to it in Afghanistan. Those fundamentalists are today’s Taliban and they have the weapons which were liberally provided by America.
Indian civil society does realise that Al Qaeda’s progress in Pakistan is a danger. Already the presence of Al Qaeda has been reported in Kerala, India’s southern-most state, and in Kashmir, the northern-most part. An intelligence agency has linked the recent bomb blasts in the country to the outfit.
What is not probably appreciated amply is that Pakistan’s war against the Taliban is India’s war too. If ever Pakistan goes under, India’s first line of defence would collapse. The Taliban would have secured the launching pad to attack India’s values of democracy and liberalism which do not fit into their scheme of things. These are the same Taliban who destroyed the Buddha statues at Bamiyan despite the appeal of the entire civilised world.
Terrorism is the means, and a ‘Talibanistan’ is the end. New Delhi and Islamabad should jointly fight against the menace. The two had decided at one time to set up a joint mechanism to fight terror. There is still nothing on the ground. Some joint action should have been visible after the blasts in Delhi and Islamabad. Mutual suspicions are so strong that they cannot override them even when the enemy is at work from within. One hopes that the New York meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Zardari will change the scenario as both are keen on normalising relations.
Making peace with the militants or having a ceasefire, as proposed by certain influential quarters in Pakistan, may stall the Taliban but not defeat them. Terrorism is a cancer as Zardari has diagnosed correctly, and it must be eliminated. The villain of the piece is Musharraf who said he was fighting against the Taliban when he was conniving at their penetration. He should be put on the mat for having aggravated the situation. His plan to have them in Afghanistan to gain ‘strategic depth’ for Pakistan started the whole thing.
There is a lesson for New Delhi which is a sad picture of inaction and ineptness when assessed in terms of action taken against communal forces. Law and order has always been a state subject. Still the centre’s response has been lukewarm. It sent to Orissa, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Kerala a piece of advice on the lines of Article 355 which enjoins upon the Union to protect states against external aggression and internal disturbance. Had New Delhi’s order gone under Article 355 itself, the Bajrang Dal, a SIMI among Hindus, would not have openly butchered Christians and burnt churches. Surprisingly, there is no ban on the Bajrang Dal. New Delhi has done well to reject the demand of the Bharatiya Janata Party for bringing back the Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act which authorised the state to detain people for months without trial. It was used against the Naxalites and Muslims mercilessly. In this atmosphere, the Muslims would have been the target.
Terrorism, no doubt, leaves death and destruction in its wake. But the most fearsome fallout is that the confidence of the people is shaken. Governments can see, after every event, the gaps in their intelligence and other apparatus and promise to do better. But the impact of the incidents may well be irreparable because certain communities feel alienated.
This is what has happened after the encounter at Zakir Bagh in Delhi where two terrorists and one police inspector were killed. The debate over the veracity of the ‘encounter’ is still raging. The locality believes it was stage-managed. Why such a feeling arises is because of the credibility gap between the people and the authorities.
The matter is much more serious: Muslims and Christians have lost faith in the fairness of the state. This will be hard to restore if the secular forces do not assert themselves and retrieve Muslims, Christians and, more so, the Hindus from the bias and prejudice in which many are stuck.
Meanwhile, a survey conducted by a television network in four big cities — Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai — has shown that 67 per cent of the people feel insecure. They are haunted by the fear that they do not know what would happen to them if they were to step out of their homes. This is, indeed, a sad reflection on the central and state governments.
The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi. (Dawn)
Read more...
Jihad revised
By Q. Isa Daudpota
IMAGINE you are a radical Islamist leading a war against the infidels from the badlands bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan. In front of you is the statement, “We are prohibited from committing aggression, even if the enemies of Islam do that.”
You are Ayman al-Zawahiri, the second highest leader of Al Qaeda, and this thunderbolt comes from your comrade, a long time spiritual and intellectual leader of your group and a former fellow medical student in Cairo University.
Around 1977, the author of the statement, Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, joined Egypt’s Al Jihad terrorist group formed by Zawahiri. Sharif (Dr Fadl being his underground identity) and Zawahiri were two of the original members of Al Qaeda, the formation of which dates back to August 1988 when they met Osama bin Laden in Peshawar. Earlier, Dr Fadl escaped arrest when thousands of Islamists were rounded up after the 1981 assassination of President Anwar Sadat by soldiers affiliated with Al Jihad. Zawahiri suffered torture in prison and was released after three years, thirsting for revenge. His reputation also came under serious doubt in prison as he divulged the names of his comrades under torture. Dr Fadl, during this time, moved to Peshawar to join the Afghan war and worked as a surgeon for injured combatants.
Jihadis needed guidance through a text on the real objective of fighting battles which was not just victory over the Soviets but martyrdom and eternal salvation. Fadl’s The Essential Guide for Preparation appeared late for the Afghan war but became one of the most important texts for jihadis’ training. Lawrence Wright, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, notes that the Guide begins with the premise that jihad is a natural state of Islam: Muslims must always be in conflict with non-believers. Fadl asks that peace is recommended only in moments of severe weakness. Otherwise every Muslim must seek divine reward through sacrificing his life for Islam and thereby bring about an Islamic state.
After 1989 Zawahiri and most of Al Jihad moved to Sudan. From there they watched the Islamic Group wage a vicious war against the Egyptian state. The Group launched a social revolution, ransacking video stores and cinemas, demanding hijabs for women and bombed churches of the Coptic minority. One of the founders was Karam Zuhdy, who ended up living in prison for two decades with about 20,000 Islamists. During the ’90s, the Group killed more than 1,200 in terror attacks.
In 1994, Fadl wrote the 1,000-page Compendium of Pursuit of Divine Knowledge. In it he declared war on the rulers of Arab states and considered them infidels who should be killed. The same punishment was to be meted out to those who served them and to others working for peaceful change. The Compendium gave Al Qaeda the mandate to murder all who opposed it. This is just the book that Zawahiri wanted, but it went a bit too far. Fadl was livid when he learnt that parts of the book had been removed and the title changed and published under Zawahiri’s name.
With so many years wasted in prison since 1981, the leaders of the Islamic Group began reading books and analysing their past, and realised that they had been manipulated into pursuing a violent path. Zuhdy, the Group’s founder, found that any such discussion led to strong opposition within and outside the prison.
Meanwhile, secret talks continued with the Egyptian government until they became known in 1997. Zawahiri was disappointed by the move away from violent jihad, which to him was the main galvanising force for his movement. Along with Islamic Group leaders outside Egypt, he arranged for the murder of 62 tourists near Luxor, hoping the move would derail rapprochement between the Group and the state.
The Group’s leaders countered by issuing a statement condemning the act, and followed up with writing a series of books and pamphlets collectively known as The Revision in which they explained their new thinking. Zuhdy publicly apologised to the Egyptian people for the Group’s violent deeds. The government responded by releasing over 20,000 Group members.
Meanwhile Fadl who had landed in a Yemen prison was smuggled onto a plane and taken to Cairo in 2005. It is from his cell that he wrote his latest book, Rationalising Jihad. To avoid the charge that he had been tortured or coaxed into writing it, a majority of the Al Jihad members in prison signed the manuscript. To exclude the possibility of coercion, an editor interviewed Fadl extensively.
Here’s a summary of some of the controversial points raised which clearly will not go down well with radical Islamists such as Zawahiri: (a) There is nothing more that invokes divine wrath than the unwarranted spilling of blood and wrecking of property; (b) the limitation placed on jihad restrict it to extremely rare circumstances; (c) it is forbidden to kill civilians — including Christians and Jews — unless they are actively attacking Muslims, (d) indiscriminate bombing such as blowing up hotels, buildings and public transportation is not permitted, (e) there is no legal reason for harming people in any way, (f) one cannot decide who is a Muslim or a non-believer, and (g) the end does not justify violent means.
Zawahiri warned that Fadl’s revision of the jihad concept placed restrictions on action which, if implemented, would destroy the jihad completely. Zuhdy commented that this exchange between the Al Qaeda ideologues showed that the movement is disintegrating due to internal dissent.
Pakistan, which is being torn apart by jihadis from within and across its border, needs to make Fadl’s latest work widely available in translation, to be studied in madressahs and discussed in the media. Who knows what reformation this could bring about?
The writer is an Islamabad-based physicist and environmentalist.
Read more...
IMAGINE you are a radical Islamist leading a war against the infidels from the badlands bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan. In front of you is the statement, “We are prohibited from committing aggression, even if the enemies of Islam do that.”
You are Ayman al-Zawahiri, the second highest leader of Al Qaeda, and this thunderbolt comes from your comrade, a long time spiritual and intellectual leader of your group and a former fellow medical student in Cairo University.
Around 1977, the author of the statement, Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, joined Egypt’s Al Jihad terrorist group formed by Zawahiri. Sharif (Dr Fadl being his underground identity) and Zawahiri were two of the original members of Al Qaeda, the formation of which dates back to August 1988 when they met Osama bin Laden in Peshawar. Earlier, Dr Fadl escaped arrest when thousands of Islamists were rounded up after the 1981 assassination of President Anwar Sadat by soldiers affiliated with Al Jihad. Zawahiri suffered torture in prison and was released after three years, thirsting for revenge. His reputation also came under serious doubt in prison as he divulged the names of his comrades under torture. Dr Fadl, during this time, moved to Peshawar to join the Afghan war and worked as a surgeon for injured combatants.
Jihadis needed guidance through a text on the real objective of fighting battles which was not just victory over the Soviets but martyrdom and eternal salvation. Fadl’s The Essential Guide for Preparation appeared late for the Afghan war but became one of the most important texts for jihadis’ training. Lawrence Wright, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, notes that the Guide begins with the premise that jihad is a natural state of Islam: Muslims must always be in conflict with non-believers. Fadl asks that peace is recommended only in moments of severe weakness. Otherwise every Muslim must seek divine reward through sacrificing his life for Islam and thereby bring about an Islamic state.
After 1989 Zawahiri and most of Al Jihad moved to Sudan. From there they watched the Islamic Group wage a vicious war against the Egyptian state. The Group launched a social revolution, ransacking video stores and cinemas, demanding hijabs for women and bombed churches of the Coptic minority. One of the founders was Karam Zuhdy, who ended up living in prison for two decades with about 20,000 Islamists. During the ’90s, the Group killed more than 1,200 in terror attacks.
In 1994, Fadl wrote the 1,000-page Compendium of Pursuit of Divine Knowledge. In it he declared war on the rulers of Arab states and considered them infidels who should be killed. The same punishment was to be meted out to those who served them and to others working for peaceful change. The Compendium gave Al Qaeda the mandate to murder all who opposed it. This is just the book that Zawahiri wanted, but it went a bit too far. Fadl was livid when he learnt that parts of the book had been removed and the title changed and published under Zawahiri’s name.
With so many years wasted in prison since 1981, the leaders of the Islamic Group began reading books and analysing their past, and realised that they had been manipulated into pursuing a violent path. Zuhdy, the Group’s founder, found that any such discussion led to strong opposition within and outside the prison.
Meanwhile, secret talks continued with the Egyptian government until they became known in 1997. Zawahiri was disappointed by the move away from violent jihad, which to him was the main galvanising force for his movement. Along with Islamic Group leaders outside Egypt, he arranged for the murder of 62 tourists near Luxor, hoping the move would derail rapprochement between the Group and the state.
The Group’s leaders countered by issuing a statement condemning the act, and followed up with writing a series of books and pamphlets collectively known as The Revision in which they explained their new thinking. Zuhdy publicly apologised to the Egyptian people for the Group’s violent deeds. The government responded by releasing over 20,000 Group members.
Meanwhile Fadl who had landed in a Yemen prison was smuggled onto a plane and taken to Cairo in 2005. It is from his cell that he wrote his latest book, Rationalising Jihad. To avoid the charge that he had been tortured or coaxed into writing it, a majority of the Al Jihad members in prison signed the manuscript. To exclude the possibility of coercion, an editor interviewed Fadl extensively.
Here’s a summary of some of the controversial points raised which clearly will not go down well with radical Islamists such as Zawahiri: (a) There is nothing more that invokes divine wrath than the unwarranted spilling of blood and wrecking of property; (b) the limitation placed on jihad restrict it to extremely rare circumstances; (c) it is forbidden to kill civilians — including Christians and Jews — unless they are actively attacking Muslims, (d) indiscriminate bombing such as blowing up hotels, buildings and public transportation is not permitted, (e) there is no legal reason for harming people in any way, (f) one cannot decide who is a Muslim or a non-believer, and (g) the end does not justify violent means.
Zawahiri warned that Fadl’s revision of the jihad concept placed restrictions on action which, if implemented, would destroy the jihad completely. Zuhdy commented that this exchange between the Al Qaeda ideologues showed that the movement is disintegrating due to internal dissent.
Pakistan, which is being torn apart by jihadis from within and across its border, needs to make Fadl’s latest work widely available in translation, to be studied in madressahs and discussed in the media. Who knows what reformation this could bring about?
The writer is an Islamabad-based physicist and environmentalist.
Read more...
Zardari, Sarah Palin, pro-Taliban journalists and the disinformation cell by the democracy haters - By Abbas Ather
![[col8.gif]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Vbc4oO2rGiw/SN3h7oBXiTI/AAAAAAAAAHI/2p-rgdNK5UM/s1600-h/col8.gif)
Wednesday, 24 September 2008
Militants in the tribal areas of the NWFP have established firm networking (with jihadi groups) in southern Punjab
An unknown terrorist outfit calling itself Fidayeen-e Islam has telephoned the Dubai-based Al Arabiya TV office in Islamabad to claim responsibility for the attack on the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad on Saturday. The phone call was made from within Pakistan but not from Islamabad. But that doesn’t mean that Islamabad is free of terrorists and that the dumper truck that brought a ton of explosives to the Marriott came from any distant place. The killers are very much within us.
The investigators have lost no time in concluding that the explosives were brought piece-meal into Islamabad and then loaded onto the truck inside the residential area. The truck was not sent from the Tribal Areas where masked Indian agents may have loaded it with RDX “because Pakistan is free of such quantities of lethal material”. In fact, the truth is that Pakistan is full of lethal material and Islamabad is the centre of the ideology of Al Qaeda; and its exponents include people inside the organs of the state.
The governor of the NWFP, Mr Owais Ghani, visited Lahore on Monday and briefed a gathering of senior media persons about the state of terrorism in the country. He argued that Pakistan should counter the so-called Islamist ideology of the terrorists with the ideology of Pakistan as a bastion of Islam, by which he did not mean the ideology of India’s RAW but the ideology posited by Al Qaeda and followed by the Taliban and the jihadi militias once sponsored by the Pakistan state. But the problem is not as simple as that. Alas, this ideology of radical Islamists is also partly the propagated ideology of Pakistan, with a vast difference of interpretation. We have problems of deciding what terrorism means, whether jihad is to be practised by the state or by non-state actors, and whether suicide-bombing is illegal, because we share part of the Islamist basis of Al Qaeda’s case-making. So it might be a better idea to expose Al Qaeda’s Islamist ideology with a truer and more genuine expression of Islam in general rather than its particular self-serving national security version as espoused by the Pakistani state that is partly responsible for spawning it in the first place.
Governor Ghani also revealed a fact that most of Punjabis will deny. He said: “Militants in the tribal areas of the NWFP have established firm networking (with jihadi groups) in southern Punjab and most fresh recruits for suicide attacks are coming from there. Militant leaders and commanders are also coming from Punjab. The militants’ field commander in Swat too is from Punjab”. But was Peshawar safe? Even as he spoke, mosques in the posh areas of Peshawar were sounding with calls to jihad. The newspapers named a person allegedly belonging to Lahore-based “banned” jihadi organisation favoured by the agencies making the call for jihad against America in the capital of the NWFP. When people got scared and asked the caretaker of one such mosque to stop the outfit from spreading aggression, he said, “Under what law?” Needless to say, he spoke from the point of view of “Pakistan’s ideology”.
Who is going to counter this trend towards extremism and terrorism? Clearly, it is not just the job of the state but also of the media and opinion writers. And it has to be done in an environment of free discussion, even if it is becoming more difficult to speak out without fearing a violent reaction from the terrorists and those who now fervently believe in an aggressive “reactive” ideology. With all due respect to Governor Ghani, it is not ideology that has to be challenged with another ideology but the facts that are deployed to underpin the anarchic point of view of the extremists. This is where the media must play its role.
Tragically, it is not “unity” that is being created but a “uniformity” of opinion that is dangerous now as it was dangerous on the eve of the separation of East Pakistan in 1971. If the Quaid-e Azam wanted uniformity instead of unity he could have given us the slogan: “Uniformity, Faith, Discipline”, instead of “Unity, Faith, Discipline”. When an angry viewer rings up in an interactive TV discussion and starts eulogising the isolationist defiance of Iran and North Korea, it is incumbent on us to “correct” the facts. Without being impolite one can state the different situation of Pakistan and its compulsion of avoiding isolation. Similarly, when a caller rings and says “India never accepted Pakistan” and then links the current wave of suicide-bombings to India, one can politely counter him by saying that it is not so much India as Pakistan which never accepted an “incomplete Pakistan” and fought a number of “corrective” wars, the last of which was lost on the peaks of Kargil and was not even a popular war. It is very important to retain a balance of opinion and not allow the “common view” to tilt to one extreme. Already, the rising slogan is “do what the people want” and, according to one argument, there is no other way to go for the government but one, because “the people of Pakistan hate America”.
We can counter the oppressive order of Al Qaeda and its “school-destroying” minions through our freedom and free discussion. Governor Ghani has spoken frankly. More and more politicians must speak what they feel and not what suits their current strategy of toppling the party in power. (Daily Times)
Read more...
The investigators have lost no time in concluding that the explosives were brought piece-meal into Islamabad and then loaded onto the truck inside the residential area. The truck was not sent from the Tribal Areas where masked Indian agents may have loaded it with RDX “because Pakistan is free of such quantities of lethal material”. In fact, the truth is that Pakistan is full of lethal material and Islamabad is the centre of the ideology of Al Qaeda; and its exponents include people inside the organs of the state.
The governor of the NWFP, Mr Owais Ghani, visited Lahore on Monday and briefed a gathering of senior media persons about the state of terrorism in the country. He argued that Pakistan should counter the so-called Islamist ideology of the terrorists with the ideology of Pakistan as a bastion of Islam, by which he did not mean the ideology of India’s RAW but the ideology posited by Al Qaeda and followed by the Taliban and the jihadi militias once sponsored by the Pakistan state. But the problem is not as simple as that. Alas, this ideology of radical Islamists is also partly the propagated ideology of Pakistan, with a vast difference of interpretation. We have problems of deciding what terrorism means, whether jihad is to be practised by the state or by non-state actors, and whether suicide-bombing is illegal, because we share part of the Islamist basis of Al Qaeda’s case-making. So it might be a better idea to expose Al Qaeda’s Islamist ideology with a truer and more genuine expression of Islam in general rather than its particular self-serving national security version as espoused by the Pakistani state that is partly responsible for spawning it in the first place.
Governor Ghani also revealed a fact that most of Punjabis will deny. He said: “Militants in the tribal areas of the NWFP have established firm networking (with jihadi groups) in southern Punjab and most fresh recruits for suicide attacks are coming from there. Militant leaders and commanders are also coming from Punjab. The militants’ field commander in Swat too is from Punjab”. But was Peshawar safe? Even as he spoke, mosques in the posh areas of Peshawar were sounding with calls to jihad. The newspapers named a person allegedly belonging to Lahore-based “banned” jihadi organisation favoured by the agencies making the call for jihad against America in the capital of the NWFP. When people got scared and asked the caretaker of one such mosque to stop the outfit from spreading aggression, he said, “Under what law?” Needless to say, he spoke from the point of view of “Pakistan’s ideology”.
Who is going to counter this trend towards extremism and terrorism? Clearly, it is not just the job of the state but also of the media and opinion writers. And it has to be done in an environment of free discussion, even if it is becoming more difficult to speak out without fearing a violent reaction from the terrorists and those who now fervently believe in an aggressive “reactive” ideology. With all due respect to Governor Ghani, it is not ideology that has to be challenged with another ideology but the facts that are deployed to underpin the anarchic point of view of the extremists. This is where the media must play its role.
Tragically, it is not “unity” that is being created but a “uniformity” of opinion that is dangerous now as it was dangerous on the eve of the separation of East Pakistan in 1971. If the Quaid-e Azam wanted uniformity instead of unity he could have given us the slogan: “Uniformity, Faith, Discipline”, instead of “Unity, Faith, Discipline”. When an angry viewer rings up in an interactive TV discussion and starts eulogising the isolationist defiance of Iran and North Korea, it is incumbent on us to “correct” the facts. Without being impolite one can state the different situation of Pakistan and its compulsion of avoiding isolation. Similarly, when a caller rings and says “India never accepted Pakistan” and then links the current wave of suicide-bombings to India, one can politely counter him by saying that it is not so much India as Pakistan which never accepted an “incomplete Pakistan” and fought a number of “corrective” wars, the last of which was lost on the peaks of Kargil and was not even a popular war. It is very important to retain a balance of opinion and not allow the “common view” to tilt to one extreme. Already, the rising slogan is “do what the people want” and, according to one argument, there is no other way to go for the government but one, because “the people of Pakistan hate America”.
We can counter the oppressive order of Al Qaeda and its “school-destroying” minions through our freedom and free discussion. Governor Ghani has spoken frankly. More and more politicians must speak what they feel and not what suits their current strategy of toppling the party in power. (Daily Times)
Read more...
Tuesday, 23 September 2008
So, let us pull out of the war on terror. What is the alternative?
Digesting the Marriott blast
Some facts about the Marriott Hotel blast are coming out gradually as the scene of destruction is carefully examined and videos from the security cameras are scrutinised. More and more people are put off by the concept of suicide-bombing and are criticising it. The fifty-odd clerics who had issued the fatwa against it in 2005 — but were made to cower later by more aggressive clerics — are making their voice heard again. The Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) of Baitullah Mehsud in South Waziristan is reluctant to own it because of this change in public opinion.
But there is a difference of media opinion, mostly mutually intolerant, over the direction of the war to which the blast points. Unfortunately, the side that refuses to face reality is the one which says “it is not our war”, and relies on the now quite old and unacceptable pan-Islamist position that whatever Muslim extremists do is not “action” but “reaction” to some perceived injustice. What these people want everyone to believe is that the real unjust “action” is undertaken by someone else. This approach is supposed to decide the moral question of what is or isn’t “wrong doing”. Their argument is: what Muslims undertake is “reaction” and therefore doesn’t come in the category of “doing” something wrong, therefore there can be no moral judgement made on it. In this line of thinking, under all moral and criminal codes there is either absolution or mitigation for “reaction”. The question of looking for “causes” comes next. Since the Muslims have not “acted”, the argument goes, they have not caused anything to happen, hence the West and the United States have to sit down and admit to the criminality of their actions, and once they have done so, and properly compensated the Muslims for their past actions, the problem of violence and terrorism will go away automatically. Thus all moral obligations on the part of Muslims are dispensed with nicely.
But the blast at the Marriott has jolted this catechism and caused a rift. This rift undermines the unity among those who say “it is not our war”. The message behind this slogan is not a simple one. It has many ramifications and each has to be studied separately. On the face of it, the slogan gained strength after the “land invasion” of the CIA in South Waziristan earlier this month which caused the Pakistan Army and the PPP government to react in severe protest. The first message is that innocent Pakistanis die because the government is involved in the wrong war. The message has been repeated so much that most Pakistanis now believe that if Pakistan were to pull out of the “American war on terror”, innocent Muslims will no longer be killed.
But let us ask what will happen if Pakistan pulls out of the “war on terror”. The presumption, which is not spelled out, is that once this happens there will be no contradiction between Al Qaeda and its foot soldiers in FATA on the one hand and the state of Pakistan on the other. But what about the well established fact that Al Qaeda has a programme of “Islamic reform” that is global and which will start by converting Pakistan into a state based on Al Qaeda’s radical caliphate which will be the base area of its declared war on the US and the West? If we accept the assumption that our military capacity is not equal to engaging Al Qaeda in a civil war-like conflict, the unspoken assumption is that the Muslims of Pakistan will and should accept the Al Qaeda philosophy as “true faith” and allow the transformation of the state to Al Qaeda’s liking and standards. Of course, the “liberals” will be eliminated in the new order and this “wish” is apparent from the term “liberal fascists” that is being used these days in some reactionary Urdu columns.
This “it-is-not-our-war” group is clueless about what the Americans and their European allies — and others stretching as far eastward as Japan — can and may do after they no longer have to regard us as an ally but face as an ally of their enemies. Why doesn’t this group make any reference to the alternative strategy — “eat grass honourably?” — in the presumed post-pullout phase? Who will face up to the trespasses made by the NATO-ISAF forces into Pakistan? How will trespasses by Al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban in safe havens in FATA violate our sovereignty any less? Are we ready to trust the security of the state to Al Qaeda who will, if all goes according to its plan, of course be in charge of the armed forces and will control our nuclear capability? In fact it is this thought about nuclear weapons that inclines the “it-is-not-our-war” club to pre-emptively allege that the Americans are in Afghanistan to “grab our nuclear weapons”. But surely the global consensus on taking out the nuclear weapons acquired by Al Qaeda will develop much more dangerously than it is developing now.
