From Zion Hamid to Wali Azmat to Insaaf-e-Khan: The Pakistani extras of conspiracy theory

Extra! Extra!
By Nadeem F. Paracha

19 November 2009

Islamabad, November 18: Famous anti-India TV personality, Zion Hamid, was caught yesterday watching Shakuntali, a popular Indian TV soap opera. The discovery was made by one of his fans who Hamid thought was his milkman.

When Hamid opened his door, the fan heard and saw the TV in the background where episode No. 5, 904 of Shakuntali was running. Talking to this reporter, the fan said that he first thought it was a conspiracy, but after noticing the genuine red cap of Hamid, he was astonished.

Shaken, the fan, 23-year-old Abdul Karim, said: ‘I couldn’t believe it! What would Muhammad Bin Qasim think when he gets to hear about this?’

When told by this reporter that Qasim died hundreds of years ago, the fan accused him and his newspaper for working for Blackwater.

‘What you think you fool Mossad, CIA, Raw agent Qasim alive in our minds, hearts and lungs so oh you shut up!’ he added.

Talking to the media after the episode, Hamid accepted that he sometimes watches Indian soaps and that even though he is of the opinion that Hindus are paleed (dirty), there is no harm in watching them on TV because they can’t touch you and can’t cast their shadow over you.

He added that he also watches Indian soaps to decode the hidden plots of the Hindus to destroy Pakistan and Islam.

‘It was by decoding the dialogue of one such Indian TV soap that I was able to discover that the Mumbai attacks were actually planned and executed by Raw and Mossad,’ he explained.

He also said that he predicted the 9/11 attacks as a Zionist conspiracy back in 1996 by watching Dil Walay Dullaniya Lay Jain Gey on his VCD player over and over again.

‘It’s all there,’ he claimed. ‘And the songs aren’t all that bad either.’

Hamid was surrounded by a vocal group of fans at the press conference.

One Barkat Ali told the reporters: ‘What this happening? Attacking great man Zion, oh so brilliant genius zindabad, zindabad you kafir Western conspiracy US agent traitors fool, fool, fool!’

Another, Sharmeen Khan, a 25-year-old university student added: ‘What this nonsense of democracy because it only Hindu, American, Zionist, Papua New Guinnean plot to destroy beloved Pakistian zindabad, zindabad, zindabad!’

Kamran Ghani, a seven-month-old toddler also addressed the press conference. He said, ‘Goo goo gagagaga goo goo … burp!’

The fans then lifted Hamid on their shoulders and carried him to a nearby McDonald’s outlet where they all chanted slogans like ‘Amreeka ki ghulami namazoor’ over a couple of Big Macs, large Cokes and a romantic song sung by Wali Azmat called, ‘I hate Jews Yea, Yea, Yea,’ a song from Azmat’s forthcoming album, ‘Zionists ate my Homework.’

The album is dedicated to all the Taliban who died in American drone attacks. When asked why didn’t he also dedicate the album to all those who’ve died from Taliban’s suicide attacks, Azmat said, that there were no suicide bomb attacks in Pakistan and that all those people we see slaughtered and dismembered on our TV screens actually died from dengue fever. When asked how he can prove this, he said that one should watch the third season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

‘It’s all there,’ he claimed. ‘And the chicks aren’t all that bad either.’

Meanwhile in Lahore, Tehrik-e-Imran chief, Insaaf-e-Khan lauded Zion Hamid’s efforts for decoding vital truths about Hindu conspiracies from Indian soap operas.

Talking to a group of rabid rightwing columnists at his residence, the great Khan said that Pakistan was in great danger from all kinds of plots being hatched by its enemies, especially Asif Zardari Bhutto Zardari Bhutto, Bilawal Zardari Bhutto Zardari, and the ghost of late Benazir Bhutto.

‘This government is sucking the blood of poor Pakistanis,’ he told the rabid rightwing communists all of whom then started to sing the national anthem in unison.

‘This government has sold Pakistan’s strategic and political interests to America!’ Khan added, to which the rabid rightwing columnists started burning George Washington and Abraham Lincoln’s effigies.

Praising the columnists’ bravery, Khan promised them to meet again after he returned from New York where he will undergo a cheekbone operation.

The columnists informed him that they too will be in New York for sightseeing, except for one, who got up and started burning Henry Truman’s effigy. He was the one who failed to secure an American visa.

Khan termed this to be racial discrimination and a CIA conspiracy.

Later in the day, the issue was discussed on a famous TV talk show on a local news channel.

Participating in the show were the incensed columnist, a rabid rightwing reporter, a PPP Minster, and a woman in a burqa.

‘This is an outrage!’ said the reporter. ‘Blackwater is behind this,’ he announced.

When asked how he knew, he picked up a Class One children’s nursery rhymes book and claimed: ‘It’s all here. And the rhymes aren’t all that bad either.’

The PPP Minister, Rehman Malika Zardari Bhutto Zardari, promised that his government will look into the issue, to which the reporter landed a swift punch on Malika’s face.

When Malika’s bodyguards tried to stop the reporter, the talk show’s host accused the government of curbing the freedom of the press.

‘This is an outrage!’ he said. ‘I implore the Army to intervene, overthrow this incompetent government and impose martial law!’

Mr. Malika apologised and started to land punches on his own face saying that the government too believed in the freedom of the press.

This made the reporter very happy who asked Malika to raid book stores and confiscate all secular literature because solutions to Pakistan’s problems lie in jihadi literature.

‘It’s all there!’ he claimed. ‘And the topics aren’t all that bad either.’

Turning to the woman in a burqa, the show’s host asked if she agreed.

‘The real problem lies in women wearing jeans,’ she said.

The host asked her to elaborate, to which she said: ‘The real problem is in women wearing jeans.’

‘Yes, but can you please elaborate?’ asked the host.

‘The real problem lies in women wearing jeans!’ she said again.

‘Please elaborate,’ the host insisted.

‘But that’s all I was asked to say,’ she said.

‘By whom?’ inquired the host.

‘By you!’ she said.

‘This is an outrage!’ said Mr. Malika, and in response, the host punched him and proceeded to burn an American flag. He burned half of it and announced that the other half will be burnt later because he had to catch a flight.

‘To where?’ asked Mr. Malika.

‘California,’ said the host. ‘I have to attend my son’s graduation ceremony.’

Nadeem F. Paracha is a cultural critic and senior columnist for Dawn Newspaper and Dawn.com.
http://blog.dawn.com/2009/11/19/extra-extra/
Read more...

The ugly handiwork of Shirin Mazari, the media Baji of the Taliban

Editors criticise newspaper article against WSJ reporter
By Iftikhar A. Khan
Tuesday, 17 Nov, 2009

ISLAMABAD: Top executives and editors of 21 leading international media organisations have collectively voiced concern over publication of an article in a Pakistani national newspaper [The Nation, Resident Editor Shireen Mazari], accusing Mathew Rosenberg, a correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, of working for foreign intelligence services and even the US military contractor Blackwater.

In a joint letter addressed to Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira, they said the development had caused alarm among international media organisations working in the country and urged the government to take all possible steps to ensure the safety of all media personnel in future.

Describing Rosenberg as a respected journalist of high standing, they observed that the unsubstantiated allegation levelled in the article published in The Nation that he worked for CIA, Israeli intelligence and Blackwater had critically compromised his (Rosenberg’s) security and raised questions about whether he could return to Pakistan to work safely in future.

The article also has a broader implication, the letter said, pointing out that these were difficult times for all journalists in Pakistan. ‘Our employees already face an array of threats, including violence and kidnapping, as they strive to provide timely and accurate coverage. Now those risks have been needlessly increased.’

The top executives of international media said they strongly supported press freedom across the world, but the irresponsible article endangered the life of one journalist and could imperil others.

‘It is particularly upsetting that this threat has come from among our own colleagues,’ they regretted.

They recognised that courageous Pakistani journalists routinely faced greater danger than their international counterparts. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, five Pakistani journalists have been killed in the past 12 months. ‘And we are heartened that several Pakistani media organisations have denounced The Nation’s story,’ they remarked.

But, they said, they were also concerned that an incident of this kind — tarring a foreign reporter as a spy — could occur again. They asked the government to take note of the story and make necessary arrangements for security of all media personnel.

Copies of the joint letter have also been sent to Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Interior Minister Rehman Malik, and heads of all the newspaper organisations.

