Step Aside Mathew Rosenberg, Welcome Ansar Abbasi

A small group of Pakistani journalists are protesting because one Pakistani newspaper has accused Mathew Rosenberg, an India-based American correspondent for the Wall Street Journal of being a spy. The editor of Wall Street Journal is 'disgusted'. Under new directions from Mrs. Clinton, US diplomats are aggressively engaged in a media battle in Pakistan. Part of the game is raising a new class of US apologists – commentators, editors, journalists. Mr. Rosenberg may not be a spy but here is a Pakistani lesson for the US media.

Click here to read the full story.

Haqqani Should Buy Zardari A New Maximilian

The Zardari-Nawaz musical chairs stands exposed before the Pakistani people. Syed Faisal Saleh Hayat appears on Ahmed Quraishi's TSS [Sunday, Nov. 15, 08:00 pm-Aag TV] to issue this warning: this is the last chance for the politicians and the expanded ruling elite. Anjum Niaz puts that warning in perspective in this column in her unique style.

Click here to read the full column

Pledge Of PakNationalism By Young Pakistanis

America's Sleazeball Haqqani

In the thick of the debate over Kerry-Lugar bill in Pakistan, Ambassador Husain Haqqani came under unprecedented attack. In fact, he is the only Pakistani ambassador to US who was ruthlessly criticized in the federal parliament for two days, with open demands that he be recalled from Washington. There are two reasons he survived. One is Mr. Zardari, and the second is the terrorist attack on the GHQ building in Rawalpindi. Pakistan's isolated President sees Mr. Haqqani as his man in Washington, entrusted with ensuring that Washington keeps its part of the 'deal' that brought his government to power. Interestingly, the Americans see Haqqani as their man, entrusted with ensuring that Zardari and Pakistan's military keep their parts of the 'deal'. When Mr. Haqqani sensed the noose tightening around his neck, he tried to play smart, using the Foreign Policy magazine to leak out a message to whom it may concern in Islamabad [and Rawalpindi]. The Nation published this message in a story titled If Fired, Haqqani Threatens To Reveal 'Reams' of Pakistani Secrets on Oct. 14. Mr. Haqqani didn't anticipate that someone will catch his subtle message. So he slapped a defamation suit. But he certainly wasn't expecting this response from The Nation. Here it is in case you missed it.

What A New Military Coup In Pakistan Can Do This Time?

Shireen Mazari On Seymour Hersh

In Bob Woodward’s book, “Bush at War”, he recalls how when he (Woodward) quoted Hersh to Bush, the latter replied that Seymour Hersh was a liar! Hersh’s article “Defending the Arsenal” in The New Yorker (November 16, 2009) has predictably caused a stir in Pakistan. But this always happens after the event; after foreign journalists have been given excessive access into the corridors of power in Pakistan. So it has been with Hersh. Now the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) claims Hersh has a well-known “anti-Pakistan” bias. If that is the case, then did the MFA give an official perspective on how much access Hersh should have been given in Pakistan? Did they advise the President to avoid meeting this man or did they give any official brief to the President on what to say to him on sensitive issues? Clearly, the Zardari meeting with Hersh has no reflection of the MFA or any official Pakistani position. Instead, there is a reflection of ignorance with the President declaring that our army officers are “British-trained”!

CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL COLUMN

Peter Chamberlin: Why Not Criticize The Army, Ahmed?

US journalist and commentator Peter Chamberlin [Therearenosunglasses's Weblog] makes some insightful comments on my report below.  He has written with insight on Pakistani affairs.  He believes Pakistani military cooperation with US plans for our region is an important part of the problem and that Pakistani patriots are giving the Pakistani military a pass on its role.  Like the Pakistani society, opinions and analysis vary within the Pakistani military on US strategic role in our region. Mr. Chamberlin's comments here should help the debate. Read his comments in red below.

By PETER CHAMBERLIN

Tuesday, 10 November 2009.

WWW.AHMEDQURAISHI.COM

Ahmed,

I felt like commenting on your fine report, when I posted on my website.  I posted it as a comment on the article, but I thought you might like to see it as it was written.  Keep hammering, maybe reason might persuade your leaders to oppose mine.

Peter

American Psyops Destroying Pakistani Morale

[Ahmed is a great patriotic defender of Pakistan and he always calls the political leaders out when they sell-out.  Like most Pakistani patriots though, he is hesitant to criticize the Army for the trouble that is boiling over there, even though Army cooperation with the United States is perhaps the biggest problem of all.  Like I have been trying to point out for a couple of years, if the Army continues to cooperate with US planners and behind the scenes maneuvers, then Pakistan will not likely survive much longer.  The Army must convince Obama that it works for the Pakistani people and not for him.  It does this by resisting American calls for civil war and restoring all the displaced Pashtuns back to their homes and filling them with the will to resist.]

Nuclear Doubts: Pakistani Weakness Is Eroding Internal Morale, Fast

By AHMED QURAISHI

Tuesday, 10 November 2009.

WWW.AHMEDQURAISHI.COM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—Two curious aspects of the New Yorker story on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is that the report singles out the Pakistani military – and not the civilian government – as partner in alleged secret negotiations with the Obama administration to secure Pakistan's nuclear weapons.  The other is the objective behind leaking the story – if indeed some US officials helped in leaking details – since the story only serves to make it more difficult for Pakistani officials cooperating with Washington on the nuclear question.

[Strange as it seems, that is the way that the CIA undermines nations--it purposely complicates situations it wants to change, so that it can knock them down later.  It is of strategic value to keep the nuclear issue in conflict.  It is not really looking for cooperation on the nuclear issue, rather it is looking for complete capitulation to American Zionist demands.]

In May, when Boston Globe published a similar story quoting unnamed and unverifiable sources revealing that Pakistani officials have accepted a proposal to ship some highly enriched uranium to the United States for disposal, there was no reference whatsoever to Pakistani military.  The Globe depicted the talks as a government-to-government exercise.

For all intents, the latest story seeks to embarrass the Pakistani military.  This probably explains the immediate reaction of the US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W. Patterson.  Not that she actually denied the alleged talks.  Her written statement was carefully worded to deny her government's "intention to seize Pakistani nuclear weapons or material."

[Patterson was probably telling a diplomat's version of the "truth," they don't intend to "seize" Pakistan's nukes, they expect the Army to simply hand them over.]

The element of embarrassment also explains the statement of Pakistan’s Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Tariq Majid, who made it a point to respond to the question, 'How much does US really know about Pakistan's nuclear program?'  In a sharp public retort uncommon to Pakistan's top military brass, Gen. Majeed answered, ‘Only that much as they can guess and nothing more’.

Important parts of Mr. Seymour Hersh's investigative story remain unaddressed.  No government or military official has confirmed or denied the revelation in the New Yorker that former President Pervez Musharraf shared with US officials information about the number of warheads, their locations and their security plan.  Considering the embarrassing concessions that he gave the Americans (he allowed US diplomats, officials and military personnel unprecedented privileges at Pakistani airports at a time when Pakistani officials were humiliated on entry to US.  Pakistan has withdrawn those concessions.)

[There should be no doubt in Pakistan, even within the Army, that Musharraf handed the country to Bush and waged war against the people afterwords, to please him.  Why wouldn't  the keys already be in US hands?]

(It is also important to question some of Mr. Hersh's findings, which border on the ridiculous.  The last time Mr. Hersh visited Pakistan was five years ago by his own statement.  Yet he concluded that since the few politicians, journalists and retired generals he met this time did not offer him Johnny Walker Black this must be a sign of growing religious extremism in Pakistan and in the ranks of Pakistan military.  At other places, he has exaggerated the impact of two retired army officers that he interviewed on soldiers and middle rank officers.  Mr. Hersh appeared to have made little effort to use his visit to the country to try to understand the real Pakistan. Instead, he felt comfortable regurgitating media stereotypes. Which is fine since his report fits in with the overall US political and military policy thrust with regards to Pakistan.)

Mr. Hersh's report comes six months after the Boston Globe story that broke the news on behind-the-scenes talks between Islamabad and Washington on US proposals to secure Pakistan's nuclear weapons, including a US suggestion to ship out Pakistani uranium.  No one in Islamabad denied the story at the time.  The fixed Pakistani response to such stories has not changed much in recent years: that Pakistan has an excellent command and control regime and that Pakistan does not need outside help to secure its arsenal.

So, is the Pakistani government or military really talking secretly with the Americans on how to secure Pakistani nukes?

One explanation that retired military officers are giving is that Pakistani officers may be talking nukes to the Americans but not giving them the right information.  If true, this policy line seeks to keep the Americans engaged with Pakistan without allowing Washington any real access.

This is not farfetched. Pakistani civilian and military governments have perfected a uniquely Pakistani version of the American idiom, 'to roll with the punches and survive to fight another day.'  Only that Pakistan never really fights even for what is its legitimate right.  Under this policy, Islamabad has accepted on several occasions to play along, live with the accusations and insinuations about its nuclear program, and hope to stall, engage, and win over the antagonistic elements of the Washington establishment, both political and military.

But the latest report takes the debate to a new level.  Pakistani officials grappling with the PR aspect of this story need to consider the following:

1.       The latest report is particularly demoralizing for ordinary Pakistanis, in the backdrop of an overall deteriorating strategic environment for Pakistani interests, internal and external.  Pakistan's national security managers, civilian and military, need to pay attention to the hypothetical threshold of national morale.  Dangerously low levels of national morale could prove fatal in case of war with India or a US-led military invasion of Pakistani territory from Afghanistan.

[Wearing-out an opponent, without having to actually fight, is the purpose of CIA and military psyops.  When, and if, Pakistani morale sinks so low that agency planners expect complete capitulation with the next shock, then the final shock will soon come, psychological assault will intensify.  It is the "shock doctrine" and the theory of "learned helplessness" rolled into one.  The close cooperation between American and Pakistani military leaders makes it highly unlikely that Kayani and the generals don't understand what is happening.  By looking the other way so often, whenever US operatives are taking actions that are harmful to Pakistan, the Army shares in the guilt for what is being done.   This is the deadly problem that will finish Pakistan off, if left as is.]

2.      Is there someone in Washington, within its political, military and intelligence communities that might have an interest in embarrassing Pakistani officials who are allegedly engaged in secret nuclear talks with Washington?  Is someone trying to sabotage policy initiatives of the Obama administration?  In such a case, Pakistani officials – especially in the Pakistani intelligence community – need to give more weight to reports that anti-Pakistan activities orchestrated on Afghan soil cannot happen without some level of American involvement.

[Ahmed is being too generous concerning American intentions, but he is dead-on about US and NATO forces being complicit in any Indian action against Pakistan from Afghani soil.  Launching attacks against Pakistan from US-controlled territory would require US consent, just like in the case of Israel attacking Iran through US-controlled airspace, it can't be done without American permission.]

3.      That the US media continues to cause tremendous damage to Pakistan's reputation and standing in the international community.  Pakistan is receiving enemy treatment from the US media.  Pakistani officials must understand that US media cannot mount similar attacks on other countries such as Turkey and Egypt because leaderships in those countries generally keep US officials on a leash and leverage Washington's strategic needs to their favor. In Pakistan, we have a ruling elite that is micromanaged from Washington, thanks to a deal that former President Musharraf signed with Washington and London.

[Pakistan will continue to be a pariah nation because of the armies of Islamists that it has trained for the CIA. Until Kayani and the generals stop covering-up what amounts to a shared criminal enterprise run for the CIA, Pakistan will take the fall for the entire operation, by itself, America is off the hook. The world is slowly coming to realize what was done in FATA and NWFP, because the graduates of the militant academies which were established there have been plying the trade they learned there all over the world.  The world is holding Pakistan accountable for the terrorism these militants are commiting, no matter what.    Pakistan will go down alone, unless the generals prove to the world that this has been an American enterprise all along, which they merely been managing and operated under a deadly contract that began in 1979.]

4.      The New Yorker report harms the image of the Pakistani military leadership in the eyes of the soldiers and officers in middle and lower ranks.  This is especially relevant to the debate raging in official US circles about a mutiny within the Pakistan army.  Some American policymakers are deliberately using Afghanistan to push Pakistan to the wall in the hope that instability in Pakistan would reach a level where it could trigger a mutiny inside the Pakistani military against both the military leadership and the government.  Anyone who knows Pakistan will instantly understand that this notion is exaggerated, but this US debate should tell Pakistan's military leadership and people something about the destructive line of policy thinking that Washington is pursuing in Pakistan's neighborhood.

[Some of the attacks, even some being committed on the Army,  are being done by "former" military and ISI men, usually blamed on Taliban.   Consider the officers involved in the  attacks on Musharraf and the attack upon GHQ .  There is secret cooperation between the CIA and some unnamed officers of the Army on some level that amounts to waging war against the locals.]

Common wisdom in both the Pakistani political elite and some parts of the military bureaucracy says that 'engaging' the Americans on the subject of the security of Pakistani nukes can be beneficial to Pakistan. It would keep Washington engaged.  It would provide opportunities to milk the Americans of more aid money.

But no one in the policymaking circles is apparently weighing the downside: The 'engagement' is emboldening the Americans.  The 'engagement' – or secret talks, call them whatever you want – are sending the wrong signals to ordinary Pakistanis at a time when more of our people are convinced that Pakistan's troubles stem from American failures in Afghanistan.

Pakistani schools and colleges are under attack when those in Iraq and Afghanistan are safe.  This is happening because of American policy blunders and not just because of extremism inside Pakistan.  Our problems are also the result of Islamabad refusing to submit completely to the US military strategy that wants to give India a larger role in Afghanistan.  Pakistan, with a strong military and intelligence setup, is an obstacle in this strategy.

[That is precisely why American planners are working so hard to take Pakistan out of the way.  If they succeed in destroying the morale of the brave people of Pakistan, then a whole new level of pain will sweep over the land, with the idea of washing Pakistan back upon Indian shores.]

© 2007-2009. All rights reserved. AhmedQuraishi.com & PakNationalists

The original report is posted here

Email from a reader, Mr. Zeeba Khan to PakNationalists:

I think the problem in this country is that there is a race going on between the civilian and the military leadership to excel in terms of loyalty to the Americans. The interests of 170 mn people of this country is of no consequesnce. The most important thing is to pursue US interests, so that personal gains can be reaped from the situation. The accusation by  Seymour Hersch has been accepted by the top military brass by stating that they are engaging the Americans. Whether these engagements lead to pursuing Pakistan's interests or the personal interests of the 'engagers' remains to be seen. In the past personal interests have triumphed over national interests.

There is evidence to show that Pakistan army is totally committed to US interests. The military operations in Swat and Waziristan are proofs. Even when proofs of US involvement in Pakistan were found with the discovery of US arms from Swat (or Waziristan) ISPR spokesperson Gen Athar Abbas stated that these were stolen US arms. The army found the arms and ISPR spokesperson knew even before any investigation had been conducted that these were stolen arms. US interests are closer to his heart than Pakistan's.    

Nuclear Doubts: Pakistani Weakness Is Eroding Internal Morale, Fast

Seymour Hersh might have come up with some absurd findings, like concluding that religious extremism has multiplied in Pakistan because no one offered him Johnny Walker Black during his recent visit.  But apart from that, Pakistan's national security managers should sit up and take notice of one glaring fact: The US media and some circles in the Washington establishment are behind the worst global demonization campaign against Pakistan.  Now this is denting national morale and forcing Pakistanis to question if their military is capable of defending the nation, since politicians have proven to be a disaster.

By AHMED QURAISHI

Tuesday, 10 November 2009.

http://www.ahmedquraishi.com/

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—Two curious aspects of the New Yorker story on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is that the report singles out the Pakistani military – and not the civilian government – as partner in alleged secret negotiations with the Obama administration to secure Pakistan's nuclear weapons.  The other is the objective behind leaking the story – if indeed some US officials helped in leaking details – since the story only serves to make it more difficult for Pakistani officials cooperating with Washington on the nuclear question.

In May, when Boston Globe published a similar story quoting unnamed and unverifiable sources revealing that Pakistani officials have accepted a proposal to ship some highly enriched uranium to the United States for disposal, there was no reference whatsoever to Pakistani military.  The Globe depicted the talks as a government-to-government exercise.

For all intents, the latest story seeks to embarrass the Pakistani military.  This probably explains the immediate reaction of the US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W. Patterson.  Not that she actually denied the alleged talks.  Her written statement was carefully worded to deny her government's "intention to seize Pakistani nuclear weapons or material."

The element of embarrassment also explains the statement of Pakistan’s Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Tariq Majid, who made it a point to respond to the question, 'How much does US really know about Pakistan's nuclear program?'  In a sharp public retort uncommon to Pakistan's top military brass, Gen. Majeed answered, ‘Only that much as they can guess and nothing more’.

Important parts of Mr. Seymour Hersh's investigative story remain unaddressed.  No government or military official has confirmed or denied the revelation in the New Yorker that former President Pervez Musharraf shared with US officials information about the number of warheads, their locations and their security plan.  Considering the embarrassing concessions that he gave the Americans [he allowed US diplomats, officials and military personnel unprecedented privileges at Pakistani airports at a time when Pakistani officials were humiliated on entry to US.  Pakistan has withdrawn those concessions.]

[It is also important to question some of Mr. Hersh's findings, which border on the ridiculous.  The last time Mr. Hersh visited Pakistan was five years ago by his own statement.  Yet he concluded that since the few politicians, journalists and retired generals he met this time did not offer him Johnny Walker Black this must be a sign of growing religious extremism in Pakistan and in the ranks of Pakistan military.  At other places, he has exaggerated the impact of two retired army officers that he interviewed on soldiers and middle rank officers.  Mr. Hersh appeared to have made little effort to use his visit to the country to try to understand the real Pakistan. Instead, he felt comfortable regurgitating media stereotypes. Which is fine since his report fits in with the overall US political and military policy thrust with regards to Pakistan.]

