Your Pakistan

Long Live Pakistan, God Bless Pakistan – Latest News Updates

In Judges We Trust In Pakistan

Posted by yourpakistan on September 6, 2020

An acquittal exposed the whole judiciary

Because of my poor eyesight and arthritic fingers, I am dictating this article to my 13-year-old granddaughter, Zara, who is a super child and will hopefully continue the family tradition of writing truth without fear. I am grateful to the magistrate for throwing out the suo motu case. Atiqa Odho won admirably, and Iftikhar Chaudhry lost ignominiously. This is going to be an article written in anger, but it must come out, for the sake of the record if for nothing else.

I am glad that Atiqa Odho won her spurious case because it proved what I have been saying for long: that Pakistan has an extremely wanting judiciary and largely mediocre judges. Judges being mediocre is natural, because good lawyers earn so much that the salary and benefits of a judge are petty cash for them. Mediocre lawyers become judges of the superior judiciary and the briefless lawyers become magistrates. No wonder that hundreds of cases, indeed thousands, are pending at every level while many accused cool their heels in prison, undergoing endless mental torture, along with their families and friends. Waiting upon the judges and the broken judiciary, they spend more time in prison undergoing mental torture and more time than they would have if they had been found guilty.

So it was with Atiqa Odho, who spent nine long years awaiting judgment on a completely spurious case and in the meantime undergoing mental torture, opprobrium and loss of income, amongst others, while her mother and children went through hell for this issue to be decided. Had she not been a celebrity, she would have likely spent this time in prison. During this period, some eleven or twelve judges were changed, so the case would have to start all over again every time. What a joke.

What was the case? Nothing. Trivial. The former Chief Justice of Pakistan, who has mercifully retired, decided to institute a suo motu case against her for allegedly carrying two bottles of alcohol in her luggage from Islamabad to Karachi. Had there really been two bottles, they would probably have consumed them by now. Anyway, an admirable magistrate finally acquitted her for lack of evidence. It was the self same Iftikhar Chaudhry that forced airport customs to register a complaint against her, but when asked to produce evidence, obviously they could not, nor could they produce any credible witnesses. And so the charade went on, for 11 years, doing her incalculable unnecessary damage.

Meanwhile, Iftikhar Chaudhry continued on his destructive spree. He took many suo motu notices on even more spurious cases, like the price of samosas and the car park fee people take at Karachi Airport, lowering the price in the first case and increasing it the second. Is this the job of a Chief Justice? In Iftikhar Chaudhry’s world view, triviality is. Meantime, he did the judiciary and Pakistan incalculable damage. Is he going to pay the price for this? Is he going to compensate Atiqa Odho for 11 wasted years and her suffering? Such people ought to be consigned to the trashcan of history where they belong.

This is not all. Iftikhar Chaudhry ratified the first Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) when General Musharraf took over but rejected the second PCO. In the first instance, he accepted the PCO to save his job; in the second he rejected it to get his job back. It was one of Musharraf’s big mistakes to appoint him Chief Justice.

Iftikhar Chaudhry the spurious judge, who loved spurious cases, allegedly indulged in corruption, using his son as a shield. Nothing new there, because our corrupt leaders also use their children as shields to escape charges of corruption. His son allegedly took a huge amount of money and benefits from a real estate builder, but in actuality, was it the father who was being paid off? Would the builder even have given a cup of tea to the forgettable son if his father was not the Chief Justice? The case became so big, that it went to the Supreme Court, which to its abiding shame, put it on ice, with Iftikhar Chaudhry leading the bench for a time and then leaving it.

Why did Iftikhar Chaudhry institute this case against Atiqa Odho? One cannot be sure of the intent. Could it be that she was so famous and some of the fame would rub off on him? Can’t rule it out. But I believe that the real reason was that she had joined President Musharraf’s political party. He had it in for him because Musharraf had thrown him and other judges of his ilk out of the judiciary, but in the end, with the help of equally wanting lawyers, civil society and many confused people, he got reinstated. These people thought that they were fighting for the principle of an independent judiciary. But they didn’t stop to think, that the person who they were fighting for, was the symbol of a runaway, man-eating judiciary who would damage it woefully. Their real purpose was to get President Musharraf and that they did do. Not long after, their victory turned around to bite them; the health of many declined when they realised what they had done.

Victor Hugo described this class of people admirably in Les Miserables as:

“That…class formed of low people who have risen, and intelligent people who have fallen, which lies between the classes called middle and lower, and which unites some of the faults of the latter with nearly all the vices of the former, without possessing the generous impulses of the workman, or the respectability of the bourgeoisie. They were of those dwarfish natures, which, if perchance heated by some sullen fire, easily become monstrous…”

In our country, unfortunately, class is measured by wealth, and in Pakistan, if you are wealthy, no matter how you acquired that wealth, you are placed in the top class. By that measure, Iftikhar Chaudhry should rejoice in the upper class. I would not disgrace the lower class by including him in it. I pray that we will never see the likes of him again.

By Humayun Gauhar
Humayun Gauhar is a veteran columnist in Pakistan
and editor of Blue Chip magazine.

Posted in Pakistan News | Leave a Comment »

Slavery Everywhere: BY Humayun Gauhar

Posted by yourpakistan on August 31, 2020

Slavery became peonage
Slavery was ended in the United States in 1866, one year after the Thirteenth Amendment. But the states of Alabama, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia, Missouri, Florida, Tennessee and South Carolina found a way around it. It was called ‘peonage,’ from which the British introduced the word, ‘peon’ as an office boy in the sub-continent and the word is still used in some places in India and Pakistan. Peonage meant that arrested Blacks could be leased out to work for White men who could then use them for all kinds of work as they did the slaves. To enable this, they established ‘laws’ known as Black Codes. For example, in Louisiana, it was illegal for a Black man to preach to a Black congregation without obtaining permission from the police. If they were caught, they could be arrested and fined. And if they could not pay the fine, which needless to say was stupendously high, the Black man was forced to work for an individual or go to jail where he would work until his debt was paid off.

An unemployed Black person, he or she, could be arrested and imprisoned for vagrancy and loitering. It was worse in South Carolina where if the parent of a Black child was considered a vagrant, the judicial system allowed the police or some other government agency to “apprentice” the child to an “employer.” Black men could be held until they were 21 and females until they were 18. Their so-called owner had the right to inflict punishment on the child even for disobedience and to recapture them if he or she ran away. Peonage is systemic racism. It was established and perpetrated by government systems. Such acts of racism were inbuilt into the systems hence systemic racism. So peonage meant the re-enslavement of Blacks through the prison system and at one time, more than 800,000 Blacks were part of the peonage system. It ended around 1940. What enabled it was the wording of the Thirteenth Amendment which said that, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States…” What hypocrisy! Thus the smallest of transgressions was made into a crime. Once again, this is peonage. Because every white Southern farmer hated the ending of slavery, Black courts were introduced as a way to appease them.