The joint letter bears signatures of Chuck Lustig, Foreign Editor, ABC News; Phillipe Massonnet, Global News Director, AFP; Kathleen Carroll, Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Associated Press (AP); Alan Rusbridger, Editor in Chief, The Guardian; Jon Williams, World News Editor, BBC; Roger Alton, Editor, The Independent; Nancy Lane, Senior Vice President, CNN; Al Anstay, Head of News, Al Jazeera; John Micklethwait, Editor in Chief, The Economist; Daniel Bogler, Managing Editor, Financial Times; Bruce Wallace, Foreign Editor, Los Angeles Times; Jean Gerard, Deputy Director, France Infor; John L Walcott, McClachy Newspapers; Ellen Weiss, Senior Vice President for News, National Public Radio (NPR); David Schlesinger, Editor in Chief, Reuters; Bill Keller, Executive Editor, The New York Times; Richard Stengel, Managing Editor, Time; Nisid Hajari, Foreign Editor, Newsweek; James Harding, Editor, The Times; Calude Cirille, Editor in Chief, Radio France International; and Robert Thomson, Managing Editor, The Wall Street Journal. Source

A likely statement by Imran Khan: This is an international Zionist conspiracy against the General Secretary of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, Dr Shireen Mazari. We condemn Amreekah and its agents hukmraan for this saazish.

For a detailed account of this news item, please consult the following post at Pakistan Media Watch:

21 International Media Organizations Write to Government About The Nation

Read more...

Imran Khan's Shireen Mazari and her shoddy journalism

Shireen Mazari, the General Secretary of Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf, was disgracefully dismissed from the editorship of The News in the recent past. She was also reprimanded by the GHQ (Pakistan Army) for misquoting and misinterpreting Pakistan Army and the ISI on a number of occasions.

However, it appears that Shireen Mazari (also known as Lady Taliban) has maintained her standards in her capacity as the Resident Editor of The Nation.

Here is what has been observed in The News (Editorial) today:

Shoddy journalism

Thursday, November 12, 2009 (The News)

Journalists lead dangerous lives in Pakistan. They are targeted by the terrorists whose actions they report and by politicians and bureaucrats whose failings and indiscretions they expose. All this is to be expected. What a working journalist may not expect, however, is to be stabbed in the back by one of his own, as has recently happened to Matthew Rosenberg, a journalist working for the Wall Street Journal. Mr Rosenberg has been accused in a local newspaper of having links to the CIA and Mossad and of acting in some undefined way as an agent of Blackwater. As if this were not enough to blight his life and career, he is further accused of having 'secret' meetings with Secretary Law and Order FATA Secretariat, Tariq Hayat Khan, and Additional Chief Secretary FATA, Habib Khan. Both are said to have 'fed' documents to Mr Rosenberg, thereby implicating them in his alleged espionage activities. The story is based upon information from a nameless source and has no supporting evidence. Mr Rosenberg has had to leave the country and is unlikely to be working here in the foreseeable future.

The editor of the Wall Street Journal has rightly and robustly sprung to the defence of his journalist and written to the editor of the newspaper that printed the story. The opening paragraph of his letter reads … "As a fellow editor I am writing to convey in the strongest possible terms our dismay and disgust over the slanderous falsehoods published on the front page of your newspaper on November 5th regarding our reporter Matthew Rosenberg." We might add 'grossly irresponsible' and 'unprofessional' to the list of printable adjectives that may be applied to this dangerous travesty of journalism. Accusations such as this, based on information from a single unnamed source are life-threatening in their gravity. At the very least there should one other corroborating source and preferably more than one where accusations as grave as this are made. The electronic media has recently reached a voluntary agreement to 'clean up its act'; and perhaps some sections of the print media need to do the same. (Source)

Condemnation by The Committee to Protect Journalists
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has condemned The Nation for publishing “a reckless and unsubstantiated story”. Last week, Pakistan Media Watch wrote about the incident – in which The Nation published an article with no facts calling an American journalist a spy. Here is what the CPJ wrote today:

Last Thursday, Pakistan’s The Nation newspaper published a reckless and unsubstantiated story accusing Wall Street Journal South Asia correspondent Matthew Rosenberg of being a spy. It’s an accusation that gravely endangers Rosenberg’s safety. Wall Street Journal Managing Editor Robert Thomson responded with a scathing letter to The Nation’s editor, Shireen Mazari, expressing his disgust at the publication of the story, which he called baseless and false. He demanded an immediate retraction.

It’s of course deeply disturbing to us at CPJ that a newspaper would publish a story like this that clearly puts the life of a fellow reporter in danger. But we are also concerned about the source for this scurrilous information, someone the reporter identified as “an official of law enforcement agency, who requested anonymity.” Could this be a deliberate government attempt to intimidate Rosenberg and other foreign correspondents working in Pakistan? That’s a deeply chilling possibility that must be investigated.

In addition, the Managing Editor of The Wall Street Journal, Robert Thomson, wrote a scathing letter to Shireen Mazari conveying his “disgust” over “the slanderous and dangerous falsehoods published on the front page” of The Nation.

Dear Ms. Mazari,

As a fellow Editor, I am writing to convey in the strongest possible terms our dismay and disgust over the slanderous and dangerous falsehoods published on the front page of your newspaper on November 5 regarding our reporter, Mathhew Rosenberg.

Journalism is an important vocation and Pakistan has many fine and courageous journalists who operate in extremely difficult conditions. Foreign correspondents also have an important social role and are similarly exposed to danger from extremists. So for your paper to have suggested, absolutely groundlessly, that Matthew had some intelligence connection was a betrayal of our collective calling and has endangered him, all other Wall Street Journal correspondents, and all journalists and foreign correspondents in your country.

Let me set the record straight: Matthew is an experienced foreign correspondent who has worked for many years covering the region, including Pakistan. In that capacity, he has pursued no other agenda than seeking the truth and has had no other aim than to bring to the world’s attention news and analysis of what is happening in your very important country at a critical time.

Our profession has been done a great disservice by the utterly baseless article, and I call upon you to print an immediate and prominent retraction to ensure that it is widely understood that the piece was without foundation. At present, your paper is is guilty of spreading falsehoods, but it could ultimately be complicit in a far greater tragedy unless this wrong is corrected. We obviously reserve our right to pursue legal action in this instance.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Thompson

Source

Read more...

The high cost of ‘ghairat’

By Irfan Husain
Saturday, 07 Nov, 2009

JUDGING from the heated bombast that passes for informed debate on our airwaves, it would appear that ghairat, or honour, is a virtue restricted to those who permanently inhabit our TV studios.

People like Imran Khan have been frothing at the mouth against the Kerry-Lugar act, insisting that we reject the $7.5bn, five-year aid package (extendable to 10 years). Our cricketing hero was holding forth on an Urdu channel the other evening, claiming that we could easily raise this amount by cutting expenditure and recovering money stashed abroad by corrupt elements.




According to him, we should not sell our ghairat so cheaply, and learn to stand on our own feet. But no such objections are ever raised when the IMF or the World Bank impose strict conditionalities on how their loans are to be spent. For years, we have accepted, often under duress, tough fiscal measures as part of these loan packages. And here we are, getting an outright grant of $1.5bn a year without any strings, and we are screaming like infants being forced to swallow a draught of bitter medicine.

Here’s sobering news for those who think it would be a simple matter to get this kind of money for the social sector: nearly 90 per cent of the non-development federal budget is spent on subsidies, defence and debt servicing, leaving around 10 per cent for administrative costs and the social sector. And if Imran Khan thinks crooks are going to queue up to return their ill-gotten wealth, he has a higher opinion of them than I do.

This is the kind of muddled, ill-informed thinking that marked our media’s interaction with Hillary Clinton recently. Watching the American secretary of state talking to some of the leading lights of our private TV networks, I was struck by how angry they all looked. Ms Clinton, on the other hand, was relaxed and articulate. She reminded me of a patient adult, gently chiding and cajoling a bunch of sulking teenagers.

One well-known anchor with an Urdu channel, his face contorted with rage, virtually shouted at her: ‘Do you know how many bases the United States has in this country?’ Smilingly, Ms Clinton countered: ‘Do you know how many billions of dollars the United States has given Pakistan?’And this is the bottom line. As both Ms Clinton and Senator John Kerry have said, if Pakistan doesn’t want the money, nobody is forcing it down our throats. But it seems that we want the money and keep our ghairat at the same time. For a country that has been surviving on external assistance for decades, the sudden realisation that we should stand on our own feet is odd.