Mr. Hersh's report comes six months after the Boston Globe story that broke the news on behind-the-scenes talks between Islamabad and Washington on US proposals to secure Pakistan's nuclear weapons, including a US suggestion to ship out Pakistani uranium.  No one in Islamabad denied the story at the time.  The fixed Pakistani response to such stories has not changed much in recent years: that Pakistan has an excellent command and control regime and that Pakistan does not need outside help to secure its arsenal.

So, is the Pakistani government or military really talking secretly with the Americans on how to secure Pakistani nukes?

One explanation that retired military officers are giving is that Pakistani officers may be talking nukes to the Americans but not giving them the right information.  If true, this policy line seeks to keep the Americans engaged with Pakistan without allowing Washington any real access.

This is not farfetched. Pakistani civilian and military governments have perfected a uniquely Pakistani version of the American idiom, 'to roll with the punches and survive to fight another day.'  Only that Pakistan never really fights even for what is its legitimate right.  Under this policy, Islamabad has accepted on several occasions to play along, live with the accusations and insinuations about its nuclear program, and hope to stall, engage, and win over the antagonistic elements of the Washington establishment, both political and military.

But the latest report takes the debate to a new level.  Pakistani officials grappling with the PR aspect of this story need to consider the following:

1.       The latest report is particularly demoralizing for ordinary Pakistanis, in the backdrop of an overall deteriorating strategic environment for Pakistani interests, internal and external.  Pakistan's national security managers, civilian and military, need to pay attention to the hypothetical threshold of national morale.  Dangerously low levels of national morale could prove fatal in case of war with India or a US-led military invasion of Pakistani territory from Afghanistan.

2.      Is there someone in Washington, within its political, military and intelligence communities that might have an interest in embarrassing Pakistani officials who are allegedly engaged in secret nuclear talks with Washington?  Is someone trying to sabotage policy initiatives of the Obama administration?  In such a case, Pakistani officials – especially in the Pakistani intelligence community – need to give more weight to reports that anti-Pakistan activities orchestrated on Afghan soil cannot happen without some level of American involvement.

3.      That the US media continues to cause tremendous damage to Pakistan's reputation and standing in the international community.  Pakistan is receiving enemy treatment from the US media.  Pakistani officials must understand that US media cannot mount similar attacks on other countries such as Turkey and Egypt because leaderships in those countries generally keep US officials on a leash and leverage Washington's strategic needs to their favor. In Pakistan, we have a ruling elite that is micromanaged from Washington, thanks to a deal that former President Musharraf signed with Washington and London.

4.      The New Yorker report harms the image of the Pakistani military leadership in the eyes of the soldiers and officers in middle and lower ranks.  This is especially relevant to the debate raging in official US circles about a mutiny within the Pakistan army.  Some American policymakers are deliberately using Afghanistan to push Pakistan to the wall in the hope that instability in Pakistan would reach a level where it could trigger a mutiny inside the Pakistani military against both the military leadership and the government.  Anyone who knows Pakistan will instantly understand that this notion is exaggerated, but this US debate should tell Pakistan's military leadership and people something about the destructive line of policy thinking that Washington is pursuing in Pakistan's neighborhood.

Common wisdom in both the Pakistani political elite and some parts of the military bureaucracy says that 'engaging' the Americans on the subject of the security of Pakistani nukes can be beneficial to Pakistan. It would keep Washington engaged.  It would provide opportunities to milk the Americans of more aid money.

But no one in the policymaking circles is apparently weighing the downside: The 'engagement' is emboldening the Americans.  The 'engagement' – or secret talks, call them whatever you want – are sending the wrong signals to ordinary Pakistanis at a time when more of our people are convinced that Pakistan's troubles stem from American failures in Afghanistan.

Pakistani schools and colleges are under attack when those in Iraq and Afghanistan are safe.  This is happening because of American policy blunders and not just because of extremism inside Pakistan.  Our problems are also the result of Islamabad refusing to submit completely to the US military strategy that wants to give India a larger role in Afghanistan.  Pakistan, with a strong military and intelligence setup, is an obstacle in this strategy.

© 2007-2009. All rights reserved. AhmedQuraishi.com & PakNationalists

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium

Iqbal In Music: Pakistani Pop Singer's Tribute To The Poet Of The East

Pakistan's Angry Students: Ominous Sign For The Ruling Elite

 

Two days ago I spent an entire day at the International Islamic University. No, it is not a madrassah but a modern institution spread over 700 acres in the heart of the Pakistani capital. When I entered the campus with our team from Geo's Aag TV to tape a special episode with its students, I never expected what I found.

Close to 20,000 students live and study here, Pakistani and foreign. A cosmopolitan environment exists, where bearded male students rub shoulders with others wearing jeans, sporting cool haircuts and listening to their ipods. The female campus reflects the diversity of the Pakistani society. Girls in western dresses mingling with friends veiled in black chadors or simple hijab.

Two weeks ago, two suicide attackers came to this place and blew up several students to pieces.

Four days later, hundreds of students defied security warnings and gathered in the campus for a rally against the terrorists and against the destabilizing American presence in neighboring Afghanistan.

Who returns to a site of terror attack? Not in Pakistan anyone does. No Pakistani politician of weight did something like this after scores of terrorist acts in Pakistan.

In fact, there are four heavyweight Pakistani politicians elected from the twin cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi, belonging to the ruling PPP and Mr. Nawaz Sharif's PMLN – Mr. Nayyar Bokhari, Mr. Hanif Abbasi, Mr. Sheikh Rashid, and Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan – but not one of them cared to join the students in their hour of grief.

What to talk of Pakistani politicians and the ruling elite. The other day, 117 Pakistanis were killed in a single day in Peshawar, mostly the poorest of the poor, and our ruling elite was busy on that evening exchanging smiles with Mrs. Hillary Clinton over dinner. [15 Americans were killed in America in a military base and their President lowered the national flag for 3 days in mourning.]

The Pakistani media, although well meaning, did not fare any better. Every talk show was busy in the usual bickering and backbiting that mars Pakistan's useless and unproductive politics.

But the people in our team did care. We went to meet the students. And they are angry. And they are not mincing words. The show we taped will be aired on Geo's Aag TV on Sunday, Nov. 7, 8-9 pm PST.

The time is running out for the Pakistan's failed ruling elite, the ones in government and the ones who remain in power one way or the other no matter what government in place.

Pakistan is looking ahead at difficult times if the anger, frustration and disenchantment among the young Pakistanis, who are in majority in this nation, boils over. And that point is not very far.

Here I share with you three pictures I took with my cell phone. They show how our students reacted to the tragedy. That's much more than anything our government and politicians did to mourn their children who died in the heart of the Pakistani capital, a few minutes' drive away from the seats of political power.

Launching The PakNationalists Movement

A school of thought has taken shape in Pakistan during the past three years. There was a time when the mere mention of 'Pakistan' and 'nationalists' together invited bland looks. Today Pakistani nationalists are asserting themselves like never before. The ideology has taken shape. It needs to be translated into a force for political change. A debate has begun. The following is one small sign of it. This is from a Dr. whose name I do not know. What is important is the idea that he is sharing. Multiply this by one thousand and you can get a glimpse into the giant lurking beneath the political mess in Pakistan today. The failed political elite does not represent the energetic people vying for change.

Mr. Quraishi,



I've been an avid fan of yours since you started on PTV. Kudos to you for your profound sense of perception and point of view. It not only is reflective of the truth but demands answers and explanations, which is so rare among the majority of journalists heading these mammoth political talk shows. They lack substance and meaning. However, your program on Aag and your views in general are truly a breath of fresh air....and usually my family and I can be heard saying "thank god...someone is finally speaking up!"

I share some similarities with your background. Spent my early childhood in the Middle East---Riyadh. Was there during the Gulf War (of course didn't ''cover'' it like you did!). I share a similar point of view as yours on the present political situation our country is faced with these days. However, my profession is quite different---I'm a medical doctor. However, through my profession I've been able to experience some of life's bitter truths that people here are faced with. And it has been an immense eye-opener.

Coming to the point. I just saw your facebook post on your aq-lounge blog about whether this is the time to launch and be a bit more proactive. You raise an interesting question that I wanted to answer through this email. Your question about what it should do initially? What should be discussed first? I think addressing our responsibilities should be discussed. This will inadvertently bring us to discussing about politics. My point is, first we need to discuss what our duties are to society. That's where it all starts from. We constantly raise the rhetoric that our politicians are doing this to us. But I think it's high time we start addressing ''Then how come we aren't doing anything to stop them?" I think through numerous talk shows and discussions and dinner party get-togethers we've managed to clarify that the ineptness of our politicians has gotten us into this mess. So I think we've covered that part well. Now, what needs to be addressed and taken action on is what WE need to be doing. Because it's becoming apparent that no one is willing to step up to the plate to set this all straight. So if we are able to, then why aren't we doing something? And even if it is on a small scale, then at least, let's do it! It could begin within your own neighborhood. It takes 1 person to start it. We need to be the change we want to see. The ills that face us are innumerable. They range from being pressured into giving safarish to get things done to even something as mundane as the milkman cheating us on the quality of milk. If we just keep taking it, then it will continue being dished to us.

Of course nothing will happen over night. But it will be a start. We can get to the politics part later. First we need to ensure we're worthy of bringing about this ''change''. Are our morals and values in line with what the Quaid expected from us? In essence, he was merely repeating what our religion instructs us to be doing. We need to teach, lead, and change by example.

Just my 2 cents. Would appreciate your feedback.

Regards,


dare2dv8 (http://dare2deviate.blogspot.com)

Want To Meet Hillary? Don't Criticize United States!

Click here to see more pictures of Hillary In Lahore

courtesy of Laura Rosen of Politico.com

Obviously the US Embassy in Pakistan and the doormat Pakistani officials did an excellent job of 'vetting' the Pakistani invitees to Mrs. Clinton's PR events in Pakistan, the same ones that she has described back in the US as having been 'positively received' by Pakistanis. The truth is that every effort was made to shield her from hearing the real grievances on the Pakistani street, grievances that both US Ambassador Anne W. Patterson in Islamabad and Husain Haqqani in Washington are misleading the US public opinion about. Read how this young Pakistani lawyer, who often writes criticizing the US mess in Afghanistan, was 'hidden' from Hillary in Lahore.

Click here for the full article.

To Pakistanis: Italy Convicts CIA Chief

In at least two Pakistani cities, undercover US intelligence operatives have been arrested by Pakistani police. These American operatives are running an undercover operation in Pakistan that uses the cover of the US Embassy. On at least three occasions, these operatives, who presented themselves as US 'diplomats', were roaming Pakistani streets in cars with fake number plates and wearing Afghan dresses and sporting Taliban-style beards. Most importantly, these operatives were carrying sophisticated weapons that were not licensed to the US Embassy. Four such US 'diplomats' were arrested a few hours before the arrival of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Pakistan. When asked about the incident, she said she had no idea who those people were and what exactly they were doing. She was not lying. This is a standard procedure for US diplomats when US intelligence operatives get busted. Pakistani civilian and military officials have enough evidence of the illegal activities of CIA in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, where the American spy agency is using the help of Karzai's and India's spy outfits. Can Pakistan learn to stand for itself?

Click here to read the full story.

Young Pakistan Rising

Where Is The Mourning, Mr. Zardari?

To Our Elite And Not Just The President: Was a reception for a foreign guest more important than sharing the grief of your people?

More than one hundred innocent Pakistanis killed in one day, more than two hundred in less than a month.  Attacks linked to our own and America's failed Afghan policy.  Attacks supported by anti-Pakistan forces in the region and not just unknown 'extremists'.  Children left without parents, a nation terrorized. And the response of our political elite?  Dinner, toasts and merrymaking in Islamabad. Was a reception for a foreign guest more important than sharing the grief of your people? A shameless foreign-backed ruling elite. 

By AHMED QURAISHI

Thursday, 29 October 2009.

WWW.AHMEDQURAISHI.COM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—One hundred and ten killed in one day.  More than two hundred dead in less than a month. If this were any other country, emergency would have been declared, nation would have been mobilized, and intellectuals would have moved to question the policies of rulers who draw their strength from Washington and London and not from the people and the interests of Pakistan.

Above all, there would have been a national mourning.

But not in Pakistan.  Not in a country where one ruler sold his nation in exchange for a deal offered to him by the Am-Brits and where 'elected' rulers consider receiving someone from Washington and London the high point of their careers.

The list of grievances is long:

1.       WHERE ARE THE RAPID EMERGENCY TEAMS: Many of the dead in Peshawar probably died beneath collapsed buildings.  Where are the millions of rupees that were spent after the 2005 earthquake on rapid response rescue teams?

2.      MOUNRING: How many innocent Pakistanis should be killed before our ruling elite decide to declare national mourning?  How many Pakistanis should die before our President and Prime Minister cut short their toasts for Mrs. Hillary Clinton and rush to Peshawar to be with their own people?

3.      FIND CULPRITS: We know our own citizens are involved in this terrorism, but the small terror army in South Waziristan is not getting its money and weapons from inside Pakistan.  Rehman Malik's Interior Ministry and the military's spy agencies have credible, strong and detailed information about how a US-controlled Afghanistan is being used for anti-Pakistan activities.  BLA and TTP terrorists have a safe haven there. Terrorist Abdullah Mehsud was killed in 2007 slipping back from Afghanistan through Balochistan [and not the tribal belt] after meeting his backers there.  We know why the Chinese were targeted here.  We have enough evidence of the condemnable role played by India and its puppets in Kabul, and of the suspicious role of at least the US intelligence if not the US military and the Obama administration. And yet our government and the ruling elite of Pakistan are shy of mentioning this publicly.  How many Pakistanis should die before they move? How many of our children must be orphaned before you speak up?  You are being forced to ditch Kashmir and submit without questions to whatever Washington wants to do in Afghanistan.  Why can't you take a stand?  What are you afraid of?  That your assets in American and British banks will be seized?

4.      SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES: US diplomats camouflaged as Afghan Taliban carrying weapons and pictures of sensitive buildings have been arrested, not once but many times.  US ambassador Anne Patterson has been using her personal rapport with President Zardari and the Interior Minister to allow US security firms into Pakistan, mostly to repeat the same mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan.  Pakistanis don't want any of this.  Pakistanis don't agree with the American view that Pakistan is a war theater following Iraq and Afghanistan, and we will resist this.  'Extremism' is not the only explanation for the terrorist army in South Waziristan.  America's role in Afghanistan is also a big reason for the regional mess.

I make these grievances, and so do most Pakistanis, knowing that we are seeing a shift in this country.  Patriotism and PakNationalism is on the ascent here.  Take the example of one Pakistani politician who received a call from the US embassy last week.  Senator Tariq Azim was asked to visit the US Embassy building in the secured diplomatic enclave because a former State Department analyst-turned-academic, Mr. Daniel Markey, wanted to see him.

Senator Azim accepted the request for the meeting but politely declined to come to the embassy.  He said if Mr. Markey wants to see him he should come to the senator's office.  Sen. Azim's action was not about being antagonistic to Washington.  He is a proponent of strong ties with America but he wanted to make a statement on US meddling in Pakistani politics, where Washington's diplomacy with Pakistan shifted over the past two years from the Pakistan Foreign Office to direct contacts and private dealings with political parties.

Show some pride and compassion and share the grief of your people before it's too late.

Hillary Clinton's Pakistan Arrogance

After attacking Pakistan's military and intelligence capabilities, US officials now turn to the nationalist Pakistani media.  US ambassador Anne W. Patterson already has set a precedence by applying pressure on a Pakistani newspaper to silence a longtime critics of US policies. Now it's Madam Clinton's turn. 

The Nation EDITORIAL

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—In terms of U.S. antics, things in Pakistan are becoming ever more ridiculous.  As if new restrictions imposed by Congress on military aid to Pakistan aren't bad enough, we're now seeing Secretary of State Clinton target Pakistan's press. In true imperial fashion, she declared that Washington hadn't responded properly to criticism in Pakistan's media of the Kerry-Lugar Aid bill - criticism based on lies of course - but that now it would offer a fitting response. [The official bill is the Enhanced Partnership Act with Pakistan Bill of 2009]. According to Clinton, Pakistan's media is full of exaggeration and doesn't present the facts. That's laughable considering how every line of aforementioned bill has been discussed ad infinitum to the point that there was no room at all left for exaggeration, which Kerry himself reiterated when he last visited Islamabad.

Unfortunately, it is the media in the U.S. that has targeted Pakistan and its nuclear assets, offering fanciful claims and insinuations far removed from reality at every opportunity. But Clinton's attack on Pakistan's media shouldn't be ignored because it involves a veiled threat as well as an overt insult.  Considering how hard this nation's press has fought and sacrificed for its independence, including in terms of lives lost, this is something we shouldn't tolerate.

Clinton is scheduled to visit Islamabad soon. The press should at least use the occasion to make its views on her derogatory remarks clear. Meanwhile, Clinton's outburst should be regarded as the start of a new phase of direct intrusion into our affairs. This is a result of the Kerry-Lugar bill and other agreements this government and its predecessor have conceded to.

A far more serious threat that has become more visible is the physical access the U.S. has gained near Pakistan's most sensitive installations, including its nuclear facilities. The case of Sihala is one such instance - and we are at a loss to understand why the government, now that the issue has been revealed, continues to allow this unwarranted U.S. access.