“Jahalat abounds in this Islamic Republic of Pakistan from the highest levels of government down to the ‘peon’ as it were. You see it all the time and can only lament. In their ignorance, they also violate some of the fundamental human rights which are universal”

I submit that slavery and peonage are still embedded in Man’s DNA. We have been going on about US slavery for the last two or three articles, but lest we start gloating, we should remember that everyone is a victim of it in one way or another. Slavery was actually started by the Arabs and is also referred to in the Holy Quran but not called an ‘abomination.’ The first slaves in Africa were captured by Arabs and because the British were then the global overlords, they took them and sold them to White Americans. The Arabs even brought slavery to the Indian subcontinent. The first slaves were brought and sold by an Arab raider, Mohammad bin Qasim to Sind, then in British India. He converted many people to Islam, whom he called ‘Momins,’ which means ‘true believer.’ This is from where the word ‘Memon’ comes from. The graves of his soldiers can still be found in a place called Makli, near Karachi.

In human crimes against people continuing to this day, a few days ago, a woman in Pakistan was stoned to death by her husband and his brother, because she was somehow violating the law of ‘vani’ which is a family against whom something is proved to a village court and the punishment is to hand over one or more girls regardless of how old they are to the so-called victim. Another local law is the exchange of women as wives which is called ‘karo kari.’ In Islam, no one especially a girl, can be forced into marriage by anyone except by choice. And the most horrible practice of all is so called ‘honor killing’ which should more aptly be called ‘dishonor killing’ in which even the mother and father of the victim participate. What kind of mindset is that?

Sadly, such practices exist everywhere. In Indian villages, ‘satti’ or wife burning on the husband’s funeral pyre still occurs. Such things are pre-Stone Age. What can one say? I suspect that even cannibalism exists in certain parts of God’s world.

Actually, one of the main purposes of life is to gather knowledge and shun ignorance. Ignorance is a sin of one of the worst kinds. One of the fundamental human rights in Islam is that every person should be able to develop his or her mind to the fullest and it is the duty of the State to provide the wherewithal for that, and yet in this Islamic republic of ours, we have customs and even laws which would make even people from the Age of Ignorance, which is called ‘jahiliya,’ blush. The pre-Islamic era is called jahiliya and from there stems the word jahalat which means ‘ignorance,’ though I am assured by people who claim to know better that even the jahiliya was an age of the flourishing of arts and culture.

The point is that jahalat abounds in this Islamic Republic of Pakistan from the highest levels of government down to the ‘peon’ as it were. You see it all the time and can only lament. In their ignorance, they also violate some of the fundamental human rights which are universal.

Thomas Jefferson was a great political mind. But he was also a slave owner. So today the debate rages in the USA whether his memorabilia should be removed. We should all remember that human beings are products of their time and what is considered terrible today by society was considered acceptable then.

About The Writer:
Humayun Gauhar is a veteran columnist in Pakistan and editor of Blue Chip magazine

Posted in Pakistan News | Leave a Comment »

Liberals and the CIA: A Love Story

Posted by yourpakistan on November 1, 2019

There is an excellent segment by Jimmy Dore on how #liberals trust the #CIA and regurgitate CIA talking points. This is not surprising since for 2 consecutive years, the Oscars nominated and awarded CIA-backed and #AlQaeda affiliated “civil workers” aka #WhiteHelmets.

The White Helmets openly collaborated and shared spaces with various Al Qaeda and ISIS affiliates backed by the West and their theocratic, dictatorial allies in the Middle East and West Asia. Notice how the White Helmets were curiously absent when the Syrian Kurds were recently attacked by NATO Turkey using Al Qaeda aka “FSA” militants.

This is just like Pakistani liberals supporting Musharraf, Imran Khan and Nawaz Sharif and spouting the talking points of our intelligence agencies. We know that happened as well when “activists” like #JibranNasir deflect and misdirect the “work” of our agencies onto easy targets like the PPP which is itself under attack. just recently, Jibran himself was given a shut up call by his handlers when his mike was interrupted. Of course, we have seen that Jibran is an opportunist who will revert back to his dis-ingenuousness.

The biggest tell of the dishonesty of this liberal class is their propensity for easy targets, low hanging fruit. This is because these liberals are ultimately spineless hypocrites who cannot take a stand. But love to lecture others.

This segment (shared in the comments section due to algorithmic censorship) is typical Jimmy Dore. A lot of hard hitting truths declared in his typically entertaining and profane style.


Posted in 1, Pakistan News, USA, India, Pakistan, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Terrorism, Terrorists, Army Operation, War On Terror | Leave a Comment »

The Indian Occupied Kashmir Issue Explained

Posted by yourpakistan on October 22, 2019

Over the past seven decades, around 1.5 billion people are facing an uncertain crisis of Kashmir that has affected them with multiple wars, economic slowdown, and social issues.

This single yet significant issue has seen several ups and downs in coming very close to be resolved at times or through the military stand-off of two nuclear-armed nations.

While Pakistan has attempted to get this crucial issue resolved according to the UN resolutions over the past seven decades, India always finds an excuse to run away from its resolve through dialogue.

After the world war II, with the newly emerging geopolitical factors, it was certain that the British have to leave the sub-continent pertaining to the internal situation of the sub-continent and the depleting influence of the British around the world. The major political parties of then British India, Indian National Congress (INC) and All-India Muslim League (AIML) also sensed the fast-approaching opportunity of freedom from the British.

Both parties were eager to benefit from the situation and forced Britain to leave the sub-continent at the earliest with Muslims eyeing on getting an independent state and Hindus wanting one India.

After a few years of world war, the Indian Independence Act of 1947 was finally passed by the British parliament and guiding principles were issued to decide the fate of 565 princely states of British India.

Overall the act argued that the states with Muslim-majority population will join Pakistan and non-Muslim majority states will join India. This was accepted at large by all the concerned parties but few states which have Muslim or non-Muslim majority population with different rulers posed a problem. Out of these, Kashmir (75% Muslim population), Junagadh and Hyderabad states were prominent.

Obviously, both INC and AIML eyed on the Kashmir due to its strategic benefits to whomever the state accede to. Whoever controlled Kashmir would have the liberty to control most of the river water flowing in the two countries. Apart from water resources, it was imperative for Pakistan to use Kashmir to have access to China in the North and for India, it was imperative to have land access to Central Asia or Soviets in the West which will eventually assist its expansionist plans in the future undermining Pakistan’s interest.

When the Boundary Commission had announced its final plan on 15th August 1947 the newly born Pakistan’s leadership was surprised by the unjust accession of Gurdaspur – the Muslim majority district and the only land route connecting India to Kashmir – to India instead of Pakistan.

This showed the partiality of the crown of England in treating both newly born countries.

As a newly born country with no cash reserves or military hardware – which were held up by India at the time – it became extremely difficult for Pakistan to take any concrete step on Kashmir.

At the same time, Junagadh state (non-Muslim majority state with a Muslim ruler) acceded to Pakistan posing a threat to the Indian union. Nehru and Lord Mountbatten decided to forcefully take the state under the Indian government and a seige (both land and sea) of Junagadh took place by the Indian forces under the orders of Lord Mountbatten and support of Nehru.

This event gave birth to the armed conflict which we see in Kashmir today as India by putting Junagadh under seige lost any moral claim of preventing Pakistan from doing the same in Kashmir.