Nawaz Sharif, rejecting the Kerry-Lugar act, asked how long we would go around with a begging bowl. I recall his ‘kashkol tor do’ (‘break the begging bowl’) campaign when he was in power in the 1990s. Thousands of ordinary Pakistanis (including my late mother, much to my chagrin) responded and sent personal savings to support this initiative. Nobody knows what happened to this money, but it certainly did not help in ending our aid dependency.

Interestingly, all those demanding that we reject the offer of American assistance are sleek and well-fed. In this entire long-winded debate, I have not heard anybody say one word about the illiteracy, poverty and disease the aid package is meant to reduce.

Critics have said that in the past, such initiatives did not make any difference, and things have not improved as a result of foreign aid. We forget that with our population growing as fast as it has in the past, we have created our own problems. The reality is that today, there are four times more Pakistanis than lived here in 1947. Without any foreign assistance, there would have been widespread starvation.

It is certainly true that huge amounts have been frittered away on useless projects, while much of this assistance has ended up in the personal accounts of politicians, bureaucrats and generals. Hence the American insistence on monitoring how money disbursed under the KLA is actually spent.

This entire bad-tempered discussion reveals the intensity of anti-Americanism that has been whipped up by a large section of the media. Virtually no anchor in Urdu chat shows challenges a panellist and asks him or her for proof for the most outlandish assertions. So widespread have these perceptions of American ill intentions become that a friend’s driver casually said the other day that the Americans were arming the Taliban. When I asked him why Washington would arm the foe that was killing US soldiers, he had no reply beyond ‘I read it in a newspaper.’

We have been so blinded by our rage against America that we forget that currently there is a clear convergence of interests between their goals and ours. Both countries want peace in Afghanistan and Pakistan; and both are fighting the forces of darkness. So while our approach and tactics may differ, we need to get along well enough to coordinate the fight more effectively.

In the real world, you do not have to love your allies to conduct a successful military campaign. In the Second World War, the Soviet Union fought with the US and Britain to defeat Hitler. Nazi Germany was the common foe, and the threat it posed brought the communists into the anti-fascist alliance. Clearly, there was no love lost between the USSR and the West, but common interests drew them together.

Critics of the act assert that this assistance is being offered in America’s self-interest, making it sound like an accusation that proves Washington’s bad faith. Actually, all countries act in their own self-interest. In this case, the American Congress and the administration are convinced that in order to stabilise Pakistan, it is necessary to address the many social and economic problems we are struggling with. And without a viable Pakistan, Afghanistan cannot be fixed. Hence the Kerry-Lugar act.

Who in Pakistan can possibly close his eyes to the reality of the situation we face today? Unless power generation is enhanced quickly, the economy will soon collapse completely. Parents are often forced to send their children to madressahs because there are not enough schools. Here they are often brainwashed into joining the terrorists who are threatening to destroy the state.

Large sums are needed to overcome these and other challenges. But money alone won’t solve these problems: political will and a consensus are needed. What we don’t need are mindless slogans of ‘go America go!’

http://www.dawn.com.pk/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/the-high-cost-of-ghairat-719

A comment:

By hypocrite (pkpolitics)

Mirror Mirror who is uglier than I

I dont particpate in election process and yet I cry for democracy,
When I participate in elections I vote on thebasis of ethinicty, sect, language or pressure,
I want to develop the country yet appoint my incapable and corrupt cronies as ministers,
I believe in justice and onlyfor others,
I dont pay taxes though I am billionaire,
I believe in every human being equal and I make my servant stand for me in queue as I have many servants,
I dont follow traffic rules as I have big SUV,
I have my kids get education outside Pakistan and I want to improve eductaion standard in Pakistan,
My family gets treated outsuide Pakistan and I want to provide helath care to all Pakistanis,
I spend my vacations outside Pakistan and want foreigners to visit Pakistan as a toursim spot,
I vowed to defend my country and kill my own brethern,
I live in palaces and promise to provide shelter to all pakistanis,
I believe in idelogy and dont mind if my party kills any one who opposes my party,
I am follower of religion yet run after plots, ministries and money,
What I thik or believe is correct and everything else is wrong,
I want aid from whatever means but dont want to follow conditions for fair disbursement of aid,
I want multiple year visa or USA citizenship but I believe that USA is our enemy,
I am part of each government but I cannot take blame for non development of country
I am part of each opposition but cannot take blame for non development of the country
When I want to play I want to be the captain and everyone to follow my dictatorship but I dont want to play under anyother captain,
I believe in one for all and all for one yet when my friends are in distress I run away,

No one is uglier thanI as I am the ONLY hypocrite

Read more...

Haroon-ur-Rashid's advice to Imran Khan and Jamaat-e-Islami

Logic of an Imran Khan's supporter (source: pkpol.)

rainbow22 said:

If Imran Khan can't win (elections) then let army take over and PTI can work with them. Just like PPP and PML-N(always, exempt Musharaf) did work with army. Kiyani looks more honest then Musharaf, he stood against KLB.

In that periode they can change this dirty british system and punish criminals like Nawaz and Zardari(quick and speede justice).

Read more...

Imran Khan and ‘mass movement’ - Let us pray for Imran Khan's swift recovery

First a new announcement by Imran Khan, which is followed by analyses by Hasan Nisar and Nazir Naji.

Imran announces campaign against NRO
Sunday, 1 Nov, 2009 11:12 pm
http://www.aaj.tv/news/National/151104_detail.html

LAHORE : Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf has announced to launch a campaign against National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) here on Sunday, Aaj News reported.

Addressing a press conference PTI Chief Imran Khan said that a protest demonstration would be staged next Friday in Islamabad while in Lahore protest demonstration would be held on Saturday.

He said NRO is continuity of the policies of former President Pervez Musharraf, adding South Waziristan operation is also part of those policies.

He added that after the passing of NRO from the assembly it would clear that who wanted a society based on justice and who wanted loot and plundering.

Imran appealed all the political parties to oppose this ordinance.

He said Kerry-Lugar Bill is the bill of American interest and Pakistani people will not accept this aid at any cost.

....
Editorial
Leader of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Mr Imran Khan has decided to hold mass movement rallies in Islamabad and Lahore to mobilise the people for a mid-term general election and against the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) as it passes through the process of legislation in the two houses of parliament.

It is difficult to imagine how Mr Khan will manage to whip up any national passions for a mid-term election when people don’t even come out to the marketplace; and Mr Nawaz Sharif, the most popular man in the country and the one most likely to become the next prime minister, vows that he has no plan to go for a mid-term change. Nor will the people feel moved greatly by the NRO to mob the streets and deliver on the plans set on foot by PTI.

There is a separate politics of mass mobilisation in the country and the last time it was done, not by the political parties exclusively but by the lawyers agitating for an independent judiciary, its denouement was prevented by a phone-call from the army chief. Is that a part of Mr Khan’s strategy? We have seen many small parties trying to get people to come out on the streets for their causes without great success. People seem to have switched off from the politicians. Jamaat-e-Islami is still at it — it has even held a national referendum on the Kerry-Lugar Act — without much effect.

Mr Khan is a big leader of a small party and has a growing political profile, but he may be jumping too far ahead by calling for a mass movement. He runs the risk of becoming the head of a fringe party forever by running after objectives that may be before their time. The Jamaat has actually reduced itself much by moving in radical directions under its former chief, Qazi Hussain Ahmad. It continues to do so under its new chief. The JUI under Maulana Fazlur Rehman has been more pragmatic. The PTI is still cutting its teeth; it must be more supple in its selection of goals. * (Daily Times)

....

(Hasan Nisar)

Let us pray for Imran Khan's swift recovery

(Nazir Naji)

Read more...

Car bomb kills 91 in Peshawar, and Imran Khan's stance on Taliban

Car bomb kills 91 in Pakistani city of Peshawar

By RIAZ KHAN (AP) – 3 hours ago

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A car bomb tore through a busy market in northwestern Pakistan on Wednesday, killing 91 people as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton visited the country and pledged American support for its campaign against Islamist militants.