At the same time, it was disturbing to find that the Interior Ministry awarded import licenses to the U.S. for the importation of weapons into the country without following proper procedure. Now that same Ministry is lowering the boom on the Pakistani commandant of the Sihala Academy for telling the truth and voicing his concerns as a Pakistani nationalist, rather than addressing U.S. antics in America's Sihala enclave and removing its presence from this sensitive area.

In a connected issue, the Ministry is also trying to put a stop to cases against Inter-Risk and DynCorp, and it refuses to admit the presence in Pakistan of Xe Worldwide (formerly Blackwater) despite glaring evidence that they are here. By all accounts, the interior Ministry seems extremely sensitive about safeguarding U.S. interests - even at the expense of Pakistan's. Why?

Indian Nuclear Assets Danger To The World

To All Pakistanis In These Tough Times

Words Of A Lion-Hearted Pakistani Mother

With English and Urdu subtitles.

Imran Khan with Ahmed Quraishi

Aired on 18 October 2009.

Who Will Rally The Pakistanis?

THE PRINCIPALS IN THE GOVERNMENT IN ISLAMABAD, IN THE HOPE SOMEONE THERE WILL FEEL MORE FOR THE COUNTRY THAN FOR THE MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL WEALTH STASHED IN AMERICAN AND BRITISH BANKS, WHICH ARE AT THE HEART OF THE PRO-US AND PRO-UK POLICIES THAT PAKISTAN IS PURSUING THESE DAYS.

A LETTER FROM A PAKNATIONALIST: Backchannel diplomacy and silently providing the proof to Indians and Americans will not resolve anything.  Pakistani media is pretending to behave responsibly by not pointing the fingers to India and some elements in America.  Pakistan is in dire need of someone to step forward and rally the Pakistanis.  None of the Pakistani politicians is up to the task.

FROM DR. JAMIL QAZI

King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Ahmed,

Like every Pakistani, I am extremely depressed over the death of innocent Pakistanis and recently the students of International Islamic University.

Unfortunately there is not a single politician who has the courage to come out and rally the nation against the naked foreign intervention.  It is not possible for local militants to plan, coordinate and execute so many acts of terrorism in such a short period in our highly guarded capital.  What was the objective of targeting girls section of Shariah faculty of the International Islamic University when another seat of higher learning, FAST, was just a few meters away from the main road where one takes the lane for the International Islamic University?  Why did the two terrorists go to blow themselves up almost two kilometers away from the first likely target?

Foreign hand is evident and it will not stop until we start blaming India they way they did against us after Mumbai attacks.  Backchannel contacts and silently providing the proof to Indians and Americans will not solve the problem at all.  Media pretends to be behaving responsibly by not pointing fingers on India etc without evidence. But the least the Pakistani media can do is to highlight the sponsors and supporters of these terrorists.

Few observations:

Where has gone the whole debate over Kerry Lugar bill? The nation expected some real tough talk from our Parliament.  Where is it all? Media also gave up this very important issue of our national interest because of the successive terrorist attacks and the military action in the west.

In the main TV show of Sept. 6 on the state-run PTV, I noticed how smartly our enemies have turned our focus from India (which was always the focus as a "dushman" in all the Sept. 6 celebrations since my childhood) to local militants.

Nawaz Sharif has either no interest in Pakistan and its people or is ready for an early exit from the political scene. [Or he has been promised support by the Americans for his turn in power in exchange for making it easy for the Zardari setup.]

There is a very dangerous leadership vacuum and no one is there to fill it.  

Time is passing quickly and we are conceding a lot to the US and Indians with every passing moment.  They want to keep us engaged so that we keep on giving in to their demands one by one as we have done in the past.

I would like to modify a verse of Faiz to wake these dumb leaders.

مٹ    جائیگا  یہ ملک   تو  تم  بات  کروگے

مخلص ہو تو اب حشراٹھا کیوں نہیں دیتے

OR

مٹ جائیگا  یہ ملک تو  تم  بات  کروگے

مخلص ہو تو آواز اٹھا کیوں نہیں دیتے

[You will open your mouth when the country is gone … if you are sincere why not raise your voice NOW!]

I am one of your fans and like your analysis.  You are a true patriot fighting Pakistan's case in every possible way in print and electronic media.

Regards,

Jameel Qazi, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Department of Management and Marketing
College of Industrial Management
King Fahd University of Petroleum
and Minerals

How Qureshi's Son Was Appointed In Kerry's Office

Let's just hope that he lost Pakistan's case on the Kerry-Lugar bill because of personal lack of conviction than a soft corner for Mr. Kerry who gave his son a job in a powerful place.

 

Normally, it would be great to have a Pakistani citizen join the staff of a powerful US legislator like John Kerry, the former presidential candidate, chairman of the US senate foreign relations committee and the man who was being considered for Obama's secretary of state before Hillary got the job.

It is another thing, however, if this Pakistani turns out to be the son of a serving Foreign Pakistani Minister working in the office of Mr. Kerry, the sponsor of the Kerry-Lugar bill with which most Pakistanis have a problem. 

There is a strong hint here of impropriety and conflict of interest.

The problem can be summed up in this question: Mr. Qureshi is supposed to be protecting Pakistani interest at a time when the US-Pakistani ties are going through a rough patch.  Does having his son work for Mr. Kerry create a conflict of interest for Foreign Minister Qureshi?

If you are a father, you develop a soft corner for the powerful man who has given your son an entry job in a powerful place. 

Did this natural gratitude affect Foreign Minister's judgment as he tried to manage the controversy over Kerry-Lugar bill?

Most observers agree that Foreign Minister Qureshi's performance in the Kerry-Lugar bill fiasco was weak, to put it mildly.  He refused to acknowledge Pakistani concerns and showered grandiose praise on the bill.  When he returned to Pakistan and was told of the reservations, he chose to go back to the United States supposedly to press for Pakistan's rights.  Only that he was sidelined in no time and forced to accept an 'explanatory' note instead.  And again he showered exaggerated praise on the note, calling it 'historic'. 

Some in Pakistan rightly suspect he did not even press Mr. Kerry on Pakistan's reservations mainly because his government in Islamabad couldn't care less.  It was the Pakistani military, opposition parties and the public opinion's demand and Mr. Qureshi's government was alone in accepting the anti-military US conditions.

Did Mr. Qureshi not fight Pakistan's case as strongly as he could because he was not convinced or because Mr. Kerry gave his son a big break?

Others have also noticed this.

Longtime journalist Anjum Niaz, in her column The Boston Brahmin published in today's The News, wrote the following:

After a number of phone calls to Senator Kerry's office, I finally found out from one of Kerry's male staffers that ZHQ did indeed work for Kerry but had now left. Why has ZHQ gone into hiding? Did he do something wrong? Yes. And the Foreign Office finds itself between a rock and a hard place. How can it condone its boss's act of getting his son a job with Kerry when the KLB talks were at a critical stage? Even if fate smiles upon ZHQ because he's the favoured son of our foreign minister and the doors of the high and mighty in Washington open up for him, we have the right to know whenever the son's job compromises his dad's position. More importantly if it is in direct conflict with Pakistan's interests.  Would you not call this a conflict of interest? Should the foreign minister resign? And if Zardari cannot afford to let him go, then the FM must seek a public apology […] Would he have given ZHQ the time of the day had the young man not been the son of Pakistan's foreign minister?"

The impression that something is not right in Mr. Qureshi being Pakistan's foreign minister while his son works for Sen. Kerry is also underlined by how Mr. Qureshi's brother has reacted to the story.  An Urdu-language daily newspaper, the Express, quoted the brother as saying that members of his feudal land-owning family 'does not seek employment' anywhere.  He said this while denying his nephew was 'employed' by Sen. Kerry.

There is also an interesting background to how Qureshi Jr. got the job on Capitol Hill.

This version of the story is not verified but comes from a knowledgeable source at the Pakistani Foreign Office:

"Shah Mahmood Qureshi's relations with Haqqani had become very tense in the early part of this year. During Zardari's for AFPAK consultations, Qureshi and Haqqani had a shouting match because the ambassador had sent something to the president without going through the foreign minister. Haqqani had direct line to Zardari, and he had some of Qureshi's decisions reversed. After the Long March when Zardari became a little weaker and Yousaf Raza Gilani a bit stronger, Haqqani decided to patch up with Qureshi. What did Haqqani do: He used his contacts with Kerry and had Qureshi's son appointed as his intern. With that favour, Qureshi has no more complaints against Haqqani.  So powerful is Haqqani that he has never allowed Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir to set foot in Washington. 

Whatever the truth, two points are clear:

One, Foreign Minister Qureshi should have had the courage to refuse to fly back to Washington to renegotiate the controversial anti-Pakistan clauses if he was not personally convinced.  That he did so merely to placate the powerful Pakistani military reflects poorly on his record.

Second, his son's internship in Sen. Kerry's office raises a legitimate question of a conflict of interest. Mr. Qureshi should have seen this one coming since he is known to be an upright politician by the standards of politicians in this country. 

Let's just hope that he lost Pakistan's case on the Kerry-Lugar bill because of personal lack of conviction than a soft corner for Mr. Kerry.

© 2007-2009. All rights reserved. AhmedQuraishi.com & PakNationalists

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium

without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

SEE THIS

In Serving US Interest, This Pakistani Govt. Is In A Class Of Its Own

American Lecture In Pakistan Parliament

If Fired, Haqqani Threatens To Reveal 'Reams' of Pakistani Secrets

Kerry's ‘Explanatory Statement’ Does Not Solve Our Problem: Marvi Memon

An 'Explanatory' Note From Washington To Pakistan

How Pakistan Interior Minister Helped US Embassy Import Illegal Weapons Without Telling ISI

Anti-Pakistan TTP Terrorists Equipped With U.S., Indian, German, Weapons

Weapons Used By -Foreign-Funded TTP Terrorists Against Pakistan    

      

[Left to right] U.S. made M249 automatic machine guns, U.S.-made Glock pistols, and FN Browning GP35 9mmx19mm

Glock 17 

  

 [Left to right] Indian machine guns Heckler & Koch MP5A3 9mmx19mm, Indian made Sterling L2A1 sub machine guns

      

             

 [Left to right] a model of Israeli licenced Indian made UZI 9mmx19mm sub machine guns and German Walther-P1 pistols

In one case, Germany sent 10,000 small weapons to Afghanistan. Half of them have disappeared. This is a classic way of supporting insurgencies without being caught. German investigators can never accuse German intelligence of crossing the NATO mandate and helping CIA in extracurricular activities. The Americans are good at dismissing their double actions in Afghanistan as conspiracy theories. Here is a brief, detailed and sourced account of what types of foreign-origin sophisticated weapons are in use against the Pakistani military. A ragtag army of criminals, throat-slitters and mercenaries could never have faced one of the world's largest organized armies if not for outside sophisticated support.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL REPORT

Big India's Small Heart

[in response to a respectable Indian journalist in a private mailing list]

Dear Mr. Bharati,


The fact remains that Pakistan and the Pakistani government are more magnanimous in allowing Indian channels and content here than the Indian government and Indian channels are in reciprocating.

More Indian channels are shown in Pakistan. Very little of Pakistani channels is allowed in India, and this is a matter of policy that the Indian government imposes. At least we in Pakistan permit non-political Indian content. In India your government considers anything Pakistani as suspicious.

Mainstream Indian news organizations that have websites routinely block Pakistanis who register to post comments, including the majority that posts polite and academic comments. The issue is that your media outlets won’t allow Pakistanis to say anything on bilateral relations that is different from the official Indian position. The other opinion is not allowed. Compare this to Pakistan where Indian writers get away with much more on the pages of Pakistani newspapers [unfortunately, an Indian writer was allowed recently to call Quaid-e-Azam a ‘separatist’, with everything that the word implies, on the pages of a national Pakistani daily]. I dare any ‘liberal’ Indian newspaper to publish an article by a Pakistani offering an opinion that goes against the official Indian policy.

Javeria Jalal wasn’t interested in the legal aspect of the story. She wanted to highlight how small-hearted and insecure Big India is. And her point stands. You are free to spin and defend Indian image but facts speak for themselves.

Haqqani's Blackmail

Pakistan's Ambassador to the United States Mr. Husain Haqqani is an insecure man these days.  Members of his own government as well as the opposition are gunning for his head as the prime suspect in the Kerry-Lugar bill fiasco were anti-Pakistan clauses were inserted in an aid bill.  There are reports his own government has reached a secret deal with the military to quietly ease the man out of his power seat. 


Ever the consummate media manipulater [ex-journalist, professor and an admirable social climber], Mr. Haqqani tried to send a message to the Pakistani establishment through a prestigious American platform: If I am fired, I will reveal ugly and embarrassing secrets.


When The Nation picked up the story, he slapped the respected daily newspaper with a defamation lawsuit worth Rs. One billion.


So what is it that has really unsettled the man who has President Zardari's ear, and rubs shoulders with the powerful in Washington?  Read on ...

CLICK HERE OR HERE FOR THE FULL REPORT

In Serving US Interest, This Pakistani Govt. Is In A Class Of Its Own

You must be hearing a lot these days from the apologists of expanded US influence in Pakistan that every government in the past has accepted humiliating US conditions.

In fact, on Wednesday, government's PR wizards working under the direction of the PPP media team published a preposterous propaganda piece on the front page of one of the national dailies alleging that, "Jinnah also appealed for US aid."

The government media team is keen to convince Pakistanis that humiliating foreign conditions on aid are kosher because that is what previous Pakistani governments have been doing. Shamelessly, even the Quaid-e-Azam has been dragged into this government propaganda.

While the record of previous governments is debatable, what's beyond doubt is that this is the first government in Pakistan that came through a 'deal' brokered by US and UK diplomats, whitewashing the illegal wealth of individuals who enjoy a dubious record. This has never happened before in the history of any Pakistani government.

I bet even the Americans have never seen before this kind of an 'easy' pro-US government in their decades-old record of meddling in other countries.

This alone should put to shame anyone who defends these shady characters in this government.

Pakistanis should rest assured of one thing. The challenge of governing Pakistan and subduing this nation in the service of a foreign agenda is a difficult task. It's above and beyond the intellectual capacity of the rulers in Islamabad today.

As the challenge mounts, these shady characters will run away abroad in a few months' time with their fat bank accounts and will never look back.  They will leave and never look back sooner or later.

While criticizing this ruling class, we need to send a note of thank you to Mr. Musharraf for 'dealing' us this hand as a parting gift to the nation.

Pakistanis should recognize this distinction about the current Pakistani government in the debate over the record of past Pakistani rulers in dealing with Washington.

The current government, in this debate, is in a class of its own.
 

American Lecture In Pakistan Parliament

Something stunning happened today in the fake US-imposed Pakistani democracy.

The Foreign Minister flies to Washington. US tells him the world is red, and he flies back, enters his country's parliament, and gives an hour-long boring lecture where he tries to tell them that the world is indeed red and proudly quotes American statements supporting this. And then his government shuts down the proceedings and stops the reperesentatives of the Pakistani nation from voting on whether they believe the Foreign Minister's assertion that the world is red.

This is ironic because this is, in essence, a US-imposed democracy, a democracy with American liking.   If you want a democracy that is not American, then look at Turkey, Iran, and Hamas.  Those elections weren't American-imposed.

In Pakistan we have a government tailored in Washington DC, where US officials struck a 'deal' with former ally Musharraf to ease the current Pakistani rulers into power so that they could continue Musharraf's misguided pro-US policies.

Is this what our American friends call democracy?

Consider the following:

A majority in the parliament, media and the public opinion is disturbed at the offensive language in some clauses of a US aid bill, the Kerry-Lugar bill, which ordinary Pakistanis call the ' Kill Bill' in their cell phone text messages.

The Parliament runs a heated three-day debate over the issue.

Today, Friday, a resolution was supposed to be passed concluding the debate and giving the parliament's take on the American aid bill. The US-imposed 'democractic' government stopped this because it didn't suit the Americans.

The foreign minister should be ashamed of himself.  If he really believed the Kerry-Lugar bill is the best thing to happen to Pakistan after Independence, then he should have stuck to what he said in the press conference with Hillary Clinton. He should have declined when President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani asked him to go back to Washington with reservations on the bill.  But since he did go back, he should have done justice to those reservations and not accept an 'explanatory' lollypop given to him by Kerry and Berman.

Does Foreign Minister Qureshi have a mind of his own or is he used to people slapping him around and walking all over him?  What was the need for an hourlong emotional speech in Parliament in defense of senators Kerry and Berman?

This Pakistani ruling class has put down the heads of all Pakistanis in shame.  Without drastic steps, this leadership will give Pakistanis a lot of pain in the days to come.

Obama Signs 'Kill Bill'. What Can Pakistan Do?

President Obama has signed the 'Kill Bill' [Kerry-Lugar bill] despite the reservations of most Pakistanis on offensive language in some clauses.

Pakistanis do not doubt the intentions of President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Senator Kerry.  We know they are friends of Pakistan.  We just do not trust the Washington establishment.  Exhibit A: political conditions embedded in a bill that is packaged as a token of sincere friendship.

Washington rejected Pakistani concerns saying that's what Congress wants.  But no word about the heated and passionate debate in the Pakistani parliament where the pro-US government is dangerously isolated.  Pakistani parliament wanted to pass a resolution making the will of Pakistanis clear before President Obama signed the bill.  In ignoring the Pakistani parliament and rushing to sign the bill, Washington sent a clear message. America will do what it wants. If it thinks that Quetta and Muridke are centers of terror, then that is it. Pakistan needs to accept it and move on. And don't dare ask Washington for evidence.

American politicians are smart people. But so are Pakistanis.

The Pakistani parliament can still pass a strong resolution rejecting the anti-Pakistan conditions in the bill and affirming that Pakistan will not be bound by them.