The volunteer fighters from the West Punjab (Pakistan) and the then NWFP (now KPK) went to Kashmir in order to fight the Indian occupation. Indian military headed mostly by British officers under the orders of Lord Mountbatten had been sent to Kashmir to stop the freedom fighters of Kashmir. In 1948, Pakistan Army also headed by British officers joined the freedom struggle and a stalemate situation arose and on 1st January, 1949 a ceasefire agreement took place between Pakistan and India.

The first-ever UN resolution on Kashmir was passed on January 5, 1949, which gave the rights to Kashmiri people to decided their future of accession or independence through a referendum under neutral UN observers.

To date, after more than 70 years, the UN has failed to implement its own resolution on Kashmir. Since then Pakistan and India have fought multiple wars on Kashmir and it has become a sting in the relations of two countries.

Over 70 years, both the countries have seen ups and downs in solving the issue whether through dialogue, international pressure or wars but no conclusive results could be seen.

Now with the one-sided breach of the UN resolutions on 5th August 2019 by the same party – India – who went to UN for a possible plebiscite, the issue has once again been stirred up. The removal of Article 370 which gave the special status has been rejected by Kashmiris of Indian occupied Kashmir and also by Pakistan and Azad Jammu & Kashmir.

Recently at UNGA session, prime minister of Pakistan Imran Khan has apprised the world of the sensitivity of the issue and rightly warned about the irresponsible behavior of India in the region by taking a unanimous decision on the critical dispute that has already caused bloodshed in the sub-continent.

Now with both countries having nuclear weapons, a little miscalculation can lead to an irrecoverable disaster that every country in the world should stop.

Prime Minister Imran Khan, in his UN General Assembly Speech, rightly pointed out that the world should look over economic interests to resolve this human conflict which has endangered a whole population living under India’s oppressive rule for years.

Posted in 1, Pakistan News, USA, India, Pakistan, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Terrorism, Terrorists, Army Operation, War On Terror | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Is Saudi Arabia Pulling Pakistan Into War With Iran?

Posted by yourpakistan on October 19, 2019

For years, the Pakistani government has avoided taking sides between rivals Iran and Saudi Arabia, but now it may be forced to choose. Pakistan is in dire need of financial support and the Saudis have the means to help. Will Pakistan accept the strings attached to Saudi generosity?

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) has viewed Asia as part of “Saudi Arabia’s vision for the future.” His trip across Asia this month had a short-term goal as well: repairing a public image badly damaged by the Yemen war and the gruesome murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

MBS went first to South Asia, a region that has been Iran’s refuge. Thanks to US and international sanctions over the past forty years aimed at isolating Iran, Tehran has gravitated toward South Asia. The renewal of US sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program has pushed Iran further in that direction.

Within South Asia, MBS chose Pakistan as his first stop. This country neighbors Iran in the volatile Baluchistan region. For decades, Baluchistan has been prone to insurgencies on both sides of the Iran-Pakistan border. In fact, just days before MBS’s trip to Pakistan, a suicide bombing near the city of Khash killed at least twenty-seven members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Iran charges that the Trump administration and Saudi Arabia are supporting armed opposition groups at a time when the Iranian government is already facing dissatisfaction over inflation, unemployment, and other economic woes.

Pakistan, although not subject to the sort of draconian sanctions that throttle Iran, is also in poor economic condition. Islamabad has struggled to obtain financial relief from the International Monetary Fund, has seen Washington reduce its aid because of its failure to rein in terrorist groups, and may be getting too costly for its main foreign benefactor, China. So Prime Minister Imran Khan had no other choice but to turn to Saudis. He has already traveled twice to Saudi Arabia since becoming prime minister last August. He made his first visit at a time when the Saudis were under heavy international criticism over the Khashoggi killing.

The high point of MBS’s trip was his unusually warm welcome in Islamabad. Days before his arrival, banners commemorating the fortieth anniversary of the Iranian revolution—which touted the “long and historic friendship between Iran and Pakistan”—were replaced with placards welcoming the Saudi crown prince. This is somewhat ironic, given that Khan and his Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) party fiercely opposed Pakistani participation in the Yemen war. PTI also opposed the appointment of retired Pakistani General Raheel Sharif to lead a Saudi-based Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (IMAFT), arguing that this group could negatively impact the Shia-Sunni divide in Pakistan. PTI also expressed concern that it could affect Pakistan’s relations with Iran, Russia and Turkey.

Despite Pakistan’s refusal to send troops to Yemen, MBS pledged $20 billion investment in Pakistan.

It seems Pakistan expects Iran to understand the difficult financial position in which Islamabad finds itself. Iran’s ambassador to Pakistan stated recently that any investments by Arab states in Pakistan is Islamabad’s internal issue and Iran respects Pakistan’s sovereignty. However, Iran’s understanding and patience are wearing thin, due to the Baluch insurgency, which Iranians increasingly believe is based in Pakistan. Iran has accused Arab Persian Gulf states of supporting insurgencies in its border regions, including Baluchistan, and believes that at the very least elements within the Pakistani government are ignoring the repeated infiltration of lead a Saudi-based Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (IMAFT), arguing that this group could negatively impact the Shia-Sunni divide in Pakistan. PTI also expressed concern that it could affect Pakistan’s relations with Iran, Russia and Turkey.

Despite Pakistan’s refusal to send troops to Yemen, MBS pledged $20 billion investment in Pakistan. It seems Pakistan expects Iran to understand the difficult financial position in which Islamabad finds itself. Iran’s ambassador to Pakistan stated recently that any investments by Arab states in Pakistan is Islamabad’s internal issue and Iran respects Pakistan’s sovereignty. However, Iran’s understanding and patience are wearing thin, due to the Baluch insurgency, which Iranians increasingly believe is based in Pakistan. Iran has accused Arab Persian Gulf states of supporting insurgencies in its border regions, including Baluchistan, and believes that at the very least elements within the Pakistani government are ignoring the repeated infiltration of Baluch insurgents into Iran from the Pakistani side of the border.

Baluchis, who are Sunni Muslims, struggle with poverty and economic hardship, and have long experienced broad discrimination which has left them vulnerable to radicalization. Many also turn to smuggling and drug trafficking and the Iran-Pakistan border has become a major route for illicit commerce. Baluchistan has been home to armed insurgent groups including Jundullah and Jaish al-Adl. Both have carried out a number of attacks on the Revolutionary Guards as well as civilians. The leader of Jundullah, Abdul-Malik Rigi, was executed by Iran in 2010.

Instead of investing in Sistan and Baluchistan province and involving religious and local leaders in the fight against insurgencies, the Iranian military and the IRGC have militarized the region. The Iranian government has generally blamed every attack in the province on foreign-backed Wahhabi-Salafi groups ignoring its own responsibility for the rise of insurgencies through discriminatory policies.

Could Iran retaliate by supporting Baluchi insurgents in Pakistan? Perhaps. Neither Tehran nor Islamabad has overtly tried to use the Baluch insurgency to destabilize the other, but if the Iranians believe Pakistan is doing so now they may attempt to retaliate in kind. This would inflame the region further. The degree to which the Iranian government is willing to tolerate Khan’s coziness with the Saudis may depend on the extent of Islamabad’s cooperation with Iran in fighting these Baluch insurgents.