Abandoning the war against terrorism is no solution to the problem of Al Qaeda and its radical global agenda. Those who propose it are now faced with the growing objection to the killing of innocent citizens. And they cannot convincingly argue that, after we have pulled out, either the Americans will stop attacking Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda will stop attacking us if the state of Pakistan does not capitulate to it. (Daily Times)
Read more...
Some facts about the Marriott Hotel blast are coming out gradually as the scene of destruction is carefully examined and videos from the security cameras are scrutinised. More and more people are put off by the concept of suicide-bombing and are criticising it. The fifty-odd clerics who had issued the fatwa against it in 2005 — but were made to cower later by more aggressive clerics — are making their voice heard again. The Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) of Baitullah Mehsud in South Waziristan is reluctant to own it because of this change in public opinion.
But there is a difference of media opinion, mostly mutually intolerant, over the direction of the war to which the blast points. Unfortunately, the side that refuses to face reality is the one which says “it is not our war”, and relies on the now quite old and unacceptable pan-Islamist position that whatever Muslim extremists do is not “action” but “reaction” to some perceived injustice. What these people want everyone to believe is that the real unjust “action” is undertaken by someone else. This approach is supposed to decide the moral question of what is or isn’t “wrong doing”. Their argument is: what Muslims undertake is “reaction” and therefore doesn’t come in the category of “doing” something wrong, therefore there can be no moral judgement made on it. In this line of thinking, under all moral and criminal codes there is either absolution or mitigation for “reaction”. The question of looking for “causes” comes next. Since the Muslims have not “acted”, the argument goes, they have not caused anything to happen, hence the West and the United States have to sit down and admit to the criminality of their actions, and once they have done so, and properly compensated the Muslims for their past actions, the problem of violence and terrorism will go away automatically. Thus all moral obligations on the part of Muslims are dispensed with nicely.
But the blast at the Marriott has jolted this catechism and caused a rift. This rift undermines the unity among those who say “it is not our war”. The message behind this slogan is not a simple one. It has many ramifications and each has to be studied separately. On the face of it, the slogan gained strength after the “land invasion” of the CIA in South Waziristan earlier this month which caused the Pakistan Army and the PPP government to react in severe protest. The first message is that innocent Pakistanis die because the government is involved in the wrong war. The message has been repeated so much that most Pakistanis now believe that if Pakistan were to pull out of the “American war on terror”, innocent Muslims will no longer be killed.
But let us ask what will happen if Pakistan pulls out of the “war on terror”. The presumption, which is not spelled out, is that once this happens there will be no contradiction between Al Qaeda and its foot soldiers in FATA on the one hand and the state of Pakistan on the other. But what about the well established fact that Al Qaeda has a programme of “Islamic reform” that is global and which will start by converting Pakistan into a state based on Al Qaeda’s radical caliphate which will be the base area of its declared war on the US and the West? If we accept the assumption that our military capacity is not equal to engaging Al Qaeda in a civil war-like conflict, the unspoken assumption is that the Muslims of Pakistan will and should accept the Al Qaeda philosophy as “true faith” and allow the transformation of the state to Al Qaeda’s liking and standards. Of course, the “liberals” will be eliminated in the new order and this “wish” is apparent from the term “liberal fascists” that is being used these days in some reactionary Urdu columns.
This “it-is-not-our-war” group is clueless about what the Americans and their European allies — and others stretching as far eastward as Japan — can and may do after they no longer have to regard us as an ally but face as an ally of their enemies. Why doesn’t this group make any reference to the alternative strategy — “eat grass honourably?” — in the presumed post-pullout phase? Who will face up to the trespasses made by the NATO-ISAF forces into Pakistan? How will trespasses by Al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban in safe havens in FATA violate our sovereignty any less? Are we ready to trust the security of the state to Al Qaeda who will, if all goes according to its plan, of course be in charge of the armed forces and will control our nuclear capability? In fact it is this thought about nuclear weapons that inclines the “it-is-not-our-war” club to pre-emptively allege that the Americans are in Afghanistan to “grab our nuclear weapons”. But surely the global consensus on taking out the nuclear weapons acquired by Al Qaeda will develop much more dangerously than it is developing now.
Abandoning the war against terrorism is no solution to the problem of Al Qaeda and its radical global agenda. Those who propose it are now faced with the growing objection to the killing of innocent citizens. And they cannot convincingly argue that, after we have pulled out, either the Americans will stop attacking Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda will stop attacking us if the state of Pakistan does not capitulate to it. (Daily Times)
Read more...
Significance of the Marriott bombing - By Khalid Aziz
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
by Khalid Aziz
The writer is a former chief secretary of NWFP and heads the Regional Institute of Policy Research
The suicide attack on the Marriott has brought into question Pakistan's participation in the war on terrorism. In a sense the attack was the consequence of the flawed policies which permitted our territories to be used as a place of refuge by the multinational militants who fled Afghanistan after the US attacked and destroyed the Taliban government in Kabul in November 2001.
From January 2008, Pakistan began to confront the militancy in FATA more vigorously. This new military trend was heralded with the launching of operation "Zalzala," against Baitullah Mahsud and his group. This operation was in the nature of collective punishment in which homes and property worth a considerable amount were destroyed, including the main market in Kotkai Razgai.
After the Mahsud operation the insurgency situation in parts of FATA and the NWFP has aggravated considerably. The operation in Bajaur has developed into a small war and the level of violence there is greater than in past confrontations. There are a considerable number of internally displaced persons generated by this new violence. More than 300,000 people have fled from the battle zones to other parts of Pakistan. Due to the increase in collateral deaths the number of motivated tribesmen seeking revenge by joining the ranks of suicide bombers has also increased. This is probably the cause of the Marriott bombing.
On the other hand Pakistan and its ally, the US, have differences over strategy. Pakistanis are upset by the violation of its sovereignty by the US. However, it is for consideration whether we should criticize others when the militants have already usurped Pakistani sovereignty over large tracts of territory south of Kohat; it barely exists in Waziristan. Obviously the loss of control over territory means that the militants have not only obtained control over people and resources but also have the space to plan and prepare operations in Pakistan.
It is now generally acknowledged that the militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan have mastered the art of communication operations. These aim to shift the perception of Pakistanis and Islamists around the world in their favour. The Marriott bombing is in the nature of an announcement that aims to challenge official Pakistani claims of ascendency in Bajaur and Swat. It is a statement telling the Pakistani political elite that the war and the cooperation with US will cost it dear.
Let us examine some of the other aspects of the Marriott bombing. This hotel is located within a security zone, which includes national institutions like the Supreme Court, the Prime Minister's Office and Parliament. On the day of the bombing the new Pakistani president was making his inaugural address to Parliament and the assembly was packed with Pakistan's civil, military and intellectual elite. One can conclude with a high degree of certainty that the target of the suicide raid was the National Assembly. If the attempt had succeeded the loss to Pakistan would have been great. It is surmised that the failure of the militants to penetrate the security around the Parliament forced them to divert to a secondary target, which happened to be the unfortunate hotel. A more successful militant attack would obviously have spread chaos and disorder causing destabilisation in Pakistan.
Secondly, the attack copied a strategy followed by Al Qaeda in Iraq in the Samarra bombing. That bombing was aimed at causing a Shia-Sunni war, which would have destroyed Iraq. A similar effect would have occurred in Pakistan had the National Assembly been hit. Is there a link between the Marriott bomber and the transnational militants fighting in Khost, Paktika and Paktia provinces of Afghanistan? The existence of such a connection cannot be over ruled.
What are the likely consequences of this tragedy? First, it is clear that its impact on Pakistani people will be one of revulsion and hatred against the militants; this is the sentiment which prevails in FATA when collateral deaths are caused by Pakistani or US attacks. The sufferers are infused with hatred and wish revenge. The families of those who suffered in this attack must feel the same way. Although the militants carried out a strategic information attack but the effect on their cause is negative. It will build the resolve of Pakistanis to support their government more.
What other messages can one get from the Marriott tragedy? First, we must implement a "zero tolerance" policy on militancy of any kind. It is extremely dangerous to believe that we would benefit from distinguishing between good and bad terrorists, as Gen Musharraf did. Gen Musharraf allowed safe refuge in Waziristan to militants who fled from Afghanistan after the US attack in November 2001. By doing so Musharraf endangered Pakistan's national security. By permitting such war-hardened radicals to fraternise with Pakistani tribes permitted the establishment of a very dangerous type of social networking. It is this association which has spread the virus of militancy throughout FATA and the NWFP and could soon infect other parts of Pakistan. The Jamia Hafsa episode is yet another example of the radical type of networking reaching critical mass right in the heart of Islamabad. American political scientist Paul E Petersen has remarked that "people don't get pushed into rebellion by their ideology. They get pulled in by their social network." If Pakistan wants to move away from this self-created calamity then it needs to transform itself and reject association with proxy warriors of any kind, irrespective of any strategic advantage that they may provide.
If social networking is at the heart of terrorism then the Marriott bombing is a call to put into practice a whole range of policies to counter the anti-Pakistan social networks. It would mean the mobilisation of communities in FATA and the NWFP to protect themselves against the militants. Techniques and plans for such an approach exist and need to be examined for implementation. If one can re-occupy the national space in an average Pakistani's heart, then one could say that the country has achieved the threshold for success. One of the central principles of this approach is to address effectively the everyday problems of a poor Pakistan. In order to do so the leadership will have to become more responsive to the needs of the average Pakistani.
Furthermore, we need to re-examine our security policies related to Afghanistan, FATA and the US. One of the problems of this war is that the operations in Afghanistan are planned by the US military, the CIA and NATO. While there can be coordination between the US military, NATO and Pakistan, the same cannot be said for the CIA, which is a law unto itself. Otherwise, how else can one explain the embarrassment of the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee during his recent meeting with Pakistani authorities? At the very moment Admiral Mullen was making a commitment to the Pakistani leadership that US attacks on the country would cease, US Predators were attacking Waziristan. To end this confusion it is essential for the US to have a single commander in Afghanistan who is in charge of both overt and covert operations. Pakistan must remain in the information loop if we want to win the war on terrorism.
Pakistan needs to carry out a security overview of lapses that occurred during the Marriott bombing. Security was woefully poor and badly compromised. It is time that we emphasised the protection of the people of Pakistan. Only then will we succeed in meeting this challenge.
Email: azizkhalid @gmail.com (The News)
Read more...
by Khalid Aziz
The writer is a former chief secretary of NWFP and heads the Regional Institute of Policy Research
The suicide attack on the Marriott has brought into question Pakistan's participation in the war on terrorism. In a sense the attack was the consequence of the flawed policies which permitted our territories to be used as a place of refuge by the multinational militants who fled Afghanistan after the US attacked and destroyed the Taliban government in Kabul in November 2001.
From January 2008, Pakistan began to confront the militancy in FATA more vigorously. This new military trend was heralded with the launching of operation "Zalzala," against Baitullah Mahsud and his group. This operation was in the nature of collective punishment in which homes and property worth a considerable amount were destroyed, including the main market in Kotkai Razgai.
After the Mahsud operation the insurgency situation in parts of FATA and the NWFP has aggravated considerably. The operation in Bajaur has developed into a small war and the level of violence there is greater than in past confrontations. There are a considerable number of internally displaced persons generated by this new violence. More than 300,000 people have fled from the battle zones to other parts of Pakistan. Due to the increase in collateral deaths the number of motivated tribesmen seeking revenge by joining the ranks of suicide bombers has also increased. This is probably the cause of the Marriott bombing.
On the other hand Pakistan and its ally, the US, have differences over strategy. Pakistanis are upset by the violation of its sovereignty by the US. However, it is for consideration whether we should criticize others when the militants have already usurped Pakistani sovereignty over large tracts of territory south of Kohat; it barely exists in Waziristan. Obviously the loss of control over territory means that the militants have not only obtained control over people and resources but also have the space to plan and prepare operations in Pakistan.
It is now generally acknowledged that the militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan have mastered the art of communication operations. These aim to shift the perception of Pakistanis and Islamists around the world in their favour. The Marriott bombing is in the nature of an announcement that aims to challenge official Pakistani claims of ascendency in Bajaur and Swat. It is a statement telling the Pakistani political elite that the war and the cooperation with US will cost it dear.
Let us examine some of the other aspects of the Marriott bombing. This hotel is located within a security zone, which includes national institutions like the Supreme Court, the Prime Minister's Office and Parliament. On the day of the bombing the new Pakistani president was making his inaugural address to Parliament and the assembly was packed with Pakistan's civil, military and intellectual elite. One can conclude with a high degree of certainty that the target of the suicide raid was the National Assembly. If the attempt had succeeded the loss to Pakistan would have been great. It is surmised that the failure of the militants to penetrate the security around the Parliament forced them to divert to a secondary target, which happened to be the unfortunate hotel. A more successful militant attack would obviously have spread chaos and disorder causing destabilisation in Pakistan.
Secondly, the attack copied a strategy followed by Al Qaeda in Iraq in the Samarra bombing. That bombing was aimed at causing a Shia-Sunni war, which would have destroyed Iraq. A similar effect would have occurred in Pakistan had the National Assembly been hit. Is there a link between the Marriott bomber and the transnational militants fighting in Khost, Paktika and Paktia provinces of Afghanistan? The existence of such a connection cannot be over ruled.
What are the likely consequences of this tragedy? First, it is clear that its impact on Pakistani people will be one of revulsion and hatred against the militants; this is the sentiment which prevails in FATA when collateral deaths are caused by Pakistani or US attacks. The sufferers are infused with hatred and wish revenge. The families of those who suffered in this attack must feel the same way. Although the militants carried out a strategic information attack but the effect on their cause is negative. It will build the resolve of Pakistanis to support their government more.
What other messages can one get from the Marriott tragedy? First, we must implement a "zero tolerance" policy on militancy of any kind. It is extremely dangerous to believe that we would benefit from distinguishing between good and bad terrorists, as Gen Musharraf did. Gen Musharraf allowed safe refuge in Waziristan to militants who fled from Afghanistan after the US attack in November 2001. By doing so Musharraf endangered Pakistan's national security. By permitting such war-hardened radicals to fraternise with Pakistani tribes permitted the establishment of a very dangerous type of social networking. It is this association which has spread the virus of militancy throughout FATA and the NWFP and could soon infect other parts of Pakistan. The Jamia Hafsa episode is yet another example of the radical type of networking reaching critical mass right in the heart of Islamabad. American political scientist Paul E Petersen has remarked that "people don't get pushed into rebellion by their ideology. They get pulled in by their social network." If Pakistan wants to move away from this self-created calamity then it needs to transform itself and reject association with proxy warriors of any kind, irrespective of any strategic advantage that they may provide.
If social networking is at the heart of terrorism then the Marriott bombing is a call to put into practice a whole range of policies to counter the anti-Pakistan social networks. It would mean the mobilisation of communities in FATA and the NWFP to protect themselves against the militants. Techniques and plans for such an approach exist and need to be examined for implementation. If one can re-occupy the national space in an average Pakistani's heart, then one could say that the country has achieved the threshold for success. One of the central principles of this approach is to address effectively the everyday problems of a poor Pakistan. In order to do so the leadership will have to become more responsive to the needs of the average Pakistani.
Furthermore, we need to re-examine our security policies related to Afghanistan, FATA and the US. One of the problems of this war is that the operations in Afghanistan are planned by the US military, the CIA and NATO. While there can be coordination between the US military, NATO and Pakistan, the same cannot be said for the CIA, which is a law unto itself. Otherwise, how else can one explain the embarrassment of the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee during his recent meeting with Pakistani authorities? At the very moment Admiral Mullen was making a commitment to the Pakistani leadership that US attacks on the country would cease, US Predators were attacking Waziristan. To end this confusion it is essential for the US to have a single commander in Afghanistan who is in charge of both overt and covert operations. Pakistan must remain in the information loop if we want to win the war on terrorism.
Pakistan needs to carry out a security overview of lapses that occurred during the Marriott bombing. Security was woefully poor and badly compromised. It is time that we emphasised the protection of the people of Pakistan. Only then will we succeed in meeting this challenge.
Email: azizkhalid @gmail.com (The News)
Read more...
Liar, Taliban supporter, Ansar Abbasi must be tried in an anti-terrorism court because of his lies in the Marriott Hotel Attack Report - Mumtaz Gilani
MNA threatens to sue journalist
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
ISLAMABAD: Mumtaz Alam Gillani, member national assembly (PPP) on Monday strongly contradicted a news item appearing in a section of the press on September 21 that he was witness to a US embassy white truck carrying steel boxes, which were unloaded and shifted inside the Marriott hotel.
Mumtaz Alam Gillani told APP that this was just a conversation in a light mood with the reporter when he along with his friends was coming out of the hotel and some foreigners were going inside the hotel. “I had just roadside chit-chat in a friendly manner with the newsman and told him that Pakistan is a victim of terrorism”, Gillani clarified.
He further said he would be issuing a legal notice to the reporter of the newspaper whose story is based on “pack of lies” and contrary to all professional ethics.
“I have asked the reporter to contradict the news item and tender unconditional apology as he tried to belittle my image as member of parliament in the eyes of the people, particularly of my constituency”, Mumtaz Alam Gillani said.
The MNA further said that on expiry of 10-day notice if the apology is not tendered and contradiction not issued, he will sue the reporter and the newspapers in a Court of law.—APP (The News)
Read more...
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
ISLAMABAD: Mumtaz Alam Gillani, member national assembly (PPP) on Monday strongly contradicted a news item appearing in a section of the press on September 21 that he was witness to a US embassy white truck carrying steel boxes, which were unloaded and shifted inside the Marriott hotel.
Mumtaz Alam Gillani told APP that this was just a conversation in a light mood with the reporter when he along with his friends was coming out of the hotel and some foreigners were going inside the hotel. “I had just roadside chit-chat in a friendly manner with the newsman and told him that Pakistan is a victim of terrorism”, Gillani clarified.
He further said he would be issuing a legal notice to the reporter of the newspaper whose story is based on “pack of lies” and contrary to all professional ethics.
“I have asked the reporter to contradict the news item and tender unconditional apology as he tried to belittle my image as member of parliament in the eyes of the people, particularly of my constituency”, Mumtaz Alam Gillani said.
The MNA further said that on expiry of 10-day notice if the apology is not tendered and contradiction not issued, he will sue the reporter and the newspapers in a Court of law.—APP (The News)
Read more...
Monday, 22 September 2008
Ansar Abbasi, Hamid Mir - Read this editorial in your own paper, Daily News.
Pakistan’s 9/11
Monday, September 22, 2008
The Marriottt in Islamabad is no more. This is a reality that many are still finding it hard to come to terms with. The hotel, where wedding guests assembled, where friends chatted, where journalists covering key events gathered, where business deals were struck and from where tourists ventured out to explore Pakistan has been converted into a charred ruin. The last ‘Iftaris’ taking place at it turned into a dark nightmare as a suicide bomber rammed a truck loaded with explosives into its entrance. At least 60 people have died; more than 300 injured. The precise toll is still impossible to determine with bodies still being pulled out from rooms engulfed by an inferno unleashed by the blast.
Even in a nation that has become resilient to shock and accustomed to terrorist violence, the attack has created horror. It is being described as the worst suicide bombing yet to take place in the country - Pakistan’s very own 9/11. The bomber is believed to have used 1000 kilograms of high-quality explosives in the attack. There can be no doubt about his intentions. The act has proven too that terrorism is an evil that Pakistan must fight. It is not a war that involves the US, or other powers. It directly affects each and every one of us; we must therefore fight it. The people who died are almost all Pakistanis. Most among them are poor security guards, drivers, waiters, hotel staff - caught as the explosion ripped through the building. Those who killed them are too Pakistanis. They are not aliens, not outsiders. It is our flawed policies that have allowed them to grow and to develop the maddened mindsets of hatred that spurs their actions. It is senseless to point fingers elsewhere. We must wake up to the fact that these people come from amongst us; they target venues within the country and they kill their own countrymen.
It is time we accepted this war is our own. There must be no ambiguity about this. The Marriott, for many, was the face of Islamabad. Its destruction is a reminder of the scale of the threat we face. No one in the country is safe, no place secure.
The opinions we still hear everywhere, in roadside cafes, in offices - and among the country’s establishment - that the militants who have entrenched themselves in northern areas are ‘good’ people, that force should not be used against them - is one reason why we today face such high levels of peril. Pakistan is now rated as the most dangerous place in the world. All those who have seen the charred graveyard of vehicles, of trees torn apart, of ash covering green belts, of people writhing in hospital beds, will not disagree with this assessment. Yet the fact that so many still believe the forces capable of the mayhem we saw in Islamabad on Saturday deserve some kind of protection, that they deserve to be regarded as men of honour with whom dialogue is possible, explains why they have so far proved invincible. Such thinking needs to change. There must be a consensus across society about the need to act with unity and determination to save what still remains of our wounded country. We must try to breathe life back into it. As inevitably happens after any major incident, rumours, theories, conjecture about why the Marriott was targeted will continue to circulate. There has been vague talk of US nationals being present, of equipment being moved in. This is irrelevant. It is senseless to attempt to decipher the motives driving killers to acts of evil. What is important is to find a way to vanquish them. The President, in the immediate aftermath of the blast, has spoken of the need to turn sorrow into strength, to face the situation with courage. The words express the right sentiments. What is crucial is to find the means to act on them and to ensure that everyone in circles of decision-making is working towards the same goal. The civilian and military government must ensure cooperation and combined planning towards this end.
There are now several key challenges ahead. They go beyond the question of immediate arrests or an investigation of the blast itself.
These are of course important, but we need to look further and draw up a plan of action that in time will help us build a country where people are safe and where the terror that lurks everywhere in Islamabad and indeed other cities does not forever haunt us. How can this be done? Indeed can it now be achieved at all? These are questions we must face up to. Too much time has already been lost. The actions being contemplated today should have come years, perhaps, decades sooner. After all, suicide bombings were, even five years ago, almost unknown in the country. We must ask ourselves how we so rapidly descended in the abyss of violence we face today. In 2003, 189 people in the country died in terrorist related incidents. In 2007 this figure stood at over 3,500. In 2002, 20 died in two suicide attacks.
For 2008 the figure already stands at over 300. Who knows what the toll will be by the time the year reaches its bloody end. An understanding of how this happened, and why it was allowed to happen, is crucial to developing a strategy to deal with the ghastly realty we face.
But there are ways to try and overcome terror, provided there is will, and commitment and a shared vision. The measures that are required include an improvement in security and the training of personnel at checkposts. In Iraq, such an enhancement in their skills has helped bring down the number of bombings and the number of deaths. But far more is needed than mere security. The fact is that today, thousands of persons recruited through the years for ‘jihad’ by militant outfits - with or without official patronage - roam in our cities, our towns, our tribal areas. In most cases their only skills involve the use of guns, grenades and bombs. A means has to be found to rehabilitate these people and prevent them from leading still others down the staircase that leads to violence. In times of high unemployment and high desperation such recruitment is taking place rapidly. We must also act decisively against key militants, their outfits and their seminaries. Many in northern areas are able to identify seminaries where killers are trained. Such institutions exist too in our cities.
They must be closed down. The immediate task for the government is to build the consensus required to go about this. There is no time to lose, no time to waste. The still smouldering remains of the Marriott are a reminder of the need for urgent action. If we fail now, there will yet be worse to come in the days ahead.
Read more...
Monday, September 22, 2008
The Marriottt in Islamabad is no more. This is a reality that many are still finding it hard to come to terms with. The hotel, where wedding guests assembled, where friends chatted, where journalists covering key events gathered, where business deals were struck and from where tourists ventured out to explore Pakistan has been converted into a charred ruin. The last ‘Iftaris’ taking place at it turned into a dark nightmare as a suicide bomber rammed a truck loaded with explosives into its entrance. At least 60 people have died; more than 300 injured. The precise toll is still impossible to determine with bodies still being pulled out from rooms engulfed by an inferno unleashed by the blast.
Even in a nation that has become resilient to shock and accustomed to terrorist violence, the attack has created horror. It is being described as the worst suicide bombing yet to take place in the country - Pakistan’s very own 9/11. The bomber is believed to have used 1000 kilograms of high-quality explosives in the attack. There can be no doubt about his intentions. The act has proven too that terrorism is an evil that Pakistan must fight. It is not a war that involves the US, or other powers. It directly affects each and every one of us; we must therefore fight it. The people who died are almost all Pakistanis. Most among them are poor security guards, drivers, waiters, hotel staff - caught as the explosion ripped through the building. Those who killed them are too Pakistanis. They are not aliens, not outsiders. It is our flawed policies that have allowed them to grow and to develop the maddened mindsets of hatred that spurs their actions. It is senseless to point fingers elsewhere. We must wake up to the fact that these people come from amongst us; they target venues within the country and they kill their own countrymen.
It is time we accepted this war is our own. There must be no ambiguity about this. The Marriott, for many, was the face of Islamabad. Its destruction is a reminder of the scale of the threat we face. No one in the country is safe, no place secure.