This way, US will give aid to our government at its own discretion. This way no one in the future will be able to say, 'Hey, you accepted in the Kill Bill that Quetta and Muridke are centers of terror,' or 'Hand over so and so nuclear scientist because you agreed to in the Kill Bill'.  Pakistan will be able to point to the parliament resolution and say, 'You know what, we made our position and intention clear and still you gave us the money. That was your choice. We never accepted your claims and we told you so and yet you paid us.' 

Let the Americans pay aid with a clear message from Pakistani parliament that we're not bound by your conditions.

This way, clauses in the Kerry-Lugar bill [Pakistanis are exchanging text messages calling it 'Kill Bill'] that seek to contain Pakistani military and strategic capabilites in exchange for aid will be rendered ineffective.  Washington will also be put to the test: Will it still give aid to Pakistan?

After all, if this bill is really a 'true reflection' of American friendship with the people of Pakistan, then what's a few cumbersome conditions between friends, right Mr. Kerry and Mr. Lugar?

Kerry's ‘Explanatory Statement’ Does Not Solve Our Problem: Marvi Memon

One of the brightest stars of the next generation of Pakistani leaders, Pakistan Muslim League politician Marvi Memon, a member of Parliament, has rejected the manner in which Washington has embedded humiliating conditions in a bill that US officials and politicians claim is a 'true reflection' of American friendship to Pakistan.

"The explanatory statement has no legal validity before the bill which will become law," Ms. Memon said in press release last night, amid reports that President Obama has signed the bill despite serious Pakistani reservations that have not been addressed. "And even if it did have a legal validity, it does not reduce the impact of the lethal aspects of the bill," she added.

Ms. Memon is the second Pakistani politician to reject the US aid bill after a half-hearted attempt by US legislators and officials to allay Pakistani concerns. The other politician who rejected the bill is former prime minister Nawaz Sharif. But observers said that Mr. Sharif, who is eyeing US support for a future run for Pakistan's top job, was not very forceful in rejecting conditions in the bill and that his statement was more a response to criticism at his silence than any real attempt at adopting a clear position on the bill.

Click here to read the full text of MNA Marvi Memon's press release.

An 'Explanatory' Note From Washington To Pakistan

Genuine Pakistani concerns about the Kerry-Lugar bill have been summarily dismissed thanks to arrogant US congressmen, a politicized Pakistani ambassador in Washington, and an inept pro-US elected government in Islamabad that has lost the trust of a majority of Pakistanis.  US Vice President Joe Biden should seriously look into who turned his brilliant idea into a huge blunder.

 

By Ahmed Quraishi

Thursday, 15 October 2009.

WWW.AHMEDQURAISHI.COM

 

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—When the Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi stood in Washington last night to say, 'This is a historic document' and tried to act excited, a distinct look of confusion was visible on the faces of the two Americans standing to his right and left: Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Congressman Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

 

For a second it seemed as if both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Berman were looking at Mr. Qureshi and saying to themselves, 'Is this guy for real?'

 

There is a reason why the two seemed distrustful of the minister.

 

Only a few hours earlier the Pakistani Foreign Minister addressed a press conference with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton where Mr. Qureshi appeared far more excited about the Kerry-Lugar aid bill than his host.  [Ms. Clinton had to point out a couple of times she couldn't be more 'eloquent' than the Pakistani minister in describing the aid bill.]  At one point, Mr. Qureshi rebuffed a Pakistani journalist who said Pakistanis back home were concerned about offensive language in some clauses.

 

"I'm very glad that they [Americans] have no intentions of micromanaging Pakistan, nor will Pakistan permit micromanagement," Qureshi said.  "Never will we allow any compromise on Pakistan's sovereignty."

 

"I'm very glad that they [Americans] have no intentions of micromanaging Pakistan, nor will Pakistan permit micromanagement," Qureshi said.  "Never will we allow any compromise on Pakistan's sovereignty."

 

But no sooner he returned to Islamabad than he was back on the plane to Washington.  He had no choice, especially after an uproar in the country where a clear majority in the parliament, media, the public opinion and in the armed forces accused his government of accepting humiliating language that stops short of accusing Pakistan of running terrorist training camps and continuing to proliferate nuclear knowhow, both of which are accusations not backed by any evidence except unsourced US media reports and noise on the US think-tank circuit. The language in at least one clause is carefully drafted to push the civilian government to pick up fights with the military on issues ranging from officer promotions to excluding military input from nuclear-related policy.

So when Mr. Qureshi was back in Washington acting excited all over again, both Kerry and Berman were  understandably unsure whether they should believe the minister or wait for him to go to Islamabad, get an earful again and come back with more reservations.

 

But a far more serious issue is how Washington's establishment appears to have dismissed genuine Pakistani concerns with a mere 'explanatory' note.  You just have to admire the sense of humor behind naming this piece of paper a 'joint explanatory statement' that will be attached to the Kerry-Lugar bill.

 

Since the Pakistani parliament is still debating the bill and is yet to pass its final resolution on it, it is too early to say how will Mr. Qureshi be received back home [he is en route as these lines are written.]

 

But here is an initial assessment.

 

With the so-called 'Joint Explanatory Statement', Washington has rebuffed President Zardari, Prime Minister Gilani, Chief of Army Staff Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, and ISI chief Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, who huddled for a couple of hours before designating Foreign Minister Qureshi to fly to Washington and seek changes in the controversial clauses or simply the removal of the three or four controversial clauses so that the remainder of the bill focused on aid and cooperation could move forward.

 

If the bill is accepted in its present form, Pakistan will

 

1.       Effectively be accepting that two major cities Quetta and Muridke are centers of terror as the bill alleges without any real evidence 

2.      Pakistan will also be accepting that it will entertain possible US requests for access to suspected nuclear proliferators as demanded by US and without stipulating that evidence be produced for such a demand

3.      Pakistan will also be allowing Washington to demand reports from Pakistani civilian leaders confirming their control over internal military promotions and appointments.  Interestingly, this clause opens the door for more US meddling in Pakistani politics since politicians will be using this clause and Washington's muscle to reign in the Pakistani military.  The clause is a recipe for endless civil-military tensions. 

4.      Pakistan will also not be in a position to dispute unfounded US and British accusations that seek to shift the blame to Pakistan for failures in Afghanistan.

 

Mr. Qureshi has essentially sold off Pakistani interest on the basis of an 'explanatory statement'.  He failed to defend the Pakistani position or prevail on the American officials on the core issue of the insult that most Pakistanis feel today because of the humiliating language in the bill.  

 

Another problem is how the Pakistani embassy in Washington, under Ambassador Husain Haqqani, continues to feed a wrong picture of the debate back home in Pakistan. Mr. Haqqani is under tremendous attack in the Pakistani parliament for his role in failing to stop the controversial clauses. Members of his own government feel that the buck should stop at his desk for the fiasco.  To save his position, it seems Mr. Haqqani is feeding his friends in the US media and the Washington establishment that the angst is Pakistan over the bill is 'manufactured' by 'anti-America forces' and is 'manipulated' by the Pakistani military.  Some of his friends in the US media are peddling the theory that Mr. Haqqani is under attack because of his anti-military writings when he was out of government.

 

What Mr. Haqqani is not telling the Americans is that politicians in Pakistan have accused him, and not the US Congress or the US government, of deliberately inserting anti-military clauses in the Kerry-Lugar bill with the help of lobbyists paid for by the Pakistani exchequer and in pursuance of a domestic Pakistani political agenda [in other words, settling domestic scores.]  It is also possible that some quarters in Washington that are not very Pakistan-friendly helped push the bill with unnecessary military-related clauses in a document that is focused on US-Pakistani partnership.

 

The bottom line is this: While his government spokespeople in Islamabad refuse to recognize there is anything wrong with the US bill [even US Ambassador has conceded the language was a mistake'], Mr. Qureshi could not have been expected to put any real effort into convincing US officials to chance the offending language, especially when it is already beginning to look like a battle between his government on the one side and the media-public opinion-political opponents-military on the other side.

 

It is unfortunate that an effort that most probably was undertaken in good faith by Vice President Joe Biden has degenerated into a major blot on the face of US-Pakistani ties because of overbearing US congressmen, a politicized Pakistani ambassador in Washington, and an inept government in Islamabad headed by insecure leaders.

 

Pakistan is left saddled with a bill whose language represents a major Pakistani policy concession on military, nuclear and terrorism issues.  A government that passionately defended the bill's language inside Pakistan made little effort to force a change in language in Washington. 

 

The worst part is that future US legislation and government policy can now always look back and use the clauses that are part of the bill to perpetuate popular US accusations against Pakistan.

 

Does Mr. Qureshi really believe he will receive a hero's welcome in Islamabad tomorrow morning?

 

© 2007-2009. All rights reserved. AhmedQuraishi.com & PakNationalists

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium

without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Zardari-Haqqani Retreat On Kerry-Lugar Pakistan Surrender Bill

GHQ Attack: Pakistan Being Punished For Not Supporting Afghan Occupation

Click to hear the interview

India Fuming At Pakistani Newspaper For Leaking Story On Sex Providers

India is fuming because a Pakistani newspaper broke the news that the Indian military has finalized plans to deploy a unit of women sex providers in occupied Kashmir, where figures of suicides and mental problems among Indian soldiers deployed in a hostile territory have shot through the rooftop.

This time, Pakistani diplomats in the Pakistan High Commission in New Delhi may receive an unusual Indian protest.  So far the Indians have been ISI-phobic, seeing the hands of Pakistan's feared premier counterespionage service in everything that went wrong in India.  Now the diplomats will be receiving a letter of protest against an independent Pakistani newspaper.

For the first time in the 60-year tumultuous relationship between Pakistan and India, New Delhi wants to lodge a complaint with Islamabad against a Pakistani newspaper, the Daily Mail.  The Mail is a small newspaper that publishes from Islamabad and Beijing.  But it's investigative stories make up for its small size.

On Sept. 11, The Daily Times ran a story filed by the paper's New Delhi correspondent Christina Palmer, titled 'Indian Army To Deploy Prostitutes As A Women Battalion In Held Kashmir'.

The PakNationalists, PakAlert, PKKH, PakistanFirst and tens of other Pakistani and international online news portals, picked it up.

Ms. Palmer's story was based on a statement issued by the Inspector General of Border Security Force Himmat Singh. The story basically said that the Indian military was concerned about the rising incidents of suicides among Indian soldiers deployed in Indian-occupied Kashmir, a territory where Kashmiris are fighting India for the right to determine whether they want to be independent or join Pakistan.

A high level Indian military delegation went to Moscow to study the Russian experience in dealing with such problems.  Like India, the former Soviet Union military was spread thin across a large territory, including distant and difficult regions.

Mr. Singh confirmed that a batch of 178 female soldiers was being sent to Northern Command where they would be deployed along with Indo-Pak border to check the border violations by women, working in the field.  Mr. Singh further stated that these women were not fully trained for operational military duties however in the next phase, after further training, they would be given the duties of operational Border security.  Mr. Singh refused to admit that these female soldiers were actually prostitutes and were being dispatched to the valley as undercover sex workers.  When contacted, Rohit Sharma, a senior defense analyst here in New Delhi, said that the move was a creative step by Indian army leadership as it would boost the medical and mental health of the soldiers.

Some departments of the Indian government were permitted to contact licensed brothels in several Indian cities to explore the possibility of recruiting candidates.

But the Indian reaction to this story was unexpected.

According to one Indian newspaper, an official of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs retorted by saying what he or she thought is a hit below the belt for Pakistan: "We do not have a Talibanised society like Pakistan's.  In India, women have very successful military careers."

Never mind that Pakistan has a large women's police force deployed in all the major cities of the country, in addition to active duty women officers in the Army and the Pakistan Air Force.

The Indian news portal Mid-Day.com confirmed that "India has decided to lodge an official complaint against the 'wrongful news reports" and that "the order to lodge a complaint has come directly from the office of Union Home Minister P Chidambaram."

The Indian portal quoted an unnamed Indian diplomat as saying, "Such news can tarnish the image of our forces. So far, it was a conscious decision by the government not to deploy women troops on the border. But we want total success of this experiment and we need to tell the Pakistanis to behave."

Several foreign reporters based in the Indian capital reported receiving calls from Indian government and intelligence officers asking where to find Christina Palmer.

Ms. Palmer, who will be appearing on Geo Network's weekly show TSS with Ahmed Quraishi tomorrow, is a British journalist who lives with her Indian husband. According to Indian laws, you have to be a Pakistani citizen legally residing in India or an Indian journalist to work as a correspondent for a Pakistani newspaper.  Non-Indian journalists cannot represent Pakistani media in India.  For this reason, Ms. Palmer writes under an assumed name.

But to prove that she is real, Ms. Palmer is appearing through telephone from New Delhi on a Pakistani television talk show.

In her report, Ms. Palmer wrote on Oct. 6: "In a unique and unprecedented move, India’s Minister for Home Affairs Mr. P. Chidambaram has threatened the Islamabad-based Pakistani newspaper The Daily Mail over one the investigative reports by the Daily regarding first female troops of Indian Army that have been deployed in the Held Kashmir. According to the reports appearing here in local Indian media as well as international media, the Home Affairs Minister has ordered his officials to lodge an official complaint with Pakistan’s High Commission in New Delhi to sort out The Daily Mail."

The paper's editor-in-chief Makhdoom Babar Sultan defended his newspaper's credibility in a special editorial: "Mr. Chidambaram’s action has shocked the entire global media community as it is the first move of its kind in which a top minister of a country has threatened an independent newspaper of another country of lodging a complaint against it and seeking strong action, there this move of India’s MHA has exposed the true face of so-called secular India and the belief of Indian leadership in freedom of press and freedom of expression. In the 62 years of the history of Pak-India relations, The Daily Mail is the first ever victim of this kind of aggression from the Indian government."

EXCLUSIVE: Documents Show Rehman Malik Helped US Embassy Import Banned Weapons Without Telling ISI

On US Ambassador Anne W. Patterson's personal request, Interior Minister Rehman Malik kept Pakistan's security agencies in the dark and helped the US embassy in Islamabad create and equip private American-run militias with sophisticated weapons that are prohibited in the country outside military use.  A trail of paperwork, reproduced here with this report, reveals how Mr. Malik's ministry is hand in glove with the US Embassy in secretly importing illegal weapons without following proper procedure.  Another sign of the untold agenda that Washington is pursuing in Pakistan to the detriment of Pakistani interest.

By Ansar Abbasi

Friday, 9 October 2009.

WWW.AHMEDQURAISHI.COM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—The role of the Pakistani federal Interior Ministry in the issuance of prohibited bore licenses to US defense contractor DynCorp's local partner Inter-Risk appears to be dubious.  The US embassy admitted to have imported the prohibited bore weapons but other evidence shows something different.

Evidence†available with The News contradicts the US embassy’s viewpoint and shows that a resident of Daryoba Agency FR Bannu had gifted 50 weapons that were reportedly given to Inter-Risk.

Documents also show that after US Ambassador Anne Patterson’s letter to Interior Minister Rehman Malik for the issuance of prohibited bore licenses to Inter-Risk, the US embassy continued to influence the Interior Ministry that issued the required licenses to the US-blessed Pakistani security agency without consulting intelligence agencies and the Foreign Office. [continued below]

 

 

Click to enlarge

US Ambassador wrote this letter to Mr. Malik on March 30, 2009, to approve the operations of Dyncorp International in the entire territorial limits of Pakistan, without any conditions, in addition to allowing the company and its local affiliate to import banned weapons.  Mr. Malik apparently approved the request without asking questions and without assessing what private US military contractors will be doing in Pakistan.

Following Patterson’s letter, US embassy officials met State Minister for Interior Tasneem Ahmed Qureshi and later formally wrote to him, setting clear deadlines for the issuance of licenses in three phases. The documentary evidence shows that the state minister acted accordingly as per the wishes of the US embassy.

Gerald M Feierstein, Charge dí Affaires ad interim US embassy in Islamabad, wrote to Tasneem Ahmed Qureshi on May 7: “I would like to thank you for meeting with my representative Michael Eicher on May 7 to discuss certain security matters that affect the US Embassy. As Mr Eicher conveyed, the United States and Pakistan share a deep commitment to improving the lives and future of the Pakistani people. However, security concerns have greatly diminished out ability to administer and expand the programmes we would like to support in partnership with the government of Pakistan.

“I order for the Embassy to mitigate the risk associated with some of these security concerns, the US Embassy has engaged with Inter-Risk (Pvt) Ltd to provide armed guards to protect our US diplomatic personnel assigned to Islamabad and Peshawar. Therefore, I would like to request the issuance of 134 prohibited bore (pb) licenses on behalf to Inter-Risk (Pvt) Ltd to accomplish this security goal.

“50 pb licenses are needed as quickly as possible and an additional 50 pb licenses will be needed in June 2009. The remaining 34 licenses will be needed in July 2009.

“I would like to thank you for your personal attention to this matter offer the renewed assurances of my highest considerations.”

Within a week time following this letter, the personal secretary (PS) to the state minister for interior writes a ìTop Priorityî directive on ministerís behalf, ordering the section officer (PB) Ministry of Interior: “The minister of state for interior has been pleased to approve fifty (50) PB arms license in favour of M/S Inter-Risk (Private) Limited.

“2. Arm Section may issue the licenses under intimation to this office by 20-5-2009.”

While the state minister issued strict direction for the issuance of 50 pb licenses to Inter-Risk by May 20, 2009, the deputy commissioner Islamabad received an official communication from office of the district coordination officer/political agent FR Bannu the same day.