It’s noteworthy that former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who was considered one of the most pro-Saudi leaders in Islamabad, left the decision to deploy Pakistan’s troops in Yemen to parliament, where it was unanimously rejected. He did so even though the Pakistani constitution gives the prime minister the authority to deploy troops. Now, people close to Khan claim there are no strings attached to new Saudi loans and investments. In fact, the Saudis recently made a couple of additional gestures toward Pakistan, releasing thousands of Pakistani prisoners who had been jailed in the kingdom for minor crimes and increasing Pakistan’s Haj quota to 200,000 from 184,000.

The issue of concern to many Pakistanis is that these Saudi investments are not necessarily being made in response to Pakistan’s needs but in response to MBS’s political crisis. Pakistan needs money and MBS needs international approval. There has been some resistance to these investments in Gwadar port in Pakistan. Some farmers and fishermen in the region have expressed concern over planned projects in Baluchistan, fearing it could prejudice their future livelihood. A planned refinery may also face local opposition.

Pakistan has tried to keep a balance in relations with Iran and its rivals. When Sharif—who resided for many years in Saudi Arabia—became prime minister, many expected a down turning Iran-Pakistan relations. In fact, Sharif neither strengthened nor weakened these ties. It would be surprising if his successor damaged them now.

Pakistani officials say that the Saudis have no hidden agenda. It would pose a dilemma for Khan if there were, and if it had to do with Iran. Pakistan could be asked again to play a role in Yemen, for example. Islamabad did send troops to guard the Saudi-Yemeni border and a year ago, agreed to send additional forces there. Iran will be watching to see if Pakistan’s military involvement with the Saudis expands or if Pakistan sends troops into Yemen itself. Such a move would be damaging to Khan’s government as well, since the Yemen war is not popular in Pakistan, whose population is as much as 20 percent Shia Muslim.

Fatemeh Aman is a nonresident senior fellow in the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center. Follow her on Twitter @FatemehAman.

Posted in 1, Pakistan News, USA, India, Pakistan, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Terrorism, Terrorists, Army Operation, War On Terror | Leave a Comment »

اداریہ تعمیر پاکستان بلاگ : کیا ہم پاکستانی مسلمان منافق ہیں؟

Posted by yourpakistan on October 17, 2019

یوزی لینڈ میں مارے گئے تو مسلمان ۔ پاکستان میں مارے گئے تو صرف پاکستانی ۔
نیوزی لینڈ میں مارنے والا آسٹریلین ۔ پاکستان میں مارنے والا صرف دہشتگرد ۔
نیوزی لینڈ میں مارے گئے تو اسلئے کیونکہ مذہب اسلام تھا ۔ پاکستان میں مارے گئے تو مذہب کی بات نہ کرو ۔

جنرلائزیشن ہمارے ہاں ہی کیوں ہوتی ہے ؟

پاکستان میں بھی جو مارے جاتے ہیں ، وہ اسلئے نہیں کہ وہ پاکستانی ہوتے ہیں ۔بلکہ اسلئے کہ وہ مسلمان ہوتے ہیں یا انکا یک خاص مسلک ہوتا ہے ۔ عقیدہ ہوتا ہے ۔
پاکستان میں بھی جو مارنے والا ہوتا ہے وہ ایک شناخت رکھتا ہے : دیوبندی تکفیری وہابی ۔ بالکل وہسے جیسے نیوزی لینڈ حملے کے دہشتگردوں کی شناخت ہے ۔

نیوزی لینڈ دہشتگردی کا واقعہ نہایت درد ناک ہے اور ہمارے لئے سبق بھی ۔ عموما اس قسم کے واقعات کیبعد پتہ چلتا ہے کہ حملہ آور ، معصوم لوگوں کو مسلمان ہونے کی سزا دے رہے تھے اور داعش کا غصہ ان پر نکال رہے تھے ۔ جبکہ عام مسلمانوں کا داعش سے کوئی تعلق نہیں ہے اور اس تفریق کا واضح ہونا بہت ضروری ہے

اسی طرح پاکستان میں تکفیری دہشتگردوں کو عوام سے الگ رکھنا ، انکی تشخیص کرنا بہت ضروری ہے نہ کہ یہ کہ انہیں سیاست و روز مرہ زندگی میں سپیس دی جائے ۔ آج آپ سپیس دیں ، کل کو انکی وجہ سے پورے ملک کو دہشتگرد سمجھا جائیگا ، بلکہ سمجھا جا رہا ہے ۔

Posted in 1, Pakistan News | Leave a Comment »

فرقہ پرست، نام نہاد جہادی، شریفیان و نیازیان اور کمرشل لبرل آخری تجزیے میں قلم فروش/تقریر فروش نکلتے ہیں – ریاض ملک

Posted by yourpakistan on October 14, 2019

پاکستان میں ‘شریفوں’ کو مزاحمت کی علامت بناکر پیش کرنے والے لبرل سیکشن کو نواز شریف سے پوچھنے کی ضرورت تو بنتی ہے کہ وہ اس اردوگان کے ساتھ پیار کی پینگیں کیوں ڈالے رہے جو آج سیکولر کردوں پر بم برسا رہا ہے۔

اردوگان کی قیادت میں ترکی نے مغربی ایشیا کے خطے میں انتہائی تباہ کن کردار ادا کیا ہے۔ اردوگان کا تازہ کارنامہ یہ ہے کہ وہ شام میں کردوں کے لیے قصائی بن چکا ہے۔ شامی کردوں سے بہتر کون اس بات سے واقف ہوگا امریکہ، اسرائیل اور سعودی عرب نے ہی ان کو شام کے خلاف استعمال کیا۔

پاکستان میں جعلی غازی اور کاغڈی شیروں میں ہمیشہ سے اردوگان جیسے جدید عثمانیوں کے لیے غیر معمولی عقیدت کی نفسیات موجود رہی ہے۔ یہ نسفیات محض عمران خان تک محدود نہیں ہے بلکہ خاندان شریفیہ کے اندر بھی یہ بہت اندر تک اپنی جڑیں رکھتی ہے۔

نواز اور شہباز دونوں شریفوں نے کرپشن کے ٹرکش ماڈل کی نقل کی- اس ماڈل نے خود نمائی کے لیے بنائے گئے منصوبوں پر قیمتی غیر ملکی زرمبادلہ خرچ کرنے کی ریت ڈالی جن میں بھاری کرپشن اور کمیشن کے بے پناہ مواقع میسر آتے رہے۔

شریفوں نے ککس بیکس ، کرپشن اور عوام میں سستی مقبولیت کے منصوبوں کے نظام کو مکمل طور پر رواج دیا۔ اس کرپشن کو استعمال کرتے ہوئے، انھوں نے حکومتی فنڈز کے ایک بڑے حصّے کو ناجائز طور پر میڈیا میں اپنی پروجیکشن اور اپنے مدمقابل قوتوں کی کردار کشی کے لیے استعمال کیا۔ پی پی پی ان کا سب سے بڑا نشانہ تھی۔