The opinions we still hear everywhere, in roadside cafes, in offices - and among the country’s establishment - that the militants who have entrenched themselves in northern areas are ‘good’ people, that force should not be used against them - is one reason why we today face such high levels of peril. Pakistan is now rated as the most dangerous place in the world. All those who have seen the charred graveyard of vehicles, of trees torn apart, of ash covering green belts, of people writhing in hospital beds, will not disagree with this assessment. Yet the fact that so many still believe the forces capable of the mayhem we saw in Islamabad on Saturday deserve some kind of protection, that they deserve to be regarded as men of honour with whom dialogue is possible, explains why they have so far proved invincible. Such thinking needs to change. There must be a consensus across society about the need to act with unity and determination to save what still remains of our wounded country. We must try to breathe life back into it. As inevitably happens after any major incident, rumours, theories, conjecture about why the Marriott was targeted will continue to circulate. There has been vague talk of US nationals being present, of equipment being moved in. This is irrelevant. It is senseless to attempt to decipher the motives driving killers to acts of evil. What is important is to find a way to vanquish them. The President, in the immediate aftermath of the blast, has spoken of the need to turn sorrow into strength, to face the situation with courage. The words express the right sentiments. What is crucial is to find the means to act on them and to ensure that everyone in circles of decision-making is working towards the same goal. The civilian and military government must ensure cooperation and combined planning towards this end.
There are now several key challenges ahead. They go beyond the question of immediate arrests or an investigation of the blast itself.
These are of course important, but we need to look further and draw up a plan of action that in time will help us build a country where people are safe and where the terror that lurks everywhere in Islamabad and indeed other cities does not forever haunt us. How can this be done? Indeed can it now be achieved at all? These are questions we must face up to. Too much time has already been lost. The actions being contemplated today should have come years, perhaps, decades sooner. After all, suicide bombings were, even five years ago, almost unknown in the country. We must ask ourselves how we so rapidly descended in the abyss of violence we face today. In 2003, 189 people in the country died in terrorist related incidents. In 2007 this figure stood at over 3,500. In 2002, 20 died in two suicide attacks.
For 2008 the figure already stands at over 300. Who knows what the toll will be by the time the year reaches its bloody end. An understanding of how this happened, and why it was allowed to happen, is crucial to developing a strategy to deal with the ghastly realty we face.
But there are ways to try and overcome terror, provided there is will, and commitment and a shared vision. The measures that are required include an improvement in security and the training of personnel at checkposts. In Iraq, such an enhancement in their skills has helped bring down the number of bombings and the number of deaths. But far more is needed than mere security. The fact is that today, thousands of persons recruited through the years for ‘jihad’ by militant outfits - with or without official patronage - roam in our cities, our towns, our tribal areas. In most cases their only skills involve the use of guns, grenades and bombs. A means has to be found to rehabilitate these people and prevent them from leading still others down the staircase that leads to violence. In times of high unemployment and high desperation such recruitment is taking place rapidly. We must also act decisively against key militants, their outfits and their seminaries. Many in northern areas are able to identify seminaries where killers are trained. Such institutions exist too in our cities.
They must be closed down. The immediate task for the government is to build the consensus required to go about this. There is no time to lose, no time to waste. The still smouldering remains of the Marriott are a reminder of the need for urgent action. If we fail now, there will yet be worse to come in the days ahead.
Read more...
Terrorism apologists - Read this editorial in Daily Dawn
Defeating terrorism
THE carnage at Islamabad’s Marriott Hotel has shocked Pakistan and has been rightly condemned. The target may have been ‘western’ but the timing — soon after iftar — ensured that the majority of victims were Pakistani. In the days ahead, the bombing will take to a fever pitch the debate about whether Pakistan is fighting its own war against terrorism or America’s. The debate will miss the point: it is an internal war, and it goes to the heart of what we want Pakistan to be. Do we want a country that provides a decent standard of living in a safe environment for its citizens? Or do we want to fight ideological wars that will condemn us to a vicious cycle of death and destruction? For the terrorism apologists, a strange distinction holds: that those opposing the Americans or Indians or the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan are not our concern because they do not want to harm us. This is not true. They do harm us because they retard our future and, as the Marriott bombing so viciously demonstrated, they destroy our present.
More urgently than ever, the defence establishment needs to get its act together. The civilian leaders and their uniformed counterparts must draw up a clear policy to fight terrorism. Pakistan is not faced with an ordinary law and order situation and the terrorist violence is not confined to a few areas. A counter-insurgency strategy is needed for all parts of Pakistan and the defence establishment must quickly pull together every strand of available resources. No doubt even the most efficient administrations in the world would be taxed by such a task. But what is truly distressing about Pakistan is the utter lack of any visible direction. Since Aug 6, Pakistan has been fighting militants in Bajaur. Yet virtually no one in the country is aware of who we are fighting and why. Worse yet, it’s not clear who is responsible for the operation: the political government, the military or both? Is it any surprise that the people are confused and split when they do not know who we are fighting, why we are fighting and even who ‘we’ is?
Read more...
THE carnage at Islamabad’s Marriott Hotel has shocked Pakistan and has been rightly condemned. The target may have been ‘western’ but the timing — soon after iftar — ensured that the majority of victims were Pakistani. In the days ahead, the bombing will take to a fever pitch the debate about whether Pakistan is fighting its own war against terrorism or America’s. The debate will miss the point: it is an internal war, and it goes to the heart of what we want Pakistan to be. Do we want a country that provides a decent standard of living in a safe environment for its citizens? Or do we want to fight ideological wars that will condemn us to a vicious cycle of death and destruction? For the terrorism apologists, a strange distinction holds: that those opposing the Americans or Indians or the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan are not our concern because they do not want to harm us. This is not true. They do harm us because they retard our future and, as the Marriott bombing so viciously demonstrated, they destroy our present.
More urgently than ever, the defence establishment needs to get its act together. The civilian leaders and their uniformed counterparts must draw up a clear policy to fight terrorism. Pakistan is not faced with an ordinary law and order situation and the terrorist violence is not confined to a few areas. A counter-insurgency strategy is needed for all parts of Pakistan and the defence establishment must quickly pull together every strand of available resources. No doubt even the most efficient administrations in the world would be taxed by such a task. But what is truly distressing about Pakistan is the utter lack of any visible direction. Since Aug 6, Pakistan has been fighting militants in Bajaur. Yet virtually no one in the country is aware of who we are fighting and why. Worse yet, it’s not clear who is responsible for the operation: the political government, the military or both? Is it any surprise that the people are confused and split when they do not know who we are fighting, why we are fighting and even who ‘we’ is?
Read more...
Admit it: this is Pakistan’s war
Twelve hours after the blasting of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, the flames had still not been doused. The medium-sized Shehzore truck, packed with 600 kg of RDX explosives, drove up to the hotel barrier and exploded, setting the hotel on fire. It is more than likely that, just as he was “pleasantly” surprised by the result of the attack on the World Trade Centre in New York in 2001, Osama bin Laden must have been “happily” surprised by the total annihilation of the hotel with a truck that, according to the owner Mr Sadruddin Hashwani, was not even allowed to enter the premises but stopped at the barrier near the main road by the hotel guards.
Islamabad has received major attention from Al Qaeda after the elections in 2008, at the rate of almost once a month. Al Qaeda has acknowledged bombing the Danish embassy while letting its Taliban minions accept responsibility for others. And Al Qaeda is not new to the task. In 1995, by his own admission, Aiman al Zawahiri had proclaimed his theory of al adu al qarib (the near enemy) by bombing and completely destroying the Egyptian embassy in Islamabad. However, despite all this special attention from Al Qaeda, the security agencies have not been able to “secure” Islamabad. One reason is obvious. Suicide bombers are virtually unstoppable. Another is the existence of Al Qaeda sympathisers and facilitators at every level of Pakistani society, but especially at the lower level. A third is the lack of anti-terrorist training in our civilian intelligence agencies which are ill-staffed and ill-equipped. Low levels of pay account for low levels of motivation too.
The target may have been the parliament building where President Asif Zardari made his speech in the presence of all the important personages of the state. A truck laden with explosives was allowed to move on the roads of the capital city without sufficient checking. One reason is that it was camouflaged as a contruction-goods carrier, which made it congruous with the construction sites across the city. Apparently it was “checked” a short distance from the Marriott but the checking was confined to diverting it in one sensitive area rather than examing its contents. According to former secretary FATA, Brigadier (Retd) Mehmood Khan, the explosives could be from the Wah munitions factory, contents of a truck hijacked by Al Qaeda not long ago. Al Qaeda was thus using local resources.
The Marriott Hotel was probably the secondary target. Unfortunately, no one in Islamabad possessed the imagination to visualise what Al Qaeda could do with suicide-bombing. The hotel had received three hits before this, once clearly threatened by the clerics of Lal Masjid who boasted having many suicide-bombers in reserve, an oblique reference to the destructive ability of Al Qaeda, the patron of the growing strength of violent clergy in Islamabad, with nearly a hundred madrassas, many of them illegal. The seizure of Islamabad is on the drawing board of the leaders of Al Qaeda.
Regrettably, there was some “deflective” journalism in evidence soon enough. One commentator said President Zardari should go to the US, stare President Bush in the eye and challenge him. Another seriously wondered if the blast might actually have been caused by “foreign” powers, a reference that could embrace anyone from India, Afghanistan, Israel and Russia to the United States. One journalist alleged that the Marriott was a target because some American Marines had secretly holed out there during Admiral Mike Mullen’s visit to Islamabad last week. A cleric in Quetta said he could not condemn the attack because it was a fidai hamla (suicide attack) aimed at “America and its accomplices”. A leader of Jama’at-e Islami thought it could be a sequel to blasts in India, meaning that it could be a tit-for-tat incident from India and not from someone inside Pakistan. It is amazing how these people are deceiving themselves and the people of Pakistan by not calling a spade a spade —Al Qaedi did it — because of their anti-Americanism, however justified that may be.
Thankfully, it was Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani who was direct and clear in his designation of the enemy. He said the attack had come from Al Qaeda and its thousands of “foreign” terrorists now located in the Tribal Areas. President Zardari was more exhortative when he said he and the people of Pakistan would together face the onslaught of terrorism and referred to “the wife that he had buried” after she fell victim to the same terrorists not too far from Islamabad last December. It was also good to see Rehman Malik, the advisor to the interior ministry, arrive at the site and take charge minutes after the incident and facilitate the treatment of the casualties in the various hospitals of the city.
Let us admit it. This is Pakistan’s war that Pakistan’s army is fighting. Let us also admit that Pakistan needs alignments at the global level to even diagnose what is happening to it, apart from the crucial intelligence about the movement and intent — through tapped phone calls — of Al Qaeda and those who serve it. And let us admit that, given its economic crisis, Pakistan cannot even deploy the muscle it possesses against the terrorists unless it is assisted with funds, expertise and technology from its friends abroad. (Daily Times)
Read more...
Islamabad has received major attention from Al Qaeda after the elections in 2008, at the rate of almost once a month. Al Qaeda has acknowledged bombing the Danish embassy while letting its Taliban minions accept responsibility for others. And Al Qaeda is not new to the task. In 1995, by his own admission, Aiman al Zawahiri had proclaimed his theory of al adu al qarib (the near enemy) by bombing and completely destroying the Egyptian embassy in Islamabad. However, despite all this special attention from Al Qaeda, the security agencies have not been able to “secure” Islamabad. One reason is obvious. Suicide bombers are virtually unstoppable. Another is the existence of Al Qaeda sympathisers and facilitators at every level of Pakistani society, but especially at the lower level. A third is the lack of anti-terrorist training in our civilian intelligence agencies which are ill-staffed and ill-equipped. Low levels of pay account for low levels of motivation too.
The target may have been the parliament building where President Asif Zardari made his speech in the presence of all the important personages of the state. A truck laden with explosives was allowed to move on the roads of the capital city without sufficient checking. One reason is that it was camouflaged as a contruction-goods carrier, which made it congruous with the construction sites across the city. Apparently it was “checked” a short distance from the Marriott but the checking was confined to diverting it in one sensitive area rather than examing its contents. According to former secretary FATA, Brigadier (Retd) Mehmood Khan, the explosives could be from the Wah munitions factory, contents of a truck hijacked by Al Qaeda not long ago. Al Qaeda was thus using local resources.
The Marriott Hotel was probably the secondary target. Unfortunately, no one in Islamabad possessed the imagination to visualise what Al Qaeda could do with suicide-bombing. The hotel had received three hits before this, once clearly threatened by the clerics of Lal Masjid who boasted having many suicide-bombers in reserve, an oblique reference to the destructive ability of Al Qaeda, the patron of the growing strength of violent clergy in Islamabad, with nearly a hundred madrassas, many of them illegal. The seizure of Islamabad is on the drawing board of the leaders of Al Qaeda.
Regrettably, there was some “deflective” journalism in evidence soon enough. One commentator said President Zardari should go to the US, stare President Bush in the eye and challenge him. Another seriously wondered if the blast might actually have been caused by “foreign” powers, a reference that could embrace anyone from India, Afghanistan, Israel and Russia to the United States. One journalist alleged that the Marriott was a target because some American Marines had secretly holed out there during Admiral Mike Mullen’s visit to Islamabad last week. A cleric in Quetta said he could not condemn the attack because it was a fidai hamla (suicide attack) aimed at “America and its accomplices”. A leader of Jama’at-e Islami thought it could be a sequel to blasts in India, meaning that it could be a tit-for-tat incident from India and not from someone inside Pakistan. It is amazing how these people are deceiving themselves and the people of Pakistan by not calling a spade a spade —Al Qaedi did it — because of their anti-Americanism, however justified that may be.
Thankfully, it was Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani who was direct and clear in his designation of the enemy. He said the attack had come from Al Qaeda and its thousands of “foreign” terrorists now located in the Tribal Areas. President Zardari was more exhortative when he said he and the people of Pakistan would together face the onslaught of terrorism and referred to “the wife that he had buried” after she fell victim to the same terrorists not too far from Islamabad last December. It was also good to see Rehman Malik, the advisor to the interior ministry, arrive at the site and take charge minutes after the incident and facilitate the treatment of the casualties in the various hospitals of the city.
Let us admit it. This is Pakistan’s war that Pakistan’s army is fighting. Let us also admit that Pakistan needs alignments at the global level to even diagnose what is happening to it, apart from the crucial intelligence about the movement and intent — through tapped phone calls — of Al Qaeda and those who serve it. And let us admit that, given its economic crisis, Pakistan cannot even deploy the muscle it possesses against the terrorists unless it is assisted with funds, expertise and technology from its friends abroad. (Daily Times)
Read more...
Ansar Abbasi, Hamid Mir, Irfan Siddiqi, other supporters of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda... Read this column! by Abbas Ather
Sunday, 21 September 2008
Defeating terrorism: The carnage at Islamabad’s Marriott Hotel
Sunday, 21 Sep,
The carnage at Islamabad’s Marriott Hotel has shocked Pakistan and has been rightly condemned. The target may have been ‘western’ but the timing — soon after iftar — ensured that the majority of victims were Pakistani. In the days ahead, the bombing will take to a fever pitch the debate about whether Pakistan is fighting its own war against terrorism or America’s. The debate will miss the point: it is an internal war, and it goes to the heart of what we want Pakistan to be. Do we want a country that provides a decent standard of living in a safe environment for its citizens? Or do we want to fight ideological wars that will condemn us to a vicious cycle of death and destruction? For the terrorism apologists, a strange distinction holds: that those opposing the Americans or Indians or the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan are not our concern because they do not want to harm us. This is a not true. They do harm us because they retard our future and, as the Marriott bombing so viciously demonstrated, they destroy our present. (Daily Dawn)
Read more...
The carnage at Islamabad’s Marriott Hotel has shocked Pakistan and has been rightly condemned. The target may have been ‘western’ but the timing — soon after iftar — ensured that the majority of victims were Pakistani. In the days ahead, the bombing will take to a fever pitch the debate about whether Pakistan is fighting its own war against terrorism or America’s. The debate will miss the point: it is an internal war, and it goes to the heart of what we want Pakistan to be. Do we want a country that provides a decent standard of living in a safe environment for its citizens? Or do we want to fight ideological wars that will condemn us to a vicious cycle of death and destruction? For the terrorism apologists, a strange distinction holds: that those opposing the Americans or Indians or the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan are not our concern because they do not want to harm us. This is a not true. They do harm us because they retard our future and, as the Marriott bombing so viciously demonstrated, they destroy our present. (Daily Dawn)
Read more...
Doublecross: Musharraf and Pakistan Army's ambiguous stance toward Al-Qaeda and Taliban-
According to the US-based Pew Research Centre’s Global Attitudes Project, the number of Muslims globally supporting suicide attacks and Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden has fallen sharply in the past six years. But the think tank still has its red signal on about “significant Muslim minorities in eight countries continuing to endorse suicide bombings and the Al Qaeda chief”.
Significantly, the number of Lebanese Muslims justifying suicide attacks has come down from 74 percent in 2004 to 32 percent today. In Pakistan, this support for suicide-bombing has come down from 33 percent in 2002 to 5 percent today. In Jordan, the support remains high at 25 percent although it has fallen recently. Only 10 percent of Indonesians now support suicide bombing, in contrast to Nigeria where 33 percent of Muslims still justify it, despite a fall from over 70 percent in 2002.
Popular support for Osama bin Laden has fallen steeply from a peak in 2002 but still remains dangerously high. In Pakistan one-third of those asked still think he is a good guy. Unlike Jordan, where support for him has fallen dramatically to 19 percent, in Pakistan it is steady around one-third. Understandably, secular Turkey has scored low on both counts.
It is important to view Pakistan a little differently from the rest of the Islamic world. This is where Osama bin Laden feels close to home. Also, he is probably located inside Pakistan. His organisation Al Qaeda is palpable here and doesn’t need “sleeper cells”. It has around 8,000 “foreigners” in Pakistan ready to lay down their lives as combatants or suicide-bombers because they are “uprooted” and ready to abandon life. It has its foot soldiers among two types of Taliban, the Afghan ones and those in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA); and among Pakistanis from the rest of the country who are members of once state-supported jihadi militias.
The Pew survey was carefully modelled to test the opinion of a cross-section of the population in Pakistan. But in many ways this methodology is irrelevant to the “devolution of power” in a state that is fast losing its internal sovereignty. In fact, our state has been leeched of its “monopoly of violence” by the madrassa with a stranglehold on the people no matter what opinion they hold about Al Qaeda and suicide-bombing. For instance, it would be useless to poll the citizens in Islamabad when 80 madrassas hold power over them and scores more have sprung up since the state’s face-off with Lal Masjid last year.
Another distortion that sets Pakistan apart is the “lost territory” in FATA and the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA). Populations living under Al Qaeda here were first unsure about who they supported but after the failure of the state to protect them they have generally swung in favour of Al Qaeda. Whereas in the Tribal Areas there is no difference between Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, in the rest of the country bin Laden is set apart as the symbol of Islam’s struggle against the US.
Al Qaeda was “facilitated” on the basis of the agreed military “doctrine” pronounced by General Pervez Musharraf in his address to the nation on September 20, 2001, after he had decided to join America’s global “war against terror”. His speech was lynch-pinned to this reference to India: “What do the Indians want? They do not have common borders with Afghanistan anywhere. It is totally isolated from Afghanistan. In my view it is so surprising that the Indians want to ensure that if and when the government in Afghanistan changes, it shall be an anti-Pakistan government...I would like to tell India: lay off.”
This “foundational” speech is the basis of the national security establishment’s policy on the war against terrorism. It committed Pakistan to retain the “proxy” of the Taliban acquired during Pakistan’s pursuit of “strategic depth” in Afghanistan against India. Al Qaeda clutched at it, and was tolerated, as a part of the bargain. After the 2002 election, the MMA was brought to power to underpin this policy. It is during the MMA’s tenure in Balochistan and the NWFP that Al Qaeda became entrenched in Pakistan. The madrassas all over Pakistan, which became the backbone of Al Qaeda and its foot soldiers, were not — or could not be — purged.
Today Al Qaeda sees itself pitted against the security forces of Pakistan because it knows that its final battle for the possession of the nuclear-powered state will be with the Pakistan Army. Therefore, it is incumbent on the politicians and media today to support the Pakistan Army in its war against Al Qaeda and its followers and not be swayed by what the influential clergy advocates in its pro-Al Qaeda rhetoric. (Daily Times).
.........
COMMENTS:
Jamshed Khan:
What sadden me to death is that most of our educated class lacks the ground realities in Pakistan.
First of all Talibans are FIGS, barbarians, headless, basters, and they have no religion or humanity.
The very existence of FATA (Federally Administrated Tribal Areas which includes Khyber, Mohmand, Bajaur, Orakzai,N-Waziristan, S-Waziristan & Kurram Agencies) is a conspiracy, and this should have been merged in NWFP as settled districts long time ago. They are the same pathans like the one lives 5 miles away in Peshawar or Malakand Division. They are no different than other pathans, then why should they enjoy the special status. And what FATA achieved of this special status. Nothing. Why were they kept in dark ages in the pretext that they are semi-independent was because the corrupt establishment reminded Pakistanis that our prophet MA Jinnah the great promised them this special status. All bullshit.
The corrupt establishment and ISI kept these areas in dark ages for the sole purpose of using them against Afghanistan. The magna Carta of Paki Army is that 1- keep Afghanistan busy with Talibans type people. and 2- India is our enemy # 1. On this ground Paki Generals sucks 90% of Pakistani Budget and has educated Urban Punjab with this KALAMA, who are the only Pakstanis. Any minority who sopke for their rights are traitors. Only Punjabis are patriots.
Now ISI and Paki Army was successful till 60 years, but now those Talibans created and trained by ISI have turned against Pakistan because Afghanistan border is closed by NATO. Now those masked barbers who belongs to Hell and call itself Taliban want to create Islamic State, and in this process has killed 1000s of innocent people.They are systemically killing the elder, elite and educated class of Pathans. This is a grave conspiracy. All those who justifies Talibans even 1% are Stupid and I wihs Allah bless their family with Talibans so they can have a taste of it too.
lance_naik:
The brutality of the Taliban during their rule in Afghanistan is well-documented fact. Any Afghan will testify to it. 99% of Afghans despise the Taliban. Over the years, I have found an alarmingly number of Pakistanis who try to defend them. Now that they are here, doing the same to us, this people seem to still be in denial. I’m not a fan of the army and certainly not the thugs of the bush administration. However, to blame all of this on the US & the army is just plain irrational. Things in the world are never black & white. There are ciminals hiding in our tribal areas who not only commit these heinous acts but have the audacity to use Islam as a pretext. Unless and until the majority of the people of our country acknowledge this fact, this problem will not go away. This is a mess created by the army and the US back in the 80’s and this is a mess that they will have to fix. We on our end will need to be honest about it. Conspiracy theories are an act of paranoia. And paranoia is a symptom of schizophrenia.
We need to stop acting insane.
MalangBaba:
USA has for sure crushed the Al-Qaida and Talban in Afghanistan and that poor country is progressing much faster than any time in past 40 years. The problem is that Musharaf played double game and let Talban establish them in FATA in the form of multiple war lords who provide fee-for-service suicide bombers to India, russia, drug lords etc to do actionsinside Afghanistan or Pakistan. There is is huge foreign money and drug mafia involved. We need to crush these savages for the sake of Pakistan or else they will make a Somalia out of this poor nation.
How to crush them is quite easy. Fund and Equip Tribes to fight with these groups wwith air and ground support from Army. Most tribes wants militants out because they are destroying their own life. This tactic is a success in Afghanistan and for sure will be a success in FATA.
“So it would be of help if you could stop blaming this or that since you have no evidence against Hamid Mir or anyone else.”
Media must stop portraying these militants as ‘innocent’ and ‘hero’. They are evil villians who will destroy the basic social fabric of Pakistan for ever. We have to choose between Talban and Pakistan and we want Pakistan.
Read more...
Significantly, the number of Lebanese Muslims justifying suicide attacks has come down from 74 percent in 2004 to 32 percent today. In Pakistan, this support for suicide-bombing has come down from 33 percent in 2002 to 5 percent today. In Jordan, the support remains high at 25 percent although it has fallen recently. Only 10 percent of Indonesians now support suicide bombing, in contrast to Nigeria where 33 percent of Muslims still justify it, despite a fall from over 70 percent in 2002.
Popular support for Osama bin Laden has fallen steeply from a peak in 2002 but still remains dangerously high. In Pakistan one-third of those asked still think he is a good guy. Unlike Jordan, where support for him has fallen dramatically to 19 percent, in Pakistan it is steady around one-third. Understandably, secular Turkey has scored low on both counts.
It is important to view Pakistan a little differently from the rest of the Islamic world. This is where Osama bin Laden feels close to home. Also, he is probably located inside Pakistan. His organisation Al Qaeda is palpable here and doesn’t need “sleeper cells”. It has around 8,000 “foreigners” in Pakistan ready to lay down their lives as combatants or suicide-bombers because they are “uprooted” and ready to abandon life. It has its foot soldiers among two types of Taliban, the Afghan ones and those in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA); and among Pakistanis from the rest of the country who are members of once state-supported jihadi militias.