More than 200 people were wounded in the blast in the main northwestern city of Peshawar, the deadliest in a surge of attacks this month. The government blamed militants seeking to avenge an army offensive launched this month against al-Qaida and Taliban in their stronghold close to the Afghan border.

The bomb destroyed much of a market selling bangles, dresses and toys that was popular with women and children.

It collapsed buildings, including a mosque, and set shops on fire in an old part of the city crisscrossed with narrow alleys and clogged with stalls. Wounded people sat amid burning debris and body parts as a huge plume of gray smoke rose above the city.

Crying for help, men grabbed at the wreckage, trying to pull out survivors trapped beneath. One two-story building collapsed as firefighters doused it with water, triggering more panic.

"There was a deafening sound and I was like a blind man for a few minutes," said Mohammad Usman, who was wounded in the shoulder. "I heard women and children crying and started to help others. There was the smell of human flesh in the air."

Clinton, on her first visit to Pakistan as secretary of state, was a three-hour drive away in the capital, Islamabad, when the blast took place. Speaking to reporters, she praised the army's anti-Taliban offensive in South Waziristan and offered U.S. support.

"I want you to know this fight is not Pakistan's alone," Clinton said. "These extremists are committed to destroying what is dear to us as much as they are committed to destroying that which is dear to you and to all people. So this is our struggle as well."

Appearing with her, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said the violence would not break his government's will to fight back.

"The resolve and determination will not be shaken," Qureshi said. "People are carrying out such heinous crimes — they want to shake our resolve. I want to address them: We will not buckle. We will fight you. We will fight you because we want peace and stability in Pakistan."

No group claimed responsibility for the bombing, but that is not unusual, especially when the victims are Pakistani civilians. Sahib Gul, a doctor at a nearby hospital, said 91 people were killed and more than 200 injured. Many of the victims were women and children.

Three bombs have exploded in Peshawar this month, including another one that killed more than 50 people, part of a barrage of at least 10 major attacks across the country that have killed some 250 people. Most have targeted security forces, but some bombs have gone off in public places, apparently to undercut support for the army's assault on the border and expose the weakness of the government.

The Taliban have warned Pakistan that they would stage more attacks if the army does not end a new ground offensive in the South Waziristan tribal region, where the military has dispatched some 30,000 troops to flush out insurgents. South Waziristan is a major base for the Pakistani Taliban and other foreign militants.

North West Frontier Province Information Minister Mian Iftikhar Hussain blamed the militants for Wednesday's attack.

"We are hitting them at their center of terrorism, and they are hitting back targeting Peshawar," he said. "This is a tough time for us. We are picking up the bodies of our women and children, but we will follow these terrorists and eliminate them."

Imran Khan's Stance (based on his statement on a previous terrorist activity by the Taliban)

The following discussion has been sourced from Imran Khan's official website (Insaf.pk):

madeel: 27/10/2009 8:20 PM
This is a long held view by many respectable analyst that IK lacks political instinct. Recently Haroon Rasheed who is most outspoken supporter of PTI in the media has also joined that group of analysts. By the way, this group is largely consists of PTI sympathizers. I want to analyze whether such criticisms carried some weight. This present Waziristan operation is not on the US dictation. Army took the initiative due to political dysfunctionality of the government. My point is that we can't criticize this operation on the ground that it is on the US demands. In fact, one of the US army officials regards this operation fruitless from the US viewpoint. The second point is that if some Pakistani come out on the street and kill innocent Pakistanis what we should do with him? Even if he has genuine grievences against the Pakistani givernment, he can not be allowed killing innocent people. Therefore we should control them using the available tools. We don't have any counter-insurgency force. We can't have any in the next three or four years. Frontier Constablaury is not equipped with advanced equipment nor is well-trained to counter the fasadis. So the only tool we left with is the Pakistan Army. PTI stance should be that: "We oppose any military operation in principle but given the circumstances and resources we left with no other option." IK may be kinf of administrator which we need as a prime minister. But he does lack political acuman. I repeat this view held by credible and respectable analyst who are well wisher of PTI. Along with IK, CEC also carry the major share of political mistakes committed by IK. It may be the reason PTI why PTI is not able to challenge PPP or PML-N so far. That too is despite the broad viewership and respect IK enjoys. To have a further discussion, a column is also posted. Aamir Khawani is an independent columnist who writes for Express Newspaper.
che guevera: 28/10/2009 2:07 AM Well I agree with Adeel on this. Imran's logic is that there were no pakistani taliban before 2004 and this all started once we entered FATA. Also the solution he proposes is that we should talk to them, isolate the friendly groups and then ,if needed and as last resort, do prescion strikes with commando attacks on the those who are against us. Then he also says that we should talk to US about withdrawing form Afghanistan. I think the way this operation is done and the one in swat were required, could have been done in a better way. In fact they were done in above manner ( look at Waziristan for example with Waziris and other group are siding with army)Therefore it does not make sense to totally oppose these operations without giving a solid alternative. FC is too weak to tackle such insurgency. The result of above stance is that in each talk show it consumes 10 mins and we get more confused.

farjad: 28/10/2009 9:20 AM

Talk to whom,TTP barbarians who killed a 100 men women and children in Peshawar today.Now dont tell me they did so becoz an American drone killed civilians in the FATA. I have no sympathy for these killers who massacre fellow Muslims and Pakistanis. I find IK's logic on the operation deeply flawed and his stand adamant. He refuses to concede that he was wrong about TTP and took the JI line of preaching the idealist line. The only language these retards understand is of force and violence and talking logic to them is foolhardy. IK is loosing credibility by being too philosophical about the TTP issue. I am one of his die-hard fans but on this issue I refuse to tow his line if that makes a difference at all. Source:

http://insaf.pk/Forum/tabid/53/forumid/1/tpage/1/view/topic/postid/73878/Default.aspx#73878
Read more...

