Taliban kill Jaspal Singh and the mullahs keep mum. A time to humanise Islam

— by Ishtiaq Ahmed

March 2nd, 2010Sarah KhanLeave a commentGo to comments

Photo Source: BBC Urdu

A time to humanise Islam

There is a screaming silence from the custodians of Islam — the ulema — on the execution of Jaspal Singh, probably because he was not a Muslim. The Muslim masses have not taken to the streets in protest because they have been conditioned to protest only when something is perceived to be anti-Islam

The barbaric, appalling beheading of Jaspal Singh — one of the three Sikhs who were taken hostage by the Taliban — has shocked decent, peace-loving people all over the world. Two versions are in circulation. One that their families failed to pay the huge ransom that the Taliban thugs had demanded; two, that the ransom was paid but the Taliban insisted that the Sikhs convert to Islam, which they refused. In both cases there is absolutely no justification for the savage treatment meted out to Jaspal Singh.

Many Sikhs, totally shattered by what has happened, have written to me to find out if this is Islam. They even wondered why we keep talking of Islam as a religion of peace. I must say I have run out of arguments but would still like to believe that Islam can also develop its humanism like all other cultures or religions have been compelled to consider by the march of time. I will come to this issue later but first a few words about Muslim attitudes and reactions are in place.

It is important to stress that Sikhs and Hindus had been living among the Pakhtuns in peace and harmony all these years until the Taliban gained ascendance in Afghan politics and later also in the tribal belt and some other parts of the NWFP. Except for the murderous rioting of 1947, the overwhelming evidence from undivided Punjab was that the religious communities lived in peace and mutual toleration if not exactly total acceptance because of all the dogma involved. Therefore, we do have evidence to suggest that rivers of blood did not start running as soon as Islam came into contact with other religions.

However, there is something terribly inhuman about contemporary Muslim attitudes. There is a screaming silence from the custodians of Islam — the ulema — on the execution of Jaspal Singh, probably because he was not a Muslim. The Muslim masses have not taken to the streets in protest because they have been conditioned to protest only when something is perceived to be anti-Islam. Let some European draw a cartoon of the Prophet (PBUH) and see how we demonstrate our street power and mob fury.

However, even when Muslims kill Muslims, the ulema and the masses usually keep quiet unless someone in their own sub-sect or family is hurt. I do not remember any demonstrations in Pakistan or anywhere else in the Muslim world when Iran and Iraq waged a war against each other in the 1980s, which killed some 1.5 million boys and men. Beheadings and stoning to death are a regular occurrence in Saudi Arabia, in fact every Friday, I am told. Those given such savage treatment are Muslims from poor countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Somalia or non-Muslim workers from anywhere from Asia or Africa. Raping female servants, confiscating the papers of servants, paying them little or no wages are practices common to the larger Arab world of rich Emirates. I have never heard the Saudis or any Emirate regime execute any white man or woman, nay, even withhold their salaries that are always many times more than paid to qualified Muslims from the poorer countries. If they do, Uncle Sam knows how to admonish them. Yet, the devotion of non-Arab Muslims to the Muslim holy land is such that nobody dares say a word in criticism.

The same is true of Iran. The Iranian mullahs established their hold over a civilised and ancient people by terrorising them through the imposition of stoning to death and beheadings. Iran also allows muta or temporary marriage. I have never met any Shia who would allow his sister or daughter to contract temporary marriage. Obviously such a ‘freedom’ is only for poor women who must sell their body to make a living. I have yet to meet a Pakistani Shia — even a communist — who is critical of what goes on in Iran. Anyhow, the crimes against humanity committed by Saudi Arabia and Iran are easily accessible on the internet and all you have to do is to go to Youtube and see for yourself how these regimes punish alleged criminals.

What then is the problem? I think the problem is the same that once confronted the Europeans and others. Some 150 years ago decapitating the head was quite common. In fact, royalty was made an example. Mary Queen of Scots, the Bourbons of France and in our own South Asian context the heir-apparent to the Mughal throne, Prince Dara Shikoh’s head was amputated on the orders of his own brother and our national hero, Aurangzeb Alamgir. Hindus used to burn widows and indeed also kill in battle in a manner as was acceptable to Rajput norms — brutal and bloody.

The roots of terrorism in Islam however are deep. The murder of the Caliph Usman by fanatics and disgruntled Islamic warriors was the first expression of what was deeply gruesome within the Islamic Ummah. Remember, when the Prophet (PBUH) sent the first group of refugees into protection of a Christian King in eastern Africa, he made Hazrat Usman the leader of the delegation. The Prophet (PBUH) had four daughters with Hazrat Khadija — Zainab, Ruqqiya, Kulsoom and Fatima. Two of them, Ruqqiya and Kulsoom, were given in marriage to Hazrat Usman but both died early without leaving behind a child. Hazrat Ali was married to Bibi Fatima. Islamic fanatics, called Khwarijis, assassinated Ali. But the most infamous murder is undoubtedly that of Imam Hussain. A grandson the Prophet (PBUH) loved dearly. His head was severed by Muslims and his family was nearly wiped out without mercy.

That feud ended with the Hashemite clan of the Prophet (PBUH) tricking the Ummayyad clan of Hazrat Usman into attending a feast purported to establish truce between them. The feast ended with all but one Ummayyad chief being brutally murdered. The Hashemites celebrated the feast by making merry till late in the night while the dead bodies of the Ummayyads were lying under the tables.

It is this Islam that keeps coming back from time to time in Muslim societies. It can be directed against Muslims, even those deeply revered by their followers. So, if the Sikhs have been treated inhumanly or for that matter Daniel Pearl it is not surprising, deeply shocking as it may be because we do not see beheadings in the streets of Pakistan anymore. In Saudi Arabia and Iran they do. It is time to start accepting these facts and reflecting on how to transcend such barbarism.

Ishtiaq Ahmed is a Visiting Research Professor at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS) and the South Asian Studies Programme at the National University of Singapore. He is also Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Stockholm University. He has published extensively on South Asian politics. At ISAS, he is currently working on a book, Is Pakistan a Garrison State? He can be reached at isasia@nus.edu.sg

Source: Daily Times

Related News Items:

BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8527614.stm
The Sikh Times: http://www.emgonline.co.uk/news.php?news=8933

A ‘friendly’ Afghanistan?

by Shahid Ilyas

The risk of failure and backfiring are much higher in trying to install a friendly government in a foreign country than in attempts to develop friendly relations with an incumbent government. The failure of Pakistan’s Afghan policy is a glaring example in this regard

Pakistan indeed needs to have a friendly Afghanistan, just as Afghanistan needs a friendly Pakistan. The two countries are dependent on each other for their national security, economic development, peace and social cohesion. Pakistan serves as a trade route for Afghanistan, and Afghanistan is crucial for the fulfilment of Pakistan’s ambitions of becoming an energy corridor for Central Asian oil and gas.