The Pew survey was carefully modelled to test the opinion of a cross-section of the population in Pakistan. But in many ways this methodology is irrelevant to the “devolution of power” in a state that is fast losing its internal sovereignty. In fact, our state has been leeched of its “monopoly of violence” by the madrassa with a stranglehold on the people no matter what opinion they hold about Al Qaeda and suicide-bombing. For instance, it would be useless to poll the citizens in Islamabad when 80 madrassas hold power over them and scores more have sprung up since the state’s face-off with Lal Masjid last year.
Another distortion that sets Pakistan apart is the “lost territory” in FATA and the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA). Populations living under Al Qaeda here were first unsure about who they supported but after the failure of the state to protect them they have generally swung in favour of Al Qaeda. Whereas in the Tribal Areas there is no difference between Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, in the rest of the country bin Laden is set apart as the symbol of Islam’s struggle against the US.
Al Qaeda was “facilitated” on the basis of the agreed military “doctrine” pronounced by General Pervez Musharraf in his address to the nation on September 20, 2001, after he had decided to join America’s global “war against terror”. His speech was lynch-pinned to this reference to India: “What do the Indians want? They do not have common borders with Afghanistan anywhere. It is totally isolated from Afghanistan. In my view it is so surprising that the Indians want to ensure that if and when the government in Afghanistan changes, it shall be an anti-Pakistan government...I would like to tell India: lay off.”
This “foundational” speech is the basis of the national security establishment’s policy on the war against terrorism. It committed Pakistan to retain the “proxy” of the Taliban acquired during Pakistan’s pursuit of “strategic depth” in Afghanistan against India. Al Qaeda clutched at it, and was tolerated, as a part of the bargain. After the 2002 election, the MMA was brought to power to underpin this policy. It is during the MMA’s tenure in Balochistan and the NWFP that Al Qaeda became entrenched in Pakistan. The madrassas all over Pakistan, which became the backbone of Al Qaeda and its foot soldiers, were not — or could not be — purged.
Today Al Qaeda sees itself pitted against the security forces of Pakistan because it knows that its final battle for the possession of the nuclear-powered state will be with the Pakistan Army. Therefore, it is incumbent on the politicians and media today to support the Pakistan Army in its war against Al Qaeda and its followers and not be swayed by what the influential clergy advocates in its pro-Al Qaeda rhetoric. (Daily Times).
.........
COMMENTS:
Jamshed Khan:
What sadden me to death is that most of our educated class lacks the ground realities in Pakistan.
First of all Talibans are FIGS, barbarians, headless, basters, and they have no religion or humanity.
The very existence of FATA (Federally Administrated Tribal Areas which includes Khyber, Mohmand, Bajaur, Orakzai,N-Waziristan, S-Waziristan & Kurram Agencies) is a conspiracy, and this should have been merged in NWFP as settled districts long time ago. They are the same pathans like the one lives 5 miles away in Peshawar or Malakand Division. They are no different than other pathans, then why should they enjoy the special status. And what FATA achieved of this special status. Nothing. Why were they kept in dark ages in the pretext that they are semi-independent was because the corrupt establishment reminded Pakistanis that our prophet MA Jinnah the great promised them this special status. All bullshit.
The corrupt establishment and ISI kept these areas in dark ages for the sole purpose of using them against Afghanistan. The magna Carta of Paki Army is that 1- keep Afghanistan busy with Talibans type people. and 2- India is our enemy # 1. On this ground Paki Generals sucks 90% of Pakistani Budget and has educated Urban Punjab with this KALAMA, who are the only Pakstanis. Any minority who sopke for their rights are traitors. Only Punjabis are patriots.
Now ISI and Paki Army was successful till 60 years, but now those Talibans created and trained by ISI have turned against Pakistan because Afghanistan border is closed by NATO. Now those masked barbers who belongs to Hell and call itself Taliban want to create Islamic State, and in this process has killed 1000s of innocent people.They are systemically killing the elder, elite and educated class of Pathans. This is a grave conspiracy. All those who justifies Talibans even 1% are Stupid and I wihs Allah bless their family with Talibans so they can have a taste of it too.
lance_naik:
The brutality of the Taliban during their rule in Afghanistan is well-documented fact. Any Afghan will testify to it. 99% of Afghans despise the Taliban. Over the years, I have found an alarmingly number of Pakistanis who try to defend them. Now that they are here, doing the same to us, this people seem to still be in denial. I’m not a fan of the army and certainly not the thugs of the bush administration. However, to blame all of this on the US & the army is just plain irrational. Things in the world are never black & white. There are ciminals hiding in our tribal areas who not only commit these heinous acts but have the audacity to use Islam as a pretext. Unless and until the majority of the people of our country acknowledge this fact, this problem will not go away. This is a mess created by the army and the US back in the 80’s and this is a mess that they will have to fix. We on our end will need to be honest about it. Conspiracy theories are an act of paranoia. And paranoia is a symptom of schizophrenia.
We need to stop acting insane.
MalangBaba:
USA has for sure crushed the Al-Qaida and Talban in Afghanistan and that poor country is progressing much faster than any time in past 40 years. The problem is that Musharaf played double game and let Talban establish them in FATA in the form of multiple war lords who provide fee-for-service suicide bombers to India, russia, drug lords etc to do actionsinside Afghanistan or Pakistan. There is is huge foreign money and drug mafia involved. We need to crush these savages for the sake of Pakistan or else they will make a Somalia out of this poor nation.
How to crush them is quite easy. Fund and Equip Tribes to fight with these groups wwith air and ground support from Army. Most tribes wants militants out because they are destroying their own life. This tactic is a success in Afghanistan and for sure will be a success in FATA.
“So it would be of help if you could stop blaming this or that since you have no evidence against Hamid Mir or anyone else.”
Media must stop portraying these militants as ‘innocent’ and ‘hero’. They are evil villians who will destroy the basic social fabric of Pakistan for ever. We have to choose between Talban and Pakistan and we want Pakistan.
Read more...
Islamabad Marriott Attack: Parliament was the target
Sunday, September 21, 2008
By Muhammad Ahmad Noorani (The News)
ISLAMABAD: The Marriott attack was actually aimed at parliament where the entire civil and military leadership of the country had gathered, in violation of the security codes, but it was thwarted by the strict security arrangements.
Two security check-posts established on the Constitution Avenue saved the top civil and military leadership of Pakistan gathered in the Parliament House, listening to the first address by President Asif Ali Zardari, top security officials said.
The two security posts were installed on the Constitution Avenue, on the road leading to the Parliament House -- one in front of the main gate of the federal secretariat and the other near the Prime Minister Secretariat. These two check-posts were in fact installed on Nov 3rd last, at the time of imposition of emergency. However, security checking at these posts remained tough and soft, depending on situation or intelligence reports.
According to the officials, the checking at these check posts was made very strict on Saturday in view of the presidential address and the presence of the whole national leadership in the Parliament House. These security check-posts were allowing only relevant people to move towards the house on the Constitution Avenue.
Advisor to the Prime Minister on Interior Rehman Malik, while talking to The News, revealed that his ministry had received two days ago information regarding suicide attack on the Parliament House at the time of the presidentÃs address. Rehman said the security of the capital was beefed up and the surroundings of the Parliament House were declared as red zone. He said that he and his experts believed that the truck which hit the Marriott on Saturday tried to enter in the red zone during the time of address of the president. "However, because of strict security measures the truck was barred to go towards the Parliament House," Rehman said, adding: "This is our perception now that the terrorists had already set two targets, one direct and the other optional.î
Security personnel at the two check-posts were not allowing the vehicles to move towards the Parliament House, diverting them to other roads.
Rehman Malik also revealed that the truck was carrying construction materials, adding the terrorists made the best use of their mind, keeping in view the intense construction works going on in the area. They used such a truck to deceive the security officials. He, however, admitted that checking of trucks carrying construction materials was included in the security measures.
He said that first there was a small blast, perhaps to disperse the security personnel. ìAnd then there was the major blast, the worst of its kind in the capitalÃs history,î he said, adding not less than 1,000 Kg of explosives was used in the explosion.
When asked that when his ministry was mindful of a possible terrorist activity why such a great security lapse took place, Rehman said it was very hard to deal with suicide bombers all around the world. He maintained that such blasts were being even made in countries like India and the UK, adding security agencies were unable to control such activities despite their all out efforts.
When asked about the weaknesses in the relief operations, Rehman defended his ministry by saying that all available resources were used and the Army rescue team was called. He said though the Pakistan Army had fire-rescue helicopters but those couldn't be operated during night.
Secretary Interior Kamal Shah, during a chat with this correspondent, said that besides the Islamabad police his ministry had deputed the Frontier Constabulary, the Rangers, intelligence agenciesà officials, bomb disposal squads and even the Pakistan Army was at disposal. Kamal said that the whole Islamabad, including areas like Shakar Paryaan and all hilltops were under strict security through 18 different security check-posts. He said that August 14th security arrangements were in place.
Kamal Shah, while justifying the security lapse, said it is our culture that at the time of Iftar the security arrangements automatically become a bit soft. He said that the terrorists had no religion as they hit some moments after Iftar, exploiting the time.
..........
Who is responsible? Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Jihadis, Jangi Junoonis (war maniacs), Sectarian groups, rogue elements in ISI and other intelligence agencies.
http://letusbuildpakistan.blogspot.com/2008/09/appeal-show-no-mercy-to-terrorists-and.html
Read more...
By Muhammad Ahmad Noorani (The News)
ISLAMABAD: The Marriott attack was actually aimed at parliament where the entire civil and military leadership of the country had gathered, in violation of the security codes, but it was thwarted by the strict security arrangements.
Two security check-posts established on the Constitution Avenue saved the top civil and military leadership of Pakistan gathered in the Parliament House, listening to the first address by President Asif Ali Zardari, top security officials said.
The two security posts were installed on the Constitution Avenue, on the road leading to the Parliament House -- one in front of the main gate of the federal secretariat and the other near the Prime Minister Secretariat. These two check-posts were in fact installed on Nov 3rd last, at the time of imposition of emergency. However, security checking at these posts remained tough and soft, depending on situation or intelligence reports.
According to the officials, the checking at these check posts was made very strict on Saturday in view of the presidential address and the presence of the whole national leadership in the Parliament House. These security check-posts were allowing only relevant people to move towards the house on the Constitution Avenue.
Advisor to the Prime Minister on Interior Rehman Malik, while talking to The News, revealed that his ministry had received two days ago information regarding suicide attack on the Parliament House at the time of the presidentÃs address. Rehman said the security of the capital was beefed up and the surroundings of the Parliament House were declared as red zone. He said that he and his experts believed that the truck which hit the Marriott on Saturday tried to enter in the red zone during the time of address of the president. "However, because of strict security measures the truck was barred to go towards the Parliament House," Rehman said, adding: "This is our perception now that the terrorists had already set two targets, one direct and the other optional.î
Security personnel at the two check-posts were not allowing the vehicles to move towards the Parliament House, diverting them to other roads.
Rehman Malik also revealed that the truck was carrying construction materials, adding the terrorists made the best use of their mind, keeping in view the intense construction works going on in the area. They used such a truck to deceive the security officials. He, however, admitted that checking of trucks carrying construction materials was included in the security measures.
He said that first there was a small blast, perhaps to disperse the security personnel. ìAnd then there was the major blast, the worst of its kind in the capitalÃs history,î he said, adding not less than 1,000 Kg of explosives was used in the explosion.
When asked that when his ministry was mindful of a possible terrorist activity why such a great security lapse took place, Rehman said it was very hard to deal with suicide bombers all around the world. He maintained that such blasts were being even made in countries like India and the UK, adding security agencies were unable to control such activities despite their all out efforts.
When asked about the weaknesses in the relief operations, Rehman defended his ministry by saying that all available resources were used and the Army rescue team was called. He said though the Pakistan Army had fire-rescue helicopters but those couldn't be operated during night.
Secretary Interior Kamal Shah, during a chat with this correspondent, said that besides the Islamabad police his ministry had deputed the Frontier Constabulary, the Rangers, intelligence agenciesà officials, bomb disposal squads and even the Pakistan Army was at disposal. Kamal said that the whole Islamabad, including areas like Shakar Paryaan and all hilltops were under strict security through 18 different security check-posts. He said that August 14th security arrangements were in place.
Kamal Shah, while justifying the security lapse, said it is our culture that at the time of Iftar the security arrangements automatically become a bit soft. He said that the terrorists had no religion as they hit some moments after Iftar, exploiting the time.
..........
Who is responsible? Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Jihadis, Jangi Junoonis (war maniacs), Sectarian groups, rogue elements in ISI and other intelligence agencies.
http://letusbuildpakistan.blogspot.com/2008/09/appeal-show-no-mercy-to-terrorists-and.html
Read more...
Pro-Taliban journalist Ansar Abbasi with his usual venom again...
Notorious pro-Taliban journalist of the Jang Group (The News), Ansar Abbasi "reveals" that the terrorist attack on Islamabad Marriot was "in fact" targeted on US Marines, who were on a secret mission and had shifted a truckload of steel cases in the hotel on same night when General Mullen visited Islamabad last week.
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=17401
Comments by some readers:
ResidentEvil:
Very efficient on the part of Jang News Group to distract people from the real horror of the incident.
I hope the Pakistani people will not be distracted by the conspiracy theories of these irresponsible journalists with an agenda.
The fact is that over fifty people have been brutally killed and two hundred fighting for their lives.
Shame on Jang News Group - the likes of Ansar Abbasi and the propagandist Hamid Mir - for misleading the Pakistani people.
If this doesn’t open up people’s eyes to what our military and agencies have been doing in FATA for the last two decades, I don’t know what else will.
DilbarJani:
Typical obfuscation on part of Taleban apologists like Ansar Abbasi
So it is ok to kill 40 plus Pakistanis because some CIA was supposed to be at the hotel?
ataraxis6:
Even if Marines were engaged in some kind of operation at Marriot, there can be no justification for this horrendous act.
The reason U.S. is beginning to take matters in its hands is because our leaders have failed to address the problem and take bold/decisive steps to get rid of these fanatics.
Ahmed Bhai:
Well, if this information about US marine personnel in Marriott is true then it points to possible involvement of ISI. how?
1- It is not possible for tlaiban or alqeeda etc. to have information as much accurate and up to date as typically available with agencies (local or foreign)
2- look into the security lapse - information can be argued to be provided by foreign agencies but lapse is always due to local involvement. Remember attacks on Mush, locals were involved
3- the above point is also supported by the fact that army’s ISI’s double game is also pointed out by the US.
4- for ISI killing dozens of people especially not elite is not a big issue. Ojadhry camp is one example
5- finally the scale may went beyond expectations but our agencies are good in misjudging their endeavors.
6- suicidal attacker might be a taliban but there is need to look into the operational capability and destruction scale.
ResidenEvil:
For all the dimwits thinking this blast was targetting US Marines -
Ramming a vehicle with 800kg of explosives into the Marriott gate leaves no room for doubt as to who was the target. The target were innocent Pakistanis in and outside the hotel.
Which marines were being targeted in Wah?
It is utter shamelessness on the part of the people to point fingers anywhere else but Jihadi elements who are the creation of Pakistan itself.
It is no service to the people of Pakistan to protect and apologize for the Taliban within our ranks. This blame shifting is precisely what has brought us to this situation.
ijazahmad:
enemy of pakistan are trying to distract people.this is the work of talban.whole nation should get united against theses animals,no more talks and deals with theses animals.any one who support the talban he is enemy of pakistan and islam too.zerdari and rehman malek both are trying hard,they are the last hope,support them,dont undermine them,try to save pakistan.
Upbeat:
By fighting terrorists, what has Pakistan achieved?
This has been achieved:
This mixture of Taliban and Al-Qaida has been contained,fought back and they are on the run. Otherwise, you will be living in a country where all Girls Schools will be either bombed or Shut down. All barber Shops and CD shops bombed or Shut down.
Suicide bombings, blowing up buildings and taking out your opponents by any means allowed by Khalifah Mulla Omar or his couterpart Baitullah Mehsud.
Freedom of Press and Freedom of Speech ….
You are living in a dreamworld as all those who support Taliban. This is an idealogical War. If you don’t understand or fail to understand the danger, it’s up to you. It is all about what kind of country you want?
I think you are trying to suggest that towns and villages are being bombed indiscrimintely in FATA area.
I think you are trying to make an argument where none exists.
This menace has to be eradicated and Taliban sypathisers will come up with this propaganda all the time, Hamid Mir made this into a propaganda masterpiece.
Let me ask you this , who these Taliban are fighting for or against in pakistan?
Why don’t they lay down all Arms and go back to their normal lives?
If you suggest that Pakistan Army just loves to kill civilians and thats why Taliban have taken up Arms, you know in your heart this is not true.
Ask Baitullah Mehsud, who he is fighting in Pakistan and why?
The criminal element of Al-Qaida and Pakistani branch of Taliban are one and the same now.
If America leaves this region today, I bet you this war will never end and it is your war now, whether you like it or not.
MalangBaba:
A very stupid and unbelievable story by Ansar Abbasi that he reported within hours after blast. This story proves nothing except the stupidity of Abbasi and his naked attempt to justify this horrible act and massacre of innocent civilians.
Some very visible holes in this story of an right winger A Hole.
If he knew that marines or CIA staff were staying there then how come he didn’t report it earlier?
There was no justification for this cowardly attack by terrorists even if Americans were there. This story is an indirect support of Talban and Al-Qaida.
This idiot Abbasi should know that he is luckey that he was not in the hotel that he and hamid Mir frequently visit.
Upbeat:
Ansar Abbasi, a typical Thirld world journalist
and PKPolitics putting his article as the top news item
Both are being dishonest , editors of this website should ask themselves, what they are trying to achieve by making this obscure report into a top news item???
Marines off loading steel boxes? In view of all Pakistan and its journalists to see.
Is that a secret mission?????
How Ansar Abbasi has concluded that it is a secret mission???
According to Ansar Abbasi ‘the bright mind of Pakistani Journalism’ Those steel boxes made Al-Qaida and Taliban so nervous that they decided to attck the Steel Boxes.
I doubt Marines will stay in Marriot, otherwise Ansar Abbasi would have mentioned.
What about twice before this Hotel was attacked???
You know Alcohol is served in this Hotel. This my fellow Muslims is reason enough for Al-Qaida and Taliban to lose their decency completely and become the destructive,rabid animals that they are.
Paf123:
What a spin by the journalist who supports mullahs…he is trying to change the gravity of this henious barbaric and unislamic act…sad very sad….ansar abbasi should be ashmed of himself…..MR. Ansar Abasi…no matter what…poor people died…the drivers who were sitting in the parking…the door man..the valet parking people..the security gaurds…the people who were only bread winners for their family………now pro mullah elements are spinning it as if it was attack on american…Shame on AB….you are SICK….this is month of Ramadan…this is what islam says………what a big BS this is…mullahs should be crushed and they never supported the formation of pakistan and now they are trying to destablize it…any one who supports these barbarians is a traitor……and should also be crushed…People of Pakistan this is the time to act for the sake of Pakistan
Read more...
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=17401
Comments by some readers:
ResidentEvil:
Very efficient on the part of Jang News Group to distract people from the real horror of the incident.
I hope the Pakistani people will not be distracted by the conspiracy theories of these irresponsible journalists with an agenda.
The fact is that over fifty people have been brutally killed and two hundred fighting for their lives.
Shame on Jang News Group - the likes of Ansar Abbasi and the propagandist Hamid Mir - for misleading the Pakistani people.
If this doesn’t open up people’s eyes to what our military and agencies have been doing in FATA for the last two decades, I don’t know what else will.
DilbarJani:
Typical obfuscation on part of Taleban apologists like Ansar Abbasi
So it is ok to kill 40 plus Pakistanis because some CIA was supposed to be at the hotel?
ataraxis6:
Even if Marines were engaged in some kind of operation at Marriot, there can be no justification for this horrendous act.
The reason U.S. is beginning to take matters in its hands is because our leaders have failed to address the problem and take bold/decisive steps to get rid of these fanatics.
Ahmed Bhai:
Well, if this information about US marine personnel in Marriott is true then it points to possible involvement of ISI. how?
1- It is not possible for tlaiban or alqeeda etc. to have information as much accurate and up to date as typically available with agencies (local or foreign)
2- look into the security lapse - information can be argued to be provided by foreign agencies but lapse is always due to local involvement. Remember attacks on Mush, locals were involved
3- the above point is also supported by the fact that army’s ISI’s double game is also pointed out by the US.
4- for ISI killing dozens of people especially not elite is not a big issue. Ojadhry camp is one example
5- finally the scale may went beyond expectations but our agencies are good in misjudging their endeavors.
6- suicidal attacker might be a taliban but there is need to look into the operational capability and destruction scale.
ResidenEvil:
For all the dimwits thinking this blast was targetting US Marines -
Ramming a vehicle with 800kg of explosives into the Marriott gate leaves no room for doubt as to who was the target. The target were innocent Pakistanis in and outside the hotel.
Which marines were being targeted in Wah?
It is utter shamelessness on the part of the people to point fingers anywhere else but Jihadi elements who are the creation of Pakistan itself.
It is no service to the people of Pakistan to protect and apologize for the Taliban within our ranks. This blame shifting is precisely what has brought us to this situation.
ijazahmad:
enemy of pakistan are trying to distract people.this is the work of talban.whole nation should get united against theses animals,no more talks and deals with theses animals.any one who support the talban he is enemy of pakistan and islam too.zerdari and rehman malek both are trying hard,they are the last hope,support them,dont undermine them,try to save pakistan.
Upbeat:
By fighting terrorists, what has Pakistan achieved?
This has been achieved:
This mixture of Taliban and Al-Qaida has been contained,fought back and they are on the run. Otherwise, you will be living in a country where all Girls Schools will be either bombed or Shut down. All barber Shops and CD shops bombed or Shut down.
Suicide bombings, blowing up buildings and taking out your opponents by any means allowed by Khalifah Mulla Omar or his couterpart Baitullah Mehsud.
Freedom of Press and Freedom of Speech ….
You are living in a dreamworld as all those who support Taliban. This is an idealogical War. If you don’t understand or fail to understand the danger, it’s up to you. It is all about what kind of country you want?
I think you are trying to suggest that towns and villages are being bombed indiscrimintely in FATA area.
I think you are trying to make an argument where none exists.
This menace has to be eradicated and Taliban sypathisers will come up with this propaganda all the time, Hamid Mir made this into a propaganda masterpiece.
Let me ask you this , who these Taliban are fighting for or against in pakistan?
Why don’t they lay down all Arms and go back to their normal lives?
If you suggest that Pakistan Army just loves to kill civilians and thats why Taliban have taken up Arms, you know in your heart this is not true.
Ask Baitullah Mehsud, who he is fighting in Pakistan and why?
The criminal element of Al-Qaida and Pakistani branch of Taliban are one and the same now.
If America leaves this region today, I bet you this war will never end and it is your war now, whether you like it or not.
MalangBaba:
A very stupid and unbelievable story by Ansar Abbasi that he reported within hours after blast. This story proves nothing except the stupidity of Abbasi and his naked attempt to justify this horrible act and massacre of innocent civilians.
Some very visible holes in this story of an right winger A Hole.
If he knew that marines or CIA staff were staying there then how come he didn’t report it earlier?
There was no justification for this cowardly attack by terrorists even if Americans were there. This story is an indirect support of Talban and Al-Qaida.
This idiot Abbasi should know that he is luckey that he was not in the hotel that he and hamid Mir frequently visit.
Upbeat:
Ansar Abbasi, a typical Thirld world journalist
and PKPolitics putting his article as the top news item
Both are being dishonest , editors of this website should ask themselves, what they are trying to achieve by making this obscure report into a top news item???
Marines off loading steel boxes? In view of all Pakistan and its journalists to see.
Is that a secret mission?????
How Ansar Abbasi has concluded that it is a secret mission???
According to Ansar Abbasi ‘the bright mind of Pakistani Journalism’ Those steel boxes made Al-Qaida and Taliban so nervous that they decided to attck the Steel Boxes.
I doubt Marines will stay in Marriot, otherwise Ansar Abbasi would have mentioned.
What about twice before this Hotel was attacked???
You know Alcohol is served in this Hotel. This my fellow Muslims is reason enough for Al-Qaida and Taliban to lose their decency completely and become the destructive,rabid animals that they are.
Paf123:
What a spin by the journalist who supports mullahs…he is trying to change the gravity of this henious barbaric and unislamic act…sad very sad….ansar abbasi should be ashmed of himself…..MR. Ansar Abasi…no matter what…poor people died…the drivers who were sitting in the parking…the door man..the valet parking people..the security gaurds…the people who were only bread winners for their family………now pro mullah elements are spinning it as if it was attack on american…Shame on AB….you are SICK….this is month of Ramadan…this is what islam says………what a big BS this is…mullahs should be crushed and they never supported the formation of pakistan and now they are trying to destablize it…any one who supports these barbarians is a traitor……and should also be crushed…People of Pakistan this is the time to act for the sake of Pakistan
Read more...
Saturday, 20 September 2008
Democracy haters / enemies of Pakistan want to create a split between PPP and Pakistan Army
The PPP and the Army
The ruling PPP and the Pakistan Army seem to be in sync even as the Americans seem to be speaking with many tongues over policy in the war against terrorism. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has fully backed COAS General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani on his handling of the two challenges facing Pakistan: the insurgency in Bajaur and Swat, and the American incursions into Pakistani territory from Afghanistan. The media also backs the civil-military consensus, and government representatives are very clear about national policy.