The letter’s subject was “Confirmation/Verification of Weapon Gift” and it read as: “The enclosed certificates (consisting 50 no) for gift of weapon, gifted by Malik Khanzada Khan Wazir Daryoba Agency FR Banny dully verified by the undersigned for further necessary action.”

Official sources said that these apparently gifted weapons were provided to Inter-Risk, however, actually the said weapons belonged to the Americans. Why the DCO Bannu did this and on whose order could not be ascertained as despite repeated efforts and telephone calls, the officer did not talk to this correspondent. His staff said that the DCO was sitting in the office but the officer did not even bother to return the call.

Deputy Commissioner Islamabad Amir Ahmad Ali, when contacted, said that he took over as DC Islamabad in June so he did not know as to what was the secret behind the DCO Bannu’s letter. The then DC Islamabad Asadullah Faiz, when contacted, said that he did not remember the case and its details.

US embassy spokesman Richard Snelisry, when approached by this correspondent, admitted for the first time that it had imported prohibited bore weapons for Inter-Risk against the licenses given by the Interior Ministry. He said that it was part of the contract signed between the embassy and Inter-risk. When his attention was drawn to the DCO Bannu letter, he said that he did not know anything about it but insisted that everything on behalf of the US embassy was transparent and within the limits of Pakistan’s laws. He said that it was possible that the Inter-Risk had obtained the gifted weapons for something that had nothing to do with the US embassy. He said that the US embassy was not responsible for everything that the Inter-Risk has done or is doing.

The embassy spokesman Richard Snelsire, commonly known as Rick, said that he had no knowledge of any letter written by any embassy official to the Interior Ministry's state minister and giving deadlines for the issuance of licenses to Inter-Risk following the letter of Anne Patterson.

   

 

     

Click to enlarge

A junior US diplomat in Islamabad, Gerald Feierstein, writes a letter asking for several licenses for illegal weapons that embassies are not supposed to have.  The Pakistani Minister, Tasnim Qureshi, obliges in less than five days.  That's a record short time for something as serious as this.

State Minister Qureshi, when approached, confirmed that he did receive a letter from Gerald M Feierstein but denied that it was part of US embassy’s influence on him to proceed accordingly. Qureshi said that he issued the licenses without referring the matter to the Foreign Office or the security agencies, as it was a routine affair. He said Inter-Risk was a registered security agency and the US embassy wanted prohibited bore licenses to beef up security of its personnel and interests.

The state minister, however, said that he was never informed about the fact that Inter-Risk was a local partner of the American security company DynCorp. He said that he also did not know about the “fishy” affairs connected with Inter-Risk. However, the fact remains that the relationship between DynCorp and Inter-Risk was clearly mentioned by the US ambassador in her letter addressed to Interior Minister Rehman Malik and dated March 30, 2009.

In her two-page letter, Patterson shared her security concerns with Rehman Malik, particularly about the US Consulate in Peshawar. She had referred to the common objectives and shared visions between the two countries for the Frontier province and the tribal areas of Pakistan. She wrote: “Recognizing that the responsibility of your Ministry and provincial law enforcement is not limited to the Consulate but remains confronting the miscreant elements directly and everywhere, the US government has entered into a commercial contract with DynCorp International and their Pakistani subcontractors Inter-Risk (Pvt) Ltd, and Speed Flo Filter Industries to provide specialized security support for our consulate in Peshawar.

“I feel this contractual arrangement will allow your security forces to focus on their priorities and at the same time allow us the ability to continue consulate operations with an appropriate level of security support.  Our security plan will incorporate both the commercial security personnel and the NWFP police contingent already dedicated to supporting the consulate.

“To accomplish the goals of our commercial contract, I am requesting your approval for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for Dyncorp International, Inter-Risk (Pvt) Ltd, and Speed Flo Filter Industries to provide security services for the US government.  More urgently, we request your intervention to facilitate granting Inter-Risk (Pvt) the requisite prohibited bore arms licenses to operate in the territorial limits of Pakistan and as soon as possible.”

This report was published by The News International on Sunday, Oct. 4, 2009.  Mr. Abbasi broke the story on DynCorp and Inter-Risk.  His work, and that of The Nation led to the arrest of the owners of Inter-Risk and the clampdown on the suspicious activities of DynCorp in Pakistan.

© 2007-2009. All rights reserved. AhmedQuraishi.com & PakNationalists

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium

without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: A US Military Outpost In Islamabad?

This is a secret training center 40 kilometers from Islamabad [see the video], set up by a private US security firm.  It is camouflaged by a billboard that reads, 'Automobile repair workshop'.  US military and government are using this facility to recruit and train retired Pakistani military officers. They are used to create private militias and to spy on the Pakistani military.  In recent weeks, a large number of plainclothes armed Americans have spread terror on the streets of the federal Pakistani capital, allowed by the pro-US 'democratic' government to enter the country without the knowledge of the concerned security authorities.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—Some thirty kilometers from the heart of the Pakistani capital is a creepy structure that stands in the middle of an industrial estate.  The billboard outside says it is an 'auto repair shop'.  But no workshop in the area – and there are plenty – is quite like this one: high walls that block the view to the inside, military-style barbed wires surrounding adorning the high walls, a security tower, the kind you find at the headquarters of a police service or an intelligence agency.

On the way to Rawat, ask people about such a place and mention the words 'Americans', 'private', and 'military training' and you will be surprised that most know about it but are quiet.

It is claimed that the structure had something to do with the US defense contractor DynCorp.  The US ambassador sought a special permission from the Interior Ministry to allow this company to provide 'security services' anywhere in Pakistan.  The owner of a Pakistani security firm, retired Capt. Ali Zaidi, who is a partner of DynCorp, was arrested this week after a huge cache of illegal weapons were found stashed in his offices in the heart of the high-security zone in the federal capital.  Mr. Zaidi and the American security firm were reportedly recruiting retired Pakistani military officers to work for the US military, in what is tantamount to creating an indirect US military presence inside Pakistan.

This eerie structure that I visited today along with a television crew to get a sense of the place is reportedly one of those places where military training was imparted to the Pakistani recruits.  But the place appeared pretty much in the hands of the people representing the American security firm, as the US diplomat arrogantly insisted in front of Pakistani reporters. This happens despite the arrest of Mr. Zaidi and the controversy over whether the Interior Ministry cancelled DynCorp's and its Pakistani partner's license [Ministry says it did and US diplomat Gerald Fierestein insisted in a press conference on Thursday that it did not].

When approaching the building, people in the area said we need to be careful because, according to this account, a group of TV journalists was harassed by persons coming out of the building a few days ago and that they tried to snatch the cameras and drag the journalists inside.  'It's good you told us before going there,' one of the people in the area said, as my team and I prepared to head for the creepy building.  'At least we'll know if you disappeared mysteriously.'

As I left after satisfying my curiosity, I felt sorry because here we are, in late 2009, witnessing the early signs of what appears to be a repeat of what I personally saw in Iraq in 2003 and 2004, and then in Afghanistan from 2004 and until now.  And despite all the warnings of scores of concerned Pakistanis, here we are watching the American mess, corruption and strategic failure rearing its head in the heart of Pakistan.

Pak Army Abuse? Seen Worse, Thanks!

BBC has released a video showing alleged Pakistani army cruelty against throat-slitters.  Unfortunately, this video is being used to generate hatred among Pakistanis and stir ethnic conflict. Since the American occupation of Afghanistan, Pakistan and its military have been championing the rights of the Pashtun, who are proud Pakistanis and a majority in Afghanistan.  The terrorists in the video are not Pashtun. They are not even Taliban.  They are throat-slitters.  Feel sorry for them?  Let me show you videos of them butchering innocent Pashtuns and other Pakistanis.

By Asher Khan

Wednesday, 7 October 2009.

WWW.AHMEDQURAISHI.COM

SWAT, Pakistan—In the latest attempt to baffle Pakistani nation, BBC has posted a story apparently showing Pakistan Army ‘abusing’ suspected Taliban associates caught in Swat.  A video that had been posted on Facebook is produced as clinching evidence that the Pakistan Army is involved in human rights abuses in the region.

The footage shows an officer in Pakistani army battle uniform interrogating several suspects who had been arrested for firing on troops and sheltering known terrorists.  When the suspects refuse to reveal information, they are beaten with belts, fists and what appear to be small whips.  After an initial round of punishment, the officer tells a suspect that this is “soft treatment” and unless the suspect tells all, the officer says he will have to administer “hard punishment."  At least one of the suspects being interrogated admits to having fired upon Pakistan Army soldiers in Pushto, while the officer can also be heard telling the soldiers to go easy with the beatings.

Physical abuse of prisoners during interrogation is extremely common in not only Pakistan’s police stations but worldwide, and this video, even if it's true, proves how mild the ‘punishment’ given out to these TTP-sympathizers was considering what these barbarians did to our captured, unarmed soldiers and innocent civilians. What has been termed as abuse is much benign if compared with the interrogation techniques employed by other armed forces of the world, not to mention Indian forces who keenly pluck nails out after severe torture just on the slightest suspicion, not charges against such criminals.

Lets rewind back to earlier this year when videos of TTP terrorists slitting throats of innocent civilians and Army soldiers were doing the rounds and had kept the nation completely terrified. Grilling terror suspects back then using whips and belts did indeed appear to be quite soft, as a form of punishment, compared to knives and AK-47s, which were the terrorists’ preferred tools.

There’s an important distinction to be made here. Pakistani Taliban, or the TTP (Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan) as they’re better known, are NOT related to the original Afghan Taliban. Mullah Omar, the Afghan Taliban leader has repeatedly distanced himself from TTP due to the latter’s insistence on attacking Pakistani Muslims, including Frontier Corps personnel, soldiers, mosques, bazaars, often slaughtering civilians without discrimination.

In the not so distant past, TTP’s had also famously blackmailed Kashmiri Mujahideen groups threatening to assassinate their leaders including the Jama’at-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed, unless they stopped fighting Indian forces in Kashmir and started attacking Pakistani targets instead. One wonders whose battle are these terrorists fighting? In June 2008, TTP was also responsible of massacring 28 members of the Lashkar-e-Taiba at a jirga in Mohmand agency, and holding over 90 Lashkar militants as hostages.

The TTP has led a violent campaign slaughtering innocent civilians and soldiers of Pakistan army, often filming and releasing gruesome videos of its leaders slitting throats of captured ‘prisoners’ in an attempt to demoralize the nation.

Here it is also important to keep in mind the backdrop of recent events. In the following video, TTP spokesperson Muslim Khan is openly announcing that those whose throats were slit deserved it: LINK

This is the news report of TTP Taliban killing 5 Tableeghi Jamaat activists while issuing warning to journalists. LINK

After the successful army operation against the TTP terrorists in Swat, local residents had expressed relief as normalcy returned. In some areas locals formed their own Lashkar’s to beat back TTP attempts to retake lost territory. Here’s an Al-Jazeera Report on these patriotic lashkars: LINK

In another 4 part series (the first two parts may not work, watch the last 2), which shows various military incidents, interviews with captured FC soldiers, and some ghastly ‘punishments’ by the TTP, which seems to be an integral part of their videos. LINK

Here is a video made by sky news TV on the terror of TTP where they are taking pride in training innocent civilians and pushing them on a trail that leads straight to death for themselves and above all massive destruction for their country and its image. LINK

Not only these, there are countless of such videos where a mockery was made out of our nation’s agony by these criminals of Islam and Pakistan.

This article was first published at the blog TTP Terrorists Are NOT Taliban

Expel These Two US Diplomats

 

CIA Mouthpieces Warn Gen. Kayani: US Strikes Will 'Impact' Pakistan's Military

 

Further eroding Pakistan's credibility is the alarming phenomenon of US diplomats indirectly threatening war against their host country

 

By Ahmed Quraishi

Saturday, 3 October 2009.

WWW.AHMEDQURAISHI.COM

 

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—CIA's mouthpieces in the US media and the Web have been activated to give maximum punch to US threats of bombing Quetta and convincing the international public opinion of the veracity of US intelligence on the presence of Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden in Balochistan.  Separately, and as we predicted in our report A US Counteroffensive In Pakistan, the US embassy has decided to launch a 'scare campaign' inside Pakistan, discarding security concerns and opting to intensify television appearances on Pakistani channels in order to create public pressure against the government and especially against the military and the ISI.

 

One of the US intelligence mouthpieces has gone as far as warning Pakistan Army Chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani of the 'impact' that US strikes could have on the Pakistani military, claiming that this could lead to a 'revolt' within the army and the Pakistani intelligence community.

 

The Long War Journal, founded by Bill Roggio, a frequent lecturer at US Air Force's Contemporary Counterinsurgency Warfare School, has warned that the "expansion of the US air campaign into Balochistan would likely lead to an internal revolt in the Pakistani military.  General Kiyani knows the impact a wide-reaching US air campaign would have on his military."

 

The Journal was established as a not-for-profit company registered in the US after 9/11 to promote the idea of an expanded war that would also serve as a vehicle to achieve US strategic goals.  The CIA has a long tradition of creating 'nonprofit incorporated companies' as multipurpose fronts.  Another nonprofit incorporated company called Creative Associates International is suspected of having acted as a front for private US military contractors operating in Peshawar's University Town.  Mr. Broggio's Journal was created by Public Multimedia Inc., which describes its mission as a 'nonprofit media organization with a mission to provide original and accurate reporting and analysis of the Long War.'

 

The Pakistani military has used its own channels to convey its strong protest to US military leadership on the belligerent American statemetns. But with a weak response by the elected government, Pakistan risks failure in countering the multi-pronged US media outreach that seeks to discredit Pakistan's soft denials on the issue of Afghan Taliban's 'Quetta Shura'.

 

Further eroding Pakistan's credibility is the alarming phenomenon of US diplomats indirectly threatening war against their host country.  Aside from US Ambassador Anne W. Patterson's recent undiplomatic statements, a junior US diplomat – Deputy Head of Mission Gerald Feierstein – has made the unusual move of making a masked threat of war against his host country on Oct. 1.

 

Yesterday, Mr. Feierstein is reported to have called another group of Pakistani journalists and briefed them about what he terms as the insincerity of Pakistan's military and intelligence in helping America manage its Afghan quagmire.  The US diplomat has reportedly taped an interview yesterday with a Pakistani news channel expected to be aired today.  Sources confirm that US diplomats in the Pakistani capital are planning a round of television interviews and press briefings in the coming days as part of a media offensive to counter the growing concern among Pakistanis on the activities of private US security firms in the country and the large number of US citizens that have entered Pakistan in recent months without proper security clearance.  The Nation published a detailed report on Sept. 26 on US embassy's decision to launch this campaign.  Not since the days immediately after 9/11 have US diplomats in Pakistan hit the Pakistani television circuit like this.  On Sept. 19, Ambassador Patterson chose a polite Pakistani talk show host to use his platform for an interrupted projection of US policy positions.

 

The statements of Ms. Patterson and Mr. Feierstein create a rare precedent.  It is not often that an ambassador dares to threaten war against a host government.  If Ms. Patterson has stretched the terms of her stay in Pakistan to the limits, the junior diplomat has gone a step further. And in Mr. Feierstein's case, this is an insult to Pakistan that a junior foreign diplomat has the audacity to call a press conference and threaten war against the host country.  Ambassador Haqqani, Pakistan's envoy to Washington, dares not make half as strong statements even when he should.

 

What the Pakistani media and public opinion needs to consider is that Mr. Feierstein expressed confidence in the intelligence information provided by Karzai and the Indians on the presence of Mullah Omar in Quetta, the capital of Pakistan's southwestern province of Balochistan.  And he added Osama bin Laden to the list, discovering all of a sudden that bin Laden was definitely in Pakistan and possibly in the same place as Mullah Omar.

 

Never mind that Karzai sent Pakistan the same information back in 2006, along with a list of several other Afghan Taliban leaders allegedly living in Pakistan.  The Pakistani response, unlike the American-Karzai-Indian rehash, was backed by credible information, proving that the intelligence given to Pakistan was faulty and inaccurate.

 

In the absence of an effective Pakistani response, it will be easy for the Americans to mislead the world on concocted and often deliberately false information, as they did in the days preceding the invasion of Iraq.

 

A Pakistani analyst who has experience working closely with the US government but does not want to identify himself had this take on the latest American posturing: "They have launched a media campaign to prepare the public mind and the message to Pakistan is this: Take action in Waziristan. If not then we will bomb Quetta."

 

Thanks to Gen. Musharraf's strategic blunder of allowing Washington to dictate the terms of domestic Pakistani politics in the name of fighting terror, and now the Zardari-Gilani government's unwarranted appeasement, Pakistan has lost a lot in terms of peace, stability and respect.  Time to cut our losses.

 

The Pakistani government should declare US ambassador Anne W. Patterson and her Deputy Chief of Mission Gerald Feierstein as unwanted persons on Pakistani soil and ask them to leave the country.  Failing to do so, we should be ready to see more junior diplomats from other countries doing the same.

 

This report was published by Pakistan's The Nation today.

Why Lie, Madam Ambassador Anne W. Patterson?

Just before the weeklong annual public holidays in Pakistan on the occasion of Eid, the US ambassador Anne W. Patterson decided to end a self-imposed moratorium [for security reasons] on television appearances on Pakistani talk shows.

Ambassador Patterson chose a nonaggressive host, the elegant and polite Dr. Moeed Pirzada of Dunya News, based in Lahore.

It was Saturday, Sept. 19.  Dr. Pirzida's show was a safe platform for her to target Pakistan's primetime television viewers without real interruption.

But I was stunned to see her at all.

Exactly eight days prior to Ms. Patterson's appearance, I had contacted her office and offered to play a gracious host to her on my show on Geo's Aag TV.