Having said that, the question how the objective of ensuring a friendly relationship between the two countries could be achieved needs analysis and answer. Here we focus on Pakistan’s efforts towards ensuring a friendly Afghanistan.

Since 1976, when Islamic-fundamentalist elements from Afghanistan were given shelter by the Bhutto regime in Pakistan, the strategy of Pakistan’s security and political establishment has been to invest its scarce resources in installing a friendly government in Kabul. Developing friendly relations with an existing government is different from installing a friendly government. The basis of Pakistan’s policy has been to install a friendly government in Kabul at any cost rather than working towards establishing friendly relations with the existing government.

The implementation of each of these two strategies demands different methods. The risk of failure and backfiring are much higher in trying to install a friendly government in a foreign country than in attempts to develop friendly relations with an incumbent government. The failure of Pakistan’s Afghan policy is a glaring example in this regard.

Given its track record and current media and intelligence reports, one can rightly conclude that the Pakistani establishment believes that any group controlling the government in Afghanistan, with the exception of Taliban-style pan-Islamic ideologues, is against its national interests. The groups it perceives as adversaries include the Northern Alliance, the well-to-do and educated segments of Pashtuns as represented by personalities like President Hamid Karzai and Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, intellectuals, the Afghan diaspora and indeed all the Pashtuns who reject the Taliban ideology. Therefore, the Pakistani establishment thinks that all these groups need to be kept out of government in Kabul; hence its support for the Taliban.

We need to be assured about the fact that the Taliban are a marginal force in Afghanistan. Support for them even in the Pashtun south and southeast is microscopic. (Those who want them in power in Kabul would like us to believe that they are the future of Afghanistan. But ground realities present a different picture.) Therefore, it is virtually impossible for the Taliban to have control or to have a considerable share in the government in Afghanistan, because of the absence of public support for them. (The fact that the Taliban once did control Kabul is a completely different story, because the Afghans of that time were fed-up with warlords and hence they supported the newly emerged Taliban. They were tested and rejected.) It seems that the only option available to Pakistan — which can also be conducive for its own stability — is to find ways to work with the existing government in Kabul. The failure of 37 years (1973-2010) of efforts and investment in trying to install a government in a foreign sovereign state should be enough for us to realise that this policy is not working.

Pakistan is now reaping what it has sown in the previous three decades, resulting in substantial miseries for its own population, which is already teetering under grinding poverty. Its policy has further pushed Afghanistan towards India, as a result of which India’s influence and involvement in that country is at a record high. Furthermore, this policy has further alienated the Pakistani political and educated Pashtun classes from the state of Pakistan. The Pakistani Pashtuns consider Pakistan’s interference in Afghanistan as genocide and a challenge to their identity.

Moreover, Pakistan’s support to the Afghan Taliban gave birth to the Taliban here who are hitting the Pakistani state hard. They are now active in every city, town and village of the country, most notably in Lahore and Karachi. They have not yet appointed ‘shadow governors’. If they do, they are likely to be much stronger than the so-called ‘shadow governors’ in Afghanistan — thanks to Pakistan’s flawed Afghan policy characterised by the establishment of thousands of madrassas in every nook and corner of the country, indoctrinating millions of Pakistani youth, who are ever ready to take up arms at the call for jihad by the mullah, a phenomenon Afghanistan does not face.

Most of us look at Pakistan’s Afghan policy in the context of its enmity with India. This phenomenon is being called the policy of ‘strategic depth’, which means that Pakistan needs Afghanistan as a backyard under its thumb where its forces can retreat in case of a war with India. But too much emphasis on ‘strategic depth’ for understanding Pakistan’s policy looks misplaced. More important than strategic depth in Pakistan’s quest for controlling Afghanistan is its apprehensions regarding the Durand Line. The line, drawn in 1893 by the British imperial power in India, which divided Pashtuns into two groups — the ones living in Pakistan today and the ones living in Afghanistan — has never been ratified by any Afghan Loya Jirga or parliament. The Afghans still lay claim to the Pashtun territories between the Khyber Pass and the river Indus. Pakistan believes that it can get this agreement ratified by Taliban-style and pan-Islamist ideologues, who in any case do not believe in national borders. Interestingly, when the Taliban occupied most of Afghanistan with the help of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, they refused to ratify the Durand Line agreement, saying that the matter will be looked into once Afghanistan was peaceful and proper institutions were in place.

War in Afghanistan produces unrest in Pakistan, given the two countries’ proximity to each other and their ethnic composition. Therefore, considering that the Taliban have almost zero chances to rule Afghanistan or to have a substantial share in the government, Pakistan must find ways of achieving its goal of a friendly Afghanistan by keeping in mind the ground realities. The existence of Afghanistan sans the Taliban is a big possibility on the ground. How far, and when, Pakistan realises this truth will largely determine its own future.

The writer is a freelance columnist hailing from Waziristan. He can be reached at ilyasakbarkhan@gmail.com

Source: Daily Times

US to establish Quick Reaction Force in Pakistan

Daily Times Monitor

LAHORE: The US government has decided to form a ‘Quick Reaction Force’ (QRF) to provide protection to its diplomats in Pakistan, a private TV channel reported on Monday.

According to the channel, the step has been taken to counter the rising terrorist threats to US personnel in Pakistan and the US Congress has been requested to allocate $22.9 million to form the force. The QRF will facilitate the regional security officer in protecting the embassy and consulate compounds from terrorist attacks by providing a special agent to the officer, who will be in charge of the security. Apart from providing tactical, medical and emergency assistance at the compounds, the force would be capable of providing security to the US personnel outside the compounds as well, the channel said.

Everybody Hates Someone Else In Pakistan

Religious intolerance

An attack on Eid Milad-un-Nabi Barelvi processions in Faisalabad and D I Khan, retaliation by the participants and the subsequent damage to public and private property, loss of life and injuries have revealed that religious intolerance is seething just beneath the surface. In such incidents, the first suspicion is cast upon the opposing sect, who might normally have been assumed to be Shias in this case, but the Barelvi victims have accused the Deobandi groups in their respective areas.

The occasion of Eid Milad-un-Nabi in Pakistan is usually marked by celebrations comprising lighting up of streets, model-making, na’at competitions and processions in all big cities. The Barelvis, more rooted in the culture of the Subcontinent and deeply influenced by Sufism, have always promoted the more human side of religion by spearheading celebrations of the birth of the Prophet (PBUH).

Fun-starved youngsters make full use of the opportunity to give vent to their artistic skills and provide healthy entertainment to the general public. However, this has irked the conservative schools of Sunni Islam, notably the Deobandis, who had been campaigning before the occasion that celebrating the birth of the Prophet (PBUH) was a heresy because neither he nor his companions celebrated the event. The eruption of violence on such an insignificant issue between two Sunni denominations is an indicator of deep insecurities and a wish to impose one’s interpretation of religion on all others.