Reports have appeared about American officials in Washington telling our ambassador Husain Haqqani that there will be no repeat of the Angur Adda incident when American commandos landed on Pakistani soil and attacked a safe house of a Taliban leader without informing the Pakistan Army. The State Department has now released a statement on the subject by Deputy Secretary of State, John Negroponte: “Unilateral actions are probably not a durable or a viable solution over a prolonged period of time and I think the best way forward for both of our countries is to try to deal with the situation in that border area on a co-operative basis — co-operative both between the United States and Pakistan, but also with the country of Afghanistan. So I would say trilateral cooperation, if you will, is probably the best way forward”.
This should have been good enough to put all worries of a split between the Pakistani government and the Army to bed. But to drive the point home, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, more cautious about interpreting American signals that it would not attack without consultation, said Thursday that there were still no formal guarantees from the US about not attacking.
Unfortunately, the atmosphere in Pakistan is that of splits. The big falling away is between the PPP and the PMLN. In the past, the Pakistan Army was made the “third party that decides who wins”. So it is doubly unfortunate that London’s International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) may have inadvertently fuelled the fires of antagonism with its latest annual report that says, “Zardari’s major challenge will be to gain the trust of the army and build a consensus among the political establishment against terrorism and extremism”. Already the opposition politicians are carefully wording their criticism so as to show the PPP ploughing a separate furrow from the Army and the PMLN’s leader of the opposition in the National Assembly, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, is gradually zeroing in on the subject. He said Thursday: “The US media is reporting that some agreements between the US and the Musharraf-led government had allowed incursions into the Tribal Areas. We hope that Asif Ali Zardari would give a clear policy to cope with the situation at our borders. We demand that being the powerful civilian president, he should announce that he is scrapping such agreements”. Knowing that he was drawing close to the Army line, he added: “The statement of [US military chief] Michael Mullen that US drones would continue to launch aerial strikes is not acceptable to us. We will neither accept an airstrike nor a ground offensive inside our territory”.
If this was not enough politics-as-usual, Brigadier (Retd) Shaukat Qadir writing in The Friday Times (September 12-18, 2008) says: “When COAS Gen Kayani recently met Adm Mullen, it seemed as if Mullen understood Pakistan’s position and agreed not to permit strikes across the Durand Line. However, there is a fairly reliable rumour afloat that newly elected President Zardari has given carte blanche to the Bush administration to attack Pakistani territory at will”.
The truth is that the Army and the PPP government are standing together on the policy on US incursions. It is unfortunate that those who fear that a split might occur or who want the split to occur to create space for their favourite political elements to take over have jumped in to make things look uncertain. A split between the Army and the PPP will not strengthen anyone in opposition. Nor will it strengthen the Army or the PPP. And if the split actually happens, or the rumours about it actually bring it about, the country will lose its ability to stand up to the current challenges. For the “splitters” it will be a Pyrrhic victory. (Daily Times).
Read more...
The ruling PPP and the Pakistan Army seem to be in sync even as the Americans seem to be speaking with many tongues over policy in the war against terrorism. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has fully backed COAS General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani on his handling of the two challenges facing Pakistan: the insurgency in Bajaur and Swat, and the American incursions into Pakistani territory from Afghanistan. The media also backs the civil-military consensus, and government representatives are very clear about national policy.
Reports have appeared about American officials in Washington telling our ambassador Husain Haqqani that there will be no repeat of the Angur Adda incident when American commandos landed on Pakistani soil and attacked a safe house of a Taliban leader without informing the Pakistan Army. The State Department has now released a statement on the subject by Deputy Secretary of State, John Negroponte: “Unilateral actions are probably not a durable or a viable solution over a prolonged period of time and I think the best way forward for both of our countries is to try to deal with the situation in that border area on a co-operative basis — co-operative both between the United States and Pakistan, but also with the country of Afghanistan. So I would say trilateral cooperation, if you will, is probably the best way forward”.
This should have been good enough to put all worries of a split between the Pakistani government and the Army to bed. But to drive the point home, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, more cautious about interpreting American signals that it would not attack without consultation, said Thursday that there were still no formal guarantees from the US about not attacking.
Unfortunately, the atmosphere in Pakistan is that of splits. The big falling away is between the PPP and the PMLN. In the past, the Pakistan Army was made the “third party that decides who wins”. So it is doubly unfortunate that London’s International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) may have inadvertently fuelled the fires of antagonism with its latest annual report that says, “Zardari’s major challenge will be to gain the trust of the army and build a consensus among the political establishment against terrorism and extremism”. Already the opposition politicians are carefully wording their criticism so as to show the PPP ploughing a separate furrow from the Army and the PMLN’s leader of the opposition in the National Assembly, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, is gradually zeroing in on the subject. He said Thursday: “The US media is reporting that some agreements between the US and the Musharraf-led government had allowed incursions into the Tribal Areas. We hope that Asif Ali Zardari would give a clear policy to cope with the situation at our borders. We demand that being the powerful civilian president, he should announce that he is scrapping such agreements”. Knowing that he was drawing close to the Army line, he added: “The statement of [US military chief] Michael Mullen that US drones would continue to launch aerial strikes is not acceptable to us. We will neither accept an airstrike nor a ground offensive inside our territory”.
If this was not enough politics-as-usual, Brigadier (Retd) Shaukat Qadir writing in The Friday Times (September 12-18, 2008) says: “When COAS Gen Kayani recently met Adm Mullen, it seemed as if Mullen understood Pakistan’s position and agreed not to permit strikes across the Durand Line. However, there is a fairly reliable rumour afloat that newly elected President Zardari has given carte blanche to the Bush administration to attack Pakistani territory at will”.
The truth is that the Army and the PPP government are standing together on the policy on US incursions. It is unfortunate that those who fear that a split might occur or who want the split to occur to create space for their favourite political elements to take over have jumped in to make things look uncertain. A split between the Army and the PPP will not strengthen anyone in opposition. Nor will it strengthen the Army or the PPP. And if the split actually happens, or the rumours about it actually bring it about, the country will lose its ability to stand up to the current challenges. For the “splitters” it will be a Pyrrhic victory. (Daily Times).
Read more...
Islamabad Marriott Hotel bomb blast 20 September - Appeal: Show No Mercy to Terrorists and Their Supporters
Islamabad Marriott Hotel bomb blast 20 September
Appeal: Show No Mercy to Terrorists and Their Supporters
To:
The President of Pakistan
The Prime Minister of Pakistan,
Chief of Army Staff
Chief Justice of Pakistan
In the light of the ongoing terrorist activities by Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Jihadi and sectarian organizations against innocent local and foreign citizens in Pakistan, we appeal you to:
1. suspend all forms of dialogue with any terrorist / violent organization or group;
2. deal with utmost state power (including army, air force and latest weapons) to crush all networks of violence and terrorism in FATA, Swat and all other areas in which terrorists / Jihadis freely operate;
3. set up summary anti-terrorist courts to swiftly deal with and execute those involved in performing or supporting acts of terrorism;
3. arrest and try in anti-terrorist courts all spokespersons/mouthpieces of terrorists including General Hamid Gul, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Mullah Munawar Hasan, Mullah Liaqat Baloch, Imran Khan, Professor Hafiz Saeed, Javed Ibrahim Piracha, Mullah Sami-ul-Haq, and all other culprits;
4. develop and implement a stiff anti-terrorism code of conduct for media; ban all those TV programs, internet sites and newspapers which are abusing the freedom of press and promoting acts of violence and terrorism in Pakistan (e.g. Auria Maqbool Jan, Irfan Siddiqi, Mushtaq Minhas, Kashif Abbasi, Ansar Abbasi and Hamid Mir);
5. completely reform intelligence agencies in Pakistan including ISI and IB to eliminate any violent, extremist elements presently operating within these agencies;
6. use state power to bring peace to the Kurram Agency and Parachinar, and also suspend the inhuman siege of Parachinar by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda;
6. develop a proactive and empowered regional anti-terrorism coalition including the following members: Pakistan, China, Iran, Afghanistan and India. The USA and Russia may have an observatory role in such a coalition.
We beg you to take these steps without late so that the people of Pakistan and the entire international community could live in peace.
Down with terrorism. Long live Pakistan.
Signed by 1500 citizens of Islamabad and Rawalpindi
Date: 20 September 2008
............
Massive Bomb Attack Kills Dozens in Pakistan's Capital
Explosion Rips Through Marriott Hotel in Islamabad; at Least 40 Dead
By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, September 20, 2008; 12:21 PM
KABUL, Afghanistan, Sep. 20 -- A massive explosion ripped through the premier hotel in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad on Saturday night, killing at least 40 people and engulfing the building in flames.
Officials said a suicide bomber drove a truck up to the side of the heavily guarded hotel and detonated explosives.
Television footage of the Islamabad Marriott Hotel, located just blocks from many major government buildings, showed flames leaping from almost every window in the five-story hotel and bloodied survivors staggering from the lobby.
There were unconfirmed reports that more than 1,000 people had been inside the hotel at the time of the attack, and police said the death toll was expected to rise. Ambulances and other vehicles ferried dozens of injured survivors away from the scene.
Islamabad has been the site of several other bombings in recent months, including a suicide attack at the Danish Embassy and a planted explosion at a garden Italian restaurant frequented by foreign visitors. But the Marriott attack was by far the most powerful and lethal, even with the final casualty toll unknown.
The bombing came just hours after the country's newly elected president, Asif Ali Zardari, delivered a maiden speech to Parliament in which he vowed to rid Pakistan of the "shackles of terrorism."
Zardari and his government face a rapidly growing threat from violent Islamist extremists, especially in the northwest border regions with Afghanistan. The Pakistan army has recently staged several major military operations in that region, and extremists have vowed to retaliate.
"This is a message to the new government that nothing is safe, even in the capital," one analyst told Al Jazeera cable television, as the network showed live images of flames spreading and black smoke pouring out of the 258-room Marriott.
ad_icon
Witnesses and residents of the modern, heavily policed capital said they heard and felt the explosion several miles away. The bomber detonated his explosive-laden truck during Iftar, the evening fast-breaking ritual that occurs each day during the holy Muslim month of Ramadan.
Police said the truck used in the attack carried more than one ton of explosives. The blast left a huge crater, more than 30 feet deep, beside the building in the heart of Islamabad.
The hotel, located close to the country's Parliament, presidential offices, Supreme Court and other major institutions, is the center of the capital's social and political scene. It is also a longtime favorite of foreign visitors, including businessmen, journalists and diplomats.
Security is always heavy, with all vehicles checked outside the entrance.
Television footage showed the hotel's elegant stone lobby, known for its 24-hour buffet and constant political meetings, as a charred and collapsed ruin. Dozens of vehicles in the parking lot were twisted hulks of metal. The powerful explosion also ignited rooms on every floor of the hotel, and intense flames roared from dozens of windows into the night. Officials said there was no immediate indication of who was behind the blast, but Islamist militant groups have staged numerous smaller attacks in recent months, and some groups in the country's volatile tribal belt vowed last week to avenge the Pakistan army's recent attacks in several tribal districts.
Analysts said the blast was likely to intensify pressure on Zardari's government to crack down on terrorism, something the Bush administration has also been demanding, The two governments, major allies in the war on terror, have been at loggerheads the past week over U.S. cross-border military raids in pursuit of al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters.
..........
Daily Dawn
Suicide attack kills dozens in Islamabad
ISLAMABAD: A massive truck bomb devastated the heavily guarded Marriott Hotel in Pakistan's capital Saturday, engulfing the building in flames, killing at least 40 people and wounding at least 100.
The Marriott in Islamabad is a favorite place for foreigners as well as Pakistani politicians and business people to stay and socialize, despite repeated militant attacks.
The blast left a vast crater, some 10 meters (30 feet) deep in front of the main building, where flames poured from the windows and rescuers ferried a stream of bloodied bodies from the gutted building.
Police sought in vain to shoo away bystanders and reporters for fear of gas leaks and that the building might collapse.
President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani strongly condemned the attack in a statement.
‘This is terrorism and we have to fight it together as a nation,’ Rehman Malik, the head of Pakistan's Interior Ministry, told reporters at a hospital overflowing with the wounded.
Witnesses and officials said a large truck rammed the high metal gate of the hotel at about 8 p.m. (1400 GMT), when the restaurants would have been packed with diners, including people breaking the Ramadan fast.
Senior police official Asghar Raza Gardaizi said rescuers had counted at least 40 bodies at the scene and he feared that there are ‘dozens more dead inside.’
Associated Press reporters saw at least nine bodies scattered at the scene. Scores of people, including foreigners, were running out _ some of them stained with blood. Witnesses spoke of a smaller blast followed by a much larger one.
A US State Department official using a section of white pipe as a walking stick led three colleagues through the rubble from the charred building, one of them bleeding heavily from a wound on the side of his head.
One of the four, who identified himself only as Tony, said they had begun moving toward the rear of the Chinese restaurant after the first blast when the second one threw them against the back wall.
‘Then we saw a big truck coming through the gates,’ he said. ‘After that it was just smoke and darkness.’
Ambulances rushed to the area, picking their way through the charred carcasses of vehicles that had been in the street outside. Windows in buildings hundreds of meters away were shattered.
Mohammad Sultan, a hotel employee, said he was in the lobby when something exploded, he fell down and everything temporarily went dark.
‘I didn't understand what it was, but it was like the world is finished,’ he said.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the blast.
DawnNews adds; a Danish diplomat and at least three US citizens are among the injured. Casualties were being shifted to the Poly Clinic and PIMS hospitals in Islamabad.
Footage from the channel showed flames rising from several parts of the hotel building; several vehicles were also completely destroyed. The hotel lobby was shown devastated by the blast.
Ambulances and fire brigades were on the scene and the entire area has been cordoned off by security forces. Security has been put on high alert across the country, interior ministry sources told DawnNews.
According to police sources, at least 15 people were trapped inside the burning hotel, and efforts were underway to try to rescue them.
The president and prime minister have expressed deep sorrow and sympathies for the victims and emergency has been declared at all major hospitals. The prime minister has also appealed for blood donations.
Further updates: http://letusbuildpakistan.blogspot.com
Read more...
Appeal: Show No Mercy to Terrorists and Their Supporters
To:
The President of Pakistan
The Prime Minister of Pakistan,
Chief of Army Staff
Chief Justice of Pakistan
In the light of the ongoing terrorist activities by Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Jihadi and sectarian organizations against innocent local and foreign citizens in Pakistan, we appeal you to:
1. suspend all forms of dialogue with any terrorist / violent organization or group;
2. deal with utmost state power (including army, air force and latest weapons) to crush all networks of violence and terrorism in FATA, Swat and all other areas in which terrorists / Jihadis freely operate;
3. set up summary anti-terrorist courts to swiftly deal with and execute those involved in performing or supporting acts of terrorism;
3. arrest and try in anti-terrorist courts all spokespersons/mouthpieces of terrorists including General Hamid Gul, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Mullah Munawar Hasan, Mullah Liaqat Baloch, Imran Khan, Professor Hafiz Saeed, Javed Ibrahim Piracha, Mullah Sami-ul-Haq, and all other culprits;
4. develop and implement a stiff anti-terrorism code of conduct for media; ban all those TV programs, internet sites and newspapers which are abusing the freedom of press and promoting acts of violence and terrorism in Pakistan (e.g. Auria Maqbool Jan, Irfan Siddiqi, Mushtaq Minhas, Kashif Abbasi, Ansar Abbasi and Hamid Mir);
5. completely reform intelligence agencies in Pakistan including ISI and IB to eliminate any violent, extremist elements presently operating within these agencies;
6. use state power to bring peace to the Kurram Agency and Parachinar, and also suspend the inhuman siege of Parachinar by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda;
6. develop a proactive and empowered regional anti-terrorism coalition including the following members: Pakistan, China, Iran, Afghanistan and India. The USA and Russia may have an observatory role in such a coalition.
We beg you to take these steps without late so that the people of Pakistan and the entire international community could live in peace.
Down with terrorism. Long live Pakistan.
Signed by 1500 citizens of Islamabad and Rawalpindi
Date: 20 September 2008
............
Massive Bomb Attack Kills Dozens in Pakistan's Capital
Explosion Rips Through Marriott Hotel in Islamabad; at Least 40 Dead
By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, September 20, 2008; 12:21 PM
KABUL, Afghanistan, Sep. 20 -- A massive explosion ripped through the premier hotel in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad on Saturday night, killing at least 40 people and engulfing the building in flames.
Officials said a suicide bomber drove a truck up to the side of the heavily guarded hotel and detonated explosives.
Television footage of the Islamabad Marriott Hotel, located just blocks from many major government buildings, showed flames leaping from almost every window in the five-story hotel and bloodied survivors staggering from the lobby.
There were unconfirmed reports that more than 1,000 people had been inside the hotel at the time of the attack, and police said the death toll was expected to rise. Ambulances and other vehicles ferried dozens of injured survivors away from the scene.
Islamabad has been the site of several other bombings in recent months, including a suicide attack at the Danish Embassy and a planted explosion at a garden Italian restaurant frequented by foreign visitors. But the Marriott attack was by far the most powerful and lethal, even with the final casualty toll unknown.
The bombing came just hours after the country's newly elected president, Asif Ali Zardari, delivered a maiden speech to Parliament in which he vowed to rid Pakistan of the "shackles of terrorism."
Zardari and his government face a rapidly growing threat from violent Islamist extremists, especially in the northwest border regions with Afghanistan. The Pakistan army has recently staged several major military operations in that region, and extremists have vowed to retaliate.
"This is a message to the new government that nothing is safe, even in the capital," one analyst told Al Jazeera cable television, as the network showed live images of flames spreading and black smoke pouring out of the 258-room Marriott.
ad_icon
Witnesses and residents of the modern, heavily policed capital said they heard and felt the explosion several miles away. The bomber detonated his explosive-laden truck during Iftar, the evening fast-breaking ritual that occurs each day during the holy Muslim month of Ramadan.
Police said the truck used in the attack carried more than one ton of explosives. The blast left a huge crater, more than 30 feet deep, beside the building in the heart of Islamabad.
The hotel, located close to the country's Parliament, presidential offices, Supreme Court and other major institutions, is the center of the capital's social and political scene. It is also a longtime favorite of foreign visitors, including businessmen, journalists and diplomats.
Security is always heavy, with all vehicles checked outside the entrance.
Television footage showed the hotel's elegant stone lobby, known for its 24-hour buffet and constant political meetings, as a charred and collapsed ruin. Dozens of vehicles in the parking lot were twisted hulks of metal. The powerful explosion also ignited rooms on every floor of the hotel, and intense flames roared from dozens of windows into the night. Officials said there was no immediate indication of who was behind the blast, but Islamist militant groups have staged numerous smaller attacks in recent months, and some groups in the country's volatile tribal belt vowed last week to avenge the Pakistan army's recent attacks in several tribal districts.
Analysts said the blast was likely to intensify pressure on Zardari's government to crack down on terrorism, something the Bush administration has also been demanding, The two governments, major allies in the war on terror, have been at loggerheads the past week over U.S. cross-border military raids in pursuit of al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters.
..........
Daily Dawn
Suicide attack kills dozens in Islamabad
ISLAMABAD: A massive truck bomb devastated the heavily guarded Marriott Hotel in Pakistan's capital Saturday, engulfing the building in flames, killing at least 40 people and wounding at least 100.
The Marriott in Islamabad is a favorite place for foreigners as well as Pakistani politicians and business people to stay and socialize, despite repeated militant attacks.
The blast left a vast crater, some 10 meters (30 feet) deep in front of the main building, where flames poured from the windows and rescuers ferried a stream of bloodied bodies from the gutted building.
Police sought in vain to shoo away bystanders and reporters for fear of gas leaks and that the building might collapse.
President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani strongly condemned the attack in a statement.
‘This is terrorism and we have to fight it together as a nation,’ Rehman Malik, the head of Pakistan's Interior Ministry, told reporters at a hospital overflowing with the wounded.
Witnesses and officials said a large truck rammed the high metal gate of the hotel at about 8 p.m. (1400 GMT), when the restaurants would have been packed with diners, including people breaking the Ramadan fast.
Senior police official Asghar Raza Gardaizi said rescuers had counted at least 40 bodies at the scene and he feared that there are ‘dozens more dead inside.’
Associated Press reporters saw at least nine bodies scattered at the scene. Scores of people, including foreigners, were running out _ some of them stained with blood. Witnesses spoke of a smaller blast followed by a much larger one.
A US State Department official using a section of white pipe as a walking stick led three colleagues through the rubble from the charred building, one of them bleeding heavily from a wound on the side of his head.
One of the four, who identified himself only as Tony, said they had begun moving toward the rear of the Chinese restaurant after the first blast when the second one threw them against the back wall.
‘Then we saw a big truck coming through the gates,’ he said. ‘After that it was just smoke and darkness.’
Ambulances rushed to the area, picking their way through the charred carcasses of vehicles that had been in the street outside. Windows in buildings hundreds of meters away were shattered.
Mohammad Sultan, a hotel employee, said he was in the lobby when something exploded, he fell down and everything temporarily went dark.
‘I didn't understand what it was, but it was like the world is finished,’ he said.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the blast.
DawnNews adds; a Danish diplomat and at least three US citizens are among the injured. Casualties were being shifted to the Poly Clinic and PIMS hospitals in Islamabad.
Footage from the channel showed flames rising from several parts of the hotel building; several vehicles were also completely destroyed. The hotel lobby was shown devastated by the blast.
Ambulances and fire brigades were on the scene and the entire area has been cordoned off by security forces. Security has been put on high alert across the country, interior ministry sources told DawnNews.
According to police sources, at least 15 people were trapped inside the burning hotel, and efforts were underway to try to rescue them.
The president and prime minister have expressed deep sorrow and sympathies for the victims and emergency has been declared at all major hospitals. The prime minister has also appealed for blood donations.
Further updates: http://letusbuildpakistan.blogspot.com
Read more...
Breaking News: Marriott Hotel Bomb Blast in Islamabad 20 September 2008
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- A car bomb detonated Saturday night in the heart of Islamabad, killing at least 20 people and wounding at least another 20, police said.
Flames and smoke pour out of a window of the Marriot Hotel in Islamabad after the bombing.
The blast caused a natural gas leak that set the Marriott Hotel on fire, police said. More than a dozen cars were reduced to twisted steel.
Police described the blast, which occurred at 8 p.m. (10 a.m. ET), as a car bomb. Rescue workers pulled bloodied victims from vehicles.
The fifth floor of the hotel was ablaze and nearby trees were felled by the blast, which occurred hours after newly elected President Asif Ali Zardari addressed a joint session of Parliament and promised to root out terrorism.
.........
Who is responsible? Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Jihadis, Jangi Junoonis (war maniacs), Sectarian groups, rogue elements in ISI and other intelligence agencies.
http://letusbuildpakistan.blogspot.com/2008/09/appeal-show-no-mercy-to-terrorists-and.html
Read more...
Flames and smoke pour out of a window of the Marriot Hotel in Islamabad after the bombing.
The blast caused a natural gas leak that set the Marriott Hotel on fire, police said. More than a dozen cars were reduced to twisted steel.
Police described the blast, which occurred at 8 p.m. (10 a.m. ET), as a car bomb. Rescue workers pulled bloodied victims from vehicles.
The fifth floor of the hotel was ablaze and nearby trees were felled by the blast, which occurred hours after newly elected President Asif Ali Zardari addressed a joint session of Parliament and promised to root out terrorism.
.........
Who is responsible? Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Jihadis, Jangi Junoonis (war maniacs), Sectarian groups, rogue elements in ISI and other intelligence agencies.
http://letusbuildpakistan.blogspot.com/2008/09/appeal-show-no-mercy-to-terrorists-and.html
Read more...
Friday, 19 September 2008
Punjab’s undesirable politics of defection (i.e. Lota Politics)
Despite advice from all sane quarters, Punjab is in the grip of a power tussle. A firm arrangement is making transition to an uncertain one that is going to be haunted by court cases and general acrimony. The PMLN government wants to end the coalition with the PPP and wants its ministers out of its cabinet. Since it falls short of a majority after this exclusion, it wants the third largest party in the assembly, the PMLQ, to join it. And since it wants no truck with the leaders of the party, it is seeking defections from the ranks of the erstwhile ruling party of Pakistan.
The politics of defection — called “lota politics” by the electorate in a term of extreme contempt — is regrettably initiated through iftar parties, an abuse of the spiritual ritual of Ramazan. The iftar party thrown by the PMLN on Wednesday saw the PMLQ defectors turn up in large numbers, but not large enough to match the claims made earlier. According to one report, the PMLN had claimed that it had lured away 51 MPAs, but actually only 22 or thereabouts turned up to show that they had left their own party. Another report says the defectee “guests” were 28. Yet another says they were 34.
The PMLQ, the party that began fraying at the edges as its patron President Pervez Musharraf began to get into trouble during 2007, is being “milked” by the PMLN. But the Chaudhrys, Shujaat Hussain and Pervaiz Elahi, who lead the party claim their party has by and large resisted the move. The forward bloc that had formed earlier has performed the “double-lota” and come back into the fold, barring a few who will be proceeded against under the 14th Amendment of 1997 that unseats anyone crossing the floor. The PMLQ says the PMLN can’t show a majority in the house.