I offered her a chance to give her version of on US interference in Pakistani affairs and prove people like me – the alleged 'anti-Americanists' – wrong.  I said I'll be there along with Dr. Shireen Mazari, the columnist Ms. Patterson and at least one of her predecessors tried to silence by accusing her of endangering American lives.

This is how I reasoned this offer in my email to Ms. Patterson's office:

It will be nice for the ambassador to sit down with two Pakistani policy hawks who have their strong reasons for opposing the expanded US presence in Pakistan.  It’ll also be useful for the Ambassador to address a large constituency among Pakistanis that follow Dr. Mazari’s work and mine, I call them Pakistani nationalists.  Let’s try to make sense of the misconceptions and the grievances and address the grey area.

Ahmed Quraishi, email to US ambassador's office, Islamabad, Sept. 4, 2009.

When a US diplomat heard this, his first reaction was, 'You must be joking!'

Only I wasn't. I was fresh from accusing Ms. Patterson of using her influence to try to intimidate a Pakistani newspaper to block the columns of Dr. Mazari, a known critic of US policies.  [See Mazari vs. Patterson]

So, no surprises when I received an email the same evening, 'Unfortunately, the Ambassador will not be able to do the show.'

Which is fine.  Wasn't expecting anything else.  Some US diplomats and some of their Pakistani minions have been accusing concerned Pakistani citizens like me of anti-Americanism.  But I was content that I tried to get Ms. Patterson's perspective.  I tried to be fair.  I am sure Pakistani citizens are within their right to strongly disapprove of, and question, the mess that Washington has created in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Eight days later, I found Ms. Patterson on TV sitting with the amiable Dr. Pirzada. [Thank you for rubbing it in, Ms. Patterson!]

She said many things on the show that went unchallenged, especially regarding the presence of mercenary security 'firms' in Pakistan and the expanding US presence here.  But the best part was the following line:

Pakistan is being projected negatively in the US media while America is being projected negatively in the Pakistani media.

US Ambassador Anne Patterson, Dunya News, Sept. 19, 2009

She tried to show that somehow anti-Pakistanism in the US media was a result of the bad press America received in Pakistan.  And that's a brazen lie unworthy of a seasoned diplomat like her. 

It is easy to forget that for the past two years and half the US media has been whipping up a virulent form of anti-Pakistanism, misleading the world with biased stories about how Pakistan has become the next Iraq, how Pakistan is unable to handle its nuclear arsenal, and how Islamabad was about to fall to some 60 terrorists who would somehow take over the world's only Muslim nuclear power.  

The underlying theme in this US media campaign against Pakistan has been that this nation couldn't handle its problems and needed the mercy boots of US and UK soldiers marching through its streets for salvation, a la Afghanistan and Iraq.

This campaign started some time in 2007 and peaked in 2008 before dying down a natural death with the ouster of George Bush and Dick Cheney from Washington.  But Bush and Dick leftovers in the political, military and intelligence circles in Washington are keeping this anti-Pakistanism alive.  You can see it in the occasional outbursts against Pakistan and its military and intelligence. You can also see it in the silly lectures of self-styled 'Pakistan experts' in Washington who churn out empty rhetoric like how the Pakistanis don't know that India isn't really a threat and how serving a failed US agenda in Afghanistan should become the ultimate goal in life for every Pakistani man, woman and child.

The India bit is the best part.  Knowing the real and serious problems that exist between the two, Washington and its military and intelligence deliberately expanded Indian political and intelligence presence in Afghanistan, a country that Washington can never tightly occupy without Pakistani help.

So there is a pattern to the way the US media created a scare over Pakistan.  Some treatment to dish out to an ally.

The anti-American sentiments in Pakistan today have multiplied several times in the eight years of the crude American meddling in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.  In fact these sentiments were far lower a couple of years ago when the US media began demonizing Pakistan at the behest of influential quarters within the Washington policy establishment.

And now Ambassador Anne W. Patterson has the gall to sit on a Pakistani TV show and tell us that Pakistan is getting bad press in America because America is getting bad press in Pakistan.

Let me tell you a little bit more why your country is getting bad press in a way it didn't before, Madam Ambassador:

1.       US brokered a political deal to bring to power the most financially corrupt politicians to power in Islamabad in exchange for their pledge to serve American interests

2.      US has killed some 700 innocent Pakistani men, women and many, many children through CIA-run drones in order to kill some 20 or less terrorists from al Qaeda, and mind you, terrorists of questionable value and importance

3.      US crossed its ally Pakistan by empowering the most anti-Pakistan elements in Kabul [Last week, Gen. Stan McCrystal has tried to appease Pakistanis by warning that India's increasing influence in Afghanistan will create problems, as if India did this without the knowledge of the United States in Afghanistan in the past eight years.]

This is what I would have told you, Ms. Patterson, had you appeared on my show.  You made the right choice by declining the invitation.

[Thomas Houlahan – A former US Marine - dished out a scathing critique of the 'coward' diplomats from his country on my television show. Watch him here]

Karachi Night Club and Night Life of Karachi

A US Counteroffensive In Pakistan

A US Counteroffensive In Pakistan

 

A Loose Coalition Of Pro-American Politicians, Writers, Academics To Promote US Goals, Isolate Pak Military

 

Forget US diplomacy with the Pakistani government.  The Americans are now setting the policy agenda in Pakistan in direct talks with Pakistani political parties.  To ensure privacy, these talks are being held in Washington, away from prying eyes and ears in Pakistan.  Pakistani politicians, writers and some academicians are being recruited to promote US policies and isolate the Pakistani military and intelligence.  This is how a superpower occupies a nuclear-armed nation. 

 

Face Of An American Bully In Islamabad:

Is it our country or yours, Madam Ambassador?

 

By Ahmed Quraishi

Sunday, 27 September 2009.

WWW.AHMEDQURAISHI.COM

 

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—US political and military officials go on the offensive inside Pakistan, boldly confronting critics and seeking to build a coalition of pro-American supporters across Pakistani politics, media and the academia.  The goal is to create a domestic counter to the entrenched Pakistani policymaking establishment [read 'the military'] that is resisting American efforts to force Pakistan to become a voluntary full-fledged second theater of war after Afghanistan.

 

Signs of the new American aggressiveness abound from increased willingness of US diplomats in Pakistan to confront their local critics, to sweet-talking Pakistani politicians, media and academicians into openly promoting the US agenda through sponsored visits to Washington and Florida.

 

This is similar to a Plan B:  using local actors to force change from within.  Plan A, which was focused on coercive diplomacy and threats of sending boots on the ground into Pakistan, failed to yield results over the past months.

 

In essence, the United States is covertly raising an army of special agents and soldiers on Pakistani soil, with the help of local Pakistani accomplices, but without the full knowledge of the Pakistani military to avoid a confrontation.

 

This counteroffensive began with Ambassador Anne W. Patterson's attempt to intimidate a Pakistani columnist and a known critic of US policies.  Ms. Patterson did not seek a public debate to counter criticism.  Instead, she resorted to backchannel contacts to have the writer blocked.  In so doing, Ms. Patterson unwittingly broke a new barrier for US influence, creating precedence for how the US embassy deals with the Pakistani media.  This is something that the Ambassador's counterparts could never imagine pulling off in places like Moscow, Ankara, or Cairo.

 

Buoyed by this, the Ambassador went on the offensive.  This month, she held a press conference, released a long policy statement, and met Prime Minister Gilani to reassure him after reports suggested her government did not trust Islamabad with the expected aid money.  She also appeared on primetime television, carefully choosing a nonaggressive TV talk show as a platform to address Pakistanis glued to their sets in peak evening hours.

 

   

  

Pakistan's 'New Capital': The gigantic expansion of the US embassy in Islamabad.  The US ambassador [left] kicking off her counteroffensive on Sept. 19, telling her Pakistani host she intervened to stop a columnist from writing against her government and affirmed she will do this again because criticism endangers the lives of US citizens in Pakistan.

 

The television appearance coincided with an interview she gave to a US news service accusing Pakistan of refusing to join the US in eliminating one of the Afghan local parties – the Afghan Taliban – whom her own government and military failed to wipe out in Afghanistan in eight years of war.  The statement played on the usual American accusations, backed by no evidence, that seek to explain the growing disenchantment of the Afghan people with the failed American occupation of their country by linking it to alleged Pakistani sanctuaries and covert support.

 

But hours before her television appearance, on Sept. 19, Pakistani police raided the Islamabad offices of Inter-Risk, a Pakistani security firm representing American defense contractor DynCorp, where a huge quantity of illegal sophisticated weapons was confiscated.  According to one news report, the Pakistani owner of the firm, retired Captain Ali Jaffar Zaidi, escaped from his house hours before the police arrived.  A Pakistani journalist, Umar Cheema, who works for The News, confirmed in a published statement that Mr. Zaidi told him a day before the raid that "the US embassy in Islamabad had ordered the import of around 140 AK-47 Rifles and other prohibited weapons in the name of Inter-Risk" and that "the payment for the weapons would be made by the embassy."

 

[The News reports today that the government has "disbanded" Inter-Risk, voiding its contract with both the US embassy and with DynCorp.  The company director Capt. Zaidi remains at large.]

 

In other words, Pakistani security authorities have found American and Pakistani citizens working for the US embassy involved in suspicious activities.

 

What Really Happened?

 

US ambassador Anne Patterson used her goodwill to seek the personal intervention of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and Interior Minister Rehman Malik to obtain licenses for prohibited weapons.

 

Sixty-one pieces of sophisticated weapons were seized by the police at the Inter-Risk/DynCorp facility.

 

The question is: Why did the Pakistani police confiscate the weapons if they were duly licensed by the government?

 

The only logical answer is that the licensing procedure, which includes clearance from the country's intelligence and security departments, was not followed.  

 

Apparently, Washington's staunch allies inside Pakistan's elected government helped their friends with advanced weapons into the country without the knowledge of important national security departments of the government.

 

This raises serious questions because of several reports recently that implicate Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, in issuing a large number of visas to US citizens without proper clearance from Islamabad.  Since US tourists are not exactly flocking to Pakistan, Amb. Haqqani is suspected of having facilitated private US security agents to enter Pakistan.  A spate of recent reports have exposed the presence of private American security firms on Pakistani soil.

 

When the country's security departments finally paid attention to Ambassador Haqqani's indiscretions, the ambassador, who is a former journalist, is suspected of leaking a protest letter he wrote to his country's intelligence chief, apparently attempting to clear his name before his American friends.  Of all places, the letter, which is a classified government communication, surfaced in New Delhi, on the screen of an Indian television news channel.

 

 

Ambassador Haqqani's letter secret that blasts the ISI surfaces in New Delhi.  Pakistanis joke that Mr. Haqqani is 'the US ambassador to the United States, stationed at the Pakistan Embassy in Washington DC.'

 

PATTERSON'S LIE EXPOSED

 

On Sept. 30, Mr. Ansar Abbasi of The News published the full content of a letter written by Ambassador Patterson to Interior Minister Rehman Malik, dated March 30, seeking his "intervention" to grant Inter-Risk and DynCorp "the requisite prohibited bore arms licenses to operate in the territorial limits of Pakistan and as soon as possible."

 

The letter creates a new dent in the US embassy's counteroffensive that seeks to downplay the presence of private US security firms in the country.  A Web news portal, PakNationalists/AhmedQuraishi.com released fresh evidence this month showing the infamous US security firm formerly known as Blackwater recruiting military-trained agents fluent in Urdu and Punjabi.

 

A screen shot from the secure server of BlackwaterUSA.com that shows the American defense contracter hiring Urdu- and Punjabi-speaking agents to serve in Pakistan, where the pro-US government and the US ambassador are vehemently denying the presence of American mercenaries on Pakistani soil.

 

 

To quell the controversy, Ambassador Patterson went on record confirming that five million US dollars will be spent by her government to build new living quarters for US Marines within the embassy compound in Islamabad. But the number of marines utilizing this facility will not exceed 20, she assured Pakistanis recently. 

 

The Sept. 19 raid, however, proves there will be a far larger number of armed Americans on Pakistani soil eventually than the figure given by Ambassador Patterson.

 

US MERCENERARIES IN PAKISTAN?

 

The strong denials of US officials on the presence of private US security firms in Pakistan do no tally with the circumstantial evidence.  At least three verified incidents have been reported in Islamabad alone over the past few weeks that involve armed US individuals in civilian dresses.  In two incidents, Pakistani police officers arrested and then released armed civilian Americans after intervention from the US embassy.  In one incident, a Pakistani citizen reported being assaulted by armed Americans in civilian clothes.  Police officers refused to register a complaint against the Americans for fear of being reprimanded in case of intervention by the US embassy.

 

US DOLLARS RECRUITING PAKISTANIS

TO WORK AGAINST PAKISTANI MILITARY

 

Private US security agents sneaking into Pakistan is one level of the current US engagement with Pakistan.  Another level is political and seeks to isolate the Pakistani policymaking establishment, and especially the Pakistani military and the country's powerful intelligence agencies, from within, after months of incessant one-sided US media campaign demonizing the country's military and intelligence services.

 

On the political front, Washington's Pakistan handlers have launched a new bout of US meddling in domestic Pakistani politics.  The US government has put into high gear its contacts with Pakistani political parties.  Washington is now conducting direct diplomacy with these parties.

 

A high level delegation of MQM, which controls the port city of Karachi, the starting point of US and NATO supplies headed for Afghanistan, is in Washington meeting US political and military officials. 

 

A similar exercise is planned with the ANP, the small ex-Soviet communist ally currently governing the NWFP, the Pakistani province bordering Afghanistan.

 

Both parties came to power thanks to former President Musharraf's secret 'deal' brokered by Vice President Dick Cheney and his State Department officials in 2007.  The deal sought to create a pro-American ruling coalition in the country that would ensure that the Pakistani military is aligned with the US strategic goals in the region.

 

The Americans are trying to accentuate what they see as pro-Indian, pro-American strains within the two parties. 

 

 

 

Washington began this program quietly in 2007 after getting a green signal from President Musharraf to increase US involvement in Pakistani politics.  There are reports that nazims of several districts in Sindh, Balochistan and NWFP were invited to Washington to meet US government and military officials over the past thirty months.  But these were very low key visits.  In fact, they were so secretive that ANP chief Asfandyar Wali refused in early 2008 to confirm or deny a visit he made to Washington after the Feb. 2008 elections in Pakistan.  In contrast, no effort was made this time to downplay the current visits by MQM and ANP delegations to Washington and their meetings with US and NATO officials.  And as in all of these covert visits, the federal Pakistani government, the Foreign Office and the country's security departments are not privy to what is being discussed between US officials and the leaders of the two Pakistani political parties on US soil.  In fact, US officials arranged the meetings on US soil precisely in order to circumvent the Pakistani government.

 

While there is no immediate evidence that Pakistan should be alarmed by Washington's direct diplomacy with Pakistani political parties outside Pakistan's territory, Islamabad needs to be wary of strong strains within Washington's policy establishment that have been focusing on exploiting Pakistan's ethnic and linguistic fissures in order to support its so-called 'Af-Pak' agenda. 

 

A lot of work has been done over the past three years in several Washington think tanks on Pakistan's linguistic and ethnic fissures and how these can be exploited by Washington to weaken Islamabad and force it to follow the US agenda in Afghanistan and the region.

 

During Pakistan's worst domestic instability in 2007, mainstream US media outlets were leaking policy and intelligence reports focusing on alleged separatism in several Pakistani regions.  This week, some of the most ardent American supporters of separatism inside Pakistan – the usual suspects from the US think-tank circuit – came together in Washington to launch a political action committee that seeks independent status for a Pakistani province, Sindh.  The ceremony for the launch of the 'Sindhi American Political Action Committee' was addressed by Selig Harrison and Marvin Weinbaum, two think-tank types with extensive links to the US intelligence community and both advocates of engagement with Pakistani separatists as a leverage against Islamabad.

 

The new American confidence in openly meddling in Pakistani politics should raise alarm bells in the Pakistani capital.  This is the strongest sign yet of how weak the federal Pakistani government, and in turn Pakistan itself, appears to outsiders.

 

The weakness of Pakistan's ruling elite is inviting American hounding at a time when the American bully is on the retreat elsewhere.

 

A condensed version of this report was published by The Nation of Lahore on Saturday.

 

© 2007-2009. All rights reserved. AhmedQuraishi.com & PakNationalists

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium

without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

From A Chinese Girl To All Pakistanis

Bikini vs. Burka

Burka is a tradition in some Muslim and Arab societies. It is not a requirement of the Islamic religion, which advocates Hijab for women, a scarf that covers the head [not the face].  With this in mind, this is an interesting perspective from Dr. Henry Makow.


By Henry Makow Ph.D.


On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka.

Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing nothing but a bikini.

One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of so-called “civilizations.”

The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing Arab oil, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are about stripping Muslims of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a bikini.

I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am defending some of the values that the burka represents for me.

For me, the burka represents a woman’s consecration to her husband and family. Only they see her.It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic sphere.

The Muslim woman’s focus is her home, the “nest” where her children are born and reared. She is the “home” maker, the taproot that sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her children, providing refuge and support to her husband.

In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself. In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is auctioning herself all of the time.

In America, the cultural measure of a woman’s value is her sex appeal. (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with appearance and plagued by weight problems.)

As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to “hook up” furtively rather than to demand patient courtship, love and marriage. As a result, dozens of males know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which is a part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable to love, she is unfit to receive her husband’s seed.

The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice. Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and prey. It is based on aggression and reason.

Feminism deceives women to believe femininity has resulted in “oppression” and they should adopt male behavior instead. The result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother.

This is the goal of the NWO social engineers: undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and personal dysfunction, and reduce population. In the “brave new world,” women are not supposed to be mothers and progenitors of the race. They are meant to be neutered, autonomous sex objects.

