Thought Provoking Piece By Shireen Mazari

The PAF and the Americans certainly tried to create the perfect photo op with the US Viceregal ambassador Ms Patterson and the Air Chief Rao Qamar smiling for the cameras at Jacobabad air base – once Pakistan’s sove-reign territory but now controlled effectively by the US military. All this apparent bonhomie was the delivery of the first three F-16s to the buyer – the Pakistan Air Force from the US manufacturers. The official press release was almost nauseating in the expression of goodwill towards the Americans and the joy the PAF felt at getting these planes. But behind this entire facade, many things are amiss and all concerned Pakistanis should seriously be worried.

To begin with, let us remember that we have paid a hefty price for these planes – $1.4 billion along with another $1.3 billion for the upgrade of our existing fleet of F-16s – the few we did manage to get delivery of and for which we have had to scour the globe for spares since the US refused. Luckily we still have a few gutsy and committed allies! So far only three planes in the new order have been delivered though the official spin is four! Let us hope we get all 18 but the past record is certainly dismal. After all, not only did the US keep our money and refused to give us the planes, the manufacturer had the audacity to charge us parking fees and then all we landed up with was wheat and soya beans – not much to bolster our defences on, but certainly a healthy contribution to the US farmers’ pockets! Why should it be any different this time? So far the US track record has not shown a change for the better – given how they are still holding up our dues in connection with the Coalition Support Fund. That too is not aid but payment for services rendered unquestioningly to US goals by the Pakistani state – and at great cost to the Pakistani nation. So let us hope the Pakistan Air Force has learnt some lessons from the past and built in some cast-iron guarantees but it would be worthwhile for our parliamentarians to demand access to the new F-16 purchase agreement. If there are no firm guarantees of supply, we may be seeing a repeat of our past F-16 history all over again. After all, the deal at the time was also made when we were the frontline state for the US in another war in Afghanistan!

Nor is it just fears of whether we will once again lose our money and end up lining the pockets of some marginalised but politically powerful US lobby such as farmers! A much bigger issue is the terms and conditions which the US insists are attached to the new sales agreement and which our Air Chief denies when he declares that the PAF can use these planes as it sees fit – in other words against any contingency and any enemy. Unfortunately, while expounding on how these new planes will add to the PAF’s capability, the Air Chief focused primarily on the war against “extremists” – something the US also continues to say when explaining the sale of these planes to Pakistan. In fact, the US Assistant Secretary of State, Robert Blake, went especially to New Delhi recently to inform the Indians that the new F-16s will not be used against India. Now how can the US give this assurance unless the Pakistanis have made some foolish commitment in writing to this effect? After all, if there is a conflict with India why would we not want to use our most efficient weapon systems? Have the Indians given any similar commitments vis-à-vis Pakistan in terms of missile defence systems they are acquiring from the US? Of course not! And the US has not assuaged our fears on this count either. Why the Pakistani nation should be concerned is because there have been reports that the US is sending along its own technicians who will ensure that these planes are not used anywhere except against our own people – the “extremists”. TheNation had published this news story (which the US has not denied) and aroused the wrath of the PAF and its PR man who now refuses to answer any questions on the F-16s for us – which he does not seem to realise is his loss not ours!

As it is, according to Indian and US sources, during last month’s Indo-US strategic dialogue the US administration made it clear that the US would deliver the F-16s to Pakistan under tough conditions which including assurances that these planes would not be used in any conflict against India. With the F-16s US Air Force personnel would also arrive and supervise not only the air base where these planes would be deployed but also the operations carried out by the PAF against “Taliban” and “Al-Qaeda” – as if the ordinary inhabitant of the FATA has his political identity displayed on his forehead! According to reports the logistics, management and control of these F-16s would be with US personnel. So why have we paid for these machines if the US will control them? Clearly the PAF needs to prove this is not the case and that can only be done if the actual agreements are made public. After all, this is a lot of our taxpayers money and we have a right to know what deals are being made with it – especially since it involves our security from the external threat.

Under these circumstances, it is also worrying to think that all these fighting machines will be used for bombing our own territories and people – and who will then identify how many “extremists” have been killed and how many innocent civilians. Surely our military should realise that indiscriminate killings merely create more resentment and extremism and the reaction to the drones should be a lesson for the PAF. To fight extremism you need paramilitary forces for law and order and politico-economic strategies for isolating these terrorists from the rest of the population. For $1.4 billion the poor citizens expect a more credible nuclear deterrence and protection against the external threat. To hear the Air Chief, Rao Qamar simply go on and on about adding to the capability for fighting extremists and hardly utter any word about the enhancement of delivery systems against the external enemy was distressing and frankly unacceptable. If the new F-16s are to be used primarily against our own territory and people, then the $1.4 billion would have been better spent in development projects for the FATA which would have given far quicker and better results against extremism. Or are we so fearful of the Americans that we cannot speak plainly about our defence and strategic needs? The symbolism of receiving the planes at Jacobabad air base, which the US military still controls, has not been lost on the rest of us Pakistanis. It seems they are already under US control on Pakistani soil. As if to appease us, the US has given out that it will provide fresh water and other facilities for the local people – but that also means to continue its control of this base – which one was told the US had vacated! Are we Pakistanis so easily purchasable by the US?

Meanwhile, India continues to update its air force with no conditionalities being imposed by any of its foreign suppliers. It is planning to upgrade over 50 of its forward airbases – primarily targeting Pakistan but also China. The Indian Air Chief Naik recently revealed the jointly produced advanced stealth bomber being built with the Russians. It is also planning to buy 126 multirole fighters and has earmarked $11 billion for this purpose. And no one is limiting India’s use of these systems. Only Pakistan falls prey to these debilitating condi-tionalities. Unless some concrete and written texts of agreements are made public, one can sadly say the PAF has once again fallen prey to US diktat for some expensive planes which would truly have acted as a force multiplier within our nuclear deterrence, but which otherwise will become expensive white elephants and only the Pakistani nation will be the victim – once again.

Why China struck N-deal with Pakistan 4 days after Indo-US deal

China signed a deal with Pakistan for building two new nuclear reactors just four days after India and the US formally inked an agreement for implementing their 123 agreement, a pointer to the larger geopolitics behind the deal that has created anxieties in New Delhi  and Washington and a fresh dilemma for the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

The timing of the deal reveals a larger strategic design on the part of China to use its all-weather ally Pakistan to contain the rise of India, and turns the spotlight firmly on Beijing’s determination to defy global rules, if necessary, to create a counter-balance to New Delhi in South Asia.

According to sources in the know, an agreement for the Chashma-3 & Chashma-4 twin projects was signed on Oct 15, 2008, four days after India and the US formally inked their pact in Washington.

China and Pakistan signed a contract for the project on Nov 20, 2008. Another fuel supply guarantee agreement was signed Sep 30, 2009. After firming up various facets of the deal over two years in secrecy without informing the NSG, the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), China Zhongyuan Engineering Corporation (ZEC) and China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) signed an agreement on March 31, 2010,   for the validation of contract for the 340 MW Chashma Nuclear Power Plant’s twin units C-3 & C-4. The deal was made public by Beijing soon after.

China is trying to justify the deal on grounds that these two additional reactors were “grandfathered” under an earlier deal that predates its entry into the NSG in 2004 and has cited Islamabad’s dire energy situation as a pretext for entering into this arrangement.

The argument is specious as China and Pakistan started negotiations over new nuclear reactors four years after it entered the 46-nation NSG. In an oblique reference to the deal, the NSG’s June 21-25 plenary at Christchurch, New Zealand, has rightfully called for consultations and transparency about the deal.

But it will be tough to push it through the NSG, given Pakistan’s dubious proliferation record epitomized by the A.Q. Khan network, says K.  Subrahmanyam, a well-know strategic affairs expert who advised the Indian government on the nuclear deal with the US.

The NSG guidelines currently bar the transfer of atomic technology to countries which have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a reference to India, Pakistan and Israel, the three holdout states against the NPT regime. However, the George Bush administration invested huge political capital to push for a one-time exemption for India, both in the US Congress and in the NSG, citing India’s impeccable non-proliferation record.

During his visit to Pakistan shortly after the landmark visit to New Delhi in March 2006, Bush had told then Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf that India and Pakistan are two different countries with different needs and different histories, thus making it clear that Islamabad couldn’t hope to get a similar nuclear deal from Washington.

The geopolitics of the China-Pakistan nuclear deal goes back to this explicit rejection by the US and a perception in China’s power circles that the deal was designed to contain its rise.This accounts for Beijing’s hostility to the India-US deal right from the time it was struck July 18, 2005,  and manifested itself in the last-minute failed attempt to block the waiver for India at the Sep 4-6, 2008,  NSG special meeting.

At that time, Beijing had couched its opposition in terms of its impact on the global non-proliferation regime and insisted that it should not be discriminatory, a euphemism for a similar deal with its trusted ally Pakistan. Now, Beijing is trying to subvert the same NSG rules in whose name it voiced its reservations over the India-US deal by giving a similar deal, albeit a much smaller one, to Pakistan, say experts.

China, after all, accounts for over 60 percent of Pakistan’s military hardware exports and is the source of cutting-edge fighter jets and missile frigates. In a $6-  billion deal, China is supplying its most advanced home-made combat aircraft, the third-generation J-10 fighter jets to Pakistan.

“The reasons are two-fold: one, Beijing is trying to project itself as a power on a par with the US which can rework global games for a friendly country like the US did for India and, secondly, it wants a piece of global nuclear pie,” says Srikanth Kondapalli, a China expert at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi.

“China does not want to miss out on the burgeoning nuclear business. It is not content to be an importer of civil nuclear technology from countries like France, but it wants to be an exporter of atomic power technology. It’s lucrative business, running into billions of dollars,” Kondapalli told IANS.But the larger target is the rise of India. “China wants a counterweight to the 123 agreement and to a rising India by keeping the latter confined to South Asia,” says Kondapalli.

“In their own ways each is using the other to balance India as India’s disputes with Pakistan keep it preoccupied, failing to attain its potential as a major regional and global player,” says Harsh Pant, a strategic expert at King’s College, London. But there are serious hitches on the way. The deal became public in April shortly before US President Barack Obama convened the Nuclear Security Summit.

It remains to be seen how China plays the NSG over its Pakistan deal if it expects to be seen as a responsible stakeholder in the international system, say experts. A concerned India, meanwhile, has tapped friendly NSG countries to oppose the deal, but has tactfully maintained that such arrangements should be transparent and conform to existing NSG norms.  Source: Indo-Asian News Service

US: a Friend or Foe?

The US has raised objections to the agreement under which China will supply two nuclear reactors to Pakistan. These objections are likely to be eared during the next meeting of Nuclear Supply Group (NSG) scheduled to be held in New Zealand in near future.

US State Department spokesman Gordon DuGuid has already commented: “The US expects Beijing to cooperate with Pakistan in ways consistent with Chinese non-proliferation obligations.” The news leak and remarks by the State Department spokesman seems to be a deliberate attempt to assess reactions of the Chinese and Pakistani authorities. The Chinese stance is quite clear, that the proposed installation of nuclear reactors is part of the agreement that was concluded before 2004 – the year China joined NSG. So the objections likely to be raised by the US do not apply to the agreement.

Pakistan certainly is perplexed as the proposed US objections are giving out signals. On the one hand, Pakistan is a frontline state in war on terror, a non-NATO ally and engaged in a strategic dialogue with the US to smoothen out differences to build a long-term relationship; while on the other hand the US is trying to block the Pak-China nuclear deal that is critical to meet Pakistan’s power needs.

Interestingly, the US has been historically weak vis-à-vis its friends with regard to the question of nuclear proliferation. It clearly underlines a trend in US policy where it has turned a blind eye to the nuclear programmes of its allies or openly embraced those programmes in the name of global and regional security. A manifestation of this policy is the recently concluded US-India civil nuclear deal, which, effectively recognises the nuclear status of India despite its refusal to join the NPT. It is a clear instance of “rule bending” by the US for its friends, a trend detrimental to global non-proliferation regime.

It also raises serious questions about the sincerity of the US desire to see a world free of nuclear weapons. Not only that, India has been facilitated in concluding safeguard agreement with IAEA for Indian civil nuclear reactors at its choice. To further brace its nuclear capabilities, Washington lobbied for country specific concessions for India from NSG. As a result, India has signed lucrative nuclear deals with France, UK and Russia. All these efforts will have long-term repercussions on regional balance of power. Presumably, the efforts are directed at energising India as a counterweight to China in the region. On the other hand, Pakistan which is a nuclear weapon state is easily overlooked.

If we look at the global trend, the use of nuclear energy for power generation is on the increase. According to an estimate, 15 percent of the world electricity is being produced through 436 operational nuclear reactors. Reportedly, another 53 are being installed, out of which nine are in non-nuclear states. Another 130 are planned and 250 are proposed. This clearly shows that the world is opting for nuclear energy to meet its growing need for power. Under such circumstances, if Pakistan having over 30 years of experience in managing nuclear installations wants to pursue its energy needs through nuclear reactors that should be understandable and quite justified.

In spite of all the odds Pakistan has maintained the desired control on its nuclear assets. President Obama, in a press conference on April 28, 2009, had also shown confidence in the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Unfortunate though, on the one hand the US reposes confidence in the security of Pakistan’s nuclear assets, while on the other hand it opts to block the Pak-China nuclear deal, which is self-contradictory. This will greatly hurt the feeling of the people of Pakistan and contribute to turning public opinion against the US.

Written by Alam Rind posted in The Nation

Chinese firms sign nuke reactor deals with Pak despite international outcry

Despite serious objections being raised by both the US and India over China’s offer to help Pakistan build two nuclear reactors, a couple of Chinese companies have already signed contracts with Islamabad in this regard.

The China Nuclear Industry Fifth Construction Company (CNIFCC) and the CNNC China Zhongyuan Engineering Corp, which specialise in foreign nuclear projects, have agreed to work together on the third and fourth reactors at the Chashma nuclear complex in Punjab, said a statement posted on the website of the construction company.

The deal was signed on June 8, said the website- cnfc.net.cn.Meanwhile, Beijing has reiterated that China and Pakistan were working in the spirit of equality and mutual benefit, and that both countries are committed to peaceful use of nuclear energy.“We have been cooperating in this spirit,” The Daily Times quoted the spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry Qin Gang, as saying. Both the US and India had raised concerns over China’s overtures to Pakistan, as they see a high proliferation risk in Pakistan, which has a history of providing ‘illegal’ nuclear know-how’s to countries such as Libya, Iran and North Korea. [ANI]

Gen. McChrystal Sacked for Intelligence Leak

Kabul circles say the dismissal of US commander was over leaking information including NATO’s connection with the executed leader of the Jundallah terrorist group, Abdolmalek Rigi.

Head of Press TV’s office in Kabul, Mohammad Ruhi, says US commander General Stanley McChrystal was sacked for acknowledging NATO’s connection with the executed leader of the Pakistan-based Jundallah terrorist group, Abdolmalek Rigi.

He dismissed the official reasons for the firing of McChrystal, saying his growing friendship with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and intelligence leaks may have triggered the replacement. The move caused a scandal, and a British minister was sacked. In retaliation, London is believed to have released confidential statements by McChrystal to White House officials, paving the way for the commander’s removal from his post.

Ruhi says many insiders also link the decision to the escalating number of US casualties in the war-torn country since the beginning of 2010. “The general opinion is that Petraeus’ reputation as the ‘butcher of Iraq’ is meant to intimidate militants as well as Afghans,”. Furthermore, Karzai’s increasingly vocal protests over the civilian death toll of US and NATO operations and McChrystal’s acknowledgement of mistakes fueled tensions with the US Ambassador to Kabul, Karl Eikenberry.

The friendship between the two also entailed other top intelligence leaks, with McChrystal briefing Karzai on plans to mobilize Taliban militants from the volatile south to the north, Britain’s arms and drug smuggling route from Afghanistan to Central Asia as well as links with the Russian mafia. McChrystal’s remarks to Rolling Stone magazine, in which he mocked a string of top Washington officials, raised speculations about the deepening rift among the echelons of the US government.

Obama picked General David Petraeus on Wednesday to replace McChrystal as the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. The choice of Gen. Petraeus, the architect of the Iraq war surge strategy, to replace Gen. McChrystal, was because he was well known to the Afghans and Pakistanis, and had ties with Washington’s NATO allies. In an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, Gen. McChrystal had described his civilian bosses as “clueless” and called their European allies “wimps.”

In the interview, Gen. McChrystal said he felt betrayed by the US ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, and accused him of undermining the Afghan war by leaking a classified cable back in January.

The general also indirectly criticized the US president, calling him “uncomfortable and intimidated.”

Reported by Presstv.ir

China strongly defends Pakistan, likely to formally announce Pak-China Nuclear Deal in NSG meet

Despite the US voicing serious concerns over China’s offer to help Pakistan set up two nuclear reactors, Beijing is likely go ahead and finance the nuclear project. Beijing is likely to formally announce its plans to build two 650 megawatts nuclear reactors in Punjab’s Chasma region during the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) meeting in New Zealand on June 24 (Thursday) amidst heavy lobbying from India against the project.

According to Chinese experts, one of the main concerns for the international community is that Bejing, like New Delhi, has not inked the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and technically it is not restricted to transfer nuclear technology to any other country.They, however, also pointed out that it is not for the first time that China is helping Pakistan with its nuclear aspirations.

“This is not the first time China has helped Pakistan build nuclear reactors, and since it will be watched by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the deal is not going to have any problems,” The China Daily quoted Zhai Dequan, deputy secretary-general of the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association, as saying.

Zhai also highlighted that Washington would not pressurize Beijing to call-off its plans as it has struck a civil nuclear deal with New Delhi in 2008, which saw the NSG making exemptions for the deal.

“Pakistan is also fighting a war on terror for the US as well as for itself, and the country’s loss is greater than the US and the other 42 coalition nations combined. The economic aid it has received is too little compared to its loss. Pakistan has an urgent need for more civil energy and that need should be looked after,” he added.

The Sino-Pakistan nuclear deal is not likely to attract strong opposition, but NSG members still do not want to see the transaction go forward, said Mark Hibbs, nuclear policy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Policy in Washington. Hibbs believes that the US-India deal had set a precedent. Posted in PKKH

Source: Pakistan Ideology

Nawaz

Islam Talks About Riba – Interest – Usury

Mainly there are two Economic theories in practice in the world at present, namely;

1) Capitalism

2) Socialism.

1)   In most of the countries, including nearly all Islamic states of the world, the economic system is based on capitalism. The basic principle is private ownership and is called free economy i.e. Laissez Faire. Whatever an individual earns is sole owner of it, spends or saves and the savings become capital for earning interest or profit by investing this surplus.

2)  Socialism as opposed to capitalism rests on the theory of collective effort. All earnings and incomes belong to the society, which in turns looks after the needs of the citizens. The principle is get from according to ability and give according to needs. USSR till recently, China and North Korea and some S American countries have this system of various degrees. In this system a worker has no initiative or incentive left to improve his or the society lot. He just becomes a cog in the big machine.

All the Muslim countries are confused because on one hand the narrow micro definition of Interest (Riba) tortures them religiously of taking interest (eating Haram) and on the other, lure of un-imaginable amount of interest money coming into their coffers has to be justified one way the other. Here the so called Sharia and Fiqah laws come to their rescues.

All these efforts and schemes of Islamic Banking operating in Islamic countries are in disguise to make Interest, usury a haram into halal product. In a sense these schemes try to remove the guilt of haram earning from the conscious of Muslims. I would say old wine in new bottles or papering the cracks in the wall. The other noteworthy thing is that even European countries are devising interest free investment schemes to attract billions of petro dollars into their banks. They in turn give to World Bank, IMF, Asian Development Bank who then gives to 3rd World in AID with stringent conditions. A vicious circle indeed!    There is much drumming up of Interest free banking but why there is no Islamic Insurance company. The short term or long term speculation of commodities buying and selling (hoarding to sell at exorbitant prices in time of scarcity also is haram) but all Muslims, good or bad all turn their eyes the other way.

Mudarbha –Profit sharing and Musharka – Equity sharing all fall into haram category according to Quranic ideology.

You want to start a business and I lend you £100. After a year you pay me £110 including £10 as interest. This extra £10 as interest is haram. I give you £100 as a sleeping partner. After a year of your sweated labour I share half of your profit ( profit may be 100%) without any guilt. And according to the man-made shariah it is halal. What a diabolical thing, is it not.

Quranic Economic System:

Quran considers man composed of two things 1) Physical and 2) Spiritual

Like all animals Man is also an animal. His needs are exactly as like other animals, i.e. Eating, drinking, sleeping, procreation, preservation of Self and death.

But man is endowed with another Divine Energy called Spiritual life (Rooh) which other animals have not. This is also called FREE WILL. Other animals have no free will. A lion has to eat meat by killing. He will not eat grass even though he is dying of hunger. A hen chick will not rush to water after hatching but a duck chick will. Here man’s intellect tells him that after satisfying his hunger he has to save for his next meal whereas any other animal after filling its belly will not care to snatch, hoard for his next meal.

According to Quranic philosophy man’s physical body develops by taking like any other animal but his Spirit (Rooh), Self develops, matures by giving to others.

This is done by Anfaq Fi Sabeel-illah.  Before a fully Islamic system is in force during its transitory period,Quran asks Muslims to give sadaqats, Infaaq, helping the needy relatives, the poor, destitute, wayfarers.  Gradually a stage comes when Muslims are asked to surrender to the State what is surplus to their needs. They will be rewarded in return Paradise (9:111)

When there will be no surplus left with the individuals, earning interest etc will be out of question. At that stage taking interest will be construed as war against the Islamic state. ( Rasool & Allah)

Quran wants to establish a just Islamic society based on immutable permanent values enshrined in the holy Quran in stages. It educates its adherents (Muslims) believing in its ideology gradually taking them away from the un- Islamic way of life to Ad-deen al-Islam..

Stage 1. Individual Appeal. People are exhorted to help the poor, the needy and helping the state in emergency, war, famine etc. See for details Quranic verses 2:215 69:34-35;  76:8-10; 89:17-20; 90:11-16 .It asks to forsake any due from the borrower “2:280, 2:282; 18:32-44; 68:17-33. Property, inheritance rules were meant to avoid wealth concentrated in few hands; 2:180; 5:106 etc

Stage 2: In the 2nd stage Rasool ( central Govt ) is commanded to collect sadaqaat himself ( 9: 60, 9:103).  Also Allah says give credit to Him (57:18; 73:20),  2:195, 47:38  64:15-17 in return paradise; a life of bliss.

Quran provides a directive that deals with the issue of wealth absolutely and permanently. It states in 2:219 that all that is surplus to your needs should be spent for the benefit of others. Give priority to others 59:9

The Quran says that Eeta-e-Zakaat (provision of sustenance for whole mankind) will be done only by those who believe in the Hereafter 27:P3; 31;4 but who do not believe in Hereafter cannot provide Zakkat (41:7)

Just as with other system, this system cannot be established with today’s traditional Islam ( a by product of Abbasid of hereditary monarchy) which is itself based on capitalism.

To get an overall picture of Islam withy above quoted verses see also 91:7, 76:3; 29:64; 59:964:1618:1002:272; 6:151,

Remember: for example wherever Allah Almighty says He does this for you, provides you and your children 6:151, 11:6 17:31 it means that a Muslim state takes this responsibility on behalf of Allah to establish a Quranic economic system to provide all basic necessities of life and equal opportunities for growth and development to all its citizens irrespective of caste, religion, race, colour even to animals.

I have been short in explanation unlike the writer Mohammed Arif of Malaya who perhaps wrote the 17 pages article for his PhD. Maqbool Farhat

Dr. Abdul Kadeer Khan – Aik Din Geo Kay Sath

Geo’s Sohail Waraich did an episode with Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan in Aik Din Geo Kay Sath. I have to acknowledge it was a sad program. The authorities did not allow the program to be recorded inside his home. As a result, Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan left the house, went to Kohsar Market Islamabad and recorded the program sitting on a foothpath (yes a foothpath).

Even more sad was how he expressed his feelings. He said the intention in giving Pakistan nuclear bomb was to give pakistan a deterrent so that Pakistan could better focus on strengthening its core issues of education, economy etc. He said he did this to prevent another 71 mishap with Pakistan. He said he knows the psychology of Hindus because he has lived with them and they will always try to damage and hurt Pakistan whenever they get a slightest chance, that is why he wanted to make Pakistan stronger.

He also said after what has happened with him he has vowed never to give another solution for Pakistan and its problems. Regrettably, he said his biggest regret has been working for Pakistani nation.

Now, perhaps, it is a moment of realization for us as a nation. Are we truly respecting and rewarding our heroes, like they expect and they deserve? I believe, this hero of Pakistan has a great grudge in his heart and he is really heart broken, undoubtedly we at individual and national level need to question ourselves. Lets raise our voice and love for him. Lets not let him die regretting working for Pakistan and Pakistani nation.

Source: PKKH

China, Pakistan Pledge to Strengthen Defense Ties

Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie (R), also a state councilor, shakes hands with visiting Pakistani Chief of Army Staff Ashfaq Parvez Kayani in Beijing, China, June 17, 2010. (Xinhua/Ding Lin

China and Pakistan pledged to strengthen defense ties Thursday at a meeting between Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie and visiting Pakistani Chief of Army Staff Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. “Cooperation between the Chinese and Pakistani armed forces is exemplary and has been fruitful,” Liang, also a state councilor, said during the meeting at the Diaoyutai Guest House Thursday morning.

Liang said the two sides should make continuous efforts to conduct their cooperation programs well. He said China would join hands with Pakistan to bring military relations to a new high. Kayani said Pakistan values its defense and security cooperation with China, noting that the two countries have cooperated fruitfully in national defense industries in recent years.

He added Pakistan would further strengthen exchange and cooperation with China. Kayani will also meet with Chinese State Councilor and Minister for Public Security Meng Jianzhu, top Chinese legislator Wu Bangguo, and Vice Chairman of China’s Central Military Commission Guo Boxiong later Thursday.

ISI on Taliban’s Board of Directors, What About Indian Airforce Molestor Deported From Israel?

A music teacher masturbated and forced his female student to have sex with him. This happened inside the South Florida Hindu Temple for four years. The student is 14 now and testified in court on Tuesday. Semen splatter has been found by the police inside the Hindu temple.

When the girl’s family tried to go public with this, the Indian community forced them to keep the scandal under wraps, shunning the girl and her family.  If this was a case involving a Pakistani, even if there was a hint of Pakistani involvement, like maybe the Indian music teacher traveled to Karachi en route to the Himalayas, this news would have been on CNN, Fox and BBC. But since it involves an Indian, the US media will give it a pass. This is not an issue of religion. Deviants are found in all religions. It’s an issue of how the Am-Brit media selectively treats stories that impact government’s foreign policy priorities.

For example, in keeping with the official Washington policy of elevating India as a future power, the Am-Brit media won’t cover the story of an Australian preacher burned alive with his two young boys by an Indian religious mob. But when the professors of London School of Economics decide to become Inspector Gadgets and release a ridiculous ‘I-hate-you’ report against ISI and the Pakistani military, it is accorded maximum space by the Am-Brit news media because it simply suits current Am-Brit policies.

So you can get away with a lot these days if you’re an Indian offender facing the Am-Brit media [a.k.a. the “international media”].

Take for example the case of the Indian Air Force officer deported by Israel last year for molesting a 6-year-old. I consider myself a new junkie and I have plenty of junkies like me in our PakNationalists team who scour the news as a hobby and yet I never heard of this story until today.

While the Am-Brit media pushed this news under the rug, the Indian Express covered the story and linked it to the reports of Indian peacekeepers in Africa found involved in child prostitution:

“This is the first time that an official from the IAF has been charged with attempting to abuse a child during a foreign posting. In the past, soldiers from the Indian Army posted at a peacekeeping mission in Congo have been investigated and found guilty for child abuse by the United Nations. A UN report revealed last year indicted Indian Peacekeepers posted in Congo for child abuse and paying minor Congolese girls in North Kivu for sex in 2007 and earlier this year.”

But the story that takes the cake for how the Am-Brit news media is totally motivated and often passes biases for analysis and news is the following story. When 69 Pakistanis were burned alive aboard the so-called Peace Train as it traveled through India, BBC’s Jill McGivering, like most Am-Brit corresponds, pinned the blame on Pakistan and Kashmiri freedom groups.

Read these two fascinating paragraphs written by Ms. McGivering:

“The prime suspects might be groups such as Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, the main Islamic militant groups who have been blamed for many high-profile bombings. Recent attacks on Delhi, Mumbai and Varanasi, for example, seemed designed to damage India’s image abroad and stoke anti-Pakistan feeling inside India. But the fact that so many of the dead on the train were Pakistani Muslims may indicate that the devices were intended for a different target, or exploded prematurely.”

Even in her analysis, BBC’s Ms. McGivering was convinced that the perpetrators were Pakistanis and that the high number of dead Pakistanis was probably a blunder on the part of the attackers who aimed at ‘a different target’ like maybe Hindu Indians.

Of course, in 2008, three serving Indian military intelligence officers were arrested and charged with planning and executing the terrorist act. A Hindu terror group was also indicted as having helped the three Indian officers.

But did the BBC or Ms. McGivering apologize for their wrong information and wrong analysis?

No.

Did the BBC and the rest of the Am-Brit media highlight the nexus between Indian intelligence and Hindu terror groups?
No.

POSTED AT AHMED QURAISHI’S THE LOUNGE