The compulsion to stage a confrontation has plunged the parties back into the arithmetic thrown up by the 2008 elections. After the elections, the PMLN was the leading party in Punjab with 110 seats, followed by the PPP with 78 seats and the PMLQ with 66 seats. There were 36 “independents” — a cover-up for permitted “lotaism” — to be had by whoever formed the government. The PMLN formed a coalition with the PPP at the centre and in Punjab; and together the two parties plus the independents reached a comfortable majority in the Punjab assembly.
Now the political stage in the province is shaky. It all began with the PPP and PMLN loathing the PMLQ in unison: the name was “Qatil” League after the assassination of Ms Bhutto. Then the PPP and the PMLN went back to loathing each other as they used to during the decade of the 1990s, Pakistan’s worst political interregnum. Now the PMLN wants to continue to hate the PMLQ and pluck its MPAs out of the opposition while the PPP wants to negotiate with the PMLQ leadership and kick the PMLN out of government in Lahore.
The PMLN and PMLQ are really an old party that bifurcated in 1999 and fought the 2002 election under the name of Quaid-e-Azam. While the PMLN was in the wilderness till 2008, the PMLQ ruled the country. Now is the time for the defectees of 2002 to do a “double-lota”, as was witnessed when the PML government was fired by the president in 1993. Fearing this possibility again the PML amended the Constitution to punish the floor-crossers. It was perhaps an over-correction and stands today as the most punitive clause for politicians in the Constitution. It is recoiling on the framers of the Amendment, which was actually held in abeyance by President Musharraf to facilitate defections from the PML. The 14th Amendment (1997) is quite strict. It has the following sub-clauses defining defectors that the law would unseat: (a) [Anyone who] commits a breach of party discipline which means a violation of the party constitution, code of conduct and declared policies, or (b) votes contrary to any direction issued by the Parliamentary Party to which he belongs, or (c) abstains from voting in the House against party policy in relation to any bill.
In India, defection is allowed if it is by a bloc comprising one-third of the party strength in the house. Perhaps that is why the name “forward bloc” has regained currency in Pakistan after the 14th Amendment. The two mainstream parties have landed themselves in another embarrassing situation. Instead of cooperating, as earlier pledged, they have now taken the path of confrontation. And if Punjab is destabilised, it means nothing will work smoothly in the country. (Daily Times).
Read more...
The politics of defection — called “lota politics” by the electorate in a term of extreme contempt — is regrettably initiated through iftar parties, an abuse of the spiritual ritual of Ramazan. The iftar party thrown by the PMLN on Wednesday saw the PMLQ defectors turn up in large numbers, but not large enough to match the claims made earlier. According to one report, the PMLN had claimed that it had lured away 51 MPAs, but actually only 22 or thereabouts turned up to show that they had left their own party. Another report says the defectee “guests” were 28. Yet another says they were 34.
The PMLQ, the party that began fraying at the edges as its patron President Pervez Musharraf began to get into trouble during 2007, is being “milked” by the PMLN. But the Chaudhrys, Shujaat Hussain and Pervaiz Elahi, who lead the party claim their party has by and large resisted the move. The forward bloc that had formed earlier has performed the “double-lota” and come back into the fold, barring a few who will be proceeded against under the 14th Amendment of 1997 that unseats anyone crossing the floor. The PMLQ says the PMLN can’t show a majority in the house.
The compulsion to stage a confrontation has plunged the parties back into the arithmetic thrown up by the 2008 elections. After the elections, the PMLN was the leading party in Punjab with 110 seats, followed by the PPP with 78 seats and the PMLQ with 66 seats. There were 36 “independents” — a cover-up for permitted “lotaism” — to be had by whoever formed the government. The PMLN formed a coalition with the PPP at the centre and in Punjab; and together the two parties plus the independents reached a comfortable majority in the Punjab assembly.
Now the political stage in the province is shaky. It all began with the PPP and PMLN loathing the PMLQ in unison: the name was “Qatil” League after the assassination of Ms Bhutto. Then the PPP and the PMLN went back to loathing each other as they used to during the decade of the 1990s, Pakistan’s worst political interregnum. Now the PMLN wants to continue to hate the PMLQ and pluck its MPAs out of the opposition while the PPP wants to negotiate with the PMLQ leadership and kick the PMLN out of government in Lahore.
The PMLN and PMLQ are really an old party that bifurcated in 1999 and fought the 2002 election under the name of Quaid-e-Azam. While the PMLN was in the wilderness till 2008, the PMLQ ruled the country. Now is the time for the defectees of 2002 to do a “double-lota”, as was witnessed when the PML government was fired by the president in 1993. Fearing this possibility again the PML amended the Constitution to punish the floor-crossers. It was perhaps an over-correction and stands today as the most punitive clause for politicians in the Constitution. It is recoiling on the framers of the Amendment, which was actually held in abeyance by President Musharraf to facilitate defections from the PML. The 14th Amendment (1997) is quite strict. It has the following sub-clauses defining defectors that the law would unseat: (a) [Anyone who] commits a breach of party discipline which means a violation of the party constitution, code of conduct and declared policies, or (b) votes contrary to any direction issued by the Parliamentary Party to which he belongs, or (c) abstains from voting in the House against party policy in relation to any bill.
In India, defection is allowed if it is by a bloc comprising one-third of the party strength in the house. Perhaps that is why the name “forward bloc” has regained currency in Pakistan after the 14th Amendment. The two mainstream parties have landed themselves in another embarrassing situation. Instead of cooperating, as earlier pledged, they have now taken the path of confrontation. And if Punjab is destabilised, it means nothing will work smoothly in the country. (Daily Times).
Read more...
Thursday, 18 September 2008
War maniacs: Hamid Gul, Imran Khan, Qazi, and their supporters, why don't you relocate to FATA? Leave Pakistan alone. By Nazir Naji
![[col8.gif]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Vbc4oO2rGiw/SNHbVB7zoJI/AAAAAAAAAFY/kkoFpL-VTEc/s1600/col8.gif)
![[col8a.gif]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Vbc4oO2rGiw/SNHbO6riksI/AAAAAAAAAFQ/zjGRx81hqDM/s1600/col8a.gif)
Reform ISI? Not like this
The US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Mr Richard Boucher, said Tuesday that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) needed to be reformed. He did not point to any specific flaw in the conduct of the ISI but the general impression is that his remark sprang from a deep US suspicion that the ISI “retained links to the Taliban”.
The initial reaction against the suggestion has been negative in the Pakistani media, and it was of a piece with the reaction that met Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s attempt in July to place the ISI under the control of the Interior Ministry.
The American press had charged earlier that the ISI was allegedly using the privileged information it had about American attacks against the Afghan Taliban to forewarn the latter. In fact, the American government and most Western governments believe that a recent suicide-bombing at the Indian embassy in Kabul was carried out by the ISI. In India, the case is even worse; the ISI is blamed for anything violent that happens inside India which the Indian government cannot explain.
There is no doubt that all state institutions need a periodic review of their performance and have to face internal changes to make them more effective and responsible. But the problem arises when someone else tells you to do it. The act of reforming the ISI has to be initiated by Pakistan and its elected parliament, and it should not be seen as prompted or “ordered” by another state. Since the US and Pakistan are partners in their fight against terrorism — and the success of this partnership in the past has depended solely on the ISI — it would be normal to consult on intelligence and its effectiveness. But it would be counterproductive to make public calls for corrections within the ISI. This is what has happened. If the idea was to bring the PPP government under pressure, the Boucher statement has in effect had the effect of putting it on the defensive. The PPP cannot afford to carry out any reform now.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that politicians across the political divide don’t have their complaints against the ISI. They have used the ISI against one another so many times that the ISI has to some extent become tainted because of the use that has been made of its “political wing”. (One suggestion of reform has been the clipping of this wing.) Political “signalling” has taken place through the sudden blowing up of a car’s tyres or the car catching fire all by itself; and the politicians have not minced their words in accusing the ISI of wrong-doing. The PPP has been specially targeted in the past and it has given proof that the ISI has its share of “rogue” elements. Remember Operation Midnight Jackals against the ruling prime minister, Benazir Bhutto?
Nor is evidence lacking about the ISI becoming subject to “reverse indoctrination”. Some retired ISI chiefs put off everyone when they appear on TV and speak unrealistically about what Pakistan should do to get out of trouble. If you dwell on the past, there is no doubt that these senior officers became infected with the dangerous virus of jihad they were handling. One army chief, General Asif Nawaz, had actually complained that an ex-ISI chief while still serving as a corps commander had advised the mujahideen to reject a change of policy mandated by the GHQ. Under General Pervez Musharraf, an ISI chief, sent out to Kandahar to advise Mullah Umar against war, gave him the opposite message!
Then there are some lower-ranking officers like Mr Khalid Khwaja who left the ISI to become mouthpieces of the very elements that the world associates with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Perhaps the most damaging aspect — which may need reform — is the amount of bragging some ex-ISI men do on TV channels, spreading doubt and disappointment about the ruling government by forwarding unrealistic prescriptions of what Pakistan could or should do but was “criminally” neglecting to undertake.
It is unfortunate that when terrorist blasts occur in Pakistan some people name the ISI as the culprit behind them. Just like the US, which has forgotten what the ISI did for it after 9/11, Pakistanis too often forget that the organisation has also done some good work in the cause of the security of Pakistan. (Daily Times)
Read more...
The initial reaction against the suggestion has been negative in the Pakistani media, and it was of a piece with the reaction that met Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s attempt in July to place the ISI under the control of the Interior Ministry.
The American press had charged earlier that the ISI was allegedly using the privileged information it had about American attacks against the Afghan Taliban to forewarn the latter. In fact, the American government and most Western governments believe that a recent suicide-bombing at the Indian embassy in Kabul was carried out by the ISI. In India, the case is even worse; the ISI is blamed for anything violent that happens inside India which the Indian government cannot explain.
There is no doubt that all state institutions need a periodic review of their performance and have to face internal changes to make them more effective and responsible. But the problem arises when someone else tells you to do it. The act of reforming the ISI has to be initiated by Pakistan and its elected parliament, and it should not be seen as prompted or “ordered” by another state. Since the US and Pakistan are partners in their fight against terrorism — and the success of this partnership in the past has depended solely on the ISI — it would be normal to consult on intelligence and its effectiveness. But it would be counterproductive to make public calls for corrections within the ISI. This is what has happened. If the idea was to bring the PPP government under pressure, the Boucher statement has in effect had the effect of putting it on the defensive. The PPP cannot afford to carry out any reform now.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that politicians across the political divide don’t have their complaints against the ISI. They have used the ISI against one another so many times that the ISI has to some extent become tainted because of the use that has been made of its “political wing”. (One suggestion of reform has been the clipping of this wing.) Political “signalling” has taken place through the sudden blowing up of a car’s tyres or the car catching fire all by itself; and the politicians have not minced their words in accusing the ISI of wrong-doing. The PPP has been specially targeted in the past and it has given proof that the ISI has its share of “rogue” elements. Remember Operation Midnight Jackals against the ruling prime minister, Benazir Bhutto?
Nor is evidence lacking about the ISI becoming subject to “reverse indoctrination”. Some retired ISI chiefs put off everyone when they appear on TV and speak unrealistically about what Pakistan should do to get out of trouble. If you dwell on the past, there is no doubt that these senior officers became infected with the dangerous virus of jihad they were handling. One army chief, General Asif Nawaz, had actually complained that an ex-ISI chief while still serving as a corps commander had advised the mujahideen to reject a change of policy mandated by the GHQ. Under General Pervez Musharraf, an ISI chief, sent out to Kandahar to advise Mullah Umar against war, gave him the opposite message!
Then there are some lower-ranking officers like Mr Khalid Khwaja who left the ISI to become mouthpieces of the very elements that the world associates with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Perhaps the most damaging aspect — which may need reform — is the amount of bragging some ex-ISI men do on TV channels, spreading doubt and disappointment about the ruling government by forwarding unrealistic prescriptions of what Pakistan could or should do but was “criminally” neglecting to undertake.
It is unfortunate that when terrorist blasts occur in Pakistan some people name the ISI as the culprit behind them. Just like the US, which has forgotten what the ISI did for it after 9/11, Pakistanis too often forget that the organisation has also done some good work in the cause of the security of Pakistan. (Daily Times)
Read more...
A slap on the face of war maniac columnists such as Aftab Iqbal, Hamid Mir and Irfan Siddiqi - By Asadullah Ghalib
Tuesday, 16 September 2008
Hamid Gul and his jihadi agenda... Abbas Ather
To General Hamid Gul and other Jihad maniacs (jangi junooni) - By Abbas Ather
![[general+hameed+gul+and+jangi+junooni.gif]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Vbc4oO2rGiw/SM9ol9A9wbI/AAAAAAAAAFI/ghodLVnGyCs/s1600-h/general+hameed+gul+and+jangi+junooni.gif)
Abbas Ather (16 September)
Read more...
War on Terror: Clash of realism and populism in Pakistan
Comment about the government’s policy on the war against terrorism is understandably rife in the media because of the sensitivity of the issue at hand. Some reporters speaking from areas of conflict are advising the government to “do what the people want”. Others are asking why there was no talk at the Foreign Office briefing to President Asif Zardari of the grave threat that continuous unilateral American strikes pose to the internal security of Pakistan. Indeed, the newspapers are full of rebuking articles about “national honour” that has been hurt by the American strikes. One brand of politicians and aspirants to national politics is using angry expressions to describe the “cowardice” of the government, which is allegedly unfocused on issues close to the hearts of the people. One aspirant to the presidency actually laid a bet on TV that there were no foreigners in the Tribal Areas because he had not seen them alive or dead on TV. One TV host referred to the latest show of defiance of the US in other parts of the world as a contrast to Pakistan’s passivity. A reference to the current trouble America is facing in South America was considered apt. Bolivia expelled the American ambassador after he refused to stop meeting the opposition leaders. This was followed by a “sympathetic” expulsion by Venezuela; and nearby Honduras told a US ambassador yet to present his credentials to stay out. This defiant conduct is apparently thought to be “ideal” and Pakistan’s government is being rebuked for not showing spine despite the fact that it is a nuclear power with a population of 170 million in contrast to the Latin American states with populations comparable to the city of Lahore. The debate recalled references made in the past by some intellectuals and politicians to the “nuclear defiance” of North Korea in contrast to Pakistan’s submissiveness today. [Of course, the same persons don’t mention North Korea as a model since it has become a lesson in how not to go nuclear. The example of the once-defiant oil-rich Libya is also not mentioned for obvious reasons.]
The stock answer to all foreign policy problems is: “go to the parliament” and do what the “national consensus” says should be done. But in parliament, politicians are on display and tend to read their diatribes out of newspaper reports. Should a relatively weak regional state consult the people in the street before deciding crucial foreign policy issues? How far should populism be followed before realism restrains rash action?
In the realm of foreign policy, action depends on a state’s ability to cause events to take place and prevent other states from doing so. In political science, some states have the leverage to dictate and some have the capacity to resist dictation, but most have to develop a flexibility of response to avoid damage from undue or provocative defiance.
Shouldn’t the “national interest” attached to the emotion of nationalism in a strong state be different from the cold-blooded national interest of a state that is trying to survive? Can Pakistan follow the lead of Venezuela and its two neighbours whom Venezuela can bail out easily for two reasons: one is the high price of oil which Venezuela produces and the other is the small populations of the two countries. Venezuela is aligned to Iran on how to use oil as an instrument of defiance. The presidents of both the oil-rich states use defiant rhetoric in line with the emotion of the people who want the state to assert itself. Can Pakistan perform this kind of defiant action without hurting itself? Given its economic situation, will an economically squeezed nation abstain from punishing the state after the act of bravado worsens the national economy?
Pakistan is a state with “ungoverned spaces” inside it that are occupied by anarchist gangs training an international network of terrorists. It is therefore hardly in a position to say boo to the world. Its nearly collapsed economy needs help from the rich states of the world at a time when most states are faced with their own food and energy squeeze; and one cannot get cash out of people if one is not prepared to give them a fair hearing in terms of their own national interest. The entire world knows that Pakistan can’t fight Al Qaeda on its own. But it also knows that if the NATO forces leave Afghanistan and foreign military assistance is switched off, Pakistan will not be able to stand up alone and prevent its nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands.
Last but not least is the tactic of using leverage. We can stop supplies to NATO, but then how will we get our tranche of dollars for the second quarter of the year (April-May-June) without which our army can’t carry on its operations in Swat and Bajaur? What if the NATO-ISAF forces withdraw from Afghanistan but use the Arabian Sea to target the terrorists with drones and missiles without any regard for Pakistan? Therefore realism must dawn. The government of Pakistan is approaching the problem in the right manner and has obtained the required pledge of restraint from Washington. It should be supported for its pragmatism rather than reproached for its lack of passion. (Daily Times, 16 September)
Read more...
The stock answer to all foreign policy problems is: “go to the parliament” and do what the “national consensus” says should be done. But in parliament, politicians are on display and tend to read their diatribes out of newspaper reports. Should a relatively weak regional state consult the people in the street before deciding crucial foreign policy issues? How far should populism be followed before realism restrains rash action?
In the realm of foreign policy, action depends on a state’s ability to cause events to take place and prevent other states from doing so. In political science, some states have the leverage to dictate and some have the capacity to resist dictation, but most have to develop a flexibility of response to avoid damage from undue or provocative defiance.
Shouldn’t the “national interest” attached to the emotion of nationalism in a strong state be different from the cold-blooded national interest of a state that is trying to survive? Can Pakistan follow the lead of Venezuela and its two neighbours whom Venezuela can bail out easily for two reasons: one is the high price of oil which Venezuela produces and the other is the small populations of the two countries. Venezuela is aligned to Iran on how to use oil as an instrument of defiance. The presidents of both the oil-rich states use defiant rhetoric in line with the emotion of the people who want the state to assert itself. Can Pakistan perform this kind of defiant action without hurting itself? Given its economic situation, will an economically squeezed nation abstain from punishing the state after the act of bravado worsens the national economy?
Pakistan is a state with “ungoverned spaces” inside it that are occupied by anarchist gangs training an international network of terrorists. It is therefore hardly in a position to say boo to the world. Its nearly collapsed economy needs help from the rich states of the world at a time when most states are faced with their own food and energy squeeze; and one cannot get cash out of people if one is not prepared to give them a fair hearing in terms of their own national interest. The entire world knows that Pakistan can’t fight Al Qaeda on its own. But it also knows that if the NATO forces leave Afghanistan and foreign military assistance is switched off, Pakistan will not be able to stand up alone and prevent its nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands.
Last but not least is the tactic of using leverage. We can stop supplies to NATO, but then how will we get our tranche of dollars for the second quarter of the year (April-May-June) without which our army can’t carry on its operations in Swat and Bajaur? What if the NATO-ISAF forces withdraw from Afghanistan but use the Arabian Sea to target the terrorists with drones and missiles without any regard for Pakistan? Therefore realism must dawn. The government of Pakistan is approaching the problem in the right manner and has obtained the required pledge of restraint from Washington. It should be supported for its pragmatism rather than reproached for its lack of passion. (Daily Times, 16 September)
Read more...
Bangladesh: familiar trajectory?
Begum Khaleda Zia of the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) has been freed and become the party’s permanent chief. She was in jail for a year on corruption charges, which are still in place. Her son Tariq Rehman is known as Mr Ten Percent. The deal with the army, that imposed emergency in 2007 to break a fatal clinch between the two family-led parties, is that she will not boycott the polls coming up in December this year. Meanwhile the army has tried to clean up the political system, eliminating 1.5 million fake voters from the voters’ list.
Begum Zia’s rival Sheikh Hasina of the Awami League, also in jail for corruption, was released earlier. Everyone knows what the two begums and their family-owned parties will do. The pattern is similar to the PPP-PMLN rivalry in Pakistan whom a military ruler tried unsuccessfully to keep out of the system, just like the Bangladesh army. As the two lock horns, Islamists have penetrated Bangladesh and destroyed its magnificent Bengali culture. The state is coming apart at the seams. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? (Daily Times, 16 September)
Read more...
Begum Zia’s rival Sheikh Hasina of the Awami League, also in jail for corruption, was released earlier. Everyone knows what the two begums and their family-owned parties will do. The pattern is similar to the PPP-PMLN rivalry in Pakistan whom a military ruler tried unsuccessfully to keep out of the system, just like the Bangladesh army. As the two lock horns, Islamists have penetrated Bangladesh and destroyed its magnificent Bengali culture. The state is coming apart at the seams. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? (Daily Times, 16 September)
Read more...
Saturday, 13 September 2008
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto slaps General Zia and Ziaists from his grave - Hasan Nisar; Also Tariq Ali's interview on Zia and Bhutto
Hasan Nisar:
....
Tariq Ali on Zia and Bhutto (BBC Urdu)
Part 1:
Part 2:
Source: http://fanonite.org/2007/12/29/tariq-ali-on-zia-and-bhutto-bbc-urdu/
Tariq Ali is speaking about his play, The Leopard and the Fox commissioned initially by the BBC. The play dealt with the relationship between Pakistan’s former dictator, General Zia-ul-Haq, and former Prime Minister (and Benazir’s father) Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. In the play, Tariq wrote about the direct US involvement in ZAB’s execution who had earlier been warned by Henry Kissinger that he will be made an example of unless he ceased his provocations of the US. Zia was seen by Bhutto as a meek and obsequious figure, and hence the latter promoted him over many others to become the chief-of-staff. In the end, Bhutto, who despite his failures remained an immensely popular figure, was hanged by Zia. The courageous Leopard (Bhutto) was outsmarted by the wily Fox (Zia). Benazir essentially inherited the father’s legacy.
BBC, back then, got cold feet at the mention of US complicity, and asked Tariq to drop any mention of it. Tariq refused, and hence the play was scrapped. Channel 4 showed interest, but they did not have the resources. This year, the book was finally republished in India.
Some Comments
1. LeaNder Says:
December 29, 2007 at 4:25 pm
I read your comments over at Phil’s. It is a pity really the BBC interview of Tariq Ali is in Urdu only.
How about giving us central points?
2. Crimson East Says:
December 30, 2007 at 12:15 am
First off, m.idrees, thanks for posting this. I found this interview very interesting.
LeaNder,
I can try to give the central points.
Apparently, the BBC editor-in-chief asked Tariq Ali for the scripts, which Tariq provided. But then he got no response from the BBC for a long time. It turns out that the British Foreign Office told the BBC to be careful when broadcasting such material, as it might affect their cozy relationship with Zia-ul-Haq’s military regime in Pakistan.
The BBC suggested that Tariq Ali truncate those parts of the play which referred to US complicity in Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s hanging. Tariq Ali refused to go along with this censorship.
Tariq Ali then describes how the Indian publisher visited his home recently, saw the script for the play, and agreed to publish it. This publisher will also attach to the book the text of correspondence between Tariq Ali and the lawyers of the BBC, on the pros and cons of broadcasting the play back in the 80s.
The host then asks Tariq Ali why the issue of Zia’s regime hanging Bhutto is so important/relevant in Pakistan.
Tariq explains that post-1971, ZAB held immense power in the country, with the working masses firlmy lined up behind him. With this power, ZAB could have achieved much social progress in Pakistan, even bring about revolutionary changes.
ZAB didn’t achieve all these desired changes, but he still won the confidence of Pakistan’s working-masses. They knew that with him in power, they could not be exploited as brutally as before.
For his popularity as well as his mistakes, ZAB holds immense importance in Pakistani political history.
According to Tariq Ali, one of ZAB’s mistakes was to appoint Zia-ul-Haq as the Chief of Army Staff, over and above more senior generals. ZAB wrongly assumed that Zia was a quite and un-ambitious general
But actually, Zia had been trained at Fort Bragg in the United States.
When he had been posted in Jordan, he gained notoriety for his vicious military effort against the Palestinian resistance guerrillas during the brutal crackdown in Black September.
So basically, Tariq Ali is pointing out that Zia had a background of being a reactionary, pro-imperialist swine. :P
The host then asks Tariq Ali why the Pakistani working masses didn’t rise up against Zia’s regime when it tried to hang ZAB. After all, wasn’t he so popular among them?
Tariq responds by citing two possible reasons. First, the extremely repressive nature of Zia’s regime…hangings, torture, public hangings, etc. These effectively crushed resistance.
And furthermore, Tariq points out the fact that ZAB did not (or could not) carry out the policies which initially won him so much popularity with the masses. So perhaps they didn’t feel that they had enough to lose, and hence they didn’t feel the need to risk their necks for him.
Tariq also says that some generals in Zia’s military regime offered Bhutto a chance to leave the country safely, instead of being tried in a rigged court and hanged.
According to Tariq, ZAB refused this offer and insisted that his place was in his country, with his people, to the very end.
And so, ZAB (the leopard) proved brave, but Zia (the fox) proved more cunning and deceitful…
3. rumple stiltskin Says:
January 24, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I think it is also worth pointing out that due to the Feudal nature of Power in Pakistan ( brilliantly explained by Dalrymple), of which despite some populist reforms Bhutto was very much a central peg, have disempowered the local Populace to a fait accompli degree.