Liberating women is often given as an excuse for the war in Afghanistan. Liberating them to what? To Britney Spears? To low-rise “see-my-thong” pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for sexuality in America? If they really cared about women, maybe they’d end the war.

Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God’s surrogates: creating and nurturing new life. The New World Order does not want us to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the substitute for marriage. We are to remain single: stunted, sex-starved and self-obsessed.

We are not meant to have a permanent “private” life. We are meant to remain lonely and isolated, in a state of perpetual courtship, dependent on consumer products for our identity.

This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming “independent,” she is not likely to find a permanent mate.

Her long-term personal fulfillment and happiness lies in making marriage and family her first priority.

Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam.

I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it represents, specifically a woman’s consecration to her future husband and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails.

The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies somewhere in the middle.

from → rense.com  Couretsy PalAlert Press

India Has A Mole Inside Pakistan Embassy In Washington?

How can a classified letter from Washington to Islamabad end up in New Delhi? This is another byproduct of US meddling in Pakistani politics. An ambassador appointed with the highest American recommendation tries to take a cheap shot at the ISI and redeem himself in the eyes of the Washington establishment that brought him to power.


Pakistan's ambassador to Washington Mr. Hussain Haqqani made a classified communication on July 28 with Pakistan's Foreign Secretary and the ISI chief.

Six weeks later, on Sept. 12, as Pakistani President Asif Zardari prepared to leave for the United States for meetings with US officials, an Indian news affiliate with CNN broke the story that Ambassador Haqqani has complained about a secret blacklist of US journalists and NGO-types and strongly protested denying them visas to enter Pakistan. Mr. Haqqani warned his government in the letter that this could hurt military hardware transfers and US aid pledges.

The stunning part of the story is that a classified internal communication to the Pakistani government found its way to CNN-IBN, an Indian television news network in New Delhi.

The leak is timed for maximum damage to Pakistan's interests.

A Pakistani source that has worked closely with the US government, and does not want to be named, described this 'leak' in this way: "I feel so bad to read the CNN-IBN claim that, and I quote—'Dated July 28, 2009, the letter [is] in CNN-IBN's possession'. What are we, a banana republic?"

That is not all. The unnamed analyst adds: "Also keep in mind that this (most likely a) "classified" letter (which also "bears the seal of the Pakistan Ambassador") was written by our Ambassador to the Foreign Secretary (classified), Interior Secretary (classified) and DG, ISI (double classified!)."

So, the big question is: Who leaked the letter and its detailed contents?

All fingers point to Ambassador Husain Haqqani, a smooth political operator who used his Washington contacts to position himself as late Benazir Bhutto's mediator with the Bush-Cheney administration.

The leaked letter puts Mr. Haqqani in a positive light before his friends inside the Washington establishment and refocuses the American policy debate on Pakistan's military and intelligence, both until recently a regular target for the mainstream US media and think tanks. Mr. Haqqani worked for both before he was appointed ambassador last year by the ruling party.

President Zardari should be seething with anger because the leak could damage his most prized foreign policy goal: the US aid pledge of US $ 7.5 billion, which is yet to pass Congress. Efforts to scuttle it were informally launched on Aug. 30 when the New York Times ran a report quoting unnamed US sources accusing Pakistan of modifying old-tech Harpoon missiles, and implicitly warned this could delay the aid package.

There is little likelihood the letter leaked from the office of the Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir, or DG ISI Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha. The content of the letter is critical of both the government the spy agency. The stunning accuracy of the quotes from the letter, made public by CNN-IBN, strengthens suspicions this could not have leaked without Ambasador Haqqani knowing something about it.

CNN-IBN's letter attributed precise quotes to Mr. Haqqani. Example: "In the case of Kate Brooks, we were informed that her visa should be revoked because she was on the Black List. The embassy has not seen this list. I would request a copy of the same.”

"Yes, the 'diplomatic circles', either in DC or Islamabad, can give you a strong hint [about the content]," said the analyst who worked with the US government, "or a highly reliable clue about a story, but not exact quotes from an internal, classified and official communication between two sensitive organizations of the country."

Mr. Haqqani & The US Media

In his 'classified' letter that is no longer classified, Ambassador Haqqani fails to recognize the prerogative of any government, including the government of Pakistan, to decide whom to grant entry permits.

The US government follows a similar policy. The US embassy in Islamabad routinely denies visas to Pakistanis, including journalists and political activists. In September 2008, US revoked the visa of a Pakistani human rights defender Amina Janjua because she is critical of US policies. This drew criticism from Amnesty International. Early 2009, the US embassy refused to grant entry to a single Pakistani mother whose son is in detention in the US for the past three years on terrorism charges without evidence and without conviction. Pakistani visitors, including senior government officials, are put through excessive checking procedures on arrival in the US, in what could easily be described as harassment. But this is a US government prerogative. No US ambassador to Islamabad has written back to the US government warning of dire consequences for following such a policy, as Amb. Haqqani has done in his case.

Exercising discretion in granting entry visas to US journalists falls within the prerogative of the government of Pakistan. The ISI, whom Mr. Haqqani tried to vilify to please a certain lobby in Washington, D.C., follows this policy as part of its prescribed duty according to the law to protect Pakistan's national interest.

More importantly, Pakistan's ambassador in Washington must keep the following points in mind, which are legitimate reasons for Pakistan to pick and choose when granting visas to any US journalist:

1. Did not the mainstream US media and think tanks run a campaign over the past two years to demonize Pakistan worldwide, create a false alarm about the country, its integrity and its nuclear assets, leading many Pakistanis to question why the media of our ally was spearheading this worldwide anti-Pakistanism?

2. Was not much of this campaign an exclusive exercise by some parts of the US media? No other country's media engaged in such vilification of Pakistan at such a scale. Considering how such organized demonization preceded the US invasion of Iraq, it is not difficult to conclude that this anti-Pakistan vilification campaign was not entirely innocent.

3. Is he not aware of several instances where some US 'researchers' and 'journalists' violated the terms of their entry visas and ventured into sensitive parts of Pakistan in complete violation of visa guidelines and violation of their own given reasons for visiting Pakistan? In one case, a US citizen who introduced himself as a researcher ended up entering a sensitive part of the country, spent time there, and then published what amounts to a news report in a news publication, in essence misleading Pakistani authorities about his real identity and intentions.

Despite the unprecedented access given to the US media by all levels of the Pakistani government, parts of the US media continue a determined campaign of vilification against Pakistan, publishing unsubstantiated, derogatory, and often politically-motivated propaganda pieces that undermine Pakistan's regional and international interest and sow confusion within the country.

As the custodian of Pakistan's interests in Washington, why does Ambassador Haqqani insist that Islamabad should not have the right to choose who should enjoy the hospitality of the Pakistani people, especially when the number of visas denied to US applicants is insignificant compared to the number granted?

And should Ambassador Haqqani not defend this legitimate Pakistani position instead of putting his own government under pressure on behalf of Washington's interest where it is undue?

Secular Or Islamist Jinnah?

In countries like the United States, Israel, and Britain, modern states were established by fallible men who created nations that fulfilled religious and historical destinies.

The same thing happened in Pakistan when its independence movement was spearheaded by a westernized man who spoke English but nonetheless believed in his nation's manifest destiny.  All his sayings, writings and actions indicate he was not confused about who he was and where he came from.

Unfortunately, a minority of inferiority-complexed Pakistanis refuse to let die a silly debate over whether Pakistan's founding father, Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, was a secular or an Islamist, and whether he wanted a Muslim Pakistan or a secular Pakistan.

Who cares. He was a Muslim. He said it. His nation is predominantly Muslim and it exists because of this fact.  Otherwise there would not be a Pakistan today, the manifest expression of a history, culture, language and arts that took shape over at least ten centuries, in terms of immediate influence, and more if one is to go deeper in history.

And as in everywhere else, Pakistan too had and continues to have its share of enemies and detractors.  But they wouldn't have found a fertile ground if the Pakistani intelligentsia had put its act together and got down to the business of building a nation.

This is why it is heartening to see the fourth and the fifth generation of Pakistanis take charge and settle these nonissues once and for all.  This book is one example of this.

Click here to read more.

The Amazon.com has described this book like this:

One of the most famous books in Pakistan, the late Chief Justice Muhammad Munir's From Jinnah to Zia (1979) has finally received the ultimate rebuttal from a British-born Asian - using only one piece of evidence. Saleena Karim tells the story of how a point of curiosity - based on little more than an issue of grammar - led her to the startling discovery that a quote used by Munir and attributed to Jinnah is in fact a fake. Furthermore this quote has also been used by a number of Pakistani professional writers and scholars, none of whom have thought to check the original transcript of the interview Munir supposedly quoted from.

Over twenty-five years after the release of From Jinnah to Zia, the author shows us how much damage the 'Munir quote' has done - not only in terms of twisting the facts of history, but now in exposing the intellectual dishonesty of Pakistani scholarship. Saleena Karim names those who have quoted Munir, as well as discussing the other myths about the founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, and sets the record straight.

ALERT: Blackwater Recruiting Agents Fluent In Urdu & Punjabi For Pakistan

Report Suggests Pakistani Envoy In Washington Has Issued 360 Visas To Americans In One Month Without Consulting Islamabad


Blackwater USA is looking for mercenaries fluent in Urdu, Pakistan's national language, and Punjabi, the language spoken by natives of Pakistan's largest populated province. The US military already deploys officers and commando units manned by people fluent in Pashto, spoken in most of western Pakistan and southern Afghanistan. Keeping in view the denials of the US embassy in Islamabad and the expanding American presence on Pakistani soil, these recruitments are obviously not meant for running call centers. Since Washington has unilaterally decided that Pakistan is now a 'war theater' after Iraq and Afghanistan, it is only natural that American terrorism will also be unleashed in Pakistan. Blackwater is in Pakistan.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—Blackwater USA has concealed its Web presence. If you type www.BlackwaterUSA.com, you will be redirected to the website of an organization called U.S. Training Center , which offers military and personal security courses. The website does not overtly say or indicate it is linked to Blackwater, but on Sept. 12 a media release was posted on the homepage defending Blackwater against accusations the private 'army' overbilled the US government for work in Iraq in 2006 and 2007.

The bigger news, however, is that 'Blackwater USA' is hiring in Pakistan. While BlackwaterUSA.com does not exist on the Web any longer, I 3an employment form on a secured page of the private security firm's website that clearly indicates the private mercenary army is hiring Urdu- and Punjabi-speaking agents. This would complement the existing Pashto-speaking agents that both Blackwater private mercenary army and its employer, the US military, have on the ground in Afghanistan and – as reports increasingly indicate – in Pakistan.

Snapshots of the screen from the page titled secure.blackwaterusa.com show that the page is part of the Blackwater Employee and Applicant Resource System (BEARS).

The snapshots shown here indicate that hiring continues as we speak for agents and for people with military training who can speak Urdu, Pakistan's national language, and Punjabi, spoken by the natives of Pakistan's largest populated province.

Obviously, agents with proficiency in the two languages will be operating in and around Pakistan since there is little utility for such agents anywhere else in the world.

This is the latest in a pile of circumstantial evidence that supports the growing concerns within the Pakistani public opinion that private US security firms are setting up shop in Pakistan, bringing to the country the same mayhem that has engulfed Iraq and Afghanistan, possibly with the permission of influential people in the Pakistani government.

A petition has been submitted to the Supreme Court of Pakistan today requesting that the government of Pakistan be ordered to explain why the US embassy in Islamabad is building a fortified embassy the size of an international airport, spread over 52 to 54 acres. The petitioner, who is a private Pakistani citizen, has accused the United States of constructing a military base in the heart of the Pakistani capital in the guise of an embassy.

On Aug. 5, PakNationalists/AhmedQuraishi.com broke the news of how a Washington-incorporated private company that calls itself an NGO and executes contractual humanitarian work for the US government in conflict zones is suspected of acting as cover for Blackwater in Peshawar.

On Jul. 27, the Deutsche Presse-Agentur [DPA] reported that residents of an upscale suburb in Peshawar have formally complained to the Pakistani government that armed private Americans were spreading fear in the area.

We also received a statement issued by Mr. Richard Snelsire, the spokesman for the US embassy in Islamabad, denying these reports:

Since 2002, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has committed more than $3.4 billion in humanitarian and development assistance to the people of Pakistan in relief, health, education, and economic development programs.

Creative Associates is one of many organizations USAID engages to deliver this assistance, which also includes the Government of Pakistan, local non-governmental, and international humanitarian institutions. This organization has no link to any international security firm, nor is it affiliated in any way with an intelligence service.

Recent allegations against USAID partners such as Creative Associates are false, and place individuals delivering humanitarian and development assistance to the people of Pakistan at risk.

Richard Snelsire

Despite these denials, the Pakistani government and the US embassy are unable to explain several incidents in Peshawar and Islamabad over the past few weeks that involved privately armed American citizens, especially accounts by private citizens confirming they have seen and interacted with these foreign agents in public places. In at least three incidents, these privately armed Americans were released by police authorities under pressure from the government despite involvement in altercations with local Pakistanis. In one case, an armed US citizen physically assaulted a Pakistani police officer and uttered obscenities against the host country.

The alarming part of this story is that the embassy of Pakistan in Washington is reported to have issued several hundred entry permits and visas to individuals without seeking clearance from the country's security departments. In one recent report, it is reported that the Pakistani ambassador issued 360 visas to US citizens in one month, sometime this year, from the ambassador's discretionary quota of visas and again without clearance from Pakistani security departments.

Who are these Americans who are arriving in Pakistan in the tens and hundreds at a time when the US embassy in Islamabad follows a strange practice where a staffer personally calls any US citizen in the United States in order to warn them about coming to Pakistan for personal reasons or pleasure, apparently because of the security situation?

US Embassy Sex Scandal In Afghanistan, Coming To Pakistan Soon

 

Sorry to post this here, but it is the juicy truth.

These are two of many pictures that landed in the newsrooms of several American newspapers that, to their credit, published most of them. 

It is a scandal that broke out this summer involving private security guards working for the US embassy in Kabul.

I covered this story earlier in this post This Is What American Militias Will Bring To Pakistan .

We are already witnessing the first signs that Washington is bringing these private American mercenaries to Pakistan.  They have been seen in public here, have assaulted three Pakistani citizens in at least three different cases known to the Pakistani authorities, and are suspected of being busy establishing offices and fortified bases in Pakistan.  The US embassy has denied it.  But since Washington has unilaterally decided that Pakistan is the next 'war theater' after Iraq and Afghanistan, it only makes sense that these American terrorists-for-hire will make the move from those two failed American wars to the new one here.  American apologists inside the Pakistani government appear to be facilitating this.  The Pakistani ambassador in Washington, who is a known US apologist, is reported to have issued numerous visas to US individuals in large numbers without clearance from Pakistan's security departments.  

But looking at the Abu Ghraib mess and the overall mess in Iraq, the disaster in Afghanistan, and now these pictures, we in Pakistan shouldn't be surprised at what awaits us.

Someone in Islamabad should tell the Americans that they look good but only from a distance.  American soldiers and officials look good on the American mainland, not in our region and close to our homes.

See rest of the pictures here [click].

My friend Zaki Khalid, from BrassTacks, a Pakistani security analysis service, gave a very interesting reply to the question, Who are these mercenaries?

He answers:

"They are mostly malleable white thugs, ex-cops, and adventure seekers. These are not the Navy Seals and Army Green Berets that everyone tells you these contractors are. The companies Zapata, Blackwater, Aegis, CACI, etc. are run by Zionists. If you think about it, just who would you hire? Do you want a black gangster from Chicago, or Mexican gangsters from Houston, or whites from Pelican Bay? You couldn't control them, and they would probably shoot you. The lower echelons are mainly ex-cops, academy drop-outs, and lower ranking, hand-picked military. The upper echelon are Israelis or white Zionists. They want guys that sit behind a M-60 or similar machine gun, in a humvee, that will spray civilian crowds of Afghanis, Iraqis, Iranians, possibly Pakistanis and eventually Americans. "
 

Latest Indian Drama: Rocket Attack At Wagah

India tries to milk its interior minister's US visit by faking a Pakistani rocket attack across the border. In 2000, when President Clinton was about to land in New Delhi, the Indians sent fake Kashmiri freedom fighters to kill innocent minority Sikhs in Kashmir in cold blood and blamed Pakistan. Like synchronized film dances, the Indians have perfected the art of political drama.

By Dan Qayyum
PakistanKaKhudaHafiz.com

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—In an attempt to make the most of Indian Home Minister P Chidambaram’s visit to the US, India has floated a sensational news leak that India was attacked by Pakistani rangers using ’several rockets’ at the only border crossing between the two countries, called the Wagah sector.

Staging false flag attacks is nothing new for Indians when trying to paint Pakistanis as terrorists. These accusations are always timed with high-profile talks with American leaders.

Let's rewind to year 2000: Chattisinghpora, Occuped Kashmir – On the eve of the then US President Bill Clinton’s visit to India, 35 Kashmiri Sikhs were massacred in cold blood by Indian security forces posing as Kashmiri freedom fighters. The usual ‘Lashkar-e-Tayba militants’ were rounded up and executed in fake-encounters, the ‘Pakistani National’ was produced, ensuring Clinton’s entire visit focused on what India calls ‘Pakistan-backed terrorism’. It was only much later when the damage was done that the truth of the massacre came out, implicating Indian soldiers and intelligence agencies in this heinous crime.

The Indian security forces went a step ahead in their brutality back then. Indian police opened fire on unarmed Kashmiris protesting the murders of five innocent Muslims right after the staged Sikh massacre, killing another eight innocent people and bringing the total toll of this massacre closer to fifty.