It is a source of great concern that more people were injured in exchange of firing between the police and the rioters in D I Khan. In a tense situation like this, the police are expected to dexterously manage the situation to cool down sentiments, which otherwise may swirl out of control. Once riots start, they may not necessarily remain confined to their origin and may become an opportunity to vent other kinds of resentments. Occasions such as Ashura and Eid Milad-un-Nabi, when sentiments run high, provide a ripe opportunity for mischief-makers to ignite trouble and disrupt religious harmony. Masked men have been reported to have carried out sabotage activities on several occasions in the past to avoid being identified and arrested. In a fraught situation like this, the Punjab government appears to be in denial that there are extremist forces at work in Punjab, particularly Southern Punjab. Reluctance to adopt a clear policy against such outfits may ultimately land this government in deep trouble as a result of internecine violence among these groups, in which ordinary people are also caught in the crossfire.

Saudi doublespeak

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al Faisal made some very
interesting remarks during Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Saudi Arabia. He said that Pakistan is a “friendly country” and Saudi Arabia was “worried” about the rising tide of extremism there. One would like to remind Prince Faisal as to the role of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in fuelling religious extremism in Pakistan.

Being the custodian of Islam’s holy places, Saudi Arabia has great reverence in all Muslim countries. Add to it petro-dollars and the ‘reverence’ increases manifold. Pakistan has been a close ally of the Saudis for a long time for both reasons; some say that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto declared Ahmedis non-Muslims at the behest of the Saudis. Whether there is any truth to this cannot be said with certainty, but it is no secret that in order to counter the Soviets during the Afghan war in 1979, General Ziaul Haq got Saudi money to fund madrassas where the ‘mujahideen’ were trained to fight the ‘godless’ communists. Also in the 1980s, both Saudi Arabia and Iran competed for influence in Pakistan. Since a majority of Pakistanis are Sunnis, Saudi influence in the country was stronger, ultimately leading to a virulent Wahabi/Salafist ideology. This brand of Islam is the most rigid one. Not only is there a strong sectarian tinge to this ideology but it also treats the ‘infidels’ with utter contempt. The Taliban are staunch followers of this ‘ideology’.

On the question of the Taliban, the Saudi foreign minister made a great revelation. He said that “our [Saudi Arabia’s] relationship was abrogated when the Taliban gave sanctuary to al Qaeda. Since then and till today we have no relations with Taliban”. This is a post-facto mea culpa, the evidence of which is that in 1996, Osama bin Laden had shifted his base from Sudan to Afghanistan under the Taliban regime. Since only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE recognised the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, the Saudis were great supporters of the anti-diluvian policies of the Taliban government until September 2001. How is it possible that during all these five years while the Taliban gave sanctuary to bin Laden, the Saudis were unaware of it? Granted that the Saudis may not have been aware of the extent of bin Laden’s global ambitions. But saying that Saudi Arabia severed its ties with the Taliban when they gave sanctuary to al Qaeda is playing with the truth.

Saudi Arabia’s advice to the Pakistani leaders to unite against the extremists is well taken. The Saudis have already dealt with a fundamentalist movement inside the Kingdom either by force or through a rehabilitation programme. By taking a clear 180 degree turn, the Saudis were able to thwart extremism while Pakistan is suffering the consequences of a 90 degree turn. To assuage the Americans, we hunted down al Qaeda but preserved the Afghan Taliban. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. The Pakistanis would do well to learn from their Saudi brethren.

On another note, Manmohan Singh’s visit to Riyadh will ease tensions in the South Asian region and bring India and Pakistan back to a rational dialogue. The Saudis should also exert whatever influence they have on the Taliban to bring them to the negotiating table as per Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s request. Peace in South Asia will ultimately translate into worldwide peace.

Pakistan Neuters Itself

All agree that Zardari’s powers should go

By Tariq Butt

ISLAMABAD: It has now been finally and unanimously agreed by the Raza Rabbani constitutional reforms committee that all discretionary powers of the president of Pakistan will be transferred to the prime minister to make his office the real source of political power.

These powers will include the authority to appoint services chiefs, chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and provincial governors. If these amendments are carried through in parliament, President Asif Zardari will be relegated to a figurehead, almost equal to Rafiq Tarar and Fazal Elahi while Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani will become a powerful person. But Zardari will still be the PPP co-chairman, a key position.

“It has also been decided with the consensus that other presidential discretionary powers like dissolution of the National Assembly and dismissal of the federal government (Article 58(2)(b), and appointment of the Federal Public Service Commission chairman will also be shifted to the prime minister through the new constitutional amendment package,” a committee member told The News.

He said at present the president’s power to nominate provincial governors was not discretionary, but it was exercised ‘after consultation with the prime minister’ under Article 101, which would also go to the prime minister.

“The president will be left with the job of receiving credentials of foreign ambassadors and putting his signatures on whatever laws he will receive from parliament controlled by the prime minister,” another committee member said.

He said not even the representatives of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) in the 26-member parliamentary body resisted undoing of the presidential powers and giving them to the prime minister. A complete consensus was worked out through debate and discussion, he added.

However, notwithstanding the public vows and declarations of top government leaders, doubts are being continuously expressed whether President Zardari would actually concur to shedding all his vital powers.

This raises two serious political possibilities. One is that the president may fight to keep his powers, which could even derail the whole process of constitutional amendments. The second is that Zardari may try to climb down and once the office of the prime minister is empowered, he may want to occupy that office instead of Gilani.

The member said now the committee was engaged in the most sensitive issue of fresh determination of the quantum of provincial autonomy. He said considerable time would be required to hammer out a consensus in this connection as smaller parties and nationalists, especially from Balochistan, have pressed for enhanced provincial autonomy.

He said these representatives are emphasising the centre should retain only three subjects — defence, foreign affairs and currency — and hand over all others to provinces. The PML-N is opposed to this kind of provincial autonomy.

The member said smaller parties have made it clear they would support the constitutional amendment bill only if their demand about greater provincial autonomy was accepted. Another issue, he said, that still needed resolution was the renaming of the North West Frontier Province (NWFP). The Awami National Party (ANP) demands that the NWFP should be renamed as Pukhtoonkhwa and the PPP subscribes to this while the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) and the PML-Q are opposed to it but have agreed to find out some other universally acceptable title for this province. During discussions between the PML-N and the ANP, different names like Abaseen, Khyber and Gandhara have been considered.

Yet another member said the law ministry would actually draft the new constitutional amendment bill, incorporating consensus recommendations of the committee. He said the parliamentary body would hand over its proposals to the law ministry for this purpose. “Since drafting is a technical job, it will be done by the law ministry, not the committee.”

However, he said after preparing the draft the ministry would send it to the committee, which would scrutinise it to see whether all its recommendations have been included in it in their true spirit.

But doubts prevails whether the constitutional bill will pass the Senate and the National Assembly before March 23 or would it be just tabled in both the houses of parliament by this deadline given by the prime minister for quite some time.

The bill can be passed within no time without any debate if the parliamentary parties so agree because it were their representatives, who had approved it after intense deliberations spanning more than a year.