As of this moment Flour and Sugar , as well as electricity are in such short reply that the lot of the common man is to get up in the morning; get through the day and try repeat the process the next day requires all the capacity that one has.
The other factor is that there is no Middle Class as such , there is either the super rich or the poor ( and very poor).
Challenges to the elite are usually from the Middle Class asserting its rights to extract more gains from the elite ( from Revolutionary France ( which was actually a dispute between the new estate and the old royal order )to Todays South Korea ( where every right they enjoy today has had to be earned by rioting in the streets).
Though a great Man , i think to Lionise Bhutto the elder is to fall into the trap that Galloway has gotten into of making a secular super-hero out of a feudal landlord.Tariq Ali should be a little more careful than Galloway , as he knows the History better than outsiders , but i rather think that Tariq is tripping over his own ideology.
Read more...
....
Tariq Ali on Zia and Bhutto (BBC Urdu)
Part 1:
Part 2:
Source: http://fanonite.org/2007/12/29/tariq-ali-on-zia-and-bhutto-bbc-urdu/
Tariq Ali is speaking about his play, The Leopard and the Fox commissioned initially by the BBC. The play dealt with the relationship between Pakistan’s former dictator, General Zia-ul-Haq, and former Prime Minister (and Benazir’s father) Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. In the play, Tariq wrote about the direct US involvement in ZAB’s execution who had earlier been warned by Henry Kissinger that he will be made an example of unless he ceased his provocations of the US. Zia was seen by Bhutto as a meek and obsequious figure, and hence the latter promoted him over many others to become the chief-of-staff. In the end, Bhutto, who despite his failures remained an immensely popular figure, was hanged by Zia. The courageous Leopard (Bhutto) was outsmarted by the wily Fox (Zia). Benazir essentially inherited the father’s legacy.
BBC, back then, got cold feet at the mention of US complicity, and asked Tariq to drop any mention of it. Tariq refused, and hence the play was scrapped. Channel 4 showed interest, but they did not have the resources. This year, the book was finally republished in India.
Some Comments
1. LeaNder Says:
December 29, 2007 at 4:25 pm
I read your comments over at Phil’s. It is a pity really the BBC interview of Tariq Ali is in Urdu only.
How about giving us central points?
2. Crimson East Says:
December 30, 2007 at 12:15 am
First off, m.idrees, thanks for posting this. I found this interview very interesting.
LeaNder,
I can try to give the central points.
Apparently, the BBC editor-in-chief asked Tariq Ali for the scripts, which Tariq provided. But then he got no response from the BBC for a long time. It turns out that the British Foreign Office told the BBC to be careful when broadcasting such material, as it might affect their cozy relationship with Zia-ul-Haq’s military regime in Pakistan.
The BBC suggested that Tariq Ali truncate those parts of the play which referred to US complicity in Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s hanging. Tariq Ali refused to go along with this censorship.
Tariq Ali then describes how the Indian publisher visited his home recently, saw the script for the play, and agreed to publish it. This publisher will also attach to the book the text of correspondence between Tariq Ali and the lawyers of the BBC, on the pros and cons of broadcasting the play back in the 80s.
The host then asks Tariq Ali why the issue of Zia’s regime hanging Bhutto is so important/relevant in Pakistan.
Tariq explains that post-1971, ZAB held immense power in the country, with the working masses firlmy lined up behind him. With this power, ZAB could have achieved much social progress in Pakistan, even bring about revolutionary changes.
ZAB didn’t achieve all these desired changes, but he still won the confidence of Pakistan’s working-masses. They knew that with him in power, they could not be exploited as brutally as before.
For his popularity as well as his mistakes, ZAB holds immense importance in Pakistani political history.
According to Tariq Ali, one of ZAB’s mistakes was to appoint Zia-ul-Haq as the Chief of Army Staff, over and above more senior generals. ZAB wrongly assumed that Zia was a quite and un-ambitious general
But actually, Zia had been trained at Fort Bragg in the United States.
When he had been posted in Jordan, he gained notoriety for his vicious military effort against the Palestinian resistance guerrillas during the brutal crackdown in Black September.
So basically, Tariq Ali is pointing out that Zia had a background of being a reactionary, pro-imperialist swine. :P
The host then asks Tariq Ali why the Pakistani working masses didn’t rise up against Zia’s regime when it tried to hang ZAB. After all, wasn’t he so popular among them?
Tariq responds by citing two possible reasons. First, the extremely repressive nature of Zia’s regime…hangings, torture, public hangings, etc. These effectively crushed resistance.
And furthermore, Tariq points out the fact that ZAB did not (or could not) carry out the policies which initially won him so much popularity with the masses. So perhaps they didn’t feel that they had enough to lose, and hence they didn’t feel the need to risk their necks for him.
Tariq also says that some generals in Zia’s military regime offered Bhutto a chance to leave the country safely, instead of being tried in a rigged court and hanged.
According to Tariq, ZAB refused this offer and insisted that his place was in his country, with his people, to the very end.
And so, ZAB (the leopard) proved brave, but Zia (the fox) proved more cunning and deceitful…
3. rumple stiltskin Says:
January 24, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I think it is also worth pointing out that due to the Feudal nature of Power in Pakistan ( brilliantly explained by Dalrymple), of which despite some populist reforms Bhutto was very much a central peg, have disempowered the local Populace to a fait accompli degree.
As of this moment Flour and Sugar , as well as electricity are in such short reply that the lot of the common man is to get up in the morning; get through the day and try repeat the process the next day requires all the capacity that one has.
The other factor is that there is no Middle Class as such , there is either the super rich or the poor ( and very poor).
Challenges to the elite are usually from the Middle Class asserting its rights to extract more gains from the elite ( from Revolutionary France ( which was actually a dispute between the new estate and the old royal order )to Todays South Korea ( where every right they enjoy today has had to be earned by rioting in the streets).
Though a great Man , i think to Lionise Bhutto the elder is to fall into the trap that Galloway has gotten into of making a secular super-hero out of a feudal landlord.Tariq Ali should be a little more careful than Galloway , as he knows the History better than outsiders , but i rather think that Tariq is tripping over his own ideology.
Read more...
Bloody mess and the supporters of the fauji laundry - Munnoo Bhai
Munno bhai writes on the campaign of the Mullah Media Alliance against the political class and their insistence that NRO must be dry-cleaned in the 'fauji laundry'.
![[munoo+bhai+fauji+lanudary.gif]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Vbc4oO2rGiw/SMt-QoYC-oI/AAAAAAAAADg/QBUgGDMAItg/s1600/munoo%2Bbhai%2Bfauji%2Blanudary.gif)
Read more...
Read more...
Disinformation cell part 2 - the paid agenst of ISI-Mullah alliance working against democracy in Pakistan
Friday, 12 September 2008
Mother of all challenges facing President Zardari
According to one report, there are five challenges that the new President of Pakistan, Mr Asif Ali Zardari, will face. These are ones posed by rising militancy, a failing economy, fledgling democracy, conflict with India, and his own personal safety. More realistically, he is supposed “to respond to Western pressure to crack down on Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters in Pakistan and Afghanistan, motivate donors to top up the country’s foreign currency reserves to prevent a run on the rupee, deal with demands to release Dr AQ Khan and restore Iftikhar Chaudhry, and face pressures to resign as co-chairman of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), restore parliament’s powers at the expense of the presidency, and continue the peace process with India”.
But seen from the point of view of realpolitik, there is only one challenge — the mother of all challenges — he has to face and win quickly. That is to continue and win the war against religious terrorism in the face of a parliament and a nation that is more inclined to “opt out of it”. Of course, the national economy is a challenge as far as the formulation of a plan of “rescue and repair” is concerned in the coming few days — that is something that the prime minister and the cabinet should be doing anyway — but the period of the next two years or so will require significant injections of foreign assistance and concessions for the economy to survive, let alone subsidising fuel and food prices etc. And where will that money for economic survival come from?
It will come from fighting the war against terrorism effectively, both by encouraging domestic and foreign investors to put their money in a safer and more stable Pakistan and by nudging donors to pay and prop up Pakistan for thwarting the terrorist threat to them. That is what will compel outside allies to shell out the needed money to bail us out. But it will mean going against the dominant view in the media and some political parties, including the big one, PMLN, who wrongly think that the war against terrorism and religious extremism is not Pakistan’s war and are in denial about the intentions of Al Qaeda and its manipulation of its three puppets, the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban and the old jihadi organisations originally set up by the state to fight the jihad of Kashmir. Unfortunately, the media has succeeded in spreading the emotional but wrong message that America has arrived in the neighbourhood of Pakistan to harm Islam and snatch Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. This rampant anti-Americanism goes directly against the economy’s bid to get much-needed injections to set itself right.
The job of running the anti-terrorism campaign in tandem with the army is going to be complicated by some sections of the state apparatus that insist on holding on to the old tactical pawns meant for the chessboard of Afghanistan and Kashmir. Worse, any necessary change of policy on Afghanistan and India is vulnerable to adverse media comment by columnists and anchors who still adhere to the old strategic paradigm. The PPP government has already made its intentions clear about putting its relations with India on a new footing through a “pro-India” trade policy. But in the coming days more incidents in the Tribal Areas and Balochistan might give rise to recidivist emotions longing to bring Pakistan’s old conflicts back. The jihadi organisations were disbanded but kept alive by President Pervez Musharraf. The tough job for President Zardari would be to demobilise them and separate them from Al Qaeda.
That is why stabilising the transition to civilian democracy will be a challenge in these circumstances. The call is now going round for him to resign as the party’s co-chairperson. He has already promised to get rid of Article 58-2(b) with the help of the PMLN and do away with the 17th Amendment which gives him advantage in dealing with the provinces. But we cannot imagine how, without an outright majority in Islamabad, which his party doesn’t have, he can do so and also feel secure about his government’s longevity. So there will have to be a solid quid pro quo from the PMLN. But that will require two hands to clap. Will Mr Sharif abandon his position on the judges issue and join a government of national consensus in Islamabad as suggested by Mr Zardari and required by the circumstances? If he doesn’t, the conflict with Punjab will erupt sooner or later and Mr Zardari and the nation will be distracted from the major issue of confronting terrorism and strengthening the economy.
The pledge that Mr Zardari has given to Balochistan and Pakhtunkhwa for provincial autonomy — which he must not renege on — will have to be a package for all provinces and will have to come sooner rather than later. Indeed, far from “interfering” in Punjab, he will have to give more powers to it under the new autonomy dispensation. The PPP government’s Budget 2008-09 pegs growth rate to agriculture and indirectly relies on Punjab to produce the food that Pakistan will need for consumption and export. Without letting Mr Shahbaz Sharif run the province efficiently in peace this will not be accomplished.
As for resigning from the party, those who demand it forget that the PPP is a family party. Even if he resigns, the next party chief will still take orders from him, just as he will still dominate the decision-making in Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s cabinet. And given his pragmatism, that won’t be a bad thing at all!
Daily Times, 8 September.
Read more...
But seen from the point of view of realpolitik, there is only one challenge — the mother of all challenges — he has to face and win quickly. That is to continue and win the war against religious terrorism in the face of a parliament and a nation that is more inclined to “opt out of it”. Of course, the national economy is a challenge as far as the formulation of a plan of “rescue and repair” is concerned in the coming few days — that is something that the prime minister and the cabinet should be doing anyway — but the period of the next two years or so will require significant injections of foreign assistance and concessions for the economy to survive, let alone subsidising fuel and food prices etc. And where will that money for economic survival come from?
It will come from fighting the war against terrorism effectively, both by encouraging domestic and foreign investors to put their money in a safer and more stable Pakistan and by nudging donors to pay and prop up Pakistan for thwarting the terrorist threat to them. That is what will compel outside allies to shell out the needed money to bail us out. But it will mean going against the dominant view in the media and some political parties, including the big one, PMLN, who wrongly think that the war against terrorism and religious extremism is not Pakistan’s war and are in denial about the intentions of Al Qaeda and its manipulation of its three puppets, the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban and the old jihadi organisations originally set up by the state to fight the jihad of Kashmir. Unfortunately, the media has succeeded in spreading the emotional but wrong message that America has arrived in the neighbourhood of Pakistan to harm Islam and snatch Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. This rampant anti-Americanism goes directly against the economy’s bid to get much-needed injections to set itself right.
The job of running the anti-terrorism campaign in tandem with the army is going to be complicated by some sections of the state apparatus that insist on holding on to the old tactical pawns meant for the chessboard of Afghanistan and Kashmir. Worse, any necessary change of policy on Afghanistan and India is vulnerable to adverse media comment by columnists and anchors who still adhere to the old strategic paradigm. The PPP government has already made its intentions clear about putting its relations with India on a new footing through a “pro-India” trade policy. But in the coming days more incidents in the Tribal Areas and Balochistan might give rise to recidivist emotions longing to bring Pakistan’s old conflicts back. The jihadi organisations were disbanded but kept alive by President Pervez Musharraf. The tough job for President Zardari would be to demobilise them and separate them from Al Qaeda.
That is why stabilising the transition to civilian democracy will be a challenge in these circumstances. The call is now going round for him to resign as the party’s co-chairperson. He has already promised to get rid of Article 58-2(b) with the help of the PMLN and do away with the 17th Amendment which gives him advantage in dealing with the provinces. But we cannot imagine how, without an outright majority in Islamabad, which his party doesn’t have, he can do so and also feel secure about his government’s longevity. So there will have to be a solid quid pro quo from the PMLN. But that will require two hands to clap. Will Mr Sharif abandon his position on the judges issue and join a government of national consensus in Islamabad as suggested by Mr Zardari and required by the circumstances? If he doesn’t, the conflict with Punjab will erupt sooner or later and Mr Zardari and the nation will be distracted from the major issue of confronting terrorism and strengthening the economy.
The pledge that Mr Zardari has given to Balochistan and Pakhtunkhwa for provincial autonomy — which he must not renege on — will have to be a package for all provinces and will have to come sooner rather than later. Indeed, far from “interfering” in Punjab, he will have to give more powers to it under the new autonomy dispensation. The PPP government’s Budget 2008-09 pegs growth rate to agriculture and indirectly relies on Punjab to produce the food that Pakistan will need for consumption and export. Without letting Mr Shahbaz Sharif run the province efficiently in peace this will not be accomplished.
As for resigning from the party, those who demand it forget that the PPP is a family party. Even if he resigns, the next party chief will still take orders from him, just as he will still dominate the decision-making in Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s cabinet. And given his pragmatism, that won’t be a bad thing at all!
Daily Times, 8 September.
Read more...
A great victory, a perilous task - Tanvir Ahmad Khan
Tanvir Ahmad Khan
The questions of provincial autonomy, relations between the presidency and parliament, the right balance between the powers of the president and the prime minister and the fullest possible rehabilitation of the judiciary will have to be addressed adequately and promptly
On February 18, the people of Pakistan belied many dark prophecies and handed down an electoral verdict that knocked out the power base of a dictatorship that had lasted almost a decade.
A tidal wave of resentment at General Musharraf’s continuing efforts to subvert this verdict swept across the elected assemblies in August forcing him to trade off the office that he had seized by force in 1999 for an abandonment of the impending impeachment. Come September and the Electoral College chose Mr Asif Zardari as the new president with an unprecedented majority.
It could have been faster but in the end it took less than nine months to complete a process that would certainly be described in Pakistan’s history as the second most difficult democratic restoration, the first being after a military ruler had wantonly lost East Pakistan.
Mr Zardari deserves credit that this restoration has not entailed a heavy price. The people of Pakistan are to be lauded that they have, time and again, reaffirmed their faith in a republican, democratic and progressive dispensation. The state is now symbolised and served by a president and a prime minister that hold office by ballot and not by the fiat of a military putsch.
Mr Zardari is a politician rooted in a party that has borne the brunt of the Pakistani Establishment’s deeply entrenched distrust of popular politics. He has, therefore, not been above controversy. But even a cursory analysis will show that his rise to the highest office was a necessary, if not sufficient, step towards healing the festering wounds inflicted on the federation by the Musharraf regime.
That the members of the Electoral College from the three so-called smaller provinces voted almost unanimously for him on September 6 is an acknowledgement of Mr Zardari’s credentials to initiate the internal dialogue to save the federation.
The split vote in the Punjab assembly also needs to be interpreted correctly. The problems in that province are qualitatively different from the other provinces. Once the PPP-PMLN coalition had collapsed at the federal level, the question of the PMLN’s stand on the presidential election had undergone a substantive change.
Ideally, it could still have formed a part of the national consensus to empower the new head of state to deal with challenges some of which pose an existential dilemma. The PPP sought this consensus virtually till the electors headed for the august legislative houses. It did not succeed and the vote in Lahore reaffirmed the resilience of the two major parties.
It may sound disappointing on the polling day but it should not be a cause for concern in a long-term analysis. The door is still open for cooperation on issues that impinge on national integrity and security. Since the PPP has the two highest offices and will dominate the federal cabinet in foreseeable future, the presence of a robust and responsible opposition may turn out to be an asset in the larger struggle for the democratisation of Pakistan’s polity.
The votes cast for Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui reflect the actual strength of the PMLN which will contest the PPP for people’s allegiance in the years ahead. Siddiqui’s election campaign was characterised by restraint and civility that still define relations between the two parties.
The election campaign of the third candidate will, however, be remembered for altogether different reasons. It was counter-productive in the context of PMLQ’s strategy for survival after the great debacle of the general election. The candidate, our own native, indigenous man for all seasons, ran into some very unseasonable weather and was, by accident or design, reduced to be a part of an unseemly campaign of vilification against Mr Zardari.
Mushahid Hussain Syed hardly ever addressed the electors. Instead, his discourse became indistinguishable from the gossip and scandal circulated through deliberately planted stories — some clearly from abroad — and the streaming text messages and internet chatter. In the final analysis, the electors ignored it and it only undermined Syed’s own reputation as an intellectual. I would count his loss of credibility as a national loss.
President Zardari faces a daunting task. A number of items on the urgent agenda demand simultaneous, not sequential, remedial action. The questions of provincial autonomy, relations between the presidency and parliament, the right balance between the powers of the president and the prime minister and the fullest possible rehabilitation of the judiciary will have to be addressed adequately and promptly.
The economy is in dire straits buffeted by evil winds. It needs a bipartisan, i.e. PPP-PMLN, understanding as the most populous province must figure comprehensively in any salvage plan. This plan must transcend the ad-hocism of the Shaukat Aziz era and include emergency measures, medium-term strategies and a long-term perspective approach.
All our thoughts of national revival are at the moment overshadowed by increasing violence and its integral linkage with the difficulties of managing our relations with the United States.
In the final stage of the presidential race in the United States, the danger of poorly thought demonstrative military actions both in Afghanistan and across the international frontier looms larger than ever before. President Zardari will need to provide leadership for a quick review of the situation and then, most probably, be the main interlocutor from our side in an in-depth dialogue with Washington. He will doubtless discover that the task will require broadening of Musharraf’s linear foreign policy.
Pakistan is without a comprehensive worldview; the forthcoming exchange of views with the Chinese leadership would help develop it. A similar exercise with New Delhi should also take place before long. General Musharraf deliberately emasculated the Foreign Office. The new president should let it come into own and then hold it to rigorous scrutiny. Mr Zardari has come from prisons to presidency. He is the exile come home to claim a kingdom. Let him now lead the nation to its destiny.
The writer is a former foreign secretary who can be contacted at tanvir.a.khan@gmail.com
Read more...
The questions of provincial autonomy, relations between the presidency and parliament, the right balance between the powers of the president and the prime minister and the fullest possible rehabilitation of the judiciary will have to be addressed adequately and promptly
On February 18, the people of Pakistan belied many dark prophecies and handed down an electoral verdict that knocked out the power base of a dictatorship that had lasted almost a decade.
A tidal wave of resentment at General Musharraf’s continuing efforts to subvert this verdict swept across the elected assemblies in August forcing him to trade off the office that he had seized by force in 1999 for an abandonment of the impending impeachment. Come September and the Electoral College chose Mr Asif Zardari as the new president with an unprecedented majority.
It could have been faster but in the end it took less than nine months to complete a process that would certainly be described in Pakistan’s history as the second most difficult democratic restoration, the first being after a military ruler had wantonly lost East Pakistan.
Mr Zardari deserves credit that this restoration has not entailed a heavy price. The people of Pakistan are to be lauded that they have, time and again, reaffirmed their faith in a republican, democratic and progressive dispensation. The state is now symbolised and served by a president and a prime minister that hold office by ballot and not by the fiat of a military putsch.
Mr Zardari is a politician rooted in a party that has borne the brunt of the Pakistani Establishment’s deeply entrenched distrust of popular politics. He has, therefore, not been above controversy. But even a cursory analysis will show that his rise to the highest office was a necessary, if not sufficient, step towards healing the festering wounds inflicted on the federation by the Musharraf regime.
That the members of the Electoral College from the three so-called smaller provinces voted almost unanimously for him on September 6 is an acknowledgement of Mr Zardari’s credentials to initiate the internal dialogue to save the federation.
The split vote in the Punjab assembly also needs to be interpreted correctly. The problems in that province are qualitatively different from the other provinces. Once the PPP-PMLN coalition had collapsed at the federal level, the question of the PMLN’s stand on the presidential election had undergone a substantive change.
Ideally, it could still have formed a part of the national consensus to empower the new head of state to deal with challenges some of which pose an existential dilemma. The PPP sought this consensus virtually till the electors headed for the august legislative houses. It did not succeed and the vote in Lahore reaffirmed the resilience of the two major parties.
It may sound disappointing on the polling day but it should not be a cause for concern in a long-term analysis. The door is still open for cooperation on issues that impinge on national integrity and security. Since the PPP has the two highest offices and will dominate the federal cabinet in foreseeable future, the presence of a robust and responsible opposition may turn out to be an asset in the larger struggle for the democratisation of Pakistan’s polity.
The votes cast for Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui reflect the actual strength of the PMLN which will contest the PPP for people’s allegiance in the years ahead. Siddiqui’s election campaign was characterised by restraint and civility that still define relations between the two parties.
The election campaign of the third candidate will, however, be remembered for altogether different reasons. It was counter-productive in the context of PMLQ’s strategy for survival after the great debacle of the general election. The candidate, our own native, indigenous man for all seasons, ran into some very unseasonable weather and was, by accident or design, reduced to be a part of an unseemly campaign of vilification against Mr Zardari.
Mushahid Hussain Syed hardly ever addressed the electors. Instead, his discourse became indistinguishable from the gossip and scandal circulated through deliberately planted stories — some clearly from abroad — and the streaming text messages and internet chatter. In the final analysis, the electors ignored it and it only undermined Syed’s own reputation as an intellectual. I would count his loss of credibility as a national loss.
President Zardari faces a daunting task. A number of items on the urgent agenda demand simultaneous, not sequential, remedial action. The questions of provincial autonomy, relations between the presidency and parliament, the right balance between the powers of the president and the prime minister and the fullest possible rehabilitation of the judiciary will have to be addressed adequately and promptly.
The economy is in dire straits buffeted by evil winds. It needs a bipartisan, i.e. PPP-PMLN, understanding as the most populous province must figure comprehensively in any salvage plan. This plan must transcend the ad-hocism of the Shaukat Aziz era and include emergency measures, medium-term strategies and a long-term perspective approach.
All our thoughts of national revival are at the moment overshadowed by increasing violence and its integral linkage with the difficulties of managing our relations with the United States.
In the final stage of the presidential race in the United States, the danger of poorly thought demonstrative military actions both in Afghanistan and across the international frontier looms larger than ever before. President Zardari will need to provide leadership for a quick review of the situation and then, most probably, be the main interlocutor from our side in an in-depth dialogue with Washington. He will doubtless discover that the task will require broadening of Musharraf’s linear foreign policy.
Pakistan is without a comprehensive worldview; the forthcoming exchange of views with the Chinese leadership would help develop it. A similar exercise with New Delhi should also take place before long. General Musharraf deliberately emasculated the Foreign Office. The new president should let it come into own and then hold it to rigorous scrutiny. Mr Zardari has come from prisons to presidency. He is the exile come home to claim a kingdom. Let him now lead the nation to its destiny.
The writer is a former foreign secretary who can be contacted at tanvir.a.khan@gmail.com
Read more...
President Zardari and media obsessions
On Tuesday, at the press conference following his swearing-in, President Asif Ali Zardari set the tone by saying: “The president will only carry forward the brief of the government and bow before the parliament; the president will be subservient to parliament”. This is all he could say as president, but those present around him wanted him to speak as chief executive, which he couldn’t be without violating the Constitution. The journalists later on complained on TV that he didn’t say much; and because he didn’t say much, he was accused of refusing to commit himself to what they thought was his moral duty as a politician.
Why did the press act on the presumption that he was not the proper president under the Constitution, but someone with excessive rights which he should give up? After having heard him pledge that his party would go back to the Constitution as it was in 1999, how could they expect from him what they wouldn’t have got from President Rafiq Tarrar, for instance? So it wasn’t a “frank” first outing of Mr Zardari as president? Wrong. The press got it wrong all the way. Any president under the Constitution would be trespassing on the rights of the parliament were he to answer questions pertaining to policy as demanded by the media. Theoretically, policy is not made by the president. At any rate, Mr Zardari has pronounced a hundred times before on every question raised by the media.
The first question was: when was he going to get rid of Article 58-2(b)? The question was wrong. Article 58-2(b) cannot be removed by the president; the right person to ask is the prime minister because he is the leader of the house in the National Assembly. Then the second question was: When was he going to get rid of the 17th Amendment? Wrong, again, for the same reason. Getting rid of the party position? In the same category. The party decides who is to be its leader. It is another matter that, given the nature of the PPP as a party with “family charisma”, Mr Zardari’s giving up the leadership would hardly make things any different.
Because he was speaking as president under the Constitution, all his answers were brief without impinging on policy or appearing to formulate it. Given the conditions of a hostile environment, Mr Zardari did well by not going into detail about anything. Still, a stickler for legalisms would probably rebuke him for allowing too much comment on Kashmir. His answer to the question about ousting the Americans from Afghanistan relied on the UN Charter but he could have been even more periphrastic. The press should have been given the treatment it deserved for not viewing the president as a titular head of the state especially when its main crib is that he should get rid of his powers and be just like a titular head of state. If the idea was to make him run off at the mouth and then catch him violating the Constitution or attempting to be an “elected” dictator, it fell flat.
The presence of President Hamid Karzai at the press conference was taken amiss. The BBC was pleasantly surprised and welcomed the move because the world outside Pakistan knows that the most explosive prospect of conflict in the region is on the Pak-Afghan border. Unfortunately, the first post-conference discussion staged by a particular TV channel condemned the act of inviting President Karzai to Islamabad. The anchor began by saying that the economic crisis in Pakistan was more important than the trouble in the Tribal Areas, and a retired foreign secretary immediately complained of the PPP’s crime to equate Pakistan with Afghanistan. He said there were times when Pakistan was at par with India, but now Mr Zardari had downgraded the country. How ridiculous.
The discussions that followed on other TV channels actually condemned the presence of President Karzai at the press conference because he had earlier made such grievous allegations against Pakistan. People who had watched the TV channels then began ringing up the talk shows and telling the anchors that President Karzai was a criminal who should not have been invited to Islamabad. The first discussion, led by a needlessly angry anchor, set the tone. Good guests were hard to come by and resultantly just one point of view was projected. An economist actually came on TV to say that President Zardari had not presented an effective economic policy review in answer to a question at the press conference!
Okay, you hate the man, but this is not the way to get your anger out. Give President Zardari a fair chance so that at the end of the day the TV channels don’t have to hang their head in shame. Already our anchors have gone overboard with the increasingly politicised cause of the lawyers and their passion for Lal Masjid and its vigilante gangs. Their hatred of America and India in the end will push them into hating everyone whom the people choose to govern Pakistan. How long can one be excused for a dearth of knowledgeable and moderate anchors and a famine of guests who can correct the Punjabi tilt of the channels?
Daily Times, 11 September 2008.
Read more...
Why did the press act on the presumption that he was not the proper president under the Constitution, but someone with excessive rights which he should give up? After having heard him pledge that his party would go back to the Constitution as it was in 1999, how could they expect from him what they wouldn’t have got from President Rafiq Tarrar, for instance? So it wasn’t a “frank” first outing of Mr Zardari as president? Wrong. The press got it wrong all the way. Any president under the Constitution would be trespassing on the rights of the parliament were he to answer questions pertaining to policy as demanded by the media. Theoretically, policy is not made by the president. At any rate, Mr Zardari has pronounced a hundred times before on every question raised by the media.
The first question was: when was he going to get rid of Article 58-2(b)? The question was wrong. Article 58-2(b) cannot be removed by the president; the right person to ask is the prime minister because he is the leader of the house in the National Assembly. Then the second question was: When was he going to get rid of the 17th Amendment? Wrong, again, for the same reason. Getting rid of the party position? In the same category. The party decides who is to be its leader. It is another matter that, given the nature of the PPP as a party with “family charisma”, Mr Zardari’s giving up the leadership would hardly make things any different.
Because he was speaking as president under the Constitution, all his answers were brief without impinging on policy or appearing to formulate it. Given the conditions of a hostile environment, Mr Zardari did well by not going into detail about anything. Still, a stickler for legalisms would probably rebuke him for allowing too much comment on Kashmir. His answer to the question about ousting the Americans from Afghanistan relied on the UN Charter but he could have been even more periphrastic. The press should have been given the treatment it deserved for not viewing the president as a titular head of the state especially when its main crib is that he should get rid of his powers and be just like a titular head of state. If the idea was to make him run off at the mouth and then catch him violating the Constitution or attempting to be an “elected” dictator, it fell flat.
The presence of President Hamid Karzai at the press conference was taken amiss. The BBC was pleasantly surprised and welcomed the move because the world outside Pakistan knows that the most explosive prospect of conflict in the region is on the Pak-Afghan border. Unfortunately, the first post-conference discussion staged by a particular TV channel condemned the act of inviting President Karzai to Islamabad. The anchor began by saying that the economic crisis in Pakistan was more important than the trouble in the Tribal Areas, and a retired foreign secretary immediately complained of the PPP’s crime to equate Pakistan with Afghanistan. He said there were times when Pakistan was at par with India, but now Mr Zardari had downgraded the country. How ridiculous.
The discussions that followed on other TV channels actually condemned the presence of President Karzai at the press conference because he had earlier made such grievous allegations against Pakistan. People who had watched the TV channels then began ringing up the talk shows and telling the anchors that President Karzai was a criminal who should not have been invited to Islamabad. The first discussion, led by a needlessly angry anchor, set the tone. Good guests were hard to come by and resultantly just one point of view was projected. An economist actually came on TV to say that President Zardari had not presented an effective economic policy review in answer to a question at the press conference!
Okay, you hate the man, but this is not the way to get your anger out. Give President Zardari a fair chance so that at the end of the day the TV channels don’t have to hang their head in shame. Already our anchors have gone overboard with the increasingly politicised cause of the lawyers and their passion for Lal Masjid and its vigilante gangs. Their hatred of America and India in the end will push them into hating everyone whom the people choose to govern Pakistan. How long can one be excused for a dearth of knowledgeable and moderate anchors and a famine of guests who can correct the Punjabi tilt of the channels?
Daily Times, 11 September 2008.
Read more...
The politics of values - by Adrian A Husain
By Adrian A Husain
POWER can at times appear shamanistic. It is able to steal into hearts, subtly persuade and, with devastating logic, finally prevail. The political adroitness of Asif Ali Zardari, the new president-elect of the country, has achieved precisely this.
No mere ‘accident’ or proxy, he succeeded, on the contrary, in converting two-thirds of Pakistan’s electoral college to his way of thinking and taking it along with him to clinch the top slot in the country. It has been a bravura performance that has brought even detractors up short.
Zardari’s has, of course, been the victory of realpolitik. Unimpeded by qualms about good faith, the road to it has proven compellingly Machiavellian. Its beauty lay in the curious combination of guile and temerity displayed, alike, in Zardari’s dealings with erstwhile foes and allies recently turned adversaries.
The path ahead may be fraught with uncertainty and hazard. Our economy is teetering at the edge. There are the Taliban and inter civil-military sensitivities to address. There is the delicate issue of Pakistan’s reportedly sought-after nukes and the question of whether some of the historical baggage of absolutism needs jettisoning. But for the time being, there is just the sweet smell of success.
Does this mean that the other major political player in the country, Nawaz Sharif has all but been consigned to oblivion? Some analysts seem to hold this view. But it is short-sighted.
If Sharif and his PML-N cohorts are to be heard making conciliatory pro-democracy noises, this should not be construed as a sign of weakness. Apart from the fact that the party comfortably held its majority in the presidential election in Punjab, there is method in what Sharif appears to be saying — with an eye to the long-term.Not enough attention has been paid to his discourse on a politics of ‘values’ as opposed to power. What are these ‘values’? We must take these as having arisen out of Sharif’s personal experience of power: notably, the catharsis of his imprisonment and subsequent exile.
Topping his list would logically seem to be the primacy of human dignity and civil rights. Yet his quest is equally for the overall democratisation of Pakistan: the sovereignty of parliament, the supremacy of the country’s constitution and, of course, the independence of its judiciary.
This explains his unremitting advocacy of the restitution of all our deposed judges, something that, no matter how apparently improbable, would serve to guarantee the return of some semblance of the rule of law to the country. It is linked in turn to some very genuine apprehensions on his part about the future of the federation.
So instead of the impetuously self-seeking politico of yore, we see someone quite different today: a man aspiring to give the country what he feels it desperately needs by making principle fundamental to the business of politics. Though belated, this has nevertheless allowed Sharif to regain the trust of at least a portion of a formerly disenchanted electorate.
Yet, unlike Zardari, he also seems to be flying in the teeth of some inescapable historical realities. If, for instance, he is to be acceptable to the West — as he surely must to achieve more than just informal head-of-opposition status — he will have to come to terms with the need to contain the insurgency on the tribal belt, militarily and not just through ‘peaceful’ dialogue.
This does not mean that we must cynically barter away our citizens or pursue military solutions in the region to the exclusion of all else. And, clearly, incursions by US forces into our territory are not on. But it does imply sitting up to the facts on the ground and realising that we simply must clean house. Regardless of the origins of its components, the Taliban apparat has to be dismantled.
It may be that — like many in civil society — Sharif also exists in a sort of time warp or is out of touch with what is happening in the wings. He may be blinkered for one of two reasons. It is possible that he has simply been away from the scene for too long. Alternatively, this may be attributed to his parochial mindset and an inability to perceive the sea change that has come about in the smaller provinces or that the country has moved beyond a point where it can be reinvented in keeping with his faintly quixotic format.
The insurgency in the NWFP and Balochistan and the uprising in Sindh in the aftermath of Benazir’s assassination all point in the same direction. Belief in the federation would seem perceptibly to be on the wane. The smaller provinces all share, as never before, a growing sense of alienation. The feeling by and large is that they are, and have been from the start, less equal or indeed ‘federal’ than Punjab. This is something Sharif is not perhaps reckoning with.
Zardari’s candidature for the presidency may have been controversial but it also plainly had the support of these political margins. Reports relating to his mental illness and unaccounted for wealth were, his supporters here felt, mere hogwash designed to do them out of their legitimate democratic right. At the same time, given the somewhat awkward questions surrounding his name and the fact that authoritarian rule was no longer in vogue, there were those who saw an element of chutzpah about his sudden bid for absolute power.
However, now that Zardari has won out, it is important that civil society give him a chance by taking its cue from Sharif in not trying to destabilise the new dispensation. What matters is that we address issues that concern us more directly. The judges’ issue over which the PPP–PML-N coalition came apart is crucial. It still awaits resolution. The ‘reappointment’ of judges piecemeal smacks just very slightly of expediency.
The insistence of Sharif and the top PML-N leadership that the pre-Nov 3 judiciary — along with Iftikhar Chaudhry — be restored in one go speaks of a commitment to constitutionality and the rule of law not just for now but in the long term.
This is heartening as it suggests that they share our concerns and are thinking about a viable future for a country seriously at odds with itself and — Zardari’s victory notwithstanding — with an increasingly nebulous horizon.
http://www.dawn.com/2008/09/09/op.htm
Read more...
POWER can at times appear shamanistic. It is able to steal into hearts, subtly persuade and, with devastating logic, finally prevail. The political adroitness of Asif Ali Zardari, the new president-elect of the country, has achieved precisely this.
No mere ‘accident’ or proxy, he succeeded, on the contrary, in converting two-thirds of Pakistan’s electoral college to his way of thinking and taking it along with him to clinch the top slot in the country. It has been a bravura performance that has brought even detractors up short.
Zardari’s has, of course, been the victory of realpolitik. Unimpeded by qualms about good faith, the road to it has proven compellingly Machiavellian. Its beauty lay in the curious combination of guile and temerity displayed, alike, in Zardari’s dealings with erstwhile foes and allies recently turned adversaries.
The path ahead may be fraught with uncertainty and hazard. Our economy is teetering at the edge. There are the Taliban and inter civil-military sensitivities to address. There is the delicate issue of Pakistan’s reportedly sought-after nukes and the question of whether some of the historical baggage of absolutism needs jettisoning. But for the time being, there is just the sweet smell of success.
Does this mean that the other major political player in the country, Nawaz Sharif has all but been consigned to oblivion? Some analysts seem to hold this view. But it is short-sighted.
If Sharif and his PML-N cohorts are to be heard making conciliatory pro-democracy noises, this should not be construed as a sign of weakness. Apart from the fact that the party comfortably held its majority in the presidential election in Punjab, there is method in what Sharif appears to be saying — with an eye to the long-term.Not enough attention has been paid to his discourse on a politics of ‘values’ as opposed to power. What are these ‘values’? We must take these as having arisen out of Sharif’s personal experience of power: notably, the catharsis of his imprisonment and subsequent exile.
Topping his list would logically seem to be the primacy of human dignity and civil rights. Yet his quest is equally for the overall democratisation of Pakistan: the sovereignty of parliament, the supremacy of the country’s constitution and, of course, the independence of its judiciary.
This explains his unremitting advocacy of the restitution of all our deposed judges, something that, no matter how apparently improbable, would serve to guarantee the return of some semblance of the rule of law to the country. It is linked in turn to some very genuine apprehensions on his part about the future of the federation.
So instead of the impetuously self-seeking politico of yore, we see someone quite different today: a man aspiring to give the country what he feels it desperately needs by making principle fundamental to the business of politics. Though belated, this has nevertheless allowed Sharif to regain the trust of at least a portion of a formerly disenchanted electorate.
Yet, unlike Zardari, he also seems to be flying in the teeth of some inescapable historical realities. If, for instance, he is to be acceptable to the West — as he surely must to achieve more than just informal head-of-opposition status — he will have to come to terms with the need to contain the insurgency on the tribal belt, militarily and not just through ‘peaceful’ dialogue.
This does not mean that we must cynically barter away our citizens or pursue military solutions in the region to the exclusion of all else. And, clearly, incursions by US forces into our territory are not on. But it does imply sitting up to the facts on the ground and realising that we simply must clean house. Regardless of the origins of its components, the Taliban apparat has to be dismantled.
It may be that — like many in civil society — Sharif also exists in a sort of time warp or is out of touch with what is happening in the wings. He may be blinkered for one of two reasons. It is possible that he has simply been away from the scene for too long. Alternatively, this may be attributed to his parochial mindset and an inability to perceive the sea change that has come about in the smaller provinces or that the country has moved beyond a point where it can be reinvented in keeping with his faintly quixotic format.
The insurgency in the NWFP and Balochistan and the uprising in Sindh in the aftermath of Benazir’s assassination all point in the same direction. Belief in the federation would seem perceptibly to be on the wane. The smaller provinces all share, as never before, a growing sense of alienation. The feeling by and large is that they are, and have been from the start, less equal or indeed ‘federal’ than Punjab. This is something Sharif is not perhaps reckoning with.
Zardari’s candidature for the presidency may have been controversial but it also plainly had the support of these political margins. Reports relating to his mental illness and unaccounted for wealth were, his supporters here felt, mere hogwash designed to do them out of their legitimate democratic right. At the same time, given the somewhat awkward questions surrounding his name and the fact that authoritarian rule was no longer in vogue, there were those who saw an element of chutzpah about his sudden bid for absolute power.
However, now that Zardari has won out, it is important that civil society give him a chance by taking its cue from Sharif in not trying to destabilise the new dispensation. What matters is that we address issues that concern us more directly. The judges’ issue over which the PPP–PML-N coalition came apart is crucial. It still awaits resolution. The ‘reappointment’ of judges piecemeal smacks just very slightly of expediency.
The insistence of Sharif and the top PML-N leadership that the pre-Nov 3 judiciary — along with Iftikhar Chaudhry — be restored in one go speaks of a commitment to constitutionality and the rule of law not just for now but in the long term.
This is heartening as it suggests that they share our concerns and are thinking about a viable future for a country seriously at odds with itself and — Zardari’s victory notwithstanding — with an increasingly nebulous horizon.
http://www.dawn.com/2008/09/09/op.htm
Read more...
A non-defence of Zardari - by Dr Meekal Aziz Ahmed
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=135222
Thursday, September 11, 2008
by Dr Meekal Aziz Ahmed (The News)
I write in regards to the unrelenting, but not entirely unexpected, stream of criticism and abuse being hurled at Mr Zardari in Pakistani newspapers and elsewhere, including the Internet, on his becoming president. Of course, it is plain to see that this is only the beginning. There is more to come, all part of a strategy, with stories planted at the appropriate places at home and abroad, aimed at reaching the right audience and having the most impact. Everyone is getting into the act, having a field day and enjoying themselves immensely and being paid very handsomely for their troubles. There is no newspaper or Internet site remotely connected with Pakistan that does not have a theory and analysis of Mr Zadari and timelines of his life since he was born. And everyone claims to have the "real," "inside" scoop, so that you are foolishly lured into reading on.
I am not an apologist for Mr Zardari, his crony or the beneficiary of his well-known generosity with his friends which has earned him so much opprobrium. I have met him thrice, once when he asked me to dinner for no purpose but to meet me and talk, and on two occasions subsequently, also for no specific purpose. I found him charming, easygoing, unpretentious and fun to be with. At the dinner I was struck by the simplicity of his taste in food. I asked him no favours. He offered me none.
The main criticism of Mr Zardari is that he is corrupt. For a country that ranks high on the corruption index, I find the agonising over Mr Zardari's corruption rather amusing. I also find it hypocritical, which, it is worth reminding, is the most-condemned and loathed sin in Islam. Unless, of course, Mr Zardari is to be held to a different standard because he was married to a star-crossed Bhutto and is now the president of Pakistan. Evidently, different standards of corruption and morality should apply to different people. Or so the argument goes.
Let me see if I have this right. Mr Nawaz Sharif, our closet fundamentalist, whose thugs were not long ago scaling the gates of the Supreme Court while their Lordships ran for their lives, but who has now taken a "principled" stand on the judges' issue, is not as corrupt as Mr Zardari and should be treated differently. After all, he does not have a mansion in Surrey. He only has a flat in London which happens to be located in the most expensive and exclusive area of the city, only because nothing else was available. Rather than being reviled like Mr Zardari and cast in the same light, Mr Sharif should be admired and praised for displaying such modesty in choosing his abode. Unless I am naive and mentally challenged, or simply "don't get it," there is something very strange and unsatisfactory with this line of reasoning.
There are not many persons among Pakistan's obnoxious, selfish and self-serving elite, civil and military, who I have the great misfortune of associating with, who can stand up and claim that they are honest, have always done well by Pakistan and served it selflessly. There are not many who have not plundered our hapless country and enriched themselves beyond measure, without shame or mercy, at the first opportunity.
There are not many persons in Pakistan among the elite who can say they don't have secret foreign currency accounts abroad, under false names, undeclared and untaxed, brimming with ill-gotten wealth and laundered money, and who don't own property in some "leafy suburb" in Spain or Houston, Texas or whichever place is now in vogue. This, of course, is in addition to the long list of properties and other assets they own in Pakistan, all obtained illegally through shady, underhand deals with fake documentation. These are properties whose values are a multiple of all their known sources of income, yet no one bats an eyelid. It is considered passé and bad manners to do so.
There are even fewer people that can say they are not long-time under-filers and tax evaders, the scourge of Pakistan's tax system, who have got away with it for sixty one years and have no intention of changing their tax-free status. And I have always found it perplexing how government officials, civil and military, send their children to university in the US despite their meagre salary, the soaring costs of tution, and an exchange rate disadvantage which currently stands at Rs74 to the dollar.
I don't wish to make light of corruption, to brush it aside and imply that since it is so widespread and all-encompassing that we might as well stop talking about it. Not at all. Corruption is an evil and a blot on us as Muslims who claim we fear God and will be called to account by Him. It saddens and embarrasses me to talk of corruption. But the focus on Mr Zardari is patently unfair, hypocritical, obviously political and in bad taste. It is well-planned and orchestrated by shadowy agencies that we know are masters at the business of bringing people down, especially civilians.
Instead, these agencies should be doing the job they are supposed to do. For a start, the agenda might comprise of intelligence to make sure that the Lal Masjid under their nose is not being restocked with weapons, help in locating and destroying the FM radio stations that spew an endless stream of venom and hatred in the name of God and Islam, and eliminating people like Baitullah Mehsud before he gets to Islamabad.
In short, all this Zardari-bashing is getting rather tiresome and boring. We "need to move on" as the American's are fond of saying. We need to stop wasting our time reading yellow journalism, where the same thing is said over and over again with the same storyline and sound-bites.
The writer has a doctorate from Oxford University and has worked at the Planning Commission and the IMF. Email: meekalahmed2@aol.com
Read more...
Thursday, September 11, 2008
by Dr Meekal Aziz Ahmed (The News)
I write in regards to the unrelenting, but not entirely unexpected, stream of criticism and abuse being hurled at Mr Zardari in Pakistani newspapers and elsewhere, including the Internet, on his becoming president. Of course, it is plain to see that this is only the beginning. There is more to come, all part of a strategy, with stories planted at the appropriate places at home and abroad, aimed at reaching the right audience and having the most impact. Everyone is getting into the act, having a field day and enjoying themselves immensely and being paid very handsomely for their troubles. There is no newspaper or Internet site remotely connected with Pakistan that does not have a theory and analysis of Mr Zadari and timelines of his life since he was born. And everyone claims to have the "real," "inside" scoop, so that you are foolishly lured into reading on.
I am not an apologist for Mr Zardari, his crony or the beneficiary of his well-known generosity with his friends which has earned him so much opprobrium. I have met him thrice, once when he asked me to dinner for no purpose but to meet me and talk, and on two occasions subsequently, also for no specific purpose. I found him charming, easygoing, unpretentious and fun to be with. At the dinner I was struck by the simplicity of his taste in food. I asked him no favours. He offered me none.
The main criticism of Mr Zardari is that he is corrupt. For a country that ranks high on the corruption index, I find the agonising over Mr Zardari's corruption rather amusing. I also find it hypocritical, which, it is worth reminding, is the most-condemned and loathed sin in Islam. Unless, of course, Mr Zardari is to be held to a different standard because he was married to a star-crossed Bhutto and is now the president of Pakistan. Evidently, different standards of corruption and morality should apply to different people. Or so the argument goes.
Let me see if I have this right. Mr Nawaz Sharif, our closet fundamentalist, whose thugs were not long ago scaling the gates of the Supreme Court while their Lordships ran for their lives, but who has now taken a "principled" stand on the judges' issue, is not as corrupt as Mr Zardari and should be treated differently. After all, he does not have a mansion in Surrey. He only has a flat in London which happens to be located in the most expensive and exclusive area of the city, only because nothing else was available. Rather than being reviled like Mr Zardari and cast in the same light, Mr Sharif should be admired and praised for displaying such modesty in choosing his abode. Unless I am naive and mentally challenged, or simply "don't get it," there is something very strange and unsatisfactory with this line of reasoning.
There are not many persons among Pakistan's obnoxious, selfish and self-serving elite, civil and military, who I have the great misfortune of associating with, who can stand up and claim that they are honest, have always done well by Pakistan and served it selflessly. There are not many who have not plundered our hapless country and enriched themselves beyond measure, without shame or mercy, at the first opportunity.
There are not many persons in Pakistan among the elite who can say they don't have secret foreign currency accounts abroad, under false names, undeclared and untaxed, brimming with ill-gotten wealth and laundered money, and who don't own property in some "leafy suburb" in Spain or Houston, Texas or whichever place is now in vogue. This, of course, is in addition to the long list of properties and other assets they own in Pakistan, all obtained illegally through shady, underhand deals with fake documentation. These are properties whose values are a multiple of all their known sources of income, yet no one bats an eyelid. It is considered passé and bad manners to do so.
There are even fewer people that can say they are not long-time under-filers and tax evaders, the scourge of Pakistan's tax system, who have got away with it for sixty one years and have no intention of changing their tax-free status. And I have always found it perplexing how government officials, civil and military, send their children to university in the US despite their meagre salary, the soaring costs of tution, and an exchange rate disadvantage which currently stands at Rs74 to the dollar.
I don't wish to make light of corruption, to brush it aside and imply that since it is so widespread and all-encompassing that we might as well stop talking about it. Not at all. Corruption is an evil and a blot on us as Muslims who claim we fear God and will be called to account by Him. It saddens and embarrasses me to talk of corruption. But the focus on Mr Zardari is patently unfair, hypocritical, obviously political and in bad taste. It is well-planned and orchestrated by shadowy agencies that we know are masters at the business of bringing people down, especially civilians.
Instead, these agencies should be doing the job they are supposed to do. For a start, the agenda might comprise of intelligence to make sure that the Lal Masjid under their nose is not being restocked with weapons, help in locating and destroying the FM radio stations that spew an endless stream of venom and hatred in the name of God and Islam, and eliminating people like Baitullah Mehsud before he gets to Islamabad.
In short, all this Zardari-bashing is getting rather tiresome and boring. We "need to move on" as the American's are fond of saying. We need to stop wasting our time reading yellow journalism, where the same thing is said over and over again with the same storyline and sound-bites.
The writer has a doctorate from Oxford University and has worked at the Planning Commission and the IMF. Email: meekalahmed2@aol.com
Read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