Pakistan calling India’s bluff?

Pakistan has officially offered to hold an open debate with the Indian home minister over the probing of Mumbai attacks, calling the Indian bluff.

Interior Minister Rehman Malik said, “I am ready for the debate anywhere in India, Pakistan or wherever his Indian counterpart likes.”

Talking to journalists in Islamabad, Malik started off by pointing out that the first formal response to Pakistan’s February 9 request for information came on June 20th and that too was in Marathi language. Besides citing other Indian lapses, he pointed out that India refused to share the Samjotha Express dossier [Hindu terrorists with connivance of Indian military intelligence personnel torched a friendship train carrying Pakistani visitors to India in 2006].

Malik said he had received the latest Indian dossier in which the Indians have provided us with a statement from Ajmal Kasab, who claims now that he spoke to Hafiz Saeed, the leader of Pakistani Kashmiri group, when he was in Mumbai.

‘Initially the Indians said Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi was the mastermind and we arrested him … now they have started saying that Hafiz Saeed is the mastermind,’ Malik said.

Pakistan to take up Kashmir and Afghanistan before the UN

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has decided to take up the issue of Kashmir and Afghanistan effectively at a session of the United Nations General Assembly this year.

Pakistan will inform the international community about its reservations on the Indian tactics and policies meant to delay and avoid the resolution of Kashmir issue. Pakistan will also take up the faltering war against terrorism in Afghanistan.

The decision to this effect was taken during two separate meetings held at the foreign office, a private TV channel reported. Relevant authorities briefed the Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi about Kashmir and Afghanistan.

During the meeting, Pakistani policymakers decided that Pakistan would ask the United Nations to ensure a resolution of the long-lingering issue of Kashmir on a priority basis for durable peace in the region.

The international community would also be informed about the human rights violations committed by Indian forces in occupied Kashmir, sources said.

Besides officers of relevant authorities, officers of intelligence agencies including Director General Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha attended the meeting.

Pakistan will also take up the issue of Afghanistan during the session and would inform the largest world body about problems being faced by Pakistan because of the wrong policies of the allies occupation forces in Afghanistan, a Pakistan television channel reported.

Indian Army To Deploy Prostitutes As A Women Battalion In Held Kashmir

A group of experts assigned to probe rising suicides among Indian soldiers in Kashmir have recommended sending the soldiers back to India at least once a month to be with their wives. Since this is not possible, India's military leadership has taken a leaf from the book of the old Soviet army: A woman battalion at the war front. A committee headed by a Lieutenant General of the Indian army is putting the last touches on the new battalion.

Click here to read the full report.

Anti-Americanism Rises In Pakistan Over U.S. Motives

By Saeed Shah

McClatchy Newspapers

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — For weeks now, the Pakistani media have portrayed America, its military and defense contractors in the darkest of lights, all part of an apparent campaign of anti-American vilification that is sweeping the country and, according to some, is putting American lives at risk.


Pakistanis are reacting to what many here see as an "imperial" American presence, echoing Iraq and Afghanistan, with Washington dictating to the Pakistani military and the government. Polls show that Pakistanis regard the U.S., formally a close ally and the country's biggest donor, as a hostile power.


U.S. officials have either denied the allegations or moved to blunt the criticism, but suspicions remain and relations between the two countries are getting more strained.


The lively Pakistani media has been filled with stories of under-cover American agents operating in the country, tales of a huge contingent of U.S. Marines planned to be stationed at the embassy, and reports of Blackwater private security personnel running amuck. Armed Americans have supposedly harassed and terrified residents and police officers in Islamabad and Peshawar, according to local press reports.


Much of the hysteria was based on a near $1 billion plan, revealed by McClatchy in May and confirmed by U.S. officials, to massively increase the size of the American embassy in Islamabad, which brought home to Pakistanis that the United States plans an extensive and long-term presence in the country.


The American mission in Islamabad was forced to put on three briefings for Pakistani journalists in August trying to dampen the highly charged stories, which could undermine US-Pakistani relations just as Washington is preparing to finalize a tripling of civilian aid to Islamabad, to $1.5 billion a year. Over this last weekend, an embassy spokesman had to deny suddenly renewed stories that the U.S. was behind the mysterious death of former military dictator General Zia ul Haq back in 1988.


Pakistan is a key priority for the United States because of its nuclear weapons and its potential usefulness in taking on al Qaida within its borders and ending the safe haven for the Afghan Taliban.


"I think this recent brouhaha over the embassy expansion has been difficult to beat back," said Anne Patterson, the U.S. ambassador, in an interview Thursday. "I can't really understand what's behind this because what we're doing is actually quite straightforward. We've tried to explain it carefully to the press, but it just seems to be taken over by conspiracy theories."


Briefing Pakistani journalists last month, Patterson told them that there were only nine Marines stationed to guard the embassy in Islamabad and that, even after the expansion, their number would be no more than 15 to 20. Press reports had put the figure at 350 to 1,000 Marines. She also stated categorically "Blackwater is not operating in Pakistan". But the stories refused to go away.


Patterson said she wrote last week to the owner of Pakistan's biggest media group, Jang, to protest about the content of two talk shows on its Geo TV channel, hosted by star anchors Hamid Mir and Kamran Khan, and a newspaper column of influential analyst Shireen Mazari in The News, a daily, complaining that they were "wildly incorrect" and had compromised the security of Americans.


There are 250 American citizens posted at the Islamabad mission on longer-term contracts, plus another 200 on shorter assignments, the embassy said. The present embassy compound can accommodate only a fraction of them. According to independent estimates, there are some 200 private houses for U.S. officials, on regular streets located throughout upscale districts of Islamabad.


Pakistani press and bloggers also targeted Craig Davis, an American aid worker, insisting that he's an undercover secret agent. Davis, a contractor to the USAID development arm of the government, is based in the volatile northwestern city of Peshawar, and now appears to be at risk. Last year, another American USAID contractor in Peshawar, Stephen Vance, was gunned down just outside his home.


"In one or two cases these commentators have identified very specific embassy employees as CIA or Blackwater, and that very much puts the employee at danger. In at least one case we're going to have to evacuate the employee," said Patterson, without identifying the individual involved. "What particularly scared us about him is that Stephen Vance, who was the other AID Chief of Party in Peshawar, was of course assassinated a few months ago. So there is a track record here that's sort of alarming."


In recent days, shows on two popular private television channels, Geo and Dunya, which broadcast in the local Urdu language, put up pictures of homes in Islamabad which they claimed were occupied by CIA, FBI, or employees of the controversial Blackwater company of private security contractors, now called Xe Services. Some of the houses were identified with their full address. It is believed that several of the homes weren't occupied by Americans but others were. According to the U.S embassy, bloggers are now calling on people to "kill" the occupants of these houses.


A survey last month for international broadcaster al Jazeera by Gallup Pakistan found that 59 percent of Pakistanis felt the greatest threat to the country was the United States. A separate survey in August by the Pew Research Center, an independent pollster based in Washington, recorded that 64 percent of the Pakistani public regards the U.S. "as an enemy" and only 9 percent believe it to be a partner.


"The Ugly American of the sixties is back in Pakistan and this time with a vengeance," said Mazari, the defense analyst whose newspaper column was the subject of the American complaint. "It's an alliance (U.S.-Pakistan) that's been forced on the country by its corrupt leadership. It's delivering chaos. We should distance ourselves. You can't just hand over the country."


While the anti-US sentiment appears genuine, it is uncertain whether the current storm, and the particular stories that it thrived on, was orchestrated by a pressure group or even an arm of the state. In the past, Pakistan's notorious Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency, part of the military, has very effectively used the press to push its agenda.


The U.S. provided over $11billion in aid to Pakistan since 2001. Yet in recent days, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has complained that too much of the promised new enhanced U.S. aid package would be eaten up in American administrative costs, while President Asif Zardari demanded that multi-billion dollar civilian and military aid money, currently stuck in Congress, be speeded up.


The Pakistani government has repeatedly stated that joining the U.S. "war on terror" has cost the nation an estimated $34 billion and ministers frequently lambast the U.S. for trespassing on Pakistani territory with use of spy planes to target suspected militants — an emotive tacit for the Pakistani population.


Ambassador Patterson said that "the (Pakistani) government could be more helpful" in combating the anti-American controversies, which took on a new fever pitch since the beginning of August.


The weak Islamabad government appears unable to come to the defense of its ally and even tried to score some popularity points by joining the U.S.-baiting.


A widely believed conspiracy contends that America is deliberately destabilizing Pakistan, to bring down a "strong Muslim country", and ultimately seize its nuclear weapons. Pakistanis, especially its military establishment, also are distrustful of U.S. motives in Afghanistan, seeing it as part of a strategy for regional domination. Further Pakistanis are appalled that the regime of Hamid Karzai in Kabul is close to archenemy India.


"Part of the reason why we can't fight terrorism is because the terrorists have adopted what I'd call anti-U.S. imperialist discourse, which makes them more popular," said Ayesha Siddiqa, an analyst and author of Military Inc.


Many also blame the U.S. for "imposing" a president on the country, Zardari, who is deeply disliked and who last year succeeded an unpopular U.S.-backed military dictator. So democrats resent American interference in Pakistani politics, while conservatives distrust American aims in Afghanistan.


"You used to find this anti-Americanism among supporters of religious groups and Right-wing groups," said Ahmed Quraishi, a newspaper columnist and the leading anti-American blogger. "But over the past two to three years, young, educated Pakistanis, people you'd normally expect to be pro-American modernists, and middle class people, are increasingly inclined to anti-Americanism. That's the new phenomenon."


Shah is a McClatchy special correspondent in Pakistan.

Mazari vs. Patterson: Clarifications By Jang Group, Shireen Mazari & PakNationalists

The ambassador of the US in Pakistan has accused a prominent columnist and US critic of endangering the life of a US citizen without providing any evidence to support this claim. The newspaper puts the burden of proof on the columnist. The US ambassador gets away with making a serious allegation without proof. What is wrong with this picture?


The Editorial Board of the Jang Group issued a clarification published today, Sept. 7, reacting to a written complaint by US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W. Patterson that resulted in knocking Dr. Mazari's regular column off the pages of the newspaper for one day last Wednesday, Sept. 3.

The newspaper published the regular column a day later, on Thursday Sept. 4, after back and forth with Dr. Mazari.


The clarification in The News also indirectly referred to a report published at PakNationalists/AhmedQuraishi.com and carried by several websites where the US ambassador's letter to the newspaper was described as 'private'. The paper says it was not 'private'.

It is unfortunate that a letter by the US ambassador, which was not printed or made public and as such can be legitimately misconstrued as an attempt at undue pressure by an envoy of a foreign government, has resulted in a misunderstanding between the esteemed columnist and the respected newspaper, ending a long relationship that goes back almost a decade.

The two- The News International and Dr. Mazari – are especially remembered for the bold decision taken last year by The News, one of Pakistan's largest English-language newspapers, to publish an exclusive report, written by Dr. Mazari, which prevented the Bush administration from quietly appointing an anti-Pakistan US army general as a defense attaché in Islamabad.

The ending of this relationship [Dr. Mazari joins The Nation as editor, columnist and television host as of tonight] must have engendered many smiles at the US embassy in Islamabad. There is a history between Dr. Mazari, a renowned defense expert, and the US mission here. In 2006, the US ambassador at the time reportedly approached Pakistan's Foreign Secretary to request that Dr. Mazari, who was heading a think tank financed by the Pakistan Foreign Office, be asked to stop writing columns critical of US policy in Afghanistan. Mr. Khokhar, according to Dr. Mazari, resisted the pressure. But last year, Dr. Mazari was unceremoniously removed from her post in one of the first few decisions taken by the new elected government. Mr. Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's envoy to Washington and one of America's most vocal Pakistani apologists, personally supervised the move.

The following is the clarification as published in The News International today, followed by the reply sent by Dr. Mazari to the newspaper [also received by us], and then a reply from PakNationalists, written by Ahmed Quraishi.



Clarification by The News


A press conference of Dr. Shireen Mazari was reported in the newspapers of Thursday (September 3) in which it was indicated that The News International had been pressurised by the US Embassy into dropping her article, although it appeared in the same day’s issue. Some websites have also alleged that the US ambassador has written a ‘private’ letter to the Jang Group pressuring that Dr. Mazari’s article be dropped.

We are surprised that someone as familiar with the Jang Group’s editorial policy as Dr. Mazari — an official turned politician and Information Secretary/ Spokesperson of the Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf — should level such unfounded allegations. The facts of the matter are as follows:

* The US ambassador had sent a letter to the Jang Group complaining that in her article published in The News the week before, Dr. Shireen Mazari had levelled certain incorrect allegations that had endangered the life of a US citizen.

* In accordance with our policy, and accepted international norms, we referred the complaint to Dr. Shireen Mazari — for her feedback and comments.

* While this complaint was being investigated, Dr. Mazari sent another article on Tuesday (September 1), which was to be published the next day — that is on Wednesday. In this article she had again levelled certain allegations, which were also without attribution. Since certain contentions in the previous article had been refuted and were under investigation and she had not produced any evidence or reliable reference to prove the same (nor has she been able to do so till date), we reverted to Dr. Mazari and asked if she could substantiate these allegations. The concerned editor also informed her that her article had been referred to the concerned department to make sure that it was not libellous. As it happens, on receiving supporting comments from her, as well as advice from the concerned editor, the article was published the very next day — that is on Thursday.

* It is normal for embassies, political parties and other affected people and institutions to complain against perceived bias and the letter from the US ambassador was in the same vein. She neither asked us in the above letter nor any time in the past to drop articles by Dr. Mazari or by any other contributor holding similar views and writing for many years in The News. The ambassador also did not desire that the letter be kept confidential. While we take all complaints seriously, we allow them to exert no pressure on us or influence editorial policy or decisions. Therefore, at no point did anyone from the management or editorial staff of The News suggest to Dr. Mazari that this, or future, articles by her would not be published.

* We not only publish articles by some of the most respected columnists in the country, but as a matter of policy, give space to people holding strong and diverse opinions. Since years some of the fiercest criticism of US policies has been voiced on the pages of The News. We are sorry that she chose to go public with accusations that have no basis in fact.

Editorial Board - Jang Group



Dr. Mazari's Response


This is the response sent by Dr. Mazari to The News in response to the clarification [as received by us]:

With reference to my press conference on Wednesday, 2 September, I was clearly premature in assuming the newspaper would succumb to US pressure given its past stance on such occasions. So on that count I stand corrected by the paper’s clarification published on 7th September and appreciate the fact that I have not been victimised for my critical stance on US policies.

However, the thrust of my press conference was on multiple efforts by the US embassy to intervene in the media and I had cited my own earlier cases. Now The News has substantiated my position on this issue.

I am glad that The News has referred to US ambassador’s letter in which certain objections were made to one of my columns. My point is that she levelled a serious allegation against me – that of endangering the life of an American citizen. What proof does she have of that from my columns? Did I incite anyone to kill an American? Did I print pictures of the citizen in question? On what grounds did she come to this conclusion? Did The News editorial team ask her for substantiation of what is a serious charge? After all I was asked for so many “proofs”! Here was a foreign emissary levelling a serious allegation against a Pakistani citizen and where was the proof? My columns discuss issues and do not include any form of incitement.

The normal practice that one has seen in newspapers is for embassies to have their objections published which then allows the writer to respond to the allegations. It is strange that the US ambassador chose not to have her objections to my column published so that I could have directly responded to these.

Finally, I simply want to correct one error in The News’s clarification – I was never an “official” – otherwise I would not have been able to write a regular column. I was an academic for 16 years before I headed a research think tank as a researcher/technocrat.

I am presuming again that The News will, in its policy of fair play and equal access to all, publish this response and my appreciation once again of the paper’s ability to withstand all manner of pressures.

Shireen M. Mazari



PakNationalists Comment

Ahmed Quraishi comments:

1. The issue in question is not The News. The issue in question is a letter sent by US ambassador Anne Patterson to a Pakistani newspaper accusing a Pakistani columnist of endangering the life of a US citizen. Since Ms. Patterson provides no proof and does not seek to publish her letter, as is the custom when you dispute a published report, there is a possibility she is intimidating a known critic of US policy into submission.

2. The accepted practice is for politicians or ambassadors to send a letter that is published and then the concerned writer gets a chance to respond or apologize if he or she is wrong. This never happened. Dr. Mazari never saw a copy of the ambassador's letter or was provided proof from her writings that she was endangering the life of a US citizen.

3. US ambassador's serious accusation to Dr. Mazari of threatening a US citizen's life was taken at face value, without supporting evidence, and Dr. Mazari was asked to provide evidence for her opinions that she shapes based on circumstantial and/or factual evidence, which is what all established analysts do.

4. Nowhere in her articles did Dr. Mazari call for violence against any US citizen.

5. The US citizen in question was mentioned in several news mediums before Dr. Mazari referred to him. The US embassy never reacted in public or private to those stories, which were both in print and on television. This is why it is inexplicable why Dr. Mazari was singled out by the US ambassador, beyond the fact that Dr. Mazari is a fierce critic of US policy.

6. Several newspapers published the statements of a retired Pakistani intelligence officer accusing United States of engineering the assassination of Gen. Zia ul Haq. Did any newspaper ask him for evidence before publishing the story, which, according to the US ambassador's logic, endangers the lives of all US diplomats here since it implicates them in the murder of a former Pakistani president and almost the entire leadership of the Pakistan armed forces? It is strange, then, for the US ambassador to demand that Dr. Mazari provide evidence for her opinions and analysis.

7. The US media outlets have spread false alarm worldwide over th