نواز شریف کی سب سے اہم میڈیا انوسمٹمنٹ/سرمایہ کاری عرف لفافہ جرنلزم جنگ/جیو اور ڈان میڈیا گرپوں جیسے بڑے میڈیا گروپوں میں کارپوریٹ ہرکاروں کو خریدنے میں صرف ہوئی۔ اس لفافہ جرنلزم کے لیے نواز شریف اینڈ کو نے حکومتی فنڈز اور اپنی ناجائز زرایع سے حاصل کی ہوئی بھاری بھر کم دولت کا کچھ حصّہ ڈان اور جنگ /جیو جیسے بڑے گروپوں میں اپنے ہرکاروں کو نوازنے میں صرف کیا۔

اقربا پروری، درباریوں کو نوازنے اور بدعنوانی یہ ایسی مشترکہ اقدار ہیں جو ہمیں شریفوں، نیازیوں اور اردگانیوں میں مشترک نظر آتی ہیں۔

پاکستان کا ایک لیفٹ اور لبرل سیکشن جس کے ڈارلنگ نواز شریف ہیں کو آج نواز شریف سے یہ ضرور پوچھنے کی ضرورت ہے کہ ان کا محبوب اور ہر دلعزیز صدر اردوگان سیکولر- لیفٹ کردوں پر بمباری کیوں کررہا ہے

Posted in Pakistan News, War On Terror | Leave a Comment »

Failed States by Noam Chomsky: Is This Relevant Today With Pakistan?

Posted by yourpakistan on October 10, 2019

Since the birth of mankind abuse of power or exercise of power from micro to macro level is evident. Whether its a ruling elite of any country using it on their own population or global elites are using it on weaken countries to use them as PAWNS. 

Sugar coated pills are immensely available for the commoners of the world in many ways but more widely given via electronic media and if it doesn’t work then they have corrupt leaders of targeted countries to make them swallow. However Noam Chomsky in his own words described it with more horrific articulation. Below is a synopsis of his book FAILED STATES, which is fairly enough to open up readers eyes….

‘Though the concept is recognized to be ‘frustratingly imprecise,’ some of the primary characteristics of failed states can be identified. One is their inability or unwillingness to protest their citizens from violence and perhaps even destruction. Another is their tendency to regard themselves as beyond the reach of domestic or international law, and hence free to carry out aggression and violence.’ (1-2)

‘Among the hardest tasks that anyone can undertake, and one of the most important, is to look honestly in the mirror.’ (2)

‘Half a century ago, in July 1955, Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein issued an extraordinary appeal to the people of the world, asking them ‘to set aside’ the strong feelings they have about many issues and to consider themselves ‘only as members of a biological species which has a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire.’ The choice facing the world is ‘stark and dreadful and inescapable: shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?’ ’ (3)

Alexis de Tocqueville’s observation that the United States was able ‘to exterminate the Indian race…without violating a single great principle or morality in the eyes of the world.’ ’ (4)

‘One clear illustration is Washington’s terrorist war against Nicaragua in the 1980s, an uncontroversial case, at least for those who believe that the International Court of Justice and the UN Security Council – both of which condemned the United States – have some standing on such matters.’ (5)

‘Bush I pardoned Orlando Bosch, a notorious international terrorist and associate of Posada [terrorist], despite objections by the Justice Department, which urged that he be deported as a treat to national security.’ (6)

‘Recent global polls reveal that France is ‘most widely seen as having a positive influence in the world,’ alongside Europe generally and China , while ‘the countries most widely viewed as having a negative influence are the US and Russia .’ But again there is a simple explanation. The polls just show that the world is wrong.’ (7)

‘Of the countries polled, Mexico is among those ‘most negative’ about the US role in the world.’ (8)

‘They discovered that the world was ‘one word away’ from the use of a nuclear weapon since Nagasaki, as reported by Thomas Blanton of the National Security Archive, which helped organize the conference. He was referring to the intervention of a Russian submarine commander, Vasily Arkhpov, who countermanded an order to fire nuclear-armed torpedoes when his vessels were under attack by US destroyers, with consequences that could have been dreadful.’ (8)

‘Steinbruner and Gallagher express hope that the threat the US government is posing to its own population and the world will be countered by a coalition of peace-loving nations – led by China! We have come to a pretty pass when such thoughts are expressed at the heart of the establishment. And what that implies about the state of American democracy – where the issues scarcely even enter the electoral arena or public discussion – is no less shocking and threatening, illustrating the democratic deficit mentioned in the preface. Steinbruner and Gallagher bring upChina because of all the nuclear states it ‘has maintained by far the most restrained pattern of military deployment.’ Furthermore, China has led efforts in the United Nations to preserve outer space for peaceful purposes, in conflict with the United States , which, along with Israel , has barred all moves to prevent an arms race in space.’ (9-10)

‘In 2004, the United States accounted for 95 percent of total global military space expenditures, but others may join if compelled to do so, vastly increasing the risks to everyone. US analysts recognize that current Pentagon programs ‘can be interpreted as a significant move by the United States toward weaponization of space [and that] there seems little doubt that space-basing of weapons is an accepted aspect of Air Force transformation planning,’ developments that ‘are in the long term very likely to have a negative effect on the national security of the United States.’ ’ (12)

‘Former NATO planner Michael MccGwire reminds us that in 1986, recognizing the ‘dreadful logic’ of nuclear weapons, Mikhail Gorbachev called for their total elimination, a proposal that foundered on Reagan’s militarization of space programs (‘Star Wars’).’ (13)

‘Reagan and associates also looked away politely while their Pakistani ally was developing nuclear weapons, annually endorsing the pretense that Pakistan was not doing so.’ (16)

‘The only threat remotely comparable to use of nuclear weapons is the serious danger of environmental catastrophe.’ (16)

‘It is important to stress government. The standard observation that the United States stood almost alone in rejecting the Kyoto protocols is correct only if the phrase ‘Unites States’ excludes its population, which strongly favors the Kyoto pact.’ (18)

‘The NIC [National Intelligence Council] also predicted that, as a result of the invasion, this new globalized network of ‘diffuse Islamic extremist groups’ would spread its operations elsewhere to defend Muslim lands from attack by ‘infidel invaders,’ with Iraq replacing Afghanistan as a training ground.’ (18)

‘This number fell to 61 percent by 2002 and plummeted to 15 percent after the invasion of Iraq, with 80 percent of Indonesians saying they feared an attack by the United States.’ (19)

‘In its review of the London bombings, Britain’s MI5 internal security service concluded that ‘though they have a range of aspirations and ‘causes,’ Iraq is a dominant issue for a range of extremist groups and individuals in the UK and Europe,’ while some who have traveled to Iraq to fight ‘may later return to the UK and consider mounting attacks here.’ ’ (20)

‘Reports by an Israeli think tank and Saudi intelligence concluded that ‘the vast majority’ of foreign fighters in Iraq ‘are not former terrorists’ but ‘became radicalized by the war itself,’ stimulated by the invasion to respond ‘to calls to defend their fellow Muslims from ‘crusaders’ and ‘infidels’ ’ who are mounting ‘an attack on the Muslim religion and Arab culture.’ A study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) found that ’85 percent of Saudi militants who went to Iraq were not on any government watch list, al-Qaeda members, or terrorist sympathizers’ but were ‘radicalized almost exclusively by the Coalition invasion.’ ’ (20)

‘Between 1980 and 2003, there were 315 suicide attacks worldwide, initially for the most part by the secular Tamil Tigers. Since the US invasion, estimates of suicide bombings in Iraq (where such attacks were virtually unknown before) range as high as 400.’ (21)