Then they came for me - the advance of the Taliban Nazis in Pakistan

Fly on the wall Tuesday, October 27, 2009 Zafar Khalid Farooq Martin Niemölle was a German pastor and theologian in 20th-century Germany. Arrested and imprisoned by the Nazis before the war, his most famous work was a poem he wrote criticising the inactivity and apathy of German intellectuals and society to the growing menace of Nazism. The poem reads as follows: First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out -- because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out -- because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out -- because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -- because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak out for me. For all the apologists and ostriches in the country – yes, I am talking to you, Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan -- here's an updated, localised version of the poem. First they came for the Indians, and I did not speak out -- because I was not an Indian; Then they came for the Ahmadis and Shias, and I did not speak out -- because I was not an Ahmadi or a Shia; Then they came for the cricketers, and I did not speak out -- because I was not a cricketer; Then they came for the soldiers and police, and I did not speak out -- because I was not a soldier or policeman; Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak out for me. Really, after last week's attack on students at the International Islamic University in Islamabad we are now at that stage where they are coming for all of us. You would imagine this would, at the very least, unite the political and military establishment against the scourge of our country – an evil that threatens the very existence of Pakistan. Yet, our political and military masters remain divided and fractious as ever on the issue. Red herrings, hidden hands and obstinate denials abound from their forked tongues. We had the spectacle of Interior Minister Rehman Malik last week blaming the Indians for the terrorist atrocities. All Imran Khan can do is bang on about US drone attacks. And, as Fasi Zaka rightly pointed out last week on these very pages, Nawaz Sharif remains completely silent on the subject of extremism. How different from his earlier incarnation this year as the defender of the oppressed during the culmination of the lawyers' movement? But you only get the leaders you deserve. We too must blame ourselves. For too long we have tolerated intolerance. Bigotry and religious cant have been allowed to bloom for fear of hurting people's sensibilities. We are also a nation that loves to live in denial. Whether that is denying the incest that can occur in our families, or the child abuse that happens in our homes. We deny our relationships and true nature from our parents, wives and children. Our lives are built upon secrets and lies. Like an alcoholic or drug addict who refuses to accept we have a problem, our nation suffers from a collective chronic inability to accept and digest the truth. This is our problem. These are our terrorists. Until we can accept that we will continue to deny or believe Muslims or Pakistanis are involved. These are M-on-M killings – Muslim on Muslim. Let's admit that. And once we do, as the cliché goes, the truth shall set us free. Yet, go to any drawing room soiree and the right-wing apologists bombard you with ignorant gossip. They'll cosy up to you and blame everyone but Pakistanis for the attacks. It's the Indians, they'll whisper. It's the Americans, the Jews, the Chinese and so and so forth. By apologising, or denying our responsibility in these attacks, these right-wing nationalists are harming the country they purport to love. The UN World Food programme and the WHO polio immunisation campaign have become 'legitimate' targets for these fanatics. Heaven forbid the poor of Pakistan are fed, or immunised before becoming cripples! But then I guess the children of Imran Khan and Nawaz Sharif are already well-fed and healthy. Logically it just doesn't make sense either. There are very few things that can unify Sri Lanka and India, or Iran and the US, for that matter. Yet militants from this country have targeted all of them. Do any of these countries, especially our neighbours, want a nuclear unstable Pakistan? Why would it be in their interest? Did the Indians attack themselves in Mumbai last year? Was it the Indian army that trained Dr Usman, the leader of the attack on GHQ? No, it was the Pakistani army – where he was employed for several years. Let's say it again -- these are our militants. This is our problem. Some of whom have been trained, funded and developed by the very security apparatus that is now fighting them. Let's pray that the policy of underwriting and supporting jihadi groups by the intelligence agencies has now been dropped forever. And the reason the problem has been allowed to metastasise and the cancer to spread has been the ongoing denial of our leaders. It was well-known that the Musharraf government was happy to go after Al Qaeda, but reluctant to target the Taliban. During his tenure the army still saw them as potentially useful pawns in a deadly, real-life, game of risk. The Taliban were created and kept on ice for our army's incessant need for 'strategic depth' into Afghanistan. This Cold War mentality must finish now. India is not our enemy. Our Cold War mentality and strategies are. It has been them that has created this Frankenstein monster that has come back to hurt us and kill 200 innocent people this past month. I started this column with a quote concerning World War Two, so I will end with one from that period. At the height of the Nazi menace, Winston Churchill formed a National government in the UK. His cabinet was made up of politicians across the political spectrum – Labour, Liberals, as well as Conservatives. It was a united cabinet, fighting a united threat against Britain's very existence. During Britain's darkest days (literally because of the blackouts), when bombs rained down nightly on the industrialised cities of the UK, Churchill with his cabinet united behind him, made a speech to the House of Commons to stiffen the spines of the British people. It ended thus: "We shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender". With suicide and car bombs in our cities, it's time our political and military leadership united, and displayed similar leadership against the militant threat. No equivocation. No justification -- just strength and determination. Is Nawaz Sharif, Imran Khan or Asif Zardari our Churchill? Seventy years on from Martin Niemölle, is there anyone to speak out for me? Email: zkfarooq@gmail.com Ideas can win the war Shahid Javed Burki Tuesday, 27 Oct, 2009 The war being fought in the hills of South Waziristan is not simply a military war; it is more a war of ideas. –Photo by AFP Now that the military has begun its Rah-i-Nijat operation in South Waziristan, the question has begun to be asked whether it will succeed. We will not know the answer for several weeks, perhaps not even then. The real victory will come only when the people not just in the tribal areas but in all parts of the country decide that they have been misled by a small of group of extremists. The people must make clear that they don’t see their country and religion being under assault by the West, in particular the United States, and that it is their own people who are attacking them. In addition to the use of military power, what is required is the use of people’s power. The war being fought in the hills of South Waziristan is not simply a military war; it is more a war of ideas. There has been much reflection in the American press in recent days about the meaning and ends of war. This was prompted by the on-going review of the options Washington has in the war in Afghanistan. There appears to be consensus among the commentators that no matter what the American president decides regarding the course of the conflict, it will, from now on, be ‘Obama’s war.’ One analyst, Gordon M. Goldstein, writing for The New York Times, drew a number of lessons for the current president based on the experiences of Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson in conducting the American war in Vietnam. Kennedy chose the middle course, preferring to concentrate on building the capacity of the state to help the people who had turned to insurgency since they saw no other way to better their rapidly deteriorating economic and social situation. Johnson, on the other hand, was overawed by the military and opted for the military option. What is the relevance of this debate in the United States for Pakistan’s policymakers as they conduct their operations in South Waziristan? There are several. Of these I would like to focus on the following three. First the civilians must provide credible leadership to this effort by the military. We know from our own history that the military cannot galvanise popular support when it goes into battle to protect the interests of the state. There was great popular support for troops in the brief war with India in September 1965 but it could not be sustained when the politicians, led by the leadership that had come from the military, were not be able to credibly explain the purpose of the war and its aftermath. Similarly, while the civil war in East Pakistan was provoked by the military, its aftermath had to be handled by the civilians. In the present context, we should recognise that a good start was made by convening a well-attended meeting of political leaders that authorised the use of force against the entrenched Taliban in South Waziristan. Second, there has to be only one system of governance in one country. Pakistan allowed the Taliban to run a parallel government in the areas they control. The jihadists in the populous province of Punjab would like to do the same in the areas where they have influence. They will succeed only if the state abdicates its responsibility of providing basic services to the people. This should not happen if the institutions of the state are strong and the government has the resources to provide for the people. The cash-strapped government in Pakistan has to collect more resources to finance its operations and to use the money it spends effectively and efficiently. It is doing neither at this time. Third, people have also to act. Let me quote at length from a recent article by the journalist Thomas L. Friedman who has written extensively on the developing world, especially on Muslim countries. ‘In places like Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Pakistan you have violent religious extremist movements fighting with state security services. … And while the regimes in these countries are committed to crushing their extremists, they rarely take on their extremist ideas by offering progressive alternatives. And when these extremists aim elsewhere … these regimes are indifferent. That is why there is no true war of ideas inside these countries — just a war.’ This is a correct and insightful observation. ‘These states are not promoting an inclusive and tolerant interpretation of Islam that could be the foundation of people power,’ Friedman continues. Pakistan, unlike the countries on Friedman’s list has had a ‘people power’ movement when the lawyers demonstrated that by acting with courage and resolution, they could bring about more than regime change. They could also force a strong executive to begin to show respect to the judiciary and its opinions. The same people power needs to be mobilised to rescue religion from the clutches of the extremists. Those on the margins of Pakistani society have found leadership from the ranks of the people who, although basically illiterate and poorly informed, are able to compensate for their shortcomings by the extremely strong courage of their convictions. The lawyers managed to find leaders from their own ranks. The progressive elements within the Pakistani society must search for those who can lead them in a much-needed people’s movement in the war against extremism. What is needed at this critical moment in the country’s history is a group of civilian leaders who can galvanise broad support for the difficult journey on which the armed forces have embarked. Also needed is an economic plan for building state institutions to deliver the appropriate services to the people in stress and also improve their access to basic needs. Finally the moderates in Pakistani society need to let it be known that they are not in agreement with the extremists in the way they interpret Islam, the way they see the functioning of the state and the way they would place Pakistan in the international community. (Dawn)

Read more...

The future government of Pakistan - by Nazir Naji

Nazir Naji identifies some possible names for a future idealistic government of Pakistan comprising some of the 'most capable' persons as identified in various TV talk-shows.

President: General Hamid Gul

Prime Minister: Munawar Hasan

Minister for Religious Affairs: Imran Khan

Roedad Khan: Interior Minister

Dr Shahid Masood: Minister for 'Dependent Care'

Qazi Hussain Ahmed: Ambassador to India

Shaheen Sehbai: Ambassador to Canada

Shirin Mazari: Ambassador to the USA

Abdul Aziz: Ambassador to the United Nations

Osama Bin Laden: Ambassador at large

General Mahmud Durrani: Governor of the NWFP

Geneal Aslam Beg: Governor of Balochistan

Hanif Abbasi: Governor of Punjab - part 1

Fazlur-Rehman: Governor of Punjab - part 2

Regime of ‘hostile’ TV anchors
Daily Times - Saturday, June 21, 2008

Two particular encounters on two TV channels Thursday night revealed the mind of the “misplaced or hostile anchor” in Pakistan. The first was a discussion among a group of TV journalists on the accusation levelled against them that they are no longer impartial in their conduct of talk shows and tend to favour a political stance. The “consensus” was that encroachments on institutions of representative democracy by military rulers could not be viewed with impartiality, and that a show of partiality was dictated by the anchors’ loyalty to the Constitution. One opinion was that this obligatory partiality must be accompanied by “objectivity”; but it was not clear how the state of being “objective” could be reconciled with the state of being “partial”.