The second Nawaz Sharif government had done away with the president’s discretionary powers, contained in the Eighth Amendment, in a few minutes as the Senate and the National Assembly had passed the constitutional bill with lightning speed the same day. This had become possible only after the then-prime minister Nawaz Sharif and the then-opposition leader Benazir Bhutto had reached an out-of-the-house agreement to cancel the presidential powers.

Committee sources say although the parliamentary body has been moving at a slow pace, it has never been hit with a serious impasse. They say regardless of what the government leaders have been publicly trumpeting, their representatives in the committee have been cooperating and accommodating each others’ views.

They say the new constitutional package would knock out the most controversial parts of the 17th Amendment passed by parliament during Pervez Musharraf’s era. But its provisions like reduction in the voting age to 18 years, increase in the number seats of the Senate, the National Assembly and the provincial assemblies and grant of voting right to the minorities have been kept in place by the parliamentary body, they say.

Wayne Madsen Nails Real Story of Rigi’s Arrest

Iran carried out “two-plane” Rigi mission to embarrass Obama’s

Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke

Iran carried out “two-plane” Rigi mission to embarrass Obama’s Special EnvoyThe government and intelligence services of Iran apparently have quite a sense of humor. Iran has managed not only to nab a top CIA-backed Baluchi terrorist but it also was able to keep the U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan waiting for Abdolmalek Rigi in Bishkek. The Iranians, in a clever move, captured Rigi from the Pakistanis aboard a Pakistan to Dubai small commuter jet aircraft, while the world believed Rigi was taken off a Kyrgyzstan airline flight from Dubai to Bishkek that was forced to land by Iranian Air Force jets at Bandar Abbas in Iran.

With the entire highly-vaunted U.S. intelligence community at his disposal, Holbrooke and his State Department and CIA team were forced to resort to dealing with Bishkek-Manas airport officials when their Iranian-Baluchi Jundallah guerrillas leader failed to show up in Bishkek on the Kyrgyzstan aircraft from Dubai.

On February 24, 2010, WMR reported, “Our sources state that Iranian intelligence is claiming very loudly that they captured Rigi without any foreign assistance. This appears to be for cover story purposes. If ISI delivered him to Bandar Abbas aboard a Lear [or Falcon], the Iranians had at least a half day to arrange for the touchdown of the KYRGYZSTAN Dubai-Manas flight to cover up the actual flight from Gwadar.If the Iranians had a couple of their agents pretend to be Rigi they fooled the world and allowed Pakistan’s ISI to get off the hook as far as their involvement was concerned. Rigi was reported not to be traveling with bodyguards from Dubai to Bishkek, which does not explain the detention of another individual, reported by some sources to have been Jundallah’s ‘number two man.’”

According to Iranian state TV, Rigi drove in his Toyota from his house on Sariab Street in Kuwaiteh in Pakistan on February 21, leaving at 0955 local time and arriving in Chaman on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border at 1300 the same day. After crossing the border and arriving in Spin Boldak, Rigi was met by a local contact team and taken to Kandahar airbase where final arrangements were made for him to fly to Bishkek to meet with Holbrooke. At some point in time, possibly before February 21, Rigi was given a fake Afghanistan passport under the name “Mohammad Khalib.” Rigi was also given a fake Pakistani travel document.

But it is at this point in time where the Iranian cover story begins. Iranian TV reported that on February 22, Rigi flew from Kandahar to Kabul for a brief layover before boarding Ariana Airlines flight 401 to Dubai. The Iranians report that Rigi arrived in Dubai at 2000 local time. Rigi reportedly spent a short time in Dubai before boarding Kyrgyzstan 454 to Bishkek. The Iranians claim that the Kyrgyzstan flight, once entering Iranian airspace, was forced to land in Bandar Abbas, where Rigi was taken into custody.

In an interview on Iranian TV, Rigi saus he was flying to Bishkek to meet an “important” American. The reason for the clandestine meeting in Manas was that the American would be easily spotted if he met Rigi anywhere else.

At the time of the planned meeting between Rigi and the “important” American, AF-PAK Special Envoy Holbrooke was on a meandering journey in central Asia and Afghanistan “without a fixed schedule.” Holbrooke was in Dushanbe, Tajikistan on February 19.

Holbrooke landed in Manas on February 19 and spoke to U.S. troops at the Manas Transit Center. Holbrooke then left for Afghanistan but arrived back in Manas on February 21, the day before the planned meeting with Rigi. The official story of Holbrooke’s return to Kyrgyzstan was for an official meeting with Kyrgyzstan President Kurmanbek Bakiyev.

Iran conducted the charade with the Kyrgyzstan airline in order to keep Holbrooke waiting nervously at Manas. Iran had already captured their prize of Rigi when the ISI, possibly after Rigi’s departure from Kuwaiteh or after he crossed into Afghanistan, took him under their protection and put him on the charter jet flight to Bandar Abbas. Possibly, ISI was at Spin Boldak and Rigi mistakenly believed the watch team was working for the CIA, when, in fact, they were working for the ISI, which had promised to turn Rigi over to the Iranians.

WMR’s Asia-based intelligence sources believe that the Iranians discovered the plans for Rigi’s movement to Kandahar and replaced the pre-positioned CIA team sent to meet Rigi. Another scenario is that Rigi was to be flown to Dubai from Gwadar on board a CIA-ISI charter plane after being convoyed by an American team, along with Pakistani minders, from the Shamshi airbase in Pakistan. Rigi and the Americans believed Rigi would be flown to Dubai for his connecting flight to Bishkek-Manas to meet the American VIP.

Pakistani agents on the plane then order the pilot to change course for Bandar Abbas, telling him it is a classified Pakistani military mission. The plane lands in Bandar Abbas and Rigi is taken into custody. Meanwhile, Holbrooke and his party become concerned when Kyrgyzstan 454 is late. When the flight arrives, Holbrooke is told Rigi is not on board the flight and that two men were taken off the plane at Bandar Abbas. Holbrooke, clearly embarrassed and angry, departs Kyrgyzstan knowing the Iranians have nabbed one of the CIA’s top assets in the military operations being planned against Iran. Holbrooke, one of the most powerful American Jewish Zionists in the Obama administration, has egg all over his face, courtesy of a well-planned Iranian intelligence operation. Holbrooke flies to Tbilisi, Georgia and visits the Krtsanisi Military Training Center to thank Georgian President Mikhael Saakashvili for providing 1000 Georgian troops for Afghanistan. It was all Holbrooke could do to help cover up a major defeat for American intelligence operations in the region.

Iran and the CIA/State Department, for their own reasons, immediately go into spin mode. The Obama administration, caught with its pants down, denies the U.S. supports Rigi’s Jundallah movement, which has carried out a series of terrorist attacks in southeastern Iran. Iran, wishing to protect Pakistan’s involvement in the capture of Jundallah’s leader, creates another cover story.

On February 26, Lebanese Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah made an extremely rare visit to Damascus to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Nasrallah, who is always in fear of Israeli assassination, was jovial and even seen laughing along with Ahmadinejad and Assad. Undoubtedly, the three were laughing about how Iran not only managed to avenge the assassination by Mossad of top Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh at a Dubai hotel on January 19 but also managed to have Holbrooke, Obama’s special envoy, sweating it out at Manas-Bishkek airport in the middle of central Asia, waiting for Rigi who was already a “guest” of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

Pakistan’s ambassador to Tehran Mohammad Abbasi is quoted by The Daily Times of Pakistan as stating on February 24, “I must tell you that such action cannot be carried out without the cooperation of Pakistan. I am happy that he has been arrested.”

“I must tell you that such action cannot be carried out without the cooperation of Pakistan. I am happy that he has been arrested,” he told a media conference.

Holbrooke, the master of nation-splitting after his success in dismantling Yugoslavia, is seen as trying to accomplish a similar outcome for Pakistan and Iran by supporting secessionist groups like Rigi’s Jundallah Baluchi movement. Holbrooke’s angst while waiting for Rigi in Kyrgyzstan is sure to bring a few smiles to some people in Serbia who still blame him for the break-up of that nation.

‘Rigi planned to meet Holbrooke in Kyrgyzstan’

Sun, 28 Feb 2010 03:27:59 GMT

Font size : 

US special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke

The captured ringleader of the Jundallah terrorist group, Abdolmalek Rigi, was scheduled to meet US special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke at the Manas Air Base for talks on waging an insurgency against the Islamic Republic of Iran, a journalist says.

Rigi had planned to meet a high-profile US official at the Manas Air Base near Kyrgyzstan’s capital Bishkek.

This senior US official must have been Holbrooke, who was in Kyrgyzstan to visit the only US air base in Central Asia, the IRNA news agency quoted journalist Wayne Madsen as saying on Saturday.

In a televised confession on Press TV on Thursday, Abdolmalek Rigi said that in a Dubai meeting with CIA agents, he was promised unlimited support that included a military base near the Iranian border equipped with weaponry and training facilities.

The Jundallah leader added that he was to meet a top US intelligence official at the US military base in Kyrgyzstan to work out the details of the support the US would provide for his group.

During their meetings with him, the US operatives insisted that Iran is their primary focus in the region, even more important than al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the terrorist leader stated.

Rigi added that the CIA agents also explained to him that since a US military attack on Iran would be very difficult, they planned to support all anti-Iran groups that have the capability of waging war inside Iran and destabilizing the country.

Holbrooke is one of the bad guys.

Holbrooke – linked to the deaths of up to half of the population of East Timor.

Richard Holbrooke is now special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan under the Obama administration.

Holbrooke is a former Peace Corps official, and investment banker. The Peace corps is believed to be a front for the CIA. Holbrooke is a member of the board of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

The real Karadzic – telling the truth about Holbrooke

Radovan Karadzic has told the UN court the US tried to assasinate him

1. In August 2009, Karadzic told the UN court that Richard Holbrooke, the former United States Assistant Secretary of State, granted him immunity from prosecution in 1995.

In court, Karadzic accused Holbrooke and others of trying to “liquidate” him.

It has been alleged that Slobodan Milosevic, the former Serbian President and ally of Karadzic, was murdered by agents of the USA.

2. Mohammad Sacirbey, former Bosnian foreign minster, says that US diplomat Richard Holbrooke did make a deal with Serb leader Radavan Karadzic.

The Holbrooke-Karadzic deal meant Karadzic dropping out of public life in return for his war crimes indictment being scrapped. ( Press TV – Karadzic-Holbrooke deal confirmed )

Sacirbey says that top US diplomat, Robert Frowick, head of the OSCE mission in Bosnia in 1996 was his source for the information of the Holbrooke-Karadzic deal.

3. Holbrook is linked to the East Timor genocide.

Holbrook was the US government’s expert on Indonesia.

Holbrooke was Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs under Kissinger.

Ford and Kissinger gave Indonesia’s Suharto the green light to invade East Timor in 1975.

Consequently, up to half the population of East Timor were wiped out.

“Holbrooke repeatedly played down the brutality of the Indonesian occupation.” ( East Timor – Feature Story)

Holbrooke and Zbigniew Brzezinski frustrated the efforts of congressional human rights activists and accelerated the flow of weapons to Indonesia at the height of the genocide.

(Democracy Now! Richard Holbrooke Questioned on Support for Brutal Indonesian Dictatorship )

~~

Karadzic to respond to amended charges

The Saudis don’t yet see a chance to engage Taliban

Nicole Stracke

The Indian prime minister’s visit to Riyadh this week largely focused on strengthening future economic co-operation with Saudi Arabia. But it is also possible that Manmohan Singh sought support from the Saudi leadership to put pressure on the Pakistan military and security institutions to deal more effectively with terrorist groups based in Pakistan threatening India.

The Indians would not be the first to call for greater Saudi involvement in the region. To limited results, the US and the Afghan governments pressed for their help earlier this year. During the London conference in January, the Saudis made guarded promises to support mediation efforts with the Taliban but only if they cut ties with al Qa’eda. Following the conference, the Afghan President Hamid Karzai visited the kingdom to ask again for Saudi involvement, failing to get a positive response. In her visit to the kingdom last month, the US secretary of state Hillary Clinton also raised the issue with Saudi leaders behind closed doors but it was absent from her public agenda.

There are two questions at this stage. Firstly, are the Saudis willing to play a mediating role between the Afghan government and the US on one side and the Taliban on the other? Secondly, what are the chances this would improve anything? The perception in Saudi ruling circles is that the chances of successful mediation are very limited and therefore accepting a mediatory role on US-Afghan requests would mean taking on a risky, thankless and, possibly, an unrewarding endeavour.

A basic requirement for successful mediation is the official and explicit agreement of all parties involved. In this case, the US and Afghan governments are making private and public demands for Saudi mediation, but there have been no encouraging signals from the Taliban – neither from the so-called moderates nor from the hardliners such as Mullah Omar. So far it appears that the Taliban is united in not giving any positive response to calls for mediation, whether led by the Saudis or any other party.

Saudi Arabia and the Taliban share a particularly unhappy history. Despite the fact that Saudi Arabia was one of only three states to recognise the Taliban government in Afghanistan, its relations with the Taliban’s leadership rapidly deteriorated in the mid-1990s. Saudi-Taliban relations witnessed a major shift after the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, when Saudi Arabia demanded that the Taliban stop providing a safe haven to Osama bin Laden and the al Qa’eda organisation. The kingdom demanded that the Taliban leadership hand over bin Laden to the Saudi authorities as he had been accused of terrorist crimes committed both inside and outside the kingdom. The Taliban’s refusal led to a rapid deterioration in relations.

Since then, relations between the two sides have been governed by perceptible mistrust. The Taliban leadership accuses the kingdom of supporting the US invasion of Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks and the Saudis feel that they have little leverage with the Taliban under Mullah Omar to force concessions.

On the other side, the Saudi government also finds it difficult to trust the US government and the Afghan president Hamid Karzai. The Saudis understand the possibility that even if they initiate the mediation process, they may not be in control of it and may be unable to determine the outcome. The Saudis have observed the US diplomatic shortcomings as it has dealt with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Iranian nuclear file; they believe that the US is not able to stand by its commitments and promises. At this stage, the Saudis appear content to refrain from any direct involvement that requires closer co-operation with the US and the US-allied Karzai government.

The Taliban have also set clear conditions for any negotiations. They do not recognise Mr Karzai as a partner and insist on talking directly and exclusively to the “occupiers”; they also demand the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Afghanistan to allow for the re-establishment of the Taliban state. These conditions are not acceptable to Mr Karzai or the US, and Saudi mediation is not likely to change them.

To begin with, official involvement in Afghanistan is not a top priority for Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are far more concerned about security challenges in Yemen, the development of the Iranian nuclear programme, the security situation in Iraq, and the Arab-Israeli peace process. For the Saudis, the US shift in priorities from Iraq to Afghanistan is a matter of concern but at this stage they feel no obligation to invest in a mediation effort.

The US could promise the Saudis a more active role in dealing with the Palestinian conflict and Iran in return for Saudi’s undertaking of a mediatory role in Afghanistan. But even if the Saudis are convinced that their involvement in Afghanistan could be rewarded by the US, the current absence of a positive response from the Taliban makes mediation a non-starter.

As long as the Taliban think that their war against the US is winnable and as long as they think that they can achieve all their objectives by military means, it will be difficult to bring them to the negotiating table. The new military offensive in Helmand and other provinces under Taliban control could well be the decisive factor in determining whether the Taliban will respond positively to any mediation initiative, external or internal.

Nicole Stracke is a researcher in the security and terrorism department at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai

Pakistan Taliban Confirm Death of Qari Zafar, Chief of Lashkar e-Jhangvi

Pakistan Taliban confirm death of man wanted by US

By SEBASTIAN ABBOT (AP) – 2 hours ago

ISLAMABAD — The Pakistani Taliban confirmed Tuesday that a senior commander wanted in the deadly 2006 bombing of the U.S. consulate in Karachi was killed in a suspected American missile strike in northwestern Pakistan.

Mohammed Qari Zafar’s death, which was reported earlier by Pakistani intelligence officials, marks the latest success from Washington’s covert CIA-run drone program in Pakistan. The unmanned aircraft have carried out more than 100 missile strikes near the Afghan border since 2004, killing several senior Taliban and al-Qaida leaders.

The Taliban described Zafar as a martyr in a statement faxed to local journalists and pledged to avenge his death. It is uncommon for the Taliban to confirm the death of one of its members in a missile strike.

“The mujahideen will soon take revenge against the Pakistani government for his killing anywhere in the country,” said the statement.

Pakistani officials routinely protest the drone strikes as violations of the country’s sovereignty. But U.S. officials, who refuse to speak publicly about the secret program, say privately that the Pakistani government supports the effort.

Pakistani intelligence officials said last week that Zafar was killed Wednesday along with 13 other insurgents when three missiles struck a compound and a vehicle in the Dargah Mandi area of the North Waziristan tribal region. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

Zafar, who was a senior member of the banned al-Qaida-linked militant group Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, orchestrated the March 2006 suicide car bombing of the U.S. consulate in Karachi, killing U.S. diplomat David Foy and three Pakistanis. He was also believed to be behind the September 2008 truck bomb blast at the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad that killed 54 people. The U.S. had posted a $5 million dollar reward for information leading to his capture.

Wire-Tapping, Terror-Tickling Former CIA Director’s Sign Must Go!

[Pittsburgh is torn between being bound to the past war aggressions, which have brought the world to its present impasse, and to a potential future of peace.  Hayden clearly represents the wrong way, the way of permanent perpetual war--the path of Bush and Cheney.  The Bush/Cheney way was a path directly to a global police state under American domination.  That path is now closed, due to their inept, immoral leadership.  The only place that Obama will lead us, if he stays wedded to the failed policies of the past, is a world destroyed in a last act of American desperation.  That path through the "dark side," as Cheney jokingly called it, was an assault upon the Constitution and every moral law, in order to facilitate a global war of aggression to kill a few hundred "al Qaida" terrorists.  Hayden proudly defended that dark path, arguing for wire-tapping, extreme interrogations and "tickling" of Pakistani militants, via Predator attacks.  Hayden was quite proud that we have tickled a few dozen militants to death, even though hundreds of innocent civilians died in the attacks as collateral damage.

Take down the sign, Pittsburgh.  We remember just how close you are to being an island of the police state, from our last encounter with the city's leaders.]

Residents want North Side sign honoring general removed

By Joe Smydo, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Robin Rombach/Post-Gazette

This sign outside Heinz Field and the Carnegie Science Center at Allegheny Avenue on the North Shore honors former CIA director and retired Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, a North Side native.

The anti-terrorism policies of former President George W. Bush stirred passions Monday at a Pittsburgh City Council hearing on whether a street sign honoring former CIA director and retired Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, a North Side native, should be taken down.

Council held the hearing after about 40 residents signed a petition demanding that the sign, on North Shore Drive at Heinz Field, come down because of questions about Gen. Hayden’s legacy. The petition drive was led by Park Place resident Greg Barnhisel, who told council that Gen. Hayden was a leading figure in a Bush administration that wiretapped Americans without warrants and tortured suspected terrorists.

Defending Gen. Hayden was his brother, West View resident Harry Hayden, who said Mr. Barnhisel’s accusations were “wildly inaccurate.”

Harry Hayden said the wiretapping program, called the Terrorist Surveillance Program, enhanced national security. He added that a version of the program is in operation today.

In addition, Mr. Hayden said his brother moved to halt waterboarding of suspected terrorists and ordered the closing of “black site” prisons overseas. He said Gen. Hayden ordered 14 prisoners held in those sites relocated to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where they received access to medical care and religious items.

“It hardly sounds like the actions of a man that condones torture,” Mr. Hayden said.

In the end, council members said they didn’t give the go-ahead to put the sign up and didn’t believe they had the authority to remove it.

Joanna Doven, spokeswoman for Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, said the mayor approved the sign and stands by the decision.

While “North Shore Drive” remains the official name, the honorary blue sign pronounces the street “Michael V. Hayden Boulevard.” Mr. Hayden said the sign is about 600 feet from the family’s old home.

In all, the hearing drew about 14 speakers, with about half supporting Gen. Hayden and the others demanding the sign be removed. The supporters mainly were veterans and North Side residents, including some who had long known Gen. Hayden.

Critics included Scilla Wahrhaftig of Park Place, who said controversial anti-terrorism techniques cost America the moral high ground.

“I don’t want this city to be diminished also,” she said.

Mr. Hayden said his brother was honored by the sign and might try to buy it if the city takes it down.

Joe Smydo: jsmydo@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1548.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10061/1039600-53.stm#ixzz0h1T16omw

Gulf states infiltrated by all intelligence agencies

Published Date: March 02, 2010
By Ahmad Saeid, Staff Writer

KUWAIT: Kuwait and other Gulf Cooperative Council (GCC) countries have been infiltrated by foreign intelligence agencies, as well as by the Israeli Mossad, said political experts. They made their comments after Dubai Police revealed information regarding the accused Israeli intelligence agency (Mossad) of murdering Mahmoud Al-Mabhooh, a member of the Palestinian Hamas Party last month. “I believe that Israelis are penetrating the whole world, not only the Arab world or GCC countries,” said Ayed Al-Manna, a
political analyst and Kuwait University professor. He added that Dubai has achieved what other countries could not; reveal Israeli infiltration.

Usually the Mossad doesn’t leave any evidence of their operations. This time, thanks to the proper utilization of technology in Dubai, Mossad made the mistake of assuming their identities would never be revealed. They were proved wrong.
Ghanim Al-Najjar, a political science professor at Kuwait University, said that all the countries in the world have an intelligence presence in the GCC and everywhere else. “This is a natural thing and it is not a strange or rare thing to happen,” he said.

If a country is important then there will definitely be spies of all kinds in that country. I’m sure there are Iranian and Israeli spies in Arab countries. Even Arab countries have spies inside each other,” he added. Al-Najjar asserted that it is normal for one country to try and infiltrate another.

The trick lies in being agile, careful and cautious about it. “Intelligence services cooperate with each other. They have common interests and they exchange information with each other,” he noted. “In recent years intelligence agencies have concentrated more on confronting terrorism, but they shouldn’t overlook threats such as foreign intelligence activities,” he concluded.

Why chuckles greeted Hillary’s Gulf tour

By Rami G. Khouri

American secretaries of state have been coming to the Middle East to create all sorts of complex alliances against Iran for most of my recent happy life, but every time this show passes through our region I learn again the meaning of the phrase “lack of credibility.” Hillary Clinton is the latest to undertake this mission, and like her predecessors her comments are often difficult to take seriously.

We are told that her trip to the region has two main aims: to strengthen Arab resolve to join the United States and others in imposing harsh new sanctions to stop Iran’s nuclear development program; and to harness Arab support for resumed Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. In both of these critical diplomatic initiatives the US has taken the lead and achieved zero results. Either the actors involved – Arabs, Israelis, Iranians – are all chronically, even chromosomally, dysfunctional (for which there is some evidence) or the US is particularly inept when assuming leadership.

The weakness in both cases, I suspect, has to do with the US trying to define diplomatic outcomes that suit its own strategic objectives and political biases (especially pro-Israel domestic sentiments). So Washington pushes, pulls, cajoles and threatens all the players with various diplomatic instruments, except the one that will work most efficiently in both the Iranian and Arab-Israeli cases: serious negotiations with the principal parties, based on applying the letter of the law, and responding equally to the rights, concerns and demands of all sides.

Two Clinton statements during her Gulf trip this week were particularly revealing of why Washington continues to fail in its missions in our region. The first was her expression of concern that Iran is turning into a military dictatorship: “We see that the government of Iran, the supreme leader, the president, the Parliament, is being supplanted, and that Iran is moving toward a military dictatorship,” Clinton said.

Half a century of American foreign policy flatly contradicts this sentiment (which is why Clinton heard soft chuckles and a few muffled guffaws as she spoke). The US has adored military dictatorships in the Arab world, and has long supported states dominated by the shadowy world of intelligence services. This became even more obvious after the attacks of September 11, 2001, when Washington intensified cooperation with Arab intelligence services in the fight against Al-Qaeda and other terror groups.

Washington’s closest allies in the Middle East are military and police states where men with guns rule, and where citizens are confined to shopping, buying cellular telephones, and watching soap operas on satellite television. Countries like Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Libya, as well as the entire Gulf region and other states are devoted first and foremost to maintaining domestic order and regime incumbency through efficient, multiple security agencies, for which they earn American friendship and cooperation. When citizens in these and other countries agitate for more democratic and human rights, the US is peculiarly inactive and quiet.

If Iran is indeed becoming a military dictatorship, this probably qualifies it for American hugs and aid rather than sanctions and threats. Clinton badly needs some more credible talking points than opposing military dictatorships. (Extra credit question for hard-core foreign policy analysts: Why is it that when Turkey slipped out of military rule into civilian democratic governance, it became more critical of the US and Israel?)

The second intriguing statement during Clinton’s Gulf visit was about Iran’s neighbors having three options for dealing with the “threat” from Iran: “They can just give in to the threat; or they can seek their own capabilities, including nuclear; or they ally themselves with a country like the United States that is willing to help defend them. I think the third is by far the preferable option.”

This sounds reasonable, but it is not an accurate description of the actual options that the Arab Gulf states have. It is mostly a description of how American and Israeli strategic concerns and slightly hysterical biases are projected onto the Gulf states’ worldviews. These states in fact have a fourth option, which is to negotiate seriously a modus vivendi with Iran that removes the “threat” from their perceptions of Iran by affirming the core rights and strategic needs of both sides, thus removing mutual threat perceptions.

This is exactly the same option the US used when it negotiated détente and the Helsinki Accords with the Soviet Union (and whose results ultimately brought about the collapse of Communism). Why the US does not use the same sensible approach to the perceived threat from Iran is hard to explain. Perhaps two reasons explain it: Washington would have to deal with Iran (and other defiant Middle Easterners) through negotiations rather than haughty neo-colonialism; and, Israel would have to submit to nuclear inspections and end its aggressive behavior.

Rami G. Khouri is published twice-weekly by THE DAILY STAR.

Chile Quake Aftermath

more about “Chile Quake Aftermath“, posted with vodpod

Is it looting or surviving in such a situation?  What will you do to feed your family when disaster visits you?

Prove It, Pakistan and India!

[That's the problem with secret wars--If you so desire, you can prove that your enemy is covertly waging war upon you, but you cannot prove that you are NOT secretly waging war upon them, especially when both you and your enemy have, in the past, admitted that you once did just that.  Retired Indian officials have admitted that the country once had its own anti-terror terrorist program, to fight Pakistani terror with Indian terror (SEE: Image of the Beast).  Pakistan had not been so open in embracing its own history in Kashmir and elsewhere, even though it is common knowledge that the "ultras" (paramilitaries) who fought India in Kashmir, as well as the Afghan Taliban themselves, are creations of the Pakistani Army and the ISI.  Pakistan has disassociated itself from its past support of the Taliban and expressed a new-found desire to the world to support  the global mission to defeat the Taliban and the Islamists who support them.