‘Robert Pape, who has done the most extensive studies of suicide bombers, writes that ‘Al Qaeda is today less a product of Islamic fundamentalism than of a simple strategic goal: to compel the United States and its Western allies to withdraw combat forces from the Arabian Peninsula and other Muslim countries,’ as Osama bin laden repeatedly declares.’ (22)

‘In the most extensive scholarly inquiry into Islamic militancy, Fawaz Gerges concludes that after 9/11, ‘the dominant response to Al Qaeda in the Muslim world was very hostile,’ specifically among jihadis, who regarded it as a dangerous extremist fringe. Instead of recognizing that opposition to Al Qaeda offered Washington ‘the most effective way to drive a nail into its coffin’ by finding ‘intelligent means to nourish and support the internal forces that were opposed to militant ideologies like the bin Laden network,’ the Bush administration did exactly what bin Laden hoped it would do: resort to violence.’ (22)

‘Unless enemies can be completely crushed, violence tends to engender violence in response.’ (23)

‘In January 2005, Senate majority leader Bill Frist justified the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that ‘dangerous weapons proliferation must be stopped. Terrorist organizations must be destroyed.’ It is apparently irrelevant that the pretexts have been officially abandoned and that the invasion has increased terrorist threats and accelerated the proliferation of dangerous weapons.’ (25)

‘British Middle East scholar Toby Dodge observed that ‘the documents show…that the case of weapons of mass destruction was based on thin intelligence and was used to inflate the evidence to the level of mendacity.’ ’ (26)

‘Seeking to provoke Iraq into some action that could be portrayed as a casus belli, London and Washington renewed their bombing of Iraqi targets in May 2002, with a sharp increase in September 2002. In the nine months leading up to the official start of the war in March 2003, US and UK planes flew almost 22,000 sorties, hitting 391 ‘carefully selected targets,’ noted Lieutenant General Michael Mosely, commander of the joint operations.’ (26)

‘By a 2-1 margin, the US population favors an Israel Accountability Act, holding Israel accountable for development of WMDs and human rights abuses in the occupied territories.’ (31)

‘In April 2004, OFAC informed Congress that of its 120 employees, four were tracking the finances of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, while almost two dozen were enforcing the illegal embargo against Cuba.’ (33)
– ‘In order to kidnap a terror suspect in Italy and send him to Egypt for probable torture, the Bush administration disrupted a major inquiry into the suspect’s role in ‘trying to build a terror recruitment network’ and ‘build a jihadist recrtuiment network with tentacles spreading throughout Europe.’ Italian courts indicted thirteen CIA operatives, and Italians are furious.’ (34)

‘A Spanish court issued international arrest warrants and extradition orders for American soldiers accused of killing a Spanish reported in Iraq, along with a Ukranian cameraman. The Spanish court acted ‘after two requests to US authorities for permission to question the soldiers went unanswered, court officials said.’ ’ (34)

‘Gonzales further advised President Bush to effectively rescind the Geneva Conventions, which, despite being ‘the supreme law of the land’ and the foundation of contemporary international law, contained provisions Gonzales determined to be ‘quaint’ and ‘obsolete.’ ’ (40)

‘The United States, ‘in conjunction with key allies’ – presumably the United Kingdom – is running an ‘invisible’ network of prisons and detection centers into which thousands of suspects have disappeared without trace since the ‘war on terror’ began,’ writes British journalist and terrorism suspect Jason Burke, including a Soviet-era compound in eastern Europe (Dana Priest). Their fate is unknown but not hard to guess. In addition, unknown numbers of suspects have been sent by ‘rendition’ to countries where torture is virtually guaranteed.’ (41)

‘Reviewing subsequent presidential decisions, Paust finds violations of the Geneva Conventions and the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal, all war crimes, as well as flagrant violations of the US Constitution.’ (42)

‘The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the OAS requested in March 2002 that the United States ‘take the urgent measures necessary to have the legal status of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay determined by a competent Tribunal,’ meaning the ICRC. Washington dismissed the request on grounds that it has no binding commitment dismissed the request on grounds that it has no binding commitment to accept the commission’s decisions. Perhaps with this in mind, a year later, the OAS for the first time voted to exclude the United States from membership in the Inter-American Commission, ‘a symbolic rebuff – to show our disapproval of US policies,’ a Latin American diplomat in Washington observed.’ (44)

‘There should be no need to waste time on the claim that the Separation Wall is motivated by security concerns. Were that the case, the wall would be built on the Green Line, the wall would be built on the Green Line, the international border recognized by the entire world, with the exception of Israel and the United States.’ (45-46)

‘In November 2004, US occupation forces launched their second major attack on the city of Falluja . The press reported major war crimes instantly, with approval. The attack began with a bombing campaign intended to drive out all but the adult male population; men ages fifteen to forty-five who attempted to flee Falluja were turned back…[One journalist] described the fate of the victims of these bombing attacks in which sometimes whole families, including pregnant women and babies, unable to flee, along with many others, were killed because the attackers who ordered their flight had cordoned off the city, closing the exit roads.’ (46)

‘After several weeks of bombing, the United States began its ground attack in Falluja. It opened with the conquest of the Falluja General Hospital. The front-page story in the New York Timesreported that ‘patients and hospital employees were rushed out of rooms by armed soldiers and ordered to sit or lie on the floor while troops tied their hands behind their backs.’ An accompanying photograph depicted the scene. It was presented as a meritorious achievement. ‘The offensive also shut down what officers said was a propaganda weapon for the militants:Falluja General Hospital , with its stream of reports of civilian casualties.’ ’ (47)

‘Conflict’ is a common euphemism for US aggression.’ (47)

Some relevant documents passed unmentioned, perhaps because they too are considered quaint and obsolete: for example, the provision of the Geneva Conventions stating that ‘fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.’ Thus the front page of the world’s leading newspaper was cheerfully depicting war crimes.’ (48)

‘The media accounts of the assault were not uniform. Qatar-based Al-Jazeera, the most important news channel in the Arab world, was harshly criticized by high US officials for having ‘emphasized civilian casualties’ during the destruction of Falluja. The problem of independent media was later resolved when the channel was kicked out of Iraq in preparation for free elections. Turning beyond the US mainstream, we discover also that ‘Dr. Sami al-Jumaili described how US warplanes bombed the Central Health Center in which he was working,’ killing thirty-five patients and twenty-four staff. His report was confirmed by an Iraqi reporter for Reuters and the BBC, and by Dr. Eiman al-Ani of Falluja General Hospital, who said that the entire health center, which he reached shortly after the attack, had collapsed on the patients. The attacking forces said that the report was ‘unsubstantiated.’ In another gross violation of international humanitarian law, even minimum decency, the US military denied the Iraqi Red Crescent access to Falluja.’ (48-49)

‘The ruined city of 250,000 was now ‘devoid of electricity, running water, schools or commerce,’ under a strict curfew, and ‘conspicuously occupied’ by the invaders who had just demolished it.’ (49)