The other discussion was an interview with Pakistan’s ambassador Mr Hussain Haqqani by a TV journalist noted for his acerbity of approach and bias. The topic was the attack made by NATO-ISAF forces inside Mohmand Agency which resulted in the death of 13 Pakistani troops, souring Pakistan’s relations between Washington. The ambassador, while acknowledging his duty to bring the umbrage of Pakistan to the notice of the Washington Administration in the most forceful of terms, also charged the TV person with the obligation of looking objectively at the situation in which Pakistan found itself. He asked him if he took account of the ground realities in the Tribal Areas where the war against terrorism was clearly in the national interest of Pakistan. The ambassador argued for “realism” in the handling of such crises as the one resulting from the attack in the Mohmand area. But the TV anchor demanded that Pakistan approach the United Nations for a solution to the problem of the growing breach of Pakistan’s “sovereignty” and “territorial integrity”. The ambassador pointed out that the Security Council was an arena of power play, not a kind of Supreme Court where all plaintiffs were equal. The TV anchor then fell back on the argument of “national pride” and claimed to represent the people of Pakistan, arguing in favour of Pakistan opting out of the international war on terrorism. He had no answer, however, to the question about what Pakistan would do after that, after its various trouble spots are bombed by a combination of forces united inside the US Security Council.

The patriotically “partial” TV anchors began by opposing a military ruler and are now caught in a situation of political bias under democracy because of the dictates of their partiality. The 2008 elections have delivered a political battlefield where elected parties are trying to move together despite their different recipes and solutions. What should the TV anchors do now? Normally, they should have moved back and become neutral, letting the discussions be fairly judged by the viewers, but they continue to pose as arbiters and decide on their own such matters as the “mandate” of the 2008 elections, the “immorality” of the NRO, and the rough dismissal of President Musharraf from his job. But when matters are in dispute between elected parties and in parliament, it is the duty of the media to remain impartial in order to allow the people to make their own judgements.

While highlighting the “complaints” against the TV channels, one must be clear, however, about the over-all role played by our electronic journalism. Despite their early “philosophical” gropings, the TV channels are a sine qua non of our lives and their foibles of “partiality” are dwarfed by their achievement of creating awareness among the people on all other economic and social matters. For example, in Punjab, Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif is taking action, correctly, after watching TV reports on the malfunction of government institutions.

A sense of pride and sovereignty may take nations into war and humiliate them without making them understand what went wrong. This happened to Germany in the Second World War and in recent times to Serbia whose people, proud and sovereign, hate the world today for not understanding why they were killing Bosnians and Kosovars. But states don’t only feel aroused emotionally. They can also be cold-blooded. They can be motivated only by their self-interest whose pursuit might negate the state’s pride and sovereignty. When Iran and America confront each other, both tend to fly off the handle. In contrast, in Europe, where many nationalist wars were fought in the past, few feel as aroused.

Why shouldn’t a state feel emotional? Because being emotional may be contrary to its national interests. These interests are almost always economic. This is perfectly understandable because as long as a nation is prosperous and not dependent on outside creditors, its pride and sovereignty remain intact. But if a state is neglectful of its economy and pursues other emotional goals either unrelated or hostile to its economy it is bound to impose suffering on its people through the growth of poverty. And nothing removes pride and sovereignty from a nation more cruelly and quickly than poverty. Let us not forget that the organisation which kidnapped and beheaded the American journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002 called itself National Movement for the Restoration of Pakistani Sovereignty.

(Asadullah Ghalib - CallAnchors)

Read more...

The attack on Islamic university in Islamabad: From General Zia to Imran Khan

IIU, me and you

The Pakistan report card Thursday, October 22, 2009 Fasi Zaka Several months ago, I was invited to speak at a seminar at the women's campus of the International Islamic University (IIU). It was, to say at the least, a memorable experience. I came to the unfortunate realisation that I too was a prejudiced individual after I compared my expectations to what I saw there. I expected a strict, stifling academic atmosphere that would be pervading the air in a sea of burqas. It was none of those things; the only cliché present was my pre-conceived notion, sadly with what could be called new neo-colonial mindset of the modernist Muslim despite his/her good intentions. The female students there were animated, gutsy and held intellectual discourse with vigour. Most striking was the plurality of the female campus of the IIU; the girls there chose their own identities and wore what they liked (with even the occasional moderate western wear). The segregation hadn't created an artificial environment; the students were free to be their own selves without the social mores that come into play when the genders mix. When I heard of the bombing at both the male and female campuses of the IIU, I was deeply saddened. I continue to wonder how urban apologists for the Taliban will spin this one. In all likelihood they won't, they will pretend it never happened. Rehman Malik is already at the blame game, claiming the problem was a lapse in university security. Since when have universities become experts in counter-terrorism is beyond me. He chose to ignore the obvious, which is that his ministry miscalculated when it thought schools were under threat and advised to shut them down instead of including universities on the list as well. While the PPP maybe an abject failure in governing this nation, our only alternative is proving to be a duplicitous man preaching a hollow holier-than-thou tirade. Nawaz Sharif won't answer questions about the Taliban, nor will he back the army into a war it has been slow to engage in. After the IIU bombing, what else is it that the Taliban can do to prove to Nawaz Sharif that they are entirely Godless? The left will quote Chomsky, Pilger and others to explain the social conditions that lead to movements like the Taliban, in effect intellectually justifying their methods. There is no denying the areas that have spawned this collective deserved better. But then, frankly, what are the redeeming features of the Taliban, if any? Explaining their background cannot, and does not, mitigate their callousness or inhumanity. Muted defenses of the Taliban always argue that one should not attempt to wipe them out because they are Muslims, 'well intentioned' but deviant. But what is odd that it seems the Taliban have no such qualms, having relegated everyone but themselves into the pit of infidels. For a long time now, there has been no room left for understanding and compassion. It is time to demonise them. General discourse and the media need to paint them as the new infidels. The kid gloves need to come off; the right wing of this country has to treat them with the same disdain and suggestions of all-encompassing evil that they reserve for USA, India and Israel. To be a member of the Taliban should be an unequivocal slur, it needs to have shame. In the battle for minds, maybe the same misdirected and spontaneous anger that creates mobs in streets against people (usually religious minorities) for alleged blasphemy should be aimed at people who collaborate with these murderers. It's no less a grave blasphemy to kill and maim innocent girls in an overtly Islamic university in the name of the Prophet (PBUH). But no, we have one standard for the Taliban and another for people who mark their heads with red dots and adorn their necks with crosses. This is the crux of our problem, not military might against the hordes of barbarians inside our gates. Remaining silent is not an option. Avoiding questions the way Nawaz Sharif does cannot go on. And if we are to start on this right now, I propose a simple start. We legislate against allowing abstentions in both the upper and lower houses of parliament for both resolutions and pending legislation. So whether it is the NRO, Kerry Lugar or action against the Taliban, the officials elected to represent the interests of the people cannot use the opt-out clause (abstentions) to gain false and damaging moral ground if they do not want to appear to support or be against certain issues when tabled. Name the legislation after the students who lost their lives at the university, it is the people, army brass and politicians who remained silent for so long that the girls and others have been silenced violently in the prime of their lives. Surely, Nawaz Sharif must have an opinion on that. But maybe he believes the comical and sad statement that Qamar Zaman Kaira gave after the bombing: "their real faces are now exposed in front of the nation." Really? Only now? IIU, me and you -- II Thursday, October 29, 2009 Fasi Zaka In times of unimaginable tragedy, it is hard to judge outpourings of grief. The mind is freckled by floods of angry emotion. After having said this, I still feel disappointed that right after the International Islamic University (IIU) bombings one of the pictures I saw in the press was of a demonstration by the boys of the university upholding banners that were against the Kerry-Lugar bill. It seemed to me the significance of what had happened to these hapless students hadn't yet dawned on them. The International Islamic University has absolutely nothing to do with the bill, and in any case the Taliban didn't bomb the university because they were convinced that the IIU had drafted it for John Kerry. Even at that time, in the aftermath of a senseless act it was difficult to acknowledge for people that the Taliban were utterly nihilistic in their aims. It was a lost opportunity to honour the lives of the people lost, to say that Islam just doesn't allow any semblance of what the Taliban are doing. One of the students who died was Sidra, a young topper of the Rawalpindi board in the arts group. Her best friend who saw her die chillingly spoke of being unable to sleep, to remember the cold touch of her cheek when she was about to be buried. How did the Kerry-Lugar bill fit into this? Valid criticisms of the bill aside, this was not the moment to do it because it was peripheral to the whole issue, because the Kerry-Lugar bill is also on the lower end of the Taliban agenda, revenge being their first. And the thirst for blood is so great, that the revenge is also taken from the absolutely innocent. I wonder just how influential the Islami Jamiat Talba (IJT) is at the IIU. Recently one of their office-bearers gave a statement to the press that Blackwater is behind the wave of terror attacks in the country. This is purposeful and utterly extreme mischief. If Blackwater is in Pakistan, and I increasingly believe that one of its subsidiaries might, it should be sent packing. But not for the nonsense that the Jamiat is keen on having people believe. Blackwater should be sent back, not because it may laughably be complicit in terror, but because the firm is trained in counter-insurgency in Iraq and has a trigger-happy reputation and is staffed reportedly by bigots, starting from the very top. What if a firm like Blackwater kills someone in Pakistan, how will the law apply? It's an invitation to flout our laws because we know the Americans won't allow a trial here, and it's already happening with incidents of foreigners being stopped and caught with illegal unlicensed weapons. But, for a moment, even in our anger acknowledge that whatever firm the Americans may be using, they do need security and are acting in accordance with the directive, or at least philosophy of Rehman Malik and Shahbaz Sharif. Our rulers would extol the people of Swat to fight the Taliban, rather than doing something about it themselves. They are saying that educational institutions must protect themselves rather than the government increasing general security. With this trend, all the Americans are doing is the same. If the government will not protect the people (only itself by buying more and more bullet-proof cars), then the Americans will have to use private contractors. But every argument that concerns legitimate internal concerns, say Americans with automatic weapons in the country, the Taliban or literally anything else, is increasingly hijacked and overtaken into vapid and vacuous arguments that sidestep the real issues. Without realising it, or maybe they do, but these right-wingers are hurting our country by making everything into issues of national pride or patriotism. And this patriotism is hurting us because it is made by disingenuous people. It doesn't reflect what this country should stand for. If we believed all our citizens have a right to life, we would be more incensed by the IIU bombing than we really are. Let me give an example of this confusion. In a recent letter to the editor a young man wrote about his educational institution in Faisalabad where a couple were sitting under a tree. Security came and shaved the heads of both the man and woman. The writer of the letter was honest to admit that he was fearful and couldn't speak up for two innocent people. But one reason people stay quiet is that they somehow believe that the tyrants who were shaving the heads of the couple may have been morally right. That's the confusion of the myth-making we are creating in this country. If we had a real sense of values we wouldn't think twice about speaking up for that poor duo because we knew others would share the sentiment. What crime was committed between two people sitting and doing nothing wrong in an open space? In LUMS a girl is making news for her campaign against public displays of affection. Let us grant her the right to do so for argument's sake, but the manner in which she did so is nothing less than hypocritical and reflects a tyrant in the making. By taking pictures of people secretly and promising to more and distributing them on email lists, I wonder if she is convinced Allah appointed her as the guardian to invade people's privacy by being holier than thou. I wonder if she took a break from her voyeurism activism to lead a rally against the Taliban after the IIU bombing. Which is more important now? The writer is a Rhodes scholar and former academic. Email: fasizaka@yahoo.com (The News)