The problem with all of this is the element of "trust" extended to both Pakistan and India--trust that they are both being truthful.  Because of secret arrangements made between the Bush Administration (and now Obama) and the governments of both "former" terror-supporting states, we are expected to trust both sides (without either side supplying public proof of their claims), despite the apparent contradictions in their current positions.  How could either side be trusted, when both sides so loudly charge the other with supporting terror, while denying that any terror is coming from them?

If neither side can prove that they have stopped supporting terror, then surely they could provide proof that the other side is still a state sponsor of terrorism.  If India has proof of "42 terror camps" still operating inside Pakistan then it should present it to the unbiased eyes of world popular opinion.  Likewise, Pakistanis have not ceased screaming at the top of their lungs about "tons of Indian arms" seized from the Pakistani Taliban (TTP) and airtight proof on India supplying money and weapons to the Balochistan resistance, yet they have shown the world none of their documentation, except for a couple of pictures of older weapons of questionable origin, that are no more than "literature" (as Abdul Basit described the Indian dossiers on Mumbai and Hafiz Saeed).

In the case of Mr. Saeed, even though Pakistani officials have publicly disassociated themselves from him and the government banned both of his terrorist groups, the LeT and JuD, he is still allowed to hold rallies drawing hundreds of Kalishnikov-toting militants to Lahore, where he openly advocates terror war against India.  If this is not openly supporting terrorists, then I don't know what would be, other than holding their guns while they gunned-down Indian troops.

Let us see evidence of the 42 camps, or proof of the arms-laden trucks coming from Afghanistan or India.  Otherwise, the concerned people of the world might just tire of the games and accusations and decide to get out of the way and let you two crazy hate-powered nations to go at each other.]

Pak back in ‘proof mode’ to deflect Antony’s 42 terror camp claim

[IST]

“India should better share proof of existence of these camps with Pakistan rather than firing in the air,”
Foreign Office Spokesperson Abdul Basit said.

Basit reiterated that Pakistan was itself a victim of terrorism and facing “Indian-sponsored terrorism”, and that it has provided New Delhi the proof of its involvement in the Baloch insurgency.

“We have provided the Indians with proof of their involvement in Balochistan and the tribal areas during secretary-level talks”, The Nation quoted Basit, as saying.

It may be noted that speaking during the Operation Vayu Shakti 2010 programme organized at Pokhran, Antony had said: “Our real concern is existence of terror camps intact across the border after 26/11 attack. There are 42 terror camps. And there has been no serious effort to dismantle these camps.”

Commenting on the recent Foreign Secretary level talks between India and Pakistan, he said India’s decision to hold talks was a conscious decision and the country’s concerns have been conveyed through them to Pakistan.

“We took a conscious decision to have foreign secretary level talks with Pakistan. We never expected miracle from the talks. We have conveyed our concerns to Foreign Secretary of Pakistan,” Antony had said. (ANI)

Indian prank

This is by now a long familiar Indian prank that every honest observer knows for sure to be a travesty of truth that in reality it is, though it transports the clutch of speciously self-righteous commentators here at home into a binge of flagellation of our own people in uniform. Whenever a popular outburst of freedom sentiment occurs in Indian-occupied Kashmir, New Delhi intensifies its incessant vilification tirade against Pakistan of harbouring terrorists and terrorist infrastructure for terrorism in India. And presently the Indian-occupied Kashmir is in the grip of this popular flare-up over the serial killing of Kashmiri teenaged boys by trigger-happy Indian soldiers over these days. So it isn’t any startling, at least for perceptive observers, if Indian defence minister A.K. Antony has screamed that Pakistan still harbours 42 active terrorist camps. Antony indeed could have got away unscathed, had he even claimed there were 420 terrorist camps. For, out there is a supine Islamabad establishment that has never ever attempted any seriously to puncture this Indian charade. So languid is this establishment that it has long forgotten even to shed a tear on the unrelenting savaging of bottled-up Kashmiris by a brutalising Indian occupation military, even as the international human rights watchdogs have lately broken their long unbroken silence and begun crying over merciless killing and suppression of these beleaguered Kashmiris. And yet the Islamabad hierarchy insists Kashmir is the core issue between India and Pakistan, which necessarily needs to be resolved for a normal relationship between the two neighbours! There indeed is a queer kind of stupefying ineptitude marking this establishment’s act. A miffed foreign secretary after the New Delhi conclave with his Indian counterpart fumed that nobody could lecture us on terrorism. Yes, when we ourselves are the worst target of terrorism, mostly foreign sponsored, with Indian wellsprings primarily. And if India has suffered one Mumbai strike, we have indisputably suffered hundreds of Mumbais over these times. But who is going to believe us when this establishment has all through been so chary of speaking out of Indian link. Baitullah Mehsud’s fallen-out comrades had talked of his being on the Indian agencies’ payrolls. This establishment made no issue of it. The army in its South Waziristan campaign stumbled on evidence of Indian complicity with militants and passed it on to the Foreign Office. But its mandarins just sat on it, apparently. They should have shown the evidence to the world for the people all over to know of Indian thuggery. They did not. Worse, as interior minister Rehman Malik was crying he had clinching evidence of Indian involvement with the insurgents in Balochistan, his colleague heading the foreign affair ministry Shah Mehmood Qureshi intoned the evidence couldn’t be so clinching after all. It had yet to be substantiated, he snapped. But are the dossiers on Mumbai strike that the Indians are pushing out to the Islamabad hierarchy in piecemeal proven facts? The foreign secretary says the Indian dossier on Hafiz Saeed of Jamaatud Dawa is a piece of literature, no evidence. Yet neither he nor anyone else of the Islamabad hierarchy ever said this while all through the Indians have been asserting that they have given to Islamabad substantive incriminating evidence against him for masterminding the Mumbai assault. Why? Couldn’t someone out there in the hierarchy think of exposing this diabolic Indian perfidy? And why nobody in Islamabad has been any pushed for knowing of the Indian connection to Mumbai strike, without which this assault arguably couldn’t have been carried out? And that too when intriguing happenings have taken place on that plane: as for one, the arrest of an Indian undercover officer the same day at Kolkata (Calcutta) airport for supplying the SIM to the attackers but then presumably let off; and, for another, latterly the mysterious murder in dubious circumstances of the lawyer defending one Indian national being tried for complicity with the attackers while he himself is contending he has been just framed up and is not involved. It really is incomprehensible while the Indians are making so much of the Mumbai strike, the Islamabad hierarchy is not venturing to counter their onslaught any actively or coherently. It is just pussyfooting and is on the defensive for no apparent cogent reason. It is for this folly of this establishment that the Indians are so on the offensive on this count, furthering their objectives against Pakistan so efficaciously at this country’s expense. If the Indians have made the composite peace dialogue hostage to the Mumbai strike, hasn’t the Islamabad establishment made it a hostage to its own folly too? It must rethink its act, as its ineptitude and unimaginativeness are proving very dear to this country, to its image, to its credibility and to its interests.