‘The UN Special Reporter on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, accused US and British troops in Iraq of ‘breaching international law by depriving civilians of food and water in besieged cities as they try to flush out militants’ in Falluja and other cities attacked in subsequent months. US-led forces ‘cut off or restricted food and water to encourage residents to flee before assaults,’ he informed the international press, ‘using hunger and deprivation of water as a weapon of war against the civilian population, [in] flagrant violation,’ of the Geneva Conventions. The US public was largely spared the news.’ (50)

‘The new constitution, the Wall Street Journal notes, has ‘far deeper Islamic underpinnings than Iraq’s last one, a half century ago, which was based on [secular] French civil law,’ and had granted women ‘nearly equal rights’ with men. All of this has now been reversed under the US occupation.’ (51)

‘Additional effects of the invasion include the decline of the median incomes of Iraqis, from $255 in 2003 to about $144 in 2004, as well as ‘significant countrywide shortages of rice, sugar, milk, and infant formula,’ according to the UN World Food Program.’ (53)

‘Acute malnutrition doubled within sixteen months of the occupation of Iraq, to the level of Burundi, well above Haiti or Uganda, a figure that ‘translates to roughly 400,000 Iraqi children suffering from ‘wasting,’ a condition characterized by chronic diarrhea and dangerous deficiencies of protein.’ ’ (53)

‘In the only poll (to my knowledge) in which [Americans] were asked to estimate the number of Vietnamese deaths, the mean estimate was 100,000, about 5 percent of the official figure.’ (54)

‘The second murderous regime was the US-UK sanctions (for doctrinal reasons, called ‘UN sanctions,’ though it is common knowledge that the UN administered them under US pressure). But these are off the agenda because they may have caused more deaths than ‘all so-called weapons of mass destruction throughout history,’ two hawkish military specialists estimate, surely hundreds of thousands. Summarizing a rich body of evidence, one of the best-informed American correspondents writes that after ‘the terrible years of the U.N. sanctions…incomes had dropped to one-fifth of pre-war [1990] levels, infant mortality had doubled, and only a majority of Iraqis had access to clean water.’ Furthermore, half of all sewage treatment tanks were still inoperable after having been destroyed along with power supplies by the US and UK bombing in 1991, which ‘unleashed epidemics of typhoid and cholera.’ Education and literacy collapsed, and growing numbers of Iraqis were reduced to ‘a semi-starvation diet,’ showing symptoms ‘usually seen only in famines,’ leading to a tripling of the death rate by 2003, according to UNICEF.’ (56-57)
– ‘The sanctions were bitterly condemned by leading Iraqi opposition figures. Kamil Mahdi wrote that the United States was ‘in effect acting to stain and paralyze all opposition to the present regime’ and had ‘given a discredited and moribund regime a new lease of life.’ ’ (57)

‘It was quickly shown that though there doubtless was UN corruption, most of the missing $20 billion consisted of illegal US-approved sales of oil to its allies Turkey and Jordan. The bulk of illegal transactions, according to the report of Charles A. Duelfer, the top US inspector in Iraq, consisted of ‘government to government agreements’ between Iraq and other countries, primarilyJordan (‘the key to Iraq’s financial survival,’ according to the report) and Turkey. All of these transactions took place outside the UN’s oil-for-food program, and all were authorized by the UN Security Council, that is, by Washington.’ (58)

‘Investigations by the Financial Times found that ‘the Clinton and Bush administrations not only know but told the US Congress that Iraq was smuggling oil to Turkey and Jordan,’ and that they recommended ‘turning a blind eye to it.’ The reason was that the illegal sales were ‘in the ‘national interest,’ ’ since Jordan is an important US client state, and support for Turkey, long a major US base for regional control, promotes ‘security, prosperity and other vital interests.’ ’ (59)

Washington’s abrupt withdrawal from the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations after the World Court ruled against the United States in the cases of fifty-one Mexicans who had been sentenced to death after the United States had violated their right to consult with officials from a Mexican consulate.’ (67)

‘The Vienna Convention was proposed by the United States in 1963 and ratified in 1969. The United States was the first country to invoke it before the World Court, successfully, in its suit against Iraq after the 1979 hostage taking.’ (67-68)

‘Contrary to what others mistakenly believe, it was quite inappropriate for Washington to refuse to pay its UN dues from the Reagan years until 2001, when Washington changed course because it then needed international support… Nor does it matter that the US share of UN dues has always been below a rate that would accurately reflect US economic strength.’ (68)

‘The famed ‘American exceptionalism’ merits some skepticism; the image of righteous exceptionalism appears to be close to universal. Also close to universal is the responsibility of the educated classes to endorse with due solemnity the sincerity of the high-minded principles proclaimed by leaders, on the basis of no evidence apart from their declarations, though it is often conceded that their actions systematically refute their noble visions.’ (105)

‘We then face a puzzling paradox, which is miraculously resolved in the United States by proclaiming a sudden ‘change of course’ – an event that takes place every few years, effacing inappropriate history as we march on to a glorious future. One of its constant themes is the dedication to bring justice and freedom to a suffering world, recently resurrected as the driving passion for ‘democracy promotion’.’ (105)

‘By the end of the millennium, ‘total [US] military and police assistance in the hemisphere exceeded economic and social aid.’ This is a ‘new phenomenon,’ the analysts point out: ‘even at the height f the Cold Ware, economic aid far exceeded military aid.’ Predictably, the policies ‘strengthened military forces at the expense of civilian authorities, …exacerbated human rights problems and generated significant social conflict and even political instability.’ ’ (107)

‘In September 1989, just as the Berlin Wall was about to crumble, Bush I redeclared the ‘war on drugs’ with a huge government-media propaganda campaign. It went into effect right in time to justify the invasion of Panama to kidnap a thug who was convicted in Florida for crimes committed mostly when he was on the CIA payroll – and, incidentally, killing unknown numbers of poor people in the bombarded slums, thousands according to the victims.’ (107)

‘Washington backed the installation of Europe’s first postwar fascist government in Greece in 1967 continuing its support until the dictatorship was overthrown in 1974.’ (116)

‘In 1948, George Kennan, head of the State Department Policy Planning Staff, warned that if Indonesia fell under ‘Communism,’ it could be an ‘infection [that] would sweep westward’ through all of South Asia. For such reasons, Kennan held, ‘the problem of Indonesia [is] the most crucial issue of the moment in our struggle with the Kremlin’ – which had little to do withIndonesia, apart from serving to create misimpressions. The threat of a ‘Communist Indonesia’ was sufficiently severe for the Eisenhower administration to support a military rebellion, primarily out of fear and democracy: what scholarship calls a ‘part of the poor’ was gaining too much political support for comfort. The threat of democracy was not overcome until the 1965 Suharto coup and the huge slaughter that immediately followed, establishing one of the most brutal regimes of the late twentieth century. There was no further concern about democracy, or about awesome human rights violations and war crimes. Suharto remained ‘our kind of guy,’ as the Clinton administration described him.’ (117)

‘Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy railed about ‘internal aggression’ and an ‘assault from the inside…manipulated from the North.’ By the North, they meant the northern half of Vietnam, divided by the United States after it undermined the 1954 international agreement on unification and elections (which, it recognized, would have come out the wrong way).’ (117)