Striking Islamic University in Islamabad

On the fourth day of the South Waziristan offensive by the Pakistan Army, the terrorist suicide-bombers decided to strike at the International Islamic University in Islamabad, killing six, out of whom three were girls. Heeding the message, the federal government and the provinces have closed down all educational institutions for five days, after which some decisive developments are expected.

The attack on the university reveals the changing temperament of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and its increasing desperation. The University is a centre of the study of sharia and is staffed in such a way that a worldwide perspective on the Islamic way of life becomes available to Pakistani students. It has featured renowned foreign scholars on its faculty and is highly regarded in the Islamic world.

But the TTP signature is crying out to be noticed. The girls, most of them observing hijab, have been targeted. In this sense, the attack is of a piece with the attacks on girls’ schools elsewhere in the country by the Taliban. From a recorded past of approval, the terrorists have moved to disapproval of the University. Since it is funded by Pakistan’s friendly Arab states and is located right next to the Saudi-built Faisal Mosque, the attack also contains a message from Al Qaeda. All bets, it appears, are off.

The students of the Islamic University expressed their view of the government by pelting stones at the car of the interior minister, Mr Rehman Malik, as he arrived to review the scene of bombing. This was a leftover from the settled understanding they had of the government. It might change in the coming days as they review their opinion of the TTP and Al Qaeda. But the question to be asked here — and in other universities — is: will the campuses undergo a change of mind?

When the Islamic University was set up, one teacher sent by Saudi Arabia to teach here was Professor Abdullah Azzam, a renowned Palestinian scholar who also ran the famous Saudi humanitarian organisation Rabita al-Alam al-Islami, which had an office in Islamabad. Mr Azzam also laid the foundation of Al Qaeda in Peshawar, not as a terrorist organisation but as an Islamic response to the Soviet incursion in Afghanistan. He was killed in Peshawar but his legacy has remained a part of Al Qaeda.

It is significant that a TTP group of terrorists that killed a number of khassadars, or local levies, during the month of Ramazan in Khyber called itself the Abdullah Azzam Brigade. Is it a lapse of memory on the part of the terrorists that they have attacked a university where Prof Azzam taught once and to whom the leaders of such organisations as Harkatul Mujahideen and various Lashkars owe allegiance? One can only put it down to an act of desperation. And it must cost the TTP a lot of support.

Those who have held exchanges of views with the Islamic University will remember that its students did not share the generally liberal outlook that characterises Pakistani society. In this they are in tune with views held in most universities of Pakistan where religious parties have almost a permanent influence. In Pakistan’s education system, the madrassas and the universities are close in their worldview. In the middle, among the schools and colleges, is where the typical middle-of-road Pakistani view — backed by our non-religious political parties — is still prevalent.

The TTP may be about to lose the support at campuses where most students tended to look at them positively and were in favour of “talks” with the Taliban, adhering to the stance adopted by Jama’at-e Islami and Tehreek-e-Insaf. A glimpse of this was offered by the Punjab University where the vice-chancellor led a march of protesting boys and girls against Tuesday’s outrage at the Islamabad Islamic University.

The terrorists have gradually abandoned the broad support they had among the largely conservative majority of Pakistan’s population. By doing what they did in Swat they proved that it was a deliberate act. From a majority of those who accepted the “cause” of the Taliban, the country now has a minority that would still support the so-called “Islamic enterprise” their leader Hakimullah has announced from South Waziristan. This is the moment when the resolve to face up to the challenge of terrorism should become even stronger (Daily Times).

سب کی چھٹی

محمد حنیف

بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام، کراچی

پاکستان میں دہشت گردی کے خطرے کے پیش نظر تعلیمی اداروں کو عارضی طور پر بند کر دیا گیا ہے

کل گیارہ سال کے ایک بچے کو بتایا کہ کل سکول میں چھٹی ہے۔ اس نے خوشی اور حیرت سے پوچھا کیوں۔ میں نے کہا سکیورٹی۔ اس نے کہا کیا انڈیا حملہ کر رہا ہے، کیا ہندو آ رہے ہیں۔

آج ملک کے کروڑوں طالب علم جن میں پہلی جماعت کے بچوں سے لے کر یونیورسٹیوں کے فائنل ایئر کے سٹوڈنٹ سب شامل ہیں، چھٹی پر ہیں۔ جن کو امتحانات دینے تھے ان کے پرچے منسوخ۔ جو تحریری امتحان دے کر پریکٹیکل کا انتظار کر رہے تھے اب وہ یہ انتظار تاحکم ثانی کریں گے۔ اب چونکہ یہ تمام طلبا فارغ ہیں اور اپنی اپنی بساط کے مطابق کوئی شغل کر رہے ہوں گے۔ کوئی وڈیو گیم کھیل رہا ہوگا، کوئی گلی میں کرکٹ اور کئی ماں باپ کے دھندوں میں ہاتھ بٹا رہے ہوں گے۔ میری ان تمام طلبا کے والدین سے گزارش ہے کہ وہ ان بچوں کو اخبارات سے دور رکھیں۔

کیونکہ آج آپ اردو کے دو بڑے اخباروں کے ادارتی صفحوں پر نظر ڈالیں تو انہیں یہ کچھ پڑھنے کو ملے گا۔

حضرت بایزید نے کس طرح کافروں کو مسلمان کیا۔ مکروہ بھارت مقدس پاکستان کے خلاف کیسی مکروہ حرکتیں کر رہا ہے۔

جماعت اسلامی وزیرستان میں نہ صرف آپریشن رکوائے گی بلکہ کیری لوگر بل پر ایک ملک گیر ریفرنڈم کروائے گی جس کے لیے پانچ ہزار پولنگ بوتھ لگائے جا رہے ہیں۔اگر کیری لوگر میں آپ کی دلچسپی ماند پڑ چکی ہو تو آپ گوانتا نامو میں ایک امریکی فوجی کے قبول اسلام کا ایمان افروز قصہ پڑھ سکتے ہیں۔

اسلام آباد یونیورٹسی میں ہونے والے خود کش حملوں کے خلاف کراچی میں طلبا احتجاج کر رہے ہیں

اسرائیلی جرائم کی چارج شیٹ پڑھ سکتے ہیں اور حمیت نام تھا جس کا ۔۔۔۔ کے نام سے طارق بن زیاد کے ولولہ انگیز کارناموں سے سبق سیکھ سکتے ہیں۔ اور اگر آپ کو تاریخ میں دلچسپی نہیں ہے تو آپ سابقہ کشمیری مجاہد اور تحریک طالبان کے موجودہ روح رواں الیاس کشمیری کے حالات زندگی پڑھ سکتے ہیں۔ کشمیری صاحب سے پوچھا گیا کہ جب کشمیر اور افغانستان فتح ہو جائے گا تو کیا جہاد ختم ہو جائے گا۔ انہوں نے فرمایا نہیں اس کے بعد ہندوستان سے حیدرآباد اور جوناگڑھ واپس لینے کے لیے جہاد ہوگا۔ اور اس کے بعد؟ ان کا کہنا تھا کہ دنیا میں کسی نہ کسی جگہ تو جہاد کی ضرورت ہوگی پھر ہم وہاں جہاد کریں گے۔

تو اولاد والو، عالم یہ ہے کہ ہم ایران، توران، بھارت اور اسرائیل میں جہاد کرتے کرتے، سپین میں چھن جانے والی حکومت کا ماتم کرتے ہوئے، اپنے گلوں میں اپنے جوہری زیور ڈالے آج اس مقام پر آن پہنچے ہیں کہ اپنے ہی محلے میں اپنے بچوں کو سکول نہیں بھیج سکتے۔ کیونکہ ان کی جانوں کو خطرہ ہے۔

کس سے؟

ہم ان کا نام لیتے ہوئے یا تو ڈرتے ہیں یا شرماتے ہیں۔

........

A state of denial

By Shahid M. Amin
Wednesday, 21 Oct, 2009

The conspiracy theorists ignore the reality that many suspected suicide bombers have been identified and found to be part of extremist groups such as the Taliban. –Photo by AP

METROPOLITAN

Rawalpindi police detain 152 during search operation

Rawalpindi police detain 152 during search operation

The GHQ attack has drawn accusations from several quarters in Pakistan that it was inspired by foreign powers; some have named India and the US among the usual suspects. Such ‘experts’ rarely bother to give any concrete evidence to substantiate their charges, which are based mainly on conjecture.

They can only argue as to which country would want to hurt Pakistan the most: surely it must be India. Since many now see the US as the enemy, it too, in their view, could be the hidden hand behind the attack. In this particular case the leader of the terrorists has been captured alive. An army spokesman has identified him as Aqeel, alias Dr Usman, affiliated with terrorist outfits based in southern Punjab. The terrorists involved in the attack were apparently trained in South Waziristan.

Will the spokesman’s disclosure silence those who see a foreign power behind the attack? Not likely. The conspiracy theorists in this case are the same people who have been claiming that the suicide bombers — who have killed thousands in Pakistan over the last few years — could not be Muslims. They ignore the reality that many of the suicide bombers have been identified and found to be part of Islamist extremist groups such as the Taliban.

Similarly, some conspiracy theorists believe that Al Qaeda does not exist and the Sept 11, 2001 attacks were the handiwork of Israeli agents. The fact that Osama bin Laden has taken responsibility for 9/11 and all those involved in it were Arab nationals has not deterred the ardent believers of conspiracies.

How should one explain such a state of denial? It is not a case of not knowing the facts. Actually, the conspiracy theorists do not want to believe anything that comes in the way of their firmly held views: firstly, that the US, Israel and India are the arch enemies of Muslims; secondly, that the militants involved in the struggle against anti-Islam forces must be absolved of any charge of brutal excesses.

One can see a clear pattern at work. After every gruesome terrorist act the ‘defenders’ of the terrorists react. They assert that this must be the doing of anti-Islam and anti-Pakistan forces, or of elements within the regime, such as intelligence agencies. Even when the Taliban or other extremists claim responsibility the ‘defenders’ assert that this must be disinformation. It would not be incorrect to conclude that there is a nexus between the Taliban and these apologists, mainly belonging to our religious parties which seem to be acting as the political face of the terrorists.

What kind of mentality is helping create sympathy for violent extremism? How is it that extremists are attracting so many adherents? No doubt, the majority are drawn from madressahs where young boys are subjected to relentless brainwashing. But some supporters are well-educated people. It is important, therefore, to understand the phenomenon of ‘Talibanisation’ since military measures alone cannot destroy Al Qaeda and the Taliban. In the final process, ideas must be fought with ideas.

Over a period of time the perception has developed in Pakistan and elsewhere that the US is following a global anti-Muslim policy. The US is viewed as the main supporter of Israel, which has long been a dagger in the heart of the Arab and Muslim world. The Al Qaeda phenomenon itself developed after the US attack on Iraq during the first Gulf War of 1990. In 2001 the US invasion of Afghanistan and, more notably, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 raised Muslim fears to an unprecedented extent.

In Pakistan, sectarianism has been on the rise for the last three decades or so. But it was under Ziaul Haq that extremism acquired the shape that we see today. He patronised fundamentalism for political and ideological reasons. The Soviet military occupation of Afghanistan was seen as a threat to Pakistan’s own security. The West had its own motives to oppose the Soviets. There was also sympathy for the Afghan Mujahideen whose struggle against the Soviets was seen as righteous. It was not realised, until it was too late, that these militants would turn into Frankensteins. Today’s Taliban are the offshoot of the Mujahideen.

Sept 11 led to the US invasion of Afghanistan. Here another miscalculation occurred. The Afghan people have a long tradition of opposing all foreign invaders and history is now repeating itself. Thus, the US and Nato forces are facing a war of national resistance which the Taliban have converted into a ‘jihad’ in the Pakhtun areas. Ethnic Pakhtuns also live on the Pakistani side of the border, thus extending the area of conflict to our tribal belt. Vital support is also coming from sympathisers affected by Talibanisation.

To counter Talibanisation and the religious fanatics, it needs to be emphasised, firstly, that they have done a grave disservice to Islam’s image by their senseless violence and brutality. Secondly, the rampant anti-Americanism that is providing so many recruits for Al Qaeda can be countered by recalling some historical facts. The US invasion of Iraq in 1990 was due to Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait, an Arab and Muslim neighbour. In that war the UN and the majority of Arab and Muslim states had supported the US.

In 2001, it was the terrorism of 9/11 that resulted in the US invasion of Afghanistan and not vice versa. The liberation of Muslim Bosnia and Kosovo in the last decade was secured by the US, whose support for the Mujahideen had earlier secured Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. Even in the case of Israeli aggression against the Arab countries, it was the US that twice secured Israeli withdrawal from Sinai. The US also secured Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza in 1994 that allowed the PLO to return and form a Palestinian Authority in those territories.

Nevertheless, the onus lies on the US to rehabilitate its image in the Muslim world. It must end its blind support for Israel. The US withdrawal from Iraq must be expedited. The US should play a role to help resolve the Kashmir dispute. Barack Obama has a historic opportunity to change the Bush-era policies and build bridges between the US and the Muslim world. It remains to be seen how far he can rise to the occasion. (Dawn)

Read more...