‘The public and internal record until Kennedy’s assassination in November 1963 reveals no hint of departure from his insistence that the United States must stay the course until victory was achieved over ‘the assault from the inside.’ After the war became highly unpopular in the late 1960s, particularly after the 1968 Vietnamese Tet offensive turned elite sectors against the war, memoirists radically revised their accounts, while they and others produced ‘recollections’ to support the doctrinally more acceptable view that Kennedy and others were secret does. Very secret. There is no credible trace of it in the record.’ (118)

‘The real reasons for the US assault on Indochina are conventional. Washington feared that an independent Vietnam might be a virus infecting others, perhaps even resource-rich Indonesia, and eventually Japan – the ‘superdomino,’ as Asia historian John Dower termed it – to accommodate to an independent Asian mainland, becoming its industrial center.’ (119)

‘The virus was destroyed by demolishing Indochina. The broader region was then inoculated by the establishment of harsh military dictatorships in the countries susceptible to infection.Indonesia was protected by the ‘staggering mass slaughter’ of 1965, a ‘gleam of light in Asia,’ the New York Times exulted. The reaction captured the undisguised Western euphoria over the outcome of the massacre of hundreds of thousands of people, mostly landless peasants, and the destruction of the only mass-based political party, the Indonesian Communist Party, as the country was opened up to free Western exploitation by crimes that the CIA compared to those of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.’ (119)

‘During World War II, Joseph Stalin became an ally, the beloved ‘Uncle Joe,’ as Russia first endured and then beat back the Nazi wave. ‘It cannot be overemphasized,’ historian Omer Bartov writes, ‘that however criminal and odious Stalin’s regime surely was, without the Red Army and its horrendous blood sacrifice, the Wehrmacht would not have been defeated and Nazism would have remained a fact in Europe for many generations.’ Roosevelt scholar Warren Kimball concludes that ‘when military assessments pointed out that only the Red Army could achieve a victory over Hitler in a land war, aid to the Soviet Union became a presidential priority’ on the assumption that the Russian army would grind Germany down and keep US soldiers out of a land war.Roosevelt’s strategy was for the United States to be the reserves, he confided privately.’ (121-122)

‘In the early stages of the war, Harry Truman’s view was simple: ‘if we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany and that way let them kill as many as possible.’ ’ (122)
– ‘The basic continuity of policy was illustrated again when the Soviet Union collapsed, offering new opportunities along with the need for new misimpressions. The assault on Cuba was intensified, but reframed: it was no longer defense against the Russians, but rather Washington’s sincere dedication to democracy that required strangulation of Cuba and US-based terror.’ (125)

‘Asked why they thought the United States invaded Iraq, 1 percent felt that the goal was to bring democracy and 5 percent that the goal was ‘to assist the Iraqi people’ Most of the rest assumed that the goal was to take control of Iraq’s resources and to reorganize the Middle East in US and Israeli interests.’ (131)


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

MQM Survival Isn’t a Matter of Choice between Alftan

Posted by yourpakistan on May 9, 2015

Loosening a Party’s Grip on Karachi, a Pakistani City Known for Violence

Hours before he was scheduled to be executed last month, the Pakistani hit man made an incendiary accusation.

Speaking into a video camera at a remote desert jail, Saulat Mirza, a death-row convict from the port city of Karachi, said his orders to kill had come from Altaf Hussain, the city’s most powerful and, until recently, untouchable political leader.

MQM & Altaf Hussain

“Altaf Hussain directly gave us the murder instructions,” Mr. Mirza said in footage that was broadcast on several television news channels later that evening in March.

It was enough to earn Mr. Mirza a last-minute reprieve, as the authorities investigated his claims. Mr. Hussain, for his part, called it a conspiracy to damage his image.

But in Karachi, Pakistan’s largest and most volatile city, the accusations were seen as further evidence that the political winds were violently shifting against Mr. Hussain after decades of iron-fisted dominance.

In the last month, the civilian and military authorities, led by the Sindh Rangers paramilitary force, have begun an unparalleled assault on his authority and the network of armed street enforcers that underpins it. Mr. Hussain has been living in self-imposed exile in London for nearly a quarter-century.

On March 11, Rangers in balaclavas raided Nine Zero, the fortified headquarters of Mr. Hussain’s party, the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, confiscating weapons and files. One political worker was killed by gunfire during the raid, and several others were taken into custody, some on murder charges. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in 1, Pakistan News, USA, India, Pakistan, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Terrorism, Terrorists, Army Operation, War On Terror | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Pakistan: Are They Our Leader Or Criminals?

Posted by yourpakistan on February 22, 2015

Criminals of Pakistan

By Mahboob A. Khawaja, PhD. (Opinion Maker)

Leaders with No accountability and No Shame

Pakistan is in ruins. The nation and its imagery, law and justice, commerce, thinking hubs, political governance all appear dysfunctional and self-contradictory. Eroding freedom of thoughts and action speaks of missing accountability of political elite. The nation is fast becoming victim of a US planned blue-print being used in Iraq. Vengeful sectarian killings and dismantling of economic, political and moral infrastructures to incapacitate the nation by its own sadistic rulers. All fighting against all to end the very existence by collective madness. The paid Pakistani political and security agents are instrumental in carrying out heinous crimes. Increasingly and without any logical redress, common citizens are the targeted aim of the political cruelty. No wonder, once conditions favorable to cruelty are established, it spreads like frightening wildfire. The governance demonstrates dead-ended political conscience of the interest of the people. After decade-old American entrapment in the bogus war on terrorism, the country has lost the energies and capacity to deal with any major problems of security and national unity. The foreign agenda is focused on breaking the moral and spiritual lifelines of the Pakistani nation by its own agents of influence. There are no brave and proactive politicians to stop the continuing political stagnation. The nation faces colossal disaster day in and day out but nobody is held accountable for the crimes. The Generals are convenient spectators and Nawaz Sharif is happy, the herd is politically manageable to complete his inherently fraudulent term of office as prime minister.

Pakistani Leaders Are MenaceDaily blood baths of civilians go unabated adding to statistical record for lack of adequate security. The latest cold blooded murder of 55 innocent people at Wagha border and 100 or so injured adds nothing new to grieving citizens belief that Pakistan is governed by most inept, incompetent and corrupt people ever witnessed by an informed nation. No politicians assume responsibility for the protection and safeguard of life and property of ordinary Pakistanis. There is obvious disconnect between the people and the political rulers constantly hated and feared by the masses. The conflicting time zones are widening in which ordinary people suffer versus the ruling elite breathe as daily civilian casualties continued to rise because of the Taliban attacks and targeted massacres of the ordinary citizens. Who is a failure and who should be held accountability? Is the Pakistani security apparatus so incompetent and ill equipped that it cannot ensure public safety? Given the lack of accountability and lack of shame, there is nothing to prevent these political criminals from repeating their crimes. So the killings of the innocent civilians go unabated. Strange as is, opposition activists raising voices against the Sharif regime are conveniently arrested and jailed but not the Sharif brethren who kill the citizens at random and implement planned massacres. Those facilitating crimes against the people occupy positions of political leadership and even law and justice cannot question them – abetted by the political class, committed the greatest heist in history.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in 1, Pakistan News, USA, India, Pakistan, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Terrorism, Terrorists, Army Operation, War On Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »